Canada may become the first country to ditch the F-35 fighter jet

[caervek]

BVR is something theoretical really. There was never a long range kill against a competent airforce with the plane engaging in counter measures and maneuvers.

I will say it again, the problem here is you are basing your opinion on data collected from 1955-1991 which is completely irrelevant to modern air combat. To put this in perspective, of the aircraft recorded destroyed/damaged during aerial combat in Desert Storm:

29 were achieved with BVR missiles.
10 were achieved with non-BVR missiles.
2 were helicopters gunned down by A-10s.
1 was a helicopter bombed by an F-15.
1 was a fighter that flew into the ground while attempting to match the maneuvers of the F-111 it was engaging.

And of those 10 non-BVR kills, multiple were killed after their escorts had been eliminated via the use of BVR missiles.

Since Desert Storm BVR has been responsible for the majority of AA kills in engagements involving modern aircraft.

[Dadwen]

its one of those political things you do when being visited by a foreign leader

I just listed them because the OP tried to make it sounds like it was something special just for Trudeau.

[Ulmita]

I will say it again, the problem here is you are basing your opinion on data collected from 1955-1991 which is completely irrelevant to modern air combat. To put this in perspective, of the aircraft recorded destroyed/damaged during aerial combat in Desert Storm:

29 were achieved with BVR missiles.
10 were achieved with non-BVR missiles.
2 were helicopters gunned down by A-10s.
1 was a helicopter bombed by an F-15.
1 was a fighter that flew into the ground while attempting to match the maneuvers of the F-111 it was engaging.

And of those 10 non-BVR kills, multiple were killed after their escorts had been eliminated via the use of BVR missiles.

Since Desert Storm BVR has been responsible for the majority of AA kills in engagements involving modern aircraft.

I am wondering why you are ignoring the article completely that has incidents after 1991 which say the opposite from what you are saying.

You guys failed to shoot down the two mig-25 using 6x AIM-120. This only automatically puts them from 25% and bellow chance on shooting down anything, assuming 3x where shot per jet.

The 29 which were achieved with BVR missiles where nowhere near in max BVR range...

You are completely ignoring that they never used EW against the missiles which EW today

[Fruujik]

You guys failed to shoot down the two mig-25 using 6x AIM-120. This only automatically puts them from 25% and bellow chance on shooting down anything, assuming 3x where shot per jet.

Oh yeah, let`s ignore the 25 years of work that has been put in to guidance, counter counter-measure systems...

[Ulmita]

Oh yeah, let`s ignore the 25 years of work that has been put in to guidance, counter counter-measure systems...

Which have never been proven to work (but on the contrary have a shady record which should at least make people wonder wtf those companies are claiming)

[Fruujik]

Which have never been proven to work (but on the contrary have a shady record which should at least make people wonder wtf those companies are claiming)

And how could they have been proven to work if there hasn't been credible BVR combat between technologically advanced countries in this century?

The simple fact that every single country is investing in to BVR says a lot about it's future application. Those who are not doing it simply cannot afford it.
AESA radars are an example of that. IRST is an example of that. Extremely long-range, supersonic missiles like Meteor is an example of that. The new datalink systems are an example of that.

If you ask me to take you - a fairly shady person with a record of being proven wrong on military matters time after time - on your words versus dozens of companies worldwide who are in the business of advancing BVR capabillities, I obviously chose the latter.

[caervek]

I am wondering why you are ignoring the article completely that has incidents after 1991 which say the opposite from what you are saying.

Because the article is incomplete and biased, the bottom line is that BVR has been responsible for the vast majority of aircraft shot by other aircraft for 25 years now and is now even better than ever, hence why everyone designs planes with BVR in mind and has done for some time.

You guys failed to shoot down the two mig-25 using 6x AIM-120.

Because they turned and ran for their lives. They literally pointed their planes in the opposite direction from the missiles and accelerated to maximum speed because they knew they couldn't dodge/counter the missiles and their only chance to not die was to outrun them.

The 29 which were achieved with BVR missiles where nowhere near in max BVR range...

How is that relevant?

[Ulmita]

And how could they have been proven to work if there hasn't been credible BVR combat between technologically advanced countries in this century?

