[Robair]

F-35 jets too risky for military, report contends

$1:

A new report released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives argues that the controversial F-35 fighter jets, which would replace the air force’s aging CF-18 fleet, are too dangerous to be used by the Canadian military.

The report, titled “One Dead Pilot,” was released on Monday. It argues that the single-engine F-35 poses too many risks, and that it could fail over the ocean or the remote Arctic.

“With the exception of the F-35, all the aircraft currently under consideration have two engines,” the report says. “This difference has significant safety implications.”

Rival jet makers crank up hard sell as Harper cabinet mulls F-35 decision
F-35 maintenance costs could double over the lifetime of program, report says

Michael Byers, the author of the report, compares the F-35 to the CF-104 Starfighter, which also had a single engine.

The jet was used by the Canadian air forces between 1961and 1987, and was involved in 110 crashes during that time period.

Byers said the single engine made the jet vulnerable to crashes involving bird strikes, and without a second engine, the plane wasn’t able to keep flying. During its 26 years of operation, about a quarter of the jet’s crashes were attributed to bird strikes.

“Although Canada’s Starfighters never saw combat, 39 Canadian pilots lost their lives while flying these planes,” Byers wrote. “Nearly half the fleet was also lost. But it was the significant number of casualties that earned the aircraft the nickname the ‘Widow Maker.’”

Byers concludes that “engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash.”
He adds that a two-engine plane would be better suited to Canada, which has the longest coastline in the world.

[Xort]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

But the problem is stealth for an F-35 isn't all that good. So you may as well use an F-16.

That's some twisty logic.

Also in terms of stealth competence, yes it is not as good as an F-22 but it's still hugely better than not having it.

The F-35 is suggested to have a RCS of about a metal golf ball, while the F-22 that of a metal marble.

Clearly we should stick to something with the RADAR cross section of 1.2m^2 (for a block 30 f-16)

[Winnipegger]

Robair Robair:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Of course my preference is just upgrade our existing CF-18 Hornets. Upgrade electronics to equal the latest Super Hornet.

Different airplane, it's not just an electronics upgrade.

The last round of upgrades replaced air control surfaces with carbon fibre composite, verticle stabilizer, and some wing panels as well. Together with electronics upgrades, this brings them equal an F/A-18C. What I'm saying is the only further upgrade requires is for the next generation of electronics.

Hornet vs SuperHornet: Performance in a dogfight is the same. Max altitude is the same. Max speed is the same. Range is the same. Hornet has 2 weapons pilons on each wing, while SuperHornet has 3. SuperHornet can carry a heavier bomb load. What can be done by 2 SuperHornets can be done by 3 Hornets. There was significant design effort to make SuperHornets easier to maintain, but my argument is we have Hornets. SuperHornets are not sufficient upgrade to justify the expense.

[peck420]

Xort Xort:

That's some twisty logic.

Twisty logic is putting such a heavy emphasis on stealth, that we will no longer be able to afford enough aircraft to defend our own borders.

[Winnipegger]

I thought it a mistake to reduce active squadrons to 2 combat plus 1 training. I believe we have enough CF-18 aircraft in storage for 2 more combat squadrons. We did, but not sure if enough have been upgraded. May not be enough for that plus reserve for combat/training losses.

[BRAH]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BRAH BRAH:

DanSC DanSC:

I hear we're about to have a lot of idle A-10s; you should buy those instead.

Why they would discontinue the A10? It's proven it's worth many times over but if a country could use them maybe Ukraine though the time it would take to train pilots would probably take to long.

Because it's main mission - destroying vast numbers of tanks and AFVs - is not likely to happen in this day and age.

Considering the moves Putin is making they still might serve a military purpose.

[Canadian_Mind]

I just did some perusing around the internet (everyones favourite place). Given some very rough on-paper comparisons, this is my current order for overall preference of aircraft:

1. Eurofighter Typhoon
2. Dassault Rafale
3. F-15E
4. F-18 E/F
5. F-35

I only compared dual engine aircraft, as I find the concept of a single engine aircraft ridiculous. That said, the F-35 is the leading contender in the government's eyes, so I included it.

Comparatively, the first two are very close in performance and capabilities. The Typhoon is a better performer in almost all categories, but the Rafale has a better payload capacity (typhoon has worst capacity out of all aircraft) and is significantly cheaper. That said, Dassault is willing to build them in country, and having a domestic capability to produce arms is important. It's a tight trade-off, and I'm almost willing to swap the two.

F-15 E, in spite of it's design age, is the highest flying aircraft available. It also has the second fastest cruise and overall fastest top speed. Depending on the load-out it could be argued it has the longest patrol range as well. It also has the highest payload capacity. Compared the the Typhoon and F-35 it's rather affordable. If the "Silent Eagle" program goes anywhere, it could be a contender with the Typhoon and Rafale.

