Canada pays 9 billion for 65 x F-35

[Sarevok]

Yes. If the F-35 was really as cheap as it was supposed to be it would have been a fantastic airplane. But is is not and presently there are no American alternatives under development. It seems a lot of nations that banked on the F-35 are going to be in quagmire when time comes to replace their existing fighter aircraft.

[Beowulf]

Pretty much.

And since we need fighter/bombers, that sort of limits the options. Besides, how long and how much did we spend on devlopment on this thing (from the article).

Well the F-35 has problems in the bomber role. It can not carry as much as older fighter bomber planes such as the F-111 nor does it have the same range. The F-35s stealth from directions other than head on is questionable and that is very very risky when flying against ground based air defense which would be looking at the planes belly.

If you consider only internal weapons, the F-35 can carry as much weaponry as the F-111. If you consider both internal and external, the F-35 still comes out ahead in realistic load, because the F-111 can only utilize one of the inner most wing weapon stations, compared to the 3 that the F-35 has, which can carry 5000lb, 2500 lbs, and 300lbs, from inner to outer station. The F-35 may not be as stealthy from directions outside the front quarter, but it does have low observable techniques applied to directions other than just the front. The very fact that you're concerned about returns from the plane's belly from the front shows just how little you know about stealth (and by extension, how much Kopp is pushing his agenda).

[MKSheppard]

If you consider only internal weapons, the F-35 can carry as much weaponry as the F-111.

But can it carry it as far as the pig?

[Beowulf]

If you consider only internal weapons, the F-35 can carry as much weaponry as the F-111.

But can it carry it as far as the pig?

Unsurprisingly, given the ~40% lower empty weight of the F-35, no it can't.

[tim31]

Which caused quite a stir in the armchair defence establishment down here. 'We won't even be able to attack Indonesia!' Uh, yeah.

Anyway if this program has it's so-called PIE moment you people had better pony up a consolation prize.

[weemadando]

F-35
Combat radius: 610 nmi (1,110 km) on internal fuel

F-111
Combat radius: 1,160 nmi (2,140 km)

[tim31]

The issue is supposedly being offset by new tankers.

But yeah, let's not dwell too much on how sad it is that the RAAF wishes to superannuate an aging workhorse.

[Pelranius]

If you consider only internal weapons, the F-35 can carry as much weaponry as the F-111. If you consider both internal and external, the F-35 still comes out ahead in realistic load, because the F-111 can only utilize one of the inner most wing weapon stations, compared to the 3 that the F-35 has, which can carry 5000lb, 2500 lbs, and 300lbs, from inner to outer station. The F-35 may not be as stealthy from directions outside the front quarter, but it does have low observable techniques applied to directions other than just the front. The very fact that you're concerned about returns from the plane's belly from the front shows just how little you know about stealth (and by extension, how much Kopp is pushing his agenda).

Wait a moment, I thought that the F-111 could carry 14.3 tons, while the F-35A is restricted to only 8.1 tons.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wait a moment, I thought that the F-111 could carry 14.3 tons, while the F-35A is restricted to only 8.1 tons.

That is the paper F-111 payload. In reality it would never carry more then about 6,000-8,000lb of weapons on a mission. The aircraft can barely take off with its max bomb load (and this means not having full fuel tanks) and the combat ceiling drops to something like 15,000 feet while doing so. Mind you lots of aircraft have totally unrealistic paper bomb loads. On paper a mere F-16 can get into the air with 17,000lb of bombs, approaching the payload of an Avro Vulcan bomber, but that sure isn't happening in combat.

[Pelranius]

That feels like such a letdown. For the size of the F-111's airframe, I expected at least ten tons as a practical payload.

[Sea Skimmer]

Remember the F-111 is a 100,000lb MTOW airplane, powered by a pair of TF30 engines which were intended to for a design in the 50-55,000lb MTOW class. That's why performance drops to crap with anything close to max bomb load. Meanwhile an F-15E is 86,000lb MTOW and also carries about 8,000lb of bombs on a typical mission, but not as far as an F-111 can reach. But the key thing being it can defend itself from air interception, just like the F-35 can very effectively, far more so then anyone is giving it credit for. Kopp is not a credible source of information on this; I mean the guy had an actual financial stake in getting his insane super F-111 concept going and suggests such brilliant projects as building 200 foot wide hardened aircraft shelters. His site basically exists to come up with excuses why the F-35 sucks. Its funny too how much he talks about Russian networked radars being able to defeat stealth, yet more or less totally ignores the revolutionary step forward the F-35 represents in networked warfare. Putting that capability into any other airframe would be just as expensive, and take an extra ten years to design. So maybe you could have an equivalent F/A-18H Ultra Horror in service by 2025...

