Should the Canadian Forces be acquiring the F-35A or F-35C

[JA Boomer]

It would seem to me that the Lightning II is a virtual lock to be replacing our CF-18 fleet in the next decade. We have no use for the VTOL capabilities of the F-35B, and it's pretty well assumed that Canada will purchase the F-35A. However, the F-35C offers some unique capabilities that could be useful to our mission. The larger wing offers a larger payload, and more fuel which translates into a larger mission radius. Might be useful given the size of the airspace we patrol.

Does the F-35C have any disadvantages to it? I suspect it has a slightly larger radar cross-section than the F-35A, and the beefy landing gear would be overkill for us...but maybe it would be wiser for Canada to purchase the F-35C instead of the F-35A?

[TopHatter]

It would seem to me that the Lightning II is a virtual lock to be replacing our CF-18 fleet in the next decade.

With Canada's investment in the program, I'm surprised that it's not already a done-deal.

We have no use for the VTOL capabilities of the F-35B, and it's pretty well assumed that Canada will purchase the F-35A. However, the F-35C offers some unique capabilities that could be useful to our mission. The larger wing offers a larger payload, and more fuel which translates into a larger mission radius. Might be useful given the size of the airspace we patrol.

Certainly wouldn't be the first time that a carrier variant has clobbered a land-based CTOL design in sales: Case in point, the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 thoroughly trouncing Northrop's F-18L offering.

Does the F-35C have any disadvantages to it? I suspect it has a slightly larger radar cross-section than the F-35A, and the beefy landing gear would be overkill for us...but maybe it would be wiser for Canada to purchase the F-35C instead of the F-35A?

Lack of an internal gun on the F-35C, which can be partially offset by the addition of a stealthy pod for the GAU-12/U. The gunpod can also carry an additional 38 rounds compared to the internal gun.

The F-35A will, as I understand it, be lighter and more maneuverable than the others.

Also, remember that your CF-18's are "practically stock" carrier aircraft, with that same beefy landing gear.

[JA Boomer]

With Canada's investment in the program, I'm surprised that it's not already a done-deal.

Ya, I THINK we have 2 slots from the LRIP Lot 2 reserved. But the latest I've heard is that our purchase could be as low as 60 aircraft, which is far too low as far as I am concerned.

Lack of an internal gun on the F-35C, which can be partially offset by the addition of a stealthy pod for the GAU-12/U. The gunpod can also carry an additional 38 rounds compared to the internal gun.

Mmm...yes I forgot about the internal gun. That's a significant issue. I'm still shocked the USN and USMC accepted a design without an internal gun. I would have thought the Navy learned it's lesson from the early Phantoms and the Marines would be tired of strapping pods to their AV-8B's by now.

The F-35A will, as I understand it, be lighter and more maneuverable than the others.

So the trade off is maneuverability versus payload and range. I'm not sure which wins.

Also, remember that your CF-18's are "practically stock" carrier aircraft, with that same beefy landing gear.

Ya that's true. We did add a painted canopy and a spotlight though

[Chunder]

Boomer, you need to be aware that the Vietnam missile anology does not work anymore. For one the missiles intended purpose of the day were for shooting down bombers and the like, irrespective to tech improvements. Also minus a gun significantly alters the bring back capacity of a carrier Aircraft. It's not actually often at all that combat aircraft apart from SEAD i.e A-10 use guns... hence the gun pod theory. Also, because of the VSTOL nature of the harrier the guns are podded. It works better that way.

[JA Boomer]

Boomer, you need to be aware that the Vietnam missile anology does not work anymore. For one the missiles intended purpose of the day were for shooting down bombers and the like, irrespective to tech improvements. Also minus a gun significantly alters the bring back capacity of a carrier Aircraft. It's not actually often at all that combat aircraft apart from SEAD i.e A-10 use guns... hence the gun pod theory. Also, because of the VSTOL nature of the harrier the guns are podded. It works better that way.

