Latest Russian fighter demo

[Gman]

Your airspace is about 1/100th of what ours is, we have to fly much, much father to intercept threats over the Northern areas.  The F35 is a much easier sell for you than us.  I agree with your country and your argument about choice, it's pretty much the same we were left with, and the only reason the RCAF pulled out of the F35 deal was it was a hot debate during the elections, so the current ruling gov't yanked the sale in order to gain points, although they said it was due to capability vs $, which is a fair enough argument as well.  That said, the F35 has nowhere near the range required for long range patrols and interceptions that are part and parcel to the Norad agreement.  Considering it's patrol a/c and long range bombers typically being intercepted, if the F35 had superb range, it not being the top of the food chain in a2a maneuverability and speed wouldn't be quite as critical, but the range is no better, perhaps worse, than our current fighter.  That and being single engined in a very sparsely populated northern area with few runways about, having twin engines is a pretty important factor, much like it is in the Navy, but it's trees you splash into, not seawater if your single engine fails in our case.

For a European military, I'd say the Gripen may actually be the best fighter out there right now.

My high school friend I mentioned, Jason "Fudge" Paquin, flew it a lot in the Empire test school, and then on some ex's with a NATO member country's air force.  He loved it, and although it isn't the absolute best at anything, it was great at everything, and most of all had great sortie generation rates - ie compared to the CF18 he flew, he estimated that the Grippen could generate about 1.5 as many mission sorties with the same ground crews in the RCAF right now.  That's a big deal, it's like having half again as many fighters in a time of war as he explains it.  It's comparatively cheap as well.  Again though, single engine, and pretty short range.  It's great for European countries where you can barely turn around at 500 kts within their borders, but over here, where our country can fit multiple Europes within its borders, we NEED range, and prefer twin engines.

[Tr1gg22]

 

[GScholz]

Gman, while the size of the area we need to defend may be larger than you think (larger than the whole of Europe), I agree that it isn't nearly as large as Canada. What fighter do you use now that fits your requirements?

[GScholz]

The Eurofighter Typhoon.

The Eurofighter is more expensive than the F-35, has no stealth, and has shorter range.

[GScholz]

For a European military, I'd say the Gripen may actually be the best fighter out there right now.

It's a very nice 4th generation fighter, and in the end it was the Gripen and the F-35 that were the most competitive choices. However, without stealth the Gripen isn't much better than the upgraded F-16 we currently operate, and it isn't much cheaper than the F-35 either. Also range was an issue; the Gripen is short-legged.

[Dichotomy]

Some consider my background to qualify as "expertise", and I'm convinced that the F-35 is a lemon, and badly overpriced at that.  I like the F-22, and both the maintenance problems and high price of the F-22 can be blamed on the small production numbers.  The F-35, if only 200-300 were built, would cost 2-3 times what an F-22 costs, and it is only front-quarter stealthy.

I've spoken to folks who have flown in and against the F-22 and every one of them say it is "for real", a true air dominance fighter.  I don't know anyone who says the F-35 will be the best at anything.  My 2 main gripes about the F-35 are the fact that its a stealthy F-16 at 4x the cost, and the fact that many very very good and cost effective and combat-proven programs have been cancelled outright in order to funnel more money into the F-35 program, on completely baseless promises that the F-35 will be an effective replacement for a half dozen outstanding aircraft, none of whose roles can actually be filled by the F-35.

Anyone going against the F-35 in the future is gonna run them out of gas, run them out of missiles, then shoot them in their non-stealthy a$z when they run away at, what.. mach 1.4 (maybe on a good day) until they flame out from lack of fuel?  Eagle drivers learn rather quickly how to win "most of the time" against vipers.  Out stick them, out-defend them, run them out of amraams and fuel.  At half the cost we could have new build F-15s with the most advanced AESA radars and integrated systems carrying 10 missiles and 18,000 lbs of weapons, against the F-35's 4 missiles and 4000 lbs of bombs.

Yes, the defense industry needs to have *something* to design/build or it will wither and die.  This is a national defense issue over the long term.  But joint fighter programs ALWAYS suck.  Rand corporation actually just published a major study on joint procurement programs, proving this.

And that gentlemen is the opinion of someone I always listen to.  Because he's been there and done that.  (still a fan of the Falcon though because I built them back in the day)

[colmbo]

Nice RC jets btw...

Ding Ding!! Ding Ding!!  We have a winner.

