Canada's next Jet Fighter?

[Sea Toby]

Too expensive from scratch but if we build the Gripen NG in Canada then we will develop all those industries for next time.

What happened to layered defence anyway? I said in another blog we should have 80 Gripen NGs to defend Canada and if the CF really want stealth for third world adventures / layered defence they can buy 15 or 20 F-22s. This single platform thing everyone seems to be into these days locks everyone into a jack-of-all-traits, master of none situation.

Gripens to defend Canada and F-22s to blow up third world country radar installations. Or how about just Gripens and our international fighter obligations won't be performing front line door crashing roles.

Isn't Canada a member of NATO and the UN? F-22s are no longer under production, so how can Canada buy any new builds? Have you priced Gripens? Have you priced F-22s?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y44lftPGWvM"]F-35 Experience - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[StobieWan]

Well, Gripen NG's price tag isn't very far shy of the UFR average price for the F35, hence a few of the comments about Future Fleet being on a short leash. Twenty minutes reading the F35 thread on this very forum would have answered a lot of the questions raised here.

 

[Bonza]

Well, Gripen NG's price tag isn't very far shy of the UFR average price for the F35, hence a few of the comments about Future Fleet being on a short leash. Twenty minutes reading the F35 thread on this very forum would have answered a lot of the questions raised here.

In addition to the simple sanity check that the F-22 production lined is closed, and the F-22 is not being offered for export to anywhere - thus the idea that Canada buying "15-20" of them as some kind of cure-all is bloody ridiculous, and could have been proved as such with, as you suggest, a little bit of reading.

 

[alexsa]

Or they could contract APA to do a CF-105S for them, just imagine it the Super Arrow slaying SU-25s left right and center while delivering PGMs against hardened defended targets. The USAF will probably order it to replace the F-22.

Great idea, I can just seen Mr goon salavating over all the spare parts in the bone yard that could be adapted and used for this project................. just the way he did in "pigs forever" in Australian Aviation.

Systems intergretion would not be an issue either ................. just ask them, its just every other company that struggles with this.

Off topic

"Pigs forever" would be a great title for a book describing the history and the work of APA. The associated picture to go along with this would be the one of the ex RAAF airframes being buried by a bull dozer.

 

[ADMk2]

Great idea, I can just seen Mr goon salavating over all the spare parts in the bone yard that could be adapted and used for this project................. just the way he did in "pigs forever" in Australian Aviation.

Systems intergretion would not be an issue either ................. just ask them, its just every other company that struggles with this.

Off topic

"Pigs forever" would be a great title for a book describing the history and the work of APA. The associated picture to go along with this would be the one of the ex RAAF airframes being buried by a bull dozer.

Or my preference, "Pigs might fly" the "illustrious" history of Air Power Australia...

 

[StobieWan]

See, now I've got this mental image of a moonlit scene of an F111 arising from the grave with an unearthly howl....

Shoulda used silver bulldozer blades...

 

[Haavarla]

Back to topic.
Will Canada follow suite and delay the decission on F-35, or not?

Australia to push back F-35 decision by two years

Its seems to me that Canada cannot follow the same time table as RAAF.
More likely Canada has to take Norway approach to get an life extension upgrade on its existing fleet and perhaps even accellerate the F-35 decission and proccurment date..

 

[Future Fleet]

StobieWan, not sure why you think the Gripen and F-35 have similar price points. The Gripen has very low flight hour costs.

F-35 cost alone = 195 mil. Combat Range = 581nmi
Gripen NG cost with all lifetime maintenance and training = 114 mil. Combat Range = 810nmi

Gripen NG getting AESA and a load of other upgrades.

F-35 now limited to Mach 1 as wings have a design flaw - they bubble at high speeds. The Gripen can supercruise up to at least Mach 1.2 with top of Mach 2

The F-35 is not turning out to be the plane many hoped.

