Canada's New Fighter?

[Laughing Man]

So I've seen a few topics talking about the F-35, but none (afaik) specifically on what Canada's next fighter could be since they cancelled orders for the F35. So based on the RCAF's requirements, costs and capabilities, what should it be?

 

EDIT: Posted by accident, thank enter key.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Laughing Man

[Nibb31]

I think they are still reviewing options. The Rafale has been mentioned, but there are probably others.

[Gojira1000]

Who needs fighters? We're gonna buy some more stealth snowmobiles. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ottawa-testing-620k-stealth-snowmobile-for-arctic-1.1377270

(Real answer? Just buy a few more F-18s)

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gojira1000

[Laughing Man]

5 hours ago, Gojira1000 said:

Who needs fighters? We're gonna buy some more stealth snowmobiles. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ottawa-testing-620k-stealth-snowmobile-for-arctic-1.1377270

(Real answer? Just buy a few more F-18s)

I'm guessing that option is likely given there'll be parts, infrastructure and experience with the Hornet already there.

[GoSlash27]

Superbug.

Best,

-Slashy

[wumpus]

Sopwith Camel.  Great for airshows.

MQ-1 Predator.  A better idea would be to revive the Freewing Scorpion a nearly vertical takeoff and landing aircraft of great simplicity designed (well the idea came from him, Freewing engineered it) by Burt Rutan.  Freewing had two issues: they seem to have been into drones at not quite the right time (and couldn't stick around long enough for the gravy train) and they had French backing when the US military was invading Iraq at least partially to take the oil contracts away from French companies. 

[StrandedonEarth]

Avro Arrow! Updated with the tech advances of the last 50 years, of course.

Er, wait, never mind

Edited January 9, 2016 by StrandedonEarth

[pyrosheep]

If Canada wants to scale down or significantly change it's military capability for the future and save some money (presumably from keeping the old training/logistics train) they should go for more Superhornets (the US are still building them after all).

If they wan't to retain a stronger military capability they should go for the F35; the Euro-canards have poor value for money in comparison, older and less capable for essentially the same price (since you have buy targeting pods and fuel tanks seperately) and most likely worse maintenance costs as well in the long run.   

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by pyrosheep

[Frozen_Heart]

Eurofighter. It is already used by numerous countries so has proven to be easily adaptable to different needs, and is much better than the Super Hornet.

We don't even mention the F-35... *shudders

[Sandworm]

Um ... how about any number of other fighters.  The f-35 is a beast.  They cost a quarter billion, but that is only half the story.

The most efficient modern fighter for the money has to be the f15c.  And it uses two engines, a safety feature the RCAF and USN have held onto for years.  A few dozen f15cs would be far more effective than a handful of f35s.

 

From https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/modern-aircraft-flyaway-costs/

Aircraft	Unit flyaway cost	Aircraft for 1 bln	Sorties/day/aircr	Sorties/day/1bln
F-22	273 million USD	3	0,5	1,5
F-35C	236 million USD	4	0,5	2
F-35B	292 million USD	3	0,5 (?)	1,5
F-35A	184 million USD	5	0,5	2,5
F-15C	126 million USD	7	1	7
F-15A	43 million USD	23	1	23
EF2000 T2	138 million USD	7	2	14
Rafale M	83 million USD	12	2	24
Rafale C	75 million USD	13	2	26
F-16C	70 million USD	14	1,2	16,8
F-16A	30 million USD	33	1,2	39,6
Gripen E	85 million USD	11	2	22
Gripen C	33 million USD	30	2	60
Harrier II Plus	50 million USD	20	1,2	24
Gripen A	25 million USD	40	2	80

[pyrosheep]

10 minutes ago, Sandworm said:

Um ... how about any number of other fighters.  The f-35 is a beast.  They cost a quarter billion, but that is only half the story.

The most efficient modern fighter for the money has to be the f15c.  And it uses two engines, a safety feature the RCAF and USN have held onto for years.  A few dozen f15cs would be far more effective than a handful of f35s.

 

From https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/modern-aircraft-flyaway-costs/

Aircraft	Unit flyaway cost	Aircraft for 1 bln	Sorties/day/aircr	Sorties/day/1bln
F-22	273 million USD	3	0,5	1,5
F-35C	236 million USD	4	0,5	2
F-35B	292 million USD	3	0,5 (?)	1,5
F-35A	184 million USD	5	0,5	2,5
F-15C	126 million USD	7	1	7
F-15A	43 million USD	23	1	23
EF2000 T2	138 million USD	7	2	14
Rafale M	83 million USD	12	2	24
Rafale C	75 million USD	13	2	26
F-16C	70 million USD	14	1,2	16,8
F-16A	30 million USD	33	1,2	39,6
Gripen E	85 million USD	11	2	22
Gripen C	33 million USD	30	2	60
Harrier II Plus	50 million USD	20	1,2	24
Gripen A	25 million USD	40	2	80

The chart:

That flyaway cost chart is out of date, the F35 costs much closer to 100 million now that they are moving onto full rate production from low rate production.