[Sephirius]

Sephi is an idiot. What else would we buy? We have no other real choices, being part of NATO and with our extensive cooperation with the US. They aren't going to sell us the F-22, buying Russian fighters is politically retarded, and the Silent Eagle is a God damn concept plane at best.

Even his chart doesn't give any measurements, just some nice colour coded bullshit.

Rafale, Super Hornet, Eurofighter.

Let me put it this way, strip away the F-35's (much degraded from the F22's) stealth, what else does it have going for it? It's a one-trick-pony, it's the fighter equivalent of putting all the eggs in one basket. At least the other craft which could have been procured have maneuverability or speed or carrying capacity etc.

When it comes down to it, it's a slow, light aircraft with poor range and performance, just like the F117 that it is replacing (in the US anyway).

[Questor]

When it comes down to it, it's a slow, light aircraft with poor range and performance, just like the F117 that it is replacing (in the US anyway).

Is that a joke?

The F-35 isn't a replacement for the Nighthawk (although it will end up doing those jobs, too), it's putatively a replacement for the F-16 in the Hi-Lo mix, or at least that is my understanding. The list of aircraft the F-35 is supposed to replace is rather long:

F-117
F-16
F-18 (early versions)
AV-B
A-10

[Sephirius]

When it comes down to it, it's a slow, light aircraft with poor range and performance, just like the F117 that it is replacing (in the US anyway).

Is that a joke?

The F-35 isn't a replacement for the Nighthawk (although it will end up doing those jobs, too), it's putatively a replacement for the F-16 in the Hi-Lo mix, or at least that is my understanding. The list of aircraft the F-35 is supposed to replace is rather long:

F-117
F-16
F-18 (early versions)
AV-B
A-10

The point I was making was more that the F-35 is closest to the F-117 in terms of capability and attributes than any of the other aircraft on that list, and that the former is an intended replacement for the latter. If one were to take an F-117, strap A2A capability to it and a 25mm cannon, along with requisite technology upgrades, you would basically get an F-35.

[Sea Skimmer]

Rafale, Super Hornet, Eurofighter.

Generation 4.5 at best, which is being generous since only the Super Hornet even has an AESA radar at this point. The F-35 is generation 5 and that involves a lot more then stealth.

Let me put it this way, strip away the F-35's (much degraded from the F22's) stealth, what else does it have going for it?

The most advanced avionics package ever put in a fighter. That matters more then anything else. That's also why the F-35 costs so much despite being single engine. The cost is entirely the result of its very advanced capabilities and lavish sensor suit. You want something cheaper, you are going to have to shed capability and and upgradeability rapidly. Upgradeability would really suck on Rafale and Eurofighter since the systems are simply dated at this point. Both planes were delayed by politics.

It's a one-trick-pony, it's the fighter equivalent of putting all the eggs in one basket. At least the other craft which could have been procured have maneuverability or speed or carrying capacity etc.

Carrying capability? You realize that none of the planes you listed are able to carry 5,000lb bombs right? The F-35 can which means it can carry heavy cruise missiles and heavy anti bunker weapons (GBU-28) which are just physically impossible to hang off the other planes you cited. This is very important since right now the only other fighter which can carry heavy weapons like that is the F-15E, and not many of those exist. The other choice is bombers, but few nations can afford any kind of bomber at all.

As for maneuverability, flight controls matter more then people saying it looks sluggish. The F-35 is reported to be a 9-G plane which is the same as most other fighters in the world today. It doesn't improve on the performance of existing planes, but that isn't very important in all reality. The Russians and French claim stuff like pulling 13-14 Gs max, which is possible for sure, but a turn rate like that can't be sustained and many pilots can't physically take it without blackout. indeed the French claimed 13.4 Gs all the way back on the Mirage 2000. Super hard turning dogfights become entirely about pilot skill anyway, and are a poor way at best of getting kills. Always have been, even in the world wars when everything was machine guns. The Red Baron himself was highly successful in large part for championing more advanced energy tactics, only to have his replacement Goring lead everyone back into tail chasing turning matches.