I know many love stealth but as someone else said new tech will come along making it obsolete and I imagine steath tech isn't easy to upgrade as it is built into the design of the plane. Aircraft advantages will be found in their electronics platforms not airframe design features in the long run. Their ability / ease to be upgraded with new sensors, computers and weapon systems will count for much more in their service life than a little stealth does now. The Gripen is cost effective and patently upgradable, and its wings don't melt.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Future Fleet, this is a last attempt to try and get you to work out how to engage and respond approp in your posts.

Unfortunately, the style of your engagement and your style of posting is making you look like a troll

That may not be the case, and there is a willingess to see you counter that view, but you need to lift your game really quickly

I suggest that you go back and start injecting some quality and brevity into your posts before the patience of the Mods runs out.

Your last para for example is replete with errors

This is your opportunity to fix it (the entire post) as in its current form it will not last.

Pause, think, edit.

Everyone in here gets a chance. take advantage of the opportunity.

 

[Cadredave]

I know many love stealth but as someone else said new tech will come along making it obsolete and I imagine steath tech isn't easy to upgrade as it is built into the design of the plane.

First you need to read the following to understand LO/VLO:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/brief-history-lo-10856/

Aircraft advantages will be found in their electronics platforms not airframe design features in the long run. Their ability / ease to be upgraded with new sensors, computers and weapon systems will count for much more in their service life than a little stealth does now.

So what do the following on the F35 provide, LO, EO DAS? these are the systems that will be upgraded much more easily than Gripen NG your comparing apples with oranges also take a look at this:

F-35 problems on their way to being fixed

enough said CD

 

[colay]

The F-35's design strategy ensures that as the functionality of the systems software is upgraded over time, the hardware will undergo scheduled tech refreshes to support the more complicated code. Future-proofing the jet in this manner best ensures that it will remain relevant and responsive to future challenges.

The F-35 With Software Upgradeability Built In | SLDInfo

The F-35 With Software Upgradeability Built In
...
System software will be upgraded over time through a block process. Each block represents the most mature capability for the aircraft at the time of release. The aircraft is combat ready beginning with Block 2. In a real sense, the software will never be finished on the F-35. As new code is written and capability refreshes are completed, the F-35 software will evolve over time to further enhance the aircraft’s performance.

The airplane was designed with technical refreshes in mind, the program knew they would want to upgrade the hardware and software along the way, even in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the program. The technical refreshes are primarily hardware and do not necessarily affect the software. By refreshing the hardware we gain processing reserve in advance of future software. With each block, new capability is added to the foundational software from the previous block..

 

[ADMk2]

StobieWan, not sure why you think the Gripen and F-35 have similar price points. The Gripen has very low flight hour costs.

F-35 cost alone = 195 mil. Combat Range = 581nmi
Gripen NG cost with all lifetime maintenance and training = 114 mil. Combat Range = 810nmi?

Completely wrong. Remember that whole discussion about contract prices?

Gripen NG getting AESA and a load of other upgrades.

Wow. This should mean it is then roughly equivalent to the capability radar-wise that the Super Hornet and F-15C had in 2006?

Excellent achievement there old boy...

F-35 now limited to Mach 1 as wings have a design flaw - they bubble at high speeds. The Gripen can supercruise up to at least Mach 1.2 with top of Mach 2

Completely wrong, AGAIN. F-35 was experiencing buffeting when passing through the transonic flight regime, a common issue with twin vertical tail fighters and it experienced an issue where in reheat parts of the aircraft behind the exhaust were getting scorched from the heat of the engine.

Neither related to the "wings". The buffeting effected the tail fins and I'm sure even you can work out that the wings are in front of the engine exhaust on most aircraft...

This temporarily limited the TEST fleet to Mach 1, something which has passed. F-35B &C has been cleared up to Mach 1.4 now and 49,000 feet. F-35A is cleared up to Mach 1.6 and 45,000 feet so far.

As to "supercruising" at Mach 1.2, that is hilarious. That is still transonic for a lot of aircraft (transonic for your benefit is the situation where not all the airflow over an airframe is supersonic, some is still subsonic. Only when ALL the airflow over an airframe is supersonic is an aircraft truly flying at supersonic speed).