F-18, compared to the others, is not-quite garbage. It's manoeuvrability sucks, it's slow, has a short range, low payload capacity (only typhoon is worse), low rate of climb, etc. It's redeeming quality, it's cheap. Half the price of the Typhoon and F-35, and 3/4 the price of the F-15 E and Rafale. If war were to break out tomorrow and we had to purchase en-masse, this is the plane to get.

F-35. It has stealth. It is also the youngest design, so in theory it has time to grow and mature. Reality the structure of the aircraft is already near design limits. It has the lowest thrust-weight ratio, highest wing loading ratio, and because of these two factors, the slowest rate of climb (not released but it's a safe assumption). It's also the slowest and most expensive aircraft of the bunch.

[peck420]

BRAH BRAH:

Considering the moves Putin is making they still might serve a military purpose.

Simple question:

Would you want to be inside of 'low and slow' to attack a Russian position?

[BRAH]

peck420 peck420:

BRAH BRAH:

Considering the moves Putin is making they still might serve a military purpose.

Simple question:

Would you want to be inside of 'low and slow' to attack a Russian position?

http://air-attack.com/page/39/A-10-Thunderbolt.html
Seems like the A10 has proven itself ready for any type of combat situation.

[peck420]

BRAH BRAH:

peck420 peck420:

BRAH BRAH:

Considering the moves Putin is making they still might serve a military purpose.

Simple question:

Would you want to be inside of 'low and slow' to attack a Russian position?

http://air-attack.com/page/39/A-10-Thunderbolt.html
Seems like the A10 has proven itself ready for any type of combat situation.

So if I can smack around a child, I can take on Mike Tyson?

Got it!

If we are planning on going up against Russia or China, better start planning on heavy casualties.

These are countries that won't be guarding their skies with equipment older than any of the soldiers present.

[Xort]

peck420 peck420:

Twisty logic is putting such a heavy emphasis on stealth, that we will no longer be able to afford enough aircraft to defend our own borders.

Does Russia even both to send Bears to buzz Canadian air space?

They fly near Alaska, and CF-118s and US F-15s were used in 2012, but in 2013 it was F-22s.

Anyway, as you seem to know just how many fighters does Canada need to 'defend our own borders'?

[BRAH]

peck420 peck420:

So if I can smack around a child, I can take on Mike Tyson?

Got it!

If we are planning on going up against Russia or China, better start planning on heavy casualties.

These are countries that won't be guarding their skies with equipment older than any of the soldiers present.

What we're supposed only rely on the F35? Great as new technology is sometimes in certain situations older is better.

[peck420]

Xort Xort:

Does Russia even both to send Bears to buzz Canadian air space?

Yes, they do. Not that it matters. If hostilities start, they will be doing more than buzzing. There is a very large area that F-22's can't reach which will leave Canadians with a choice...defend our own, or wait for US fighters to start shooting them down over our heads.

$1:

Anyway, as you seem to know just how many fighters does Canada need to 'defend our own borders'?

Given our physical size, 120 would be my minimum request, 200 would be preferred.

[Canadian_Mind]

peck420 peck420:

Xort Xort:

Does Russia even both to send Bears to buzz Canadian air space?

Yes, they do. Not that it matters. If hostilities start, they will be doing more than buzzing. There is a very large area that F-22's can't reach which will leave Canadians with a choice...defend our own, or wait for US fighters to start shooting them down over our heads.

$1:

Anyway, as you seem to know just how many fighters does Canada need to 'defend our own borders'?

Given our physical size, 120 would be my minimum request, 200 would be preferred.

Peck, are you talking frontline, or overall?

I'd argue a squadron of 24 on each coast (Comox, Yellowknife, and the rock), a squadron of 24 in Cold Lake and a squadron of 24 in Bagotville. Gives better interception and interdiction capabilities off our coastlines and over our major population centers and transportation routes.

That, plus 71 aircraft for training, attrition, and allow for a rotation of aircraft during upgrades without sacrificing numbers in the combat and training squadrons.

Total of 191.

[Winnipegger]

Instead of Yellowknife, I recommend building a full air force station at Resolute Bay. It used to have one. I would like heated hangers for a full squadron of 24 fighters, plus tarmac for a second squadron, plus ability to support CP-140 Aurora and CC-130 Hercules, helicopters and drones. We already have 5 Hercules configures for mid-air refuelling. How many would we need?

The reason I said that many was to equal the air wing of an American supercarrier. But an island can't be sunk by a torpedo. And modern mid-air refuelling makes their range the entire arctic.

The idea behind a "station" is the aircraft are not permanently based there. They move their during an action, then go back to home base when everything has settled down. That's what the station at Resolute used to be. Don't know if it was that big, though. But that means the station would only require barracks, not houses.

Could that reduce our requirement to 4 combat squadrons, one training squadron, and some spares?