News Canada spends $9 billion for the F-35

[Ghostrider]

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?

I seem to remember that WAPA aircraft were designed to be somewhat compatible with NATO equipment (mainly fuel) so as to make use of captured NATO bases in the event of an invasion of Western Europe. However, weapon compatibility would have been limited to dumb ordnance, because I don't think the Soviet/Russian databus could be used with NATO weaponry.

 

[Urwumpe]

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

Not really. Russian radars are still some generations behind western ones, though slowly catching up.

Also, the Su-35 can't fit a radar in it, that can compete with the AN/APG-77 of the F-22 or the AN/APG-70 of the F-15. The design philosophy of the Su-35 is not for that. The Su-50 could carry similar equipment, but it is likely the technology is still a bit behind.

The AN/APG-81 of the F-35 is actually just the smaller brother of the AN/APG-77, with less T/R elements. Less emitter power, lower angular resolution, same scan rates and electronic capabilities.

---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 AM ----------

However, weapon compatibility would have been limited to dumb ordnance, because I don't think the Soviet/Russian databus could be used with NATO weaponry.

At least for the AAMs this is true, I know that the Germans started the IRIS-T project for having a AAM which is better than the R-73 missiles of the MiG-29, and also fits on standard sidewinder hard points.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Reuters: "Lockheed sees fourth F-35 order 'any day now'".

FARNBOROUGH England, July 19 - Lockheed Martin Corp expects to reach an agreement with the U.S. government "any day now" for a fourth batch of F-35 fighter jets, the company's program manager told reporters on Monday.

The contract has taken longer to negotiate, in part, because it is structured as a fixed-price deal rather than the cost-plus contracts usually signed for development aircraft, Tom Burbage said.

 

[Mantis]

: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??

I don't think we have much of a choice but to spend that kind of money if we want to be able to defend ourselves and meet our international treaty obligations. Considering that the CF-18s will have lasted for 40 years by the time they are retired and the F-35 takes over completely, that's not bad. $9 billion per decade is a bit much but $9 billion ever 3 or 4 decades isn't bad at all. The capabilities of this aircraft are head and shoulders above and beyond what the CF-18 - F/A-18 as well - they are supposed to be 4x more effective in the Air-to-air role, 8x more effective in the air to ground role, their sensors, including the helmet mounted target acquisition caability are vastly superior and with internal and external stores, they can carry more weapons. Really when you think about it....aside from Afghanistan, our airforce (with the CF-18s) has seen the most combat in the past 20 years or so of all the branches or the forces.