IMG/GIF Let's Talk Canada's New Fighter Planes

[member 1013]

A CF-18 Fighter flies over the Gatineau River.

An F-35 high in the sky.

Canada's Prime Minister Delegate, Justin Trudeau has announced that the country is withdrawing from the F-35 program to allow for a "more transparent and open" bidding process for Canada's new order of fighter jets. The country is expected to order between 60-120 new warplanes. Concerns over the cost and effectiveness, especially as it relates to Canada's geography and defense needs, of the F35 program are the driving force behind this move. It is expected that the bidding will be fierce and competitive, as there are not very many expected procurements of this size in the near future. With that said, let's look at the likely bidders and arm-chair general as only mostly unqualified internet commentators can!

Eurofighter Typhoon:


Saab JAS-39F Gripen:


Dassault Rafale B:


F/A-18F Super Hornet:

 

[member 1013]

Best Fighter for Canada: How the Five Fighters stack up.

 

[member 1013]

According to the same site:

• The F-35's wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratios aren't even close to the others.
• The Gripen, Typhoon, and Rafale are quite similar, performance wise.
• The Gripen's small size keeps it from carrying heavier payloads (it carries as much as the current CF-18), but otherwise, its performance is very similar, if not superior, to the others.
• Despite its greater payload capability, the F-35 is limited by its 10 weapon hardpoints, the same as the much smaller Gripen.
• The Rafale's supercruise performance seems... Optimistic.
• The Super Hornet really doesn't improve much on the classic CF-18 Hornet as far as performance goes. It does hold more payload and has a lot more advanced gear though.
• The F-35 does not have a 2 seater variant suitable for training or advanced combat roles (weapons officer, UCAV command, etc).

 

[member 1013]

Personally I favour the Typhoon. I think that twin engine planes are vital in a country our size with so much Arctic territory. The Super Hornet seems counterproductive, although it would maintain our ability to piggy back on U.S. carriers. It seems that the Eurofighter and Saab are considered the front runners.

Should Canada go with only one type of fighter, or a mixed capacity fleet? Should we still purchase some F35s? What say you bros?

 

[jason73]

We need something that can perform in the arctic

 

[member 1013]

Jason I beleive the Typhoon and Gripen are considered proven in the Arctic.

 

[jason73]

I'm glad Trudeau scrapped the f35 deal.Harper was going through with the deal come hell or high water

 

[Zeph]

Personally I favour the Typhoon. I think that twin engine planes are vital in a country our size with so much Arctic territory. The Super Hornet seems counterproductive, although it would maintain our ability to piggy back on U.S. carriers. It seems that the Eurofighter and Saab are considered the front runners.

Should Canada go with only one type of fighter, or a mixed capacity fleet? Should we still purchase some F35s? What say you bros?

A comment on that site says that Saab have withdrawn the Gripen from consideration. Without really knowing what requirements Canada requires it would be hard for me to put forward(an uneducated guess, even so) opinion.

 

[member 1013]

I'm glad Trudeau scrapped the f35 deal.Harper was going through with the deal come hell or high water

No doubt. It's just not the aircraft Canada needs. It's a stealth strike first bomber fighter with one engine and a fatal blind spot to the rear. I have read they stopped putting it against the Typhoon because they just kept getting their asses kicked, especially by the rear blind spot in mock engagements.

Ironically it was the Liberals who initially committed to the F35, but the Conservative ramped up commitment to it drastically.

 

[member 1013]

A comment on that site says that Saab have withdrawn the Gripen from consideration. Without really knowing what requirements Canada requires it would be hard for me to put forward(an uneducated guess, even so) opinion.

They withdrew it pending on a formal declaration of competition for the contract by Canada. Once Canada actually begins the new procurement process Saab will put in a bid. At least, that's my understanding, due to the fact that it is a relatively large order, and there are not many scheduled or anticipated re-tooling of fighter fleets this size.

 

[member 1013]

Zeph here are what I believe Canada's requirements/needs are from a fighter craft: (According to what I have read from commentators and defense staff)

• Ability to function in an Arctic environment and cover a vast amount of territory
• Ability to intercept and dissuade foreign intrusions to our airspace (Mostly Russia in the High Arctic) and fulfill our NORAD commitments
• A modern fighter that is easily integrated into NATO operations
  
• Ability to participate in foreign engagements through Naval capabilities (piggybacking on Big Bro U.S.)
• Good payload for bombing enemies

Nothing crazy. We mostly engage enemies without similar airborne capabilities, far far away. We don't have Air Craft Carriers (or much of a navy at all anymore) so we hitch a ride on U.S. carriers. A concern is that all our weapons systems and software are currently integrated with U.S. systems, although they recently proved the Typhoon can integrate with these systems.

As it stands though, the CF-18 has to be replaced, it takes something like a day or two of maintenance per flight hour right now, and the aircraft is considered obsolete. We are also diminished to 18 operational aircraft at the moment.

 

[Psychotropic Wanderlust]

Rafale is a good pick IMO.