In addition what the Gripen Demo has to do, is use reheat to get past the Mach (M1.0) and then throttle back to mil-power to "supercruise". Again and until any can show the results of testing that proves Gripen is completely supersonic at Mach1.2, the claim of "supersonic cruising" is meaningless.

If you think that capability is worth boasting about, then you better boast about the F-16 and F/A-18 too. Both of them can do the same thing...

The F-35 is not turning out to be the plane many hoped.

On the contrary, despite the massive negative reporting, the "issues" with the F -35 are proving far less serious than many like you had hoped. All of the issues are clearly being addressed and solved given the excellent momentum of the program.

The F-35 is rapidly moving towards doing everything it was expect to do.

I know many love stealth but as someone else said new tech will come along making it obsolete and I imagine steath tech isn't easy to upgrade as it is built into the design of the plane. Aircraft advantages will be found in their electronics platforms not airframe design features in the long run. Their ability / ease to be upgraded with new sensors, computers and weapon systems will count for much more in their service life than a little stealth does now. The Gripen is cost effective and patently upgradable, and its wings don't melt.

Honestly, can you even read beyond a "cat in the hat" level? Can you look at a picture and derive any comprehension of it's meaning? The F-35's engine is BEHIND it's wings. How on earth could it's "wings" possibly have "melted"?

 

[SpudmanWP]

F-35 cost alone = 195 mil. Combat Range = 581nmi

Latest budget says $118 and the range is 610nm and that is just for the 19 built in 2013. Going forward it drops to 112,101,92,88 in 2014-2017.

Gripen NG cost with all lifetime maintenance and training = 114 mil. Combat Range = 810nmi

Credible source please

Gripen NG getting AESA and a load of other upgrades.

F-35 already has AESA and all the rest, no new upgrades development needed.

F-35 now limited to Mach 1 as wings have a design flaw - they bubble at high speeds. The Gripen can supercruise up to at least Mach 1.2 with top of Mach 2

It was not the wing, but a small part of the inner horizontal stabilizer. Solution already in the works (if not already being produced). The reason that M1.6 is the F-35's upper operational goal is that no US figher has gone higher (even if it could) while carrying weapons in combat in recent history. The NG claim of M2 is most likely clean which has ZERO combat relevance.

Besides, the NG is a paper plane for the most part and has yet to "demonstrate" anything.

The F-35 is not turning out to be the plane many hoped.

Many hoped it would fail.. to bad it is succeeding

I know many love stealth but as someone else said new tech will come along making it obsolete

Really, you're going with "someone else said"?

Aircraft advantages will be found in their electronics platforms not airframe design features in the long run.

You have that one right, for the most part. Which do you think will be able to take advantage of sensors and data: The one that will be built in the thousands, whose data is fully integrated at the hardware level, has an easily upgradeable ICP, can share data without fear of detection, has a planed & paid for development cycle that will produce upgrades every 2-3 years, and can mount new weapons without the need to reprogram the software.... or the one built with less than 100, whose datalinks will give it's position away, and who would be lucky to get upgrades once a decade?

 

[StobieWan]

StobieWan, not sure why you think the Gripen and F-35 have similar price points.

Possibly because I've taken the time to read the F35 thread and take advantage of the solid input from a number of members who do work in the industry?

LRIP for an F35A is near $115-120 m from memory, Canada and Australia are both expecting to pay an average of $68m per copy over the projected buy. There's no way anyone is paying $195m for an F35A when in full rate production.

Against that, Gripen NG doesn't exist as a production item. You're comparing a real aircraft with a working production line vs a power point presentation and a mocked up Gripen NG demonstrator.

Basically, you're either trolling or failing to read the sources presented.

 

[the road runner]

The F-35 is rapidly moving towards doing everything it was expect to do.

Think that's the reason why more punters are coming out of the wood work to bash JSF.The closer we get to full rate production the louder the critics will yell.

For anyone who missed JSF APG-81 ASEA radar,and the workings of it. Here it is.

APG-81 Radar Video

As an Australian im very happy we chose JSF that will be built in numbers of 2800-3000+ A/C.That alone ensures us a cheaper thru life A/C,while not having to go out on our own and pay for costly upgrades.The upgrade path "costs",will be shared with a number of partner nations.

