Forum: Program and politics

I've read many posts/topics by people arguing for/against a Canadian purchase of the F-35A. Most posts have good points, but only present part of the 'story'. I think a lot of this comes down to personal bias/interests. So, for your viewing (dis)pleasure, I decided to provide a comprehensive look at the suitability of the F-35A for Canada....both from a technical, political AND industrial perspective.

I am going to avoid using the almost meaningless marketing terms 'fourth generation' and 'fifth generation'. I'll instead stick to real world performance and capability facts.

To keep things simple, I'll use an Advantages vs Disadvantages format.

Canadian F-35A Advantages

1. -having a common aircraft frame with our Nato allies would simplify logistical issues during any expiditionary actions. This would have a Force Multiplier effect. Especially useful if ever we had to go to war against a capable opponent that required a large NATO effort.

2. -The F-35 has advanced sensor fusion (including EOTS and passive infrared warning) and datalinking combined with reduced FORWARD cross section stealth against X band radar.

3. -buying F-35s would help our US allies afford their own F-35s and show political solidarity.

4. -There is likely some political pressure from the US on Canada to buy the F-35. An alternative purchase COULD POSSIBLY have minor political ramifications. Buying the F-35 would prevent any political 'sore feelings' with our US allies.

Canadian F-35A Disadvantages

1. -The F-35A range is just a bit on on the short side. While still servicable, it isn't exactly ideal for Canadian geography. To compare against its competition, it's maximum clean 'one way' range is 2220 km on internal fuel. The F-18 clean 'one way' range is 2,346 km, the Rafale 2,100 km, the Gripen NG is 2,500 km, and the EuroFighter is 2,900 km.
*I didn't compare drop tank equipped jet ranges because I wanted to avoid anybody bring up that BS argument "OMG, if F-35 uses drop tanks then no stealth = useless".

2. -The F-35 is a bit on the slow side in both afterburner AND cruising speeds. It seems to be limited to a Mach1.6 afterburner (and is presently prone to heat damage from prolonged afterburner usage). It's max cruising speed with light weapons load is still under the speed of sound.
To compare, The EuroFighter, Gripen NG, and Rafale can all supercruise with AA configuration without drop tanks (I believe I've read that Saab is actually working on a supersonic ext fuel tank).

3. -The F-35 is incompatible with our mid flight refueling assets (CC-150 and Hercules). In fact, the Conservative Governement was willing to forgo air to air refueling for the F-35. This means that if we bought the F-35 to patrol our arctic, we would actually be unable to fly in the arctic. The Government suggested that the US (or contractors) could supply tankers when available......idiocy!
*The Eurofighter, Gripen NG, F-18 SH and Rafale can all use Canada's drogue chute style refueling.

4. -The F-35 is not suitable to landing on our Arctic runways for much of the year. There has been talk of adding drag chutes to our F-35s....but that would somewhat degrade the stealth advantage of the aircraft AND would represent further cost increases (both for the modification and operating costs...somebody has to service the chutes!).
*The F-18 SH has a robust landing gear and chute system. The Gripen NG is made to land on short runways in cold weather conditions without the need of chutes.

5. -The sensor advantages offered by the F-35 are not unique. The Gripen NG has AESA Radar, IRST, HMD, passive infrared sensors. The F-18 SH has AESA Radar. The Euro Fighter and Rafale will soon have AESA as well. The Rafale already has IRST. Even the 'conceptual' F-18 International Roadmap is offering IRST via drop tank integration.

6. -Data linking of the F-35 is comparable to what is already offered by the F-18SH, Gripen NG, Euro Fighter and Rafale.

7. -The F-35 will likely cost ~25-40% more than the EuroFighter and Rafale. It will cost ~2X as much as the F-18SH or Gripen NG.
*In order to afford the F-35, the Conservative Government planned to reduce the munition budget from 240million to 50million......so we would have fighters but no weapons for them?!?

