The Canadian F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program has maturated into the most controversial and widely investigated defense department procurement processes in Canadian history. This is said with the consideration of many more months, if not years of development work ahead for the newly formed NFPS (National Fighter Procurement Secretariat).
Setting -aside the criticism fuelled by political gamesmanship or analysis provided by technophobes who are entering the public procurement debate for the first time, we have been provided with excellent investigative journalism and deliberation surrounding the technical and performance requirements of Canada’s next fighter jet and the projected acquisition and ownership costs of the plan.
Read more
The F-15 Silent Eagle as Canada’s Next Fighter – Part 2
The F-15 Silent Eagle as Canada’s Next Fighter – Part 3
The F-15 is the only viable option to consider the requirements. The Strike Eagle is a superior next generation multi-role fighter that is available today. Its unparalleled long range, persistence and bigger weapons load make it the backbone of the U.S. Air Force (USAF). A complement of the latest advanced avionics systems gives the Strike Eagle the capability to perform air-to-air or air-to-surface missions at all altitudes, day or night, in any weather. This aircraft is at the top of the list, and I would suggest is the best choice for Canada. Why?
ReplyDelete1. Cost is lower than the F-35, with price and delivery certain
2. It has two engines and is more reliable
3. It has the longest combat range of the group and can cover Canadian airspace from our two bases.
4. Can reach Europe in ferry range without mid air refuelling – Buy the mid air fuel tankers.
5. More potent and survivable with a crew of two instead of one
6. Has most advanced and most powerful radar of the group – Raytheon APG-82(V)1 AESA
7. Has the lowest wing loading and can use short runways
8. Can be fitted with Gen 5 large screen displays, and heads up displays – JHMCS II/h
9. It is not compromised in design to take off and land from aircraft carriers (not overweight like the Super Hornet).
10. Maintenance costs will be much lower and more certain than the F-35
At $100M (est) per plane, it may seem expensive but when all costs vs performance are reviewed, X vs Y vs Z are not the same. As stated by those in this discussion thread the F-15 provides, longer range, bigger weapons load and speed benefits that other small fighters a.k.a Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Super Hornet albeit less expensive cannot match. In turn, many of the new enhancements such as the fly by wire flight controls, and the availability of F110-GE-129, F110-GE-132 or under development F100-PW-232 engines should keep operating costs at or below the known costs.
Another Guest (from Australia)
The F-35 will not meet specification nor the operational requirements. The F-35 was defined during the mid-1990s to have “affordable” aerodynamic performance, stealth performance, sensor capabilities and weapons loads to be “affordably” effective against the most common threat systems of that era past – legacy Soviet Cold War era weapons, not for the 21st Century emerging threats. The F-35 is designed primarily to support ground forces on the battlefield with some self defence capabilities and is not suitable for the developing regional environment and, not suitable for close air support missions. The aircraft is unsuited for air superiority, bomber and cruise missile defence due to limited range/endurance, limited weapons load, limited agility and limited supersonic speed. As its limitations are inherent to the design, they cannot be altered by incremental upgrades. The F-35 will be ineffective against the current generation of extremely powerful advanced Russian and Chinese systems, as detailed above; In any combat engagements between the F-35 and such threat systems, most or all F-35 aircraft will be rapidly lost to enemy fire.
ReplyDeleteIf you have the F-35s that just aren’t capable of dealing with the high threat zones, it just doesn’t do you any good of going ahead with the failed program and sink the money. Because the F-35 will be increasingly expensive aircraft that will fail the air defence program.
For more information on why the F-35 will not cut it onto the modern battlefield. http://www.ausairpower.net/
There was also a damning report of the Super Hornet in areas of critical operational requirements, while praising it for its improved aircraft carrier capabilities when compared to the original F/A-18A-D Hornet – something not high on the list of essential criteria.
Three sentences on page eight of the report say it all: “The consequences of low specific excess power in comparison to the threat are poor climb rates, poor sustained turn capability, and a low maximum speed. Of greatest tactical significance is the lower maximum speed of the F/A-18E/F since this precludes the ability to avoid or disengage from aerial combat. In this regard, the F/A-18E/F is only marginally inferior to the F/A-18C/D, whose specific excess power is also considerably inferior to that of the primary threat, the MiG-29.”
The F/A-18E/F has a similar performance deficiences to the F-35 which the aircraft has a short range and does not have the performance envelope of a true air superiority fighter compared to the large fighters (with high capability). They will be outclassed by the Su-27/30 Flanker family of fighters by most regional nations in all key performance parameters, aerodynamic, bigger weapons payload, radar / sensor performance by widely available fighters.
The F/A-18E/F is acknowledged in the report as being no match for even the older and newer MiG-29 family. Space precludes quoting the report’s comments on the multitude of other areas where the Super Hornet is inferior to the 1970s-designed and 1980s-built original F/A-18 aircraft. Admittedly the Block II Super Hornet has a new APG-79 AESA radar and some electronic components not in the version Coyle gave evidence on, but the fundamental airframe and performance remain unaltered: it is heavier, slower, larger and uglier (its radar signature did not measure up to expectations) than the normal Hornet.
Evidently the underwing aero-acoustic environment and resulting vibrations are so violent that some weapons are being damaged in transit to the target on a single flight – dumb bombs are fine in that environment but not long-range missiles containing sophisticated and relatively delicate components. To me there is nothing super about this Hornet; perhaps “Stingless Super Dog” is a better descriptor.
Canada should never follow Australia's motto “Hornet country”. Go for the more potent F-15 which will hopefully serve the RCAF's fighter/strike force better into the future.
Another Guest (from Australia)