LM and JSF Program Office offer Canada F-35 "swap"

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Except that even the SE can't operate the sensors you get with the F-35. No fourth gen design can due to power requirements.

a reply to: stirling

So replace the F-18s with A-10s that can't perform the air patrol mission, and F-15s that are 30+ years old and prone to coming apart.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What sorts of sensors would we need when in most cases the U.S is taking care of SEAD? Canada is already fulfilling it's NATO requirements with the F-18. The Silent Eagle would be an upgrade on that in every way.

The only plausible way I can justify Canadians needing a stealth solution is for arctic defense. The U.S has Alaska nailed down, and Russia doesn't have any stealth platforms that will be sneaking across the north pole any time soon.

From a purely defensive point of view, all we need is a capable interceptor, something the Eagle also does well. From a strategic point of view, we need a platform that is a capable dog fighter and has good payload and range to augment our allies capabilities since 9 times out of 10 the U.S will be performing SEAD operations. The Eagle fits that role too. It's less expensive, has an excellent service record, and if I'm not mistaken the upgraded versions have helmet sights as well. It's still one of the fastest and most powerful fighters out there.

Dollar for pound, my money is on the F-15 every time.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The F-15 won't survive a fight within 12 years. The F-35 has sensors that will allow it to see threats coming that the F-15 won't know about until the first one goes down in flames.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DeadSeraph

The F-15 won't survive a fight within 12 years. The F-35 has sensors that will allow it to see threats coming that the F-15 won't know about until the first one goes down in flames.

A fight with who?

If we're talking a fight with Russian or Chinese stealth fighters, Neither of them will have the numbers to compete with American stealth platforms anyways. Both of those countries base their air defense doctrines on numbers, with a small amount of next gen planes that so far don't seem to have anything on the raptor.

I agree that Canada needs to look to the future. But for right now, the F-35 does not appear to be the best solution.

If it were up to me, I would have a much more diversified air capability within the Canadian forces. A couple squadrons of F-35's, a larger number of silent eagles while the f-35 is being vetted, with our current CF-18s being maintained and upgraded to the best of our abilities, but for whatever reason the Canadian government has decided to put all it's eggs in one basket.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

A fight with just about anyone. By the time you have a fleet of SEs operational they'll already be nothing but targets.

Hell if you're going to rely on the US to do 1/2 or more of the mission why not just disband the RCAF and save the money that they'd apparently be wasting.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Let me preface the following with this disclaimer: I do not like the F-35. I believe it does not meet the expectations that were set at the beginning the program, particularly with regards to the timeline, and cost. I think the program has been horrendously mismanaged, and as a result will not achieve nearly the financial success that they had planned for. I think the aircraft is not as effective as it could be, and I think it contains features which have been overhyped and simply end up being removed as dead weight further into the aircraft's lifetime. End disclaimer.

The F-35 is what Canada will buy, and it's what Canada should buy given the current political situation. As much as I hate to say those words, they are the truth as best as I can determine it. Canada is, by nature, a militarily small nation. We do not have the population, the logistic support, or, really, the will to maintain a large defence force. We cannot support a large, diverse military ecosystem with best of everything. If it somehow appeared on our doorstep, it would be ill-maintained and manned. Our air fleet is going to be small. That's the reality of it. What we need is a tool that lets us be capable of the most things with the small force that we have.

NATO comes with responsibilities. We have to contribute certain forces to NATO actions. We do so currently with our forces of CF-188s, and they do their job. But that won't last forever. The future holds these aircraft falling apart, and if we send them into action anyway they'll be going up against ever more advanced technology as it spreads from the big superpowers we won't be going to war with down to the small ones we will get sucked into. These aircraft need to be replaced at this time. The question, therefore, becomes: what to replace it with?

