CF 18
Astfel ca a decis sa intrebe de oferte, pentru inlocuirea flotei sale de CF-18, cinci producatori marcanti de aeronave, aceeasi care apareau si prin ziarele noastre in 2007-2008.
Boeing cu al sau F-18 SuperHornet
Avion deja arhicunoscut de canadieni, solid si de incredere, „SuperViespea” celor din Seattle este o foarte veche cunostinta a canadienilor. Asadar are sanse mari.
EADS cu Eurofighter Typhoon
Bazat pe relatiile foarte speciale dintre Metropoala si „colonie”, si avand in acelasi timp extraordinare calitati de luptator, mai ales in varianta Tranche 3, Typhoon-ul este un extrem de puternic competitor, cu atat mai mult cu cat canadienii nu sunt deloc saraci si opereaza chiar acum un bimotor destul de scump la mentenenta si la zbor, asa ca nu cred ca problema costurilor s-ar pune la fel in cazul nostru. Bine in cazul nostru nu se pune problema de avion in primul rand 🙂 .
Dassault cu Rafale, cu mentiunea ca aici chiar francezii au confirmat primirea unei cereri de informare, iar lobby-ul francez in Canada este foarte puternic, la fel de puternic ca cel britanic pentru un eventual contract de vanzare al Typhoon-ului.
Saab-Gripen E.
Cu un singur motor, Gripen-ul suedezilor poate parea cel mai dezavantajat in fata fortei si razei bimotoarelor europene si americane, insa Gripen E este cu doi pasi in fata variantei „C”, este un avion foarte versatil, iar producatorul sau este deschis oricaror forme de colaborare, permitand clintului sa-si aleaga cam ce-i doreste sufletul pentru dotarea flotei.
Canadienii pastreaza inca pe lista Lockheed Martin si F-35, insa cel putin deocamdata cauta sa-si largeasca orizonturile, cunoscand si ofertele altor constructori, de preferinta constructori care pot garanta un grafic al livrarilor si un pret stabil.
Daca tinem cont de vastitatea teritoriului canadian, cel mai probabil ar fi ales un bimotor, asta daca in cele din urma varianta F-35 cade definitiv.
Sursa: Foxbusiness
Marius Zgureanu & GeorgeGMT
Daca F35 ar fi scos de pe lista de cumparaturi, datorita relatiei speciale pe care Canada o are cu SUA, si pentru experienta ei in exploatarea lui FA18, cu siguranta ca canadienii vor opta pentru FA18E/F.
Eurofighter si Rafale au sanse aproximativ egale in timp ce pe Gripenul NG il vad la finalul listei.
Ma rog, ce va fi in final, vom vedea.
e praf compu’ de bord a lui F-35,desi e un avion gen ”First Strike” ca si fratiorul F-22,doar ca are erori si mai e si limitat in manevrabilitate vs alt avion de generatia a 5-a… ca avion aer-sol e perfect dar pt misiuni aer-aer lasa de dorit… probabil varianta F-35 C va fii pt misiuni aer-aer.
varianta F-35 C are anvergura aripilor mai mare si este destinat portavioanelor, nu are legatura cu capabilitatile aparatului faptul ca se numeste”C”. eu crad ca anvergura mai mare este chiar un factor anti manevrabilitate, facand avionul mai greoi. pot spune ca va avea un zbor mai „de lebada”, in niciun caz mai manevrabil, mai agil, mai fasnet. iar celelalte doua au proportiile destul de bune lungime-anvergura pt a fi manevrabile problema lor vine de la faptul ca fuselajul arata ca un f-16 indesat de unde si lipsa manevrabilitatii. acest lucru poate fi rectificat prin tractiune vectoriala+putere mare a motorului.
Terminati cu parile date dupa ureche. F35 care orice alt aparat „proaspat” are probleme care cred eu ca o sa se rezolve, doar ar trebui sa fie calul de bataie al US and A. Avioanele astea sunt gandite sa primeasca upgrade de tehnologie, sa lupte „destept”. Intr-un eventual conflict cu aparatele astea cel mai probabil nu o sa se ajunga la o bataie cu mitralierele de bord niciodata.