That pair of well flown planes in the first segment are RC models.  Check out the spindly wire landing gear.

[GScholz]

And that gentlemen is the opinion of someone I always listen to.  Because he's been there and done that.  (still a fan of the Falcon though because I built them back in the day)

Actually, Eagl's post is one of the most ignorant posts in this thread.

One glaring example is his F-15 with 10 missiles vs F-35 with 4 missiles comparison. The F-35 will be able to carry 14 A2A missiles. Its external pylons will be jettisonable allowing it to become stealthy at-will if the pilot so chooses, while retaining the 4 internal missiles (6 internal missiles in a future upgrade). The F-15 cannot become stealthy no matter what.

[Gman]

Gsholz, we're using timed out F18's right now, started out as A models and have been through multiple refits, and are just plain timed out.  We have serious issues keeping them in service and keeping parts in stock etc right now, and have only 60 that are up to current modern standards out of the original 140+ we bought.  The Hornet has never been optimal for the mission we need it for, but it does have 2 engines, and the range thing, well, every northern mission means 3 external fuel tanks and often tanker support, something we have very little of, but is stretched to the max for missions up there.  In Libya 7-8 CF18's flew 10 percent or so of the sorties, 750+ 2 and 4 ship tanker supported missions, and dropped a larger share of the bombs, just seven fighters, 3 two ships and a spare.  It added a ton of time to the airframes that were already closing in on old age, combat time is often three times what peace time ops are in terms of hours/airframe aging.  Rotating fighters over 5 months to keep those 7 fighters there really timed out the fleet when it was already "timing out" badly.

[GScholz]

Few people realize that the F-35 is a big bird. Its max take-off weight of 70,000 lbs (35A) is greater than the F-15C at 68,000 lbs...

[GScholz]

Gsholz, we're using timed out F18's right now, started out as A models and have been through multiple refits, and are just plain timed out.  We have serious issues keeping them in service and keeping parts in stock etc right now, and have only 60 that are up to current modern standards out of the original 140+ we bought.  The Hornet has never been optimal for the mission we need it for, but it does have 2 engines, and the range thing, well, every northern mission means 3 external fuel tanks and often tanker support, something we have very little of, but is stretched to the max for missions up there.  In Libya 7-8 CF18's flew 10 percent or so of the sorties, 750+ 2 and 4 ship tanker supported missions, and dropped a larger share of the bombs, just seven fighters, 3 two ships and a spare.  It added a ton of time to the airframes that were already closing in on old age, combat time is often three times what peace time ops are in terms of hours/airframe aging.  Rotating fighters over 5 months to keep those 7 fighters there really timed out the fleet when it was already "timing out" badly.

Then we are in the same boat so to speak. Our F-16s have already been through several life-extending upgrades, and currently have the most hours on the airframes than any other F-16 operator. If we want to keep having an air force we have to buy new aircraft no matter what.

I don't really get your argument that the F-35 would have a range problem. With internal fuel + internal stores the F-35A matches the max range with stores and three DTs of the CF-18s you guys currently operate. With two 426 gallon drop tanks the F-35's range with stores will greatly out distance the CF-18. I do get the two engines argument though, but it's a case of weighing the risks and benefits of each aircraft available to us.

[hlbly]

 I do not know really. The only thing I find interesting is the similarity of media and expert reports of the F-35 and F-22 with what i heard about all of the the then new equipment coming online in the 80's. "F-15 over priced will never be enough of them. M-1 a complete boondoggle. Bradley waste of money. Humvee a turkey we should just upgrade the Jeep. MLRS outdated concept. B-1 over priced death trap" etc etc etc. 60 minutes and the experts batting average on that stuff was less than spectacular.

[GScholz]

Yes, back in the '70s every picture of an F-16 in our newspapers were invariably accompanied by "over budget"...

[Gman]

My point is that although the F35 can match the CF18 for range, as I've already said, the Hornet is already not optimal for the patrol and interception missions we ask of it, not by a long shot, and it stretches our slim tanker assets to the max, and even then often requires tailoring the mission to the "range" available.  Replacing something that isn't up to the task with something else that performs the same = insane.  I pointed out the twin engines of the Hornet as that is the only advantage it has really over the "new" option.

[GScholz]

As I already pointed out, the F-35 on internal fuel only matches the CF-18 max range with three external fuel tanks. With external fuel tanks the F-35 will greatly out-range the CF-18. After all, the F-35 has almost twice the internal fuel capacity of the F-18.