Should the government pull out of the F-35 program now

3 Comments

  • Guest - 12 years ago

    The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block 2 are not very good air combat planes in some respects, if Canada will have to use them instead of the F-35. This aircraft has similar performance and capability deficiencies to the F-35, and is equally incapable of credibly performing against modern regional threats. The sting in the Super Hornets tail is certainly not their, perhaps the nickname called “Super Dog” and there is no way the Super Dog can be expected to hold it's own with the modern Russian sourced fighters coming into service now in our region. The aircraft is equipped with the APG-79 AESA which is a competitive design, it detection range performance has already been outclassed by the Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) radar designed for the Su-35BM/Su-35S-1 Super Flanker-E, Plus and available as an upgrade for the regional Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM Flanker-H.

    The Canadian's CF-18A/B or CF-18E/F fleet cannot currently meet its peacetime fighter availability requirements, with the remaining fatigue life in the aircraft to expire over this decade, further costly structural and enhancement program to replace fuselage centre barrels has been initiated to stretch the life of these aircraft. APG-73 radar, electronic warfare, guided weapon and missile upgrades and software will diminish this availability even further. The acquisition of Russian designed Sukhoi Su-27SK and Su-30MK Flanker series fighters by most regional nations now presents an environment where the F/A-18 family is outclassed in all key performance parameters, aerodynamic and radar performance by widely available fighters.

    There's a possibility that the Su-35 will feature a rear warning radar. The ability for the Flanker to launch AAMs backwards as an effective protection against attack from behind.

    To send the pilots into a fight with an inferior platform deliberately purchased when a demonstrably better alternative may have been available is questionable decision making at best.

    The best replacement for the CF-18A/B variants is the advanced F-15E+ Strike Eagle and UAV's.

  • Guest - 12 years ago

    No matter what upgrade to this very remarkable warplane, the advanced Flankers are extremely capable, very powerful beast, tough, and hard to shoot down that no F-35s or even small fighters with shorter range can compete with this adversary that faces biggest threat to any air force to go up against in combat.

    The Russian-made T-50 PAK-FA low-observable fighter now in development is expected to be much more lethal in air-to-air combat against the F-35. The Su-35 and T-50 made appearances last year at the Russian aerospace industry air show known as MAKS 2011. Both aircraft will include sensors and networking which can minimise the effects of the limited low-observable qualities of the F-35. They will also have higher performance, longer range (without refuelling), more powerful radars, advanced sensors, networking, data fusion capabilities and carry more air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons than an F-35.

    The F-35 JSF's fuselage is too thinned skinned. Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety precautions on the Joint Strike Fighter to protect against fire. As an close air support which the F-35 is suppose to be (when it attempts to discriminate tanks, convoys, SAMs and AAAs) its totally incapable, the aircraft will be an very easy target to shoot down, because it's such a delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 turbofan engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the engine and to the fuselage. Very little they can do because the .22 Rifle or any form of gunfire can very easily penetrate the skin on the airframe and causes it to catch on fire like a “blow torch”. With safety precautions being dropped claimed that is not needed due to save weight, I find that big disaster, certainly a very vulnerable aircraft.

    The JSF will expose more heat (in full afterburner) this will make the adversaries to detect the F-35 at long range, using heat seeking BVR (Beyond Visual Range) air-to-air missiles.

  • Guest - 12 years ago

    The F-35 JSF is a lemon and is totally incapable of facing high end threats that would not cement Canada's regional air power lead and won't be able to survive against the Russian/Chinese Sukhoi family of aircraft and upcoming J-20 Mighty Dragon. This has shown that the JSF has a lot of limitations and it cannot do a lot of things as aspected to show and promise that is a true fifth generation fighter. Because it does not meet all the requirements of partner nations, the aircraft has inferior acceleration, poor manoeuvrability, short range with no loiter time and very limited weapons payload that is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence and unsuited for air superiority role when compared against Sukhoi family of aircraft, particularly post 2010 configurations; definitely post 2015 evolved growth variants.

    The F-35 is not lethal. For Canada, this means that for the outrageous amounts of money spent on air-to-air and air-to-ground fighting capabilities, the JSF brings absolutely nothing to the table that existing aircraft designs such as the F-15, F-22, A-10 and other aircraft – cannot already do and do better.

    The F-35 JSF is not survivable. The kind of stealth quality the aircraft has is much less than the F-22 Raptor. The JSF will need the F-22 to survive serious high-end threats and the F-35 is not designed as a top level fighter. When stealth goes naked, due to turns that the maker of the aircraft has already stated, “can increase an aircraft's radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more”, the F-35 has no extreme high altitude and speed of the survivable F-22. The JSF is optimised for ‘Forward’ and ‘Side’ aspect best performance limited to X band, only. Target KPP downgraded to Low Observable (LO) from Very Low Observable (VLO) – an order of magnitude change. Conversely, while the JSF’s APG-81 radar provides respectable air-to-air radar coverage capability, it is being optimised as a bomber radar to meet the Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD) and CAIV.

    The aircraft is undergoing a substantial flight test and evaluation program, which is not progressing well and not meeting test objectives. It's been stated that what will be delivered (if F-35 ever arrives) will be obsolete; and that the F-35 is not affordable or sustainable. With cost increases, schedule delays, and continuing technical problems also increases the risk that the program will not be able to deliver the aircraft quantities and capabilities in the time required by the warfighter. The F-35 has failed the initial test of its stealth capability and remains behind schedule to provide the performance requirements. The cost of supporting the JSF will not be progressively refined between now and its introduction into its service. The F-35 will be extremely costly to operate than F/A-18 or other aircraft.

    Detailed modelling, analysis and participation in highly fidelity simulator exercise which have shown and demonstrated that the JSF has been defeated all realistic current and future threats that Canada is likely to face by the Sukhoi family aircraft and J-20 Mighty Dragon. Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation which calculated that the F-35 would be consistently defeated by the Russian-made Su-35S Super Flanker-E fighter aircraft. The defeat calculated by the scenario also showed the loss of the F-35's supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refuelling aircraft.

    The F-35 lacks the aerodynamic performance to be employed effectively as an air defence interceptor/fighter, while its stealth performance in provably insufficient for defensive/offensive counter-air and ASuW strike operations against contemporary regional capabilities.

    The technology in the Su-35 will also see its way into growth upgrades of other Su-27/30-fighter variants used by countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Vietnam. Chinese variants of these aircraft should also see similar growth capability in the coming years. No ma

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment