News Canada spends $9 billion for the F-35

[N_Molson]

Yeah, I agree with what is said above, but the F16 is more flexible and is still an excellent fighter IMHO. That being said, I know nothing at stealth capabilities, and I guess it's the main "pro" of the F35.

 

[SiberianTiger]

The Su-50 hasn't even really entered the market yet anyway.

But it's already a subject of contract between Russia and India, nevertheless. I think in the modern world every airplane can be considered having entered its market even before its flight tests and tuning ops end and actual production begins.

 

[RisingFury]

Why? It can be just as good, or even better, at shooting down other Su-50's (and all the other Su and MiG) if such are the circumstances.

While it would work, it's usually a good idea to design aircraft around the weaknesses of your enemy's aircraft... I assume they did that.

Yeah, I agree with what is said above, but the F16 is more flexible and is still an excellent fighter IMHO. That being said, I know nothing at stealth capabilities, and I guess it's the main "pro" of the F35.

The F-35 is designed to replace the F-16, A-10 and FA-18. It was envisioned as an F-16 with a few upgrades. It pretty much uses only the latest weaponry, it's stealth, it has a slightly longer range under it's own fuel and is capable of being deployed from land or sea. It's required to be 4 times more effective at air to air combat and 8 times more effective at air to ground combat as it's predecessors.

 

[SiberianTiger]

While it would work, it's usually a good idea to design aircraft around the weaknesses of your enemy's aircraft... I assume they did that.

Okay, now imagine: you have just an aircraft, and your adversary has an aircraft specifically designed around the weaknesses of yours... :idea:

(Am I fit for KnAAPO's marketing office already? :lol

In reality, your adversary might not have a modern air force, of course. But is it prudent to rely on it in all situations?

 

[Ghostrider]

Okay, now imagine: you have just an aircraft, and your adversary has an aircraft specifically designed around the weaknesses of yours... :idea:

Imagine that your adversary has some people with hand grenades near the hangars where you keep your expensive aircraft...

 

[ddom2006]

The Su-50 is barely out of testing yet, I'd bet my legs on the cost rising of the Su-50 dramatically over the next few years.

 

[Urwumpe]

Imagine that your adversary has some people with hand grenades near the hangars where you keep your expensive aircraft...

Imagine your adversary also having people who can think Russian.

I think we all learned in WW2, that Wonder weapons are useless when bombed into pieces in hangars on the ground, because they had no fuel for flying.

 

[MJR]

Su-50 is more of an air superiority fighter, designed to shoot down F-22's and F-35's. Wouldn't make much sense to go for those, unless you wanna invade USA...

F-22 is an air superiority fighter. Not much of a bomber.

F-35 was designed with this in mind. It's a fighter / bomber, with CAS in mind...

I doubt anyone would have the balls to invade the U.S. just as if we were to try to invade China or Russia. It is too costly on either side so we just try to stick to the same thing as superpower countries. Research and develop. Or if you are the U.S., unfortunately we always end up in the Middle East.

 

[tl8]

Air Power Australia do not like the F-35.

How? The Deadly Question for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

In another article they say it is less maneuverable than a F-4.

The F-35 is in somewhat of an unusual state here is Oz. We really don't have the money to buy the F-22, but some are saying that the F-35 might not be able to do the job.

Although APA and Aviation Australia do not agree....

 

[Fabri91]

I'm a little disapointed by the F35 performances... Mach 1.67 seems a little slow, since the F16 can fly at Mach 2.1 (for a few minutes, its true)... and the Su-50 at Mach 2.45...

You have to consider that the F-35 will eventually be able to carry 6 internal air to air missiles or 2 AAM and 2 2000lbs class stores internally, with a large internal fuel load. It will thus be able to hold that 1,67M if needed for much longer than a comparatively loaded Viper, which wouldn't be able to even reach that speed once equipped with stores and 2 330 gallon bags.

So, the F-35 might appear to be the slower plane, but in a realistic operational environment, or just about any non-air show scenario it will be quicker

Add to that that the F-35 will also be able to carry a large-ish external load if low observability isn't needed.

 

[Mantis]

The F-35 is in somewhat of an unusual state here is Oz. We really don't have the money to buy the F-22, but some are saying that the F-35 might not be able to do the job.

Although APA and Aviation Australia do not agree....

The F-22 is cancelled and out of production. The 120 or so aircraft that have been delivered are all that will ever be made. I don't believe they were ever going to be offered for export anyway.

 

[jrriss]

SU-35BM or SU-30MK would be better.

Here is another article that compares the F-18 and F-35. (Close to the end)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

 

[Mantis]

SU-35BM or SU-30MK would be better.

Here is another article that compares the F-18 and F-35. (Close to the end)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

Those are fourth generation interceptors that have nowhere near the sensor capabilities of the fifth generation F-35 nor do they have the F-35's stealth capabilities and neither is compatible with anything that our allies are flying.

 

[Izack]

Those are fourth generation interceptors that have nowhere near the sensor capabilities of the fifth generation F-35 nor do they have the F-35's stealth capabilities and neither is compatible with anything that our allies are flying.

:hesaid:
Also, the Su-30 is AFAIK an interceptor (in other words, currently useless for Canada.) Of those two craft, the Su-35BM is the superior for multirole capability, and is indeed a formidable aircraft (I'm a big Flanker fan, by the way :thumbup, though Mantis' argument against its radar stands, as well as the mentioned compatibility issues.


My main point earlier was not whether it was the right choice of aircraft (I believe it was) but whether $9 billion was an acceptable sum. Can we afford this kind of military expenditure every decade or so??

 

[ddom2006]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10648250 - A video some might be interested in. That link may only work in Britain, I'm not certain.

It is worth noting that the F-35 will be able to carry external loads soon as and when required operationally, at the loss of the stealth element of course.

 

[Turbinator]

You'll love this video, I want that simulator in my room.

 

[jrriss]

The SU-35 can fit much larger and more powerful radars.

 

[Andy44]

About compatibility, somewhere I recall reading that because the Soviet Union used American-built weapons in WWII, they standardized their bomb hardpoints to fit American ordnance, and thus NATO and Russian weapons are somewhat interchangable ever since, at least iron bombs. Is there any truth to this or am I smoking crack?

 

[Izack]

A few searches gave me absolutely nothing on that topic, sorry. I may have to bring out a few of my great aviation tomes...

I'm still pretty sure you're not smoking crack though. Crack induced posts are normally more like "nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISDSERGGtdkg DIVIDER DIVIDER" :thumbup:

 

[ddom2006]

The SU-35 can fit much larger and more powerful radars.

The SU-35 is a 4th Generation aircraft. It is more like the Panavia Tornado than the F-35.