8. -F-35 operating costs will be higher (perhaps as much as 2x) as the EuroFighter, Rafale and F-18SH. It likely cost 4x as much as the Gripen NG (Gripen is listed as the LEAST COSTLY to operate by a large margin).

9. -F-35 is unable to internally operate the ramjet powered Meteor missile (the most capable Air to Air missile developed). If the F-35 were tweaked to use this missile, it would have to fly it externally (forgoing its only advantage against opponents...stealth!).
*The Gripen NG, EuroFighter and Rafale are capable of using the Meteor.

10. -F-35 is unable to use Canadian arctic communication systems.
*This issue might have been resolved but would add to the costs. Need confirmation.

11. -single engined F-35 doesn't have engine redundancy. That said, there are situations where a second engine didn't prevent a crash due to one engine failing anyway. Also, engines are FAR more dependable than even a couple of decades ago. Add in the $ saved from only operating 1 engine and I am not sure that this is really a disadvantage for the F-35. But some people still like to bring it up!
*The F-18SH, Rafale and EuroFighter all have 2 engines.

12. -The industrial benefits are not as secure as what we could get from the competition. In particular, the Gripen NG would come with the most benefits by far (we could assemble the aircraft in Canada and produce some of the parts)!

13. -The expeditionary logistical benefits of the F-35 aren't really all that important. To put it simply, Nato only picks fights with wimps. The only time such issues as maximizing force assets by minimizing logistical requirements would be of consequence is if we were to go to war with China/Russia/India/Packistan (capable opponents....but also countries that we are (more or less) friendly with). I can't see any realistic scenario that results in a conventional war with these countries.....

Should also point out that the only country that can actually successfully attack and occupy canada is the US....65 F-35s would be as useful as 650 F-35s in that scenario (lol).

14. -For all the performance compromises required by the F-35s stealth, the aircraft can still be seen by X-band radar when not faced head on, when S-band and L-band radars are used, when IRST is used. MOST IMPORTANTLY, data linked aircraft share sensor information....so if only 1 enemy aircraft sees the F-35 from a non frontal angle, all enemy aircraft see that F-35 via shared datalink.

Also, it is FAR easier to upgrade a fighters radar system than to upgrade its stealth design/coating. The F-35 stealth advantage (which isn't as great as LM claims) could be obsolete in a few years. We would then be stuck with a useless, expensive jet for the next 20 years.

15. -Presently, the F-35 has had much of its fire suppression equipment removed in order to make weight.....certainly doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Canadians certainly need the ability to project a military presense/deterent anywhere within our borders in a timely manner. Jet fighters are ideal for this role considering their speed and capabilities....especially when you consider Canada's immense size.

Still, what role are these fighters going to be required to perform. The general consensus is that we require primarly an air interdiction capability, with secondary recon and attack capability. Our fighters will need to be able to operate in northern climates. We also require the purchase and operation of our fighter jets to be affordable. Lastly, these fighters need to be deployable to aid our allies in times of need.

If asked my humble opinion (no shortage of these here), I would say that Canada would likely be best served either by the Gripen NG or the F18 SH (international Roadmap variant).

The Gripen NG advantages:
-most cost effective jet to purchase AND operate
-cutting edge sensors/weapons/datalink
-high speed supercruise interdiction (with AA configuration)
-proven cold weather performance
-proven short runway operations
-the best industrial benefit package out of all the competition

The F-18SH IR advantages:
-duel engine redundancy
-buddy tanker refueling capability
-IRST upgrade (not as elegant as Gripen NGs or Rafales)
-we don't piss off our US allies

Thoughts anyone?

F-16.net Sponsor

I will give this a shot...

Quote:

Canadian F-35A Advantages

1. -having a common aircraft frame with our Nato allies would simplify logistical issues during any expiditionary actions. This would have a Force Multiplier effect. Especially useful if ever we had to go to war against a capable opponent that required a large NATO effort.

All true, but also doesn't capture everything. Future growth and new capabilities favor the F-35. The F-35 offers Canada substantially more industrial benefits than its competitors, and so forth.