The answer's actually obvious, and it will look familiar: we need to replace it with whatever we can buy few of, but do the most with. What would that be? Well, let's look:

Dassault Rafale: $100 million
Eurofighter Typhoon: $124 million
Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet: $60 million
F-15SE Silent Eagle: $100 million
Saab JAS-39NG $114 million
F-35A Lightning II: $100 million (assuming deal)

This list is pretty simple. If you read this forum and you're not a blathering idiot, then you know what these aircraft can do. It becomes a question of cost versus capability. This is simple. You have an entire host of old airframes with upgrades, or an entirely new one built with all the newfangled technologies in mind. As much as I think the F-35 could have been much more than it is, the fact is that it's the best deal on the list. The Super Hornet's price is right, but it's not a better deal than the F-35. It's the same quality, but for a shorter term. And then you end up in the same hole again with an airframe a generation older than everyone else's. Buy the F-35, and it puts on the same operation capability as a unit of US F-35s, and while it's never the best of anything, it gives us options.

So while I think the F-35 isn't the plane it could be, the design process was terrible, and Canada's procurement process was farcical, it is still the aircraft we are going to buy. And, it's the aircraft we should buy, because it gives us the best capability, present and future, for what dollars we have.

Personally, I want a high-speed, twin-engine interceptor to patrol our northern expanses, but it ain't gonna happen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The U.S already does half the mission or more. That's not how it would be if it were up to me, but that is how it is. So the question remains: Which platform gives the Canadians the best bang for their buck while still allowing them to fulfill their NATO and NORAD commitments?

The F-35 doesn't appear to be that platform, from a cost perspective.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

And what platform does while remaining survivable. I assume that you want to be able to actually use them in the event of a fight, and use them more than once.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The F-15 does what Canada needs. It's the plane they should have bought in the first place instead of the hornet.

Zaph, I'm just curious why you have such a hard on for the F-35? Obviously you claim to have "insider info", so maybe you could share some of that with me, since you seem to think it is such a great platform?

From what I understand, it only has 2 weapons bays. How is it supposed to be a multi role platform if it only has 2 weapons bays? Shouldn't a multi role platform be able to carry enough ordinance to destroy multiple targets while still being able to defend itself in an air engagement?

You keep mentioning it's sensors but I fail to see how this comes into play when in all likelihood Canada will not be facing any 5th generation fighters any time soon. Then you state that the F-15 will get killed in any engagement in 15 years time, but don't state how that would happen.

The F-15 is capable of hitting ground targets and will be able to do so in 15 years. It will still be able to kill any plane of it's generation or older in 15 years, too.

Conflicts are changing, and any conflict with a country like China or Russia is probably not going to remain conventional. The ONLY threat to Canadian airspace comes from Russia, and they don't have stealth fighters or bombers capable of crossing the north pole. In all likelihood, in any first strike scenario involving Russia, the first plane Russia would send ahead of it's bombers would be the SU-27. The F-15 is a capable match for the SU-27.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I don't have a hard on for the F-35, far from it. The simple fact of the matter is that cancelling the F-35 at this point means 15 years minimum to design and test something new. We're stuck with the F-35, so we have to make the best of it. It's simple reality, and no amount of wishing, or hoping, or wanting is going to change it.

The F-15 isn't even close to a match to the new missiles that are entering service over the next 15 years. There are multiple missiles coming out that will turn fourth generation fighters into targets, regardless of the launching platform. Yes, they're going to be using SU-27s, so what. The Flanker isn't the threat, the missiles they're going to be carrying are, and the F-15 won't stand a chance against them.

But hey, if you can convince your government to fly an already 30 year old design for another 30 years, then more power to you.

originally posted by: Darkpr0
a reply to: Zaphod58

So while I think the F-35 isn't the plane it could be, the design process was terrible, and Canada's procurement process was farcical, it is still the aircraft we are going to buy. And, it's the aircraft we should buy, because it gives us the best capability, present and future, for what dollars we have.

Personally, I want a high-speed, twin-engine interceptor to patrol our northern expanses, but it ain't gonna happen.

Brilliantly said my northern neighbor.

a reply to: Darkpr0

I'd love to see them strip the sensors off the F-35, and put them into another platform, but the problem is that nothing else can handle the raw power required by them. So we're pretty much stuck with the F-35. Otherwise our fighter fleet won't exist by the time a new platform was reaching IOC.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So basically your argument is that the F-15 will get killed by SU-27's because missile technology is changing, but F-15's won't be able to fire updated missiles?