That isn't the only problem with the chart, many of these aircraft have been out of production for decades (F15A, F15C,F-16A,F-16C,GripenA,Harrier), infact only the F35s, the EF2000, GripenE and RafaleM are on order; how they have divined the flyaway costs when there are no factories to make many of the aircraft is beyond me. 

The F-15C:

Capability:

The F15C is not a multi role aircraft, it is an Air superiority fighter (the F-15E is multirole), if Canada got the F-15C they would need to drastically change the mission of their airforce.

The F15C is also getting pretty damn old now, they only built them from 1979-1985, it is actually overdue replacement in the US airforce since the F-22 orders were reduced, Boeing are planning to upgrade them somehow for future combat, but it's likely that they will effectively turn into data linked BVR missile trucks for the F22s and F35s rather than competitive air superiority fighters.

reliability/maintenance (particularly the twin engine argument):

The F15C is not a famously reliable or easy to maintain aircraft, in fact it is a notorious maintenance hog, case studies pitting the accident rate of the F-15 and the F-16 was used to justify the F-35 (particularly the C models') single engine setup:

When modern jet Engines fail, they tend to fail catastrophically. in a twin engine aircraft (especially fighters), engine failure often knocks out both the engines or damages the aircraft enough to make it un-flyable regardless of the other engine's status.

Of course in a single engine aircraft a catastrophic engine failure will always result in ejection, but the thing is, single engine air craft have a lower engine failure rate, because they have half as many engines that can fail. Not only is the failure rate halved by having one less engine, but reducing the number of engines reduces the complexity in an aircraft design, reducing the amount of maintenance hours required, further improving the safety.

This isn't to say that having two engines was a bad idea in the past; engines used to be much much less reliable and more prone to regular failure, it's just that times have changed in that regard. In the Korean war jet engine life was measured in tens of hours, today it's tens of thousands.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sandworm]

Look up the f-15c 2040C program.  It was only announced very recently and is meant to keep the 15 relevant out to 2040.  The Saudis just bought a bunch of brand new F-15-SAs.  They rejected the 35.  The 15 is still in production and, today, can handle more and more modern weapons than the f-35 which is still in the development stages and has yet to fire its cannon.  An f-15CA would be a much better investment than the handful of 35s that we are to get atm.

I included the chart because I found the calculations re sorties/dollars very interesting.   I wouldn't suggest the older planes, but the chart does demonstrate how modern fighters are getting more expensive per sortie over and above flyaway costs.

Lol, in checking my facts I had not known that the outbound hardpoints on the new 15SA were always there, that they hadn't been used because of stability issues that are now addressed by modern fly-by-wire.  You have to look twice at the SA before you notice those extra missiles. 

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294

Edited January 10, 2016 by Sandworm

[pyrosheep]

27 minutes ago, Sandworm said:

Look up the f-15c 2040C program.  It was only announced very recently and is meant to keep the 15 relevant out to 2040.  The Saudis just bought a bunch of brand new F-15-SAs.  They rejected the 35.  The 15 is still in production and, today,   An f-15CA would be a much better investment than the handful of 35s that we are to get atm.

I included the chart because I found the calculations re sorties/dollars very interesting.   I wouldn't suggest the older planes, but the chart does demonstrate how modern fighters are getting more expensive per sortie over and above flyaway costs.

Lol, in checking my facts I had not known that the outbound hardpoints on the new 15SA were always there, that they hadn't been used because of stability issues that are now addressed by modern fly-by-wire.  You have to look twice at the SA before you notice those extra missiles. 

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-fully-armed-f-15sa-the-most-advanced-product-1715732294

the Boeing 2040C program was what i was referring to: 

"The 2040C concept is an evolution of the Silent Eagle proposed to South Korea, with some low-observable improvements but mostly a focus on the latest air capabilities and lethality. Proposal includes infra-red search and track, doubling the number of weapon stations, with quad racks for a maximum of 16 air-to-air missiles, Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, conformal fuel tanks, upgraded APG-63(v)3 AESA and a "Talon HATE" communications pod allowing data-transfer with the F-22"

Quote

can handle more and more modern weapons than the f-35 which is still in the development stages and has yet to fire its cannon.