Quote:

2. -The F-35 has advanced sensor fusion (including EOTS and passive infrared warning) and datalinking combined with reduced FORWARD cross section stealth against X band radar.

The F-35's RCS is reduced from all aspects and in more than just X-band.

It is important to realize that all aircraft have a range of RCS values depending on geometry. The F-35 will have a larger RCS from its side than its front for example, but in all cases it will have a far smaller RCS than its competitors. (in an apples to apples comparison)

It is true that stealth shaping becomes less effective when dealing with very long wave radars, but that does not mean that the F-35's shaping only applies in X-band. It is optimized for X-band for good reasons, but it does not simply became "non-stealth" outside of X-band.

Quote:

3. -buying F-35s would help our US allies afford their own F-35s and show political solidarity.

4. -There is likely some political pressure from the US on Canada to buy the F-35. An alternative purchase COULD POSSIBLY have minor political ramifications. Buying the F-35 would prevent any political 'sore feelings' with our US allies.

Really fairly minor concerns. The US is going to work with Canada no matter which plane they ultimately pick.

Quote:

Canadian F-35A Disadvantages

1. -The F-35A range is just a bit on on the short side. While still servicable, it isn't exactly ideal for Canadian geography. To compare against its competition, it's maximum clean 'one way' range is 2220 km on internal fuel. The F-18 clean 'one way' range is 2,346 km, the Rafale 2,100 km, the Gripen NG is 2,500 km, and the EuroFighter is 2,900 km.
*I didn't compare drop tank equipped jet ranges because I wanted to avoid anybody bring up that BS argument "OMG, if F-35 uses drop tanks then no stealth = useless".

I do not believe these numbers are accurate but I don't have time to dig into it right now. Short answer, an F-35A holds 8,280kg of internal fuel.

A SH holds: 6,780kg, a EF hold 4,500kg and a Rafale holds 4,700kg.

The F-35 is draggier than its competitors while clean, but not so much so that it is going to need twice as much fuel to cover the same distance. If you did a comparison with weapons the F-35 will look better.

Quote:

2. -The F-35 is a bit on the slow side in both afterburner AND cruising speeds. It seems to be limited to a Mach1.6 afterburner (and is presently prone to heat damage from prolonged afterburner usage). It's max cruising speed with light weapons load is still under the speed of sound.
To compare, The EuroFighter, Gripen NG, and Rafale can all supercruise with AA configuration without drop tanks (I believe I've read that Saab is actually working on a supersonic ext fuel tank).

The F-35 can reach M1.6 with an internal load plus all necessary sensors needed to do its mission. That means it is right amongst its competitors when loaded for air-to-air and will handily beat them when loaded for air to ground.

There are contradictory reports about the max non-afterburner speed of the F-35. At least one report has stated that the F-35 can sustain M1.20 on dry thrust.
[url]
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... aspx[/url]

Generally the F-35 is described as a non-supercruising aircraft. Part of the confusion likely results from different definitions of what constitutes "supercruise." The USAF defined supercruise as M1.5 on dry thrust back in the ATF days, while essentially all of the rest of the world considers supercruise to be sustained flight above M1.0.

The heat damage issue with the F-35's afterburner will be fixed.

Quote:

3. -The F-35 is incompatible with our mid flight refueling assets (CC-150 and Hercules). In fact, the Conservative Governement was willing to forgo air to air refueling for the F-35. This means that if we bought the F-35 to patrol our arctic, we would actually be unable to fly in the arctic. The Government suggested that the US (or contractors) could supply tankers when available......idiocy!
*The Eurofighter, Gripen NG, F-18 SH and Rafale can all use Canada's drogue chute style refueling.

This is not true.

The F-35 is designed to use both types of refueling. The B and C models are designed for probe style refueling while the A model is designed for boom. There is space reserved in the F-35A to add a B/C model probe. This would increase the cost of Canada's F-35's slightly but is technologically trivial to implement.

