Canada's next Jet Fighter?

[luccloud]

It’s all in the timing.

By the time Canada gets the F35 in any serious quantity, it will be at Block 4 which includes SATCOM.

Until then they will continue to use the CF-18s they have now for that duty.

Here was the Canadian schedule before they hit the reset button.

View attachment 5885

When's block 4 coming out? The one I can find on the internet seem old as it say it will delivery by 2015ish.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Blk4 comes out about 1-2 years after Blk3. Since it is primarily a Software-Only Blk, it should be pretty quick and painless to upgrade to the fleet.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So we need an aircraft to protect our Arctic soverignty? What is the point of having something if it won't work?
That kind of defeats the purpose of having an aircraft to defend our territories if we can't communicate with it. We may as well just go back to keeping with our F-18s.

Actually that huffington post story has your solution.

The F-35 Lightning will eventually have the ability to communicate with satellites, but the software will not be available in the initial production run, said a senior Lockheed Martin official, who spoke on background.

A study is looking at whether an external communications pod can be installed on the F-35.
...
The sophisticated pods, which are carried by the CF-18s, were purchased as part of the $2.6-billion fleet upgrade, which began in 2000.

"That hasn't all been nailed down yet," said the official. "As you can imagine there are a lot of science projects going on, exploring what is the best . . . capability, what satellites will be available.

So really looks like worst case they may be able to use the same pods as the F-18 carry now. Or possibly shift delivery dates around or see if block 4 can be soft upgraded or done earlier.

The story hints that there may be a bigger issue, satellites. There may be a limited bandwidth issue with F-35 running over the Arctic. But that's very separate from the F-35 and would have the issue regardless of the specific aircraft you are flying.

 

[RobWilliams]

Terma are very keen to put forward that their gun pod for the F35B/C is more than just a gun pod, it's "multi mission" and can carry a variety of extra equipment. Jammers, recce equipment, other sensors. Not gunna lie, I've got very high hopes for that pod, seems a decent bit of kit.

Thought it could be a handy option, but then that cuts out using the centre station for all of those extra toys

But I think it'd be a bit premature to think the people at LockMart are facepalming themselves about not thinking of that eventuality, and the sheer impossibility of the task to develop a solution, of course.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Why would LM facepalm??

SatCOM was part of Blk3 initially.

Things got crowded & time to IOC was stretching out.

The JPO (Canada Included) decided to shift SatCOM to Blk4.

What's the problem?

 

[RobWilliams]

Appears the smiley was lost in translation, it was tongue in cheek. Fact is I said the exact opposite. I said that it'd would be premature to think that they would be doing that, not that they WERE doing it . . .

It was meant to be an indirect reference to an earlier poster thinking that particular comms problems right now is a monumental problem which makes the F-35 totally worthless & may as well stay with current platforms.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why would LM facepalm??

SatCOM was part of Blk3 initially.

Things got crowded & time to IOC was stretching out.

The JPO (Canada Included) decided to shift SatCOM to Blk4.

What's the problem?

I fail to see how its the fault of JSF when its a Canadian Govt decision to defer their Sat integration reqs

Australia hooked up with the US on WGS 4 years ago - Canada has made a decision which impacts on any aircraft, let alone JSF

In General

Quite frankly I am getting sick to death of some of the moronic comments appearing
blaming JSF when its either a diff Governance issue or something that is universal and wouldn't matter what aircraft they selected.

One of you is on short finals - work it out whoever it is and lift the quality of your posts

Understand the issue before posting
Do some basic research
Ask questions rather than make assumptions

Last warning. and you should be smart enough to work out which one of you is on notice

 

[luccloud]

Terma are very keen to put forward that their gun pod for the F35B/C is more than just a gun pod, it's "multi mission" and can carry a variety of extra equipment. Jammers, recce equipment, other sensors. Not gunna lie, I've got very high hopes for that pod, seems a decent bit of kit.

Wouldn't the pod need to be outside of the internal weapon bay which will defeat the purpose of having a stealth jet?

[Mod edit: We have a thread called Air Power 101 that covers alot of the basics, which you do not seem to be aware of and was highlighted in a prior post in this thread.

[Start of spoon feeding]
More specifically, let us point you to a specific link from the US Air Force Association's think tank, the Mitchell Institute, has published a backgrounder called "The Radar Game: Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability" by Dr Rebecca Grant. We have provided a link for readers who are interested in the revised and updated September 2010 version.
[/End of spoon feeding]

Read it and educate yourself.]

 

[Bonza]

Wouldn't the pod need to be outside of the internal weapon bay which will defeat the purpose of having a stealth jet?

