Previous  1  2  3  4

Plus the Airforce is eager to get some UAVs but the Goverment is reluctant to open their purse. UAV is a huge requirement.

   

   

detectability from a Mig-29:

F-22 7 km, carries 8 internal weapons

F-35 15 km, carries 4 internal weapons

I wouldn't go with the F-22 because of a lack of ground attack, but I don't like the F-35 for that either. This is why I like the Eurofighter. currently it is more air-air with a limited ground role, but in the 10 year time frame we have left, I'm sure our avionics companies could work with European firms to develop better ground assault software as well as better integration with NATO software.

While the Eurofighter isn't as stealthy, it carries a far greater payload, and has the ability to out climb and out-turn missiles (and it can outrun sparrows and side-winders after a dive). I think it's much better to have the guarantee of ability to dodge a missile vs. trying to hide from it. Also, you have 14 weapons hardpoints, pus two specified for bombs or tanks. while not all the hardpoints are capable of holding bombs, you can get up to 8 J-DAMs on a Eurofighter, vs. only two on an F-35. so basically it would take one aircraft to do the job of 4. which when you have only 80 aircraft in your fleet, is a real bonus. don't want to risk throwing away your entire air force in one mission.

The next thought regarding ground attacks is detectability. While its better if the enemy doesn't know you are coming (bombing an arms-production facility or airfield) it doesn't much matter if you are taking out a train or providing close air-support, you would arrive too fast in a jet for them to be able to do anything about you. So while you can easily sneak in with an F-35, you need more aircraft (or a tactical nuke, which we don't have) do do the same damage as a quarter the number of Eurofighters. There is a 1% chance of the F-35s being intercepted en route, which means the goal of the mission WILL be accomplished. Eurofighter may be intercepted, by fighters or SAM sites (in either case it would likely have the capability to respond, either with an Air-Air missiles or a Surface-Air missile as well as dodge anything thrown at them). so F-35 is obviously better there.

However, once the mission is completed, no matter what they will know you are there, and will come after you. If attacked by a ground threat, F-35 is fucked because you have no more ground munitions... just have to try and haul ass out of radar Range. The Eurofighter on the other hand would hopefully have extra stores, and attack and destroy the ground site attacking them. As for air threats, while the F-35 may be undetectable, the speed and air arms will kill them. they can only fly at mach 1.6-1.8. so an enemy righter of almost all sorts could fly circles around them and likely would run into them eventually. Side-winders have a top range of... 12 kilometers, optimum range of 5-7. if a mig-29 can detect an F-35 at 15 kilometers, chances are high everything else can detect it from further away. As such the F-35 can't shoot them down before they are being shot at, as the only air-air missiles they have in their ground-attack armament is the sidewinder. Eurofighter on the other hand is faster, and could possibly speed away without firing a shot even if detected. If the Eurofighter chooses to engage the enemy, chances are damn high he/she will have at least a 25 kilometer range missile, if not a longer 120 kilometer range missile on board, as such the enemy airframe is destroyed.

this is why I think the Eurofighter has the potential to be a superior ground attack aircraft. as for an air-air aircraft, its obvious Eurofighter is better. greater maneuverability, greater speed and climb rate, greater payload. only thing F-35 has going for it is stealth, and maybe some range.



On another note, we currently have the two permanent fighter bases in Quebec (dunno what the base is called) and Coldlake. If we were to buy enough aircraft, regardless of the type, we could have a third airbase at either Alert or Resolute. Fighters could preform the maritime surveillance. Hell, this might be where having a detectable aircraft on radar would be better... they could see we are there, constantly.

   

F-22 can carry JDAMs.... so it can offer limited ground support

   

A JDAM isn't what I'd call "limited" ground support.

   

I would love to see an Eurofighter easily evade a missile fully laden with Air-Air and Air to Ground weapons.

All that aside, noone is arguing that the EFA is superior to the F-35. It is in almost every respect. However, Canada gains almost no benefit from having them over the F-35. Yes, they can carry more stores, but they are phenomanally more expensive (which is why France pulled out of the program), and the JSF was designed for export to NATO countries. Economically it's the better choice of the two for Canada, for these reason and ones others have mentioned.

Also, the newer AIM-7 sparrows can achieve speeds in excess of March 4 -the EFA can't do that. Second, sidewinders and sparrows are air-to-air missiles. You yourself mentioned the EFA was more air-to-air than air-to-ground. When was Canada last involved in air-to-air conflict so much that we needed it as a primary role for our interceptors? Granted, the F-35 isn't amazingly well suited to ground attack either, but for what Canada needs, it will do nicely.

   

RIGHT NOW.... I would be happy to see Canada purchase the Rafale or the SU-37... at least it would be better than what we already have.

   

I should have been clear... limited because you can only carry 2 at a time in the internal bomb bay

   

I'm glad you like the idea.
We don't need air superiority fighters unless we're starting on Aero(UAV)-Mk11. We sank enough money into Bombardier and such that we should be able to get them to compete with Embraer from Brazil and FMC from Argentina. We don't even need A-10s. We need something with 2 engines, some payload for sensors and a long range. If not the Pucará, how about a Canadian version of these:


Yes, we need world class fighter but more than that, we need to be seen in the high arctic or on our 200 mile limit.

