Canada's New Naval Ships: Should one be named "Bluenose"?

The Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessel.

It looks like an overwhelming 51% of you think that none of the Canadian political parties have a plan to fix the Department of National Defence's procurement shenanigans.  Oh well, so much for that.

Speaking of procurement shenanigans, Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced that Irving Shipyards in Halifax will soon cut steel on the Harry DeWolf (although did so using an American-owned bridge located in Ontario).  The Harry DeWolf marks a major milestone in the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, a project that has already been criticized for being too expensive and too unwieldy to provide Canada's navy with the ships it needs in a timely manner.

Allow me to add two of my own criticisms:

1.  Naming one of the ships after John G. Diefenbaker.  The Prime Minister responsible for devaluing the Canadian dollar and building the infamous "Diefenbunker" to house Canada's leaders in time of nuclear attack.  Most famously, he cancelled the Avro Arrow in favor of American-built Bomarc missiles and F-101 Voodoos.

2.  Not naming any of the ships Bluenose.

(Normally, I would suggest renaming the Diefenbaker, but that ship is being build on the west coast by Seaspan.  Any ship named Bluenose has to be built in Nova Scotia.)

A Canadian icon.

 The original Bluenose is Canada's most famous ship, and a point of pride for Nova Scotians in particular.  We call ourselves "Bluenosers" with a sense of pride.

Lately, the term "Bluenose" has become sullied by the Bluenose II, a replica of the original that has been a source of local controversy thanks to bungled refit costing millions.

This simply should not be.  The name "Bluenose" should be as revered in Canada as much as the name "Enterprise" is revered in the USA.  It deserves more than to remembered as a simple tourist attraction.

If the construction of the Harry DeWolf-class is supposed to signify Nova Scotia's triumphant return to shipbuilding excellence, than what better way to celebrate that than naming one of those vessels Bluenose?

If not one of the Harry DeWolf-class...  Then perhaps the Single Class Surface Combatant?

Published: By: Unknown - 7:48 AM

QOTW: Which political party will be best for Canada's military?

'Ugh..."

A whopping 79% of you believe that Canada would be much better off with a "good enough" fighter provided in greater numbers than a flagship model.  Since Canada would not be expected to do the heavy lifting in any armed conflict, this would seem to make the most sense.  (In other words, let the other nations blow their wallets on fancy toys!)

Seeing as how we now in the midst of an (extended) election campaign, it is now time to ask the obvious question:  Which political party is best for Canada's military?

I have asked the question before (just not in poll form).  Since that time, none of the major political parties have gone into much detail on how they would fix the DND's current procurement woes.

While all the parties have released generalized statements that they will support Canada's military as well as our veterans, they are so far silent on what they will do to replace aging equipment in a timely and affordable fashion.

Why is this not an issue?

More is being said about hairstyles and questionable airline food than our nation's lack of replenishment ships.  More ink is devoted to a $90,000 housing allowance than the $46 billion+ it would cost Canada to purchase the F-35.

Do Canadians simply not care about our military, and those who serve in it?  Perhaps we should be making this more of an issue.  When your local MP candidate comes knocking at your door, take a few minutes to ask him or her about where they and their party stands.  DO NOT be satisfied with platitudes.  Ask for specifics.

• "Will your party support a fair and open competition to replace the CF-18?"

• "Is your party committed to increasing military spending in order to more closely align with the 2% of GDP suggested by NATO?

• "What is your party's stance on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy?"

• "How will your party support our veterans, now and in the future?"

Published: By: Unknown - 6:36 AM

QOTW: Quality or Quantity?

VS.

(Sorry about the haphazard updates lately.  Summer is here, the weather is too nice, and great outdoors beckons.)

My last Question of the Week (or so) looked at the potential for using a bomber platform as an air-superiority asset.  A resounding 64% of you think I might need mental health counseling for even asking the question

Fair enough.

This week (or so)'s question revolves around the need to balance numbers with capability.

