tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43848561235589267632024-03-14T08:48:19.430-03:00BEST FIGHTER FOR CANADAWhat should replace the CF-18?Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.comBlogger423125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-26393356121346674262022-04-03T15:41:00.000-03:002022-04-03T15:41:42.747-03:00FINAL THOUGHTS<p></p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO_c-_UoFIx4-rxlVRGydsHfnWL4EBZXxB9scjPRm0bG60YyurplqBh8gT2liM6sYHKwEAsFrO2hUEJbW1q-KKlt1ozUcxdjj6vwCJPr8oOLpe45xzov5Ys2sr3eTfmKpH_jCXBhcIW53rO7VYXkF12JyTN3upkTf135aD8MYJXqAsKw884Ihl_zIi/s578/IMG_9501.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="431" data-original-width="578" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO_c-_UoFIx4-rxlVRGydsHfnWL4EBZXxB9scjPRm0bG60YyurplqBh8gT2liM6sYHKwEAsFrO2hUEJbW1q-KKlt1ozUcxdjj6vwCJPr8oOLpe45xzov5Ys2sr3eTfmKpH_jCXBhcIW53rO7VYXkF12JyTN3upkTf135aD8MYJXqAsKw884Ihl_zIi/w640-h478/IMG_9501.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><h2 style="text-align: left;">So…. Now what?</h2><div>The process is still far from over but what is left is mostly mundane and bureaucratic. Stuff like finalizing costs, delivery dates, etc.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hopefully, Canada can now focus it procurement efforts on revitalizing the rest of the Canadian Armed Forces. With fighters and frigates out of the way; it’s high time we look into replacing our submarines, MRTTs, and other. Recent lessons from the war in Ukraine has also made it clear that UCAVs are the future of warfare. Canada best catch up.</div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Was all this for nothing? </h2><div>No. I do not believe so. </div><div><br /></div><div>Even though Canada is still choosing the F-35, it is doing so in a much more rational way. We have taken the time to evaluate our needs. Taken a clear look at the options. We have arrived at a decision removed from political whim. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ultimately, Canada is getting a lot more aircraft than initially planned. We are also getting later build F-35s. Now, more of the kinks are out. These newer aircraft should be both more reliable and more easily upgradable than earlier production JSFs. </div><div><br /></div><div>The protracted decision making has also forced Canada to upgrade its existing CF-18 fleet. While unfortunately expensive, this will be better prepared for when the almost inevitable delays in JSF delivery happen. Those who believed that Canada should deploy a mixed fighter fleet will ultimately get their wish. The RCAF will be flying both the F-35 and a fully modernized CF-18 well into the 2030s and possibly beyond. </div><div><br /></div><div>The RCAF's fighter fleet will be far more capable and robust than if Canada had gone with its earlier decision to sole-source 65 F-35s. I do not see that as a bad thing. </div><div><br /></div><div>While the process took FAR TOO LONG, I do have faith in the process itself. The FFCP decision was made free (as possible) from political interference. Hopefully, now that a "template" has been developed, it can now be used as a template in order to speed up future military procurements. </div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">What about Saab? </h2><div><br /></div><div>The Gripen was always the underdog in this fight.</div><div><br /></div><div>The fact that Saab secured runner-up status is a victory in and of itself. It surpassed industry giants like Airbus, Dassault and Boeing. Not a bad showing considering that many predicted Saab would be the first eliminated. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Federal government has left the door open to negotiate with Saab is talks with Lockheed Martin fall apart. This is unlikely, but not impossible given the long sordid history of the FFCP. </div><div><br /></div><div>While Saab may have been denied victory in this particular case, it does walk away stronger. It’s strong showing in the FFCP has proven its suitability as a potential NATO-compatible fighter. The Gripen E may still become the de facto fighter for nations unable to obtain the F-35. </div><div><br /></div><div>I fully expect the Gripen to secure more sales in the future. It will be interesting to see if Saab ever develops a follow-up. </div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">What about me?</h2><div>I’m going to take a break. </div><div><br /></div><div>When I first started Gripen for Canada over 10 years ago, I had no idea how far it would go. Initially, it was just an “escape”; a way of dealing with some PTSD issues. I didn’t think it would garner much attention… Just yet another goofball rambling on the internet. </div><div><br /></div><div>I never proclaimed to be an expert.</div><div><br /></div><div>Over the years, I’ve had the fortune to converse with those who know far more than me on the subject. I’ve learned a lot. More importantly, I’ve met some incredible people and made some good friends. This blog may be finished, but the friendships live on. </div><div><br /></div><div>I want to give a heartfelt thanks to all those who have visited my humble little blog. Those that have supported me. Those that challenged me. It has not always been easy. Sometimes it has even gotten dirty. I apologize for that. </div><div><br /></div><div>I want to reiterate that, while I did have a great admiration for the Saab Gripen, I was never adamant on its selection to replace the CF-18 Hornet. Nor did I have an overwhelming hatred for the Joint Strike Fighter. All I really wanted was for the Canadian government to take a thorough, unbiased look at all the options and perform its due diligence. I believe it did that. If my actions and words on this blog helped spur that process, I can be proud of what I have done here. </div><div><br /></div><div>So what is next for me?</div><div><br /></div><div>Recently, I have taken a more active role in an <a href="https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/province-house/ambulance-system-is-nearing-the-point-of-failure/" target="_blank">issue far closer to home for myself and my family</a>. I firmly believe that my experience with this blog will help me in my new role. If nothing else, I have learned of patience and the frustration that comes with dealing with government bureaucracy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe I'll find something else to write about. Maybe I'll write a book... But not about fighters. I think I have had enough of that. </div><div><br /></div><div>As for this blog, it has run its course. Its initial purpose was to convince the Canadian government to take a sober, unbiased look at all the fighter options. A purpose that was served long ago. Now that the decision has been made, there is little more to discuss. Yes, there is the <i>possibility</i> that negotiations with Lockheed Martin break down and Canada approaches Saab; but the chances of that happening are remotely slim. <i>Of course, given the long saga of the CF-18 replacement, it certainly isn't impossible.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Once again, I want to thank each and every one of you that have been on this ride with me. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">What a long, strange trip it has been...</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmKkMRd0s0TEv_kbB5r55n4Hg6EUZ2xsb4RYtttBhWnSI5nZtzgWyJhb3lJR5BLpR8Q1uJqULocAALJh6jWeofI8wh5Wr7AhrxoBWNxsoKuj36Ji0MsAQZycJj4j1vPcDYkxvT9a5J2k03Qx2PFKT_E0UgMrlSjG7RMEZ76OT16Tn3zWSGUR66EthL/s700/1*IXk2_mmd0rqoK679wt_f0g.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="440" data-original-width="700" height="402" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmKkMRd0s0TEv_kbB5r55n4Hg6EUZ2xsb4RYtttBhWnSI5nZtzgWyJhb3lJR5BLpR8Q1uJqULocAALJh6jWeofI8wh5Wr7AhrxoBWNxsoKuj36Ji0MsAQZycJj4j1vPcDYkxvT9a5J2k03Qx2PFKT_E0UgMrlSjG7RMEZ76OT16Tn3zWSGUR66EthL/w640-h402/1*IXk2_mmd0rqoK679wt_f0g.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-56236408964854939362022-04-01T03:02:00.002-03:002022-04-01T07:18:53.091-03:00THE REAL REASON THE GRIPEN LOST...<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqw2XxrINDeBkIp6l7oisdOhIb8PEu9Fca90f2OU77ZeI7eaPGwux3Xfx8wq533QOHvIQox-vAGoUeHvJoshy5ZCdBvIJjA8SQ03M1R1KcDgY8R_h2IqJRwIsflYIsv_8r2NnaQRmSN9he-eg0Yu5sY7qe6NIvVSwOFseQ6-I3_wMLTF0QWq6xCL4y/s2200/381-next-generation-anti-ship-missile-system2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="2200" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqw2XxrINDeBkIp6l7oisdOhIb8PEu9Fca90f2OU77ZeI7eaPGwux3Xfx8wq533QOHvIQox-vAGoUeHvJoshy5ZCdBvIJjA8SQ03M1R1KcDgY8R_h2IqJRwIsflYIsv_8r2NnaQRmSN9he-eg0Yu5sY7qe6NIvVSwOFseQ6-I3_wMLTF0QWq6xCL4y/w640-h314/381-next-generation-anti-ship-missile-system2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p>For those of you wondering how Saab lost the FFCP competition, new information has come to light...</p><p>According inside sources, the initial scoring of the two fighters was incredibly close. The F-35 did indeed win the "Capability" category (worth up to 60%) while the Gripen E ended up being ahead on both price (worth 20%) and industrial offsets (worth the remaining 20%). </p><p>According to my source April Furst, who is currently serving an internship in the House of Commons. The ultimate decision was made rather hastily while the final scores were being tallied up. </p><p>"Due to COVID restrictions and renovations, the FFCP committee were forced to convene in a remote office located in the basement of the Parliament building. You could tell it wasn't used very often. Lots of cobwebs, and the whole place smelled musty and moldy. </p><p>"The committee members were doing their thing, going down each individual line of the respective offers. It was actually pretty close, by the sounds of things...</p><p>"They got to the part of Saab's proposal regarding IMP doing final assembly on Canadian soil... Then things started to get WEIRD. </p><p>"Despite being in the basement, we could all feel a cold draft. The lights started to flicker on and off. The musty smell seemed to disappear, replaced with the odor of Brylcream and cheap Scotch whiskey. Just then, a ghostly apparition appeared! It appeared to be an angry man in his mid-70s, his hair was white and matted down with some sort of greasy adhesive... Yet still had a peculiar wave to it. His eyes were both angry and piercing. Jowls shook back and forth over rotten teeth. He appeared to be dressed in a suit that was both incredibly boring yet disheveled. </p><p>"Groaning loudly, the apparition floated over the table where all the papers were located. He pointed at the chart detailing Saab's plans to build a fighter jet in Canada and said one word: 'NO!'</p><p>"The apparition then disappeared as quickly as it appeared... With the word 'NO' still echoing through the halls.</p><p>"Terrified from what what they had just seen, all the committee members looked at each other in shock. Eventually, somebody said: "Sooo... F-35 then?" </p><p>"Everyone hastily agreed, stacked all the papers together and got out of that room as quickly as they could."</p><p>Ms. Furst could not not precisely describe <i>who</i> the apparition appeared to be. She would only describe it as "the stuff of nightmares".</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7XxzCinAx1c2oSb5y35DSuYaGaIflfs4z8lMgQ0IxJ_p9qdDiQPrOiRBC37su6slAimMnZg658RPWWvDypZ1jJAUuIfDoa73eapPVy9aKYkxTWAcE1yswKFKSx6aV82SeJJ7YpQhCT9MAfKrPKK1IZNOed4-DQYFiqF-gwqq1LP3kDKe-0JDvpfEI/s750/3016165.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="608" data-original-width="750" height="518" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7XxzCinAx1c2oSb5y35DSuYaGaIflfs4z8lMgQ0IxJ_p9qdDiQPrOiRBC37su6slAimMnZg658RPWWvDypZ1jJAUuIfDoa73eapPVy9aKYkxTWAcE1yswKFKSx6aV82SeJJ7YpQhCT9MAfKrPKK1IZNOed4-DQYFiqF-gwqq1LP3kDKe-0JDvpfEI/w640-h518/3016165.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Happy April First everyone!</p><p><br /></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-62792229177491557582022-03-30T09:36:00.000-03:002022-03-30T09:36:12.232-03:00F-35 FOR CANADA.<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxKB1ruNqpXie94s2xr71dACuwYxDHyRoe_2hxcGgU7Mho9wrhTxNKYDqj5oByV2t2v-EA5E6qBYcarRPmFyXRptl7CM4Td57npiyvo4qyEX92FtX2Nh_uXUyuxLA6ub0g1o75rd5ndx43PJhe4AIcd-g5kKZCSIhw1gQnBePlRK3BTWzetuOtQcMD/s1650/CF-35-Lightning-II.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1650" data-original-width="1275" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxKB1ruNqpXie94s2xr71dACuwYxDHyRoe_2hxcGgU7Mho9wrhTxNKYDqj5oByV2t2v-EA5E6qBYcarRPmFyXRptl7CM4Td57npiyvo4qyEX92FtX2Nh_uXUyuxLA6ub0g1o75rd5ndx43PJhe4AIcd-g5kKZCSIhw1gQnBePlRK3BTWzetuOtQcMD/w494-h640/CF-35-Lightning-II.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The F-35 will be Canada's next fighter. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In a process more than ten years in the making, the Canadian government officially announced that it is <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-negotiations-1.6399978" target="_blank">entering talks with Lockheed Martin </a>to procure 88 F-35A Lightning II multirole fighter aircraft. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">If talks break down, the Canadian government reserves the right to approach Saab and acquire the Gripen instead. This scenario is highly unlikely... But not impossible given the long sordid history of the FFCP. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Canada first announced that it was buying the F-35 <i>way back</i> in 2010, only to be "reset". </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It appears we have come full circle.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">What was the point?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The truth is, the initial decision to purchase the F-35 was incredibly flawed. Costs were unrealistically optimistic. The aircraft's development was deeply troubled. No serious consideration was given to any other aircraft. Even the number of aircraft to be purchased (65) seemed to be shockingly low. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Canada made the right decision to "reset" the purchase. Canada made the right decision to hold a fair and open competition to replace the CF-18. Canada made the right decision in procuring 88 fighters instead of the paltry 65 initially planned. Eventually, Canada even made the right decision on which fighter jet to purchase.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The judgement came from a committee representing the DND, Department of Procurement, and Department of industry. 60% of the scoring was based on performance, 20% on cost, and 20% on industrial benefit. The decision to purchase the F-35 over the Gripen was said to be unanimous. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So shouldn't we have just gotten the F-35 in the first place?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Not really. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In 2010, the JSF program was still very much in trouble. Costs were staggeringly high for fighters that simply did not work as intended. Early adopters got stuck dealing with the aircraft's <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-spent-billions-on-jet-fighters-off-the-plan-now-were-having-trouble-even-flying-them-177156" target="_blank">expensive growing pains</a>. By waiting, Canada is getting a much cheaper and reliable aircraft... But <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/03/16/full-weapons-tester-report-highlights-f-35-availability-software-problems/" target="_blank">issues still remain</a>. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">At this point, the F-35 is more ubiquitous than ever. More nations have announced orders and The Pentagon has made it clear that the JSF <i>is</i> the fighter of the future. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Hopefully, the bulk of the F-35's issues are behind it at this point. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">While the process was painfully slow, hopefully the FFCP's process can be used as a "template" to help speed up future military procurements. Up until now, Canada's military procurement process has been horribly undefined and politicized. Rules were made up by one government only for the next government to <a href="https://policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/government-blunder-teaches-us-how-not-buy-helicopters" target="_blank">decide that they knew better</a>. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">With the FFCP project mostly settled, Canada can now concentrate on other procurement projects. We desperately need to replace our submarines, MRTTs, and other important items. Canada also needs to develop new capabilities such as UCAVs and cyber warfare.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Whether or not recent events in Ukraine spurred the decision is not yet known, but those events do represent a "wake up call" to those in power. The world is still a dangerous place. We must be willing and able to defend ourselves and others. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Canada's purchase of the F-35 signals a clear message that it is done letting its military stagnate. We have committed to one of the most advanced weapon systems in the world, and the costs that go along with it. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Gripen would have likely been "good enough"... But apparently, that is not enough. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">With 88 jets, Canada will be one of the largest F-35 operators outside the United States. In choosing the JSF, Canada must agree to keep it current. Our upgrade path should keep lockstep with the USAF's. We must commit to software updates, <a href="https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/could-the-f-35-have-laser-weapons-in-the-future/" target="_blank">new weapons</a>, and even <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/ge-new-engine-for-f-35-possible-by-2027-not-stovl-version/" target="_blank">engine upgrades</a>. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">If Canada has decided on the F-35, then we need to go "all in". </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-38909525231599355842022-03-28T13:13:00.002-03:002022-03-28T13:13:28.740-03:00(UNCONFIRMED) F-35 WINS!<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhefd23XAOlQPx8CVg6kr5NY2gTzD2cUimN9Su6ELw7ZJyRtoug8aAL3aPTPmn1g34Nu4UK7yrXGYs4rMVixN0eYN1UoLfZDhbGTWFAiM82YwICbnNKZJjyYRspM2ltipjgVdKDekfpAIAa4qUONzi1is_B0z0qbYEKMf_m_eqwOIm7srrAKdcIjdg2/s1200/Canada%20F-35.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="849" data-original-width="1200" height="452" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhefd23XAOlQPx8CVg6kr5NY2gTzD2cUimN9Su6ELw7ZJyRtoug8aAL3aPTPmn1g34Nu4UK7yrXGYs4rMVixN0eYN1UoLfZDhbGTWFAiM82YwICbnNKZJjyYRspM2ltipjgVdKDekfpAIAa4qUONzi1is_B0z0qbYEKMf_m_eqwOIm7srrAKdcIjdg2/w640-h452/Canada%20F-35.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p><i>Note: This new is still breaking...</i></p><p><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-picks-us-made-f-35-fighter-jet-as-next-warplane/" target="_blank">Unconfirmed reports</a> are coming in that the Lockheed Martin F-35A <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/8715493/canada-fighter-jet-replacement-2022/" target="_blank">will be announced</a> as the replacement for Canada's aging CF-18 Hornet. </p><p>It is said that Lockheed Martin is now the "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/canada-chooses-lockheed-martin-preferred-bidder-jets-industry-source-2022-03-28/" target="_blank">preferred bidder</a>" and final talks will take place. If those talks fall through, then the Saab Gripen E will be next in line. </p><p>More to follow. </p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-72384892240687695312022-03-20T15:29:00.000-03:002022-03-20T15:29:34.321-03:00BEST FIGHTER FOR... UKRAINE?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgvZ5_3xYKBA0YI1M9Okg7E2byPdkqvSClQx-QcjTvQKBdCPPQWY71f0lDyrtbgdDCN9fq7zPQ-_asteLLlh1c4q4-YYO7dBQKWSzDFYaZAmp9_P71sbp0gsZcATasLKPI4Z2AHCivYixHdsvXu8dWI_uhoxSBMRYOjKyqQPwyihbQ34QRHIavvG80t=s1600" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1122" data-original-width="1600" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgvZ5_3xYKBA0YI1M9Okg7E2byPdkqvSClQx-QcjTvQKBdCPPQWY71f0lDyrtbgdDCN9fq7zPQ-_asteLLlh1c4q4-YYO7dBQKWSzDFYaZAmp9_P71sbp0gsZcATasLKPI4Z2AHCivYixHdsvXu8dWI_uhoxSBMRYOjKyqQPwyihbQ34QRHIavvG80t=w640-h448" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p><br /></p><p>While we wait for Canada to finally announce it replacement for the CF-18, we find the world a much different place than it was when this whole saga began. </p><p>While war is certainly nothing new, the unprovoked incursion by Russia into Ukraine seems different. Marrying some of the worst elements of both the Cold War and World War II, the Russian invasion has been brutal and unforgiving. Civilian casualties <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/world/europe/ukraine-irpin-civilian-death.html" target="_blank">have been high</a>, with Russian forces being rather indiscriminate in their targets. </p><p>After years of seeing wars fought with precision guided munitions used in overwhelming force, we may have forgotten just how "messy" war can be. </p><p>Given Vladimir Putin's <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/13/is-there-any-justification-for-putins-war" target="_blank">shaky justification</a> for the "military exercise" and the Ukrainian early victory in the "<a href="https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/ukraine-winning-battle-in-propaganda-war-against-russia" target="_blank">propaganda war</a>"; it did not take long for the rest of the world to pick sides in this conflict. Most of the world have declared Ukraine as the "good guy" with only Russia's most <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article258822748.html" target="_blank">stalwart allies</a> justifying its actions.</p><p>It seems unlikely that Russia predicted the strong Ukrainian resistance. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/28/russia-ukraine-logistics-invasion/" target="_blank">Logistical issues</a> have plagued the Russian invaders, reducing their numerical advantage. <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-still-hasnt-gained-air-superiority-over-ukraine-201170" target="_blank">Russian air superiority</a> has been thus far non-existent, despite both a numerical and technological advantage. On paper, this invasion should have been a proverbial cake walk for the Russians, yet it has been anything but.</p><p>Oddly enough, the skies above Ukraine are filled with familiar sights. The Ukrainian Air Force still utilizes the same fighters it procured during the Cold War... When it is was part of the Soviet Union. That means it is using MiG-29s, Su-24s, Su-25s, and Su-27s. Those aircraft that make up the bulk of the invading Russian aircraft, albeit in modernized versions like the Su-35. </p><p>As a thought exercise one has to wonder: If Ukraine had the choice, what fighter would it prefer?</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh54DtPWSXI3deY6NsXdZYgKVDACRfoVIHuPYty-uTA8pe2LXhWFIE6ocUZyR9IWWLvYT-u5k3wWAZI0dGPM-7pE199NegHev1nQZIc9aEvNWteEQLqTpIi0SBXXqClOEk9gLzdRTimc46g6iC_EE9x3XWg2Z-HiVIeX6gvD1QIhtCSZXWpJPNQMqHN=s1200" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh54DtPWSXI3deY6NsXdZYgKVDACRfoVIHuPYty-uTA8pe2LXhWFIE6ocUZyR9IWWLvYT-u5k3wWAZI0dGPM-7pE199NegHev1nQZIc9aEvNWteEQLqTpIi0SBXXqClOEk9gLzdRTimc46g6iC_EE9x3XWg2Z-HiVIeX6gvD1QIhtCSZXWpJPNQMqHN=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>One could easily make a case for the F-35. It is, after all, the most advanced fighter available right now. Indeed, its stealth design was a direct response to Russia's surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems. Those same systems have seen <a href="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russia-s-s-400-missile-system-gains-first-blood-in-ukraine-su-27-shot-down-150km-away-reports" target="_blank">prominent use in Ukraine</a>. </p><p>Russia's infamous <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60596629" target="_blank"><i>40-Mile long </i>convoy</a> that is slowly making its way towards Kyiv would appear to be a prime target for an aerial attack. The proverbial "sitting duck". Unfortunately for the Ukrainian defenders, any aerial assault would have to get past Russian mobile missile batteries. Of course, this sort of thing is totally in the <a href="https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-35-vs-s-400-how-the-lightning-ii-would-theoretically-perform-sead-mission-against-an-integrated-aa-defense-network-featuring-the-s-400/" target="_blank">JSF's wheelhouse</a>. SEAD (suppression of enemy air defence) is certainly included in the F-35's "Jack-of-all-trades" list.</p><p>Of course, stealth is not always a sure thing. Overconfidence can lead to disaster, as demonstrated by the <a href="https://theaviationgeekclub.com/an-in-depth-analysis-of-how-serbs-were-able-to-shoot-down-an-f-117-stealth-fighter-during-operation-allied-force/" target="_blank">Serbian shoot-down of an F-117 Nighthawk</a> in 1999. Yes, the F-117 was a "mature" platform at the time, but it was shot down by an even older and more obsolete SAM system. How the F-35 would fare against more modern systems remains to be seen; but JSF drivers would do well to be practice all due diligence. </p><p>As for its effectiveness against Russia's fighter fleet; the JSF should prove to be a worthy asset. While it may not match the <a href="https://youtu.be/0ObTN5G0WfU">supermaneuverability</a> of the Su-35, its superior BVR capability makes that a moot point. Theoretically, an F-35 should detect its adversary long before it itself is seen. Again, the F-35 pilot would do well to operate to the aircraft's strengths and avoid any WVR entanglements. </p><p>Ukrainian F-35s are unlikely to happen, however. The Pentagon does not sell the JSF to just anyone. Security concerns can stop an F-35 sale in its tracks. Turkey, once a "Level 2" partner (same as Canada) in the JSF program, was<a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/04/23/turkeys-removal-from-f-35-program-to-cause-hike-in-engine-price/" target="_blank"> unceremoniously booted</a> from the program due to its insistence on using it alongside Russian-sourced S-400 SAMs. Ukraine's unfortunate history of instability and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine" target="_blank">corruption</a> make it an unlikely JSF customer. It has recently <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/17/ukraine-russia-corruption-putin-democracy-oligarchs/" target="_blank">gotten away from some of this</a>, but it still has a way to go. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjhHe-HBjIWMZVsJIyzyETcf1dk8sIYYHb7TL7AqdAhRZ9vc533QgNn8IkYzlAwZf95aIGWIjNRHKahRH4FdPbYV2xFc1220s4ptLj6wbDeomoL6RFcnKs5FB48mA3_wKTMb9inmYTw9qns6LsQTDCZd8CQYdGfyfBRrFRx15qNQWOXQSo5iRM01KLX=s3238" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2160" data-original-width="3238" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjhHe-HBjIWMZVsJIyzyETcf1dk8sIYYHb7TL7AqdAhRZ9vc533QgNn8IkYzlAwZf95aIGWIjNRHKahRH4FdPbYV2xFc1220s4ptLj6wbDeomoL6RFcnKs5FB48mA3_wKTMb9inmYTw9qns6LsQTDCZd8CQYdGfyfBRrFRx15qNQWOXQSo5iRM01KLX=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Ukrainian defence tactics thus far appear to somewhat familiar: A smaller, independent nation being invaded by nearby "superpower" that holds a massive numerical advantage. Predictably, the larger nation begins its invasion by targeting military bases and airstrips. On paper, this should greatly weaken and demoralize the defenders... <i>Unless they were prepared for this sort of thing</i>... </p><p>Instead of massive ground battles Ukrainian troops have practiced a form of <a href="https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/ukraines-guerrilla-war/" target="_blank">guerrilla warfare</a>, greatly diminishing Russian numerical advantage. Similar tactics used in Afghanistan resulted in <a href="https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/ukraines-guerrilla-war/" target="_blank">10-year stalemate followed by Soviet withdrawal</a>. The difference now is that Ukrainians are far better equipped. Instead of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_by_mujahideen_during_Soviet–Afghan_War" target="_blank">crude RPGs</a> captured from its invaders, Ukrainians are utilizing sophisticated <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3170632/ukraines-javelin-and-nlaw-tank-killer-missiles-could-see-russia" target="_blank">NLAW and Javelin anti-tank weapons</a>. </p><p>The Mujahadin also did not have access to fighter jets.</p><p>While Ukrainian airfields were targeted in the first days of the conflict, its MiG-29s and Su-27s were still capable of operating thanks to their ability to operate from <a href="https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19411/how-are-modern-jets-modified-to-takeoff-land-on-a-dirt-runway" target="_blank">damaged or improvised runways</a>. The "<a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/03/02/ukraines-fighter-ace-ghost-of-kyiv-may-be-myth-its-lethal-war-morale.html" target="_blank">Ghost of Kyiv</a>" will not be grounded by anything as mundane as a busted airfield. </p><p>Of course, Ukrainian tactics thus far seem almost identical to Swedish military doctrine of "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_war" target="_blank">Free War</a>" and "<a href="https://www.thelocal.se/20220303/total-defence-whats-your-role-defending-sweden-in-the-event-of-a-military-attack/" target="_blank">Total Defense</a>". This includes the use of conscription forces, civil defense, and the ability to disperse national defense. This doctrine is the reason why Swedish fighters can operate from <a href="https://youtu.be/WAiUYHIS0Q0" target="_blank">improvised road bases</a>. </p><p>Like the F-35, the Gripen should be more than capable of engaging Russia's fleet. Unfortunately, its lack of stealth make Russian SAMs a bit more threatening. While the Gripen does have a serviceable EW suite and Saab does have a <a href="https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/06/13/saab-arexis-escort-jamming-pod-enters-testing-and-development/" target="_blank">new jamming pod</a> in the works, they remain untested. </p><p>Oddly enough, the best fighter for Ukraine might already be on its way.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgJHashE-8nzACLkabqRbsfQFVRsj888BV8elmS1hXnI4kf-ADsgzNYiCN6qXEPwMQiDnNLdfaXA1OywQqzRWfMQGcld0OaimmBiPbeEmetSAu-E7RbLE74vlPUe6VxCHyQCHlXIq9q0ZsrFHItRQFTGYWsdLjQmtWeiSypexA1wfeQuFLMQ6STuP8E=s4096" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2304" data-original-width="4096" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgJHashE-8nzACLkabqRbsfQFVRsj888BV8elmS1hXnI4kf-ADsgzNYiCN6qXEPwMQiDnNLdfaXA1OywQqzRWfMQGcld0OaimmBiPbeEmetSAu-E7RbLE74vlPUe6VxCHyQCHlXIq9q0ZsrFHItRQFTGYWsdLjQmtWeiSypexA1wfeQuFLMQ6STuP8E=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>No. Not the "on-again, off-again" deal to provide Ukraine with used Polish MiG-29s. </p><p>The <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/03/16/not-brain-science-heres-how-the-ukraine-fighter-swap-could-work/" target="_blank">deal seems sensible at first</a>: Poland "donates" MiG-29s to help bolster Ukraine. Since these aircraft are already in use, there are no worries about training or logistical issues. In return, Poland's air force gets "back filled" with American F-16s. </p><p>Unfortunately, this deal has several issues. First of all, it raises the real possibility of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ukraine-mig-29-fiasco-gets-worse-joe-biden-vladimir-putin-poland-ukraine-russia-nato-11646953225" target="_blank">escalating the war</a> beyond its current borders. Second, those Polish MiG-29s are of dubious quality, already being handed <a href="https://eurasiantimes.com/poland-mig-29-fighter-to-ukraine-that-would-not-help-ukraine/" target="_blank">down once by Germany</a>. These Soviet-era fighters may <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/american-owns-mig-29-isnt-sure-fighter-jets-will-help-ukraine-much-rcna20424" target="_blank"><i>look</i> similar</a> to the fighters already in use, but they are not near as capable of Russia's updated MiG-29M or the Ukrainian MiG-29MU. Even ignoring all of this, Ukraine <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/02/14/ukraine-has-lots-of-mig-29s-but-it-might-not-have-enough-pilots/?sh=1746fbab2c65" target="_blank">may not have enough pilots</a> to fly these aircraft. </p><p>The biggest winner in this deal would be Poland. Not only does it receive lots of good publicity, but it replaces its entire fleet of obsolete fighters with newer and more capable F-16s. </p><p>There is no wonder why the US has described the deal as "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/politics/poland-jets-ukraine-russia/index.html" target="_blank">untenable</a>". While the USAF does have plenty of F-16s, they are not exactly just "laying around". Most USAF F-16s are either in active service (ie: unavailable) or stored away in the <a href="http://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=274#" target="_blank">AMARC "boneyard"</a> (ie: unusable without major refit). That leaves new build F-16s as the only likely option, which is financially out of the question. </p><p>Keep in mind that the Biden Administration's refusal to back the deal does not dismiss <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2022/03/11/the-u-s-cant-stop-poland-from-giving-ukraine-its-migs-00016664" target="_blank">Poland's "donation" completely</a>, it just removes American support.