UK,USA,Australia,Canada,Norway,Denmark,Italy,Turkey,Netherlands are Partner nations,

Singapore,Japan and Israel all choose JSF.

And people think this is a dud ahahahhahaha

 

[Future Fleet]

So many to respond to. Here it goes:


Source on the downgraded performance requirements:

Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements



"F-35 already has AESA and all the rest, no new upgrades development needed."

No kidding, point was both these aircraft are platforms which have systems that can be upgraded, the cost effective platform then wins was the logic behind that.


"Really, you're going with "someone else said"?"

It was a post on this blog, and he was admonished by another who claimed that the technology is always a back and forth game which is true.


"You have that one right, for the most part. Which do you think will be able to take advantage of sensors and data: The one that will be built in the thousands, whose data is fully integrated at the hardware level, has an easily upgradeable ICP, can share data without fear of detection, has a planed & paid for development cycle that will produce upgrades every 2-3 years, and can mount new weapons without the need to reprogram the software.... or the one built with less than 100, whose datalinks will give it's position away, and who would be lucky to get upgrades once a decade?"

Point taken, the F-35 should have more upgrades in theory.

I am not "pro" Gripen or "anti" F-35. I am not emotionally attached to an aircraft, only irrational people do this, then they get tunnel vision. As a pilot I will say Canada should have an aircraft that can effectively do its job and be efficient enough to be able to afford to fly it. We are not a country knowing for our ability to fund the proper maintenance of expensive military equipment.

Sorry moderator, I'm sure I've done something wrong again so I'll voluntarily leave this blog. Goodnight and good luck.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements

You missed the details from that report.

Sources familiar with the changes, however, said the JROC -- which also includes the service vice chiefs of staff -- agreed to adjust the "ground rules and assumptions" underlying the F-35A's 590-nautical-mile, combat-radius KPP.

Last April, the Pentagon reported to Congress in a selected acquisition report that "based on updated estimate of engine bleed," the F-35A would have a combat radius of 584 nautical miles, below its threshold -- set in 2002 -- of 590 nautical miles.


To extend the F-35A's combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement.

Basically what happened is that they discovered that when they estimated the F-35's range it would have come out to 584nm. They decided to apply the SAME assumptions to the F-35A that they were using for the F-35B/C. When they did this, it came out to 613nm.

Point taken, the F-35 should have more upgrades in theory.

Not "in theory", but currently funded fact. It's happening now as Blk 4 is already being worked on.

Sorry moderator, I'm sure I've done something wrong again so I'll voluntarily leave this blog. Goodnight and good luck.

You have done nothing seriously wrong and should not leave. We welcome "informed" debate and all points of view.

Stick around, it's just getting fun

 

[Zhaow]

Now if the F-35 is going to cost Canada too much money and have to wait to long for one. Why are they waiting for the F-35, when they should have gotten something as a in-between. Such as F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets because of their experience with their current Hornet fleet.

I think in Canada's best interest, they should have gotten the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, while waiting for the F-35. The other option would been to go for the JAS-39 Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon, The French Rafale or the variation of the F-15 Strike Eagle such as the F-15E, F-15I, F-15S, F-15SE & F-15SG. It would give Canada something to build on while waiting for the F-35 to develop and go into production.

 

[Future Fleet]

The US Navy is now building a naval laser to mount on its ships that can intercept aircraft and missiles. When potential enemies start building there own in a few years what will this mean for the F-35 and other strike aircraft? They will become very expensive domestic patrol aircraft and limited to third world attack duties. Can't beat a line of sight weapon that travels at the speed of light.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The US Navy is now building a naval laser to mount on its ships that can intercept aircraft and missiles. When potential enemies start building there own in a few years what will this mean for the F-35 and other strike aircraft? They will become very expensive domestic patrol aircraft and limited to third world attack duties. Can't beat a line of sight weapon that travels at the speed of light.

It would launch from outside the detection range of whatever ship had the laser.