Canadian Politics Today

Riiiiiight. In. To. The . DANGER ZONE.

All true, but the fact remains that the autonomous software must recognize and track a multitude of objects in 3 dimensions where an aircraft is dealing with very few objects. Yes, the physics of a aircraft are different, but not really more complex. The tires that connect the car to the road behave very different depending on factors like tread wear, surface water and ice, etc.; they are not as predictable as you would like.  From a software standpoint the difference is minor, and 3 dimensional flight does not make the algorithms all that more difficult to code.

I don't think dogfights are the real issue, they rarely happen any more. The good thing is with a drone, you don't need to get into dogfights because you are expendable. The primary missions will not be air to air combat in close range.

Far more complex for the operator. With a car you can just compensate for too much or a lack of energy with your right foot. Things are variable with aircraft as well, wind components, the aircraft's weight to name just a couple. Many aircraft carry almost their own empty weight in fuel so the weight of the aircraft changes drastically during a flight. More weight more energy to manage. A  heavily loaded aircraft requires more distance to descend and slow down than a lightly loaded aircraft simply because it contains so much more kinetic energy. In a car you can just press harder on the brake pedal but in an aircraft, the drag doesn't change and it is all you have.

Re: F18 Super Hornet...

Quote

Yes, lets tie ourselves to another potential plane that 1) uses technology that is going out-of-date, 2) will probably not be used by any of our NATO allies in a few decades, leaving us with the sole cost of doing upgrades.

given the U.S. Navy's historical aversion to the F-35C, Boeing has a long-term customer for the Advanced (Block III) Super Hornet - witness the contract for 78 over the next 3 years.....

Yes, the U.S. Navy is buying some super hornets. But, 1) They are going to use them on carriers, which shortens the life span of planes (exposure to salt water, harder landings on the carrier deck), and 2) The U.S. tends to replace things that wear out sooner than later. Canada originally bought the F18A/B models, and we're still using them. The Navy has gone through the F18 A/B models, then the C/D models, and now they're on the E/F.

Even if Canada and the U.S. navy both buy the super hornet, we would still likely be using the plane (and taking responsibility for any upgrades) long after the U.S. navy has moved onto something else.

Customer base is always dynamic, but both Australia and Kuwait would seem committed to the Super Hornet longer term...

Actually Australia plans to buy the F35. Many people see its purchase of the F18E/F as a stopgap measure (to replace their F-111s, until the F35 was available.) They will probably use their F18s as growlers, if they do keep using them past the next decade.

What Kuwait does is largely irrelevant... they are not a NATO or NORAD partner, and as such any sort of upgrade plans that we do will probably not be reflected by what Kuwait does.

Plus... lets see... a few dozen Super Hornets in australia, a few dozen in Kuwait. Meanwhile, a few THOUSAND F35s in other milititaries in the world.

and it appears well positioned in India's program to replace 100 of its current jets.

Not really sure why you think India has much interest in the F18.

It had a competition a few years ago (a competition that included the F18, Typhoon, Gripen, etc., but not the F35). The only planes that they thought met their needs were the Typhoon and Rafale. (i.e. they didn't think the F18 would do). Right now there's probably a better chance for them to either pick the F35 (if its available to them) or go back and buy planes from the Russians. (I'd say India's fighter procurement process is probably the only one worse than Canada's... First attempting to buy the PAK-FA from Russia, when that didn't pan out, trying to buy the French Rafale, only to get into conflicts over the contract.)

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2165161/how-modis-rafale-defence-deal-has-left-india-lagging-china

Something you might want to ask yourself... if the F-35 is such a 'bad' plane, and the F-18E/F is so obviously superior, then why are so many countries going with the F-35? The U.S. (well it is 'their' plane), Australia, the U.K., Italy, Israel, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, and South Korea all plan to use it. Turkey wants the plane too (although there's currently a hold-up because of Turkey's purchase of Russian-made missiles). Singapore has ordered the plane. Greece wanted to, but because of its debt issues it had to stick to using its existing fleet.

And the A model is projected to drop slightly below $90 million

Well, they hope to get it to $80 million. But even if they can't get quite to that level, it will still be cost-competitive with the Gripen.

while B,C, are still up at $115,$130.

Of course, those planes can do things that the Gripen can't. (vertical/carrier landing). Heck, NONE of the potential planes Canada might adopt can do those things.

Of course, its irrelevant since Canada isn't planning on buying the B or C model.

And one of the latest restrictions is they can only go supersonic for shorts blasts or the skin friction bubbles and there goes stealth and also antennae on the get damaged.

I believe the problem with supersonic travel affects only the B or C model, and wouldn't impact the A model (the one Canada would likely buy).

no - the U.S. Navy won't be moving on to, as you say, "something else".