Documentar despre F-22 :
http://youtu.be/T-Sh1SAaJz0
Stiu stiu… este de propaganda, dar ceva adevar tot este acolo, asa cat sa iti dea putin de gandit.
1. „Terminati cu parile date dupa ureche”
2. „are probleme care cred eu ca o sa se rezolve”
Lucrezi in Program ? 🙂 Ai vorbit macar cu o singura persoana avizata despre acest aparat ? Persoana avizata din vest ma refer, cu varsta inaintata si multa experienta, nu romanasi obraznici de la noi cu avioane din anii ’50 si 10 ore pe an 😉
DE ce, tu ai stat de vorba cu persoane avizate „din vest”?
Toata lumea ii canta prohodul pe aici dar programul merge inainte, americanii isi pregatesc primii instructori pentru avion problemele care apar nu sunt insurmontabile, intarzierile sunt inerente la un astfel de proiect unele obiective mai ambitioase au fost revizuite dar pe ansamblu avionul va fi unul bun. Estimarile unor australieni fani Su si care nu au mai multe date despre F-35 decat are restul lumii au un potential de eroare foarte mare la fel cum datele de pe hartie privind potentialul Su-urilor se pot dovedi neconfirmate de practica. Nimeni nu poate dovedi ca F-35 va fi un slab manevrier, ca Su-35 il va detecta inainte cu mult ca el insusi sa fie detectat si incadrat. Canada bazaie acum pentru un avion si eu cred ca va fi SuperHornet ce trebuie sa raspunda nevoilor imediate in conditiile intarzierilor lui F-35 si nimeni nu poate spune ca pe termen lung Canada nu va cumpara totusi F-35.
Asa e cum zici tu despre estimarile australienilor, dar adevarul e ca nici eu n-as sta linistit cu F-35 inconjurat de Su-30, PAK FA si alte minunatii prin zona.
Cat despre F-35, timpul va decide care din noi a avut dreptate. Astazi insa, e doar un program cu foarte multe probleme, atat de multe incat daca o continua tot asa va ramane fara clienti.
Asa este viitorul ne va arata cum stau de fapt lucrurile.
Australienii aia, fani ai Suhoiului cum le zici tu, sunt ofiteri superiori de aviatie, unii chiar generali, insa toti sunt piloti de vanatoare ca si fabricatie din scoala militara de ofiteri.Ma indoiesc ca aia sunt tampiti si vorbesc doar sa se afle in treaba sau pentru ca sunt carcotasi.
De carcotasi nu cred ca vorbesc dar alti „zburatori”le-au dovedit ca se inseala, ca simularile lor sunt gresite pentru ca evita din nestiinta sau mai curand cu buna stiinta anumite date.De fapt Koop nici macar pilot nu este iar pregatirea lui de baza nu este in domeniul aeronautic in timp ce Peter Goon a zburat pe foarte multe aparate mai putin cele despre care vorbeste. Restul de acolo scriu ce vor sefii pentru ca altfel cauta de lucru in alta parte. Nu am vazut ca AusAirPower sa aiba cel putin un articol „democratic” care sa fie o stridenta in raport cu teoriile lui Koop si Goon.
mig-35…wwwzzzz
Many readers liked «Pesticide for Super-Hornets» – lots of hits on APA website. Now Grisha is asked another question by colleagues in Asian countries: «Sukhoi kills the Super-Hornet, but will the Sukhoi kill the F-35 JSF which comes soon after?»
This is a tricky question. F-35 is still in early development and many Sukhoi upgrades are yet to come, so we might use 2017 for a comparison year. Must make observation though – JSF is more «Strike» than «Fighter», and has slow, fat body and wing design. More like a pigeon than a raptor. It is designed to work with its big brother F-22. The «Pigeon» has holes in its armor that let missiles through.
This time, the Sukhoi Su-35 has the new Tikhomirov NIIP IRBIS-E ESA radar and can talk to earlier model Su-30MK to pass target coordinates – like Indian Air Force Su-30MKI talks to older MiG-21 and tells when to fire its missile [Editor: This is the TKS-2 intraflight network]. Ramjet Vympel R-77M «Adder» in service for several years with long range of about 160 km. Also, some new weapons – we discuss these later.
