- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Slim said:
In more than one thread!
In more than one thread!
- Reaction score
- 12,004
- Points
- 1,360
Armymatters, it might help your credibility if you would stop regurgitating articles from magazines...some of them are either misleading or incorrect.
Case in point...both Typhoon and Rafale can supercruise, but guess what they don't tell you in the article...only possible clean since both are 4th gen a/c that have most stores external. Source: I spoke with the German Typhoon chief test pilot at the EADS factory in 2001 and asked him about supercruise...I doubt an engine upgrade could overcome external stores drag to allow loaded-supercruise. I think you'll agree with me that supercruising without any armament is somewhat self-defeating.
Second case in point...B-52's ARE used for tactical bombing. I only recently spoke with a USAF ETAC (enlisted terminal attack controller) who noted that B-52s were fantastic for staying on station for extended periods in both OIF and OEF theatres to distribute LGBs one at a time, if required. I think most here in the know will agree that a single LGB being directed by an ETAC or FAC from a B52 for a specific small target is tactical, notwithstanding how the B-52 first started life in SAC.
Perhaps either some research/interviewing to at least pick up some second-hand information or more in-depth analysis of open-source material might assist you in gaining some credibility here.
Back on thread, I think the JSF would make a good future aircraft for the CF...I would personally go for a mix of B's and C's, but I think we'd get all A's...can't fault the air force for that so long as we have decent MOBs & FOBs to operate from.
Duey
Case in point...both Typhoon and Rafale can supercruise, but guess what they don't tell you in the article...only possible clean since both are 4th gen a/c that have most stores external. Source: I spoke with the German Typhoon chief test pilot at the EADS factory in 2001 and asked him about supercruise...I doubt an engine upgrade could overcome external stores drag to allow loaded-supercruise. I think you'll agree with me that supercruising without any armament is somewhat self-defeating.
Second case in point...B-52's ARE used for tactical bombing. I only recently spoke with a USAF ETAC (enlisted terminal attack controller) who noted that B-52s were fantastic for staying on station for extended periods in both OIF and OEF theatres to distribute LGBs one at a time, if required. I think most here in the know will agree that a single LGB being directed by an ETAC or FAC from a B52 for a specific small target is tactical, notwithstanding how the B-52 first started life in SAC.
Perhaps either some research/interviewing to at least pick up some second-hand information or more in-depth analysis of open-source material might assist you in gaining some credibility here.
Back on thread, I think the JSF would make a good future aircraft for the CF...I would personally go for a mix of B's and C's, but I think we'd get all A's...can't fault the air force for that so long as we have decent MOBs & FOBs to operate from.
Duey
A
aesop081
Guest
Duey said:
Agreed. I doubt that the airforce will ever again operate a mixed-bag of anything. I'm not a big fan of JSF myself but it is certainly our best bet for replacing the 18s. As mentioned earlier, rafale & Typhoon are "now" aircraft and do not fit the Canadian time frame. Don't get me wrong , i would love to see a section of rafales here in the QRA facility but....
Armymatters
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Well, with the current upgrades to the CF-18, now planned to go to 2017 (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060118b_nr.html), and they will probally serve until 2020. But I am thinking we should not put our all of our eggs into one basket (JSF), as the Brits are right now threatening to pull out of the project, and potential NATO customers in Europe have either raised flags regarding the program and are turning to other aircraft types to renew their fleets. Basically, this year is key for European fighter decisions. It can either make or break the JSF program all together.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1370943&C=America
I can see Spain and Italy going JSF, as they need to replace their Harriers on their carriers, and F-35B is the only way to do so. With everyone else, not too sure. Best to wait and watch and see whenever or not these nations go through with JSF.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1370943&C=America
I can see Spain and Italy going JSF, as they need to replace their Harriers on their carriers, and F-35B is the only way to do so. With everyone else, not too sure. Best to wait and watch and see whenever or not these nations go through with JSF.
blueboy
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I'm very surprised that with all of the quoting that Armymatters writes that he hasn't listed any Russian aircraft to replace the F-18's. I'm sure he can dig up some wonderful quotes regarding the SU-27 airframe. It looks like the Chinese and Indian Airforces love them. It surely has the range and capabilities? If one is to peruse Armymatters background he certainly lives up to his function of wishing to be merely a bureaucrate. Those that can,...do, Those that can't (nor never have) only criticize those of us who have done it.