Quote:

4. -The F-35 is not suitable to landing on our Arctic runways for much of the year. There has been talk of adding drag chutes to our F-35s....but that would somewhat degrade the stealth advantage of the aircraft AND would represent further cost increases (both for the modification and operating costs...somebody has to service the chutes!).
*The F-18 SH has a robust landing gear and chute system. The Gripen NG is made to land on short runways in cold weather conditions without the need of chutes.

Also untrue. There is a chute in development for the F-35, and it does not meaningfully degrade its stealth characteristics.

See here:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/09/06/norway-funds-f-35-drag-chute-for-canada-and-the-netherlands/

Quote:

5. -The sensor advantages offered by the F-35 are not unique. The Gripen NG has AESA Radar, IRST, HMD, passive infrared sensors. The F-18 SH has AESA Radar. The Euro Fighter and Rafale will soon have AESA as well. The Rafale already has IRST. Even the 'conceptual' F-18 International Roadmap is offering IRST via drop tank integration.

Those are all types of sensors. Not all sensors are equal. It is true that each of the above fighters will have excellent all around sensor capabilities but that does not mean they are all equivalent.

Also, the fuel tank IRST for the SH is not part of the "international" roadmap. The fuel tank IRST is for US Navy SHs and is already well advanced. The proposed SH International includes an internal IRST under the nose.

Quote:

6. -Data linking of the F-35 is comparable to what is already offered by the F-18SH, Gripen NG, Euro Fighter and Rafale.

The Rafale, EF, and F-18 all use Link-16, which the F-35 will also fully support.

The F-35 will also include a next generation datalink called MADL that is designed to offer a wide range of improvements over link-16, particularly in increased bandwidth, reduced latency, and greatly improved LPI characteristics.

The Gripen NG will also support a Swedish datalink that I don't know much about.

Quote:

7. -The F-35 will likely cost ~25-40% more than the EuroFighter and Rafale. It will cost ~2X as much as the F-18SH or Gripen NG.
*In order to afford the F-35, the Conservative Government planned to reduce the munition budget from 240million to 50million......so we would have fighters but no weapons for them?!?

Pricing fighters is an extremely complex process. The F-35 will most certainly not cost 2x what the SH or Gripen will cost. The price of the F-35s coming off the production line now are greatly inflated by the current immaturity of the program. Canada will pay less because their planes will be produced later after prices have dropped.

SH prices meanwhile appear lower than they actually are because the US does not need to pay for development costs already sunk. An export buyer would be required to pick up a portion of that cost as required by US law. For a realistic look at the cost of what a new buy of SHs would cost check out what Australia paid, 2.4 billion for 24 planes. (Like Canada, Australia is a current operator of the original F-18 so this is about as good a comparison as you are likely to find.)

[url]
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... 898/[/url]

Quote:

8. -F-35 operating costs will be higher (perhaps as much as 2x) as the EuroFighter, Rafale and F-18SH. It likely cost 4x as much as the Gripen NG (Gripen is listed as the LEAST COSTLY to operate by a large margin).

Very difficult topic... the F-35 is intended to use many cost saving maintenance measures, but these have not yet been demonstrated in practice. The Gripen will likely be the cheapest option to operate, but even the US is still trying to work-out exactly what the F-35 will cost. It will be years before anyone knows for sure.

See here:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-tackles-f-35-sustainment-cost-estimates-380967/

Quote:

9. -F-35 is unable to internally operate the ramjet powered Meteor missile (the most capable Air to Air missile developed). If the F-35 were tweaked to use this missile, it would have to fly it externally (forgoing its only advantage against opponents...stealth!).
*The Gripen NG, EuroFighter and Rafale are capable of using the Meteor.

This is not true. The F-35 will be able to carry two Meteors per bay. This will require their fins to be clipped slightly in a similar manner to that done on the AMRAAM for internal carriage on the F-22.

See here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35-347416/

Quote:

10. -F-35 is unable to use Canadian arctic communication systems.
*This issue might have been resolved but would add to the costs. Need confirmation.