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFKYNPN3yigmRkMZ8wZc29CibtwqanulwEcSh10l9APSlFvZUhxuYodTP02uzFV4bEtb01K6Ha5dj5Lbq1t1q_pdnZGBvYbsmFSWgWEQWn6O5pSFKvcU4_jFrHFPg7VtcZMGlBuIJMHKH1TB9Hb14F7VHs1U3wRLnWzW7gPPVU5vseGj4x7HPvB0o1=s970" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="970" height="362" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFKYNPN3yigmRkMZ8wZc29CibtwqanulwEcSh10l9APSlFvZUhxuYodTP02uzFV4bEtb01K6Ha5dj5Lbq1t1q_pdnZGBvYbsmFSWgWEQWn6O5pSFKvcU4_jFrHFPg7VtcZMGlBuIJMHKH1TB9Hb14F7VHs1U3wRLnWzW7gPPVU5vseGj4x7HPvB0o1=w640-h362" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>The best fighter for Ukraine <i>right now</i> is something much smaller. </p><p>The US is providing Ukraine with <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/03/17/shadowy-switchblade-munition-on-its-way-to-ukraine/?sh=731d4e185e13" target="_blank">100 Switchblade</a> "loitering munitions". Also known as "kamikaze drones", these small aircraft combine the features of a small portable UAV with a guided missile. Instead of the usual UCAV that carries missiles, this UCAV <i>is the missile. </i>Weighing in at a tiny 2.5kg, the Switchblade could represent the future of guerrilla warfare. </p><p>Cheaper and more portable than a Javelin, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade" target="_blank">Switchblade</a> has a range of about 10km and a loiter time of about 10 minutes. While this makes it unsuitable for true reconnaissance, it does have the flexibility to change targets mid-flight or be called off altogether. </p><p>The Switchblade will also be available in a much larger "600" variant with a 40km range and 40 minute loiter time. This larger version, with a mass of 25kg, can take out armored vehicles like tanks while still being longer ranged and cheaper than the Javelin. </p><p>Now it gets weird...</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhcHE7DnYP7RsC8W-PsNLXePRpffjG6cPO0N50ebHKnqg2Q0fe8BaLLaGRtJ4zQhmfkc6kSA0ScjKVsqQx23p99sAmBDxqKndsjuREvmOWltJZLZaJZAiR8J4wd-SxB2y9P6EIi0aCs3kWCZpwaXKR-ArEnAnqYv5oovnrIXJl584eribuazbNiQMFw=s678" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="381" data-original-width="678" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhcHE7DnYP7RsC8W-PsNLXePRpffjG6cPO0N50ebHKnqg2Q0fe8BaLLaGRtJ4zQhmfkc6kSA0ScjKVsqQx23p99sAmBDxqKndsjuREvmOWltJZLZaJZAiR8J4wd-SxB2y9P6EIi0aCs3kWCZpwaXKR-ArEnAnqYv5oovnrIXJl584eribuazbNiQMFw=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Imagine a drone... That is also a missile... <a href="https://theaviationist.com/2021/04/06/ever-seen-a-drone-dropping-another-drone-take-a-look-at-the-xq-58-valkyrie-releasing-an-altius-600-uas/" target="_blank">Being carried by another drone</a>.</p><p>The Switchblade 600 is small enough to fit inside the weapon bay the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie" target="_blank">XQ-58 Valkyrie UCAV</a>. Developed under the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Airpower_Teaming_System" target="_blank">Loyal Wingman</a>" project: the Valkyrie is a stealthy drone that also happens to be quite affordable. At a mere $2 million per unit, the Valkyrie itself if cheap enough to be considered "expendable". Indeed, the Valkyrie is cheaper than some cruise missiles. </p><p>While the F-35 may be a good platform to send against Russian SAMs, an aircraft like the Switchblade equipped XQ-58 would seem like a GREAT option. Why risk an expensive, <i>manned</i> fighter jet when you can send in a cheap, unmanned fighter instead... Or even a SWARM of them. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdAzECpSYi_aCmKTrdKBaR5oXZc2Kh4MrwBvi38GLdP2Etb0sjTkMT2MuCFaC8ePMUAsUl3iA7IOD-OGfR9P3ivn_wf5V7irAJjt3v0twxfhpBWgxM5Hzeb0sOlp4QIemoAPfw1bzieSaDoK7gO-ty2Tz9aCA80wzB4HQpaCkDdXvHdhFM8mUVpBsv=s1280" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdAzECpSYi_aCmKTrdKBaR5oXZc2Kh4MrwBvi38GLdP2Etb0sjTkMT2MuCFaC8ePMUAsUl3iA7IOD-OGfR9P3ivn_wf5V7irAJjt3v0twxfhpBWgxM5Hzeb0sOlp4QIemoAPfw1bzieSaDoK7gO-ty2Tz9aCA80wzB4HQpaCkDdXvHdhFM8mUVpBsv=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Indeed, Ukraine seems to be more than happy to embrace drone warfare. Joining the "Ghost of Kyiv" and "<a href="https://inkstickmedia.com/in-ukraine-the-javelin-is-more-than-a-weapon/" target="_blank">Saint Javelin</a>" in Ukrainian folklore is the Turkish-made <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_TB2" target="_blank">Baykar Bayraktar UCAV</a>. Roughly equivalent to the MQ-9 Reaper, the Bayraktar has <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/cheap-lethal-turkish-drones-surprisingly-effective-at-bolstering-ukraines-defenses/" target="_blank">proven itself quite effective</a>. </p><p>How effective?</p><p>Effective enough for it to inspire its own catchy Ukrainian folksong and YouTube video praising its exploits. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="332" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HESEEF8LPJ4" width="551" youtube-src-id="HESEEF8LPJ4"></iframe></div><br /><p>Why are these smaller, slower, cheaper drones so effective?</p><p>As sophisticated as they are, Russian SAM systems like the S-400 are geared towards threats like bombers and multi-role fighters. While UCAVs like the Bayraktar are certainly not "stealth": they fly much lower, limiting radar's effectiveness. The use of a small piston engine gives it a much smaller infrared signature as well. </p><p>Sooner or later, more effective countermeasure will be available to counter drone warfare. That is inevitable. It is also inevitable that UCAVs will develop counter-countermeasures. That is just the nature of these sort of things. </p><p>The current Russo-Ukrainian War does illustrate the usefulness and importance of UCAVs. One could argue that their use in the conflict has been a major factor in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-advance-stalls-us-warns-china-against-aiding-moscow-ukraine-2022-03-17/" target="_blank">Russia's stalled advance</a>. </p><p>While American and allied forces used UCAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan, this was a much different form of warfare. Those UCAVs were used in uncontested airspace against a much smaller in technologically inferior foe. In Ukraine, UCAVs are proving successful against a vastly superior enemy. While the term "force multiplier" gets thrown around quite often lately, it certainly applies her. </p><p>Ukraine has shown us that drone warfare is the future of warfare. </p><p><br /></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-38418648356331145482022-03-01T16:55:00.001-04:002022-03-01T16:58:44.106-04:00SOME SHAMELESS CROSS PROMOTION…<p> Please take the time to watch, like and subscribe to this wonderful new YouTube channel! (or don’t... it’s a free country…)</p><p>Dana is a wonderful historian and skillful photographer. On top of that, his soulful baritone voice has been known to soothe rampant møøse and the occasional rabid grizzly. </p><p>You might even catch a glimpse of a certain fighter aircraft…</p><p><br /></p><p><i>For this of you who don’t know, Dana is a good friend who helps out in the Best Fighter for Canada Facebook group. Best of luck, Dana… and may the YouTube algorithm take a liking to ya! </i></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="342" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LE1jwZW7I5M" width="483" youtube-src-id="LE1jwZW7I5M"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/LE1jwZW7I5M">https://youtu.be/LE1jwZW7I5M</a></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-8309597999015010842022-02-27T16:56:00.000-04:002022-02-27T16:56:34.445-04:00YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A GHOST OF KYIV<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUc92413I3eWlvCQwExzHf5MPLdyXaGZ8ZM1D8mvxx57HpWUnOmQcC23eXUTFcYxPMEeVPYP_GjeHMnvtXnhxJvL7GtcUWuW4kcsiWQsEV7IFp5dxeVsjrPVduR4Dl6Qa4mLDf_k0iNRKOQ0XkmUgsftubIZeUsk_rIdB_SJRcoHym0o6gshD_YwjC=s823" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="823" data-original-width="635" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUc92413I3eWlvCQwExzHf5MPLdyXaGZ8ZM1D8mvxx57HpWUnOmQcC23eXUTFcYxPMEeVPYP_GjeHMnvtXnhxJvL7GtcUWuW4kcsiWQsEV7IFp5dxeVsjrPVduR4Dl6Qa4mLDf_k0iNRKOQ0XkmUgsftubIZeUsk_rIdB_SJRcoHym0o6gshD_YwjC=w494-h640" width="494" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Immediately following the Russian invasion, a brave Ukrainian pilot strapped into a Cold War-era MiG-29 Fulcrum and took to the skies. Fueled by an undying love of their homeland, they quickly tallied up a combat record heretofore unseen. </p><p>Two Russian Su-35s, one Su-27, one MiG-29, and two Su-25s were brought down by a single pilot on the first day of conflict… All by the same Ukrainian pilot. That pilot became the first “ace” of the 21st century and has joined the ranks of legends like the Red Baron. Thus the legend of the "Ghost of Kyiv" was born.</p><p><a href="https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2022/02/26/6219757d22601d2e038b45bf.html" target="_blank">It’s all true</a>.</p><p>Or is it? </p><p>Realistically, there should be no way a single MiG-29 should be capable of such a feat. While it is a capable aircraft, it is inferior to the Su-27. Compared to the more modern Su-35, the Fulcrum is outclassed in almost every way…</p><p>Aerial combat is not simply about "Fighter A" being better than "Fighter B". Pilot skill, ground support, intelligence, tactics, and sheer numbers can often sway a battle one way or another. It is possible, hypothetically, for a keen Ukrainian pilot to be "in the zone" and have a particularly good day flying several sorties in a "target rich environment". </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjGyq6E7Ivw4JDx5L7fh8gWwla4_iK8UQNbMJA52x5rm8powf1qP1PfC7AqqHDzeXZDAOIBnq3jvy6hFP-Nl_3LQ57OqxqfKFyTfo1PurXYFwV4wtps3KoUcg3NZVfb9PJLW4uhojxsGAZQ1O8SVAXIPpA3rT2tp-omLFMQEAgOirBHuAk8jj97gAUg=s1259" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1259" data-original-width="1230" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjGyq6E7Ivw4JDx5L7fh8gWwla4_iK8UQNbMJA52x5rm8powf1qP1PfC7AqqHDzeXZDAOIBnq3jvy6hFP-Nl_3LQ57OqxqfKFyTfo1PurXYFwV4wtps3KoUcg3NZVfb9PJLW4uhojxsGAZQ1O8SVAXIPpA3rT2tp-omLFMQEAgOirBHuAk8jj97gAUg=w626-h640" width="626" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><br /><p>Of course, as we all know, the first casualty of war is truth. </p><p>Before the first volley is fired, narratives are formed. One side needs a justification for attacking. The defender needs to prepare its population for siege. Propaganda is a weapon as old as war itself. The mission is simple: Demoralize the enemy while rallying your own forces. </p><p>In the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Ukraine has already won the propaganda battle. </p><p>Vladimir Putin's <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-russia-is-attacking-ukraine-putin-justification-for-invasion-2022-2" target="_blank">justification for invading Ukraine</a> has landed on mostly deaf ears. His main argument, regarding NATO encroachment, has become self-defeating. By invading a sovereign nation, he has made the case <i>for</i> NATO membership. While Russia is not the superpower it once was, it still wields one of the world's largest militaries. Rolling into neighboring territory without sufficient justification is bound to give them "bully" status... Especially when that action mimics previous Soviet expansionism and Nazi blitzkrieg tactics of WW2. </p><p>Conversely, Ukrainian depictions have quickly earned them the "good guy" status in global perception. Stories of <a href="https://www.narcity.com/a-fearless-woman-used-sunflower-seeds-to-tell-off-russians-in-ukraine-the-video-is-intense" target="_blank">fearless civilians</a> standing up to Russian soldiers. Outgunned Ukrainian troops telling a warship to "<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-snake-island-soldiers-b2024289.html" target="_blank">go fuck yourself</a>". A heroic soldier <a href="https://people.com/politics/soldier-blew-himself-and-bridge-up-to-defend-ukraine-against-russia/" target="_blank">sacrificing himself </a>to destroy a bridge... These stories give the portrayal of righteous Ukrainians fighting off a vastly superior force. </p><p>The message is clear: Russia will pay dearly for every square foot of Ukrainian soil it occupies. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyCK4qcWm7KmEOSg8n7yt9CojksO4aW2f4_wbRA9VtfLbeqm1L_wh4bGi-LPQ7rNPNObwoywhteP-PWKPeB3SM4PN8XpRRObN58oFciqsfq2v2VrYsn3Rio39Of_iDdaapq73ZdLXhDyYzV7FOgDU7LDAbknihN8Bvcc9VyivLy7zxDWMhnvXtz4EG=s1272" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1014" data-original-width="1272" height="510" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyCK4qcWm7KmEOSg8n7yt9CojksO4aW2f4_wbRA9VtfLbeqm1L_wh4bGi-LPQ7rNPNObwoywhteP-PWKPeB3SM4PN8XpRRObN58oFciqsfq2v2VrYsn3Rio39Of_iDdaapq73ZdLXhDyYzV7FOgDU7LDAbknihN8Bvcc9VyivLy7zxDWMhnvXtz4EG=w640-h510" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p>Internationally, Ukraine has emerged as the clear favorite. </p><p>Open military support is mostly off the table, out of fears that doing so could quickly escalate into World War III. Fortunately for Ukraine, other options can be brought to bear. </p><p>Harsh economic sanctions have already been imposed, <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/24/russias-economy-on-the-brink-of-crisis-after-ukraine-attack-a76555" target="_blank">crippling the Russian economy</a>. Blocking Russia from the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/investors-brace-volatility-west-moves-cut-russia-off-swift-2022-02-27/" target="_blank">SWIFT International Banking System</a> will have huge repercussions for it oil and gas industry. It has even been <a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-nvidia-tsmc-russia-stop-chip-sales-ukraine-sanction" target="_blank">cut off from computer chip</a> shipments. </p><p>So far, the "wild card" appears to be China. On the surface, China still maintains its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/business/china-russia-ukraine.html" target="_blank">close ties to Russia</a>. In reality, the relationship has likely become <a href="https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/china-russia-war-ukraine-taiwan-putin-xi" target="_blank">much more complicated</a>. China's economy is strong, but highly dependent on foreign trade. Openly supporting Russia's invasion would strain China's relations with the rest of the world. Cold War fears of a "Communist Alliance" between China and Russia would quickly resurface, leading to a mass exodus of foreign investors. China would cease to be the world's manufacturing hub. </p><p>If anything, the invasion of Ukraine may have given China a "preview" of what might happen if it decided to <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/vladimir-putin-ukraine-taiwan/622907/" target="_blank">annex Taiwan</a>. Indeed, if the US were to openly commit its military forces to the Ukraine, China could see that as the most oppurtune time, claiming "American expansionism" while also daring the US to commit its forces to multiple fronts. </p><p>Indeed, the most preferable outcome for the current Ukrainian/Russian conflict is for it to END QUICKLY. Thankfully, that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-27/ukraine-says-will-hold-talks-with-russia-on-border-with-belarus" target="_blank">might actually happen</a>. </p><p>Peace talks have already been scheduled. </p><p>Most likely, Russian forces were convinced that its current invasion of Ukraine would echo the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/ukraine.html" target="_blank">2014 annexation of Crimea</a>. During that conflict, Russian forces met very little resistance. That is not the case today. Instead, it has found itself much more akin to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Despite having superior force, the former Soviet Union found itself bogged down by determined insurgents. The Afghanistan occupation is thought to have been a factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union. </p><p>Now, in 2022, the world has little patience for such things. Years of a useless "War on Terror" followed by a global pandemic has left the world's population exhausted. "Bad actors" will quickly be ostracized and be left behind as the rest of us move forward. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgEdYBEsRm3kj3ZhOz-Ahuc02h4oYP00dW6Y4xku4K6ge--e8riH451zMtYZklkrhqgLQWWutvKbTixleqSvG3KYlBqs47T6O9zbNLZljXQCtJ5U3jrq2YqcYpFjfPS5TRzttrmyHoYwhcArOvV774R88J6aLKK6Ktl6cNrSxtHV66glQzi9MSvjkP=s760" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="760" height="374" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgEdYBEsRm3kj3ZhOz-Ahuc02h4oYP00dW6Y4xku4K6ge--e8riH451zMtYZklkrhqgLQWWutvKbTixleqSvG3KYlBqs47T6O9zbNLZljXQCtJ5U3jrq2YqcYpFjfPS5TRzttrmyHoYwhcArOvV774R88J6aLKK6Ktl6cNrSxtHV66glQzi9MSvjkP=w640-h374" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>Is the "Ghost of Kyiv" real? </p><p>Perhaps the stories are greatly exaggerated. Maybe one Ukrainian pilot downed a couple of Russian aircraft only to have the story embellished. Maybe many Russian casualties were wrongfully attributed to a single Ukrainian pilot. Maybe the "fog of war" led to casualties being misreported. Maybe gun-cam footage will surface showing all the rumors to be true...</p><p>Maybe it does not really matter in the end.</p><p>What matters is that the Ukrainian people have a hero to rally behind. What matters is a belief that Russian forces are not invincible, despite numerical and technological advantage. What matters is the belief that, no matter what the odds; the fight is winnable. </p><p>The "Ghost of Kyiv" is real enough to emerge victorious in the battle for morale. That is what matters. </p><p><br /></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-60252115981618580522022-02-14T11:58:00.001-04:002022-02-14T11:58:32.031-04:00[OPINION] BIAS AGAINST THE JSF?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhwwessJcMymaMDE6qrxrpt4tGVn_1XN92aPEfhrh0VkmPs-23Dd3fprJc72uMkwcnFLOSF5l3NPjx6zAgdbLbvlHZp47Prj68kDwddPco-ZfN7mvY9BlMWFRHDom8F5Vxa-h6SQd5QwaYyKRS3dwu3QvmPTiCEhOg_Ew-uIX5IzT1DPDN8FFXUAVEu=s700" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="510" data-original-width="700" height="466" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhwwessJcMymaMDE6qrxrpt4tGVn_1XN92aPEfhrh0VkmPs-23Dd3fprJc72uMkwcnFLOSF5l3NPjx6zAgdbLbvlHZp47Prj68kDwddPco-ZfN7mvY9BlMWFRHDom8F5Vxa-h6SQd5QwaYyKRS3dwu3QvmPTiCEhOg_Ew-uIX5IzT1DPDN8FFXUAVEu=w640-h466" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Between this site and its <a href="http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com" target="_blank">progenitor</a>, I have been at this roughly twelve years. What started out as a distraction from PTSD and a way to keep my writing skills semi-competent has turned into... Something else. </p><p>I am glad to say I have met some interesting people, both online and in the flesh. Some have gone beyond being acquaintances and have become good friends. Pilots, politicians, technicians, engineers, historians, writers, veterans... Possibly even a Time Lord and lewd anime character (I have yet to be proven wrong on either of these assumptions). I feel privileged and humbled to have interacted with these people.</p><p>As hard as it is to believe, some comments directed to me have not been kind. Some have even accused me of bias. Y'know what? THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.</p><p>Everyone has bias. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either unaware of it or lying. Biases are a natural byproduct of our own experiences and thought processes. Those with different experiences are likely to have varying biases... And that is okay. </p><p>Owning up to being bias is one thing. Identifying them is the real challenge. Many of us simply dismiss our biases as "common sense" and move on. We then accuse others with differing opinions as being being "biased" from more nefarious causes, like bribery or ignorance. </p><p>After over a decade, I have seen many of my own countrymen share my misgivings toward the F-35 Lightning II. So why have other Canadians and I developed a bias against the JSF?</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Aircraft:</h2><div>Something about the JSF <i>just seems to bother some people. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>It certainly is not the prettiest aircraft, although it <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20971/this-is-what-a-boeing-f-32-wouldve-looked-like-if-lockheed-lost-the-jsf-competition" target="_blank">certainly could have been uglier</a>. At worst, the F-35 can be described as slightly blocky and bulbous. Nothing about it is truly radical or interesting looking. Most would consider it simply generic looking, like a mishmash of the F-16, F/A-18, and F-22.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps it is the very mission the F-35 has been designed to do. </div><div><br /></div><div>The F-35 is a multirole fighter, which implies it is just as happy to fly recon, intercept incoming threats, or striking ground targets. However, it is that last mission that people seem uneasy with. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is a very good reason why the RCAF is all to happy to share photos of CF-18s intercepting Russian Tu-95 bombers; yet rarely show a crater created by a bomb dropped from a Hornet. </div><div><br /></div><div>Being a stealthy strike fighter implies images of the kind of "first strike" and "shock and awe" tactics utilized to great effect in the Gulf War and beyond. While these sort of mission are vital to any war effort, Canadians do not really view ourselves as this sort of combatant. We see ourselves more as "defenders" that protect ourselves and our allies. We do not see ourselves, nor our military, as the type to "bust down the door" and fire the first shot in a conflict. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is a very good reason why the Avro Arrow, an interceptor designed to defend Canada's airspace, is fondly remembered while the nuclear-equipped CF-104 is not. Is the F-35 truly what Canada needs?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjl-lmcIDjg_wDvpGg0-oJ8wwBxOnXY9eBNeuwSORIGGJ-lrZN3TeDjLlj2Z5vhjLgeAmAQutYkMmFJHdDGl_otRRrgU06ormPmbuob1C4EFbj8b12xXwg9vHgIqnIN7XrhafRNJ8t0KBRMoNVbIOGUgk8Cbj_TJP7cWVQAkuU3MwxHtJleej0uI0C9=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="2048" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjl-lmcIDjg_wDvpGg0-oJ8wwBxOnXY9eBNeuwSORIGGJ-lrZN3TeDjLlj2Z5vhjLgeAmAQutYkMmFJHdDGl_otRRrgU06ormPmbuob1C4EFbj8b12xXwg9vHgIqnIN7XrhafRNJ8t0KBRMoNVbIOGUgk8Cbj_TJP7cWVQAkuU3MwxHtJleej0uI0C9=w640-h400" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Timing:</h2><div>The Joint Strike Fighter has the unenviable notoriety of being the largest weapon program in history whilst simultaneously coming at time when information and opinion regarding it could be shared in an instant. Previous fighters, like the F-16, had their share of development issues. However, those issues would takes months to become public knowledge, if at al. With the JSF, any sort of sensational incident would find itself on Twitter; often the same day. Ironically for a "stealth fighter" the F-35 has enjoyed more press exposure than possibly any other aircraft.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Joint Strike Fighter also has the dubious distinction of not having a clear enemy to fight. </div><div><br /></div><div>Following the end of the Cold War, military budgets were either frozen or cut thanks to the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_dividend" target="_blank">peace dividend</a>". This period of spending restraint was short lived, however, thanks to the 9/11 attack and the subsequent "War on Terror". </div><div><br /></div><div>Initially intended to be a low cost "workhorse"; the F-35 program took advantage of the increased military spending to add more advanced features and capabilities. Soon, it became the most advanced and complicated aircraft of all time... While the western world was fighting an enemy equipped with little more than improvised bombs, Soviet-era rifles, and "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)" target="_blank">technicals</a>". </div><div><br /></div><div>For right or wrong, Canada participated in the <a href="https://www.warmuseum.ca/learn/canada-and-the-afghanistan-war/" target="_blank">occupation of Afghanistan</a>. 40,000 Canadians participated in the mission. 158 Canadians died and many more were wounded; both physically and <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/5191803/canadian-veterans-afghan-war-ptsd/" target="_blank">mentally</a>. Unfortunately, all of the commitment and sacrifice seemed to have been for naught. When <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_United_States_troops_from_Iraq_(2020–2021)" target="_blank">American forces pulled out of the region</a>, Taliban forces immediately seized control. </div><div><br /></div><div>The question can certainly be asked: Why does Canada need to buy billions of dollars worth of fighter jets from America to help them fight their un-winnable wars. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">Canada's fighter purchase also happens to coincide with the need to replace <i>damn near everything in Canada's military. </i>Not only is Canada's navy in the <a href="http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/csc-home.page" target="_blank">midst of replacing</a> its <i>Halifax-</i>class frigates, but new <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-needs-to-start-looking-for-new-subs-now-says-report" target="_blank">submarines</a> are needed as well. We also need an <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/boeing-offers-p-8a-to-replace-canadas-cp-140-patrol-fleet/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20Defense%20Sea&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=203532412&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--0TGYNHbQBJs8dGzIjdHAtaNkZMl7GoZbZpjfpbe3v67C6hDbYr4dI14sJJp246iqugo_TdeE3tyGKSVycayuvYo1AxA&utm_content=203532412&utm_source=hs_email&fbclid=IwAR3UcWH5Fzgfy-zo7NZPG5S-m8yZe4CpUxLdJ2bjbDv9ynwwgHCbjvfeWe0" target="_blank">Aurora replacement</a>... And the <a href="http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/featured_content?blog/207" target="_blank">Snowbirds are well overdue</a> for new aircraft... We also need a more <a href="https://insideunmannedsystems.com/canadas-new-drone-can-better-surveil-its-challenging-arctic-environment/" target="_blank">robust drone program</a>... And <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/strategic-tanker-transport-capability-project.html" target="_blank">tankers</a>... Heck, the Canadian army still need <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-on-military-sidearms" target="_blank">new sidearms</a>...</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">If Canada chooses the F-35, it had best make sure it has money left over to procure all of its other procurement goals. </div><div><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg0C79nhuQNAvPEymFWqFNjDBbgJE5aA1cGQHergoxwwZ3v_vTU3YDBkd5IbR5-OFA1GAuMMwr4FDrTI5PoWdv5xbHFczzdtB8nsdkVTgWyDHBOkcabb_NLsZ7oJEnAP_bVjhAz-sXhZiV503FZpLr90cPBTM-jqSur0C7sJkI0pnNygo7DR0_yRnBJ=s610" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="610" height="470" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg0C79nhuQNAvPEymFWqFNjDBbgJE5aA1cGQHergoxwwZ3v_vTU3YDBkd5IbR5-OFA1GAuMMwr4FDrTI5PoWdv5xbHFczzdtB8nsdkVTgWyDHBOkcabb_NLsZ7oJEnAP_bVjhAz-sXhZiV503FZpLr90cPBTM-jqSur0C7sJkI0pnNygo7DR0_yRnBJ=w640-h470" width="640" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Politics:</h2><div>Canada's initial announcement that it would procure 65 "CF-35 Lightning IIs" was met with resounding skepticism. Something about the procurement just <i>seemed wrong. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Indeed, then-Prime Minister Harper's announcement to purchase 65 F-35As for the cost of $9 billion dollars seemed like not enough fighters for what seemed to be both too much money and not enough money at the same time. After public outcry, an <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/january-2016/acautionarytale/" target="_blank">independent audit was done</a>. That audit revealed that cost estimates were entirely unrealistic. The Harper government, known for their fiscal restraint, took every measure to make the F-35 buy appear more affordable than it actually was. Overoptimistic price estimates, along with long term sustainment costs, infrastructure costs, and unit replacement costs being left out entirely meant that Canada would be on the hook for far more than that initial $9 billion.</div><div><br /></div><div>This was compounded by the fact that the Canadian government of the time did little to no comparison shopping. Other fighters were barely even considered. Instead, the F-35 would be "sole sourced".</div><div><br /></div><div>Needless to say, this left a bitter taste in many Canadians mouths. </div><div><br /></div><div>This taste was made all the more bitter by a shift in US politics. </div><div><br /></div><div>Following a trend that had been developing for years, the American political landscape was becoming more partisan and divided. This culminated in the 2016 Presidential Election when Donald Trump was elected on a platform of nationalism and protectionism. This led to the now infamous <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/boeing-loses-trade-case-over-bombardier-passenger-jets.html" target="_blank">dispute between Boeing and Bombardier</a>, in which neither entity came out ahead. </div><div><br /></div><div>Despite Trump being elected out of office in 2020, US/Canadian relations <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/07/07/us-canada-trade-ng/" target="_blank">remain damaged</a>. Newly-elected President Biden's decision to axe the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline" target="_blank">Keystone XL pipeline</a> has not helped. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is no wonder why some Canadians are not keen on purchasing a product from a nation that seems to have actively gone out of its way to harm our economy. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhJ2JHeupN4jH_XtLL628o2z0fP6cZQlBAKsq428_g4nYCXju1cZJXp4MziIKNF4k0qHMnrJmodjDcpVGOtDN4hyum_YMDRWTD9iHQ1EmHP77NuOeSzKhivbe6n7hpzM3nw3jipNLTELoF3ek90qq7_tfoEVUi_ekvG_-29kOLX2nj8HXjjJpBFCLnb=s1080" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1080" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhJ2JHeupN4jH_XtLL628o2z0fP6cZQlBAKsq428_g4nYCXju1cZJXp4MziIKNF4k0qHMnrJmodjDcpVGOtDN4hyum_YMDRWTD9iHQ1EmHP77NuOeSzKhivbe6n7hpzM3nw3jipNLTELoF3ek90qq7_tfoEVUi_ekvG_-29kOLX2nj8HXjjJpBFCLnb=w640-h400" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">COVID:</h2><div><i>(I initially planned on including this under "Timing"; but I believe it warrants its own discussion.)</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>The world has become a much different place over the last two years. </div><div><br /></div><div>The SARS-CoV-2 virus has disrupted lives on a global scale. The virus itself has taken lives, made other (including myself) sick, caused a healthcare crises, disrupted supply chains, and caused shortages for years to come. In typical fashion, government response has been haphazard and ham-fisted. Inconsistent messaging, enforcement, and unpopular mandates have lead to <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10501225/Just-three-days-honking-ban-Ontario-brings-draconian-rules-Freedom-Convoy-truckers.html" target="_blank">pushback</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Worse still, the pandemic has led to an uprise in <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/covid-top-10-current-conspiracy-theories/" target="_blank">conspiracy theories</a>, a widening <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-covid-19-has-widened-the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-countries-11642156207" target="_blank">divide between the rich and poor</a>, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2021/12/15/covid-inflation-surge-to-continue-heres-why-the-consumer-price-index-is-heading-higher/?sh=5c0965427450" target="_blank">inflation</a>, and a <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/labour-omicron-workers-staffing-1.6305189" target="_blank">worker shortage</a>. Despite a vaccine being made readily available relatively quickly, many remain vulnerable and the disease still rages on. </div><div><br /></div><div>Nowhere is the worker shortage being felt more than in the healthcare sector. </div><div><br /></div><div>Canada's healthcare system was having issues <i>long</i> before COVID. Years of "belt tightening" austerity measures results in a system just barely able to function normal demand. Combine that with an aging population and their age-related health issues. That same aging population mean many healthcare professionals are reaching retirement age without a sufficient "next generation" to take their place. The system was at its breaking point.