Ya, I guess this makes sense. I just think that it can be a useful tool when you get into a knife fight in the air, and also in case you find yourself needing to stafe a target on the ground. But honestly, this isn't going to happen very often at all, so it's a nice convienance and back-up, but I suppose not neccessary. Also the JHMCS and AIM-9X takes care of the knife fight a little quicker these days.

Just to clarify...why would Supression of Enemy Air Defense missions ever require the use of a gun??? I understand why the A-10 NEEDS a gun, and even the Strike Eagle. SEAD is not the primary role of these aircraft.

I also don't understand why you say the VTOL nature of the Harrier requires it to have a podded gun. Unless you mean that because of all the plumbing and extra equipment required for VTOL flight there is just less room for a dedicated gun?

[Chunder]

Just to clarify...why would Supression of Enemy Air Defense missions ever require the use of a gun??? I understand why the A-10 NEEDS a gun, and even the Strike Eagle. SEAD is not the primary role of these aircraft.

Sorry mate that was a pathetic brain fart of mine. - the type of mission the mud movers perform forget the correct terminology, trucks, light armor,Close air support, search & destroy.

I also don't understand why you say the VTOL nature of the Harrier requires it to have a podded gun. Unless you mean that because of all the plumbing and extra equipment required for VTOL flight there is just less room for a dedicated gun?

Because they don't rely on lift generated by the wings in the vertical mode - carrying a gun around makes the plane a lot heavier. In take of mode on the Wasp class without the ramp its a close run thing as is. It's a trade off between fuel and weapons. Also when it was designed, you will note the fan arrangement more or less directly behind the cockpit and the short nose. It's a short jet. This helps keep the center of gravity on target. Start adding significant weight up the front and you alter that. The harrier does not have all that sophisticated plumbing.

If you build the guns in under the the belly, then you also affect things like drag and such.

[Gun Grape]

In take of mode on the Wasp class without the ramp its a close run thing as is. It's a trade off between fuel and weapons.

The sea story that will never die. Harriers have No Problem taking off, fully loaded from the Wasp class.

Saw many a Harrier take off with 2 2kt LGBs, 2 fuel tanks and 2 AIM 120s.

None crashed on take off in the 4 months that they flew that way daily.

The Brits build small ships that need ramps, the US Navy doesn't.

British flight decks are 168 Meters long. Wasp class 257 Meters.

We went through ODS and OIF using Tarawa and Wasp class as Harrier carriers. Didn't notice a problem either time.


Now I could probibly come up with a time when a ramp would be beneficial.

I think I saw the argument that used Sea State 3, 80 degree temps, 90 percent humidity and 40 MPH winds across the bow to show that the US needed a ramp.

But when designing to fill the 90% solution, a ramp is a hindrance.

[Chunder]

GG, read many a few articles back in the day on USMC pilots operating off Invincible Class as opposed to the Wasp Setup. Pilots arn't really that tech minded granted and if it can do it and does do it then there isn't an argument, but thats not to say they feel comparatively better off for the experience of course. Neither of which matters in the greater scheme of things when the bring back weight is fixed. IE Have 2 120's , 2 Sideys + gun pod and things don't look that great for a VSTOL jet. Two anologies I can think of. The RN was adamant that with it's F4's the extended Oleo went someway to alleviating the short take off / pull up spec - with a cat shot & it was one heavy bastad (extended Oleo helping in absorption during landing). Another anology I can think of is the french super etendards having no bring back capability at all, thus every operation they took off on in the balkans,was a gauranteed $100k + op.

Add a gun to the equation up front and you need to counterbalance it up back. Not so easily done in VSTOL. At least, thats my take on it.

[Stitch]

So the trade off is maneuverability versus payload and range. I'm not sure which wins.

I think you guys need the range up there more than anything else, so it sounds like the C is the way to go; I think you're main adversaries, if there are any, are going to be tactical or strategic bombers, so maneuverability isn't paramount to the mission.

