Main page

As some of you may know, Canada is finally getting around to replace their 80 CF-18's with 65 new F-35's (the A variant). I am wondering if this is really the best fighter for Canada. One of the large concerns I have with it is the fact we are replacing 80 with 65, a twin engine plan with a single engine one, and a longer range jet with a shorter one.

In addition, Canada most pressing security issue comes from the north, involving the northwest passage and the north. A plane that is most likely less capable in these conditions may prove to be problem.

The F-35 is horribly overpriced, is not very stealthy, can't supercruise, unagile, limited payload and short ranged.
And it is unlikely to be available till at least 2018.

F-18 E/F would be a more logical choice for Canada, being much the same plane as older F-18s (only better), allowing for a much easier transition to the new plane.
It isn't stealthy, but neither is the F-35 to be honest.
It can't supercruise either, but range and payload are improved over older F-18s, which would be pretty useful for Canada.

Eurofighter would be even better, as it can supercruise, but I suspect Canada would almost always go for a US plane if given a choice (due to corporate lobbying).

Only other alternative I could think of is new build F-15E Strike Eagle.


Australia is planning to purchase the F-35A aswell, and has similar requirements to Canada, with large amounts of relatively remote territory and oceans to protect.
Australia has purchased a number of F-18F due to the F-35 being constantly delayed. Hopefully the Australian Government will realise how crap the F-35 is and just buy more Superhornets.

Overpriced.  We'd be better of with the Typhoon or SuperHornet in my opinion.

Zergling, on Oct 18 2011 - 06:20, said:

I've done some research on the F-35 and its main role is for stealth, but it is expensive.  Not sure witch variant the are getting, but one of then is VTOL capable, that's a bonus.  And the F-35's payload isn't bad, its max takeoff is 70000 lb, but the FA-18s' max is 36,700lb.  F-35s' range is 2,220 km on internal fuel, its maximum speed is 1200 mph, or mach 1.6.  It seems like a pretty good jet to me, if a bit expensive. I must admit that the FA-18 looks cooler though.

David_90539, on Oct 18 2011 - 23:39, said:

We are getting the F-35A.

The F-35B is actually a downgrade compared to the F-35A, as it has a much shorter range.
The CF-18's max takeoff weight is actually 51550 lb, and its range on internal fuel is 3330 km.
The Superhornet flyaway cost actually costs less than that of a F-35 without its engine is "supposed to" cost.

There is no doubt that we need a new fighter, it is just that the Superhornet, especially the international roadmap variant coming into being. With a longer range than the current superhornet, more thrust, a stealthy weapons pod, along with a number of other features.


The other sad thing is it might not be as stealthy as the F-35 was let on to be.

David_90539, on Oct 18 2011 - 23:39, said:

The F-35 isn't very stealthy. It is optimised against narrowband anti-air fire-control radars. Against air-search radars, it is significantly less stealthy.
And this is only from the frontal aspect; from the sides and rear, it isn't stealthy at all.

Max payload:

F-18C = 7,030 kg
F-18E = 8,050 kg
F-15E = 11,115 kg
Eurofighter = 6,500 kg
F-35A = 5,895 kg

Stores hardpoints:

F-18C = 7 external, 2 wingtip rails
F-18E = 9 external, 2 wingtip rails
F-15E = 13 external
Eurofighter = 13 external
F-35A = 4 internal, 7 external

Note that the F-35 can only carry air-to-ground munitions internally in two of the bays; it can only carry air-to-air missiles in the others.
Likewise, 2 external hardpoints are (probably) only capable of carrying AAMs.

A typical 'stealth' loadout for the F-35 would be 2 Sidewinders or AMRAAMs, plus 2 JDAMs. To compete in payload with other planes, it has to sacrifice stealth and range by carrying external stores, in which case range would be about equal.


Internal fuel:

F-18C = 4,925 kg
F-18E = 6,530 kg
F-15E = 5,952 kg
Eurofighter = 4,000 kg
F-35A = 8,390 kg

Combat Range:

F-18C = 2,130 km
F-18E = 2,225 km
F-15E = 2,540 km
Eurofighter = 2,778 km
F-35A = 2,160 km

Range for F-18, F-15 and Eurofighter is with external fuel; range for the F-35A is for internal payload; 2 AAMs and 2 air-to-ground weapons.
External payload would sacrifice range unless external fuel tanks are used.


Typical payload for the above combat ranges:

F-18C = 2-4 AAMs, 5-7 air-to-ground bombs, missiles or other ordanance, 2 fuel tanks
F-18E = 2-4 AAMs, 7-9 air-to-ground bombs, missiles or other ordanance, 2 fuel tanks
F-15E = 4 AAMs, 7 air-to-ground bombs, missiles or other ordanance, 2 fuel tanks
Eurofighter = 2-4 AAMs, 7-9 air-to-ground bombs, missiles or other ordanance, 2 fuel tanks

F-35A stealth internal only payload = 2 AAMs, 2 air-to-ground bombs, missiles or other ordanance
F-35A external payload = 4 AAMs, 5 air-to-ground bombs, missiles or other ordanance, 2 fuel tanks

Honestly, the 35's a pig.  Performance wise, its not any better than the latest Block 52/60 F-16's, and costs 3x as much. For that kind of scratch, everyone would be better off buying F-22'. . . .

Agree that our government should look at other alternatives other than the F-35. Superhonets may be a more economic choice for similar gain, and even F-15E's would probably be a great idea. I actually wonder why we never bought F-15s in the first place.

Non-US althernatives are probably limited to the Eurofighter. Not like Russia's going to sell us MiGs or Sukhois, or that we'd want them.