</div><div><br /></div><div>...and then came COVID.</div><div><br /></div><div>The last two years have DECIMATED the healthcare system. <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-canadas-hospital-capacity-was-so-easily-overwhelmed-by-the-covid-pandemic" target="_blank">Hospitals been overwhelmed </a>with patients, a condition made worse by an increasing amount of <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-health-care-system-hit-hard-by-staffing-shortages-amid-covid-19-surge/" target="_blank">healthcare staff being off sick themselves</a>. These shortages are then made up for what little staff remains. Healthcare workers are forced into working overtime far beyond their scheduled hours. Combine this with all the extra stress surrounding COVID and there is little wonder why many are<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/the-mass-exodus-of-americas-health-care-workers/620713/" target="_blank"> leaving the career</a> in order to find some semblance of a healthy work/life balance. </div><div><br /></div><div><i><span style="font-size: medium;">No. The healthcare worker shortage is NOT caused by people getting fired for refusing the vaccine. <a href="https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20211117005" target="_blank">Healthcare worker vaccine rates</a> are quite high and those that refuse are suspended, not fired. Far more healthcare workers are off due to injuries or other health issues caused in the workplace.</span></i></div><div><i><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></i></div><div>The cold, hard truth of it is: Canada's healthcare system needs work. While advanced jet fighters are important to help protect Canadian lives, Canadians are <a href="https://www.iheartradio.ca/virginradio/n-s-woman-concerned-over-ambulance-delays-after-husband-s-death-1.17083664" target="_blank">dying RIGHT NOW</a> due to insufficient healthcare. If Canada needs to splurge, it should do so on healthcare and not fighter jets. While we must always be prepared to defend ourselves, we cannot ignore the <a href="http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/2020/03/world-war-c.html" target="_blank">war we are fighting right now</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhX4EzrO0MRNgZ1AVLaysMm_mreXGhkGtNyC8oTaEkvAWJYOryaNSL2lToFbP7EcNBjLl3QKH770e09s_DBziaabmERRjgHBuDTKrlfAKlI72500OBJmFiidn91rZfwkR0EH-zRhCidPmi5Vz_0L9W5OSuQTQlXx2jj4eEsn3lFU1yuR_rqFisbBMVX=s550" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="366" data-original-width="550" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhX4EzrO0MRNgZ1AVLaysMm_mreXGhkGtNyC8oTaEkvAWJYOryaNSL2lToFbP7EcNBjLl3QKH770e09s_DBziaabmERRjgHBuDTKrlfAKlI72500OBJmFiidn91rZfwkR0EH-zRhCidPmi5Vz_0L9W5OSuQTQlXx2jj4eEsn3lFU1yuR_rqFisbBMVX=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><br /> </div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Final Thoughts:</h2><div>Am I biased against the F-35 Lightning II? Absolutely. No human is without bias. Like any other human, my biases are formed from my own experiences, knowledge, and sense of priorities. Do I have an <i>irrational </i>bias against the F-35? I do not believe so. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have no ill will towards Lockheed Martin. Quite the opposite. My father served as aircrew on both the Lockheed P-2 Neptune and CP-140 Aurora. Both aircraft brought him safely home from countless missions over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Lockheed has a enviable legacy, building some of the most iconic aircraft in history. </div><div><br /></div><div>Nor do I hold any special love for Saab. I have never been to Sweden nor do I have a particular fascination with flat-pack furniture. Like many Canadians, I am sadly ignorant when it comes to Swedish culture, more familiar with the Swedish Chef than any other Swedish historical figure. Maybe I just like to root for the underdog...</div><div><br /></div><div>My views on the Joint Strike Fighter formed organically. Years of following its development led to some amount of disillusionment. What was initially going to be a "F-22 Lite" turned into something far more controversial. Years of troubled development led to many, like myself, questioning whether or not Canada was getting the "best value" out of its commitment to the program. </div><div><br /></div><div>As time went by, many other factors came into play. Canada's experience in Afghanistan so soon after the Cold War led to a shift in perception. While equipment is certainly important to the Canadian military; it matters little when you are committing our forces to an unending conflict for unclear reasons with undefined goals. </div><div><br /></div><div>In a perfect world, the RCAF would get whatever equipment it saw fit to defend Canada and support our allies. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that Government (taxpayer) budgets are a finite resource. Priorities need to be set. Stealth fighter jets are fantastic kit, but not if it means we have to do without in other departments. Keeping the sky clear makes little sense if the sea is left undefended. If Canada does select the F-35, it must do so with a clear commitment to sustain the fleet for decades to come. Not only that, but doing so must not take away from other defence procurement and sustainment needs. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiPsCQnMC98F0lX7C54-TNynfEIdVJG7P1a_Y6hR0lrLT9KB4T__6wvk_WGgdS9bQKQkYEtGctD2pRbGuB2cReyvzniGhfCsW5NMznBxhMBPAXpavWWfUmwUjH0W6lJe7r6ZFWSqy_ACc0e6EOTJZfoIUvYBwrNIrP3joJ_z4n7tNAMSx4Yj4PNMWod=s708" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="312" data-original-width="708" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiPsCQnMC98F0lX7C54-TNynfEIdVJG7P1a_Y6hR0lrLT9KB4T__6wvk_WGgdS9bQKQkYEtGctD2pRbGuB2cReyvzniGhfCsW5NMznBxhMBPAXpavWWfUmwUjH0W6lJe7r6ZFWSqy_ACc0e6EOTJZfoIUvYBwrNIrP3joJ_z4n7tNAMSx4Yj4PNMWod=w640-h282" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Everything I have told you is true... From a certain point of view.</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>On a more personal note, because I work in healthcare myself, I see all too well how tenuous the current system is. While healthcare is ultimately the responsibility of each individual province, this does not excuse the Federal Government from doing its part. I believe most Canadians have more interest in their local hospital being open than whether or not the RCAF gets its first choice for fighter jets. </div><div><br /></div><div>On a local level, I do have a vested interest in the Saab Gripen being declared the winner. Not because Saab promised me a truckload of money (<i>although I certainly wouldn't say "no" to some PR work</i>). Canadian Gripens being built by IMP would bring some appreciated high-paying jobs to the area and would be a boon to the provincial economy. This would in turn provide more funds for the Nova Scotia healthcare system that I work for, making my life easier. Is that selfish? Maybe... But most people do not care about cutting edge stealth fighters when they are left waiting for an ambulance, hospital bed, access to a family doctor, or life-saving surgery.</div><div><br /></div><div>No decision is made in a vacuum. If Lockheed Martin's bid to Canada makes a convincing case that it is not only the most capable, but cost effective solution; then the F-35 <i>absolutely</i> should replace the CF-18. Otherwise, Canada needs to assess what its true priorities are and ensure taxpayer dollars go to where they are most needed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Hopefully, we will soon find out. </div><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-1170877762091778532022-02-06T17:36:00.002-04:002022-02-06T21:25:41.957-04:00FAT AMY DOWN. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGQbEwAYGk7xYoRP3Hg5zX2NDAOqujwd9JyPt68R9bF2wU30K8PPNhPx9aZy-yp87GqfzLvc9RepYo2e3FxRT5-hU9e7QIhTHRaKisVQonyyh6CXFoMqEFiz7mEsZ1-ZpQOu_0Acabm53JGaZjYp-yw-xfFQE6c2v2CqpqyTpProJHV69mWdnE11RB=s1053" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1053" data-original-width="790" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGQbEwAYGk7xYoRP3Hg5zX2NDAOqujwd9JyPt68R9bF2wU30K8PPNhPx9aZy-yp87GqfzLvc9RepYo2e3FxRT5-hU9e7QIhTHRaKisVQonyyh6CXFoMqEFiz7mEsZ1-ZpQOu_0Acabm53JGaZjYp-yw-xfFQE6c2v2CqpqyTpProJHV69mWdnE11RB=w480-h640" width="480" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Sometimes, life imitates art. </p><p>It is a scenario right out of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Down" target="_blank">Cold War thriller novel</a>. The United States Navy has managed to lose one its brand new stealth fighters in the South China Sea. Now, the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60148482" target="_blank">race is on to locate and retrieve</a> what remains of the aircraft. </p><p>On January 24, an F-35C Lightning II suffered a "<a href="https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/01/28/navy-says-the-leaked-images-of-the-f-35-crash-into-the-south-china-sea-are-real/" target="_blank">landing mishap</a>" after returning to the flight deck of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson. While similar incidents have happened in the past with both a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59470276" target="_blank">Royal Navy F-35</a>B and Japanese F-35A; both those incidents happened in "friendly" waters. This latest mishap occurred uncomfortably close to Chinese territory. </p><p>Complicating matters further is the how intact the USN F-35C appears to be in leaked pictures from the incident. Needless to say, the People's Liberation Army Navy would be more than happy to "assist" the USN in "recovering" its newest, state of the art, still mostly classified, stealth fighter.</p><p>This would not even be the first time such a thing has happened. </p><p>In 1931, British submarine <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/china-salvage-submarine-hms-poseidon" target="_blank">HMS Poseidon collided with a fishing vessel</a> off the eastern coast of China. In 1972, China was able to salvage the wreck and use some of the knowledge gained to develop their own submarine program. </p><p>In 1960, the then Soviet Union managed to detect and shoot down an <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/u2-spy-incident" target="_blank">American U-2 flown by Gary Powers</a>. This not only caused an international incident, but the Soviets were also able to capture, interrogate, and imprison Powers as well as study the wreckage of the spy plane. </p><p>In 1974, the <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-cold-war-ci-secretly-plucked-soviet-submarine-ocean-floor-using-giant-claw-180972154/" target="_blank">CIA managed to recover the Soviet submarine </a><i><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-cold-war-ci-secretly-plucked-soviet-submarine-ocean-floor-using-giant-claw-180972154/" target="_blank">K-129</a> </i>from the bottom of the ocean 1,500 miles northwest of Hawaii. This endeavor, entitled <i>Project Azorian, </i>provided the USA with invaluable intelligence. Code books, nuclear warheads, construction methods, sonar systems, and insight into how to detect Soviet submarines was far too valuable a prize to pass up. The mission was only partly successful... Or at least, that is what the CIA <i>would have us believe. </i></p><p>More recently, some rumors suggest that Chinese agents may have obtained parts of an F-117 Nighthawk <a href="https://www.military.com/defensetech/2011/01/24/chinese-spies-may-have-taken-f-117-wreckage" target="_blank">shot down over Serbia in 1999</a>. Similar rumors state that Chinese cyberattacks may have been able to glean information regarding the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103938.html" target="_blank">Joint Strike Fighter program itself</a>. </p><p>One cannot deny that a mostly intact copy of an F-35C; with its advanced stealth construction, sensors, and other goodies would be substantial prize to anyone. More so for the Chinese who would use the knowledge to enhance their own stealth fighters, develop counter-tactics, and possibly even sell some information to other interested parties. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjGWfIEJOu7QEUAKtq0uzpcIfbaKbUxascCpV6i-nJO6YtXjCroD_DYNZ_9MtwPuJiX5HuC6z7V1d7yQxm-VriAFm3VVcNhTFxjaOsmp-QiJiDITaSEfd4VzwbrMJPW_X766pdi4p5WbVH1NHwYnDlTMGqnrRP9o22Xw82DJPm93oP3cxDqiNL3rk95=s395" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="395" data-original-width="250" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjGWfIEJOu7QEUAKtq0uzpcIfbaKbUxascCpV6i-nJO6YtXjCroD_DYNZ_9MtwPuJiX5HuC6z7V1d7yQxm-VriAFm3VVcNhTFxjaOsmp-QiJiDITaSEfd4VzwbrMJPW_X766pdi4p5WbVH1NHwYnDlTMGqnrRP9o22Xw82DJPm93oP3cxDqiNL3rk95=w406-h640" width="406" /></a></div><br /><p>All of this leads us to an interesting thought exercise: What would happen if a theoretical RCAF CF-35 went down somewhere over the Arctic ocean?</p><p>While Canadian jet fighters do not routinely "fly patrols" in the far north, they do occasionally operate out of one of Canada's <i>Forward Operating Locations</i> (FOLs) located in Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit, and Inuvik. It is not unrealistic to imagine a scenario in which a CF-35 suffers an incident over Arctic waters. </p><p>What is particularly worrisome is that Canada's presence in the Arctic leaves a little something to be desired. Unlike the USA and Russia, Canada has no submarines capable of operating under the <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39953/three-russian-ballistic-missile-submarines-just-surfaced-through-the-arctic-ice-together" target="_blank">polar ice cap</a>. </p><p>Disputed <a href="https://www.economist.com/international/2014/12/17/frozen-conflict" target="_blank">Arctic claims</a> combined with melting ice caps have led to a sort of "gold rush" into the arctic as new resource are uncovered. Canada has <a href="https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2021/05/06/canada-to-build-two-polar-icebreakers-for-high-arctic-operations/" target="_blank">two new heavy icebreakers on the way</a>, but Russia has started building <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/russia-says-world-largest-nuclear-icebreaker-arctic-voyage-1.5733729" target="_blank"><i>nuclear-powered</i> icebreakers</a>. Combined with their large fleet of submarines, Russia would stand a pretty good chance at recovering a downed CF-35 before Canada does... </p><p>Of course, Canada would not be alone in its recovery efforts. The US military would undoubtedly pull out all the stops keeping unwanted hands away from its frontline stealth fighter. Like the current affair in the South China Sea, this puts us uncomfortably close to a situation that can develop into an international incident as multiple parties race to recover the same prize. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjVf-Gx8OdhBbZu_kqEfJLd1iSceSlzaQRiVykm3rTv75zZL8a72E5wAsdqw2wNAcdnaRVlIUx9MYVgbOJVpL7f3_3eJHd_VIbP8NkafvudcP0q9itvLXDWf8hizO-KpkFpuZaMFeOllSMZsatYClbMFXZpE7Iyh9wi0VsffUhhzIO0Nlo1ibYhepck=s1280" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="867" data-original-width="1280" height="434" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjVf-Gx8OdhBbZu_kqEfJLd1iSceSlzaQRiVykm3rTv75zZL8a72E5wAsdqw2wNAcdnaRVlIUx9MYVgbOJVpL7f3_3eJHd_VIbP8NkafvudcP0q9itvLXDWf8hizO-KpkFpuZaMFeOllSMZsatYClbMFXZpE7Iyh9wi0VsffUhhzIO0Nlo1ibYhepck=w640-h434" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Of course, all of this is speculative. It also does not in any way disparage the F-35 itself. Instead it is meant to illustrate the double-edged sword that comes with operating a still highly classified stealth fighter. Extra steps must be taken to keep sensitive material away from the wrong eyes. All fighters have a fair share of "secret squirrel" stuff, especially when it comes to radar and electronic warfare suites. The F-35 ramps this up however, everything from its radar absorbent skin down to its computer systems would be a tempting prize... A prize that needs to be kept secure.</p><p>None of this is meant to disparage the F-35 Lightning II. Merely illustrate the additional security and contingency plans required for such an aircraft. If Canada does procure the JSF, we need keep our massive landmass and coastlines in mind and be prepared for a <a href="https://skiesmag.com/news/rescue-top-world/" target="_blank">wilderness rescue and/or recovery</a>. </p><p><i>Please note that I mean no disrespect in using the F-35's endearing nickname. The best aircraft alway have the silliest nicknames ("BUFF", "Thud", "SLUF", "Scooter", "Wobbly Goblin"etc.) Like all military callsigns, the term "Fat Amy" is a term of endearment. </i></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-40882837248798409972022-01-30T12:24:00.004-04:002022-01-30T12:24:44.546-04:00PICKING A WINNER.<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgUmU3t099POokC8iD2PbCHTnKPmNBYA_nLNPFehzgit92FO7pjxS9tDjKxYLfoviWpeLOP-xgtDN__D4Ru3xHNucLlq4wRhbnGBVgwOvR3Ku1M9iNSCjNkK4aERAi-r00TRzK93eCgVr2c0lmR_D9Y-QNHIYzvvFVSfyXn5LABmXUNQDLguL-R3USO=s1300" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="957" data-original-width="1300" height="472" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgUmU3t099POokC8iD2PbCHTnKPmNBYA_nLNPFehzgit92FO7pjxS9tDjKxYLfoviWpeLOP-xgtDN__D4Ru3xHNucLlq4wRhbnGBVgwOvR3Ku1M9iNSCjNkK4aERAi-r00TRzK93eCgVr2c0lmR_D9Y-QNHIYzvvFVSfyXn5LABmXUNQDLguL-R3USO=w640-h472" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>Now that we are down to the final stretch of the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP), it seems only right to devote some time learning about how the winner will be ultimately chosen.</p><p>Some suggest that the Joint Strike Fighter's selection is a foregone conclusion. This is due to the F-35 winning similar competitions in <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/06/30/lockheeds-f-35-topples-competition-in-swiss-fighter-contest/" target="_blank">Switzerland</a> and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/lockheed-f-35-jet-wins-finnish-fighter-competition-source-2021-12-10/" target="_blank">Finland</a>. While this is an important bellwether, it should be noted that these competitions were held using different parameters and criteria. It should also be noted that both announcements have met with skepticism and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/09/01/lets-crash-this-luxury-fighter-jet-at-the-ballot-box-swiss-blowback-on-the-f-35-buy/?sh=2579a8096f71" target="_blank">protest</a>. This is especially true when it comes to claims the F-35 won on "<a href="https://skiesmag.com/news/swiss-bet-f35-affordability/" target="_blank">economical</a>" grounds. It turns out the one of the reasons why the F-35 was cheaper was because it would be flown only <a href="https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/216731/how-switzerland-manipulated-data-to-favor-the-f_35--%28free-access%29.html?fbclid=IwAR3K9UuxSjNOEw4DUCh6hxkMZNn4iCKsIpsuFxsZ4Yy1VprrEvj3tEKQ0Mo" target="_blank">140 hours per year instead of 180</a>. Other aspects of the competitions seem to give the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sD7egwQ9CU" target="_blank">F-35 distinct advantages</a> as well. (This might be worth its blog post...)</p><p>Whatever the case, it is important to remember that Canada's selection process is unique; as are each bid. </p><p>Contrary to what some people believe, the winner will not be decided by jet fighter fanboys arguing over the internet. Nor will it be decided by a vote in the House of Commons (not directly; more on this later), Prime Minister Trudeau, nor Royal Decree by the Queen herself. Contacting your MP about your favorite fighter will be of little use. </p><p>The truth is much more mundane and boring. Canada's next fighter will be decided by *<i>GASP*</i> <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a_camel_is_a_horse_designed_by_a_committee" target="_blank">A COMMITTEE</a>. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh86bl2LDsDWIeAjvBCGKblyyS-p-l3bhq4-HOk_9qOzTsbK4eIbdtHtxTWeUbbTnhUKKVUF5xtL0FDcPbFcadh-jLxuBM3_KPt5-iIyJ776tugor6kokPQ90aPgqnPzms-0mpvd11NVf7t3CavhWIyPzbjtXpKucKOtVcvlMqEQZtjmeDAp62U19gv=s500" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="428" data-original-width="500" height="548" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh86bl2LDsDWIeAjvBCGKblyyS-p-l3bhq4-HOk_9qOzTsbK4eIbdtHtxTWeUbbTnhUKKVUF5xtL0FDcPbFcadh-jLxuBM3_KPt5-iIyJ776tugor6kokPQ90aPgqnPzms-0mpvd11NVf7t3CavhWIyPzbjtXpKucKOtVcvlMqEQZtjmeDAp62U19gv=w640-h548" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>Try to contain your excitement. </p><p>Canadian military purchases go through a <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/defence-purchases-upgrades-process.html" target="_blank">five step process</a>:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Identification. This defines the need in broad terms. In this case, a fighter jet capable of fulfilling Canada's needs. </li><li>Options Analysis. Finding out exactly what Canada needs are and what options are available. </li><li>Definition. This step concentrates on HOW Canada's needs are to be met. For the FFCP, <i>this</i> is the current stage. </li><li>Implementation: Procuring the new equipment, setting up, and initial training.</li><li>Closeout: When all contract obligations are met and operating capabilities have been achieved. </li></ol><div>So how will the winner be decided?</div><div><br /></div><div>The scorecard was drawn up by the Department of National Defence (CAF), Department of Public Services and Procurement Canada (representing the taxpayer), and the Department of <span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) (representing Canadian </span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">industry).</span></span></div><div><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /></span></span></div><div>Currently, the two finalists (F-35 and Gripen) have met all requirements as defined in the "Options Analysis" stage. Moving forward, the two will be judged by a <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2019/07/canada-announces-next-step-in-future-fighter-competition.html">predetermined criteria based</a> on 60% Technical Merit, 20% Cost, and 20% Industrial Merit.</div><div><br /></div><div>This may seem like an overly complicated process, but there is good reason behind it. For one, it keeps the decision at an "arms length", shielding the current government from any appearance of impropriety. This is important, as sole-sourcing the JSF did little favors for the previous Harper government. It also keeps the the completion from being "tailor-made" for a specific candidate; <a href="https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rescue-required-canadas-searchandrescue-aircraft-program-03350/" target="_blank">something that has been accused in the past</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjV8mj9CvaQmD5ZCo9QQMS8pwtzGDdOdmIifsRYrZzRAgrXF95hW18GWlgsyBtX1WEo3YJPKwQYr1Su0YdkN0Wp6EQ1mxCU7fOcHCupbzjT_hnp9TJ5nDh489kaqbSNk_oB2DFEOMq5wQPnNjd4_7QmucJ2dgd-KmhTFl65vZYCWzLnTRuqj-4U9-4y=s600" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="600" height="468" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjV8mj9CvaQmD5ZCo9QQMS8pwtzGDdOdmIifsRYrZzRAgrXF95hW18GWlgsyBtX1WEo3YJPKwQYr1Su0YdkN0Wp6EQ1mxCU7fOcHCupbzjT_hnp9TJ5nDh489kaqbSNk_oB2DFEOMq5wQPnNjd4_7QmucJ2dgd-KmhTFl65vZYCWzLnTRuqj-4U9-4y=w640-h468" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>Predicting which fighter will win given the current information is a fool's errand without knowing the exact details of scoring criteria and the exact nature of the manufacturer's bids... But let's do it anyway!</div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Technical Merit (60 points):</h2><div>This category, drawn up by the DND, will undoubtedly favor the F-35. While it certainly cannot specify a "stealth fighter that is 15.7m long and 11m wide", it can define what missions the new fighter would be expected to do and how well it should perform them. </div><div><br /></div><div>I would expect the F-35 to come out ahead here, especially if the emphasis is placed on ground attack missions, payload, and stealthy survivability. The Gripen may surprise a few here with a higher sortie rates, faster cruise speeds, and better-than-predicted electronic warfare suite.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oddly enough, for an aircraft that is often criticized for its range; the Gripen could score very well when compared to the JSF in this department. While the Gripen E carries a paltry 3.4 tonnes of internal fuel compared to the F-35's 8.2 tonnes, the JAS 39E burns substantially less. It also has the option of carrying up to three 1700L (1.4t) or 1135L (0.9t) external fuel tanks. Saab is promising a slightly superior "combat range" and much higher "ferry range" than the JSF thanks to these tanks. As of yet, the F-35 still has <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/04/27/for-war-with-iran-and-china-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-needs-more-gas/?sh=65c1fa2fc86d" target="_blank">no options for external tanks</a>. Yes, <a href="https://theaviationist.com/2021/04/25/f-35i-fuel-tanks/" target="_blank">some have been in the works</a>, but so far they can only be categorized as "vaporware". </div><div><br /></div><div>Given that the RCAF is mostly responsible for the "Technical Merit" category, and the F-35 is clearly their preferred choice, the JSF is almost sure to win this category. The Gripen may not be too far behind in the scoring, however.</div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Cost (20 points):</h2><div>This category is almost certainly going to go to the Gripen. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, there are some recent rumblings that the <a href="https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-gripen/" target="_blank">F-35 is somehow "cheaper"</a>, not only in unit cost, but somehow operating costs. This takes a little unpacking: </div><div><br /></div><div>Currently, the F-35's unit price is indeed less than the Gripen E. Most recent deliveries suggest a unit price of about $80 million for the JSF and $100 million for the Gripen. The caveat here is that the JSF has pretty much <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/f-35-production-set-156-per-year-until-completion/" target="_blank">entered peak production</a> while the Gripen E <a href="https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2021/gripen-e-entering-serial-delivery-phase-for-brazilian-and-swedish-air-forces" target="_blank">has just started</a>. That means that the F-35 is at its cheapest while the JAS 39E is at its most expensive. One should not forget that the F-35's unit costs were in the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/id/100614024" target="_blank">$200 million range</a> in its early production. Full rate production of the Gripen E would undoubtedly reduce unit costs. Increased orders would also reduce unit costs as the R&D costs can be spread out more. A Canadian commitment of 88 aircraft would represent Saab's largest order for the aircraft, increasing current planned production by <i>two-thirds</i>. Canada's order would in-and-of-itself reduce unit costs. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is not unit costs, but <i>sustainment</i> costs that will ultimately tip this category in Saab's favor. Underestimating long term costs were a major factor that <a href="https://cdainstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/cdai_analysis_f35_dec2012.pdf" target="_blank">ultimately scuttled</a> Canada's original F-35 buy, so do not expect that mistake to be made again. All evidence seems to point out that the F-35's cost per flight hour <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2021/07/31/f-35a-jet-price-to-rise-but-its-sustainment-costs-that-could-bleed-air-force-budget-dry/?sh=56547032dfe3" target="_blank">seems to have bottomed out</a> at a much higher than predicted level. Optimistically, cost per flight hour <i>might</i> be reduced to about<a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-agrees-to-30000-per-flight-hour-cost-for-f-35a-by-fy2023/145448.article" target="_blank"> $30,000(US) per flight hour by next year, and down to $25,000 per hour by 2025</a>. Given recent inflation and labour shortages, these numbers seem less and less likely. </div><div><br /></div><div>While cost per flight hour numbers on the Gripen E are currently unavailable (<a href="https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-gripen/" target="_blank">some say about $8,000/hr</a>), it is hard to imagine a scenario in which a smaller, lighter, non-stealth, aircraft that is <a href="https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/" target="_blank">known for being cheap to operate</a> does not have a distinct advantage here. </div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Industrial Merit (20 points):</h2><div>This category will ultimately be the hardest to predict. Not because the contestants are so similar, but because <i>they are so different. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Saab's bid slight advantage, only because its economic benefits are far more tangible. They have promised to assemble <a href="https://www.impaerospaceanddefence.com/blog/saab-announces-gripen-for-canada-team/" target="_blank">Gripens in Nova Scotia with help from IMP.</a> There will also be <a href="https://www.saab.com/markets/canada/gripen-for-canada/gripen-and-aerospace-rd-centers" target="_blank">Gripen and Aerospace R&D Centres in the Montreal area</a>. Saab will also partner with <a href="https://www.cae.com/defence-security/regional-operations/cae-canada/" target="_blank">CAE</a>, <a href="https://www.peraton.com/markets-we-serve/peraton-in-canada/" target="_blank">Peraton</a>, and General Electric Canada. This promises to directly benefit Canadian businesses and provide Canadian jobs. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lockheed Martin's industrial benefit package is far more nebulous... But <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lockheed-martin-f35-canadian-economy-1.5676643" target="_blank">potentially more lucrative</a>. As a Joint Strike Fighter partner nation, Canada will (<a href="https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03968.html" target="_blank">and has</a>) be given the opportunity to bid on F-35 related contracts. Given the massive scope of the F-35, this could lead to Canada building parts and doing the work on <i>thousands </i>of jets. However, given the nature of the JSF program, no nation can be given any sort of guarantees. Contracts are awarded on a "best value" basis. Canada could receive far more <i>or</i> far less industrial offsets than what it invests in the program. Thus far, <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-spends-another-us-71m-on-f-35-amid-calls-to-cancel-fighter-jet-purchase-1.5517876" target="_blank">Canada has actually come out ahead</a> relative to our investment, but competition for JSF-related work will remain high. Without a doubt, there will be "winners" and there will be "losers". </div><div><br /></div><div>Further complicating matters is the fact that, because Lockheed Martin cannot promise any fixed industrial offsets, it will be penalized in this category. How much? We do not know. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ultimately, Canadian Gripens will be mostly built and serviced in Canada. Canadian F-35s will have <a href="https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/" target="_blank">brackets, bearings, and circuit boards built in Canada</a>... But so will hundreds of other F-35s all over the world. Picture this category as Saab promising Canada a very large slice of a small pie and Lockheed Martin offering Canada a tiny slice of a very large pie... <i>but we'll have to fight for it. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>In the end, I would say Saab has a slight advantage here. Their offer is a little more concrete, and they have been wise to partner up with some well established Canadian partners. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipEDGpQB2mKYHP63Vmnps7_g1U1qoG1qnN_N135AfYOQYjoXGveKrDTmox-x3kAAhK5S7nhZ_XHgXu6V0saB6kZM64ErCVsAWonpUyeZBhQHclN0SucAEwZZFS8UebBhMooU8miL7hA5yIOKjkSVgwMTo7pTCcVMlQMyhkGRw2QYtSO8HuA4OIfFIT=s800" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="652" data-original-width="800" height="522" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipEDGpQB2mKYHP63Vmnps7_g1U1qoG1qnN_N135AfYOQYjoXGveKrDTmox-x3kAAhK5S7nhZ_XHgXu6V0saB6kZM64ErCVsAWonpUyeZBhQHclN0SucAEwZZFS8UebBhMooU8miL7hA5yIOKjkSVgwMTo7pTCcVMlQMyhkGRw2QYtSO8HuA4OIfFIT=w640-h522" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><p></p><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Final Score?