[TopHatter]

I think you guys need the range up there more than anything else, so it sounds like the C is the way to go; I think you're main adversaries, if there are any, are going to be tactical or strategic bombers, so maneuverability isn't paramount to the mission.

Don't forgot though, Canada's CF-18's have not been confined to North America, nor to just an anti-bomber role. They've deployed overseas for Desert Storm, and multiple operations over the former Yugoslavia, flying CAP and escort missions.

[Kilo 2-3]

Certainly wouldn't be the first time that a carrier variant has clobbered a land-based CTOL design in sales: Case in point, the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 thoroughly trouncing Northrop's F-18L offering.

While your point about carrier aircraft doing well in the land market is true (the F-4 Phantom II and the A-4 Skyhawk come to mind), the F-18L didn't sell well for other reasons.

Northrop figured that they had to have a certain number of orders on board before they would agree to even start producing the F-18L. If not enough came on, then those would had agreed to buy the F-18 would have to go elsewhere. Afraid that they would end up committing to a go-nowhere program, no nations came onboard. There was also infighting and litigation between McDonnel-Douglas and Northrop over Northrop having stolen McD's tech for use in the F-18.

[Kilo 2-3]

The extra 1,000 pounds of gas the F-35C carries looks like a definite plus as far as the range issue is concerned.

The extra weight of the ruggedized landing gear is a negative, and the larger control surfaces of the C variant really aren't needed on the kinds of missions Canada's F-35s would probably fly.

I honestly don't think it matter which variant is chosen, and since the JSF project seems to be pushing the F-35A for export, it's likely that's what the CAF will get.

But at the end of the day, Canada's going to have one hell of a fighter, be it the A or the C.

Regarding the Cs lack of a gun:

The lack of an internal gun will definitely be a mitigating factor on some missions, but I'm inclined to think it might not be a wholly bad thing. A removable gun means you have weight you can add or remove at will, which is handy if you need to keep takeoff weight down, an occurrence I can see happening in expeditionary or improvised-runway environments.

It also means additional internal space for gas, electronics/avionics

[Chunder]

The lack of an internal gun will definitely be a mitigating factor on some missions, but I'm inclined to think it might not be a wholly bad thing. A removable gun means you have weight you can add or remove at will, which is handy if you need to keep takeoff weight down, an occurrence I can see happening in expeditionary or improvised-runway environments.

Less bring back weight = benefit.

500 kg's less of gun = that much more of fuel or other expensive weapons that otherwise need to be dumped or burnt off. Pretty bad situation if the weather is crap.

[Kilo 2-3]

Less bring back weight = benefit.

500 kg's less of gun = that much more of fuel or other expensive weapons that otherwise need to be dumped or burnt off. Pretty bad situation if the weather is crap.

Just to clarify, isn't "bring back weight" defined by the amount of weight the aircraft is able take out and bring back on a mission?

I always heard it used in a context similar to this (most notably with the Super Etendard). You seem to be using it more in the sense of "the weight an aircraft is obligated to bring back to base" rather than "the max weight an aircraft can return to base with."

[TopHatter]

While your point about carrier aircraft doing well in the land market is true (the F-4 Phantom II and the A-4 Skyhawk come to mind), the F-18L didn't sell well for other reasons.

Northrop figured that they had to have a certain number of orders on board before they would agree to even start producing the F-18L. If not enough came on, then those would had agreed to buy the F-18 would have to go elsewhere. Afraid that they would end up committing to a go-nowhere program, no nations came onboard.

That's very true...I hadn't researched it well enough before posting. :)

Just to clarify, isn't "bring back weight" defined by the amount of weight the aircraft is able take out and bring back on a mission?

I always heard it used in a context similar to this (most notably with the Super Etendard). You seem to be using it more in the sense of "the weight an aircraft is obligated to bring back to base" rather than "the max weight an aircraft can return to base with."

Yes, that's what he means:

Without the added weight of a gun, the aircraft is able to bring back more of the valuable stores it left the boat with.