F-35 in service from 2015 and Chuck finally understands penalty of having short arms and no punch, so redoes AIM-120 AMRAAM into the «D» model, with range of 110 km and a two-pulse motor – Americans have not yet solved ramjet drive like Russia. Still, the AIM-120D is a big improvement on old models – Americans then sell old junk to Allies to fit to Super Hornets. Not fit too many AIM-120D inside Pidgeon – some say four, others two in weapon bay. Cannot put more on pylons – all stealth is then gone and Sukhoi kills Pigeon like a Super Hornet. Also AIM-120 only have radar head [Editor: seeker]. Sukhoi have lots of shots and choose seeker head – mostly carry 8 mix R-77M with big centre tank.
We make the discussion easy – we use «DIED» kill-chain model: Detect, Identify, Engage, Destroy.
First, we detect. We ask our friends at the Russian Institute of Radio Physics and Electronics for the analysis of «Pigeon on Stick» radio-location reflections. They ask a very good question: «Is this US version or export version?» I say US version – if you can kill that model, export model easier to kill – much bigger radio-location reflection
Pigeon hard to see from front on X-Band radio locator, but easy to spot on other bands. Australian JORN [Editor: Jindalee HF band Over The Horizon Backscatter Radar] very good to see stealth aircraft. Also, nice irony that Lockheed Martin make stealth aircraft and radio locator to see stealth aircraft. This one called «Silent Sentry», it works using radio reflection from TV and FM radio – very good over land at low heights and out to sea about 200 km. Also «Surface Wave Radio Locator» work in HF band. Use Pigeon wingspan or body length to tune the radio locator resonance – see very well over water to 400 km distance. Can now put such a radio-location system on a ship.
Old radio locators now making a comeback. Many low frequency [Editor: VHF band], like NNIIRT NEBO series «Tall Rack», OBORONA «Tall King» and P-18-2 «Spoon Rest» see stealth airplane at 10,000 meters as far as 250 km. Rosoboronexport have on-line catalogue for these radio locators [1].
Even the Pigeon radiates – it uses APG-81 «Low Probability of Interception (LPI)» radio locator, but still makes energy pulses when it transmits. The Czechs make the «Vera-E» and the Ukrainians makes the «Kolchuga» passive radio-location systems – these track the airplane from time-of-arrival of energy pulses
Worst part of the Pigeon is a very hot engine – 160 Celsius hotter than standard combat jet engine exhaust. It makes a very bright star in the sky and long jet plume. Russia adapted space technology for seeing ICBM launches, to air combat fighter. The OLS-35 [Editor: Infra-Red Search and Track Set] in service now, much better versions planned in next decade. Today, we see a standard fighter at about 50 km, by 2017 new technology will see Pigeon at about 150 km. Angle only measurement, but if we fly wide fighter-sweeps and pass angles to other fighters using the TKS-2 network, we can use trigonometry calculations in software to find range. Also the OLS-35 is passive – this is good.
So, Grisha advises to build multi-spectral sensors in digital network to catch the Pigeon.
Identifying target type is always hard. Very bad to shoot airliner, but sometimes fighters hide under body of big plane. So, we declare Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) like Americans have over Washington. For commerce airplane, pass over SAM sites to get finer look. Time short for intercept, so if see airplane in ADIZ, shoot first – ask later.
Also, use logic – if we see AWACs airplane then expect fighters in airspace between AWACs and Sukhoi, divide sky up and use fine search with radio locator and infra-red sensor.
Engage when first detect. R-77M fly for about 120 seconds out to about 160 km. Problem if glint from Pigeon fade during missile flight, so expect low kill probability. Keep guidance to last point if radio reflection show again. Send a two missile package, one radar locator [Editor: seeker] and one infra-red locator. Maybe R-77M radar self guidance head makes the Pigeon turn to show its tail feathers – very bright spot for infra-red seeker. Also use imaging infra-red so pass by flares to hit plane.Then pass target location to Sukhoi
Sukhoi have lots of fuel and can play «Cat-and-Mouse» like with Super Hornet. Look for missile flare if Pigeon fire AIM-120D, turn and run, then come back. Not all Sukhois need run, only those in reach of AIM-120D. Others may get good shot as Pigeon open weapon bay, turn to fire. Eventually Pigeon go home to roost, expose tail-feathers and make big radio reflection and infra-red from jet pipe. This time make use of a high Mach run, get close, fire several salvoes.