The simple fact that every single country is investing in to BVR says a lot about it's future application. Those who are not doing it simply cannot afford it.
AESA radars are an example of that. IRST is an example of that. Extremely long-range, supersonic missiles like Meteor is an example of that. The new datalink systems are an example of that.

If you ask me to take you - a fairly shady person with a record of being proven wrong on military matters time after time - on your words versus dozens of companies worldwide who are in the business of advancing BVR capabillities, I obviously chose the latter.

This conversation started because i said "BVR IS NOT PROVEN TO WORK" literally what you say.

Canada doesn't need F-35s dude. We simply don't. Stealth is (almost) useless for when you defend and BVR is an unproven concept

Also, no matter what you claim, Skroe claims, or any other "military expert" in these forums or even manufacturing company, there is history that someone can examine and look at.
You don't need to take my word for it .

[Fruujik]

This conversation started because i said "BVR IS NOT PROVEN TO WORK" literally what you say.

It`s unproven to work - however everyone else is preparing for it. See the difference? Countries worldwide are preparing for it based on a very good assumption that that is how future air combat full function.

[Ulmita]

How is that relevant?

Range it is extremely relevant when you take in consideration the other half of the package which is the stealth attribute.
According to that article using AIM-120 an F-35 would have less than 25% (more like single digit numbers chance) of shooting a flanker-e for example at max missile range.

But if it comes any closer, Flanker's-E powerfull irbis-e radar will enable them to detect it from some 80-90km away and then the F-35 is fucked.

- - - Updated - - -

It`s unproven to work - however everyone else is preparing for it. See the difference? Countries worldwide are preparing for it based on a very good assumption that that is how future air combat full function.

I never said anything against what you say. I am not sure where are you going with it or if you have even read the conversation from the begging...
Please don't jump into threads like that

[Belize]

We have one of the most respected world leaders. We'll be okay.

Hahahahahahaha.

[Fruujik]

Range it is extremely relevant when you take in consideration the other half of the package which is the stealth attribute.
According to that article using AIM-120 an F-35 would have less than 25% (more like single digit numbers chance) of shooting a flanker-e for example at max missile range.

But if it comes any closer, Flanker's-E powerfull irbis-e radar will enable them to detect it from some 80-90km away and then the F-35 is fucked.

Indeed, range is extremely relevant which is where the F-35 easily dominates.

Read : http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-...-in-air-combat

[Deleted]

0.6% sounds very low to me and even if that % is 10x-20x even 30x as high (which 632 missile shots is a huge number to safely draw conclusions from) aka 20% i would still invest in dog fighters like the typhoons hands down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

Here we have evidence of spear is superior to singel shoot rifle, the British was destroyed by the spear armed Zulu. Why invest money in a improved rifle like a repeating rifle, that eleminate the flaws of the singel shoot rifle, alow for superieror rate of fire...... only becuse the first BVR missiles failed does not means that the later BVR missiles will fail to.

[Ulmita]

Indeed, range is extremely relevant which is where the F-35 easily dominates.

Read : http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-...-in-air-combat

Yeah i've read the simulation before. In reality, though the flankers would have 360 radar coverage and in further range than the F-35s due to ground stations.

The concept of BVR + Stealth is sweet if someone assumes that the fight takes place in mid atlantic and the other side doesn't have extra radar coverage.

Also, allow me to have my doubts on the meteor as well. Until we see some real action BVR is at least questionable.

[Fruujik]

Yeah i've read the simulation before. In reality, though the flankers would have 360 radar coverage and in further range than the F-35s due to ground stations.

The concept of BVR + Stealth is sweet if someone assumes that the fight takes place in mid atlantic and the other side doesn't have extra radar coverage.

Also, allow me to have my doubts on the meteor as well. Until we see some real action BVR is at least questionable.

Su-35 is not the silver bullet that you like to imagine it is. Make no mistake, it's a highly a capable platform but it has own it`s disadvanteges as well.

https://hushkit.net/2016/03/17/su-35...-justin-bronk/

[zenkai]

https://news.vice.com/article/canada...35-fighter-jet



Good stuff. No need for these overpriced jets. I trust PM Trudeau to make the right decision.

https://news.vice.com/article/canada...35-fighter-jet

They expect the US to protect them

[Tennis]

They expect the US to protect them

If the U.S. wants to do it for free then it's their choice ain't it?