Also, the F-35 sucks but you should buy it anyways because you're Canadian and you've got nothing better?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Of course the F-15 will be able to fire updated missiles, but what updated missiles are those? The US doesn't currently have any air to air missiles in the works, other than the AMRAAM, which has a bunch of bad motors making them unreliable until they're replaced.

The F-35 is one of the best choices for Canada. The F-18 or any other fourth generation platform puts you in the same boat you're in now, and you end up doing two buys, and spending more than twice the money you would spend by buying F-35s now. The F-35, is already cheaper than the Typhoon, or Gripen, and the Typhoon is having its own major problems right now.

We do not have the population, the logistic support, or, really, the will to maintain a large defence force.

Because there is no such necessity required right now.

We don't have the population? In theory we have 12-15 million people fit for military service.
Diverse. Technologically Apt. Cunning. Seriously, the people in this country would come together overnight if we ever had a reason to.

We spend 1.5% of our GDP currently.

I don't want to imagine just how crazy this country could become if we were ever actually forced to defend ourselves.

The logistic support? This country has logistics associations up the ass.

Sure we look dormant now but that's because nobody is actually threatening us.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Seems to be a major problem with almost every 5th or even 4.5 generation fighter. What is going on that we're seeing such problems in the development of new fighter technology? It seems like the only platform that has made it to production in reasonable shape is the raptor, and even it seems to be riddled with problems.

What are your thoughts on this?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Typhoon is a manufacturing problem. As for the others, we're reaching the point where the sensor fusion, engines, and electronics are at unheard of levels. That means that we're going to see a lot of problems getting them to IOC/FOC. In the past an aircraft like the F-4 and F-15 were fairly simple. The F-15 started with a radar, and built an airframe around it. And that worked great, because of the time that it was built. But then the countermeasures got better, so the aircraft had to get better, and we got the F-117, which was able to survive to targets no other aircraft could reach.

Then countermeasures got better again, which required better EW, and better stealth, which led to the B-2. Around that time, stealth became capable of going onto a real fighter, which led to the F-22, which included sensor capabilities that at one point you only found on an AWACS. And we started seeing problems getting it all to play well together, which led us to where we are today, with the F-35. Some manufacturing problems, quite a few problems getting everything to play well with its neighbor, and sensor fusion the likes of which even a Vietnam era pilot would have sold his entire family's souls for.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You keep going back to the issue of sensors. Could you explain this in more detail for me? What sorts of sensors are we talking about? The ability to "see" enemy aircraft further out? The ability to determine when an enemy force (land air or sea) is attempting to target you?

I guess I'm just not quite getting the connection on why these sensors would be such a game changer if you are already flying a supposedly stealthy aircraft.

You also mentioned newer missile technology. What good are sensors if the missile is already launched? Is it more so an issue of early warning systems that give the pilot more time to react?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Because being stealthy only makes your airframe harder to see, it doesn't make your sensors harder to see, unless you have incredibly specialized sensors that are harder to detect. If you took an F-35 and put an APG-63(V4) radar on it, it would only be stealthy as long as the radar was turned off. As soon as you turned the radar on, it would be like holding up a huge neon sign. Ways around this include infrared sensors, LPI radars by having small transmitters scattered around the airframe, instead of one big one in the nose, LPI data links, in the case of the F-35 optical sensors, etc. You combine all those, and you have a picture of the airspace around you that normally requires an AWACS and other aircraft around you to help get, with one aircraft. Better situational awareness means surviving longer and a better chance of getting your weapons off first.

Missile detection requires sensors that detect missile radar. If you have missiles that don't give off detectable signals, you don't detect the missile that's in the air coming at you. If you do, then it's too late to do anything about it. If you have a sensor suite that is the most advanced out there, you detect that missile as it's launched, and you can either take action early against the missile itself, or kill the launching platform, which can possibly interrupt the tracking, if the missile is being steered by the launch platform.