Perhaps Pigeon soon runs out of missiles, then it is a good time for Sukhoi. Run in for kill with R-73 or guns. No Pigeon can ever out-fly Sukhoi in «knife fight».
The safe way to destroy the Pigeon is to use superior endurance and aerodynamic performance to wait until the Pigeon turns for home, then cook with salvoes of R-77M until well done.
So, how about Radio-Elektronnaya Borba [Editor: REB – Electronic Warfare]? Many in West say Russian REB kit crude. Some answers here. Some Sukhois use Israel REB boxes – these test very good [Editor: specifically referring to Indian Su-30MKI Flanker H].
Other Sukhoi and MiG fighters use Russian boxes. With cheap computer chips and smart programs, Russian companies catch up very fast, get technical lead in some areas like infrared detectors. Grisha likes the clever steerable Sorbstiya REB pod – this system borrowed from Backfire.fighters so they can fly close enough, where on-board sensors can detect Pidgeon.
Much talk in Aviation Week about high power AESA and high power microwave use as weapon. New IRBIS-E is biggest boy on block and go head to head with little radio locator like APG-79 or the APG-81. Big IRBIS-E antenna and 20 kiloWatts peak power fry the Pigeon in short time. Also, we have some «specials». We put high power microwave warhead on R-172 or R-37 (AA-13 Arrow) missile and fire at infra-red return. Command triggers narrow cone microwave or electro-pulse energy at Pigeon. Hope Pidgeon pilot have rapid darkening welding helmet or may get quick sun-tan. Russia has experimented for many years with EMP weapons [2].
Grisha thinks the Pigeon is harder to fry than Super Hornet, but new Sukhoi-35 have more performance, more missile shots, more missile self guidance head types and more fuel. So, with good tactics, the Sukhoi kills the JSF, not every time, just most times.
Final word, the new Raptorski come very soon before 2017. Pigeon best stay home unless escorted by bigger brother.
Indica sursa te rog. Este cumva AusAirPower ?
Boeing e favorit insa au si ceilalti sansa lor si nu numai la lobby se va duce batalia – daca era doar asta criteriul ramaneau pe F-35 – dar si-au dat seama ca nu au cele 45 miliarde de dolari cat ar fi costat programul.
Gripen are avantaje pentru Canada si sunt multe voci acolo care cer avionul suedez – pe motiv de operare (si) de pe piste inghetate, cu suport minim si costuri reduse.
Desi nu e bimotor si la prima vedere nu e un avantaj intr-o tara mare precum Canada – depinde cum te uiti la treaba asta – in primul rand ca se pot lua mai multe avioane la aceeasi bani si faci o acoperire a teritoriului.
In alta ordine de idei, un avion nu poate fi in doua locuri si la doua altitudini in acelasi timp. In orice scenariu de lupta orice comandant si-ar dori mai multe aparate – un numar insuficient este un handicap major, indiferent de tipul aparatului.
presa canadiana e plina de editoriale care cer Gripen – si n-ar fi exclus sa vedem scenariul din Elvetia sau o flota mixta de Gripen NG si F-18 SuperHornet, pe motiv de complementaritate si foarte multe elemente comune (motoarele in primul rand).
O analiza foarte precisa, cu surse citate si toate cele in Otawa Citizen:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/07/why-canada-should-buy-the-saab-jas39-gripen-e-next-generation-fighter/
A fleet of 65 F-35As is currently projected to cost Canada $45.8 billion[10] over the course of a 40+ year lifespan. If $9 billion is to actually purchase the planes, then the operating costs for a fleet of 65 F-35As for 40+ years will be approximately $36.8 billion. The Eurofighter’s operating costs are 85%[11] that of the F-35A , therefore the operating costs of a fleet of 72 Eurofighters over 40+ years would be approximately $34.6 billion[12]. The Gripen’s operating costs are 15%[13] that of the F-35A, therefore the operating cost of a fleet of 150 Gripens for 40+ years would be approximately $12.7 billion[14]. In terms of operational cost, the Gripen is the clear winner.