[Skroe]

If the U.S. wants to do it for free then it's their choice ain't it?

(i'll read up the thread later).

Not for free, but it is ultimately unfair. Once again, the US and Canada operate NORAD jointly, outside of NATO. American and Canadian aircraft do air continental defense. This is pretty much bread and butter "defend the country" kind of stuff, and should not be controversial at all.

To this effort America contributes our most modern F-15Cs and the F-22. Both fire long range missiles in the form of the AIM-120D.

Canada's contribution is the CF-18, which is based on the F/A-18A/B, an aircraft retired from the US Navy over twenty years in favor of the C/D model, which is in turn being rapidly retired and has largely been replaced by the E/F mode. The CF-18 cannot fire the AIM-120D, the MDBA Meteor or anything else.

How is this fair? Is every air patrol by the US deadly serious then but every air patrol by Canada a kind of meaningless "show the flag" bluff? What is the point of joint continental defense if half the partnership doesn't fulfil it's end of the bargain that IT agreed to?

Canada should buy the F-35 because it's the best option of the lot. But if it doesn't, it should buy either the Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F/G, Rafale and Gripen in that order. They will all generally do fine (at lower levels of capability than the F-35 at near equal price, thanks dual engine designs except for the Gripen). But it should buy something that can actually be a legitimate partner to the aircraft that the US is putting in the sky.

The notion that must be rejected is that Canada doesn't need Combat Aircraft. It certainly does. Continental defense and deterrence is NATO's bread and butter and Canada, like the 28 other countries, is legally bound to that goal. Fighting terrorists in "wheveristan" is NATO's hobby, and it does not and will not equip itself principally for that.


Canada does not take the US's protection for granted. But if it fails to pursue a capable successor for the CF-18 as some here have suggested, it certainly will be doing so.

[Reeve]

(i'll read up the thread later).

Not for free, but it is ultimately unfair. Once again, the US and Canada operate NORAD jointly, outside of NATO. American and Canadian aircraft do air continental defense. This is pretty much bread and butter "defend the country" kind of stuff, and should not be controversial at all.

To this effort America contributes our most modern F-15Cs and the F-22. Both fire long range missiles in the form of the AIM-120D.

Canada's contribution is the CF-18, which is based on the F/A-18A/B, an aircraft retired from the US Navy over twenty years in favor of the C/D model, which is in turn being rapidly retired and has largely been replaced by the E/F mode. The CF-18 cannot fire the AIM-120D, the MDBA Meteor or anything else.

How is this fair? Is every air patrol by the US deadly serious then but every air patrol by Canada a kind of meaningless "show the flag" bluff? What is the point of joint continental defense if half the partnership doesn't fulfil it's end of the bargain that IT agreed to?

Canada should buy the F-35 because it's the best option of the lot. But if it doesn't, it should buy either the Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F/G, Rafale and Gripen in that order. They will all generally do fine (at lower levels of capability than the F-35 at near equal price, thanks dual engine designs except for the Gripen). But it should buy something that can actually be a legitimate partner to the aircraft that the US is putting in the sky.

The notion that must be rejected is that Canada doesn't need Combat Aircraft. It certainly does. Continental defense and deterrence is NATO's bread and butter and Canada, like the 28 other countries, is legally bound to that goal. Fighting terrorists in "wheveristan" is NATO's hobby, and it does not and will not equip itself principally for that.


Canada does not take the US's protection for granted. But if it fails to pursue a capable successor for the CF-18 as some here have suggested, it certainly will be doing so.

How does the F-35 cost of ownership stack up against those alternatives you mentioned? It's one thing for the initial price to be nearly the same. It's another thing entirely for the cost of ownership/usage to be the same.

[Fruujik]

How does the F-35 cost of ownership stack up against those alternatives you mentioned? It's one thing for the initial price to be nearly the same. It's another thing entirely for the cost of ownership/usage to be the same.

It`s not cheap. Various think-tanks say different things but it`s up there.