</h2><div>Since we do not know the full parameters of how the Government of Canada will assess the fighter bids; nor do we know the specifics of the manufacturers' bids themselves, there is simply no way of knowing which fighter will ultimately be chosen. </div><div><br /></div><div>Will Saab be able to make the argument that it offers a fighter that fulfills all of Canada's needs at a much more affordable price and attractive offset package? Will Lockheed Martin finally be able to put the F-35's controversial history behind it and make its case for being the only "5th Generation fighter" available?Only time will tell, but hopefully that time will be here soon. </div><div><br /></div><div>Even when a fighter is picked, it still has one more test to pass. Its purchase must be added to the Federal Budget and that budget needs to be approved in a vote in the House of Commons. With a majority Government, such an act would be trivial. Since the Liberal Party of Canada does not have a majority of <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/floorplan" target="_blank">seats in the House of Commons</a>, they need the support of at least one other party to shore up the votes needed to pass a Federal Budget. Being the official opposition, it would be highly unlikely for the Conservative Party of Canada to support a Liberal Budget. Instead, the Trudeau government would need the support of either the <a href="https://www.ndp.ca/news/new-democrats-call-bolstering-our-economy-and-jobs-through-building-fighter-jets-canada" target="_blank">New Democratic Party</a> or Bloc Quebecois . <i>ALL </i>of these parties have <a href="https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/mugyenyi-canada-doesnt-need-these-costly-warplanes" target="_blank">critical of the F-35 in the past</a>. The NDP's defence critic has even gone on the record stating that Canada's next fighter <a href="https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/07/31/build-new-fighter-jets-in-canada-says-ndp-mp-garrison-as-feds-look-for-economically-attractive-bids/210026" target="_blank">should be built in Canada</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is where a <i>meta-analysis </i>comes in. </div><div><br /></div><div>No single person, department, or political party has the singular power to pick Canada's next fighter. Instead, three government departments get to collectively decide which fighter best covers Canada's defense, economical, and industrial needs. Once that fighter is announced, its financing must be approved by both the sitting minority government <i>and</i> one other party. Depending on the political whims of that particular day, a controversial fighter choice has the potential of triggering yet another <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/21/justin-trudeau-wins-third-election-victory" target="_blank">snap election nobody wants</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is why the FFCP scoring system needs to be above reproach... Or at least pass the sniff test. The Liberal Government does not want to risk a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence" target="_blank">Motion of Non-Confidence</a> over a controversial fighter choice. There is likely to be controversy either way, but there would be <a href="https://www.metv.com/lists/9-famous-tv-catchphrases-that-were-never-actually-said-on-their-shows" target="_blank">some 'splaining to do</a> if the JSF was ultimately picked after all this time, a "<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-hit-reset-button-on-plan-to-buy-65-fighter-jets/article4098182/" target="_blank">reset</a>", <a href="https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/article/21965949/canadas-liberal-party-opposes-f35-purchase" target="_blank">criticism</a>, and lengthy competition just to arrive at the same aircraft that was picked by the previous Government more than 10 years ago. While <a href="https://ipolitics.ca/2014/08/20/how-harpers-botched-procurement-crippled-the-f-35/" target="_blank">Stephen Harper</a> and <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-photo-op-47k-minister-in-pilot-s-seat-priceless-1.1182431" target="_blank">Peter MacKay</a> would appreciate the vindication, it will not help the Liberal Party's reputation for <a href="https://ottawasun.com/2016/07/09/liberals-chart-the-same-road-to-procurement-hell" target="_blank">mismanaged military procurement</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjSDKAg8CilkRZJSQqaQDkY8k0rX2TuveGLEkm9TGt_f_YFMhDMb8D06BnBMrCuIJo9RPIBLwp5Nd8bfl8USyz9QoljwBaPD4qk78OVL5NmEeYsZkp4-2zzNjmB8tIlsNG2HMArzf9XQVpx4cObwd-v-9zyGdXVl0qh8_U69bIvnxvPt2Wq1jYLR53x=s800" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="800" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjSDKAg8CilkRZJSQqaQDkY8k0rX2TuveGLEkm9TGt_f_YFMhDMb8D06BnBMrCuIJo9RPIBLwp5Nd8bfl8USyz9QoljwBaPD4qk78OVL5NmEeYsZkp4-2zzNjmB8tIlsNG2HMArzf9XQVpx4cObwd-v-9zyGdXVl0qh8_U69bIvnxvPt2Wq1jYLR53x=w640-h256" width="640" /></a></div><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;">JUST PICK A WINNER ALREADY!</h2><div>Every indication seems to suggest that the RCAF <i>really </i>wants the F-35. There is also plenty of pressure from the USA and other nations for Canada to "<a href="https://youtu.be/EemoOviEC74" target="_blank">join the cool kids</a>". The lobbying pressure behind the Joint Strike Fighter is <i>immense. </i>Some will also point to current events in the the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60190249" target="_blank">Ukraine</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/20/china-warns-of-serious-consequences-after-tracking-us-warship" target="_blank">South China Sea</a> as reason enough for Canada to spare no expense when it comes to defence. </div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Politically, things look a little different. The last two elections have made it clear that the Liberal party needs to <i>do something </i>if it wishes to stay in power. Imagine the political capital that would be gained by announcing that Canada's next fighter will be <i>built in Canada. </i>Not only that, but it will meet Canada's needs at a much lower cost than the alternative. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whatever the decision turns out to be, expect there to be at lease <i>some </i>controversy... Followed by some sort of "<a href="https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/new-search-and-rescue-aircraft-wont-be-operating-this-summer-military-confirms" target="_blank">unforeseeable delays</a>", and many more months, if not years, of angry fanboy bickering. </div><div><br /></div><div>Just remember, the end is also another beginning. </div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-91220650920332489052022-01-15T17:28:00.000-04:002022-01-15T17:28:08.595-04:00WOULD THE GRIPEN BE A "DOWNGRADE"?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi2N9vILslSGgF_z0w6YHxYegh3gjzmVuwzS4rZ3KjaTE0hAOHSnTmoP_Rpwfxl_I3_QMQojERGCgTY34BlL6K46JLg7h0roc1crVhZGjhPtLjHbPlnmynf511DKAg5wYvaQlFl7XqmE5IvU6EBL4K8n8OInp6C3uU-Cht_uCRFDhZrD71y47wEtu7d=s1260" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="731" data-original-width="1260" height="372" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi2N9vILslSGgF_z0w6YHxYegh3gjzmVuwzS4rZ3KjaTE0hAOHSnTmoP_Rpwfxl_I3_QMQojERGCgTY34BlL6K46JLg7h0roc1crVhZGjhPtLjHbPlnmynf511DKAg5wYvaQlFl7XqmE5IvU6EBL4K8n8OInp6C3uU-Cht_uCRFDhZrD71y47wEtu7d=w640-h372" width="640" /></a></div><br />One of the most common criticisms when it comes to the Saab Gripen potentially replacing the CF-18 Hornet is that it would be a "downgrade". This criticism does have merit. The Gripen, even the "E" version, is smaller, lighter, less powerful, and carries less payload then the CF-18. When looked at under these metrics, one wonders why the Gripen should even be considered. <p></p><p>There seems to be a lingering distaste for smaller fighters following Canada's experience with the CF-116 (F-5) Freedom Fighter. While the CF-5 was not a bad aircraft, it was <a href="http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/stouffer-eng.asp" target="_blank">ill-suited to Canada's needs</a>. </p><p>So why should Canada even consider "downgrading" to a smaller, less powerful fighter?</p><p>The answer, of course, is <i>context</i>. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjg2OySQJEMAfwqyKWJXbemYyRFVk2g9rTUDeu1MvIJbSu9XCtCtalZI8s_WlyFWkSGCgm0Z6b_bvd6uppu5H4kyAoCUb0GqIIY0UkPPSpD0EDte6pweJdHHGFsezd7s_hsg_Xfn0VhgsorDu4-Zsrwhy-e2W-Zqusk7XygyDQF5fuozhBcN4H_jsO7=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjg2OySQJEMAfwqyKWJXbemYyRFVk2g9rTUDeu1MvIJbSu9XCtCtalZI8s_WlyFWkSGCgm0Z6b_bvd6uppu5H4kyAoCUb0GqIIY0UkPPSpD0EDte6pweJdHHGFsezd7s_hsg_Xfn0VhgsorDu4-Zsrwhy-e2W-Zqusk7XygyDQF5fuozhBcN4H_jsO7=w640-h480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Yes, the Gripen is indeed smaller than the CF-18. Roughly 2 meters shorter in length, over 3 meters narrower in wingspan, and just slightly shorter in height; you could fit a Gripen inside the Hornet's footprint with room to spare. At a mere 8 tonnes empty, the Gripen is also a full tonne-and-a-half lighter.</p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/XcG71T5Fs6M" target="_blank">Size isn't everything of course</a>. </p><p>The Gripen's smaller stature is by design. Operating cost almost directly related to aircraft size. Bigger aircraft are heavier and therefore require more powerful engines. More powerful engines require more fuel, making the aircraft even heavier... And so on.</p><p>Speaking of power, the Gripen E does produce less than the Hornet. While upgrading the RM12 (GE F404) engine to a GE F414 does give the Gripen a substantial boost, it is still less than 70% of the Hornet's maximum thrust. </p><p>Does that mean the Gripen is slower? <a href="https://youtu.be/8QxIIz1yEsA" target="_blank">NOPE</a>. </p><p>Aeronautics is not simply about raw power. These are fluid dynamics. Thrust-to-weight ratios are important, but so is drag and lift. Being lighter and more aerodynamic than the Hornet, the Gripen needs less thrust and lift. In fact, the older C/D model of the Gripen outperforms the Hornet in several categories. It has a faster top speed and higher g-limit. At 50,000ft/minute, the two are evenly matched when it comes to time-to-climb. With a slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio (when equally fueled) than its older sibling, the Gripen E should be as good if not better. </p><p>Where the Gripen and Hornet differ substantially is how they prioritize aerodynamic efficiency. The CF-18 is famous for its low speed maneuverability. By contrast, the Gripen seems to prioritize high-and-fast. Saab is promising "<a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/saab-celebrates-supercruise-test-success-for-gripen-demo/84758.article" target="_blank">supercruise</a>" capability of Mach 1.1 and a top speed of Mach 2. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiKDXIWjlYka2WwnkxlUiFWpdB7EepFRwTmBzZnnPmh7ExllNgpH2K8E2Qij6xyVBRn06X0ZGZLHTZ7sR8dfASgd8NNtrELdDkgt3Hn6wNizfXJ3MPVag4_MAoFKr8eUqpYmGRsoJ0_71U82GaBcvDJJXp1D3ditKEchKHlnXVShO3URqN7b0Rkzmc=s440" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="234" data-original-width="440" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiKDXIWjlYka2WwnkxlUiFWpdB7EepFRwTmBzZnnPmh7ExllNgpH2K8E2Qij6xyVBRn06X0ZGZLHTZ7sR8dfASgd8NNtrELdDkgt3Hn6wNizfXJ3MPVag4_MAoFKr8eUqpYmGRsoJ0_71U82GaBcvDJJXp1D3ditKEchKHlnXVShO3URqN7b0Rkzmc=w640-h340" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>But what about payload?</p><p>Having a Mach 2 fighter is not much use if it cannot carry the required ordinance. Nor does it matter if that fighter cannot get out of its own way when loaded up with weapons and fuel. </p><p>Again, the Gripen cannot quite match the legacy Hornet.</p><p>With a maximum payload of 5,300kg, the Gripen carries less ordinance than the legacy Hornet 6,200kg. That is an entire 2000lb JDAM's worth of difference. The Gripen's maximum take of weight (MTOW) of 16.5 tonnes is <i>substantially </i>less than the CF-18's 23.5 tonnes. That is a lot of bombs and fuel. </p><p>One has to ask, however... Does payload matter that much?</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbPdKsiu14pZ2gGIzSsIQQp-BXcuTrcmRYWLd2jwJtdgXy59sdV50A5OPjC3IvbdezN15vSLTlYzPSX9ItWMrrCGl1l6GhDvLZkqLbcVYTQx49Ohn6orMdkltxeeyWUOmy3_OIbYYLVYikQb-1NVPFEpS_AFOZ2rWq1A6iyCOEbLbBvVUHJE84X0Bo=s1023" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="679" data-original-width="1023" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbPdKsiu14pZ2gGIzSsIQQp-BXcuTrcmRYWLd2jwJtdgXy59sdV50A5OPjC3IvbdezN15vSLTlYzPSX9ItWMrrCGl1l6GhDvLZkqLbcVYTQx49Ohn6orMdkltxeeyWUOmy3_OIbYYLVYikQb-1NVPFEpS_AFOZ2rWq1A6iyCOEbLbBvVUHJE84X0Bo=w640-h424" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Above is a picture of a CF-18 flying combat mission over Libya. It is the result of a quick Google image search to find the most "heavily armed CF-18". It appears to be equipped with three(!) external tanks, two AIM-9 Sidewinders, One AIM-7 Sparrow, two <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-24_Paveway_III" target="_blank">GBU-24</a> smart bombs, and a targeting pod. That works out to about 2000kg worth of bombs and 400kg worth of missiles. The rest is fuel. One could argue that the the Hornet has the advantage of carrying more fuel... But the more fuel efficient Gripen does not need as much. </p><p>Maximum payload may end up being more or less moot anyway. The trend nowadays seems to suggest weapons are becoming smaller and more precise. While there will always be a need for 2,000lb "bunker busters"; newer bombs like the <a href="https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/capabilities/products/stormbreaker-smart-weapon" target="_blank">Stormbreaker</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)" target="_blank">Brimstone</a> help reduce the chances of collateral damage. Politically, precision guided weapons taking out high value targets makes a lot more sense than the brute force tactics of carpet bombing. Simply put, the days of Vietnam-era "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder" target="_blank">Rolling Thunder</a>" exercises are pretty much over.</p>Whatever the case, the fact that the Gripen still remains in the FFCP would seem to imply that its performance and payload has been declared "enough". <div><br /></div><div>One should also remember that the CF-18 Hornet itself was itself a "downgrade" in some ways compared to its predecessors. The Hornet is slower than the CF-104 Starfighter and less powerful than the CF-101 Voodoo. The Hornet has a substantially higher payload than those fighters... But that discussion gets complicated. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGNzyr31hGFvwCR3iAqEhb35At3wFdJPh8v8pJz0UL6Cl7979t3UqCBVccpCghw3n6clPeWyS8_oVF-pcdx4J2tlz_0Als-9nEdOyg2IRP_376BVULX7lwXAJ2ywCZQltIGkGimtOWGEmtzjBlyCjtFeMT_o4xlgFo4XbpygtPTKu27X9jfRiAekuS=s3000" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2400" data-original-width="3000" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGNzyr31hGFvwCR3iAqEhb35At3wFdJPh8v8pJz0UL6Cl7979t3UqCBVccpCghw3n6clPeWyS8_oVF-pcdx4J2tlz_0Als-9nEdOyg2IRP_376BVULX7lwXAJ2ywCZQltIGkGimtOWGEmtzjBlyCjtFeMT_o4xlgFo4XbpygtPTKu27X9jfRiAekuS=w640-h512" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>At one point in their lives, both the CF-101 and CF-104 were equipped with far more firepower than the CF-18 would ever see. The Voodoo would strap on two AIR-2A Genie nuclear-tipped rockets, while the Starfighter was set up to deliver a B23, B43, or B57 nuclear bomb. Were people upset when the slower non-nuclear-equipped CF-18 replaced the CF-104? </div><div><br /></div><div>When the CF-18 Hornet was announced, many deemed the middleweight fighter unsuitable for Canada. Many would have preferred the F-15 Eagle or F-4 Tomcat. One could argue whether or not we made the <a href="http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/2020/09/hindsight-2020-cf-18-hornet.html" target="_blank">best choice</a>; but few would call the CF-18 a failure. </div><div><br /></div><div>One should also remember that the CF-18 Hornet was selected during a much different geopolitical time. Not to diminish potential threats happening in <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589" target="_blank">Eastern Europe (Russia)</a> and the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/china-beijing-international-law-south-china-sea-70b7c83936f7f59aaf9b1baba572bce5" target="_blank">South China Sea</a>; but the CF-18 was selected at the height of the Cold War. Defence budgets were at their highest, as were tensions. Now, some have asked if Canada even <i><a href="https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/the-saturday-debate/2021/08/14/the-saturday-debate-does-canada-need-to-buy-new-fighter-jets.html" target="_blank">needs new fighter jets at all</a>. </i>The argument is made that that money would be better put to use funding social programs or climate change. This is, of course, ridiculous. But does Canada need a fighter that carries <i>more </i>bombs? That seems unlikely. </div><div><br /></div><div>In most ways that matter, the Gripen E would be a substantial upgrade to the CF-18 Hornet. It has increased combat radius and faster speed. Its radar, IRST, and <a href="https://www.edrmagazine.eu/outsmarting-the-threats-saabs-new-ew-systems" target="_blank">EW/ECM suite</a> far outclass the current Hornet, with potential to <a href="https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-11-07/saab-flies-new-electronic-attack-pod" target="_blank">push EW even further</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh-bfIojNTpU0R-X65UvzqDV4Etd-XKPBleKJHRv9oxEYgpwRVYzmn9mvP2kDJMaIoVt1Z5zQODSA7GpWi1xZ6mbP1qBYEwMviksYqnU8GsFctR2lZG7DPO6bwAjet3SatfoUPlXexOsqtSt_KfuGmvNhHf5KzYe1UkvyJXpknxIEi3WAF_8B8zqSYe=s2200" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="2200" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh-bfIojNTpU0R-X65UvzqDV4Etd-XKPBleKJHRv9oxEYgpwRVYzmn9mvP2kDJMaIoVt1Z5zQODSA7GpWi1xZ6mbP1qBYEwMviksYqnU8GsFctR2lZG7DPO6bwAjet3SatfoUPlXexOsqtSt_KfuGmvNhHf5KzYe1UkvyJXpknxIEi3WAF_8B8zqSYe=w640-h314" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The Gripen E is only a "downgrade" when comparing a few cherry-picked specifications. Using that sort of logic, one could argue that the F-22 Raptor is inferior to the F-15C or even the F-4 Phantom. This is, of course, ridiculous. </div><div><br /></div><div>When viewed holistically, the JAS 39E should match or exceed the capabilities of the CF-18. In the few cases it does not, one has to wonder how relevant those parameters are. Unlike the CF-5 Freedom Fighter it is sometimes compared to; this is not some lightweight "day fighter" with a limited missions set. The Gripen is a full-fledged multirole fighter... <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/swedens-jas39-gripen-may-be-worlds-best-nonstealth-fighter-jet-2021-11" target="_blank">Perhaps one of the best</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><p><br /></p></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-32011726203238064722022-01-07T17:05:00.002-04:002022-01-07T17:05:41.350-04:00THE PERFECT FIGHTER FOR CANADA DOESN'T EXIST... YET. <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhYDmYw6gSNvLpOeBZ80J5gMxruTGh8YjPMETNV0PM4_DSgoSE0WfwN0ySf8kecRSlDfyfBLRKXBSFxvz55CitgurTfzMoSkFeW8K33YNodCfoC3zjg3_grVkKd-CY0kmrzGY0hwbvt7VguBiwr7_MDti5tiTyFVRVU_ghL0P5iExQenhzk3iB_uMs6=s1570" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="723" data-original-width="1570" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhYDmYw6gSNvLpOeBZ80J5gMxruTGh8YjPMETNV0PM4_DSgoSE0WfwN0ySf8kecRSlDfyfBLRKXBSFxvz55CitgurTfzMoSkFeW8K33YNodCfoC3zjg3_grVkKd-CY0kmrzGY0hwbvt7VguBiwr7_MDti5tiTyFVRVU_ghL0P5iExQenhzk3iB_uMs6=w640-h294" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>It is rather telling that Canada's choice to replace the CF-18 ultimately comes down to two rather different fighters: The F-35 and the JAS-39E. </p><p>The message is clear. Canada wants a cutting edge fighter... But it doesn't want to spend a lot of money for it. These two goals seem contradictory (because they are) but the good news is that the <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/18/the-air-force-is-interested-in-buying-a-budget-conscious-clean-sheet-fighter-to-replace-the-f-16/" target="_blank">USAF wants the same thing</a>. </p><p>While the Joint Strike Fighter program was <i>originally </i>intended to replace the F-16, the reality has become slightly more complicated. Put simply, the F-35's operating costs are <a href="https://www.statista.com/chart/23618/operating-cost-per-aircraft/" target="_blank">WAY MORE</a> than the fighter it was intended to replace. This is despite the fact that the USAF's Viper fleet is getting on in years. </p><p>This has led the USAF to study less expensive options. A "clean sheet" design that incorporates newer technologies without going all in like the F-35. Like the F-15EX, this new workhorse would be a suitable option for when stealth is not needed. </p><p>The nerds at <a href="https://hushkit.net/2021/03/17/the-f-36-kingsnake-the-fifth-generation-minus-fighter-usaf-wants/" target="_blank">HushKit.Net immediately jumped on the bandwagon</a> and envisioned what such a fighter would look like. Instead of "blue sky" thinking, they instead emphasized a short development time utilizing off-the-shelf components wherever possible. Stealth was considered, but not prioritized. </p><p>What they came up with was rather promising. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg1EgPADfsXXx5Qf02yf3HSjd2aOZcp4J2bSy0bco-Ugzrzubq-03cPHORirD5CFdyArNJqRtIWDxSCwPAHGgUU7WMIZvPZENmbNB6gcEsy9KcHCnW_ylNu1p1C7-AGdDMF8SnFVXdcR32Tgc-gEGSImXV3Fj4C5E4tLwsAaMIHxRCXpKBpsgr5PN0n=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1990" data-original-width="2048" height="622" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg1EgPADfsXXx5Qf02yf3HSjd2aOZcp4J2bSy0bco-Ugzrzubq-03cPHORirD5CFdyArNJqRtIWDxSCwPAHGgUU7WMIZvPZENmbNB6gcEsy9KcHCnW_ylNu1p1C7-AGdDMF8SnFVXdcR32Tgc-gEGSImXV3Fj4C5E4tLwsAaMIHxRCXpKBpsgr5PN0n=w640-h622" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>The aesthetics are much akin to the F-16XL. This is for good reason. The F-16XL is considered one of the "<a href="https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/f-16xl-the-f-16-that-could-carry-27-bombs-into-the-fight/" target="_blank">best fighters that never was</a>". Its cranked delta design allowed for increased payload and range over the standard F-16, while also allowing for "supercruise". This is a big deal, as one of the issues concerning America's "Pacific Pivot" is that its current fighter fleet does not have sufficient range. </p><p>While the design appears radical, the hardware does not.</p><p>Its power plant would be the Pratt & Whitney F119 as seen in the F-22. The F-35's F135 or an uprated GE F110-129 were considered but each have their caveats. New F119 production would benefit the current F-22 fleet. </p><p>Sensors would include the same <a href="https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/sabr-scalable-agile-beam-radar-apg-83-aesa/" target="_blank">AN/APG-83 AESA</a> radar seen on updated F-16s. An IRST based on the <a href="https://interestingengineering.com/lockheed-martin-legion-pod-allows-drones-to-track-targets-without-radar" target="_blank">Legion Pod</a> would round out the built-in sensors. No <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2020/distributed-aperture-system-making-5000-happen.html" target="_blank">DAS</a>. No <a href="https://theaviationgeekclub.com/interesting-video-shows-unique-capabilities-of-the-f-35-lightning-ii-electro-optical-targeting-system/" target="_blank">EOTS</a>. </p><p>The F-36's cockpit would be slightly more traditional than the F-35. Instead of fancy (and <a href="https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/air-force-f-35-helmet-fitting/" target="_blank">incredibly expensive</a>) helmet, traditional HUD would be paired with a Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System. </p><p>Like the F-35, weapons would be stored both internally and externally. Weapon bays would be located on either side, aft of a <a href="https://theaviationgeekclub.com/photos-f-16-used-test-f-35s-diverterless-supersonic-inlet/" target="_blank">divertless intake</a>. Whether or not these would be specialized for a particular missile (like the AMRAAM) or more "generic" like the F-35's is anyone's guess. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMvwkCwchI3Te1zXpAHfXaCXpS4Zmtvq1gAPpA1g3RUM4QX7TV1fL1WVlJoW0NUIuvlfR82fJcBWiFKa00d719PmS6qMlBCeznIZqhn4lJKwUVIdIT6d3Fu8dH3h5L89YYQvUwHzYgL6JYNB6fmCtkgKLHiiHDpeuA9zg-UKhDa0p9syirMHarmLUm=s1024" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1024" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMvwkCwchI3Te1zXpAHfXaCXpS4Zmtvq1gAPpA1g3RUM4QX7TV1fL1WVlJoW0NUIuvlfR82fJcBWiFKa00d719PmS6qMlBCeznIZqhn4lJKwUVIdIT6d3Fu8dH3h5L89YYQvUwHzYgL6JYNB6fmCtkgKLHiiHDpeuA9zg-UKhDa0p9syirMHarmLUm=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Of course, non of this is actually confirmed to be in the works. For now, consider the F-36 Kingsnake to be nothing more than fighter-nerd fan-fiction. Sure, it is fun to speculate, but do not expect to see a big reveal anytime soon. </p><p>There is merit in the idea, however. A new fighter that improves on the F-16 without all the expense and compromises of the JSF would be "just right". Such a fighter would not only be hit with the USAF, but it would likely be hit on the export market as well. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdGkFWzkx6MH403Hu-Q5QYDgHT8yGuxWvbO1UItCUvl9gfkZUCMoyxqUw7bopan6FzlofVfzdKhrr2pC3wXC-G7dxk6HvFfLoOYg0kqkOHHkGvTP8_rIu1JVInbAwIpvFOMoTHZOapxSlf_A9C_HWrwKMw6pJbMAf-tYuW0GLUSUkWC1rfpsxf8Paf=s1024" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1024" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdGkFWzkx6MH403Hu-Q5QYDgHT8yGuxWvbO1UItCUvl9gfkZUCMoyxqUw7bopan6FzlofVfzdKhrr2pC3wXC-G7dxk6HvFfLoOYg0kqkOHHkGvTP8_rIu1JVInbAwIpvFOMoTHZOapxSlf_A9C_HWrwKMw6pJbMAf-tYuW0GLUSUkWC1rfpsxf8Paf=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>Of course, a delta-wing fighter that promises low operating costs with new technology might seem a bit familiar. It might not have some of the proposed stealth features, but it does manage to cram plenty of 5th generation features into a simpler, cheaper 4th-gen airframe. Congratulations, F-36, you managed to copy the Gripen JAS 39E. </p><p>This is, of course, all a bit of fun. Whether or not a proposed "F-36 Kingsnake" ever sees so much as a drawing board is anyone's guess. More likely, the USAF will simply follow a similar pattern it did with the F-15EX Eagle II. That means updating the F-16 with an AESA radar (already done), adding a built in IRST and more internal fuel... Again... much the same way Saab did with the Gripen E. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-48101543734620080032022-01-02T13:01:00.000-04:002022-01-02T13:01:34.732-04:00WHY CANADA SHOULD BUY THE... <p></p><h1 style="text-align: left;">F-35 LIGHTNING II</h1><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh5OYgbun5V8vHtwjihQ8MzdsVSmduwcLC7iKhJCBIqLuhdUtIXURk7QfoTPyG39X-hCfjLKFvDrwfRNs8PeDS7RFUeQEJa7Vkcmzg2G6EQc8cKspTVxoWR-m7j0YsB87kWvXBk1TqmqmBchaDo2JsZyUKnvJmhrA3e8WI6f4WQyT0_XyS8IxUM1H4c=s1086" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="724" data-original-width="1086" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh5OYgbun5V8vHtwjihQ8MzdsVSmduwcLC7iKhJCBIqLuhdUtIXURk7QfoTPyG39X-hCfjLKFvDrwfRNs8PeDS7RFUeQEJa7Vkcmzg2G6EQc8cKspTVxoWR-m7j0YsB87kWvXBk1TqmqmBchaDo2JsZyUKnvJmhrA3e8WI6f4WQyT0_XyS8IxUM1H4c=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><div style="text-align: left;">I have spilled a lot of digital ink on why Canada should <i>not</i> purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Contrary to my rhetoric, the world as we know it will not end if Canada does announce an F-35 buy. In fact, there are plenty of reason why Canada should commit to the JSF. This may seem a little "off brand" today I am here to tell you why we <i>should</i> purchase the F-35. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">It <i>is</i> the future.</h2><div>Despite all the naysayers, the Joint Strike Fighter program has delivered on its promise to produce a 5th-generation in massive numbers. Over 700 airframes have been delivered with production now <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/f-35-production-set-156-per-year-until-completion/" target="_blank">maxed out at 156 units per year</a>. One can debate over whether or not the F-35 will match the sheer numbers fighters <a href="https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-06-25-Lockheed-Martin-Awarded-Contract-to-Build-F-16-Block-70-Aircraft-for-Bahrain" target="_blank">like the F-16</a>, but there is little doubt that the JSF will be <i>the</i> NATO fighter for much of the 21st century. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike the F-22 Raptor, which was deemed "too good" to export, the F-35 has been aggressively marketed to international sales. Indeed, part of the JSF's <i>raison d'être </i>is its emphasis on international cooperation. "Partner Nations" were courted early into the program and new buyers are being continuously sought out. </div><div><br /></div><div>With the sheer ubiquitousness of the JSF, Canada need not worry about lack of support or having to deal with an "orphan" airframe. Canada has <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/8457421/cracks-now-found-in-21-of-the-canadian-militarys-23-cyclone-helicopters/" target="_blank">learned the hard way</a> that unique, Canada-specific airframes can lead to a <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ch-149-cormorant-helicopters-search-rescue-1.6090353" target="_blank">great deal of headaches</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>An F-35 selection would give Canada peace of mind knowing that its fighters are under no risk of becoming hopelessly obsolete in 10-20 years. The JSF will undoubtedly still be going strong well into the 2050s and beyond. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiqfZwDE1gn4ibHiHpLJN8hiwNcPBOKpQlG8S89AKO3fkIhXO7r63rp8nu47-UGkXK7Hnf_Lc7a7yFVEsihEO1PBwQLWnb_SKGSDOcCvyFaj3KfENgH6t7Jt1BaxYrkcWkuYkK6gsI-PFOwIoTXrwys9BdGHGQLNYQ7a1VMUWoiUYcMCGX6bhg5i6UA=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiqfZwDE1gn4ibHiHpLJN8hiwNcPBOKpQlG8S89AKO3fkIhXO7r63rp8nu47-UGkXK7Hnf_Lc7a7yFVEsihEO1PBwQLWnb_SKGSDOcCvyFaj3KfENgH6t7Jt1BaxYrkcWkuYkK6gsI-PFOwIoTXrwys9BdGHGQLNYQ7a1VMUWoiUYcMCGX6bhg5i6UA=w640-h480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;">Canada has already committed.</h2><div>Canada has been part of the F-35 program longer than the F-35 itself. </div><div><br /></div><div>Hear me out. </div><div><br /></div><div>Back in 1997, the Canadian Government (under Jean Chretien) invested $10 million towards what would become the Joint Strike Fighter program. This was well before the "<a href="https://pbsinternational.org/programs/battle-of-the-x-planes/" target="_blank">Battle of the X-Planes</a>" that led to the selection of the Lockheed Martin X-35.</div><div><br /></div><div>Since then, Canada has <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-spends-another-us-71m-on-f-35-amid-calls-to-cancel-fighter-jet-purchase-1.5517876" target="_blank">continued investing</a> into the JSF program as a "Level 3 Industrial Partner". This gives Canadian aerospace contractors the ability to bid on F-35 related contracts. Not only that, but it guarantees us a better price under terms of the agreement. </div><div><br /></div><div>If Canada decides against the F-35, all those millions of dollars would be <a href="https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/" target="_blank">effectively for nothing</a>. Mind you, its hard to justify spending BILLIONS on the basis of a few million. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiamvDe6RFBPrMXBXDx1g8_1udb-lpBa5WtTTOD6ukAsJW6Ntnh1NX0cAPS447ML-hwvYBqPx830FKxHVM1iYWJ62qXUYLXlU_WPODIzUmerNzRQ-Giu-QMNsfvrkbNwSpmMUpeWIOnEDk8uQAr15LXfHj-1q0FCQWmpwbJxl2-4wWr5wZ1TzO4unAj=s1650" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1650" data-original-width="1275" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiamvDe6RFBPrMXBXDx1g8_1udb-lpBa5WtTTOD6ukAsJW6Ntnh1NX0cAPS447ML-hwvYBqPx830FKxHVM1iYWJ62qXUYLXlU_WPODIzUmerNzRQ-Giu-QMNsfvrkbNwSpmMUpeWIOnEDk8uQAr15LXfHj-1q0FCQWmpwbJxl2-4wWr5wZ1TzO4unAj=w494-h640" width="494" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><br /></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;">There has never been a better time. </h2><div>Back in 2011, the F-35 program was not looking good. Years of cost overruns and setback gave good reason for trust issues. One could easily be excused for predicting that the F-35 simply could not deliver. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, ten years later, things have changed. </div><div><br /></div><div>The JSF is now in full-rate production. Unit cost has <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/07/23/the-price-of-the-f-35-has-been-falling-but-it-could-hit-a-wall-soon/" target="_blank">come down considerably</a>; all the way down to about $80 million. That makes it an absolute bargain when compared to fighter jets like the <a href="https://www.aerotime.aero/27553-Top-10-most-expensive-fighter-jets-in-2021" target="_blank">Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale</a>. Depending on the math, its price may even undercut the Saab Gripen E. Not bad for a cutting edge stealth fighter. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is also important to note that the F-35 has managed to outgrow many of its early teething problems. These are no longer the trouble-prone early production models. Some trouble-shooting remains, but much of what remains are considered "<a href="https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2021/07/16/the-number-of-major-f-35-flaws-is-shrinking-but-the-pentagon-is-keeping-details-of-the-problems-under-wraps/" target="_blank">minor issues</a>".</div><div><br /></div><div>Better still, the F-35s being built now will be compatible with the upcoming "<a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/block-iv-f-35-upgrade-should-make-china-nervous-195684" target="_blank">Block 4</a>" upgrades. These (mostly classified) upgrades will allow for <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27347465/f-35-missile-increase/" target="_blank">more munitions</a>, and make the JSF an all-around better fighter.</div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhUW4oTT3PE0KxKdDdq0U-amCCg_SbIjsiC_Yk2YcdOBWgT_tuge0skSQAGUmDhipZBF7W390dzvDtil0BNY9RhTs4se5EB0TLq54TCkFZiFvwof-mrRzwPSL2vRX6xVBn63nNCp5jv-FIP7GgVMWzlB18Sfj075hngfXZMknFhPmJL7dAGGgWRWJbs=s632" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="632" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhUW4oTT3PE0KxKdDdq0U-amCCg_SbIjsiC_Yk2YcdOBWgT_tuge0skSQAGUmDhipZBF7W390dzvDtil0BNY9RhTs4se5EB0TLq54TCkFZiFvwof-mrRzwPSL2vRX6xVBn63nNCp5jv-FIP7GgVMWzlB18Sfj075hngfXZMknFhPmJL7dAGGgWRWJbs=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">It's already good... But it could get even BETTER. </h2><div style="text-align: left;">The nice thing about being THE NATO FIGHTER well into the foreseeable future is that the F-35 will undoubtedly see some upgrades over the years. Expect the JSF to see all the <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28796/new-aim-260-missiles-are-so-secretive-they-will-require-a-custom-storage-bunker-at-hill-afb" target="_blank">latest missile technology</a> and maybe even<a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/lockheed-aims-for-laser-on-fighter-by-2025/" target="_blank"> <i>frikkin' </i>lasers</a>. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Newer F-35s could even be built (or upgraded with) and entirely <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43456/f-35s-could-get-new-engines-as-soon-as-2027" target="_blank">new type of engine</a>. This new type of jet engine, labeled as <i><a href="https://www.ge.com/news/reports/the-superjet-how-ges-adaptive-cycle-jet-engine-could-supercharge-military-aviation" target="_blank">adaptive cycle</a>, </i>can switch between high efficiency and high thrust modes. Much like variable valve timing in a passenger car, this does away with the the need to find the right compromise between power and fuel economy. One simply has maximum power when it is needed and reduced fuel consumption while cruising. In the <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/f-35-engine-rivals-prepare-for-another-clash/" target="_blank">case of the F-35</a>, this could lead to a 30% improvement in range as well as a 10-20% increase in maximum thrust. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">The caveat:</h2><div>Given all these reasons, one can certainly understand why the F-35 should be Canada's replacement for the CF-18 Hornet. The JSF represents the future of air combat, after all. </div><div><br /></div><div>Therein lays the biggest argument against it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Almost every argument in favor of the F-35 proclaims how good it <i>will </i>be. In the last ten years, the F-35 has certainly improved, but it still has yet to be the fighter it was supposed to be from the very beginning. The fighter that was promised always seems to be just on the horizon. Greatness always seems to be coming "in the next software update". The <i>potential</i> is there, but there fighter still <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/f-35-not-as-survivable-as-hoped-hasc-chair-says/" target="_blank">remains underwhelming</a> in the here-and-now. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unit costs may be down, but sustainability costs are <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/07/watchdog-group-finds-f-35-sustainment-costs-could-be-headed-off-affordability-cliff/" target="_blank">still untenable</a>. Reliability still <a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/to-improve-f-35-reliability-pentagon-plans-performance-based-logistics-contract/138819.article" target="_blank">leaves something to be desired</a>. While many issues have been fixed, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-12/f-35-flies-with-871-flaws-only-two-fewer-than-a-year-earlier" target="_blank">many still remain</a> with no solution in sight. Any air-to-air missile besides the Sidewinder or AMRAAM is "<a href="https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/34723/20211126/testing-aim-260-missile-underway-new-weapon-placed-air-force.htm" target="_blank">in development</a>" or "<a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/italy-uk-to-complete-meteor-spear-missile-integration-on-f-35-fleets/145515.article" target="_blank">on the way</a>". Given the F-35's track record, many of its promised improvements could take decades to finally see service... If at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>More worrisome than anything else is that F-35s biggest costumer, the USAF, is hedging its bets. Instead of replacing aging F-15Cs with F-35s, they have instead chosen the <a href="https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/air-force-new-f-15-eagle/" target="_blank">F-15EX Eagle II</a>. They are also looking into <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35865601/f-36-kingsnake-air-force-next-fighter-jet-concept/" target="_blank">simpler, lower cost fighter</a> to fly alongside the F-35. </div><div><br /></div><div>A simpler, lower cost fighter? Where have I heard that before?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-82354105562815376382021-12-28T13:32:00.002-04:002021-12-28T13:32:45.282-04:00F-35 AND GRIPEN... How we got here and where to now?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEij7lV_WtIb8-cz_sqWDLUK2rdTu9UxQBlYKJtSi7LvxXp-34iS800vgJp2LzZo2T2HC2vfe3zDtHEbbC2F-gjV22S3TvYBvh9iSCq1DOb1qxbZERHdjQ9uQrL6jTGe694OSg9bvUZdzj28R1AajZkwJt74H--njZyL8-u0j5FQjljVYSzGSUQmmc1T=s2208" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1242" data-original-width="2208" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEij7lV_WtIb8-cz_sqWDLUK2rdTu9UxQBlYKJtSi7LvxXp-34iS800vgJp2LzZo2T2HC2vfe3zDtHEbbC2F-gjV22S3TvYBvh9iSCq1DOb1qxbZERHdjQ9uQrL6jTGe694OSg9bvUZdzj28R1AajZkwJt74H--njZyL8-u0j5FQjljVYSzGSUQmmc1T=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjL1TnPiKZMffoSVcNu6fDTzr3jPuMO61vFX9aFS1yQuyIeNWt6clWLde-g3lJnM-bOT5Jtar-YKSi5Z1d89467EwSUZo3_vALMP_JZABxkTuigDxRdSWEdupD_fCNw_AUyfs4XPCFIM9Nt-1YzbPAW74LnoGZpE28FqIdpc_Fu_UdutYtZdEzqvvvj=s5315" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3543" data-original-width="5315" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjL1TnPiKZMffoSVcNu6fDTzr3jPuMO61vFX9aFS1yQuyIeNWt6clWLde-g3lJnM-bOT5Jtar-YKSi5Z1d89467EwSUZo3_vALMP_JZABxkTuigDxRdSWEdupD_fCNw_AUyfs4XPCFIM9Nt-1YzbPAW74LnoGZpE28FqIdpc_Fu_UdutYtZdEzqvvvj=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>With the <a href="https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/snac-nfps/CF-18-eng.html" target="_blank">FFCP</a> decision expected to be awarded in 2022, it <i>finally</i> looks like Canada is in the final stretch to replace its aging CF-188 Hornets. With the recent ousting of Boeing's Super Hornet from the competition, we are now left with two very different candidates: The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II and the Saab JAS 39E Gripen (Griffon). </p><p><i>What a long, strange trip it's been...</i></p><p>Nearly twelve years ago, when I started <a href="http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com" target="_blank">Gripen4Canada</a>, the Joint Strike Fighter was a troubled project that seemed to be on the verge of collapsing in on itself. Despite this, the Canadian government at the time had committed itself to buying 65 F-35As. Shortly after, it was found that no other alternatives were fairly considered and that "fuzzy" math was used to come up with a $9 billion price tag. Real costs were said to be much closer to $46 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft. The fighter purchase was then "reset" (ie: put off).</p><p>An "independent" review panel was put in place to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. Shortly after, one of its members; Retired Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ex-general-bouchard-bows-out-of-panel-looking-for-f-35-fighter-jet-alternatives/article6237512/" target="_blank">resigned from the panel</a> stating he was "too busy"... Only to be almost immediately announced as the new <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-maker-hires-ex-general-who-led-nato-libya-mission-1.1866406" target="_blank">President of Lockheed Martin Canada</a>. </p><p>Canada's Government then proceeded to kick the can down the road until the 2015 Federal Election, when the (then minority) Liberals under Justin Trudeau promised to <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791" target="_blank">cancel the F-35 buy altogethe</a>r and start new. Much to everyone's surprise, the (then third place) Liberal party won the election and made good on that promise... Sort of. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhr8aR582neEG-uFeTidnrcPGe1qMMqz9GqBt3AOvQenjU27c6qlBoejYmG69eFlBDice9GhrqDqEzfUi4oXs3FdJCv0T6LTxrpQH-WilG71gxvKFPF2TBw3b1QOprqtdubrCMBRM91my_dlco4-X9ZVtyqqtacaGAq37J1jahuVovpsf5yypLX88d5=s700" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="700" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhr8aR582neEG-uFeTidnrcPGe1qMMqz9GqBt3AOvQenjU27c6qlBoejYmG69eFlBDice9GhrqDqEzfUi4oXs3FdJCv0T6LTxrpQH-WilG71gxvKFPF2TBw3b1QOprqtdubrCMBRM91my_dlco4-X9ZVtyqqtacaGAq37J1jahuVovpsf5yypLX88d5=w640-h368" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Shortly after entering power, the Liberals made the stunning announcement that Canada was experiencing a "capability gap" in its fighter fleet. Simply put, Canada had enough usable fighters to meet our NATO and NORAD commitments, <a href="https://skiesmag.com/web-news/is-canada-considering-a-super-hornet-stop-gap/" target="_blank">just not simultaneously</a>. It then announced the <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2017/09/12/us-approves-super-hornet-sale-ahead-of-canadian-decision/">purchase of 18 new Super Hornets</a> to fill that gap. </p><p>The plan was not without some merit. The Super Hornet was certainly an upgrade to Canada's aging legacy Hornets while also maintaining some semblance of commonality. Some, perhaps rightly so, saw this as a way to stack the cards in favor of Boeing for the entirety of of the CF-188 replacement.</p><p>They might have gotten away with it... If Boeing had not done <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/trade-panel-rejects-boeings-case-against-bombardier/">THE THING</a> and kiboshed the whole deal. </p><p>In 2017, the Canadian government formally announced the Future Fighter Capability Project. Surprisingly, the Trudeau Liberals planned to buy 88 new fighters instead of the previously planned 65. Five candidates were being considered; the F-35 Lightning II, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and the Saab Gripen. </p><p>Citing interoperability concerns, <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/11/07/dassault-withdraws-from-canadas-fighter-jet-competition/" target="_blank">Dassault's Rafale was the first to bow out</a>. This was not seen as much of a surprise given that the Rafale was never flown with the usual NATO favorite AIM-9 Sidewinders and AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Certifying the Rafale for Canadian use was likely seen as not worth the hassle. </p><p>The Eurofighter Typhoon was the next to <a href="https://skiesmag.com/news/typhoon-withdrawn-from-canadian-fighter-competition/" rel="nofollow">exit Canada's FFCP</a>. While the Typhoon is certainly a capable machine, it has earned a reputation of being rather pricey to procure and operate thanks to its convoluted manufacturing roots. Splitting the European supply chain with the aircraft fleet by the Atlantic Ocean only complicated matters. It is likely the Eurofighter consortium could not make the numbers work. </p><p>Surprisingly, Boeing's Super Hornet was the <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-confirms-boeing-s-super-hornet-officially-out-of-fighter-jet-competition-1.5689464" target="_blank">next fighter to be eliminated</a>. Even with its recent controversies, Boeing was still considered to be a front-runner for the FFCP. Perhaps recent changes to the <a href="http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/2021/11/super-hornet-is-out-boeing-has-no-one.html" target="_blank">"Block III" Super Hornet's upgrades</a> were the last straw... Or its <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/06/17/more-cost-overruns-are-coming-down-the-line-for-boeing-as-the-kc-46-program-logs-another-two-technical-deficiencies/">history with the KC-46</a>... Or maybe its disappointing <i><a href="https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-test-flight-oft-2-early-2022" target="_blank">Starliner</a> </i>has caused a lack of faith in the corporation altogether. </p><p>Whatever the case, Canada is now left to choose between the F-35 Lightning II and the Saab Gripen E. In many ways, this unlikely pairing illustrates two ends of the modern fighter spectrum. </p><p>The F-35 exists on the high end. Manufactured by the largest defense contractor in the world, and operated by the world's largest militaries, the JSF is considered by many to be the <i>de facto</i> replacement for fighters like the F-16 and F/A-18. It has laid its claim as being the only true "5th Generation" fighter available to NATO-allied nations. A controversial development cycle combined with high operating costs has led to plenty of second-thoughts regarding the fighter, only to go ahead and procure it anyway. </p><p>Saab's Gripen occupies a much smaller niche. Being a supersonic fighter <i>not </i>designed by a superpower or some multinational conglomerate, the fact that it exists at all is surprising. The fact that it has somehow managed to no go head-to-head with the largest weapon program of all time is completely astonishing. </p><p>In most ways, the F-35 is clearly the superior aircraft. Being "5th Generation", it promises stealth, advanced sensors, and data-link capability heretofore unseen on older aircraft. Compared to the Gripen specifically, the JSF is more advanced, more powerful, carries more internal fuel, more weapons, and fits seamlessly into the American-dominated NATO force. </p><p>Fortunately for the Gripen, being "less capable" is not a bug. It is a feature. </p><p>While it lacks a stealth design, the Gripen's latest variant attempts to get the aircraft as close to "5th generation" capability as possible. Upgraded radar, an IRST, more internal fuel, enhanced avionics and electronic warfare (EW) suite push the 4th generation design as far as it will go... Without the<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/air-force-admits-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-too-much-ncna1259781" target="_blank"> extra costs</a> and <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/nation/2010/06/b-2_stealth_bombers_require_60.html" target="_blank">maintenance</a> required of stealth designs. Saab promises <i>slightly less </i>capability at a <i>substantially reduced </i>operating cost. </p><p>Perhaps it is Canada's unlikely choice between the JSF and Gripen that speaks volumes. </p><p>Everything else being equal, the F-35 would be the most likely choice given the RCAF's clear preference for it. Recent competitions in Switzerland and Finland have resulted in the F-35 being selected; albeit with <a href="https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/11/17/swiss-probe-f-35/" target="_blank">some caveats</a>. </p><p>Unfortunately, Canada is in the unenviable position of needing to replace more than just our fighter fleet. Years of deferred defense procurements have left us needing multiple big-ticket items besides fighters. This includes the <a href="https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/royal-canadian-navy-unveils-new-details-on-csc-frigates/" target="_blank">Canadian Surface Combatant</a>, <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/navy-submarine-new-fleet-1.6102598" target="_blank">submarines</a>, <a href="https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airbus-solely-qualifies-for-canadas-tanker-procurement" target="_blank">MRTT</a>, <a href="https://defense.info/defense-systems/canada-begins-effort-to-replace-cp-140/">Aurora</a> and <a href="https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/news/modernization-program-for-snowbirds-aircraft-jumps-in-price-462483/" target="_blank">Snowbird</a> replacements... Even <a href="https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/tribunal-tells-federal-government-to-restart-military-pistol-purchase-favouritism-alleged" target="_blank">new pistols</a> for the army. All within the next 10 years or so. Combine this with Canada's usual trepidation when it comes to military spending and it becomes inevitable that some projects will be scaled back if not cut entirely. Now add the inevitable "belt-tightening" in a (hopefully) post-COVID economy to the mix and realize that <i>difficult decisions will have to be made. </i></p><p>All of this makes the decision between the F-35 and Gripen a clear choice that will be difficult to predict. </p><p>If Canada chooses the F-35, that indicates we will remain steadfast in "keeping up with the Joneses" by fielding similar military hardware as our allies, albeit without the same commitment to military spending. Government and military beancounters will be forced to "<i>find the money</i>" to keep the RCAF's crown jewel flying. Lower profile (yet no less important) projects may find it harder to find funding. Canada may be forced into giving up certain capabilities (like submarines). This could be rationalized by stating that our allies could fill the role. This was the initial plan with <a href="https://www.macleans.ca/general/canadian-military-unable-to-refuel-new-jets-in-mid-air/" target="_blank">Canada's F-35s and aerial refueling</a>. The Canadian Armed Forces would be less its own separate entity and more of a small part of a larger whole. </p><p>By contrast, choosing the Gripen may indicate that Canada's government has decided to face reality. In order for Canada's military to stay relevant in the 21st century, we must take a more holistic approach. Choosing a fighter with lower operating costs could free up money for an <a href="https://skiesmag.com/features/exchanging-an-aurora-for-a-poseidon/" target="_blank">Aurora replacement</a>... Which <a href="https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2018-07-airbus-evaluates-an-a320neo-multi-mission-version" target="_blank">does not have to be the P-8</a> Poseidon. Not only this, but by choosing a fighter that will be built in Canada, we will be emphasizing our own independence. </p><p>It is not an easy choice to make, nor to predict. </p><p>From the military perspective, the F-35 is the clear favorite. If the CAF was given a blank cheque and told to make the decision, we would already be seeing CF-35s in RCAF livery. It is easy to see why. The JSF represents the "latest-and-greatest" in fighter technology. Integration with allied forces would be a non-issue. Given how ubiquitous the F-35 will end up, there is no doubts as to future support and <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/08/12/the-pentagon-is-exploring-its-options-for-a-more-efficient-and-powerful-f-35-engine/" target="_blank">upgrade options</a>. </p><p>Politically, things are very different. The Trudeau government rose to power on the promise to specifically NOT buy the F-35. Currently, they form a minority government and rely on support from another party (the NDP) to remain in power. The NDP has made it clear that they would prefer a "<a href="https://www.ndp.ca/news/new-democrats-call-bolstering-our-economy-and-jobs-through-building-fighter-jets-canada" target="_blank">made in Canada</a>" solution. One should not dismiss the political capital that would be gained by announcing that Canada's next fighter will not only be more affordable than initially planned, but <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/8421387/bidding-partner-fighter-jets-jobs-atlantic-region/" target="_blank">will be built </a><i><a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/8421387/bidding-partner-fighter-jets-jobs-atlantic-region/" target="_blank">here</a>. </i></p><p>How do we decide?</p><p>It will not be the respective fighters' strengths, but how they address their weaknesses that could tip the scales. </p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhW8S9ROTlTl63lc0K77kBjy652Bl2JJ1CVCMkT651_0vNC0W-VR1WBw4VXavEQLdcca0LPH1FW-_uN4i1_PoeZGmi8XQUexSgFP2ch-GbHvZblNoobHSoSfR962wARDF_naJloI0jnGRfNxTGHMlSoouCnDaMUjYPDBlULcuvu09Pfi0KBgZwtkJGA=s999" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="999" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhW8S9ROTlTl63lc0K77kBjy652Bl2JJ1CVCMkT651_0vNC0W-VR1WBw4VXavEQLdcca0LPH1FW-_uN4i1_PoeZGmi8XQUexSgFP2ch-GbHvZblNoobHSoSfR962wARDF_naJloI0jnGRfNxTGHMlSoouCnDaMUjYPDBlULcuvu09Pfi0KBgZwtkJGA=w640-h244" width="640" /></a></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p>Unfortunately, being built in Canada will not be enough to propel the Gripen to the win. The last fighter built on Canadian soil, the CF-116 Freedom Fighter, did not quite meet Canada's needs. Its stigma will likely carry over as an example of how the cheaper, home-built fighter is not alway the most sensible choice. </p><p>Saab's bid will have make the case that the Gripen E is, in fact, much more than a simple point-defense fighter. It needs to be a true multirole fighter that not only matches the current CF-18's capabilities, but improves on them. <a href="https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-e-series" target="_blank">Recent marketing</a> attempts to do this by emphasizing technology like data-links and AESA radar over raw speed and maneuverability. </p><p>Conversely, Lockheed Martin will have to reassure Canadian decision makers that the F-35 is not the "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html" target="_blank">Trillion-dollar Turkey</a>" some have made it out to be. This will not be an easy task given the JSF's troubled development and long history of cost overruns; the same issues that made Canada cancel its order in the first place. </p><p>The good news is that the JSF program has managed to shake off a lot of its early issues. It is now considered to be not only operational, but <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/05/22/the-f-35-just-made-its-combat-debut/" target="_blank">combat proven</a>. <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29626363/f-35-cheap/" target="_blank">Unit costs</a> have come down dramatically, making it far more affordable to procure. Unfortunately, <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/07/watchdog-group-finds-f-35-sustainment-costs-could-be-headed-off-affordability-cliff/">high sustainment costs</a> persist as the F-35's bugbear. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiZOj0N9cWoXsOcagbHMrcjL1fSQKrc4nF5CooeUO6L-LnuIW0yXJn6aRDjktvG1c30kbe9hbH2O1RqkbaiWS2K6BNDTgEryfc7jD93dSKuMMC1PxO4hLmwDSB-b3duy4DZVJU6RX5RMp6mOsYKg2qmK56kYbPwn1wKbqX1X6XdF2vccLN7kTlBmnpo=s1300" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="867" data-original-width="1300" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiZOj0N9cWoXsOcagbHMrcjL1fSQKrc4nF5CooeUO6L-LnuIW0yXJn6aRDjktvG1c30kbe9hbH2O1RqkbaiWS2K6BNDTgEryfc7jD93dSKuMMC1PxO4hLmwDSB-b3duy4DZVJU6RX5RMp6mOsYKg2qmK56kYbPwn1wKbqX1X6XdF2vccLN7kTlBmnpo=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgl0Sa90XUYrOp5syp4EvhJYRDkjgkbJFjxhGyyn7fyO2UnRCIQsO2Kp1bQciW-RNUZAJ6rAWU3OFo0WXB7AZIYO5CWyd7ACrP3M65YHEBnTNMTb-r8tRCJce-EwJT6qXvNAYojN_GBd-bd3xHowQQvV88g6jkoEr-rR5hb37OfMmqp0kZkyZonk2Pq=s7039" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4693" data-original-width="7039" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgl0Sa90XUYrOp5syp4EvhJYRDkjgkbJFjxhGyyn7fyO2UnRCIQsO2Kp1bQciW-RNUZAJ6rAWU3OFo0WXB7AZIYO5CWyd7ACrP3M65YHEBnTNMTb-r8tRCJce-EwJT6qXvNAYojN_GBd-bd3xHowQQvV88g6jkoEr-rR5hb37OfMmqp0kZkyZonk2Pq=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>So which fighter will be selected? </p><p>The fact that we have somehow ended up with these two fighters as finalists seem improbable in and of itself. One entered the competition as a dark horse and was often predicted to be the first one eliminated. The other was already dropped once by the current government. </p><p>Very few could have predicted this David and Goliath showdown, but here we are. </p><p>Without knowing the exact details of respective bids, nor the specifics of how the FFCP grades and prioritizes each category; there is no way to pick a perspective winner. Not with what we currently know, anyway. </p><p>Whatever the decision, it will undoubtedly be controversial. </p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-56437114288850031882021-12-05T12:40:00.000-04:002021-12-05T12:40:14.132-04:00SU-57 CHECKMATE: THE BEAR'S GAMBIT?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpVpQ3vhGmc-l1OXLouFf_pNi_LJ9xweY8CQB72NbWq6E4ue6UTcqd3EukyjlaoVADOo_0WKsB941vGQ0Gc0HhL7UOKj_2SvlT7zDDRUo69AQvTbX7ckjGexo1Hii7BpHyk7Zh4YbKzk/s1708/Su-75-Checkmate.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1708" height="374" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpVpQ3vhGmc-l1OXLouFf_pNi_LJ9xweY8CQB72NbWq6E4ue6UTcqd3EukyjlaoVADOo_0WKsB941vGQ0Gc0HhL7UOKj_2SvlT7zDDRUo69AQvTbX7ckjGexo1Hii7BpHyk7Zh4YbKzk/w640-h374/Su-75-Checkmate.webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>Russia pulled a sneaky on everyone. </p><p>While every military analyst has been focused on <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/new-two-seat-chinese-j-20/">China's J-20</a>, Russia has upped the ante by unveiling the Su-75 "Checkmate". One look at it tells you all you need to know, this aircraft will be a direct competitor against the F-35; both in the skies and the marketplace. </p><p>More modest than the J-20 and Su-57, the Checkmate utilizes a single-engine design that obviously strives for stealth. Unlike The Shenyang FC-31, which simply looks like the twin-engine F-35, the Su75, simultaneously looks like nothing else in the air whilst also being hauntingly familiar. </p><p>Why does it look so familiar? </p><p>Because the Su-75 utilizes elements from two fighter designs that lost to the F-35. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ7d0qc28IidEhr4HBMlYFSXZp9jdTY_4MvriMGcuvl_xF9-XjbJFqngKbAfLRf66zfCzhDHT3n2r0hbPezb4upDxJ0if6Eu_RQpz4crsw4StvGXTEPKReey9kcHMP18JgyVQg6bw1sW8/s1280/X-32.jpg.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="790" data-original-width="1280" height="396" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ7d0qc28IidEhr4HBMlYFSXZp9jdTY_4MvriMGcuvl_xF9-XjbJFqngKbAfLRf66zfCzhDHT3n2r0hbPezb4upDxJ0if6Eu_RQpz4crsw4StvGXTEPKReey9kcHMP18JgyVQg6bw1sW8/w640-h396/X-32.jpg.webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>The most... <i>Interesting</i> design choice has to be that front engine intake. A similar intake appeared on Boeing's ill-fated JSF contender, the X-32. This very intake earned the aircraft its infamous nickname: <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky">MONICA</a>. </i>(No, this isn't a <i>Friends</i> reference) Being a divertless supersonic inlet (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diverterless_supersonic_inlet">DSI</a>), this design has several advantages, including weighing less than traditional mechanical ramps while also improving stealth characteristics. </p><p>Either that... Or Sukhoi's engineers have a particularly twisted sense of humor...</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8gmXk8yM0fda2TcOXF1PczcKrkdDnf3yxJ5-G9nQLZhufCXrL4DVeIyNRC4mr1vWtnhGmCKiQBnHhU4jChMMW5dEJafo-n-V-C15S_QqEOTLN9NYH6dQiVVMoY6aRYR1MdNl9WFTqaKE/s1600/cddr_mda-ngc-bae_003.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1190" data-original-width="1600" height="476" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8gmXk8yM0fda2TcOXF1PczcKrkdDnf3yxJ5-G9nQLZhufCXrL4DVeIyNRC4mr1vWtnhGmCKiQBnHhU4jChMMW5dEJafo-n-V-C15S_QqEOTLN9NYH6dQiVVMoY6aRYR1MdNl9WFTqaKE/w640-h476/cddr_mda-ngc-bae_003.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>The Su-75's Pelikan tail seems highly reminiscent of another, less known JSF contender. </p><p>While much is known about the rivalry between Boeing's X-32 and Lockheed Martin's X-35; there was a <i>third</i> JSF entry that never made it to prototype phase. This being from McDonnell Douglas, manufacturer of legendary fighters like the F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, and F-4 Phantom II. </p><p>McDonnell Douglas's JSF design seemed to split the difference between Lockheed Martin's more conventional design and Boeing's radical big-mouthed stubby delta. Sporting <i><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334042982_The_effects_of_flow_separation_on_a_lambda_wing_aerodynamics">Lambda</a> </i>wings and a <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelikan_tail">Pelikan</a> </i>tail, McDonnell Douglas's design was easily the sleekest of the three. Unfortunately, its proposed exhaust gas powered lift system was <a href="https://www.alexstoll.com/AircraftOfTheMonth/5-00.html">deemed unacceptable</a>. A redesigned lift system using a second turbine was deemed too complicated. </p><p>McDonnell Douglas's expulsion from the JSF program was more or less a death sentence for a company that specialized in jet fighters. It was soon merged with Boeing. </p><p>The Pelikan tail does offer advantages to a traditional layout. Since it combines four surfaces into two, there is considerably less drag. It is also inherently stealthier than a traditional layout. The YF-23's Pelikan tail design is likely one of the reasons why it is considered stealthier than the YF-22. </p><p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh_mzt4fl3ATAsCsUHflFXx427JwRMAzt65pIU3ZwQ8YMm80FXdP1fHU4PTLTWlbBJhFpJrraTk2xUL2DWIIlwd4Xw5Mu6j4_q_2_6F4aTqSuGnPRbGXZhZyoPTR5tgRFpergFSY59U1Pv7RqETOkm8OG5Yo--HHfDnyzafJr0Rhj7VS35CFMoA0BDj=s960" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="960" height="372" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh_mzt4fl3ATAsCsUHflFXx427JwRMAzt65pIU3ZwQ8YMm80FXdP1fHU4PTLTWlbBJhFpJrraTk2xUL2DWIIlwd4Xw5Mu6j4_q_2_6F4aTqSuGnPRbGXZhZyoPTR5tgRFpergFSY59U1Pv7RqETOkm8OG5Yo--HHfDnyzafJr0Rhj7VS35CFMoA0BDj=w640-h372" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Unlike the Chinese <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42920/chinas-carrier-capable-stealth-fighter-has-flown">Shenyang FC-31</a>, no one can accuse the Su-75 of being a <a href="https://warriormaven.com/air/the-chinese-j-31-5th-gen-stealth-fighter-may-be-a-total-f-35-rip-off">carbon copy</a> of a western fighter design. While the Checkmate may borrow a few aspects from other fighters, it is still very much its own design. It certainly has much less resemblance to the Su-57 than the F-35 has to the F-22. </p><p>The <a href="https://eurasiantimes.com/su-75-checkmate-vs-su-57-felow-how-does-russias-new-single-engine-stealth-aircraft-differ-from-its-predecessor/">spec sheet</a> reads like just about every other 5th generation fighter currently in development: Stealthy design, internal weapon storage, AESA radar, IRST, and the possibility of an unmanned version. A top speed of 1.8 and a g-limit of 8.0g keep it competitive (on paper) with the F-35. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfhpvbnZQBOj3Dj-0pzevgBsBF5wmnoYj7o4rtR-8EySPi8RbsvgkSHogcp-KeLwcOORjcwP_r4AguBVdNPNGe9mIFOeeixFdacw7LfJ19rGhXr8kze1NBrXoSVz-m274HNURfGLISv08L1OFbnvH4fDfZ58lTiO4TsPzubOOYCvutBo1y93w4Ac32=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfhpvbnZQBOj3Dj-0pzevgBsBF5wmnoYj7o4rtR-8EySPi8RbsvgkSHogcp-KeLwcOORjcwP_r4AguBVdNPNGe9mIFOeeixFdacw7LfJ19rGhXr8kze1NBrXoSVz-m274HNURfGLISv08L1OFbnvH4fDfZ58lTiO4TsPzubOOYCvutBo1y93w4Ac32=w640-h480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>Where the Su-75 really stands out, however, is <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia’s-ad-strategy-“checkmate”-fighter-involves-perfume-and-apache-helicopter-197267">how it will be marketed</a>: AGGRESSIVELY. Right now, unit price of the Su-75 is estimated to be <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-new-checkmate-su-75-stealth-fighter-how-can-it-be-so-cheap-190266">$25-30 million</a>. No. That is not a typo. </p><p>While the promotional material suggests that Sukhoi has leveraged "existing technologies" developed for the Su-35 and Su-57; one wonder how it is even remotely possible to offer competitive performance to the F-35 Lightning II at <i>one-quarter the price. </i></p><p>The truth is... It isn't. </p><p>The Checkmate will most likely lack the JSF's most advanced capabilities. No fancy HMD. No DAS. No EOTS. No <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Advanced_Data_Link">MADL</a>. No ALIS (or <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/alis-is-dying-long-live-f-35s-odin/">whatever they're calling it</a> these days).</p><p>That's not a bug. That's a feature. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfEYurzDvoE6gvTxmo5FaIjE5f7v313D2R1G6mdR9WiBSc-QRgjuNEnZt4IKoWWaQikKAQfgsMHTmNpvbcgrWXY0yzIf3zXCROAGTBRXwkrx0VLSQS9u-REglLL7hNnb28flYKt48G0jTRrZluEzdl36UqLdiAJjV0vi_JrmnM4eZhYLiHRUCYO3k4=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfEYurzDvoE6gvTxmo5FaIjE5f7v313D2R1G6mdR9WiBSc-QRgjuNEnZt4IKoWWaQikKAQfgsMHTmNpvbcgrWXY0yzIf3zXCROAGTBRXwkrx0VLSQS9u-REglLL7hNnb28flYKt48G0jTRrZluEzdl36UqLdiAJjV0vi_JrmnM4eZhYLiHRUCYO3k4=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Instead of being looked at as the Russian equivalent to the JSF, the Checkmate should be seen as the modern equivalent to the MiG-21. </p><p>The MiG-21 was not the best fighter of its day. While its performance was impressive, it was not sophisticated compared to its contemporaries like the F-4 Phantom II. Therein lay the secret to the MiG-21's success: <i>It did not need to be. </i>The MiG-21 offered performance nearly on par with the most advanced western fighters <i>at a fraction of the cost. </i>This made the MiG-21 the most prolific jet fighter ever made. </p><p>One can only imagine the amount of sleepless nights that the MiG-21 caused for western military planners. With over 10,000 copies built and seeing service in about 60 countries, it was quite literally all over the place. This allowed for many Soviet-friendly nations to maintain an air force capable of giving the mighty <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/article/against-the-migs-in-vietnam/">American war machine a bloody nose</a>. </p><p>Now... Imagine a "5th generation" MiG-21. One with sophisticated sensors, a stealthy design, and equipped with the <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39071/russia-developing-first-brand-new-short-range-air-to-air-missile-since-the-end-of-the-cold-war">latest in air-to-air missile technology</a>. Now imagine that fighter in the hands of whatever "rogue state", third-world despot, or even an increasingly <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/12/02/russia-ukraine-putin-policy-523606">belligerent Russia</a>. </p><p>Unlike the Su-57 "Felon", which will likely follow the F-22's example and see less than 200 built; the simpler, cheaper Su-75 could see production in the hundreds, if not <i>thousands. </i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="471" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0z-JI5m93hk" width="616" youtube-src-id="0z-JI5m93hk"></iframe></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p>Perhaps the biggest lesson we can learn from the Su-75 Checkmate is that it represents what the Joint Strike Fighter <i>could have been. </i></p><p>Imagine a world in which the JSF stayed closer to its <a href="https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jast.htm">initial concept</a>. A simple, affordable fighter meant to replace the F/A-18 and F-16. No STOVL version, no gold plating, and no convoluted software. <i>That fighter would look an awful lot like the Su-75. </i></p><p>By utilizing existing technologies and <i>keeping it simple</i>, the Su-75 will likely prove to be slightly less versatile than the F-35... But see service in parts of the world that would formerly <i>never dream</i> of operating a 5th generation fighter. </p><p>Much like the MiG-21, the Su-75 could end up serving as a near-peer adversary serving in places you would least likely expect that sort of thing. </p><p>This sort of thing seems to be cyclical. The west develops a bleeding edge aircraft (F-4) only to be countered by something "almost as good" (MiG-21). This forces the west to "go back to basics" (F-16) for a while only to lose focus and develop the "next generation" (F-22 and F-35) at ludicrous cost, only to once again be countered by something "almost as good" (J-20 and Su-75) forcing them to "go back to basics" again (<a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35865601/f-36-kingsnake-air-force-next-fighter-jet-concept/">F-36 Kingsnake?</a>)</p><p>Perhaps, like the MiG-21 before it, the Su-75 will remind us that <i>affordability</i> is what sells fighters.</p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-4712315563227153982021-11-27T13:32:00.003-04:002021-11-27T13:32:45.901-04:00SUPER HORNET IS OUT. BOEING HAS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT ITSELF. <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCL6ATNKcRDoNe17255Uv-ZqwVi7zvgS4r9SP2sFvKoUvLNr6s6hNIivu5of-VyAYOo1oeodIajFb3JdT1VN7ivwf-JfWNOroPi_NlB5cHfO42lgJ_Wf4mt10gZ8XJMbH4VzowX4wfEC0/s693/5vpp70.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="693" height="462" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCL6ATNKcRDoNe17255Uv-ZqwVi7zvgS4r9SP2sFvKoUvLNr6s6hNIivu5of-VyAYOo1oeodIajFb3JdT1VN7ivwf-JfWNOroPi_NlB5cHfO42lgJ_Wf4mt10gZ8XJMbH4VzowX4wfEC0/w640-h462/5vpp70.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p>Reports that there would be a "down selection" in the competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s have turned out to be true... Sort of. </p><p>Despite "industry insiders" predicting that the <a href="https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/10/canadian-cf-18-hornet-replacements-a-decisive-and-potentially-controversial-deadline-approaches/">Saab Gripen will be removed from consideration</a>, that dubious honor will go to <a href="https://skiesmag.com/news/canada-declines-boeings-super-hornet-bid-in-future-fighter-competition/">Boeing's Super Hornet</a> instead. This is indeed a big surprise... If you have not been paying attention. </p><p>The most striking fact about the Super Hornet's departure is that, at one point, it WAS going to be Canada's next fighter. Well... <a href="http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/2016/11/best-interim-fighter-for-canada.html">On an interim basis, anyway</a>. When the Liberal government formed in 2015, they had done so on the promise of cancelling Canada's F-35 purchase. The F/A-18E/F seemed to be the most likely alternative. In 2016, it was announced that Canada would be purchasing 18 Super Hornets as a way of filling a "<a href="https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/liberals-policy-change-created-cf-18-gap-rcaf-commander-in-the-dark-on-decision">capability gap</a>". While these 18 Super Hornets would not be a replacing CF-18s <i>per se</i>, they could have definitely been used a reason to single-source a full Rhino buy later on in the interest of commonality and cost savings. </p><p>All Boeing really had to do is sit back, relax, and keep its <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/boeing-needs-a-bridge-planemaker-looks-abroad-to-keep-super-hornet-line-rolling/article_eb9f4b1b-dfc1-5fcf-b363-27960307f2de.html">St. Louis assembly line running</a>. Instead, Boeing decided to bite the hand about to feed it. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU7v_ub_mAERy0t_BerTZupMKzzqxd2WdtsZYnrLGNDWZSeJi2MJL81is2AkUjgt2OKui6O-Oqy_BnmHd4XFAq0tomUtavhov641RqXLksifbZbafeaCXlODVGNhjt_ZlONrSfZIFFZ8Q/s768/Air-France-A220.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="768" height="336" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU7v_ub_mAERy0t_BerTZupMKzzqxd2WdtsZYnrLGNDWZSeJi2MJL81is2AkUjgt2OKui6O-Oqy_BnmHd4XFAq0tomUtavhov641RqXLksifbZbafeaCXlODVGNhjt_ZlONrSfZIFFZ8Q/w640-h336/Air-France-A220.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>After years of struggling with their ambitious C-Series airliner, Bombardier was finally seeing some success. Having recently secured orders from Delta Airlines, it was starting to look like the jetliner was ready for prime-time. </p><p>What made the C-Series special was its 3+2 across seating. Bigger than jetliners like the Embraer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family#See_also">E-Jet</a> and Bombardier's own <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ700_series">CRJ</a>, yet smaller than the ubiquitous Boeing 737 and Airbus A320; the C-Series promised to fill an emerging niche. Increased security measures in a post-9/11 airline industry had left travelers preferring direct flights over the "<a href="https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/airline3.htm">hub-and-spoke</a>" model. This led to slump in "jumbo" jets designed specifically to travel between hubs, effectively killing off both the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694620105/airbus-to-stop-production-of-a380-superjumbo-jet">Airbus A380</a> and <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-receives-last-747-order-ending-production-of-the-storied-airliner/">Boeing 747</a>. Smaller, more flexible airliners are all the rage now. </p><p>Sensing potential competition to its bread-and-butter 737 and its upcoming MAX variant, Boeing decided to <strike>build a superior competing product</strike> dispatch its team of lawyers and lobbyists with a sole goal of killing the C-Series. Having the ear of the nationalistic Trump administration, Boeing had no problem convincing the US Government to impose a 220% tariff on the C-Series, effectively killing any hope of American sales. This decision was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Boeing">eventually overturned</a>, but the writing was on the wall for financially-strapped Bombardier. Left with little other choice, Bombardier sold control of the C-Series to Airbus and had decided to leave the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-financial-results-airbus-c-series-1.5462182">commercial jetliner business altogether</a>. </p><p>The whole debacle has left a permanent scar on Canada's aerospace industry. Enough so that the Trudeau Government not only cancelled the interim Super Hornet purchase, but added a "<a href="https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/sajjan-says-boeing-is-not-a-trust-partner-as-super-hornet-dispute-escalate">trusted partner</a>" clause to the <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/future-fighter-capability-project.html">FFCP</a>.</p><p>Ironically, Boeing's biggest challenge to the 737 MAX was the 737 MAX itself. Several high-profile crashes revealed that the MAX itself was rushed into production with <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/11/24/boeing-knowingly-flew-pig-with-lipstick-737-max-plane/">plenty of corners cut</a>. Boeing was then hit by the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/business/boeing-earnings/index.html">COVID-19 pandemic</a> as demand for airliners in general dried up. At least they had their military arm to prop them up...</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMVNyDGyZ-FAchCMzSEDsi-lT9ZR1QQMlleu3DMQ2QY7WmOb4-YCRGRYC66689R7onF27rqxkc_bSHhB63tQWK_ytyhdkSv3rXt13pfw0xkLV9j8yg7KHNgBgke6HOImMfQ9erzl4SpM/s1274/ASH065-130827-Boeing-F18F-ASH-112b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1006" data-original-width="1274" height="506" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWMVNyDGyZ-FAchCMzSEDsi-lT9ZR1QQMlleu3DMQ2QY7WmOb4-YCRGRYC66689R7onF27rqxkc_bSHhB63tQWK_ytyhdkSv3rXt13pfw0xkLV9j8yg7KHNgBgke6HOImMfQ9erzl4SpM/w640-h506/ASH065-130827-Boeing-F18F-ASH-112b.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>Oh... About that...</p><p>Boeing is <a href="https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/9/3/air-force-boeing-trying-to-tackle-tanker-challenges"><i>still</i> having issues</a> with its KC-46 Pegasus tanker. Being a "fixed price" contract, Boeing will be on the hook for over $5 billion in cost overruns. </p><p>Despite heavy promotion of its "Block III" Super Hornet, the USN has decided that it will simply upgrade older Rhinos to the standard instead of purchasing new airframes. Just as well, as it seems the Block III improvements promised with the "<a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21045/here-is-boeings-master-plan-for-the-f-a-18e-f-super-hornets-future">International Roadmap Edition</a>" were simply not to be. First to get dropped were the novel <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15300/boeing-might-include-stealthy-features-on-overhauled-us-navy-super-hornets">enclosed weapon pods</a> (remember those?) followed by the <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42141/navy-halts-plans-to-give-its-super-hornets-conformal-fuel-tanks">conformal fuel tanks</a>. As of now, the Block III Rhino looks like a regular Super Hornet with an upgraded cockpit and a kludgy <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31850/navy-f-a-18-super-hornet-takes-flight-with-new-infrared-search-and-track-pod">combination IRST/drop tank</a>.</p><p>Thankfully for Boeing, its T-7 Red Hawk trainer is <a href="https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2021-11-15/production-t-7-red-hawk-nearing-first-flight">proceeding mostly as planned</a>. This is likely due to the assistance of Saab, who <a href="https://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-and-Saab-Sign-Joint-Development-Agreement-on-T-X-Family-of-Systems-Training-Competition">partnered with Boeing</a> on the project due to their expertise in developing low-cost fighters. Boeing also has its new <a href="https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/air-force-new-f-15-eagle/">F-15EX Eagle II</a>, which will see at least <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/07/13/heres-how-much-money-boeing-is-getting-to-build-the-new-f-15ex/">144 sold to the USAF.</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh7N3q37s-tAsAOI-8S44nCKCLLrC79BKbi6Ey63lfITjsmp21X3oS-mADBTig8JxuKLI_gV7fEtiv3RABJs_E9cDJ5ULoJqJNbLlaG-qEaF0vTep46kVxv6_dCnW2k02iQtf_e058ETE/s960/F18E-BlockIII_Canada_lg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="960" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh7N3q37s-tAsAOI-8S44nCKCLLrC79BKbi6Ey63lfITjsmp21X3oS-mADBTig8JxuKLI_gV7fEtiv3RABJs_E9cDJ5ULoJqJNbLlaG-qEaF0vTep46kVxv6_dCnW2k02iQtf_e058ETE/w640-h640/F18E-BlockIII_Canada_lg.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p>Canada's rejection of the Super Hornet deals it an enormous blow. Aside from the USN, Canada was the most promising buyer of new Rhinos. Boeing may find other buyers, but competition is fierce and any sales will likely be in limited numbers. <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/germany-still-has-hope-fa-18f-super-hornet-184037">Germany is the next likely customer</a>, but it is still committed to the Eurofighter Typhoon. </p><p>With a dearth in potential customers, Boeing may soon have little choice but to <a href="https://www.defensedaily.com/navy-proposal-ends-super-hornet-production-2021-redirects-next-gen/navy-usmc/">end F/A-18E/F production</a> altogether. This is unfortunate. A few short years ago, it looked like the Super Hornet Block III would not only be Canada's next fighter, but the default choice for air forces not ready to commit to the F-35. Instead, both the Hornet and Super Hornet will fail to outlive the older F-15 Eagle. </p><p>On paper, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet seemed to be a great fit for Canada. While not as "sexy" as the Eurocanards nor as cutting edge as the F-35; the Rhino had a reputation for being a reliable "no frills" workhorse. Until the infamous Boeing/Bombardier dispute, it was clearly the "safest choice". Afterwards, it became political poison. Any government rewarding Boeing with a $19 billion contract would face immediate derision by opposing political parties and voters alike. With the latest Federal election resulting in (another) minority government; Boeing never really had a chance. A hard pill to swallow after almost being a shoe-in. </p><p>Put simply, Boeing managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. </p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-80475889661245213042021-11-12T16:58:00.001-04:002021-11-12T16:58:30.317-04:00UPDATE: MISCELLANEOUS MUSINGS MESSING WITH MY MIND...<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="422" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xQ3sB9yTgco" width="508" youtube-src-id="xQ3sB9yTgco"></iframe></div><br /><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Sorry it's been a minute since my last post. Over the last few months, I've made the foolish decision to attempt basement renovations whilst being a healthcare worker in the time of COVID. Skyrocketing building material prices, forced overtime, and general sensation of existential DREAD has not been kind on my free time... Nor my <a href="https://youtu.be/TEui1dXzIgw">psyche</a>. </i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>But hey! Whenever I feel like I'm in a never-ending clusterf*ck being constantly told "It will all be over soon." I remind myself... Canada's CF-18 replacement program should also be over soon!</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Or will it?</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">After years of speculation, controversy, a few Federal elections, an "<a href="https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/04/canada-gave-u-s-just-hours-notice-not-buy-super-hornets/">interim fighter purchase</a>" (that went south) and other nonsense... Canada really does not seem to be much closer to buying <i>new</i> fighter jets... Just a few used ones. This, despite speculation that the newly formed Liberal government <a href="https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/10/canadian-cf-18-hornet-replacements-a-decisive-and-potentially-controversial-deadline-approaches/">would choose two finalists shortly after reconvening</a> last month. So far, it has done no such thing. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Rumor had it that Saab's Gripen E would be disqualified given possible issues with <a href="https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2019/05/12/new-canadian-fighter-jets-will-need-u-s-certification-dnd-2/">meeting security requirements</a>. This has yet to happen. If it did, it would almost certainly guarantee a win for Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II. This would run contrary to the Liberal Party of Canada's former promise <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791">NOT to buy the stealth fighter</a>. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Why do I say this?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib0PDOb7_vqjWEIgGjSd7HQyqVgBmamwFJNkItwApwbtSRC1r0M78GvxRhWg5P7hYaASIBtHJaFBnVn0A6Wj1twU5R6v0WG_wNtekw0CCjc_H7yVEUqbNvZxW95klh1kiEh85LbQMuT3Y/s2048/6301733.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1449" data-original-width="2048" height="452" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib0PDOb7_vqjWEIgGjSd7HQyqVgBmamwFJNkItwApwbtSRC1r0M78GvxRhWg5P7hYaASIBtHJaFBnVn0A6Wj1twU5R6v0WG_wNtekw0CCjc_H7yVEUqbNvZxW95klh1kiEh85LbQMuT3Y/w640-h452/6301733.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Despite its well documented <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2021/07/16/the-number-of-major-f-35-flaws-is-shrinking-but-the-pentagon-is-keeping-details-of-the-problems-under-wraps/">teething issues</a>, the F-35 has all the momentum right now. The Pentagon REALLY wants this fighter to be a success; and it has just about all the <a href="https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/f-35-being-pitched-to-new-european-customers">marketing support</a> it could hope for right now. Best of all, as the platform has matured, it has become more affordable and reliable.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">If Canada <i>does</i> end up purchasing the F-35 after more than 10 years of delays, at least we can take solace in the fact that we avoided the more troublesome early builds of the aircraft. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Of course, the F-35 continues to be an expensive aircraft to purchase and operate. Much has been said about the JSF unit cost becoming more affordable; but it looks like the price has "bottomed out" at <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2021/07/31/f-35a-jet-price-to-rise-but-its-sustainment-costs-that-could-bleed-air-force-budget-dry/?sh=78f4078432df">$78 million per copy</a>. Unfortunately, sustainment costs continue to be much higher than anticipated. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><blockquote><blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 18px;">The GAO forecasts F-35As would cost $7.8 million per plane per year of operations—$3.7 million more than the Air Force’s ‘affordable’ budgetary target. That means the service must reduce operating costs by 47% to attain affordability. The GAO report claims that even if spare parts were furnished for </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic;">free</span><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 18px;">, the F-35A would overrun budget targets.</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><p style="text-align: right;">-Forbes</p><p style="text-align: left;">Costs remain high, but at least the F-35 has managed to impress with its capability. Despite earning the nickname "Fat Amy", the F-35 does seem to impress those that have flown it. There is no denying that its combination of sensors and stealth offer some distinct advantages in a strike fighter. Combine that with payload and performance characteristics that match or exceed the F-16 and F/A-18 it is meant to replace and it is clear why those who like it, like it a lot.</p><p style="text-align: left;">I have had my issues with Billie Flynn in the past. He has been far too flippant about going to war; <a href="http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/2013/10/rant-hey-billie-flynn-war-isnt-playtime.html">calling it "play"</a> and that Canada "wouldn't be allowed" unless we had the latest and greatest. His bias towards the F-35 is overwhelming; but its understandable given his employment with Lockheed Martin and his closeness to the program. Given this, one does tend to take his word on the JSF with an enormous grain of salt. However, the fact remains that he is eminently qualified and incredibly well spoken. In short: I may not fully agree with him, but certainly do respect him. (You <i>CAN</i> do that, despite what recent social media rhetoric would have you believe.)</p><p style="text-align: left;">That being said, I highly recommend you check out Billie Flynn's appearance on the Fighter Pilot Podcast here: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="403" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jUGND1LkUMI" width="484" youtube-src-id="jUGND1LkUMI"></iframe></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;">After listening to someone so imbedded into the JSF program, one can understand why they find the F-35 so endearing. What's not to love about a stealthy F/A-18?</p><p style="text-align: left;">Speaking of the F/A-18, the news from Boeing has been... Less promising. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCA3hCkpHb7OtWBnI4TmWsIQ9rmpnIL8iDhFd-JQWE3aRhdaMNlU_qR8xL8bfR2hAZsDM35V4DnfD2y1qEpT0NJ8q_77DcFMEcGtIGAAn66JuvuKGZ1Is3c0lu0q9Dhx2k5DrR08gWDyg/s1400/320781_CF-18E-Blk-III_near-Tofino-and-Ucluelet-layered_FINAL1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1009" data-original-width="1400" height="462" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCA3hCkpHb7OtWBnI4TmWsIQ9rmpnIL8iDhFd-JQWE3aRhdaMNlU_qR8xL8bfR2hAZsDM35V4DnfD2y1qEpT0NJ8q_77DcFMEcGtIGAAn66JuvuKGZ1Is3c0lu0q9Dhx2k5DrR08gWDyg/w640-h462/320781_CF-18E-Blk-III_near-Tofino-and-Ucluelet-layered_FINAL1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;">Many of you will remember Boeing's illustration of a Block III Super Hornet in RCAF colors sporting an impressive amount of AMRAAMs, CFTs, and and belly tank likely equipped with IRST. Something about this picture just seems... <i>right. </i>The familiar shape of a the F/A-18 equipped with a ridiculous amount of missiles yet still carrying plenty of gas thanks to those CFTs and that combination IRST/fuel tank. One can easily imagine it successfully intercepting Russian bombers over Canada's far north. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Such a beast would seem to be ideal for a Canada, a well-armed workhorse capable of marathon-like ranges thanks to all that extra fuel...</p><p style="text-align: left;">Except a Super Hornet as pictured looks increasingly unlikely. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Those conformal fuel tanks likely will never see production. Technical issues have forced the USN to <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42141/navy-halts-plans-to-give-its-super-hornets-conformal-fuel-tanks">cancel their plans to equip the tanks</a>. Thus far, it is unclear <i>exactly why</i>, but the issues seem to be related to "carrier deployment". This suggests that the tanks may not be a problem for ground-based operations.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Unfortunately, since the original plan was to upgrade the USN's entire Super Hornet fleet to the Block III standard, that is a lot of lost sales. Any purchaser of the Block III Super Hornet would have to take on the additional cost and risks of the CFTs themselves. (Hint: probably not)</p><p style="text-align: left;">The cancellation of the CFTs actually have further repercussions because those CFT made up for the reduction in the fuel carried in the <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31850/navy-f-a-18-super-hornet-takes-flight-with-new-infrared-search-and-track-pod">FPU-13 belly tank equipped with the IRST21</a>. That means an IRST equipped Super Hornet with a belly tank may still need to add additional fuel in the form of wing tanks... On those <a href="http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/2021/01/nitpick-super-hornet-pylons.html">crooked pylons</a>... Adding significant drag and reducing the amount of weapon hardpoints. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The truth is, the Super Hornet is becoming a consistently harder sell. The USN is losing <a href="https://news.usni.org/2021/08/03/navy-questions-future-viability-of-super-hornets-recommends-against-new-buy">interest in the platform</a>, preferring to simply upgrade its existing fleet while it concentrates on procuring newer aircraft like the F-35C and whatever the F/A-XX ends up being. Simply put, the Super Hornet offers very little that the F-35C <i>does not. </i>Yes, the Rhino is a little more versatile, but when it comes to bread-and-butter strike and air-superiority missions, one struggles to find a situation where the Super Hornet would be preferable to a stealthier platform with similar performance, range and payload capability.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Combine that with Boeing's recent... <i>Questionable track record. </i>Work on the <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2021/08/09/boeings-kc-46-can-now-use-its-refueling-boom-for-operational-missions/">troubled KC-46</a> continues at a seemingly glacial pace. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/business/boeing-737-max-crash-ethiopia.html">disastrous 737 MAX</a> is still fresh and everyone's minds. Even Boeing's Starliner space capsule is dogged with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/science/nasa-boeing-starliner.html">delays and controversy</a>. </p><p style="text-align: left;">While many criticize Lockheed Martin for profiteering off the F-35 enormous cost overruns, at least they did so delivering something new. Boeing seems to have issues delivering technology that was seemingly perfected 50 years ago. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGOKeVtFLkCfTF3P6bVDNAItrf44E3te17K5QKhAKOIsYlLwRHry6Zn0MwGzT5_zgpT8zZ47nRKgjudn6HS9MN8adIoYDSMnLIBmzh8g1e8N01Hu_VoAI5L7ZBHug-Gh3SPfhyphenhyphen0aLK84s/s1000/IMG_8021.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGOKeVtFLkCfTF3P6bVDNAItrf44E3te17K5QKhAKOIsYlLwRHry6Zn0MwGzT5_zgpT8zZ47nRKgjudn6HS9MN8adIoYDSMnLIBmzh8g1e8N01Hu_VoAI5L7ZBHug-Gh3SPfhyphenhyphen0aLK84s/w640-h320/IMG_8021.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><div>Combine all of Boeing's recent technical failings with its ill-fated <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/boeing-loses-trade-case-over-bombardier-passenger-jets.html">predatory action against Bombardier</a> and you start to wonder why Canada would give Boeing the time of day, let alone a multi-billion dollar fighter contract. </div><div><br /></div><div>It has been said elsewhere that Boeing's corporate culture <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettonputter/2019/12/18/what-boeing-has-taught-us-about-not-neglecting-company-culture-culturegene/?sh=17bf9f85496a">emphasizes profits</a> far and above innovation and safety. This has led to a company that promotes MBAs to the highest levels while <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers">outsourcing</a> its engineering department. Boeing's biggest success story in recent years, the <a href="https://skiesmag.com/news/boeing-t7-red-hawk-trainer-enters-production-us/">T-7 Red Hawk</a>, was mostly developed by Saab. Go Figure. </div><div><br /></div><div>And how about Saab?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIXhXJKWMPoD-W4B-8zvLlFTGIIkptZCg_sXBUUQILRs22e2d9RtXAI-cbqoZNn153lXUlyjobykvpTH8TxDQsQwawa0gmhRWtczhN9NVgZgOLSmHaLcePEgXTnguqMdbUNQYni-Usb0s/s2048/32691.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIXhXJKWMPoD-W4B-8zvLlFTGIIkptZCg_sXBUUQILRs22e2d9RtXAI-cbqoZNn153lXUlyjobykvpTH8TxDQsQwawa0gmhRWtczhN9NVgZgOLSmHaLcePEgXTnguqMdbUNQYni-Usb0s/w640-h426/32691.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>The past few month have been rather drama free for the JAS 39E Gripen. </div><div><br /></div><div>Saab has several Gripen E's on the assembly line being build for <a href="https://eurasiantimes.com/rafales-brazil-gearing-up-to-receive-latest-saab-gripen-fighter-jets/">delivery to both Sweden and Brazil</a> next year. It has developed a novel new way to navigate in a <a href="https://asiatimes.com/2021/10/saabs-ternav-system-designed-to-beat-ew-attacks/">GPS denied area</a>. Saab has also experimented with repairing Gripens with <a href="https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/saab-trials-3d-printed-battle-damage-repair-for-gripen">3D printed parts</a>, speeding up repair. It is still in the running for <a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/saab-includes-64-gripens-and-globaleye-pair-in-best-and-final-offer-for-finnish-hx-contest/143551.article">Finland's HX</a> fighter program as well as others. </div><div><br /></div><div>Increasingly, the Gripen is being seen as a lower cost, non-stealthy <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/swedens-jas39-gripen-may-be-worlds-best-nonstealth-fighter-jet-2021-11">alternative to the JSF</a>. That is not a bad place to be. Whether or not it will be enough for the RCAF remains to be seen. </div><div><br /></div><div>With any luck we <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-on-track-to-pick-new-fighter-jet-next-year-despite-covid-19-1.5370950">should find out relatively soon</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-89446705115817452342021-03-08T14:10:00.001-04:002021-03-08T14:10:52.134-04:00NO, THE F-35 IS NOT DEAD. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj1JkqTLhMSczF4gP_ah-IhA7Sqk7YpW8X32OiqO1ya3u2IKPy411-ObZygZe1VUFlHXOP48zWOdmdnCECUGyS5Jyh5gW6Mfls6JBVgrTzcQxS_w1uHjYq1TFC2v_VlTvizWhyyKRKSVE/s1024/160814-N-GN619-658-1024x683.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="1024" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj1JkqTLhMSczF4gP_ah-IhA7Sqk7YpW8X32OiqO1ya3u2IKPy411-ObZygZe1VUFlHXOP48zWOdmdnCECUGyS5Jyh5gW6Mfls6JBVgrTzcQxS_w1uHjYq1TFC2v_VlTvizWhyyKRKSVE/w640-h426/160814-N-GN619-658-1024x683.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p><i>I know I said I was needed to take a break but this one is a doozy.</i></p><p>"<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/?sh=28e3377a1b16" target="_blank">THE US AIR FORCE JUST ADMITTED THE F-35 HAS FAILED</a>" (Forbes)</p><p>"<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/05/adam-smith-f35/" target="_blank">Powerful lawmaker calls F-35 fighter jet a ‘rathole,’ </a>" (Washington Post)<br /></p><p><a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a35631305/f-35-doesnt-work-1-7-trillion-dollars/" target="_blank">This Country Is Spending $1.7 Trillion on Planes That Don't Work</a> (Esquire)<br /></p><p><a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/10-reasons-nearly-nothing-can-stop-f-35-stealth-fighter-179298" target="_blank">10 Reasons Nearly Nothing Can Stop the F-35 Stealth Fighter</a> <i>(Sorry. This one is from notorious F-35 cheerleader <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/lockheed-the-ultimate-pay-to-play-contractor/" target="_blank">Loren Thompson</a> and his "pay-to-play" think tank)</i></p><p>Okay...</p><p>Deep breath...</p><p>Slow down...</p><p>Relax...</p><p>First of all, (to paraphrase Mark Twain) reports of the F-35's demise are greatly exaggerated. </p><p>The Lightning II has not been cancelled. Production has not been stopped. The JSF is still very much a thing and will continue to be well into the future. </p><p>All of this started with General Charles Q. Brown Jr, the Air Force Chief-of-Staff, announcing a <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-study-with-cape-considering-5th-gen-minus/" target="_blank">study to look into a "5th-Gen Minus" fighter</a> to help replace the USAF's inventory of aging F-16s. This, of course, is exactly what the F-35 Lightning II was meant to do. </p><p>Hence the reaction.