Yet history shows otherwise... as I pointed out, in the same time that Canada has had our CF18s, the U.S. navy has gone through THREE DIFFERENT JETS! (And, in case you didn't know, the F18E/F super hornet is actually a brand new plane, quite different than the original hornet, with little commonality between it and the original F18A that they started with. And unlike Canada, they have actually made a decision to purchase.

Not sure why you think things will somehow be different in the future. Do you think there is some sort of magic wand that the U.S. navy can wave that will automatically make the F-18E/F last longer, when in the past their window of usage has been much shorter than Canada's CF-18?

Notwithstanding existing Super Hornets (Navy) often are land-based for extended periods of time, all you need to do is recognize the severe limitations of the F-35 are driving....

Most of those 'limitations' are things where fixes are expected to be implemented shortly.

And even with those 'limitations', the F35 can still outperform the F18 in many ways.

...just how the U.S. Navy plans to deploy the F-35/Super Hornet mix: as in not rely upon the F-35 for any actual combat aspect; rather to use the F-35 to penetrate enemy air defenses and network sensor data back to actual combat aircraft... like the Super Hornet

Exactly wrong.

The F-35 is capable of carrying out all the missions that will be required of it.

Now, admittedly there are still problems that have to be dealt with, and progress the F-35C has been slower than on the F-35A/B. But even now, if you're a pilot in combat you'd still be better off in an F-35 than an F-18.

Kind of in line with Gen. Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S., going a tad rogue here: Canada's multi-billion dollar F-35s ‘irrelevant’ without U.S.-only F-22 as support, American general says

Ah yes, that old comment.

I rather suspect the general's comments have been taken out of context and warped to the point where they bear little resemblance to his actual meaning.

The F-22 Raptor is probably the best plane ever for air-to-air combat (due to its stealth, vectored thrust, super-cruise, avionics.) In a combat situation you would want the F22s to handle air-based threat.

The F-35 is a multi-role fighter. It CAN defend itself from other aircraft should the need arise (and can do so just as well, if not better than the Super Hornet or Gripen). But the F-22 is still better in that role. That does not mean the solution is to scrap the F35 in favor of the Super Hornet or Gripen, since those planes would be even worse off.

The reason the general said that the F-35 'needs' the F-22 is because the F-35 is the plane that the American airforce was buying (and the air force always likes to have multiple planes with slightly different roles, like the F15/F16 split from decades past.) If they decided to scrap the F-35 and buy all super hornets or Gripens, he would have said pretty much the same thing... those planes 'need' the F-22.

So, why don't we look at what some pilots actually think of the plane?

From: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/
A retired Marine Corps pilot who flew both the F35 and raptor...
Fighter aircraft all have to have a level of performance and maneuverability: speed, Gs, turn rate, turn radius, acceleration, climb—all of those things. In the F-35, there’s not a massive change in those performance metrics. The F-35 is better [than legacy aircraft], but not a lot better... ask 100 pilots to rank which is the most important, I guarantee you that 100 out of 100 pilots would say “situational awareness.”...In situational awareness, the F-35 is superior to all platforms, including the Raptor.

So, by his measure, he thinks its slightly better than 4th generation fighters (i.e. better than planes like the Super Hornet) in things like maneuverability, and WAY better than them in terms of situational awareness.

Or how about this: https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/pilots-say-f-35-superior-within-visual-range-dogfight-criticisms-laid-to-rest/
I asked one of the Air Force pilots, Lt. Col. Scott “Cap” Gunn, here whether the F-35 would win when fighting close-up with an enemy fighter. His answer was simple: “Without a doubt.”
(He had pitted the F-35 against the F-16 multiple times... once he got experienced in the F-35, he easily outflew the F-16.)

Or there is this one: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/03/01/norwegian-f-35-pilot-counters-controversial-dogfighting-report/
"So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? ... To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."

It should also be pointed out that the F-35 managed a  20-1 kill ratio at a recent 'red flag' training exercise. (Granted, that was a situation where it was an integrated battle featuring a variety of jets; however, it still managed to hold its own.)

https://theaviationist.com/2019/02/16/the-first-reports-of-how-the-f-35-strutted-its-stuff-in-dogfights-against-aggressors-at-red-flag-are-starting-to-emerge/

apparently, this kind of reveal only aided certain wags in labeling the F-35 a, "bomb-truck"!

Those 'certain wags' are trying argument-by-meme.

Compared to the F-22, the F-18 would also be classified as a 'bomb truck'.

ask 100 pilots to rank which is the most important, I guarantee you that 100 out of 100 pilots would say “situational awareness.”...In situational awareness, the F-35 is superior to all platforms, including the Raptor.