Despite the fact that these figures are estimates and will likely vary, the massive gap between the F-35A, Eurofighter, and the Gripen are difficult to ignore. The Gripen and Eurofighter cost projections are likely to be closer to reality given that it they are based on proven systems with much more fight time. There is no real world combat date on the F-35A and its true cost for Canada can only climb higher, particularly given issues such as the F-35A’s incompatibility with certain weapons and Canada’s CC-150 Polaris refuelling tankers, which are examined later.
Part problem with the Eurofighter and F-35A is that their dramatically higher costs do not translate into a proportional increase in performance and capability. The Gripen, however, has performance very nearly equal to the Eurofighter, but comes at half the cost. Even though the shortfall in performance is, as will be examined later, negligible, the money saved by procuring the Gripen could be put towards arming Canada’s Gripen fleet with the best weapons available, providing Canadian Gripen pilots with the best training, and leave room for future upgrades as technology improves. This, along with the increase in the sheer numbers of Gripen fighters Canada could purchase, would more than make up for the negligible shortfall in performance or capability. The F-35A, by comparison, is a relatively poor performer.
Other countries are rethinking their commitments and re-evaluating their options, such as Italy,[15] Australia,[16] and the U.S.[17] The Netherlands has cancelled their F-35 order altogether.[18] This means that the F-35 will likely cost more than current projections estimate. If other countries are rethinking or outright abandoning their F-35 purchases, Canada should take note and conduct serious review of alternatives.
Factor 2: Performance
With regard to specifications, the Gripen and Eurofighter are about equal, save for the fact that the Saab has obtained AESA radar[19], an asset the Eurofighter currently lacks[20], and the Gripen is a single engine fighter whereas the Eurofighter is a twin engine fighter. They both have similar power-to-weight ratios and wing loading capacities and, although the Eurofighter enjoys a very slight advantage, they are so close in performance that any advantage enjoyed by the Eurofighter is negligible, particularly when compared to the vast difference in price. Both fighters have very similar, armament, top speed, capacity, fuel capacity, range, sensor technology, sensor fusion, helmet-mounted display, situational awareness, speed, and manoeuvrability. American General John Jumper is the only person to have flown the Eurofighter and the U.S.A.’s top air superiority fighter, the F-22A, and was quoted as saying, “I’ve flown all the [American] Air Force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter.”[21] The key difference is that the Eurofighter costs $65 million more per plane, but does not deliver an additional $65 million worth of improved performance over the Gripen. Both are very impressive and capable fighters. Though equal in performance, the cost of the Gripen makes it the clear winner.
By comparison, the F-35A is a poor performer. It is not designed to include supercruise capability[22] and can only maintain supercruise for a mere 241km.[23] Both the Gripen and Eurofighter have full supercruise capability at mach 1.2. [24] [25] The F-35A is also slow by fighter jet standards. With a top speed of 1,930kmph[26] (mach 1.6), it lags far behind the Gripen, Eurofighter, which can both reach speeds above mach 2.[27] [28] The F-35A is even slower than the Super Hornet[29] and F-16 Fighting Falcon[30] it is meant to replace.
Manoeuvrability is also an issue with the F-35A.[31] Its small wing design does not allow for quick manoeuvres using tight turn radii.[32] The Gripen and Eurofighter excel in the area of manoeuvrability,[33] providing an additional advantage in a combat situation.
Though the fact that the Gripen is a single engine fighter might be seen as a disadvantage, the fact that the Canadian government was so eager to procure the F-35A indicates that the single/twin engine difference is not a significant factor.
Another disadvantage that reduces the F-35A’s capabilities is its limited internal weapons capacity. With four internal hardpoints, the F-35A cannot deliver nearly as much in payload, particularly when compared to the Russian Su-35, which has twelve hardpoints[34], the Eurofighter, which has thirteen hardpoints[35], and the NG Gripen, which will have twelve hardpoints.[36] The F-35A can carry additional fuel and weapons externally using its six external hardpoints, but this negates the F-35A’s already questionable stealth advantage, which is examined later, and would not be advisable in a combat situation.