</p><p>Pundits have used the announcement of this study to proclaim that the JSF is being cancelled, that the F-35 has failed, and that $1.7 trillion dollars have been flushed down the drain. </p><p>This is not the case. </p><p>This is merely a study. </p><p>In the meantime, the F-35 is not going anywhere. It is still being developed, manufactured, tested, and procured. Even if the Pentagon and all the other JSF buyers were to suddenly cancel their orders, there would still be enough F-35s to cement its place in multiple air forces for decades to come. </p><p>So why all the fuss?</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE0qCQpRZCax09GMjY_K260jnxqKM26-c_JnJbk_zTJxbnvp_Ss_BQvQj8A9Ck7Jg7lZOO5YdAXY7KBZauHPFAL83hmgEavtD3DB8tLN8gR-h5rKHak7GOaUqjSaRN_TeLeEz3JGd-3Rw/s2048/f-35+f-16.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1401" data-original-width="2048" height="438" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE0qCQpRZCax09GMjY_K260jnxqKM26-c_JnJbk_zTJxbnvp_Ss_BQvQj8A9Ck7Jg7lZOO5YdAXY7KBZauHPFAL83hmgEavtD3DB8tLN8gR-h5rKHak7GOaUqjSaRN_TeLeEz3JGd-3Rw/w640-h438/f-35+f-16.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>This announcement is a clear admission that the F-35 Lightning II is not everything it was hoped to be. Simply put, it <i>cannot</i> replace the F-16. Not from a capability sense but from an economic one. </p><p>Since its inception, the F-16 has occupied the lower half of the USAF's "high/low" capability strategy. Higher capability fighters like the F-15 and F-22 solidly occupied the upper tier, but were too expensive to field in high numbers. The cheaper F-16 provided those numbers. </p><p>While the F-35 may have been envisioned as a low-cost fighter, in truth it has been anything but. While its unit cost may be slowly coming down, its <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29626363/f-35-cheap/" target="_blank">operating cost has not</a>. It still costs more to fly than the older twin-engined F-15. One can argue about the JSF's capabilities all day, but there is no arguing the fact that its current CPFH (cost per flight hour) would bankrupt the USAF if it replaced the F-16 on a one-to-one basis. </p><p>What is especially concerning to the USAF is that the JSF's CPFH is <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/02/one-of-the-f-35s-cost-goals-may-be-unattainable/" target="_blank">not likely to get much lower</a>. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfPuwXv8mZJroPDrOKUGgxDaZ7DeaE67-T67Am4HHVYlGXpe9HfGrrInzM2Hc9J-vcoylwQBNX2wbomWiZg61QA1FgOKwbDHB24khVTu5lyw7-AIac7TOrnHFTUsZUKEGn4Nzt6sWSdAI/s1920/F-15EX-first-flight-1.jpg.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfPuwXv8mZJroPDrOKUGgxDaZ7DeaE67-T67Am4HHVYlGXpe9HfGrrInzM2Hc9J-vcoylwQBNX2wbomWiZg61QA1FgOKwbDHB24khVTu5lyw7-AIac7TOrnHFTUsZUKEGn4Nzt6sWSdAI/w640-h360/F-15EX-first-flight-1.jpg.webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>One could assume that the USAF is learning from its F-15EX experience. With its aging fleet of F-15C/Ds and F-22s, the USAF is in desperate need of air-superiority fighters. Since new-build F-22s are <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-force-just-closed-door-new-f-22-raptors-65511" target="_blank">off the table</a>, the USAF commissioned a modernized F-15 Eagle. </p><p>Built of the ever-evolving F-15E Strike Eagle platform, the F-15EX promises to take the fighter back full circle into an <a href="https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everything-you-need-know-about-air-forces-new-f-15ex.html" target="_blank">air-superiority fighter</a>. Not only does it improve on the legacy Eagle's avionics and payload, but it promises to be cheaper to fly thanks to its more modern and robust airframe. </p><p>It may not have the stealth capability of aircraft like the F-22 and F-35, the F-15EX should be more than capable of performing duties over uncontested airspace and interception. This saves the F-22 for more dangerous missions where its stealth is actually useful. </p><p>The success of the F-15EX would suggest a similar dynamic with the F-35. </p><p>The F-35 makes a lot of sense for the "first day of war" scenario, when enemy defenses are at their strongest and you need a stealthy platform to sneak in and "break down the door"... But what about the day after, when enemy airfields are trashed and SAM sites are no more?</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfkJrRRYaq5f0n3eRIJOUgPOZQ4cQkOl2JlbRz7spyMdDbpYAMBkXFvnUhtoaIDVTthzN9U01yvgfyha9fjHmRdaUMZfcSiVHVWPcg4n-5TLRMf0YOqcTfn3LPxiB-fksu7IkKxrsEjds/s1000/beast+mode.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="1000" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfkJrRRYaq5f0n3eRIJOUgPOZQ4cQkOl2JlbRz7spyMdDbpYAMBkXFvnUhtoaIDVTthzN9U01yvgfyha9fjHmRdaUMZfcSiVHVWPcg4n-5TLRMf0YOqcTfn3LPxiB-fksu7IkKxrsEjds/w640-h426/beast+mode.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>The F-35 does have its well publicized "beast mode" in which it forgoes its stealth to mount external weapons. Doing so allows it to perform duties similar to current F-16s and Super Hornets... Albeit at a much higher operating cost. This, of course makes the beancounter furious. The whole point of the F-35 and its commonality was to <i>save</i> <i>costs</i>. </p><p>While the F-35 may be able to perform some missions not possible with older fighters, the harsh truth is that it no financial sense to use the JSF for missions that the F-16 can do just as well. The F-35 has positioned itself well into the "high" of the USAF's "high/low" capability strategy. </p><p>This was not the original intention of the JSF, but it is the reality. We can thank the Pentagon's habit of <i><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/07/gold-plated-weapons-targeted-by-pentagon/7196ced5-420a-4058-b077-6d72356e2ceb/" target="_blank">gold plating</a></i> for that. The USAF is now faced with a fighter fleet of:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Very High Air Superiority (F-22 Raptor)</li><li>High Air Superiority (F-15C/D Eagle soon to be replaced with the EX)</li><li>High Strike (F-15E Strike Eagle)</li><li>High Multirole (F-35 Lightning II)</li><li>Low Multirole (F-16 Fighting Falcon in desperate need of replacement)</li></ul><p></p><p>Sure, the F-35 should be able to perform any duty done by the F-16, much like how the F-22 can perform the same duties as a F-15C... But is it worth it at <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29626363/f-35-cheap/" target="_blank">twice the operating cost</a>?</p><p>Imagine looking in your closet to find a tuxedo, several designer business suits, and a worn-out pair of overalls with a ripped crotch. You are all set for job interviews and weddings... But what are you going to wear to get groceries? What are you going to wear to the gym? Are you going to wear that Italian Linen suit to an all-you-can-eat barbecue buffet?</p><p>It is no wonder why the USAF is now pondering a different option. </p><p>But what would such a thing look like?</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrvHeKs6FCyLO77eCXn5HNwKsr3js9SLuqNFdEaG7GSvMJDNt_8lECq4StCc4SxXNFddFn53dcdm4o2ZJslEMshXA0VisS0jJurl68csWddujG5yHnwTtpvEtReEB4A0MM9Af6xOPETT8/s1505/f-16XL.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="842" data-original-width="1505" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrvHeKs6FCyLO77eCXn5HNwKsr3js9SLuqNFdEaG7GSvMJDNt_8lECq4StCc4SxXNFddFn53dcdm4o2ZJslEMshXA0VisS0jJurl68csWddujG5yHnwTtpvEtReEB4A0MM9Af6xOPETT8/w640-h358/f-16XL.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>One could argue that the F-15EX already fills the bill of a "5th Gen Minus" aircraft... Unless, somehow, a "5th Gen Minus" is fundamentally different than a "4th Gen Plus" fighter, possibly causing math nerds to drop into convulsions. </p><p> The good news is, if the USAF simply wants a modernized F-16, such a beast has already been flight tested. The F-16XL. </p><p>Initially developed as a competitor to the F-15E, the F-16XL lengthened the Viper's fuselage and swapped its stubby little wings for massive cranked deltas. The resulting design gave the F-16 more fuel, more payload capability, and even supercruise once paired with the GE F110-129 (the same engine used in the F-15EX). Pair the XL's airframe with the modern avionics of the F-16V and you are pretty much good to go. </p><p>The F-16XL (F-16EX?) would offer substantial improvements over the current F-16 fleet. Commonality with legacy F-16s and use of off-the-shelf parts would keep operating costs low. Best of all for the USAF, the timeline required to incorporate the newer fighters would be mercifully short. </p><p>Of course, the decision to replace existing F-16s with a "5th Gen Minus" fighter would have serious repercussions with the JSF program. Every F-16 <i>not</i> replaced with an F-35 reduces the number of Lightning IIs built, increasing the unit cost of each. We can expect a huge push back from JSF partners; even Lockheed Martin, which builds the F-16.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijMwimUupuWjxz5LCoMps1zxtilVaJkCdrpsxfNAEIwF9Ehztv2MlIGOfFhrVrG3exujmamZi9EXO5CsHZknbEfCvxfQDy8jHHeEIFbQaMEoUn9DsRJ2SITZGY6f_l6N5Nr56QzNKslTM/s1500/X-35.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1500" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijMwimUupuWjxz5LCoMps1zxtilVaJkCdrpsxfNAEIwF9Ehztv2MlIGOfFhrVrG3exujmamZi9EXO5CsHZknbEfCvxfQDy8jHHeEIFbQaMEoUn9DsRJ2SITZGY6f_l6N5Nr56QzNKslTM/w640-h512/X-35.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Perhaps a different option would be to simply offer up a <i>downgraded</i> F-35. </p><p>An F-35E (for economy?) could forgo the JSFs more advanced features in order to keep costs down. Remove the <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/" target="_blank">fragile stealth coating</a>, its complicated <a href="https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/08/24/f-35-helmet-worlds-advanced-fighter/" target="_blank">helmet-mounted display</a>, convoluted <a href="https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/an-aaq-37-distributed-aperture-system-das-for-the-f-35/" target="_blank">DAS</a> and <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35-lightning-ii-eots.html" target="_blank">EOTS</a> systems; and you will have a much simpler, cheaper fighter. Something more akin to the X-35 prototype and what it promised than what was eventually delivered. </p><p>This is likely easier said than done, however. The JSF's flight control software has been developed over years to incorporated every aspect of the F-35. Start removing some of those parts could lead to more troubles and costs instead of the opposite. Removing some features might prove counterproductive as well. The removal of EOTS would necessitate mounting of a targeting pod. Removing the HMD would have pilots clamoring for at least a HUD. At the end of the day, cost savings may be negligible. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhNIfZAya56rAEe_SLEIUpxGERYla6LJFZIKVXTOvQq0525BqPoySUX8RrSy2UwG_OGAGyRGrGCAItgntDds7B8N8rfxQ1hspLYMaipxc7J0QnIR6OSqgVfouX7TmmwCbHmhpv0PqYEzw/s1200/Advanced-Super-Hornet-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="718" data-original-width="1200" height="382" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhNIfZAya56rAEe_SLEIUpxGERYla6LJFZIKVXTOvQq0525BqPoySUX8RrSy2UwG_OGAGyRGrGCAItgntDds7B8N8rfxQ1hspLYMaipxc7J0QnIR6OSqgVfouX7TmmwCbHmhpv0PqYEzw/w640-h382/Advanced-Super-Hornet-2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Of course, the USAF also has the option of purchasing a completely off-the-shelf design, like the Super Hornet Block III or Gripen E.</p><p>The idea of a USAF Super Hornet has likely already been talked about under hushed tones in dark corners of the Pentagon. Attempts to bring the subject up to senior Air Force staff is likely met with harsh glares and banging of desks. The idea of replacing the F-16 with an aircraft based on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program" target="_blank">fighter it beat <i>over</i> </a><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program" target="_blank">45 years ago</a> </i>would likely give some USAF personnel aneurisms. </p><p>Purchasing a foreign-designed fighter like the Gripen is pretty much a non-starter. While the JAS 39E may be a near-perfect replacement for the F-16 on paper; there is no way to make such a thing politically palatable. While America has procured <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier" target="_blank">foreign designed fighters</a> in the past, these were the exceptions, not the rule. Depending on a foreign power for a bread-and-butter multirole fighter built in the hundreds (possibly thousands) is almost unthinkable. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBtHnJBVhE9-iNaxzIQvDBYv5li1oA2BED2v5XQkOiG_UtU6UO6S-j9NTXMJunvFMYm4XCTTAjrvDhBsvPSnMxshbN0gx5YZh-fz3uPxqCDVlAGGNK87V8L8PftYB47kiYv66CvZ_v-Ts/s602/main-qimg-b22e2e33996cebf56cecc5fa96be41a4.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="465" data-original-width="602" height="494" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBtHnJBVhE9-iNaxzIQvDBYv5li1oA2BED2v5XQkOiG_UtU6UO6S-j9NTXMJunvFMYm4XCTTAjrvDhBsvPSnMxshbN0gx5YZh-fz3uPxqCDVlAGGNK87V8L8PftYB47kiYv66CvZ_v-Ts/w640-h494/main-qimg-b22e2e33996cebf56cecc5fa96be41a4.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>This "study" may end up being a nothing-burger. In fact, its findings may be used to shore up support for the JSF program. A close analysis of all the options may reveal that the F-35 <i>is</i> the most financially prudent option, at least until the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) shows up. </p><p>Or perhaps this study is little more than a way to light a fire under the Joint Program Office's ass. </p><p>For years, Lockheed Martin and the JPO have been promising <a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-martin-confident-f-35-operating-cost-will-be-reduced-to-25000-per-hour/142577.article" target="_blank">lower costs for the F-35</a>. So far, there has been little incentive to actually do so. The "winner takes all" mechanics of the JSF selection has effectively quashed any possible competition or alternatives. </p><p>No. The JSF has not failed. It is very much a thing and will continue to be for decades to come. </p><p>Unfortunately, the JSF is not the roaring success it was meant to be. The very fact that the USAF is considering options is proof of that. The idea that it was going to replace almost every fighter in the Western (and some of the Eastern) World always seemed far-fetched. That was the narrative, however. It was supposed to be almost mythical in its versatility; able to perform just about any duty asked of it.</p><p>Many of us know the old adage, "Cheap, fast, good... Pick two." This is simplification of the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle" target="_blank">iron triangle</a>" used in business management. Any attempt to improve one aspect of project will have repercussions on the other aspects. You cannot simply <i>will </i>a project to meet all its budgetary and performance requirements. Yet this was the practice used with the F-35. Somehow it was going to do the job of many different aircraft, yet do it better and somehow cheaper. This is just not possible. </p><p>What the JSF <i>is</i> capable of, is doing some jobs exceptionally well and doing other jobs reasonably well. The trade-off is a higher operating cost. This is all well and good. The admission that other platforms might be better for certain missions does not damn the entire program, it merely syncs it with reality. </p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8rQpHNawPNR5VC3Rj7pGpWkL0zq52OIpCX2cOy0nWMMC0jAL3w_ipG9S5u1O3uhxL5c5FIBPpbNMq7lPuN9xsXE0S0p1ISylGWoBI2m-ijIp21T0Ob1O56KLDMDAE1dkQDowYHGJKMEI/s1024/F-111b_lso.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="1024" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8rQpHNawPNR5VC3Rj7pGpWkL0zq52OIpCX2cOy0nWMMC0jAL3w_ipG9S5u1O3uhxL5c5FIBPpbNMq7lPuN9xsXE0S0p1ISylGWoBI2m-ijIp21T0Ob1O56KLDMDAE1dkQDowYHGJKMEI/w640-h292/F-111b_lso.jpg" width="640" /></a></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-align: left;">Many have compared the F-35 program to</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Tactical_Fighter_Experimental_(TFX)" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">TFX program</a><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><span style="text-align: left;">the eventually led to the F-111. This program sought to reduce costs by developing a single fighter to fulfill multiple rolls in the USAF and USN (sound familiar?). The resulting aircraft was the F-111 Aardvark, </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">The F-111B was an abject failure. Meant to be a fleet defense interceptor for the United States Navy, it was too big and too heavy to perform the role. When asked if this could be solved with more powerful engines, Vice Admiral Thomas Connolly famously replied <i><span style="caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 34); color: #202122;">"There isn't enough power in all </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Christendom">Christendom</a><span style="caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 34); color: #202122;"> to make that airplane what we want!". </span></i></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">On the other hand, the USAF version of the F-111, the F-111A, can only be seen as a success. It had a storied career as a fighter bomber, and was eventually developed into the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics–Grumman_EF-111A_Raven" target="_blank">EF-111 Raven</a>. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;">In the end, the F-111 was not all it was imagined to be, but that does not take away from its legacy. Its initial concept was merely an overreach; intending to do too much when it was far better suited to a particular niche. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Such is the case with the F-35. Perhaps it is better suited to being part of a fleet, instead of making up </span><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">the entire fleet. </span> </i></span></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-66493868880823850452021-02-26T16:20:00.001-04:002021-02-26T16:20:26.740-04:00GOT TO TAKE A BREAK... SORRY. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="457" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pXRviuL6vMY" width="550" youtube-src-id="pXRviuL6vMY"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p>Sorry guys... But I got to take another sabbatical from the blog. </p><p>This last year has been rough on me and I find myself in need of a mental health break. </p><p>Yes, I realize that the USAF has <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/?sh=38448bc91b16" target="_blank">lost confidence in the JSF program</a> and is now looking at developing a "<a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/18/the-air-force-is-interested-in-buying-a-budget-conscious-clean-sheet-fighter-to-replace-the-f-16/" target="_blank">clean sheet</a>" design. This would undoubtedly have ramifications on the F-35's bid to replace the CF-18.</p><p>Yes, I have seen the recent updates in the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/british-ministry-of-defense-updates-on-tempest-6th-generation-fighter-2020-12" target="_blank">Tempest</a> and <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/09/despite-progress-industry-faces-very-tough-roadmap-to-field-fcas-by-2040/" target="_blank">FCAS</a> programs. </p><p>The trouble is... I just can't <i>bring myself to care</i>. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>My "day job" has been <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7641391/nova-scotia-paramedics-code-critical-cases/" target="_blank">putting me through the wringer lately</a> and I fear I cannot muster the mental energy needed to post blog updates. Not for lack of trying, mind you... I just lack the focus to muster my usual rantings and ravings. </p><p>In the meantime, I want to assure you that is a temporary predicament. As the COVID-19 pandemic (hopefully) starts to wane things will (hopefully) get a little easier and I'll be able to devote more time and energy back here. </p><p>Stay safe! </p><p>-Doug</p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-43426045798807843672021-01-24T17:13:00.000-04:002021-01-24T17:13:53.839-04:00NITPICK: GRIPEN PYLONS<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXJSUcx0xlwFyoUG-h_lWX6fOmJ6BQCy4NVsnJmWS4GJ7fHhgyW-5oFl7Qocg1-8jYgusPLp2k62IF755fjtfij4Z3ePsW0XKPR58FCWZlkSWRZzdmuZ2pNi6z5Vo93yHgipr33CckZxU/s1600/saab_081.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXJSUcx0xlwFyoUG-h_lWX6fOmJ6BQCy4NVsnJmWS4GJ7fHhgyW-5oFl7Qocg1-8jYgusPLp2k62IF755fjtfij4Z3ePsW0XKPR58FCWZlkSWRZzdmuZ2pNi6z5Vo93yHgipr33CckZxU/w640-h426/saab_081.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div> <i>[Welcome to "NITPICK"! For the next few weeks I will be examining a single aspect of the potential fighters that just drives me nuts. These are not dealbreakers, or even major flaws. They are simply one aspect of the aircraft THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER.]</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Since we have gone over the (canted) pylon problems with the Super Hornet and the (lack of internal) pylon problems with the JSF, it seems only fair that we nitpick the Gripen's pylon problems as well.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is nothing wrong with the Gripen's pylons <i>per se</i>. They are certainly there. They do a serviceable job attaching various weapons to the aircraft. They all point in the same forward direction (*<i>cough*Super Hornet). </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Yet... There is something unsettling about the Gripen's pylons. </div><div><br /></div><div>Admittedly, it took a while for me to figure it out. </div><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgphxNlGunamQfk2wws4b77p9XYP4wN-rWEZPBhMIEAntn74SxF061WtFwkXfXBqz7ZwYycJH4GIq1rXzhfMVv7MT2RWbOInQaQA8sVtGTne4N0sIdKB17SDxKF5y4U-FpNUEYKZWlbpBU/s784/screenshot-gripenblogs-com-2018-11-23-21-50-17.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="491" data-original-width="784" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgphxNlGunamQfk2wws4b77p9XYP4wN-rWEZPBhMIEAntn74SxF061WtFwkXfXBqz7ZwYycJH4GIq1rXzhfMVv7MT2RWbOInQaQA8sVtGTne4N0sIdKB17SDxKF5y4U-FpNUEYKZWlbpBU/w640-h400/screenshot-gripenblogs-com-2018-11-23-21-50-17.png" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Even "clean" the Gripen's sleek lines are interrupted by pylons. Pylons on each wingtip. Two more pylons underneath each wing. Another pylon midline bottom fuselage. <i>Another </i>pylon opposite the (partially exposed) Mauser cannon. Pylons <i>everywhere. </i></p><p>Everything just sort of... Dangles there. </p><p>This is not a problem with a relatively light load. A few air-to-air missiles and a couple of external tanks do not sully the looks too much. </p><p>Things get dirty when equipping the Gripen for a strike mission. A targeting pod <i>literally </i>sticks out like a sore thumb in its special station opposite the cannon. Add a few bombs, some fuel tanks, and self-defence missiles and the Gripen starts looking absolutely <i>ungainly. </i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhabppk_Ei2T1nfJzmxBznmJFNgnbx_eJ-r23yakwwdbhFl7oQWMArXnEm-WoJw-qVJH6JVZvx-atCEJL8O4QZr70ljWucFirSutYa2VKTVUf-wUzWNWm_xFWdm68t9FuX3b9Zy84czedU/s600/gripen+with+everything.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="600" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhabppk_Ei2T1nfJzmxBznmJFNgnbx_eJ-r23yakwwdbhFl7oQWMArXnEm-WoJw-qVJH6JVZvx-atCEJL8O4QZr70ljWucFirSutYa2VKTVUf-wUzWNWm_xFWdm68t9FuX3b9Zy84czedU/w640-h478/gripen+with+everything.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>When Saab went about upgrading the Gripen to the JAS 39E, they redesigned the wings and fuselage to make room for more fuel and weapons. So what did Saab do with all that extra space?</p><p>They added two more pylons. </p><p>Unfortunately, those pylons were added to the fuselage, just outboard of the midline pylon. This presents a slight problem when carrying larger ordinance; as demonstrated in the picture above. </p><p>There is not enough room to use all three pylons!</p><p>This begs the question: Why bother in the first place?</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuUnqZrL8kIbSbvPYfv389vs4Uul4YX7Eq_YI1oysjMR80FaUy_jm1TCM_Sy8jWhL9cR-PMCJSK_CE99Mjy8FRIHnmmZeD5W6PfHI45HWqTqxCp3E2bsbhmsyyZ7TqxQkBGXVGeo0l7wc/s1861/Saab_Gripen+E+mockup.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1861" height="372" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuUnqZrL8kIbSbvPYfv389vs4Uul4YX7Eq_YI1oysjMR80FaUy_jm1TCM_Sy8jWhL9cR-PMCJSK_CE99Mjy8FRIHnmmZeD5W6PfHI45HWqTqxCp3E2bsbhmsyyZ7TqxQkBGXVGeo0l7wc/w640-h372/Saab_Gripen+E+mockup.png" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>Realistically, no matter what kind of combat mission is intended to fly, its <i>minimum </i>load-out would require two IR-guided WVR missiles (ie. Sidewinders) and two radar-guided BVR missiles (AMRAAM or Meteor). Saab could have taken advantage of the "NG" Gripen's redesign to reflect this fact. </p><p>Take a gander at the Gripen E mock-up above. Imagine if those two outboard Meteors were tucked into the fuselage similar to this Eurofighter Typhoon. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL83ix2EtxjgSxjN0xYnkvOO4zxy4HeLiYftL8m04wNrWTd_b3w_hk1B7BHbQaY7iplyFblyGKcxgBtYIDAk3g3C8oW56KWVArDkAvm-tgIxp7wFuEG-RPDtfkXe2GLEmgeMg397xnmag/s640/meteor+typhoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="640" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL83ix2EtxjgSxjN0xYnkvOO4zxy4HeLiYftL8m04wNrWTd_b3w_hk1B7BHbQaY7iplyFblyGKcxgBtYIDAk3g3C8oW56KWVArDkAvm-tgIxp7wFuEG-RPDtfkXe2GLEmgeMg397xnmag/w640-h448/meteor+typhoon.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Notice how much cleaner this looks?</div><div><br /></div><div>This is not a particularly unique thing. </div><div><br /></div><div>Conformal missile storage can be seen on fighters like the F-15 Eagle, Rafale, and F/A-18 Hornet (including the Super Hornet). This method helps reduce drag and RCS by tucking the missile close into the aircraft's body. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHOsMcXqQ4ZZOTNi9M-6mXRhf4MZInwEJ43-pUI14YPrnAN1CWQWnbo19mMJcEfc2BqDRG-WtIBFGjuPIXV-JLRj_Io0ZU70wZZNwFumOKraNWH5djyUL8YF0QimdGr6ClpxUTnQnu6cY/s450/F-4C_Phantom_Sparrow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="450" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHOsMcXqQ4ZZOTNi9M-6mXRhf4MZInwEJ43-pUI14YPrnAN1CWQWnbo19mMJcEfc2BqDRG-WtIBFGjuPIXV-JLRj_Io0ZU70wZZNwFumOKraNWH5djyUL8YF0QimdGr6ClpxUTnQnu6cY/w640-h426/F-4C_Phantom_Sparrow.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p><div><br /></div><div>Fighters like the F-14 Tomcat and F-4 Phantom II go one better by actually submerging part of the missile into the aircraft body itself. Recessed channels cut specifically for the missile leave only part of the missile out in the open. This greatly reduces drag. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately, fitting one particular missile like a glove does not leave many options for future weapon choice. This is seen in Canada's own CF-101 Voodoo that was stuck using the AIM-4 Falcon Falcon well into that missile's obsolescence. </div><div><br /></div><div>This can be alleviated somewhat by the missile design. The AIM-120 AMRAAM itself was designed specifically to match the footprint of the AIM-7 Sparrow. Unfortunately, this can lead to a never-ending loop of missiles designed around the limitations of all those that came before. This is why recessed designs seem to have fallen out of favor. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWgJ1tHYi2EqtxHrae9mkXvQ_VsFJ2fyil676IbMN14BpYAbd937FEqZms1HC7q20pzInK0YqzolClCk3a1eQmOJUzIl9BuMUlxAaWQC8xsjXUCozLgINLe-HzdNvbasJg4gspXAPomeE/s1024/Saab-Gripen-Canada.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="684" data-original-width="1024" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWgJ1tHYi2EqtxHrae9mkXvQ_VsFJ2fyil676IbMN14BpYAbd937FEqZms1HC7q20pzInK0YqzolClCk3a1eQmOJUzIl9BuMUlxAaWQC8xsjXUCozLgINLe-HzdNvbasJg4gspXAPomeE/w640-h428/Saab-Gripen-Canada.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>The fact that the Gripen becomes more ungainly as you add more ordinance belies the platforms greatest weakness. </div><div><br /></div><div>Despite what Saab's marketing literature would have you believe, it is NOT a heavy strike fighter. Even the larger wings and more powerful engine found in the "E" model cannot change the laws of physics. While the Gripen certainly stands out as a light fighter that punches above its weight, it is <i>still </i>a light fighter. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lightly armed, the Gripen maintains its sleek silhouette. A mild air-to-ground load with a few smart bombs, fuel tanks, and missiles looks okay. Try to make the Gripen a "bomb truck" and it looks ungainly as hell. </div><div><br /></div><div>Those looking for a heavy bomber should look elsewhere.</div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-50627421122427542021-01-18T14:26:00.004-04:002021-01-18T14:30:59.567-04:00NITPICK: SUPER HORNET PYLONS<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg90LMGfNDTTDXa1eVk1pb07AzTAPu3Q6-Q-7STZEjzEtPTTthv-pvTwTna4S3R7wv8T5TUaQufR3jRdrBYN6i2vNWykPZCFA6s_E8mgH4skFjjtkwqnLafcf2GS_XItQoyasOZN46Jeu4/s768/000-Super-Bug-580_14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="633" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg90LMGfNDTTDXa1eVk1pb07AzTAPu3Q6-Q-7STZEjzEtPTTthv-pvTwTna4S3R7wv8T5TUaQufR3jRdrBYN6i2vNWykPZCFA6s_E8mgH4skFjjtkwqnLafcf2GS_XItQoyasOZN46Jeu4/w528-h640/000-Super-Bug-580_14.jpg" width="528" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div> <i>[Welcome to "NITPICK"! For the next few weeks I will be examining a single aspect of the potential fighters that just drives me nuts. These are not dealbreakers, or even major flaws. They are simply one aspect of the aircraft THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER.]</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>You <i>knew</i> we were going to have to mention this.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is a tale almost as old as the Super Hornet itself. Whenever a bunch of fighter nerds gather to talk about the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, someone will almost inevitably bring it up:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"BUT WHAT ABOOT THOZE CANTED PYLONZ?"</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>What about them?</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC2MfP3ZGTTMj1sMIkmFTbViFwkzXGz22iAhqFYjLNtCSut-7pgo7Wkg2XYdrQzru-JaDA5S97X-sRDqE2wD4UPxEVGfXPc58uYpTEt5_ArKAgEGPn6tVu7KOGrKGz8NxqmUM8jRLGMVU/s2048/Airshow2013-FA18F-Super-Hornet-ROB-KYSELA.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1360" data-original-width="2048" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC2MfP3ZGTTMj1sMIkmFTbViFwkzXGz22iAhqFYjLNtCSut-7pgo7Wkg2XYdrQzru-JaDA5S97X-sRDqE2wD4UPxEVGfXPc58uYpTEt5_ArKAgEGPn6tVu7KOGrKGz8NxqmUM8jRLGMVU/w640-h424/Airshow2013-FA18F-Super-Hornet-ROB-KYSELA.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>As we all know, the Super Hornet was developed in response to the cancellation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II" target="_blank">A-12 Avenger II</a>. Intended to replace the aging A-6 Intruder, the stealthy A-12 was kiboshed after years of being behind schedule and overbudget. Faced with an aging fleet of F-14s and A-6s, the USN split the difference by "upsizing" the F/A-18 Hornet. </div><div><br /></div><div>It was a genius move in retrospect. While its kinematic performance falls short of the Tomcat, the Super Hornet has proven itself to be a solid workhorse. </div><div><br /></div><div>Being a larger aircraft with more powerful engines, the Super Hornet can carry more fuel and more weapons. Despite being fast and agile as a typical fighter, its maximum payload is almost that of the A-6.</div><div>Being bigger gives it more space to mount weapons as well. Those larger wings manage to fit an additional weapon pylon under each. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately, this is where Boeing engineers ran into some trouble. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whilst undergoing wind tunnel testing, it was discovered that some stores might not separated cleanly when released. Instead, they would collide with other stores or even the aircraft itself. Needless to say, this was a bit of a safety issue. </div><div><br /></div><div>Boeing answer was simply <i>point the pylons in a different direction than where the aircraft is going. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGhfBQMso9vz4QyfQT4n3mBJbOtoB9ddQqtH9qAx8OWxYN3MkaeIO1hHXHy5nutE-4q8hhkQF7k7yR85PwFFX4IYfGVIvL1JYDP5ubeVqAvCfAL92abllbPMBDeSkPCu9kMVsKz2opagI/s1470/RAAFrhino.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1389" data-original-width="1470" height="604" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGhfBQMso9vz4QyfQT4n3mBJbOtoB9ddQqtH9qAx8OWxYN3MkaeIO1hHXHy5nutE-4q8hhkQF7k7yR85PwFFX4IYfGVIvL1JYDP5ubeVqAvCfAL92abllbPMBDeSkPCu9kMVsKz2opagI/w640-h604/RAAFrhino.