1  2  3  4  5 ... 18  Next

Of the possible contenders which fighter should Canada aim at for replacing the CF-18 or should it simply keep with the F-18s until some time in the distant future.

The way I see it the possibilities are the

USA/UK
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

The new ground attack aircraft of the US and the UK with interest from numerous additional countries the Joint Strike Fighter is capable of STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) as well conventional take off and landing for airforces. A replacement to the, Sea Harrier, AV-8B, F-16, F-18A/C/D, and the A-10, the JSF is a stealthy multirole fighter designed to complement the F-18E/F and the F--22. The JSF is capable of both stand off warfare as well as close in air support of ground troops, the latter is perhaps its most convincing allure to the Canadian Military.

The Airforce Variant has a thrust to weight ratio of aproximately 1.11:1 and can carry 13,000 lbs in payload as well as cost approximately 45 Million dollars per unit. The F-35 has an advanced Avionics Suite including AESA radar, the service ceiling is approximately 48,000 ft and a maximum speed of mach 1.8. The Primary Contractor is Lockheed Martin, with Northrup Grumman and BAE Systems as major subcontractors.

(Other models vary in cost/performance)

USA
F-22A Raptor

The F-22A Tactical is perhaps one of the worlds most expensive fighter aircraft. With a flyaway cost of 130 million per plane, it is not the most expensive plane, but it certainly edges out most of its competition. This price is, however, not without benefit. The F22 features some of the most advanced avionics, engines, and radar cross section reducing techniques. Additionally it is easier and less expensive to maintain then it's predecessors.

The F-22 has a Thrust to weight ratio somewhere above 1.27:1 and can maintain supercruise at mach 1.7 without afterburners and push mach 2.42 with them, the service ceiling is at 68,000 ft. It has vectored thrust and an extremely advanced AESA radar which demonstrates unprecedented capabilities in keeping with US's typical dominance in the field of avionics suites.

France
Rafale

The Rafale is a french design developed after they withdrew from the Eurofighter Project, focusing instead upon ground attack, rather then upon air supremacy. The Rafale is a manueverable plane with a high angle of attack, as well as the capability to be launched from an aircraft carrier. The materials and components have been designed to reduce radar signatures, and the plane benefits from a fully integrated fire control system.

The Flyaway cost varies between 104 million USD and 130 USD. The Plane is capable of Mach 2+ and a service ceiling of 60,000 ft.

Russia
Su-30MK Sukhoi

The Su-30 Flanker is a derivative of the Su-27 and is among the more recent developments from Russia. It is largely a multi-role fighter which many western nations benchmark themselves against, and reasonable proliferation, with variants sold to the Ukraine, China, and India. It is considered the Russian Equivalent of the f-15

Mig-29 Fulcrum

The Mig-29 is a High Performance Combat Aircraft with proliferation to over 25 countries, it can be considered the standard opposing force fighter in the coming decades. The Mig-29 has a definite edge on most all US Fighters, having won in mock skirmishes between Australian F-18s and Malaysian Mig-29s. The Mig-29 also has an arguable edge on both the f-15 and f-16.

Sweden
JAS-39 Gripen

The Gripen multirole fighter is lighter and smaller then its Eurofighter counterpart, and as a result has a faster rate of climb. The Gripen is designed with "todays defense budget in mind" and cheaper to procure, as well as easier to maintain, a feature which, according to its manufactures, should allow it to field twice as many sorties as its rivals. It has a comparable Avionics suite to its European Counterparts. The Cost is the lowest of the bunch, at $25 million, outperforming even the JSF.

The Gripen has a ceiling of 50,000 ft and can carry around 14,330 lbs.

Europe
EF-2000 Eurofighter (Typhoon)

Europe's newest Air Supremacy fighter follows with the current style of european aircraft, with a delta wing and canards. The fighter is comparable to the F-22 in the sense that both fighters are designed primarily for air to air engagements, but the eurofighter lacks the stealth traits of the f-22 although it does incorporate some stealth charachteristics. According to US Airforce General John P Lumper "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance."

The Eurofighter cruises at mach 1.2, can attain mach 2.0+ and can carry a payload of around 14,300 lbs. By 2010 there are plans to upgrade the Eurofighters with AESA radars to bring them up to US standards. The Service Ceiling exists at 60,000 ft and the fly away cost ends up at approximately 75 million USD per plane.

   

Last I heard, Canada seemed very interested in acquiring the F-35. But the Eurofighter is also a very good choice....

   

I personally lean towards the F-35, it would be nice if Canada had the budget to field an Air Supremacy fighter such as the Eurofighter or the f-22, but as it is it is simply too expensive.

