Jimmy

Considering Canadians make up a pretty big portion of NORAD and actively serve in the AWACS fleet in Alaska and even Oklahoma, I'd say it matters. I'm sure my boss (a Canadian) and my mission crew commander (a Canadian) would agree.

Bluesman

Interestingly enough, the Foreign Disclosure Officer (of which I am now one) training that I went to last week in DC was held in the Joint Strike Fighter offices. And the reason for that is because Canada has unique exceptions to the 'No Foreign Nationals' security caveat. While I was in their spaces (excellent hosts, by the way), I saw just about every foreign air force represented in that office that is participating in the JSF program, and ALL of 'em were wearing 'Visitor' access badges, except US and Canadian. Hell, even I was a 'Visitor'.

Canada matters, and in ways not normally seen by the public. NORAD positions, industrial cooperation, intel sharing and many more examples exist of a closer relationship between Canadian military and security organs and their US counterparts. I got to see that in an entirely new way just last week.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Newguy

They sure do! I worked with CANSOF in Afghanistan, and I would fight with them any day of the week.

Bluesman

I still think about my pal from OSINT that got killed in Afghanistan.

Wrote this in Feb '06:
__________________


I wrote this in Sep '06:

Sinister

Where are more options? Su-35 etc ?

xiliyiwuyan

F-35.
stealth means attack first.

JA Boomer

Well, as the thread starter, I have to admit I had alternative motives for the question. I was attemting to determine if Canada might be better off ordering EF-2000's rather than F-35A's as replacements for our Hornets, given our domestic requirements for fighter aircraft. You are quite right though, several aircraft: Grippen, Rafale, F-15SG, Su-30, F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F, could be added to the list. Although realistically I think only the EF-2000, F-35A, F-15SG, and Su-30 would contend for the title of second-best air-to-air fighter.

EDIT: I would not put Su-35 on the list, as there are what, less than 10 in actual service?

scorefour

British F-35's will feature internal ASRAAM's with a trapeze, similar to the F-22. This will allow the seeker to acquire the target prior to launch. I haven't heard of similar plans for the AIM-9X. The US has developed stealthy external pods, however. I don't know if they plan on using those for the 9X. It really seems that the A2A component of the F-35 will be a spiral development for the US. It's definitely not the chief concern coming out of the gate.
The avionics of the F-35 will be a generation ahead of the Typhoon. Not many details have been leaked about this, but this will be the F-35's greatest weapon.
Does anyone know which Tranche is supposed to feature thrust vectoring on the Typhoon? I heard that Tranche 3 may be cancelled.

__________________
I want what I do not have.

Tin Man

AFAIK ASRAAM will be the only AIM carried by UK F-35. AMRAAM is out.

The IPT thrust vectoring nozzle for the Typhoons are not a feature for Tranche 3. This will be an "option" for individual customers in the future, maybe....I don`t think thrust vectoring is a necessity for Typhoon. T3 is not going to be canceled, but some customers will try to scale back their order numbers. Remember, original numbers were defined during the cold war. Times change.

Of which aircraft is better? Well, one of them isn`t even in service yet, so is it difficult to compare a semi-paper Tiger to an immature, but in-service jet? Bet your back side it is!

The F-35`s greatest weapon could be its whopping internal fuel load, but that f-135 motor develops a hell of a lot of thrusties! In physics, you don`t get `owt for nowt! The Typhoons avionics are just fine. Bet you guys didn`t know that the Tornado still uses some ancient 486 processors and can still do the biz`!

Stealth should tip the balance for the f-35 but we don`t know how good the stealth part of the equation is yet. I have said on another thread, we have to understand that F-35 stealth levels ain`t going to rival the Raptors, all aspect. With the F-35, it should be good but it is definitely a "wait and see" on all around performance. I have a sneaking feeling it will be uber cool.

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

JA Boomer

Oh? I've never heard of or seen these. Got any information?

Fuel load and combat range are the hardest information to find from a reliable source I find. Does the Lightning II have a significantly increased fuel load than the aircraft it will be replaceing (F/A-18C, AV-8B, F-16C)?

Tin Man

Internal fuel load for the F-35 is something like 18,000lbs, much greater than an F-16,18 or AV-8. However, fuel fraction is the important measure.

The F-35 also has a motor producing much more thrust, I have seen numbers @43,000lbs for the f-135 engine. With a light weapons load and full fuel capacity, coupled with an efficient cruise profile, F-35 range should be pretty good.
In reality "real world" missions may be different,with full weapons load, but if you add external fuel pods, this may alleviate matters although you are by definition, hauling more weight which means more fuel burnt. We will just have to see how it pans out.

There are stealthy pods out there, but you won`t find much in the public domain for obvious reasons. I have seen mention of podded JDAM and other weapons, a stealthy podded gun for USMC V/STOLS, even fuel tanks,

There is some info` out there on the podded gun. Happy hunting!

Tarek Morgen

But doesn't every pod, even stealthy ones, increase the visibility on radar?

__________________
uh I might be wrong

Tin Man

Tarek, this is a huge problem. It is very difficult, a stealthy pod standing on a Bi-static test rig on its own may be ok and reflect zip.
When you hang it on a pylon, the radar picture becomes far more complex and the pod could actually increase total radar returns because of the way it interacts with the rest of the airframe. Its a real muddle. The pylon itself will even have to have the same attention as the pod and be stealthy. We could see some very strangely shaped pods! Remember though that they can`t increase drag too much. Conformal weapons pods that stay with the aircraft sound like the best way to go for me, blended to the body of the aircraft. Any of them may impose drag or other penalties.

Tarek Morgen

Could the pylon not be designed to be "dropable" just like the pod?

Tin Man

On the F-22, the fuel tank pylons are indeed permanently attached to the tank and go with it when jettisoned, to give the F-22 its original Lo appearance. They are not however, stealthy.

I don`t think the USAF will be dropping stealth technology onto enemy territory whilst en-route or on egress, for opposing scientists to examine. That is the danger when dropping a "stealthy" pod of any kind. It is a no-brainer really. Anything stealthy will go home with the aircraft, including weapons pods. They could take the form of a weapons dispenser rather than a pod you jettison.

I have some pictures of proposed conformal pods from the 1980`s and a couple of pictures of stealthy conformal missiles, will try to dig them up and post them. They were all proposals from various contractors and all publicly available I might add!
Not all specifically for the F-22, but some were proposed when it was known as the ATF, long before the Raptor took shape.