- Reaction score
- 218
- Points
- 680
Ok - this is getting tiresome on all accounts.
Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.
I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already. Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject. I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU. Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members. I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads. If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic. I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.
This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts. We are all posers in every right on these means. Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience. So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...
Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.
I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already. Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject. I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU. Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members. I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads. If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic. I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.
This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts. We are all posers in every right on these means. Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience. So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...
a_majoor
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 31
- Points
- 560
Canada has several unique factors which stick us between a rock and a hard place:
Canada is so vast that even doing northern patrols is difficult for a conventional fighter. Getting overseas to deploy also needs a plane with a long ferry range. Long range usually equates to larger (think F-15 sized)
When we ARE deployed in the far north or overseas on a PSO, it would be wise to assume we will be operating from an austere airfield. This tends to favor small, light and relatively unsophisticated aircraft (or at least easy to maintain like the SAAB Gripon).
We really need two tactical aircraft, a long range fighter/interceptor to cover the north and the oceans off our coasts, and a nimble fighter/bomber to support deployed task forces.
Being a small force, there isn't a budget available to design and build multiple aircraft for our unique requirements. Perhaps we could go really out of the box and ask Scaled Composites (builders of "SpaceshipOne" and the Voyager around the world aircraft, among other designs) to make a proposal, but even then we would have a small fleet of aircraft which are logistically incompatible with our allies.
The best bet is to do what we do already, find something which is close, accept compromises and kit bash to make a closer fit to our needs.
Canada is so vast that even doing northern patrols is difficult for a conventional fighter. Getting overseas to deploy also needs a plane with a long ferry range. Long range usually equates to larger (think F-15 sized)
When we ARE deployed in the far north or overseas on a PSO, it would be wise to assume we will be operating from an austere airfield. This tends to favor small, light and relatively unsophisticated aircraft (or at least easy to maintain like the SAAB Gripon).
We really need two tactical aircraft, a long range fighter/interceptor to cover the north and the oceans off our coasts, and a nimble fighter/bomber to support deployed task forces.
Being a small force, there isn't a budget available to design and build multiple aircraft for our unique requirements. Perhaps we could go really out of the box and ask Scaled Composites (builders of "SpaceshipOne" and the Voyager around the world aircraft, among other designs) to make a proposal, but even then we would have a small fleet of aircraft which are logistically incompatible with our allies.
The best bet is to do what we do already, find something which is close, accept compromises and kit bash to make a closer fit to our needs.
I don't see why we cant debate something on this site unless people who have first hand knowledge participate. Talking about army issues is one thing, there are enough vets or currently serving members here who can contribute. But next gen fighter aircraft? There are very few pilots in the world, if any, who have flown all the aircraft we have been talking about, so until someone who has flown the F-22, Eurofighter, Super hornet etc shows up, I say let the debate go on. Technical data does not lie, and an aircraft will be selected on technical data as well as first hand evaluation. If someone has an opinion which as no merit at all and with no background, then I agree, stay in your lane.
- Reaction score
- 12,004
- Points
- 1,360
Zoomie said:
All lemmings, STAND TO! Prepare to repel non-fighter pilot boarders... :
I do not agree with you Zoomie...so will you only talk about Armour Corps issues and SAR, fixed-wing primarily, perhaps with some rotary-wing thrown in only if you have direct experience? Others only on topics they have first-hand experience with?
While I personally think that Armymatters is overdoing the research-only fed input to the issue, to imply that only folks qualified on the aircraft "closest" to that being discussed need continue the thread is not at all reasonable.