   

The Typhoon is superior in manuverability and only marginally superior in speed. The Lightening II has greater range, low observability technology and keep in mind that its been stated that the F-35 will have F-16/F-18 class manuverability, and since we know the Viper and Hornet are no slouches in the aerobatic arena we can say that the F-35 is still quite manuverable. Also, who sees first can shoot first, the F-35 could splash a Typhoon with an AMRAAM before the Typhoon could even locate the F-35 on radar.

That is what stealth does for you.

I will contest that the Typhoon can carry more stores than the F-35, the F-35, while having only a single engine, has more engine power than the Eurocanard and has ten thousand more pounds of max take off weight than the Typhoon, when both planes are "empty" the F-35 weighs only a few thousand more pounds than the Typhoon.

The F-22 and the F-35 are a leap ahead of the coventional aircraft being built by Europe.

   

Good post saturn_656

All this boils down to being where we can see them without them seeing us. If that's the case, we'd be better off with aerostats, intersepters and amraams. Since the US is leading in radar and missiles, I'd shy away from the cheaper alternatives.

   

I heard we might send over our Hornets...



Well of course not because we get one or two every year which means we'd have four by the time our mission is done. They are needed/designed for the navy, not a hot desert.



Far too expensive.



I'd like to see some evidence of that.

Also, doesn't the JSF have a greater range than the CF-18?



Ditto.

While I wish we could get the Typhoon, the JSF is more suited to Canada's existing "military infrastructure".



I thought that was Japan?

   

in the case of an air-air interdiction of a Eurofighter, it would do what all current aircraft would do in that situation, drop all stores except for what is necessary to defend itself (a pair or two of missiles, medium and short range), at which point it will have the maneuverability to dodge the incoming threat.

I was originally referring to the sea sparrow in my above post, which can only go mach 1.6, and the sidewinder, which can go mach 2.5.

As for air-air, the question should not be, "when was the last time it happened?" The question should be "when could it happen?" answer to that is anytime. for all we know china, India, Russia, or a consortment of the three could be invading our airspace the day after we acquire the plane because the US fucks up on Iraq, Iran, or some other supported sate and China/Russia have enough of it.

Point is we need something that is good, not mediocre, at both.

And what do you feel Canada needs, specifically?



Firstly, Eurofighter can super cruise, F-35 cannot. even if the top speed is only marginally higher, this speed provided by the cruise is what gives Euro-fighter the edge in that respect.

As for range, the Euro-fighter can be fitted ith large external tanks, including form-fitting tanks which have only a small effect on the aero-dynamic properties of the aircraft (meaning it can still supercruise).

F-16/F-18 class maneuverability is, in my opinion, slowly becoming less-than-average. Eurofighter could fly circles around those two aircraft.

As for air-air, in a one on one encounter on a Cap, the F-35 would likely be the victor, being equipped with Radar missles. But on an Air-Ground mission, its a dead duck if it encounters anything more than slight air-air resistance. AGain, you could have an aircraft doing the air patrol while one does the bombing, but then you have two aircraft doing the job of one, which when you have a small airforce, doesn't cut the mustrard.


Ultimately, to me, its up to the military to decide what is right to buy, however I hope we have a competition, and I hope we buy a hell of alot more than 80 of whatever we buy (someone hear 250?) we aren't belgium or the UK, we have over 10 million square kilometers of airspace, will take alot more than 80 aircraft stationed at two southern points to take care of that.

I know htis is on no ones radar, but I've always been of the opinion that we should have a pair of squadrons based in northwestern Australia to assist them in their defense. its not like they have big buddies like the states right beside them to protect, plus it will give something for our pilots to do besides train all day.

   

Supercruise is not by any means a new concept or ability, its just been overhyped due to it being a design feature of the worlds most awesome fighter, the F-22.

Looking at the pure power of the F-35's engine and given the fact that for LO missions it will carry its ordinance internally (outside the air flow, eliminating drag), the F-35 may have mild supercruise ability (Mach 1.1-1.2).

In the era of offboresight heat seeking AAM's (AIM-9X, IRIS-T, ASRAAM) maximum manuverability is no longer the major design factor of modern aircraft, just like break neck speed became a lesser factor in the last generation of aircraft.

In an A to G mission, the Eurofighter would not preform any better than the F-35 and may actually fare worse. Its manuverability and speed will be compromised by the A to G stores (which hang out in the airflow unlike the F-35) and it will lack the protection from radar that the F-35 would have due to its LO technology.

The Eurofighter is a great plane, better than most out there, it just isn't as good as the F-22/F-35.

As for posting aircraft in Australia... by the looks of things the Aussies will be purchasing more F-35's than us and also are buying two dozen Super Hornets, I doubt they'd need our help.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4