Okay, here we go...
What do you mean you aren't going to fly an intercept mission or any other kind of mission with only two Sidewidners? I've see intercept missions WITH MY OWN EYES on Bear bombers using an old A-7 armed with ONLY two sidewinders and a cannon! We put a sidewinder on A-6s when we had nothing else. People seem to think that the only winners in any conflict will be the ones with the highest tech machines. The USAF pilots have been given more than a few nasty suprises during exercises against the Thai's who flew old F-5's and the Indians flying updated Mig-21 aircraft. Tactics and experience made all the difference. Yes you can nit-pick the details to death but in the end the super planes didn't win.
With regards to the A-7 Corsair II intercept of a Bear bomber while armed with only two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and a cannon, approximately when and where did this "intercept" occur, and who was the operator of the A-7 (as in what nation/service)?
I ask because the A-7 is a subsonic attack jet which saw service in the US from 1965 to 1992, and the AIM-9 Sidewinder is a short/WVR air to air missile which originally entered into US service in 1956, with a range of ~10-20 miles, depending on launch altitude. Between those two facts, it means that a Bear would pretty much be the only combat aircraft which an A-7 would be fast enough to catch/intercept. Any of the other Soviet/Russian fighter-bombers, bombers or strike aircraft from the period like the MiG-21 Fishbed, MiG-23 Flogger, Su-24 Fencer or Tu-22 Backfire would easily be able to out run and evade an A-7. Several of them could also have easily engaged and shot down an A-7 before it could have gotten close enough to engage using it's Sidewinders. In short, it does not sound like an intercept to me, because an intercept is made by a fighter capable of conducting air to air combat. That is not a situation which an A-7 would seek out. That is what fighter aircraft like the F-8, F-4, F-14 or F-18 are for.
The A-6 Intruder is a similar case, it is a subsonic attack aircraft, which also saw service during a similar period from 1963 - 1997. Unless I am completely mis-reading the mission set, they are not aircraft which would deliberately sent to an air to air engagement. I do believe that some were armed with AIM-9 Sidewinders during sorties over (North) Vietnam because they might encounter MiG-21 Fishbeds and need to defend themselves. That is an entirely different situation from CAP fighters tasked with fleet air defence.
Additionally, and dealing with current warfighting systems, a fighter aircraft would not be tasked with conducting CAP/air-to-air missions in wartime using just WVR missiles. If such a situation did occur, the unfortunate fighter would face engagement and potential destruction from hostile aircraft firing BVR missiles at ranges outside of his engagement envelope. This would leave the targeted fighter no option but to engage in evasive maneuvers while attempting to close with the launching aircraft, or flying sufficiently far enough away to take him outside of the engagement range of the hostile aircraft. The first option would likely result in the loss of the targeted fighter before it could engage the enemy, while the second option might preserve the fighter for future engagements but also prevent it from engaging the enemy in that particular scenario.
I had the honor of serving onboard what was at the time the oldest conventional aircraft carrier in the fleet. (USN) We sailed undetected with two other carriers to a position just off the Russian eastern coast. The Russians found the Enterprise CVN-65 right away but we sat undetected for two weeks until we had to catch two of the Enterprises Tomcats. Then they were after us in force. The USN is one of the best, most modern navies in the world. Yet during war games foriegn conventional submarines have been able quite often to break through the defensive screen and get close enough to take pretty pictures. Again, so much for modern always being best.
In this thread I had discussed the current and possible future threats facing Canada. For decades Canada used F-5, F-106 and F-101 aircraft before buying the current CF-18 aircraft they now have. None of these aircraft are what one could call super planes by any means but it was what Canada could afford.. Yet they were put to good use by good people. The current threats and possible future threats in my humble opinion that face Canada are still long range bombers arriving over the pole to violate Canadian airspace and perhaps some type of seaborne issue involving either surface ships or submarines along the coast. I hope, as do most I'm sure, that Canada is never again involved in a major worldwide conflict. Canada has no real ememies at this time yet needs aircraft for defense. That being said I see a need for an aircraft that is able to operate as an intercepter yet also operate in an anti-shipping role with cruise missiles. The F-18SH fills this role nicely. The Ottawa Citizen was the publication I quoted from that stated Boeings offer to the Canadian government. A lot of you are picking this thread to pieces in an effort to make the F-18SH seem old and wimpy. These are new modern aircraft with a long service life ahead. They may not fit the bill for those in the United States who seem to think that if it isn't stealth it isn't worth having. That's your opinion and your entitled to it.
With respect to the ability of (some) conventional submarines to evade detection and close upon USN CBGs, (again, some) modern diesel-electric submarines are amongst the quietest subs in service. This can be attributed to a combination of the systems used, with a diesel-electric operating on batteries having few moving parts/acoustic sources, as well as the quality of the crew operating the sub. The RAN
Collins-class SSG immediately springs to mind with their respective performances during exercises. As you noted, much of the value/capability in a combat system comes from the operator. This is quite true, as a skilled and determined pilot/crew in a slightly less capable aircraft/vessel/vehicle can achieve greater results than a poorly trained and/or motivated pilot/crew could achieve with a cutting edge aircraft/vessel or vehicle.
However, when a wide margin in equipment quality or capability exists between combatants, then the side with the better equipment tends to when, particularly when both sides are equally motivated. The German invasion of Poland in 1939 comes to mind as an example. The Poles had some of the finests horses and cavalry in Europe, but they did not stand any real chance against the German panzers.
Now, back specifically to Canadian fighter requirements. I agree that Canada needs a fighter capable of patrolling the various approaches, and able to conduct maritime strike and air to air combat missions. However, these are not the only environments Canadian fighters could find themselves operating in due to treaty obligations as well as (Canadian) national interest. Also the Canadian requirement needs to be viewed within the correct context, as the fighter replacement will see operational service for some time. Therefore one must be aware that the threat matrix is changing and the frontline 4th and 4.5 Gen fighters of today will likely be significantly less competitive in the next decade, never mind to the projected 2040-2050 service life of the F-35.
To understand that better, look at the areas where significant improvements have been made in 4.5 Gen fighters when compared to 4th Gen fighters, and what has been done with the F-22 and is being worked on for the F-35. Generally speaking, the improvements have been made in information dominance/situational awareness. The sensors and avionics have been improved to increase the amount of information available to the pilot/aircrew, as well as having the information presented in an operationally useful/relevant manner. At the same time, work has been done to reduce the amount of useful information an opposing force/system can gather on a platform while it is operating, i.e. LO/sig management.
This potential advantage in information dominance can potentially allow one system to set the terms of engagement, which increases the chances for that particular side to achieve mission success/victory over the opposing side. An example I frequently use for this would be an air-to-air engagement between two different fighter aircraft (Fighter A and Fighter B). Assuming everything about Fighter A and Fighter B are exactly the same, except that due to a combination of improvements to Figher A's sensors, avionics and sig management, Fighter A can detect Fighter B at twice the range Fighter B can detect Fighter A. Due to Fighter A's ability to detect Fighter B comparatively early, Fighter A would usually be able to act first, thus choosing to engage when Fighter A can have the most possible advantages, evading when appropriate, etc. The situation of course is more complex in reality due to the large scale employment of additional external harvesting and potential acting/reacting systems, but the general idea is there.
-Cheers