It's not like the thread was "Who thinks the expanded TWS mode of the APG-73 is any better than that on the APG-65 on ECP 583 Hornets?"
Perhaps the mods should carve all the posters out of this thread who aren't current CF188-qual'd pilots?
Then again, perhaps the thread can continue in general with a little less emphasis on regurgitating numbers and placement of reasoned logic and consideration to an issue where direct in-cockpit experience may not exist. Especially moving towards a greater emphasis on EBO, details of flying a particular platform are not as important as the argument for the range of effects that a particular weapon system contributes to operations.
Cheers,
Duey
I totally agree. With the emphasis on BVR combat for an air superiority fighter, it becomes clear which platforms offer the best solution without having to know what it feels like to fly them.
Also, having direct hands on experience doesnt always mean you know what the best solution is. For example, the Sten gun in WW II was widely regarded as being a cheap, poorly made weapon by soldiers who were equipped with it. But from a wider perspective, that fact that it was cheaply made was good, in that it could be produced in larger numbers than the Thompson. A crude example, but it still applies.
While I am not in favour of this approach in this case, (I still think we should look into the more expensive F-22 if its multirole capabilities are further developed), it holds some water. Spending less money on the JSF could enable the CF to spend more in others (cost/benefit). I think we ought to remember that there are multiple ways of looking at this issue, whether it be from a pilot's perspective, a strategic perspective, or economic/political perspective.
- Reaction score
- 218
- Points
- 680
I am afraid that the intent of my original message has been misconstrued. I do not avocate shutting this thread down due to a lack of SME's. I am trying to make an issue with those who would tell other posters to stop posting due to a lack of first-hand knowledge. (whew, long sentence)
I am all for this thread to continue. It brings out those that enjoy such venues such as Janes.com and other technical-rich sources.
I take exception to some members attempting to shut down others. My point that none of us are CF-188 drivers is more of an example of how all of us have equal voice in this topic.
I am all for this thread to continue. It brings out those that enjoy such venues such as Janes.com and other technical-rich sources.
I take exception to some members attempting to shut down others. My point that none of us are CF-188 drivers is more of an example of how all of us have equal voice in this topic.
Armymatters
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
1. I do not recommend Russian jets for one good reason: maintenance. I know a mechanic in the Luftwaffe that serviced the MiG-29's. He said that the MiG-29 was hell to service, primarily due to its crudeness. Also, Russian engines aren't too reliable, and they are more finicky with fuel - see the Indian experience with Russian jets. For example, you have to overhaul a RD-33 engine in a MiG-29 every 500 hours, he told me. Remember, there are two of these engines in a MiG-29. The GE F110 engine in a F-16 can go 1000-1500 hours between overhauls, roughly 2-3 times the life of a Russian engine. So, I have to agree, from a technical perspective to stick with Western designs, and a easy to maintain airplane, to save money on maintenance. Sure, Russian fighters are cheap, and they perform great, but think of the overall costs as well.
2. The CF-18 is a hard jet to replace, I have to admit. The design is excellent for what we use it for, and it is a easy jet to maintain, compared to other airplanes. I will have to agree with a_majoor that we are stuck in terms of finding a suitable replacement. Our geography and the missions we send our CF-18's out on dictate a design that in essence, contradicts itself in terms of features. You normally can't have a long range jet in a small airframe (unless you turn the airplane into a flying fuel tank), and larger airplanes are usually harder to maintain. Canada's budget for new fighters does not allow for buying specifically taylored airplanes, we have to get multi-role airplanes that does it all.
2. The CF-18 is a hard jet to replace, I have to admit. The design is excellent for what we use it for, and it is a easy jet to maintain, compared to other airplanes. I will have to agree with a_majoor that we are stuck in terms of finding a suitable replacement. Our geography and the missions we send our CF-18's out on dictate a design that in essence, contradicts itself in terms of features. You normally can't have a long range jet in a small airframe (unless you turn the airplane into a flying fuel tank), and larger airplanes are usually harder to maintain. Canada's budget for new fighters does not allow for buying specifically taylored airplanes, we have to get multi-role airplanes that does it all.
I vow we buy new F18's. Why? It is an awesome weapons platform. We can aquire a new jet that is proven to be very well built and we can have a min of hassle for the conversion training for pilots and ground crew.
The jet is good enough for the US Navy for the next XXXX number of years so I figure it is good enough for us.
It would be nice to play with all the rader defeating supercruise jets. The reality of it is we cannot afford nor do we need such high tech low yield fighter attack bombers. The CF 18 does an outstanding job now in it's present configeration. So why buy a whole new weapons platform only to have to re do the whole drawing board with learning and other systems?
We need a jet now that we can deploy over seas and support the troops on the ground with a min of hassle in the form of training, parts and learning curves for all. Looking ahead to determine the need for our military fighter attack jet in the next 20 to 40 years is silly. We need good jets now. To spend the big bucks and get the big toys mean nothing unless you can use those toys for what they are meant to be used for, that is support.
In the distant future we should aquire one of those nifty high tech rader defeating supercruise high altitude air to air, air to ground and air to sea attack fighter/ bombers that can fly 90 deg's to it's flight path with in a second and dodge all but the best missiles.
Bottom line is the US is only ordering a limited number of FA22 Raptors. This may change but as of yet it hasn't. Their are to many other variables into the fighter replacement project that they need to figure out before going to a all one fighter outfit. The JSF is a dream for it's super ablities, to deploy as a stol platform to fit the Marine and Navy's need's. Hence why the purchase of the new G model of the FA18 Super Hornet. The Super Hornet will be with the US Navy/ Marine Corps for long time to come. I feel it should become a part of our Weapons platform in the very near future.
Strictly my opinion and mine alone.
cheers all
The jet is good enough for the US Navy for the next XXXX number of years so I figure it is good enough for us.
It would be nice to play with all the rader defeating supercruise jets. The reality of it is we cannot afford nor do we need such high tech low yield fighter attack bombers. The CF 18 does an outstanding job now in it's present configeration. So why buy a whole new weapons platform only to have to re do the whole drawing board with learning and other systems?
We need a jet now that we can deploy over seas and support the troops on the ground with a min of hassle in the form of training, parts and learning curves for all. Looking ahead to determine the need for our military fighter attack jet in the next 20 to 40 years is silly. We need good jets now. To spend the big bucks and get the big toys mean nothing unless you can use those toys for what they are meant to be used for, that is support.
In the distant future we should aquire one of those nifty high tech rader defeating supercruise high altitude air to air, air to ground and air to sea attack fighter/ bombers that can fly 90 deg's to it's flight path with in a second and dodge all but the best missiles.
Bottom line is the US is only ordering a limited number of FA22 Raptors. This may change but as of yet it hasn't. Their are to many other variables into the fighter replacement project that they need to figure out before going to a all one fighter outfit. The JSF is a dream for it's super ablities, to deploy as a stol platform to fit the Marine and Navy's need's. Hence why the purchase of the new G model of the FA18 Super Hornet. The Super Hornet will be with the US Navy/ Marine Corps for long time to come. I feel it should become a part of our Weapons platform in the very near future.
Strictly my opinion and mine alone.
cheers all
FSTO
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Points
- 1,210
CTD said:
Navy puke here.
From my limited knowledge of the AF, the F/A 18 ( a NAVY aircraft BTW >
) has been an outstanding aircraft for Canada. That being said, the replacement for it should be the navy/marine version of the JSF. I say that for the following reasons:
Who knows what we are going to get for an Amphib ship? The Marine version may be able to work off of it.
More fwd deploying bases: Scenario: CF is deployed to Butthole Somewhere outside of NA. There is a need for fast air, but there is no real airport to support a traditional fighter. Naval Task force moves in, sends troops ashore, set up very austere airfield. Helo's bring in fuel and voila we have a support base for fast air. Outlandish? Impossible? With a F22 Raptor yes, with the JSF maybe no.