When it comes down to it, it's a slow, light aircraft with poor range and performance, just like the F117 that it is replacing (in the US anyway).

Rafael and Typhoon have very marginal supercruise, about mach 1.2-1.3 just past transonic, and only then when carrying just a few air to air missiles and nothing like a bomb load. Other then that they are stuck subsonic 99.5% of the mission just like the F-35 and F/A-18 are. With afterburners the F-35 is as supersonic as the rest of them. As for poor range, hell no, the F-35 will beat or equal any of those planes with a similar drop tank setup, or with no tanks. If we look at the big wing F-35C, its range without any drop tanks is nearly equal to a Typhoon with three drop tanks at about 710nm vs. 750nm. The F-117 is only a tiny piece of the pile of aircraft the F-35 replaces, including the entire A-10 and F-16 force. In fact the F-117 fleet was already crushed with heavy machinery, the plane was just obsolete because it was in fact a one trick pony. The F-35 is not, the F-35 suffers from doing too much if anything.

Once of the nice things about the F-35 is that basically nothing has been given up in total payload in exchange for that internal 4,000lb + AMRAAM payload. In fact the total payload is quite high making it heavier then a B-17 when it wants to be, yet it can still fly in a fairly light configuration for air to air if required. A light plane the F-35 is NOT. MTOW is 70,000lb for the A and C models, 60,000lb for the F-35B. Empty weight for F-35A is 29,000lb the others are a little heavier. An F/A-18E is 30,000lb empty, 66,000lb MTOW. Typhoon is 24,500lb empty and 52,000lb MTOW. Rafael is smaller still at about 22,000lb empty for the land based variant and 54,000lb MTOW.

I dunno how you got the idea that the F-35 is light. It is very often criticized for being too heavy, but as you can see from these numbers its nothing exceptional when empty, and the amount of fuel and weapons it hauls on top of the empty weight can be adjusted for what the mission requires.

[Ritterin Sophia]

F-117
F-16
F-18 (early versions)
AV-B
A-10

You forgot the F-15s that aren't being replaced by F-22s.

[Questor]

F-117
F-16
F-18 (early versions)
AV-B
A-10

You forgot the F-15s that aren't being replaced by F-22s.

I wasn't sure if the numbers were high enough to legitimately include those.

[Sea Skimmer]

The F-15C/D is expected to last a long while yet as of now, into the mid 2020s. If it retires before then it will be without replacement. The USAF would like a sixth generation fighter to appear by the very late 2020s... but since they can't even come close to defining a concept yet let alone starting work its very unlikely that an aircraft could appear by then even if funding was not an issue. Its not really clear that something we think of as a fighter today will even make sense by that point.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I wasn't sure if the numbers were high enough to legitimately include those.

USAF operates 499 of them that haven't been replaced by the only 100 Raptors and the past couple years we've seen a number of catastrophic malfunctions due to age which throws the long term serviceability of the remaining aircraft into question.

[Sea Skimmer]

USAF operates 499 of them that haven't been replaced by the only 100 Raptors and the past couple years we've seen a number of catastrophic malfunctions due to age which throws the long term serviceability of the remaining aircraft into question.

Current F-15C/D inventory is 390 aircraft, plus about 200 F-15Es which is basically a different aircraft internally. About 150 F-22s have been produced so far out of 187. The short term plan is to reduce the F-15C/D inventory to around 200 planes which then have to last into the 2020s. Since that will mean we have another 190 spare F-15 airframes its unlikely they get too worn out to live that long.

A far greater threat is simply that between Gates hating the idea of wars in which the enemy can fight back and Congress feeling the money pinch the end strength of USAF fighter forces will just be heavily cut. Even if they plan to restore numbers with F-35 down the line, a lot of existing planes may be retired in the very near future to save on operations and training costs. That could include the entire F-15C/D force; though this is doubtful.

[Elfdart]

Looks like they need 66 now:

[Pelranius]

Ah shit. At least both pilots seem to have gotten out. I just hope the second guy's parachute deployed.

[Kanastrous]

It was a single-seater. The second 'crewman' you see is the empty ejection seat.

Sure hope the pilot's not badly hurt.

[Edward Yee]

I wouldn't be surprised if he was injured by the ejection... I've heard something to the effect that it protects your life, not your health.

[Hawkwings]

Holy shit.

Related question: how did the ejection seat rotate and kick him up, rather than perpendicularly out from the airplane?