 

[member 1013]

"In the end, it boils down to three simple objectives:

1) Defend Canada
Canada needs a fighter that can perform air policing. That means being capable of reaching just about any part of Canada's sovereign airspace in order to intercept anything from bomber to a hijacked airliner. To do so, a sufficient number of fighters in the right place, at the right time. To do this, Canada's next fighter needs to be able to operate from RCAF bases across the country, including the northern Forward Operating Locations in Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, Iqualuit, and Inuvik. Hangar queens need not apply.
2) Defend North America
Lucky for Canada, we just so happen to have the world's largest military force as a friendly next-door neighbor. Being part of NORAD is a huge benefit to Canada, as it provides a substantially higher level of defense than if we were to go it alone. We still have to do our part, however, and whatever military resources we use will work best when they get along with their American counterparts.
Just because the USA has the world's largest military, does not mean their resources are limitless, however. Canada's military needs to be prepared to assist its southern neighbor if the need arises. In that case, Canada would still need to defend itself, while rendering aid to others as well.
3) Contribute to International Peace and Security
As a founding member of NATO, Canada has an obligation to assist other NATO members in matters of defense. It also means contributing to coalition actions and the like. In other words, Canadian fighter jets may be required to deploy just about anywhere in the world on short notice. In addition to this deployment, enough aircraft must be left behind to defend the home turf. "

Best Fighter for Canada: What does Canada REALLY need?

 

[ThatOneDude]

That's not a lot of aircraft for a country with Canada's land mass.

 

[member 1013]

Rafale is a good pick IMO.

It's a solid plane and looks to meet a lot of our requirements. I beleive the Saab and Eurofighter are considered more proven, but could be wrong.

 

[member 1013]

That's not a lot of aircraft for a country with Canada's land mass.

We haven't had a large air force since the cold war. And we lean on the U.S. a lot, obviously.

 

[Zeph]

Zeph here are what I believe Canada's requirements/needs are from a fighter craft: (According to what I have read from commentators and defense staff)

• Ability to function in an Arctic environment and cover a vast amount of territory
• Ability to intercept and dissuade foreign intrusions to our airspace (Mostly Russia in the High Arctic) and fulfill our NORAD commitments
• A modern fighter that is easily integrated into NATO operations
  
• Ability to participate in foreign engagements through Naval capabilities (piggybacking on Big Bro U.S.)
• Good payload for bombing enemies

Nothing crazy. We mostly engage enemies without similar airborne capabilities, far far away. We don't have Air Craft Carriers (or much of a navy at all anymore) so we hitch a ride on U.S. carriers. A concern is that all our weapons systems and software are currently integrated with U.S. systems, although they recently proved the Typhoon can integrate with these systems.

As it stands though, the CF-18 has to be replaced, it takes something like a day or two of maintenance per flight hour right now, and the aircraft is considered obsolete. We are also diminished to 18 operational aircraft at the moment.

Since you need something that works now, the F35 likely losses out, but could still potentially be the best option long term. I say this because the idea behind it, as in blow up your enemies from long range before they ever get close, is likely the direction aerial combat is heading. However, when the F35 will actually work fully, from my understanding, is still a decade or more off.

I doubt the Hornet gets picked up, since it an older model and not much of an upgrade for the investment made. Which leaves the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale(assuming it passes Arctic testing conditions). As you've noted all 3 are similar on the specifics noted, so it will come down to specifics unnoted, and price. From what a little I've picked up from discussions online, I believe the Eurofighter's radar is pretty advanced and stacks up quite well to the F35, which is the most advanced. Assuming the price is right, that would be my guess.

 

[member 1013]

 

[b00ts]

They look nice, but can they hit a thermal exhaust port the size of a womp rat?

 

[Zeph]

View: http://www.scribd.com/doc/81390363/Swiss-Air-Force-Confidential-Report-on-the-Evaluation-of-the-Eurofighter-the-Gripen-NG-and-the-Rafale

 

[Splinty]

I have no comment but hope y'all keep talking jet nerd talk so I can keep reading.

 

[WineDineSixty-Nine]

 

[1372]

FTR though...I love Canadians...I have done some of my best drinking with them.

EnglishMan in Australia....Now that's fucking respect.

 

[SongExotic2]

Zeph here are what I believe Canada's requirements/needs are from a fighter craft: (According to what I have read from commentators and defense staff)

• Ability to function in an Arctic environment and cover a vast amount of territory
• Ability to intercept and dissuade foreign intrusions to our airspace (Mostly Russia in the High Arctic) and fulfill our NORAD commitments
• A modern fighter that is easily integrated into NATO operations
  
• Ability to participate in foreign engagements through Naval capabilities (piggybacking on Big Bro U.S.)
• Good payload for bombing enemies

Nothing crazy. We mostly engage enemies without similar airborne capabilities, far far away. We don't have Air Craft Carriers (or much of a navy at all anymore) so we hitch a ride on U.S. carriers. A concern is that all our weapons systems and software are currently integrated with U.S. systems, although they recently proved the Typhoon can integrate with these systems.

As it stands though, the CF-18 has to be replaced, it takes something like a day or two of maintenance per flight hour right now, and the aircraft is considered obsolete. We are also diminished to 18 operational aircraft at the moment.

I have never worked on this aircraft. However I am certain these figures are incorrect. 18 hr maintenance for 1 hr flight is not likely. For any aircraft really.

You complete maintenance on cycles along with anything found either before or after a flight inspection. 18 hrs is a lot of maintenance, like major.

Like I've said I've never worked it. But if this is true you should set them all on fire right now

 

[sparkuri]

They should keep F-15's in the arctic and borders for quick scramble intercepts. It's the fastest and quickest rate of climb and it's service ceiling and record is unparalleled. It's the only plane that can intercept high altitude Russian bombers without firing on them from miles under.
Gripens should patrol outer airspace and Typhoons or Raphaels should be 2nd layer scramble.
I see no need for F-18's, and certainly not F-35's.