Clément Barbeau Vermet
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I personally think that the Super Hornet is THE BEST Hornet Replacement.
It may have the same name and look the the same, but in fact it is a totally different aircraft...
-Payload augmentation of 15%
-2 more underwing hardpoints
-Range augmentation of 40%
-Parts reduction of 40%
-Size augmentation of 25%
-Radar signature reduction of 60% (yes that's true)
The Super Hornet now comes with the Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Future upgrades could be an IRST and even trust-vectoring nozzles (yes that's possible). Talk about a modern aircraft!
As for the JSF, It can only carry 4 missiles or bombs internally so it WILL have to carry at least half of its weapons externally..... bye bye super stealth.
Another thing about the JSF is that its cockpit offers bad visibility for the pilot compared to almost all other current and future fighters. Some might argue that this is not important in the 21st century, but in fact it is rather the contrary if we want to take full advantage of these new short-range air to air targetting-NVGs.
( http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng3-7.htm ).
It may have the same name and look the the same, but in fact it is a totally different aircraft...
-Payload augmentation of 15%
-2 more underwing hardpoints
-Range augmentation of 40%
-Parts reduction of 40%
-Size augmentation of 25%
-Radar signature reduction of 60% (yes that's true)
The Super Hornet now comes with the Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Future upgrades could be an IRST and even trust-vectoring nozzles (yes that's possible). Talk about a modern aircraft!
As for the JSF, It can only carry 4 missiles or bombs internally so it WILL have to carry at least half of its weapons externally..... bye bye super stealth.
Another thing about the JSF is that its cockpit offers bad visibility for the pilot compared to almost all other current and future fighters. Some might argue that this is not important in the 21st century, but in fact it is rather the contrary if we want to take full advantage of these new short-range air to air targetting-NVGs.
( http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng3-7.htm ).
I figure the Super Hornet right now is the best option for our needs. I am willing to say that US Navy/Marine Corps wont be using the JSF anytime soon (the next 10 or so years) in a large amount of quantities for us to justify the dream of having them in our arsenal. We need a well proving Platform that can be sustained with a min of hassle. The Super Hornet can do this for us for the next 10 to 20 years.
Speculation of an Amphip ship and what it can can't do will be up in the air until we actually see it. At the time it is actually spec'd, that is when we could focus buying Air Weapons Platforms for that particular application. Until then we can look at what we need and can use. To buy an A/C that we may use to it's full potential 20 years from now is pointless.
The F/A18 G Super Hornet is spec'd to provide a variety of mission specialties. A/A refuelling, conventional A/A and A/G attack, ECM for the fleet, EW and numerous other capabilities. The Navy/Marine Corp purchased a jet that is truly a multifighter/attack fighter in the Super Hornet. It can do all the missions well that are being done by the rest of the fleet and with a min of hassle for re config of the basic airframe. To me for the limited number of Airframes that we will buy this is the best allround jet. The JSF and the F/A22 although good Aircraft cannot provide the vast range of capabilities that the Super Hornet can muster.
No hard feeling's meant by my post.
Speculation of an Amphip ship and what it can can't do will be up in the air until we actually see it. At the time it is actually spec'd, that is when we could focus buying Air Weapons Platforms for that particular application. Until then we can look at what we need and can use. To buy an A/C that we may use to it's full potential 20 years from now is pointless.
The F/A18 G Super Hornet is spec'd to provide a variety of mission specialties. A/A refuelling, conventional A/A and A/G attack, ECM for the fleet, EW and numerous other capabilities. The Navy/Marine Corp purchased a jet that is truly a multifighter/attack fighter in the Super Hornet. It can do all the missions well that are being done by the rest of the fleet and with a min of hassle for re config of the basic airframe. To me for the limited number of Airframes that we will buy this is the best allround jet. The JSF and the F/A22 although good Aircraft cannot provide the vast range of capabilities that the Super Hornet can muster.
No hard feeling's meant by my post.
Similar threads