Not sure what you are referring to here. If it is satellite coms then they are on the F-35 roadmap.

Quote:

11. -single engined F-35 doesn't have engine redundancy. That said, there are situations where a second engine didn't prevent a crash due to one engine failing anyway. Also, engines are FAR more dependable than even a couple of decades ago. Add in the $ saved from only operating 1 engine and I am not sure that this is really a disadvantage for the F-35. But some people still like to bring it up!
*The F-18SH, Rafale and EuroFighter all have 2 engines.

Recent history has shown that twin engine jets are not appreciably safer than single engine jets. Look at what the Norwegians and Swedes fly(F-16 and Gripen) in high arctic conditions loaded with birds... and their safety record.

Quote:

12. -The industrial benefits are not as secure as what we could get from the competition. In particular, the Gripen NG would come with the most benefits by far (we could assemble the aircraft in Canada and produce some of the parts)!

If anything this is a strength of the F-35. Canada could hypothetically assemble Gripens domestically. They could do the same thing with F-35s... (Italy and Japan are) The problem is that that drives up costs. It just doesn't make financial sense.

Quote:

13. -The expeditionary logistical benefits of the F-35 aren't really all that important. To put it simply, Nato only picks fights with wimps. The only time such issues as maximizing force assets by minimizing logistical requirements would be of consequence is if we were to go to war with China/Russia/India/Packistan (capable opponents....but also countries that we are (more or less) friendly with). I can't see any realistic scenario that results in a conventional war with these countries.....

Not going to go there.

Quote:

Should also point out that the only country that can actually successfully attack and occupy canada is the US....65 F-35s would be as useful as 650 F-35s in that scenario (lol).

Not going there either, but will provide this:

Quote:

14. -For all the performance compromises required by the F-35s stealth, the aircraft can still be seen by X-band radar when not faced head on, when S-band and L-band radars are used, when IRST is used. MOST IMPORTANTLY, data linked aircraft share sensor information....so if only 1 enemy aircraft sees the F-35 from a non frontal angle, all enemy aircraft see that F-35 via shared datalink.

This is not true and/or extremely simplistic.

Consider what the development of the PAK FA, J-20, Neuron, J-31 etc say about how designers around the world view stealth.

Quote:

Also, it is FAR easier to upgrade a fighters radar system than to upgrade its stealth design/coating. The F-35 stealth advantage (which isn't as great as LM claims) could be obsolete in a few years. We would then be stuck with a useless, expensive jet for the next 20 years.

Again, inaccurate. Again, consider what the above development programs say about how designers worldwide view stealth.

Quote:

15. -Presently, the F-35 has had much of its fire suppression equipment removed in order to make weight.....certainly doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

The F-35 has fire suppression systems. Other proposed systems were omitted. Any design is a collection of trade-offs.

Quote:

If asked my humble opinion (no shortage of these here), I would say that Canada would likely be best served either by the Gripen NG or the F18 SH (international Roadmap variant).

I respect your opinion, but a great deal of what you outlined above is inaccurate. You aren't working from good information.

Quote:

Thoughts anyone?

Welcome to F-16.net. Thanks for putting such a great deal of thought and effort into your post.

ct wrote:

I've read many posts/topics by people arguing for/against a Canadian purchase of the F-35A. Most posts have good points, but only present part of the 'story'. I think a lot of this comes down to personal bias/interests. So, for your viewing (dis)pleasure, I decided to provide a comprehensive look at the suitability of the F-35A for [Link pending approval] from a technical, political AND industrial perspective.

I am going to avoid using the almost meaningless marketing terms 'fourth generation' and 'fifth generation'. I'll instead stick to real world performance and capability facts.

It seem you already made up your mind.

ct wrote:

2. -The F-35 is a bit on the slow side in both afterburner AND cruising speeds. It seems to be limited to a [Link pending approval] afterburner (and is presently prone to heat damage from prolonged afterburner usage). It's max cruising speed with light weapons load is still under the speed of sound. To compare, The EuroFighter, Gripen NG, and Rafale can all supercruise with AA configuration without drop tanks (I believe I've read that Saab is actually working on a supersonic ext fuel tank).