Do you think that a single external store thus means the entirety of the aircraft's low observable qualities is negated? Really, think about it. And think about this too - not every aircraft in a given flight needs to be configured in the same fashion. If you can fly one aircraft with an external pod giving whatever benefits it may be - whether it's a gun capability, jamming, recce gear, whatever - those benefits can be conferred to other aircraft in the same package flying in a full LO configuration.

It's not just a matter of "stealth or not stealth". There are varying degrees of low observability and the impacts made by external stores will also vary according to their own nature.

But put it this way, the USN and USMC were happy enough with the design of the F-35B and C models dispensing with an internal gun altogether, and with the capability being provided by a podded weapon when necessary. Would they do that if it "defeated the purpose of having a stealth jet"? No, of course not.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wouldn't the pod need to be outside of the internal weapon bay which will defeat the purpose of having a stealth jet?

you can design pods which are LO in their own right and are sympathetic to that platforms overall LO signature

bear in mind that LO/VLO is relative to the threat environment - its not a universal measurement and is greatly influenced not only by red team force and structure disposition as well as accompanying blue team resources


Note for All

Lets be really clear here as it seems to me that there is this persistent view that stealth is a single construct and that once defined it can be defeated by some countering widget

NO, NONE LO/VLO asset will be in the fight without supporting assets and companion systems contributing to its singular force fighting effect.

I implore everyone in here who is not aware or unfamiliar with these concepts to actually make the effort to do some basic research as quite frankly I am fed up with going over and over concepts and constructs which are self evident once the effort is made to absorb and learn

I have minimal patience for people parroting things which a 1st year air force cadet knows are palpably wrong

make the effort - or don't be surprised if you have a short stay on here.

This is not about antijsf/pro jsf approaches - it's about making the effort so that the level of debate can be lifted above the dross that is readily found elsewhere.

 

[SpudmanWP]

There are two reasons why this mini-thread about external SatCOM is moot:

1. If they wanted to integrate a SatCOM pod for F-35, it would have to wait for Blk 4 or 5. By that time, internal SatCOM would be done.

2. The SatCOM is only needed for arctic missions where the small RCS increase caused by an external SatCOM (best place is the wing AAM station) would not hamper it’s bomber intercept mission.

 

[ADMk2]

Without any disrespect, a lot of Canadians have voiced their opinion about what providing air defence for Canada actually entails.

Finally, someone has thought to ask a Royal Canadian Air Force Pilot for a professional opinion on what it takes...

Courtesy of Flight Global:

I would assume the test pilot was comparing close combat performance based on the upgraded F/A-18 engines (EPEs), which produce about 20% more thrust than the CF-18's engines (non-EPE). If so, performing like a clean legacy Hornet puts it in an elite class of fighter, with very good performance. How important this is depends again on the role and the requirements. Some contenders like the Rafale and the Typhoon may have better performance when clean, but they degrade when loaded up with external stores (more drag and weight). Super Hornets are bigger and heavier than legacy Hornets, but some engine upgrades may allow them to perform nearly as well (again, when not loaded with external stores).

There is always a debate about how important this close-in turning performance is. With advanced data links and good teamwork, it becomes less critical, because identification of threats and targeting can be done well before close-in performance becomes necessary. Weapons also make a difference. A good sensor/weapon combination can make turning less important, since it can be launched many degrees off boresight. Imagine, in the fantasy world of James Bond, the ability to launch a weapon at a threat in the rear quarter; turning would become far less important in that theoretical case! Helmet-mounted sights and AESA, paired with other types of sensor, can make a fighter able to launch at threats well off the nose.

The airframe does not need to be particularly robust for NORAD ops. Missions are quite benign in terms of G loading, and runways are runways. What could matter is how well does the airframe handle icing conditions in cloud. Prolonged flight in icing conditions is not permitted with a CF-18, due to danger of ice ingestion into the engines, causing damage to engine compressor blades. A question for the JSF is how robust is the aircraft skin, especially when dealing with icing and runway contaminants in winter conditions? The recent question of arrestor hook is also germane - sometimes we depended on the cable to stop us when runways were short and icy, which is not likely to change.

Range is one area where the CF-18 is not very good for NORAD missions. Many of the candidates go further and/or have more time on station, thus are better suited to NORAD, as are JSFs. Air refueling support is essential for most NORAD wartime scenarios, and even for some peacetime intercepts. When the Bears are well off shore (as the cruise missile carrier variants are usually), the CF-18 is quite limited in the amount of time it can escort or shadow them before having to turn back to base.

Some interesting thoughts there. These are from a guy who flew CF-18's for 10 years and appear to me, quite contradictory to the opinions of many who have never been tasked to do these sorts of things, yet are quite happy to voice their opinions on what is and isn't suitable to use whilst performing them...