 

Handle may be a bit of a stretch, can the F-15 SA actually use those AIM-9Xs in 360° HOBS like the F-35 can? can it pull more than 7G with missiles like the F35 can?  

Also, about the gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M

Quote

 

I wouldn't suggest the older planes, but the chart does demonstrate how modern fighters are getting more expensive per sortie over and above flyaway costs.

 

considering the flyaway costs don't even account for inflation and weight is somehow the metric of airframe capability (Tu-160 for Canada! RIP Gripen!) i wouldn't take it too seriously.

 

 

[Sandworm]

A 35 fired a gun.  Another 35 recently completed a ski-jump takeoff.  That doesn't mean the 35 can ski-jump.  "Joe DellaVedova, public affairs director for the Pentagon’s F-35 Program Office said the recent testing saw the gun fire at full capacity, an indication the gun would be ready to go within the next two years, as previously scheduled."

http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/08/25/The-gun-on-the-F-35

I'd be seriously concerned about the stealth design of that gun.  Rumor is that it spins up while still shrouded.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Sandworm

[Nibb31]

The Rafale and Eurofighter also have 2 engines and are much more modern and probably cheaper than old F-15s. The choice of the aircraft depends on the role. Although both are multirole aircraft, the Eurofighter is slightly biased towards the interceptor role, whereas the Rafale is a better all-rounder.

[Hcube]

How can a software malfunction delay development of a gun for a year ?

[Sandworm]

47 minutes ago, Hcube said:

How can a software malfunction delay development of a gun for a year ?

There are several software steps for firing such a gun.  At a minimum there is a command to spin up the thing, another to open the port (which is probably subject to some aerodynamic constraints) a third to actually feed in/fire the round, and one or more checks to see if the master arm switches are allowing any weapons.  But physically firing the weapon isn't saying much.  These things are only useful once tied into the targeting suite.  In most modes, pulling the trigger is simply an authorization for the computer to fire.  The bullets only leave when the computer thinks they have some hope of hitting the target.  There are no tracers for the pilot to walk onto the target like seen in the movies.  The machine may only delay the rounds by a 1/100th of a second, but at speed that's the difference between a miss and a hit.  So there are lots of little software tweaks to work out before the weapon is practical.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Sandworm

[Hcube]

1 hour ago, Sandworm said:

There are several software steps for firing such a gun.  At a minimum there is a command to spin up the thing, another to open the port (which is probably subject to some aerodynamic constraints) a third to actually feed in/fire the round, and one or more checks to see if the master arm switches are allowing any weapons.  But physically firing the weapon isn't saying much.  These things are only useful once tied into the targeting suite.  In most modes, pulling the trigger is simply an authorization for the computer to fire.  The bullets only leave when the computer thinks they have some hope of hitting the target.  There are no tracers for the pilot to walk onto the target like seen in the movies.  The machine may only delay the rounds by a 1/100th of a second, but at speed that's the difference between a miss and a hit.  So there are lots of little software tweaks to work out before the weapon is practical.

Hmm is that a new feature on 5th generation fighters ? AFAIK in most fighters the computer only calculates where the pilot should aim and maybe helps the pilot by orienting the guns, but the pilot has full control and bullets come out of the barrel any time the trigger is pulled...

 

What i meant was that this kind of operations (check master arm, open the door, feed and fire) seem to be pretty simple operations compared to other tasks that advanced software/AI are able to do, like avionics, fly-by-wire computer control... So i'm a bit surprised that such a software turns out being so complex.

[Elthy]

What does Canada want to do with those planes? I dont know enough about the political enviroment, but there are likely 2 things aricraft are needed for in the next decades:

As a defensive system within the Nato, e.g. against russian or chinese bombers. In my opinion thats stupid, if you need those planes to intercept enemy bombers its only a small step to nuclear war, where they dont matter anymore.

As an offensive system in operations against technological inferior enemys, e.g. against the IS or something like North Korea. There you wouldnt need expensive new technology, just something that can carry as much bombs/missiles as possible as cheap as possible. In my opinion way more important...

[Sandworm]

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

What does Canada want to do with those planes? I dont know enough about the political enviroment, but there are likely 2 things aricraft are needed for in the next decades:

As a defensive system within the Nato, e.g. against russian or chinese bombers. In my opinion thats stupid, if you need those planes to intercept enemy bombers its only a small step to nuclear war, where they dont matter anymore.