From "[url=[Link pending approval]]dogfight! India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision[/url]" (Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen NG were competitors)

Quote:

In fact, the Eurofighter remains the only aircraft among the MMRCA competitors to have demonstrated some sort of supercruise capability (though this capability falls far short of the sustained supercruise capability of the F-22A and the F-35).

ct wrote:

9. -F-35 is unable to internally operate the ramjet powered Meteor missile (the most capable Air to Air missile developed). If the F-35 were tweaked to use this missile, it would have to fly it externally (forgoing its only advantage against [Link pending approval]!).
*The Gripen NG, EuroFighter and Rafale are capable of using the Meteor.

The Meteor has already been checked in the internal weapon bay of the JSF, compatible in the air-to-ground station, but will require modification for the air-to-air station, which MBDA already stated they're working on it.

On Meteor - I have no idea where this comes from as Canada isn't as yet a customer for Meteor - yes, MBDA are stuck into providing a clipped fin version which will work fine but as far as Canada is concerned, no-one has asked for the missile so it's irrelevant. If they do, it'll likely fit into the internal bay as Meteor is a UK lead item and we want it on our aircraft *muchly*.

Sat Comms - sat comms is in a later block, Canada are buying an earlier block and were well aware of the requirement. It's likely they can use the F18's to cover the area required until the requisite block is delivered "virtually" with a software drop and some physical integration which will be funded by "everyone else and the Canadians"

AAR - F35A will take either refuelling system. Or both. Just tick the options box when ordering.

Speed - EF/18 as far as I know won't go supersonic with the two exterior pylons (not the wing tip ones) fitted - so F35 being able to super cruise in dry thrust after a nudge through M1 with reheat looks pretty good by comparison. It can almost certainly do it while carrying a pair of JDAM internally. Unlike everything else on the list. Tiffy, Rafale and Gripen NG all quote various supercruise claims but will be unable to do so with similar fuel loads to the F35, as they'd have to carry tanks.

Sensors - you don't mention EODAS. It's a four camera system providing 360 degree awareness, and allowing the pilot to virtually look through the bottom of the aircraft. EOTS is of course built in so no requirement for a pylon mounted solution with extra drag.

Stealth/easily breakable - yeah, absolutely, which is why the US, Russia, China and Japan (plus everyone else in the drone business) is working very hard on LO aircraft. Obviously they're all wrong.

Let's just say that the radars which can get a return off F35 can't provide a decent position to generate an intercept. Oddly, I suspect that's intentional.

Thank you for the welcome. Also thanks for clarifying some spots.

Couple of things though....

1. Are you sure that the Meteor is being adapted to the F-35 internal bay. Your link is to an article from well over 2 years ago. The recent Wiki info indicates that this modification is in limbo....

2. The supercruise possibility of the F-35 is totally new to me....but I can see how different definitions could be the reason for that.

3. The fuel ranges I've given above were from wikipedia and the official docs....they should be accurate.

I think the Canadian Conservatives tried EXTREMELY hard to force the F-35 through....but the act of suppressing the information and process = a lot of Canadians pissed off. While the F-35 finished project will probably be quite good (in spite of all the B version compromises), I don't know if Canadians will be willing to swallow the costs....at least not when far less expensive alternatives exist that provide all defense requirements.

Personally, I actually like the potential of the F-35. Especially now that I find out it is capable of higher cruise speeds than I previously understood.

I think the odds of Canada getting it are less than even.....of course, I've been wrong plenty in my life!

stobiewan wrote:

Speed - EF/18 as far as I know won't go supersonic with the two exterior pylons (not the wing tip ones) fitted - so F35 being able to super cruise in dry thrust after a nudge through M1 with reheat looks pretty good by comparison. It can almost certainly do it while carrying a pair of JDAM internally. Unlike everything else on the list. Tiffy, Rafale and Gripen NG all quote various supercruise claims but will be unable to do so with similar fuel loads to the F35, as they'd have to carry tanks.