   

I second this. Besides, it's not really a matter of which plane the Air Force will eventually buy anymore, as the CF has already invested money into the JSF project development. Even though the FCA(2) project hasn't even started yet, it appears that the winner is evident...

   

CF18 Incremental Modernization Program - The ultimate goal is to keep the CF18 effective at least until 2020.

   

I am mostly for anything capable of wipeing out high altitude bombers by probably using heavy loads of depleted uranium bullets which can be used against ground power also (such as tanks ) Reason for this is electronic jamming technics .

Also it would be more justifying to provide the Canadian public with 2 hand held surface to air missle launchers per person . That would mean 64 million of them . Can you picture it ? Canadians would be blasting each others houses like there is no tomorrow , for reasons as simple as breaking your neighbours lawnmower which you borrowed or not returning the hedge trimmer . At least Canadians would be happy and we wouldn't have to worry about having a big military , and I don't know if other countries would want to mess with that many maniacs.

In all seriousness , I stick with my first paragraph but also like http://www.1000pictures.com/aircraft/helos/index.htm and am also fond of the Harrier

   

I somehow don't see the benefit in paying 22.5 million per aircraft to upgrade the F-18 to the outdated c/d level when the marginal cost of getting a fleet of JSFs is only 13 million each. Perhaps if they were upgrading to the E/F Super Hornet standard (the only hornet the US isn't being replaced with the f-35) there might be some justification... But as it is, that sounds rather poor, perhaps it'd be better to engage in a more limited stop gap measure until the first f-35s begin to be delivered in 2008.

   

Sounds like switzerland, its now about a third of the male population which is armed with sig-550 assault rifles (formerly the entire male population) with several hundred rounds of ammunition stored by the military in every persons house if I recall correctly.



The problem is that the harriers are wearing out

   

based on our governments past record of military spending, this is what we can likely look forward to.



and for northern areas

   

Everything I've read is that we won't get a new fighter until about 2020. We are planning on upgrading the CF-18 to hold us over until then.

As for which choice, it will likely be the JSF, as we joined the program as a junior member (it cost us $150 million). While I don't think we'll throw that investment away (although it's happened in the past -- EH-101s), we can't get them until at least 2016-17 as the USA and UK will get theirs before us, as will the Australians, who already set aside about $10 billion for them.

This same article was published in the Edmonton Journal just a couple of days ago...

JSF Purchase

   

Sorry I'm about in tears right now with laughter picturing canadians flying those things carrying their hand held missle launchers and trying to take down high altitude bombers
....anyway I stuck with voting for sticking with the CF-18

   

Problem I see is that we wouldn't get them for that price. Also we would have to retrain and retool for the new aircraft. We already have the training and replacement parts for the Hornets now and the upgrade program is already underway. Stealth is a great advantage for the next generation fighters but I don't see it being worth the cost when that money could be put towards strat airlift and long range AWAC that we will also need as well.

   

The matter of retraining and retooling could very well be an upside, the F-35 (along with the f-22) is supposed to be easier to maintain and easier to learn how to use. Similiarly it was designed to serve as a direct replacement to the A-10 and thus it would be more suited to assisting Canada's ground forces then a CF-18 would.

Similiarly since you're going to have to retrain and retool anyways, as the F-18 will eventually give out and the f-35 will most likely replace it, there is no real benefit to waiting, if the F-35 is indeed easier to maintain then the f-18

   

I'd like the JSF too, but the Americans, Brits and Aussies will be getting the first ones off the line and there aren't any available for us until at least 2015 anyways (the first ones won't be ready until 2008), so we better do something with our CF-18s, lest we wind up flying totally obsolete planes for the next 10-15 years...I know the CF is used to obsolete equipment, but something that is 5-10 years out of date is far better than something from the 1980s.

   

The more important factors than just the walk-away price would be serviceability and total-cost-of-ownership.

The $25million dollar plane is a waste if it ends up being a hangar queen because it's too expensive to maintain.

I'd rather have sixty expensive fighters of which 75% are always in flying condition (a refit rate of 3:1)) as opposed to a cheap airplane that is heavy on service and runs a refit rate of 1:1 like the Mig29 is reported to have.

I'm not a big fan of the F35 for Canada as it is a strike fighter - with Canada's current posture who are you going to strike?

The F22 gives Canada the ability to economically and quickly command her own vast territories and the fuel efficiency of the platform would yield savings as the planes can run patrols from existing bases instead of being forward deployed as is planned for almost any other platform.

So the total-cost-of-ownership is lower if you have a fighter that does not require all-new bases to fly from.

And any cheap fighter is worse than useless if once the fighter is purchased the forward bases required for proper deployment are not approved for budget or environmental reasons.

Things to think about.

   

1  2  3  4  5 ... 18  Next