Agreed, but you are talking about electronics, not the airframe.

The airframe and engine is just a delivery system for a weapon.

It would be interesting if there are any statistics on the percentage of air missions that are reconnaissance.

Quote

Yet history shows otherwise... as I pointed out, in the same time that Canada has had our CF18s, the U.S. navy has gone through THREE DIFFERENT JETS! (And, in case you didn't know, the F18E/F super hornet is actually a brand new plane, quite different than the original hornet, with little commonality between it and the original F18A that they started with. And unlike Canada, they have actually made a decision to purchase.

ya ya, I certainly know the status/history of the 'Advanced' Block III Super Hornet... I was wondering about you when you stated it, "uses technology that is going out-of-date"!

Well, how about stealth...

The U.S. has multiple planes that utilize stealth... F22, F35, B2, F117. The F35 will probably be used by over a dozen other countries countries. China is developing stealth planes. Russia is trying to develop a stealth plane. Heck, even India, Iran, Turkey and Europe all have plans to develop stealth planes (although their plans are in some cases, tentative.) All these countries saying "You know, maybe its best if our planes aren't easily spotted on Radar". And you want the military to pick something like the F18, which has a huge radar cross section.

You can't hide from the historical resistance the U.S. Navy put up against the F-35 - that's a fact.

Correction... some people in the Navy are resistant to the F-35. Others support it. The U.S. military is so large, you often get conflicting opinions.

The interest in the F-18 seems to be more along the lines of "We are worried about delays with the F-35" (which is an understandable sentiment) rather than a "We really don't want planes with its features".

As is my statement about how the U.S. Navy intends to utilize the mix of F-35 & E/F Super Hornet (and let's not forget the Growler version); again, "to use the F-35 to penetrate enemy air defenses and network sensor data back to actual combat aircraft". If you believe this not to be the case, cite something to counter it - yes?

Why don't YOU provide something to back up your claim that the F35 will only be used for observation?

Your 'theory' is so.... brain damaged/illogical. The F-35 can carry more or less the same weapons the F18 can carry. So why exactly would it need to 'call in' a super hornet? "Hey, I'm in the area and see a target. I can destroy it before they notice I'm here". "No, better call in a plane that everyone will see coming".

cited at 10,000 flying hours (suggested into 2050 depending on usage)... without "carrier hops" how long would those last for Canada?

Not really sure what your point here is.

I'm not denying that if we go with a super hornet that we wouldn't use the plane for a long time. My point was we would still be using the plane LONG AFTER other militaries (such as the U.S. navey, which does deploy their planes on carriers) have retired them. That means that if we want to upgrade them, or replace parts, then we will essentially be "going it alone". (And the F-18 supply line will likely not be running all that much longer.)

If we buy the F-35, we will be purchasing a plane that will probably be manufactured for DECADES, and one that is used by a lot more countries. That means that if we need to purchase spare parts or replacements, or if we need to upgrade the planes, we will have better access to a supply chain that will provide what's needed. Buy some Gen4 fighter (like the F18/Gripen/etc.) and you will find that somewhere along the line the plane is no longer produced, and you're on your own for spare parts.

Look at Canada's fleet. We've been scrounging for parts for a long time... the initial fleet started with over a hundred planes, but we've cannibalized a bunch to keep the remaining ones flying.

As for your pilot references, there are no shortage of pilots offering opinion - even those aligned with Boeing/Super Hornet?    I trust you will be able to validate that at some date... by the by, skeptics have reason to doubt given the fake/trumped up early IOC dates the U.S. Marines and Air Force put out there to help support the LockMart sales/marketing hype.

So, let me get this straight... any evidence that I might provide that shows the F-35 as a capable fighter you will automatically dismiss as "sales/marketing hype" (even if the pilots are not Locheed pilots, even if they're not American)? Pilots talk about what they need out of a plane? "Marketing hype". Pilots describe how they've beaten 4th generation planes in mock dogfights? "Marketing Hype".

In any case, as I'm aware, the U.S. Air Force finally flew 2 F-35s in "combat"... in April... bombed the hell out of an ISIS tunnel! 

The F-35 has actually been used before that as well... In Afghanistan, and by Israel in Syria.

Not eactly sure what your point is though... F-35 deployment has just begun, and its not like there are currently a large number of areas of conflict where serious opposition would be encountered by ANY plane. After all, you don't hear of F-18s or Gripens getting into dogfights on a daily basis either.

Yeah, so going after ISIS or the Taliban is not going to provide much of a challenge to ANY plane. So what? It doesn't mean that countries are avoiding using them in combat.