Actually, The F/A-18F will go supersonic with external pylons and stores. The toed plyons don't help, and definitely require AB use or major dive, but it can get to around Mach 1.2 in level flight, with 2x wing tanks and 2xAIM-120s plyons, with 2xAIM-9 on rails. That said, I will concede an F-35 with internal AIM-120s and AIM-9s would have an easier time supersonic.

stobiewan wrote:

Sensors - you don't mention EODAS. It's a four camera system providing 360 degree awareness, and allowing the pilot to virtually look through the bottom of the aircraft. EOTS is of course built in so no requirement for a pylon mounted solution with extra drag.

I thought it was 6 cameras for EODAS on the F-35. I agree with the general point though. EODAS is a major advantage for detecting enemy fighters, stealth or not.

ct wrote:

the US (or contractors) could supply tankers when available......idiocy!

You are aware that the United States already provides such service yes? Or are you one of those people that believes that Canada ceased its Northern patrols when it sent both its Polaris tankers to Libya in 2011? Even before that of course the US provided refueling for years.

Quote:

The Gripen NG advantages:
-most cost effective jet to purchase AND operate
-proven cold weather performance
-proven short runway operations
-the best industrial benefit package out of all the competition

What is your source for all of this? SAAB has already offered industrial benefits?

ct wrote:

, I don't know if Canadians will be willing to swallow the costs....at least not when far less expensive alternatives exist that provide all defense requirements.

Such as?

Okay, why does the F-35A have a shorter "range" than the F-18 (2346 km vs 2220 km) but a longer "combat radius" (1082 km vs 722 km)?

count_to_10 wrote:

Okay, why does the F-35A have a shorter "range" than the F-18 (2346 km vs 2220 km) but a longer "combat radius" (1082 km vs 722 km)?

Probably because he only counted F-35A internal range, because apparently, the external tanks are not stealth. This will almost certainly change soon, and stealth tanks will be available.

As for combat radius being longer, but range not.. no idea.

ct wrote:

3. -The F-35 is incompatible with our mid flight refueling assets (CC-150 and Hercules). In fact, the Conservative Governement was willing to forgo air to air refueling for the F-35. This means that if we bought the F-35 to patrol our arctic, we would actually be unable to fly in the arctic. The Government suggested that the US (or contractors) could supply tankers when available......idiocy!

Completely and utterly untrue.The US government already supplies all our northern refueling operations and probably have for the past 15 years. We actually never have had the ability to refuel in the north in the fashion you claim. The CC-150 can't even fly in the north as is (it won't be able to until a new set of upgrades are complete in 2014). In reality going to Boom makes it easier for the US government to refuel our assets.

Also, note that the CC-130H(T) and the CC-150(T) won't be in service past 2020ish... necessitating the purchase of a new tanker aircraft regardless of what we chose.

ct wrote:

1. Are you sure that the Meteor is being adapted to the F-35 internal bay. Your link is to an article from well over 2 years ago. The recent Wiki info indicates that this modification is in limbo....

I'm not sure why you're so focused on the meteor, when the AMRAAM is a very good system that is continually being upgraded (now into the D version). Unless you want to explain to us why the Meteor is a much better choice than the Aim-120D and we should convert to a different missile than the one we currently use.

ct wrote:

4. -The F-35 is not suitable to landing on our Arctic runways for much of the year. There has been talk of adding drag chutes to our F-35s....but that would somewhat degrade the stealth advantage of the aircraft AND would represent further cost increases (both for the modification and operating costs...somebody has to service the chutes!).
*The F-18 SH has a robust landing gear and chute system. The Gripen NG is made to land on short runways in cold weather conditions without the need of chutes.