Krazny13, on Oct 20 2011 - 17:26, said:

Sadly the F-22 has very limited ground attack capabilities, and its stealth technology can be fickle at best (a heavy rain can ground the planes). For a country like Canada relying solely on F-22's would be a mistake. If you can get a few Superhornets to supplement them however....

Dominatus, on Oct 20 2011 - 22:52, said:

If we asked Russia, they may sell us them, but realistically it would not be a good decision. Canada and Russia are both "interested" in the arctic. Buying planes from them would cause us to have to rely on them, with the chance of using this reliance against us. In addition a company like Boeing offered to have the superhornets almost entirely made in Canada to help local economies out.

Plus I doubt the US would respond favorably to it.

Another reason not to buy these, or at least make them compete for the contract:

http://www.thestar.c...-in-arctic?bn=1

So our pilots won't be able to communicate?  Greaaaaat choice there Mr. Harper.

Not a fan of sole-source bids.

Open-tender the contract.

Ogopogo, on Oct 21 2011 - 01:15, said:

Its got a respectable payload, 8-12 SDB's plus 4 internal AIM-9's.  Plus longer range, better stealth and maneuverability, and the redundancy of a second engine.  And supposedly, a lot of the F35's ground attack SW can be easily adapted for the Raptor.

Sounds like it's time to revive the YF-23, Never understood why it lost out to the F-22A even though the latter is still a great plane.

Ok, I went ahead and voted no, Ogopogo.  Here's why...

Riddle me this: Why would Canada need a strike fighter with stealth characteristics? Short answer is Canada has no real use for it. After all, whens the last time the AF actually had to operate against an opponent with a good enough air force and air defense system that stealth features would justify the increased cost?  Combine this with the CAF and the USAF being all BFF with each other, it simply makes more sense to let us handle the increased expense (and really, we don't even need this crap except for a very narrow range of applications).  

While I'm thinking about cost, you guys could get brand new F-15Es for less money then the F-35 will cost (Current projections put the F-35A's fly-away somewhere between $122m-$135m US, and the program isn't even out of development hell yet), and if you really had to have stealth features I'm pretty sure you could talk us into selling you F-15SE (hell, we're selling a lot of the components to the South Koreans already and we're in talks with Israel to sell to them). In both cases you're end up with a much more capable aircraft than your current batch of F-18s or any future variant of the Hornet, as well as having better range, speed, and payload of any of the F-35 variants.  

Honestly I'm seriously wondering why the hell my country is still even bothering with the F-35 program.  The F-22 can handle the SEAD mission just fine, it's a much, much better fighter, and it's already in production (and if the F-35's cost overruns continue it'll be cheaper then the F-35 as well, thus negating the big talking point for procuring the F-35 in the first place).  The F-15's a better PGM truck with the bonus of being one hell of a fighter and it costs far less then the F-35 will.  At this point the only reason I can see for the F-35 program still continuing is sheer political and bureaucratic inertia.

Mechanize, on Oct 25 2011 - 07:55, said:

It cost more at the time, that's why.

Quote

More or less,

I would've preferred we bought either the Super-hornets or the Stealth Eagles, or even something non-American. The F-35 just screams of being a pork-barrel contract to me.

AngusMcAWESOME, on Oct 29 2011 - 00:38, said:

I'm wondering why Australia is still interested in it aswell. In terms of need for range and payload, Australia has similar needs to Canada, but in Australia's case, the strategic situation is even less likely to result in a shooting war within the next several decades.

AngusMcAWESOME, on Oct 29 2011 - 00:38, said:

Nailed it right on the head.

I'm pretty sick and tired over non-experts considering that the airforce is a bunch of stupid, and also undeserving recipients of the best tool for the job.

I suppose that you all who disagree with the F-35 hated it when we purchased Leopard 2's to replace the Leopard 1's for the Afghanistan mission?

1. The F-35 is the only true gen-5 plane available to the RCAF at this time.
2. Canada has been involved in the program from the beginning. The program spin-offs for maintenance and parts production will be significant.
3. The airforce deserves the best plane it can afford, not some 70's/80's design update.
4. The performance of the F-35 is not an issue for the north. It will perform better than the CF-18, or any other previous generation fighter in all of the roles in which it must undertake.

Ask the RCAF what they want to fly. They'll tell you the F-22 or the F-35. The F-22 isn't available.

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

The problem is that the F-35 is inconsistent with some of the fifth generation specifications. Fifth generation fighters are not a true 1-up like previous generations of fighters. They are outliers, and are not a linear evolution. The United states navy has labeled the super hornet a fifth generation, and the international road map version certainly even closer to the fifth generation features.

International road map superhornet

The other thing is Canada does not really need a fifth generation fighter.

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

Other companies have offered to build the planes entirely in Canada, not just parts and bits, as well as allowing Canada to have access to the software required to update the software in the F-35's (we will have to bring our F-35's to the US for software updates).

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

The best plane on a unit by unit basis is different then the best plane for the country and for the price.

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

Oh really?

cbc said:

Also, stealth technology has always been very temperamental, a feature that causes F-22's often to be hanger queens. While the f-35 stealth technology will be improved, the harshness of the arctic is much greater than those towards the border.

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

Source?

Attrition rate could prove an issue

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

Nope, Leo 2 is a fine tank. Not quite sure why Canada needs tanks though, at least for anti-insurgency missions where enemy armor threat doesn't exist.

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

Aircraft 'generation' labeling is rather vague and open to interpretation. In terms of actual performance, the F-35 is more of a Gen 4 with the addition of highly limited stealth.

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

Those '70's/80's design updates' are cheaper than the F-35, and in all practical respects, have superior performance.

DV_Currie_VC, on Oct 31 2011 - 20:52, said:

False; F-35 is clearly inferior in performance to other aircraft mentioned above.