Noul apel de oferte canadian (25 ianuarie) pentru multirol, cu toate specificàrile.
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/questeval-questeval-eng.html
re. bimotor vs. monomotor – canadianul asta din Otawa Citizen explica ca exista avantaje si dezavantaje in a avea un avion mai mare si nu neaparat avioanele bimotoare sunt pretabile la tari mai mari – e posibil sa fie invers – sa fie pretabile mai ales la tari si flote mici.
avantajele bimotorului – putere ceva mai mare, capabilitatea de a cara mai multe arme sau sa acopere o raza mai mare.
dezavantaje – costuri mai mari de achizitie si operare. Cate Gripen iei si operezi – fata de Eurofighter – in acelasi buget de 9 miliarde pentru achizitie? Raportul e 150 Gripen la 72 Eurofighter.
Deci platesti cel putin dublu (doar pentru achizitie, ca pentru operare iese cel putin triplu) pentru o crestere neglijabila in performante pentru unele misiuni? Mai bine iei mai multe avioane, ele vor acoperi mult mai bine teritoriul si exista in aviatia de lupta avantajul numarului – se zice ca un avion nu poate sa fie in doua locuri in acelasi timp si la doua altitudini diferite.
In plus, daca ai un avion care nu-ti rupe bugetul poti sa investesti mai mult in trainingul pilotilor si in armament modern – si de asemenea sa iti tii avionul modern, adoptand rapid ultimele tehnologii, cum face Suedia.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/07/why-canada-should-buy-the-saab-jas39-gripen-e-next-generation-fighter/
The cost-to-performance ratio is what makes the Gripen so appealing. The Gripen C/D has very similar performance and technology of the Eurofighter, but comes at half the price. The Gripen costs $60 million per plane[3] whereas the latest Eurofighter costs $125 million per plane.[4] The F-35A, by contrast, is currently projected to cost $107 million per plane by 2017[5]. However, the Canadian government currently projects initial procurement costs for 65 F-35As at $9 billion [6], putting the initial procurement cost at $138 million per plane. That same $9 billion would buy 150 Gripens or 72 Eurofighters. This ambiguity in the true cost of the F-35A makes projections difficult, leading to uncertainty. However, whatever the true cost is, it will be enormous and not reflective of the F-35A’s limited capabilities. In terms of initial procurement cost, the Gripen is the clear winner.
Not only are the initial procurement costs of the Gripen low, it is also the least expensive modern fighter jet to operate at approximately $4,700 per flight hour[7]. Conversely, the Eurofighter costs $18,000 per flight hour[8] and the F-35A costs an enormous $21, 000 per flight hour.[9]
A fleet of 65 F-35As is currently projected to cost Canada $45.8 billion[10] over the course of a 40+ year lifespan. If $9 billion is to actually purchase the planes, then the operating costs for a fleet of 65 F-35As for 40+ years will be approximately $36.8 billion. The Eurofighter’s operating costs are 85%[11] that of the F-35A , therefore the operating costs of a fleet of 72 Eurofighters over 40+ years would be approximately $34.6 billion[12]. The Gripen’s operating costs are 15%[13] that of the F-35A, therefore the operating cost of a fleet of 150 Gripens for 40+ years would be approximately $12.7 billion[14]. In terms of operational cost, the Gripen is the clear winner.
….
Part problem with the Eurofighter and F-35A is that their dramatically higher costs do not translate into a proportional increase in performance and capability. The Gripen, however, has performance very nearly equal to the Eurofighter, but comes at half the cost. Even though the shortfall in performance is, as will be examined later, negligible, the money saved by procuring the Gripen could be put towards arming Canada’s Gripen fleet with the best weapons available, providing Canadian Gripen pilots with the best training, and leave room for future upgrades as technology improves. This, along with the increase in the sheer numbers of Gripen fighters Canada could purchase, would more than make up for the negligible shortfall in performance or capability. The F-35A, by comparison, is a relatively poor performer.