IF that's the case then both the USAF (with its key Alaskan bases) and the Norwegians are really in trouble. In reality Norwegians are fully funding the chute themselves.

ct wrote:

3. The fuel ranges I've given above were from wikipedia and the official docs....they should be accurate.

They are not... or at least they are not an apples to apples. For a Canadian purposes, a long range intercept combat radius would be 650nm for the CF-18, 750nm for an F/A-18E with three tanks and two winders on the wings, and 750nm+ with the F-35.

The reason why we're not sure about the F-35A is that the figures haven't been publicly released. The best guess we have is the KPP, where the lightning has 584nm. However that's with 4000lbs of internal ordnance which would not be carried for such a mission, and utilizing a high-med-high flight profile. Also, the KPP figures apparently are based on end of life engines, not new build ones. Remove these figures, and the F-35 should have easily 320 extra nautical miles to bring it above the Super Hornet.

Canadian analysis around 2010 basically found the F-35 was significantly better than the CF-18 and close to, if not better than, the F/A-18E for such an operation. That is also without drop tanks, which should be online in 2020 (at least the Israeli version.)

ct wrote:

I think the Canadian Conservatives tried EXTREMELY hard to force the F-35 through....but the act of suppressing the information and process = a lot of Canadians pissed off. While the F-35 finished project will probably be quite good (in spite of all the B version compromises), I don't know if Canadians will be willing to swallow the costs....at least not when far less expensive alternatives exist that provide all defense requirements.

There are no "less expensive alternatives." The Super Hornet is marginally more expensive at $90 million flyaway now over $85 million for the F-35 in 2020. Really the only political controversy is that created by the Political opposition over an public who has no understanding about these issues at all.

ct wrote:

I think the odds of Canada getting it are less than even.....of course, I've been wrong plenty in my life!

Actually given the price differential, I suspect its very very likely they go with the F-35.

neurotech wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

Okay, why does the F-35A have a shorter "range" than the F-18 (2346 km vs 2220 km) but a longer "combat radius" (1082 km vs 722 km)?

Probably because he only counted F-35A internal range, because apparently, the external tanks are not stealth. This will almost certainly change soon, and stealth tanks will be available.

As for combat radius being longer, but range not.. no idea.

Granted, those are only the claims of Wikipedia, but one presumes that the information had to come somewhere, and it implies either misinformation or some kind of inconsistent definition.

Last edited by ct on Jan 28, 2013 - 03:42 AM; edited 1 time in total

The flight ranges I gave for the F-35 and alternative fighters were all 'one way' and without external tanks. I was comparing apples to apples. Double checking this, I found that the EuroFighter, Rafale and Gripen NG info was correct, but could not confirm that the figure given for the F18SH was without external fuel.

Anybody have info on this?

Hb pencil claims that the 584nm range given for the F-35A was with a heavy weapon loadout....anybody got any links to back this up? If this is true, then that would certainly change things.

For f414/euro/gripenng/sbug, I was going to find the link for Saab's industrial benefit offer.....but found it was actually a link to a link to a Gripen Fanboy opinion. Damn, I really hate to misinform....sorry guys!

Speaking of Gripens, seems that the price on the Gripen NG is higher than expected (in the 85 million range). What is the F-35 at now? Somewhere around 145+ million, right? That definitely isn't half the price of an F-35 as claimed by Gripen Fanboys.

As for the US already supplying most of our tanker refueling....this blows my mind. IF this is true, then I could understand the advantages of going with the boom type system on the F-35A. Kind of makes sense buying American since the Americans are in return helping us out.....

Did all your ranges include weapons?

The KPP for the F-35A with 2vAMRAAMs and 2x2k JDAMs is where the 584nm comes from.

Last edited by ct on Jan 28, 2013 - 04:38 AM; edited 1 time in total

Ranges for Gripen NG, Euro and Rafale only give internal fuel ranges. None detailed if there were weapons attached....

F-35A range of 584nm is given with internal fuel and weapons load....

F-18SH given range doesn't say if external tanks or weapons are present.

Forum: Program and politics

F-35 for Canada: Advantages vs Disadvantages