As an offensive system in operations against technological inferior enemys, e.g. against the IS or something like North Korea. There you wouldnt need expensive new technology, just something that can carry as much bombs/missiles as possible as cheap as possible. In my opinion way more important...

(1) Canada has requirements/duties/treaty obligations to meet that include fighting overseas (nato).

(2) Canada has sovereignty issues.  We need to maintain a rapidly deployable force over our vast territories else they be taken by the russians/US and anyone else wanting our northern oil.  We will only ever have a handful of ships and they are slow.  Aircraft are the only option.  (This isn't about shooting, but flying the flag and asserting legal rights.)

(3) Countries like North Korea have substantial air defense networks.  Such wars would require modern weaponry.

(4) Canada has troops on the ground.  They need support, including air power.

(5) Canada has a history of excellent fighter training.  Countries from all over the world come, and pay, to train in our skies.  To maintain those cooperations we need to at least participate in the exercises occurring over our territory.

[wumpus]

25 minutes ago, Sandworm said:

(1) Canada has requirements/duties/treaty obligations to meet that include fighting overseas (nato).

[similar arguments on needing air power]

I'd stick to drones and existing aircraft.  Adding something like the F-35 air inferiority target is just going to cause dead Canadians.  The others may work, but are still going to be vastly more expensive than the drone.

But still, Sopwith Camel for pilot training and airshows (actually, it is probably hard to fly and better for advanced training)!

[Alias72]

The biggest fear, so far as practical combat, would be another Yugoslavia. During the Kosovo air campaign the Serbian military deployed a number of highly mobile SAM systems. These systems (SA 6 Gainful) suffered a very low attrition rate, especially compared to the fixed (SA 2 Guideline SA 3 Goa) systems, and caused sever issues with NATO plans. This was compounded by the effective use of decoys by the Serbians.

1. NATO aircraft were forced to bomb targets from a higher altitude then they otherwise might have. This made bombing less accurate

2. Because precision was still required NATO aircraft began to use precision weapons in abundance. These weapons are more expensive.

3. Because aircraft flew higher and decoys were present more sorties had to be flown. This diminished the lifetime of the aircraft.

Of course Serbia lost that campaign. They never had a chance. Any power NATO faces in the future will also likely lose. The real issue is the cost that a relatively small nation can exact upon NATO by exploiting their tendencies. Canada, the United States, and many other NATO allies continue to purchase state-of-the-art aircraft in the hopes that it will allow them to continue to use overwhelming force against outdated opponents. This will hopeful keep NATO attrition low and allow them to exploit deficiencies in older systems (such as bombing above the effective ceiling of older SAM systems).

Anyway the problem with the F 18 is twofold.

1. The aircraft does not offer any new capabilities. This allows nations with older equipment to catch up.

2. All of the F 18's have seen extensive service. The lifetime on their airframes is limited and so maintenance would have to be frequent and expensive.

[Hcube]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

F-35 air inferiority target 

I love this

[pyrosheep]

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

I'd stick to drones and existing aircraft

Existing drones (predators style ones) that are only useful for COIN and reconnaissance? or futuristic ones that don't exist yet?

Quote

Adding something like the F-35 air inferiority target is just going to cause dead Canadians 

 Why would having a more survivable, reliable and Capable aircraft kill more Canadians?

 

Edited January 10, 2016 by pyrosheep

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, Sandworm said:

There are several software steps for firing such a gun.  At a minimum there is a command to spin up the thing, another to open the port (which is probably subject to some aerodynamic constraints) a third to actually feed in/fire the round, and one or more checks to see if the master arm switches are allowing any weapons.  But physically firing the weapon isn't saying much.  These things are only useful once tied into the targeting suite.  In most modes, pulling the trigger is simply an authorization for the computer to fire.  The bullets only leave when the computer thinks they have some hope of hitting the target.  There are no tracers for the pilot to walk onto the target like seen in the movies.  The machine may only delay the rounds by a 1/100th of a second, but at speed that's the difference between a miss and a hit.  So there are lots of little software tweaks to work out before the weapon is practical.

Note that modern fighters integrate the gunsight and the autopilot enabling you to do precision strikes with the gun.
In short you aim and the autopilot pilot the plane so the gun get an good shot and it fire. 
It works and has been used a lot in Iraqi and Afghanistan, can also be used against moving targets.  
I guess the same is done for air to air and as you understand this require some pretty advanced software, for one the autopilot has to have an far more accurate control over the plane than needed for normal use. 
Plane will behave very different depending on weight or if you have wing load.