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Those of you with OCD should look away...</td></tr></tbody></table><br />The Rhino's pylons are canted outwards at ever-so-slight three degrees. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is a fairly minor thing. From most angles, it is not even noticeable. Look at the aircraft from the top or bottom and it becomes completely obvious. You simply cannot <i>unsee</i> it. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is maddening.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not so much that it was done in the first place as a possible short term solution... What is maddening is that <i>they have never bothered to fix it. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>For almost 30 years now, the Super Hornet has made do with pylons that fly a different heading than the aircraft they for which they are affixed. Those canted pylons add additional drag as-is, more so when festooned with the usual weapons or fuel tanks. </div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBOdXeYTn-S16muocAfnjRnddHhJYvL0PCfKMHVJwwJmBb1IDMPcg62nydxeoUvrYlRtJ_AtHttJwL1HjDYjN3c31ta8sZCTDKAArxokqh_f1mKY3zQiIu1-Q0YUjHKZIH8ACpZ8Ep1gk/s1368/marty-feldman.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1026" data-original-width="1368" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBOdXeYTn-S16muocAfnjRnddHhJYvL0PCfKMHVJwwJmBb1IDMPcg62nydxeoUvrYlRtJ_AtHttJwL1HjDYjN3c31ta8sZCTDKAArxokqh_f1mKY3zQiIu1-Q0YUjHKZIH8ACpZ8Ep1gk/w640-h480/marty-feldman.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"LOOKS GOOD TO ME!"<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div>What <i>really </i>enervates me about the Super Hornet pylons is that <i>this was a design decision. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>At some point in the process, this issue was discovered. After finding an inelegant and inefficient solution to the problem, it was forgotten about. </div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Someone signed off on this. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>A bunch of engineers were likely summoned to boardroom filled with Boeing executives and high-ranking navy personal, explained the issue along what was likely intended to be a temporary fix. </div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">...In summary, we have found that canting the pylons outward has resulted in successful stores separation. This, of course, is not optimal. With further study and modifications, we believe that...</span></i></div></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">-<i>You said that canting the pylons fixes the problem?"</i></span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">-<i>Yes, but...</i></span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">-<i>GREAT! Let's do it then! Who's up for an early lunch?</i></span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">-... </span></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>If you can think of another reason why a multi-billion dollar strike fighter project leaves the drawing with crooked weapon pylons... Let me know. </p><p> </p><blockquote><p> </p></blockquote><blockquote><p> </p></blockquote><blockquote><p> </p></blockquote><div><i><br /></i></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><br /></i></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-66646231368757904642021-01-18T14:26:00.000-04:002021-01-18T14:26:02.295-04:00COMMENT SECTION: PLEASE READ<p> I'm back from a self-imposed Holiday break. </p><p>Moving forward, I have a few more "nitpicks" to get off my chest, then we will just have to see where the wind takes us. </p><p>I appreciate all the comments, good or bad. I don't get a chance to read them all, doing so would distract me from creating new content. This is why I have appointed several moderators. </p><p><b>I would ask all of you to respect the moderators and their decisions. Blocking them is NOT ACCEPTABLE. </b></p><p>Thanks!</p><p><br /></p>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-90472524559319241842020-12-19T12:01:00.001-04:002020-12-19T12:01:55.755-04:00NITPICK: F-35 SIDEWINDER PYLONS<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEKK5fkut_Yminyw2OS9PPw9mNJhKlRTlm12eg3JJjfOtjYtRG6rvpKurpV48XvttmmqcCEpcYH7fo92EOFsIPy9pVHS-hvXzJO44S7vImnz7uT0rtKEwewHodVC11TJW2L_eaqAJ6mlI/s1200/message-editor-1567540408860-f-35-aim-9x.jpg.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="1200" height="422" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEKK5fkut_Yminyw2OS9PPw9mNJhKlRTlm12eg3JJjfOtjYtRG6rvpKurpV48XvttmmqcCEpcYH7fo92EOFsIPy9pVHS-hvXzJO44S7vImnz7uT0rtKEwewHodVC11TJW2L_eaqAJ6mlI/w640-h422/message-editor-1567540408860-f-35-aim-9x.jpg.webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div><i>[Welcome to "NITPICK"! For the next few weeks I will be examining a single aspect of the potential fighters that just drives me nuts. These are not dealbreakers, or even major flaws. They are simply one aspect of the aircraft THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER.]</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Like all other aircraft that place an emphasis on stealth, the F-35 Lightning II was designed to carry weapons tucked away inside. This is not just a <i>feature</i> of the JSF, it damn near <i>defines</i> it. </div><div><br /></div><div>By storing weapons internally, an aircraft greatly reduces its radar cross section. This has made internal weapon storage almost mandatory for any aircraft aspiring to low observability. Some have even expressed the opinion that storing weapons externally on a stealth fighter all but cancels out any advantages of a stealth platform. </div><div><br /></div><div>Without the advantage of stealth, the F-35 becomes rather underwhelming. It still offers plenty of cutting edge technology, but its kinematic performance falls behind older fighters like the Typhoon and Su-35. </div><div><br /></div><div>One cannot overstate the importance of the JSF's internal weapon bays. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg06Wq7QkQlUi103YxzsVbwCWUpGONZbAaXgQzs1OcD8owzDB7T_WQ33YZhd1BgdocDHIEZPbYGj9DH_Igtrxu2tth4dwdTfb70EIaW-CJgohurSLD3HZlLw9mJoRWDyBLmGc_okgbkVTk/s600/weapon+bays.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg06Wq7QkQlUi103YxzsVbwCWUpGONZbAaXgQzs1OcD8owzDB7T_WQ33YZhd1BgdocDHIEZPbYGj9DH_Igtrxu2tth4dwdTfb70EIaW-CJgohurSLD3HZlLw9mJoRWDyBLmGc_okgbkVTk/w640-h640/weapon+bays.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>The F-35's weapon bays are impressive. </div><div><br /></div><div>Four doors open up to reveal two MASSIVE cavities on either side of the aircraft. Impressively, those weapon bays can each store a 2,000 pound JDAM <i>and </i>an AIM-120 AMRAAM. Alternatively, those JDAMs can be replaced with two more AMRAAMs for an air-to-air mission. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately, there is something missing here. Something MAJOR.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMICLCXdLYbSRGTUT023aIHAnf2UmE9Y9eJfFzik6vcZosLeouVSpHpnDLwQ0JIQ2xPlQOhgQ2ZzYx4tcsO7JTGJFYvEXZH1zHt5KCC_xj6GVHNXNa924NvcL7P3-hMaeUHwS9KSGXJpo/s2532/AIM-9M_Sidewinder_is_launched_from_FA-18F_of_VFA-102_in_June_2015.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1242" data-original-width="2532" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMICLCXdLYbSRGTUT023aIHAnf2UmE9Y9eJfFzik6vcZosLeouVSpHpnDLwQ0JIQ2xPlQOhgQ2ZzYx4tcsO7JTGJFYvEXZH1zHt5KCC_xj6GVHNXNa924NvcL7P3-hMaeUHwS9KSGXJpo/w640-h314/AIM-9M_Sidewinder_is_launched_from_FA-18F_of_VFA-102_in_June_2015.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>First entering service in 1956, the AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missile has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay in air combat. One cannot undersell the value this missile has been over the years. Efforts to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-95_Agile" target="_blank">replace it</a> have gone nowhere, as newer variants of the Sidewinder have kept the weapon system relevant for more than 60 years after its inception. Continued advancements promise a service life lasting into the 2050s and beyond. </div><div><br /></div><div>Make no mistake, the Sidewinder is a BIG DEAL. It is one of the most important weapon systems in the western arsenal. </div><div><br /></div><div>So where does the F-35 mount it?</div><div><br /></div><div>Outside. On the wing. As an option. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinoQYA_TxFz7HaIaSwVQDZxHpy94UZ4l_bGX79W3XxWg21bWFM2PX483CuzE6R1qcykmIJLUiSsfIpa_S0AqaQ7sbgM4vqqHy4WMwp8VllPqdZ1Z7XvSovVM2hmlvHz7vlUjIIKISRgt8/s1220/F-35-beast-mode.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="685" data-original-width="1220" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinoQYA_TxFz7HaIaSwVQDZxHpy94UZ4l_bGX79W3XxWg21bWFM2PX483CuzE6R1qcykmIJLUiSsfIpa_S0AqaQ7sbgM4vqqHy4WMwp8VllPqdZ1Z7XvSovVM2hmlvHz7vlUjIIKISRgt8/w640-h360/F-35-beast-mode.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>The reasoning for this is simple enough: Infrared (IR) guided missiles do not like to be stored internally. <div><br /></div><div>Unlike the AMRAAM, the Sidewinder is rail-launched. This means that you cannot simply drop the weapon out of the bay, you have to expose its entire mounting system. </div><div><br /></div><div>Complicating matters even further is the fact that the Sidewinder's seeker head needs to be exposed in order to lock on to the target. New missiles do have a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability, but this is not ideal. </div><div><br /></div><div>Just because this is difficult, does not mean it cannot be done. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaXhwkGf4s0SVdSrWVWywdYrBMz4ZGYD5TzKzsFdoq8k45iSh0BPuyXsSQ4jLsc6S3GtuqiFB8nbIlq3-e177P3tZ5HzhhpbRwuE6NhydCpXa3nezsZbiFWNf91oxEAQQqVcdYAbc5ooE/s602/main-qimg-f7179299d1fb3dd6f0a6ca8c816aa662.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="339" data-original-width="602" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaXhwkGf4s0SVdSrWVWywdYrBMz4ZGYD5TzKzsFdoq8k45iSh0BPuyXsSQ4jLsc6S3GtuqiFB8nbIlq3-e177P3tZ5HzhhpbRwuE6NhydCpXa3nezsZbiFWNf91oxEAQQqVcdYAbc5ooE/w640-h360/main-qimg-f7179299d1fb3dd6f0a6ca8c816aa662.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /><div>The F-22 Raptor stores its AIM-9 Sidewinder internally in two bays just behind the intakes. When needed, the doors of the bay open and the the Sidewinder is extended outward by means of a "trapeze". This enables the AIM-9's seeker head to find its target before being launched off its rail. </div><div><br /></div><div>After firing, the F-22 retracts the "trapeze" and closes the weapon bay door, maintaining its stealthy shape. </div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPChDmu7VNbz_fZiATxmevVU0VN_rHE3Q5ZxK_VQY2RF3zc_qcYf0oldGQOxavOaCdu9V4KEyRYK2uwYhPh6o8kctvXZmVzicqsAVGc4nggVEF3HXVg4fin8-BWhjqG2T68ULKip8821w/s1920/aaa11133.jpg.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPChDmu7VNbz_fZiATxmevVU0VN_rHE3Q5ZxK_VQY2RF3zc_qcYf0oldGQOxavOaCdu9V4KEyRYK2uwYhPh6o8kctvXZmVzicqsAVGc4nggVEF3HXVg4fin8-BWhjqG2T68ULKip8821w/w640-h360/aaa11133.jpg.webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>The Chinese Chengdu J-20 does the F-22 one better. </div><div><br /></div><div>Like the Raptor, the J-20 mounts an IR-guided missile in a bay on either side of the fuselage, just behind each intake. When needed, the bay doors open and the missile rack rotates out. <i>Unlike</i> the F-22, the bay doors can close behind the exposed missile. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/a7a45bbcgw1e2z5uzszvwg1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" src="http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/a7a45bbcgw1e2z5uzszvwg1.gif" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>This not only allows internal carriage of an IR-guided, rail-launched missile; it minimizes the J-20 RCS while the missile is exposed. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is ingenious in its operation and elegant in its simplicity. Expect to see this design becoming a common feature in just about every stealthy design moving forward. </div><div><br /></div><div>Too bad the F-35 cannot take advantage of something similar. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLMzqksj3u17ipRP948i9W4D6yq39EHJoIBLhDtnerqZa0h_ytDB7L_ykSfrpW1cs6rJKd4MqaprqNzFlHhzs3iPj5fT3c-EGCMND1KGlZXSAupg60aNNSCfkrqKjfK9uWFV0b1L1dWSA/s1300/f-35+sidewinder.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="867" data-original-width="1300" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLMzqksj3u17ipRP948i9W4D6yq39EHJoIBLhDtnerqZa0h_ytDB7L_ykSfrpW1cs6rJKd4MqaprqNzFlHhzs3iPj5fT3c-EGCMND1KGlZXSAupg60aNNSCfkrqKjfK9uWFV0b1L1dWSA/w640-h426/f-35+sidewinder.webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Like the Super Hornet and its canted pylons, one wonders if the external Sidewinders are a victim of a "good enough" mentality. </div><div><br /></div><div>At some point in the F-35's design process, there <i>must</i> have been discussion about where to put the AIM-9s. Some sort of internal storage must have been discussed, only to be shot down for the simple reason <i>that it was too hard. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Ultimately, the decision was likely justified when someone suggested that the AIM-120 AMRAAM was "good enough" to be the JSF's only means of self-defence during a stealth mission. This, despite obvious <a href="https://thebaffler.com/latest/when-lockheed-gives-you-lemons" target="_blank">misgivings from some</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>One wonders why the Joint Program Office could not insist on going that extra mile in order to mount an <i>internal</i> AIM-9 on the F-35. One would imagine it would be possible to fit hardware capable of mounting both an additional AMRAAM <i>and </i>an AIM-9 lieu of the JSF's 2000lb JDAM. </div><div><br /></div><div>Or maybe they just cannot be bothered. Not when there are <a href="https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/f35-joint-strike-fighter-deficiencies-2020" target="_blank">so many other issues to fix</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-41781738759691456522020-12-13T23:22:00.000-04:002020-12-13T23:22:36.259-04:00NITPICK: ALL THOSE GRIPEN POINTY BITS<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMIx3fdv7iPpc8Zu2SD8ZbKoMSDQ3G853JZXBVwFzuIQudwaC0CaiQ3uRIsLsMJNUjCRanaAIV-X_qYWqRQXeNmNICmB-vB6s0wX9_18nH5o8GwltzTfWgbfre1nZZeD1AZaZ3nCxKLVU/s1929/d757716a-4311-4109-8249-9a7b852611c5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1295" data-original-width="1929" height="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMIx3fdv7iPpc8Zu2SD8ZbKoMSDQ3G853JZXBVwFzuIQudwaC0CaiQ3uRIsLsMJNUjCRanaAIV-X_qYWqRQXeNmNICmB-vB6s0wX9_18nH5o8GwltzTfWgbfre1nZZeD1AZaZ3nCxKLVU/w640-h430/d757716a-4311-4109-8249-9a7b852611c5.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"> <i>[Welcome to "NITPICK"! For the next few weeks I will be examining a single aspect of the potential fighters that just drives me nuts. These are not dealbreakers, or even major flaws. They are simply one aspect of the aircraft THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER.]</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Gripen is pointy. Really, <i>really</i>, pointy. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It does makes sense that a Mach 2 fighter jet would be pointy. Most of them are. Just look at the needle-like F-104 Starfighter or F-106 Delta Dagger. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Gripen takes things to a whole new level, however.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Look at it. It is all sharp edges, angles, and spearpoints. There is nary a soft crease or a graceful curve. Its like someone built a fighter jet out of knives and hypodermic needles. The Gripen is aerospace cutlery.</div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbpsc619nWQwLa7Cm48MC9OtRguzt5j5-r0iPXaMUUZbsXZvw-RaZv9rxtvdcrz6kH5eEqDpaE4dkr2X-7cIlsLVbzwNmPs0RikB5hAcMlSvXN2T74lE2Q6XEg8KI_hfTVZLNk1NPAGrc/s961/tumblr_mygkfoeXOU1roe9r1o1_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="961" data-original-width="650" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbpsc619nWQwLa7Cm48MC9OtRguzt5j5-r0iPXaMUUZbsXZvw-RaZv9rxtvdcrz6kH5eEqDpaE4dkr2X-7cIlsLVbzwNmPs0RikB5hAcMlSvXN2T74lE2Q6XEg8KI_hfTVZLNk1NPAGrc/w432-h640/tumblr_mygkfoeXOU1roe9r1o1_1280.jpg" width="432" /></a></div><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Let us start at the front. Before we even get to the narrow cone of the radome, there is a needle-like pitot tube. This is followed by a blade-like apparatus on either side of front nose cone. Before we even get to the cockpit, the Gripen looks capable of impaling someone. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The forward fuselage starts out innocently enough, but that all changes when you reach the intakes, which resemble food processor attachments. Follow that with the Gripen's aggressive canards, which would not look out of place on a medieval polearm. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Going back along the aircraft's dorsal spine, we see not one, not two, but <i>three </i>small sharp fins followed by the vertical tail. Not to be outdone by the nosecone, the tailfin has <i>another </i>needle-like pitot tube sticking out. One can only assume athis is some sort of self-defense mechanism like a stegosaurus or stickleback fish. Perhaps Saab engineers thought it would be helpful in keeping the Gripen from being eaten by the larger planes. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrBSmz_cYe49ZjR5zqutGx5ov0WUe3O5aw84wqaU4lXHaHVgsemyM371qTW3_IlrYGKgphHrF5R6nNYidE-xP2p754TitU9xF3-reFkIfFhbkdO1ZvcZBg3lwg2SfDurdvW5uQoqhb4fk/s1000/threespine_stickleback.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="356" data-original-width="1000" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrBSmz_cYe49ZjR5zqutGx5ov0WUe3O5aw84wqaU4lXHaHVgsemyM371qTW3_IlrYGKgphHrF5R6nNYidE-xP2p754TitU9xF3-reFkIfFhbkdO1ZvcZBg3lwg2SfDurdvW5uQoqhb4fk/w640-h228/threespine_stickleback.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Design inspiration?<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Moving on to the wings...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Gripen's canard delta-wing design already gives it a barbed-arrowhead appearance. Apparently this was deemed "not aggressive enough". Saab remedied this by mounting several mean-looking weapon pylons on each wing. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Even <i>without </i>weapons, these sharp-looking weapon pylons look dangerous. Almost like the talons from the aircraft's namesake, the <i>griffon. </i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Not to be excluded, even the aircraft's exhaust nozzle sticks <i>way</i> out to the rear of the aircraft. Saab engineers will tell you this is make the Gripen more tail-heavy for quicker pitch-up maneuverability... But it seems dubiously close to an insect's stinger. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLEzdanQSQTgE00FurXeR_0E20b63jCtLItzEG8GGlrVfvUxDnaPnMEybyhnhP2hWfjHD4pGcV9pIYrtBHESklRe_PBlrT7g0UDWPPx4Ro0k2oSMAcZLxH4dXk0OB8qKCxDcAJ1AM7EHQ/s1200/1200px-Saab_JAS_39_Gripen_at_Kaivopuisto_Air_Show%252C_June_2017_%2528altered%2529_copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="702" data-original-width="1200" height="374" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLEzdanQSQTgE00FurXeR_0E20b63jCtLItzEG8GGlrVfvUxDnaPnMEybyhnhP2hWfjHD4pGcV9pIYrtBHESklRe_PBlrT7g0UDWPPx4Ro0k2oSMAcZLxH4dXk0OB8qKCxDcAJ1AM7EHQ/w640-h374/1200px-Saab_JAS_39_Gripen_at_Kaivopuisto_Air_Show%252C_June_2017_%2528altered%2529_copy.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is an <i>unarmed</i> Gripen.<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Taken as a whole, the JAS 39 looks as if it could impale anything that gets too close. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The esthetic resembles that of 70's era science fiction. Not so much the "used future" aesthetic of Star Wars. More like the sleek aggressiveness of Japanese anime. Specifically, <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato" target="_blank">Space Battleship Yamato</a> (Star Blazers to western audiences). </i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Imagine the "ray gun gothic" of classic Buck Rogers mixed with Cold War design cues. This gives you fantastic designs like the <i>Cosmo Tiger. </i>Lots of needle-like protrusions, a stinger tail, sharp aggressive edges...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiACUpM3oe5VP-MHY9zmFAQyx0jxu2H8Ycsa8ENkwL87MXDF2upakMjuBYuIn3rMZzcLJsrt4pHC0fPv8WKpUVN0rQDsfSqRsafNBEWTwTyf0pQHcw-GmEWtrNiBRnghHyKOCNN9WBt8To/s600/Cosmo.Zero.600.2383647.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiACUpM3oe5VP-MHY9zmFAQyx0jxu2H8Ycsa8ENkwL87MXDF2upakMjuBYuIn3rMZzcLJsrt4pHC0fPv8WKpUVN0rQDsfSqRsafNBEWTwTyf0pQHcw-GmEWtrNiBRnghHyKOCNN9WBt8To/w640-h360/Cosmo.Zero.600.2383647.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Wait a minute... That almost looks... <i>familiar. </i><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Do you think..?</div><div><br /></div><div>Nah. </div><div><br /></div><div>Couldn't be. </div><div><br /></div><div>I mean... C'mon... A Japanese anime starring a Swedish fighter jet? That would be ludicrous. That would be just plane silly. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHSKwNJXmC_dKAwH4Y_8DoQ_ML8_qZLVafvxkDMLzlLhF6sOfvcuDq-G-3lR5dDzyi-tdN6Sn6waTj6wLBKqbG6OSDjJ7ZHeDgTjG5gs09FRhNZgDZyxEKjy9TPSSrYehyphenhyphen4ejuS-DBOMg/s512/unnamed.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="313" data-original-width="512" height="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHSKwNJXmC_dKAwH4Y_8DoQ_ML8_qZLVafvxkDMLzlLhF6sOfvcuDq-G-3lR5dDzyi-tdN6Sn6waTj6wLBKqbG6OSDjJ7ZHeDgTjG5gs09FRhNZgDZyxEKjy9TPSSrYehyphenhyphen4ejuS-DBOMg/w640-h392/unnamed.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">Well...</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay then. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><br /> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p></p></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384856123558926763.post-38256274421182429612020-12-06T22:04:00.002-04:002020-12-06T22:04:43.592-04:00NITPICK: F-35 CANOPY<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbY36IjskFDg0VLUwhmfG6UaKykzJjLmGfEettH1cLriieDWUaiva3RGMXFP-t0kFLhQYflAXkf2Ogn5Gtnqibm6zok5Fwso_VVnAtgDj_tv9Oo6AusaTBruWc1xBM7ELcUuQ8VwFGc1M/s1260/RTS17JJ7_0.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="840" data-original-width="1260" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbY36IjskFDg0VLUwhmfG6UaKykzJjLmGfEettH1cLriieDWUaiva3RGMXFP-t0kFLhQYflAXkf2Ogn5Gtnqibm6zok5Fwso_VVnAtgDj_tv9Oo6AusaTBruWc1xBM7ELcUuQ8VwFGc1M/w640-h426/RTS17JJ7_0.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><br /> <i>[Welcome to "NITPICK"! For the next few weeks I will be examining a single aspect of the potential fighters that just drives me nuts. These are not dealbreakers, or even major flaws. They are simply one aspect of the aircraft THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER.]</i><div><i><br /></i></div><div>The F-35 Lightning II is a controversial aircraft. To some, it represents the future of combat aviation. To others, it stands out as a horribly flawed trillion-dollar boondoggle. As usual, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.</div><div><br /></div><div>One undeniable truth about the JSF is that its canopy is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.</div><div><br /></div><div>Look at it. LOOK AT IT!</div><div><br /></div><div>Other than the fact that is is transparent, just about everything about the F-35 cockpit seems... <i>wrong. </i></div><div><br /></div><div>Compare the F-35 cockpit to the one of its predecessors, the F/A-18:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD-IyAfZkoSk9qr62dt0nEWC1zHz2ZSlkG08t8xOIwaBebPDOR7ZsCSiQti4CGzcVa3Vy8ZdIDiTs28SEv6JYziuoWvRcRhHAPeBNuh0A0aZOXrOiZOO9Jlllty8JZfOtzYMsebF0rN1w/s1600/a-member-of-the-flight-deck-crew-cleans-the-canopy-of-an-fa-18-hornet-aircraft-54c97c-1600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1071" data-original-width="1600" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD-IyAfZkoSk9qr62dt0nEWC1zHz2ZSlkG08t8xOIwaBebPDOR7ZsCSiQti4CGzcVa3Vy8ZdIDiTs28SEv6JYziuoWvRcRhHAPeBNuh0A0aZOXrOiZOO9Jlllty8JZfOtzYMsebF0rN1w/w640-h428/a-member-of-the-flight-deck-crew-cleans-the-canopy-of-an-fa-18-hornet-aircraft-54c97c-1600.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>The Hornet has a pretty decent canopy. The pilot's view is unimpeded except for a thin frame present at the opening seam. Fortunately, that thin frame houses several rear-view mirrors that <i>help</i> the pilot's overall situational awareness.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not bad. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now lets compare it to another direct predecessor, the F-16. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhl8UcLBK1RIC4Py33odH-Le67q439ajLFj1A1ZSK2D1tNmooP5YAgEeZBET3vwY5Uya1J4lNrwhb0YA8_rXCr5Fs6F8594VtyhZ-aqC0F36vfIJcNHdzACDWcCzT03udvAqI28b6f_vM/s1300/F-16-Fighting-Falcon-Pilot-prepares.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="917" data-original-width="1300" height="452" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhl8UcLBK1RIC4Py33odH-Le67q439ajLFj1A1ZSK2D1tNmooP5YAgEeZBET3vwY5Uya1J4lNrwhb0YA8_rXCr5Fs6F8594VtyhZ-aqC0F36vfIJcNHdzACDWcCzT03udvAqI28b6f_vM/w640-h452/F-16-Fighting-Falcon-Pilot-prepares.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>The F-16 Fighting Falcon has one of the best canopies ever placed on a fighter jet. Like the F-18, it is a two-piece design. In a bit of clever engineering they "flipped" it around, putting the opening seam <i>behind </i>the pilot. This gives the pilot an almost completely unobstructed view. The only detriment to the pilot's vision is a thin bit of framework back at the hinge. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is absolutely beautiful. Sleek and minimalist, the F-16 may end up being "peak canopy design"... Were it not for the F-22 Raptor.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYoJ67fNH0mlRlNsoJjLHI-SyPrNWEYcEWOMjtdz33fvDzp0Aif66xHRKiqdw8Nj15LobXera4OIKxszHT965N6E79EAIp1K-LU7zc-JhCTKeYQR1u6O1FRuYQL2uTNoJVrmOTpwnqZM8/s1024/f22-5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="682" data-original-width="1024" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYoJ67fNH0mlRlNsoJjLHI-SyPrNWEYcEWOMjtdz33fvDzp0Aif66xHRKiqdw8Nj15LobXera4OIKxszHT965N6E79EAIp1K-LU7zc-JhCTKeYQR1u6O1FRuYQL2uTNoJVrmOTpwnqZM8/w640-h426/f22-5.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Oh my gawd...</div><div><br /></div><div>The F-22 Raptor is simply canopy perfection.</div><div><br /></div><div>A sleek, uninterrupted, single piece, frameless bubble. It even has a classy gold tint. </div><div><br /></div><div>Perfection. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now lets go back to the F-35...</div><div><br /></div><div>Good lord... <i>Where to start?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Let us start with the positives. The JSF's canopy is (mostly) transparent and it does come with the same classy gold tint as the F-22... And that is about it. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRvXXfnpVrh1qRbY9P8MryTf5imHiqxtHQtTQU8BU_I6t3rwoRhUcT0AVdPfZEFJi3KGcF8SY4udRYYU0CHWg7S7CBs2g8PhLvvfC-wW43lMxIVo5Qj1Lkvm7WEu02WsumsjoDyPCo-cM/s774/42fc1cc6135f3c629db1cc07d2073418.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="774" data-original-width="580" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRvXXfnpVrh1qRbY9P8MryTf5imHiqxtHQtTQU8BU_I6t3rwoRhUcT0AVdPfZEFJi3KGcF8SY4udRYYU0CHWg7S7CBs2g8PhLvvfC-wW43lMxIVo5Qj1Lkvm7WEu02WsumsjoDyPCo-cM/w480-h640/42fc1cc6135f3c629db1cc07d2073418.png" width="480" /></a></div></div><div><br /></div><div>As far as the negatives go, there are plenty. Let us start with the most egregious. THAT DAMN SUPPORT FRAME. Why is it even there?</div><div><br /></div><div>Like the F-22, the F-35 utilizes a single-piece canopy. Unlike the F-22, it utilizes a thick support frame right in the pilot's forward field of view. This gives it a bit of a blind spot similar to the F/A-18, but without the mirrors or necessity of having a frame where canopy opens. </div><div><br /></div><div>Instead of the clean, unobstructed view of the F-22 or F-16, the F-35 pilot has to deal with a thick, black band blocking their vision. Why?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ3LrrTgc1fr-mTu39-3hW7eeUKF1Ll56t65TIr6-I-8Yq9G9DUCMRqYwMKCmHCSSkykML6iTcyOK2v-1Fz9y5Rkc93r-9OQGnLio4z82mhmLgnkuiftuGHZvHyjfGkmSIVfnulHEumfg/s1024/hscbrdcdf2wx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1024" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ3LrrTgc1fr-mTu39-3hW7eeUKF1Ll56t65TIr6-I-8Yq9G9DUCMRqYwMKCmHCSSkykML6iTcyOK2v-1Fz9y5Rkc93r-9OQGnLio4z82mhmLgnkuiftuGHZvHyjfGkmSIVfnulHEumfg/w640-h450/hscbrdcdf2wx.jpg" width="640" /></a></div></div><div><br /></div><div>The next issue is not not nearly as egregious but just as annoying.</div><div><br /></div><div>The JSF cockpit opens forward. </div><div><br /></div><div>Admittedly, it is not a huge deal. Nobody really cares which way a canopy opens when it is closed during flight. Functionally, it makes very little difference. Perhaps it makes ingress and egress slightly more difficult? </div><div><br /></div><div>Like "<a href="https://verticaldoorscanada.com" target="_blank">Lambo doors</a>" on a car, the benefits of a forward opening canopy seem dubious. There is a good reason for it on the JSF, however. </div><div><br /></div><div>By opening to the front, the F-35's canopy clears up more room for the massive lift fan present on the STOVL F-35B. While this is not needed in the F-35A and F-35C variants, the forward-opening canopy is retained in the interests of commonality. </div><div><br /></div><div>This relates to a not-so-harmless issue with the F-35's canopy.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgejScWXdQQhUKYaXKrv4oZEL31Ne0cmiU8KnLuviVcuH_SQmuP90YXcjGpzI3Memn3DHTek9v70TcFmxijpQxVLYhVBwl_5nmoU9JxVXI-JN4Hk1UhRmgdAV_g2XtQ2EH13BY1MtCrGWo/s600/f-35+probe+and+drogue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="600" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgejScWXdQQhUKYaXKrv4oZEL31Ne0cmiU8KnLuviVcuH_SQmuP90YXcjGpzI3Memn3DHTek9v70TcFmxijpQxVLYhVBwl_5nmoU9JxVXI-JN4Hk1UhRmgdAV_g2XtQ2EH13BY1MtCrGWo/w640-h440/f-35+probe+and+drogue.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>That same STOVL lift fan that predicates a forward-opening canopy leads to another problem: The infamous F-35 "hunchback". </div><div><br /></div><div>The advantages of a "bubble" canopy have been known since WWII. Many credit the addition of a bubble canopy as one of the factors that transformed the P-51D Mustang from a "good" fighter to a "great" fighter. </div><div><br /></div><div>One of the design challenges of the JSF was fitting it with a lift fan. In order to maintain balance, that fan needs to be located as close to the front of the aircraft as possible. This required pushing the cockpit as far forward as possible with the lift fan immediately behind it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately, the engineers behind the JSF deemed the bubble canopy a worthy sacrifice. Instead of a view to the rear, the pilot gets a bulkhead. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some might excuse the lack of visibility stating that the F-35's Distributed Aperture System (DAS) more than makes up for it. After all, DAS allows the pilot to virtually "look through the airplane". This may be the case, but the JSF's "<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-10/pentagon-gets-a-fix-for-f-35-bug-in-400-000-pilot-helmets" target="_blank">magic helmet</a>" has been plagued with issues and <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/" target="_blank">nothing really beats</a> the "Mark One Eyeball". </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZB2kpGNk5i41HRVQNmJepeEDj4CiarX6Ww8a5F2XbK2F-1cPhJ7bivvEE5xRcCRNAH4jbw9wJn2IyK7oeaKGy0z8MgKWEGWSPaZtx4cHxliC6JlrbbmNpW9XXIWPnqERn4N4ySs7Dfd8/s1024/6673853325_57b0d0fdc0_b.jpg.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="819" data-original-width="1024" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZB2kpGNk5i41HRVQNmJepeEDj4CiarX6Ww8a5F2XbK2F-1cPhJ7bivvEE5xRcCRNAH4jbw9wJn2IyK7oeaKGy0z8MgKWEGWSPaZtx4cHxliC6JlrbbmNpW9XXIWPnqERn4N4ySs7Dfd8/w640-h512/6673853325_57b0d0fdc0_b.jpg.webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>What is truly frustrating here is that the F-35's canopy has NO NEED to be as bad as it is. </div><div><br /></div><div>Much of the reason the JSF's canopy is the way it is is due to compromises required for the F-35B's lift fan. For the F-35A and F-35C variants, THERE IS NO LIFT FAN. That means that the majority of F-35s have to work around a problem they do not even have. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is serious case of the "tail wagging the dog". </div><div><br /></div><div>Lockheed Martin figured out how to make excellent canopies with the F-16 and F-22, why did they not carry that over into the F-35?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Doug Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504832466775445050noreply@blogger.com0