In most cases with fighter aircraft, you get what you pay for.  Top-notch fighters like the F-22 earn their "air-superiority" classification thanks to their speed, agility, and powerful sensor suite.  The ability to out-run, out-maneuver, and out-shoot an opponent does not come cheap, however.  The F-22 was an incredibly expensive aircraft to develop and build, and it has more than triple the cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) of the F-16C.

Needless to say, during the post-Cold War era of declining defense budgets, purchasing and operating high-end assets means buying less of them.

So how do we prioritize capability versus cost?

Obviously, a certain level of capability is needed.  Canada cannot simply replace its CF-18s with second-hand Cessnas sporting .50 calibre machine guns duct-taped on.  A "reference threat" is needed  to be benchmarked, with any new fighter being required to exceed that threat.

But how far should we exceed that goal?

More capable and more expensive assets have the advantage of being more "future proof".  These fighters are not only capable of dealing with what is out there now, but will likely be able to handle what may come down the road.

F-15C.  Still deadly.

The F-15C is an example of this.  Despite being a 40-year-old design, the Eagle is still a very capable air-superiority fighter thanks to its impressive performance and a slew of upgrades over the years.  It is safe to say that the F-22 Raptor will likely follow suit.

The F-15C was (and still is) a very expensive aircraft, however.  It costs nearly twice as much to fly as the F-16C.

Saab Gripen.  A little less capable, but a LOT more affordable.

The biggest argument against high-cost, high-capability fighters like the F-15 and F-22 is that more affordable fighters like the F-16 and Gripen offer slightly less capability at a greatly reduced cost.

This was not always the case.  Years ago, smaller fighters like the F-5 Freedom Fighter lacked the speed and BVR capabilities of their larger, costlier counterparts.  Smaller fighters have now caught up, however and fly just as fast while carrying the same BVR missiles.  Their size limits their maximum payload and fuel, but they should no longer be seen as inferior.

Thanks to reduced costs, these fighters can be bought in greater numbers.  Not only that, but training hours can be extended, and more spares can be kept.  This allows more "wiggle room" later on.

F-35.  Blurring the lines on what makes an "affordable" fighter.

The verdict is still out on where the F-35 Lightning II lies on this spectrum.  While it does seem to offer a great deal of capability, its CPFH will likely land mid-way between the F-16C and F-15C.  The big question is is whether its vaunted abilities make it worth that much more than fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet.  Its operating cost certainly stretches the limit of what is considered an "affordable fighter".

So what works best for Canada?

Do we buy the best fighter we can afford, but at reduced numbers and reduced flying hours?  Or do we buy a "less-capable" fighter, but keep (or maybe even increase) our current numbers and flying hours?

Published: By: Unknown - 6:55 AM

Would a bomber make a better fighter?

Next Generation Bomber concept art.

Sorry I missed posting last week.

Looks like a whopping 47% of you believe that the Su-35 should be the designated "bad guy" when considering future threats.  Fair enough.  It's fast, agile, and nasty.

For this week, I wanted to slightly revisit the question "Is the dogfight dead".  While the majority of you disagree with that statement, it would seem that those pushing for the F-35 have hitched their horse to the BVR combat wagon.

Undoubtedly, BVR combat has become the norm, rather than the exception.  Better sensors and better missiles have lead to the point where if a pilot finds themselves in a fur-ball, than something has probably gone wrong.  Better to take out the enemy unseen, from a distance, without the need to burn excess fuel.  This is the case for the F-35.

If there is validity to this argument; that fighter aircraft no longer need to maneuver, then why not push the concept further?

Fighters like the F-35 and F-22 are indeed stealthy, but they are not the stealthiest thing in the sky.  That honor belongs to the B-2 Spirit.  While the specifics are classified, the B-2 has about the same RCS (radar cross section) as the much smaller F-35 (about the size of a metal golf ball).  The B-2's tailless "flying wing" design makes stealthier to low band radars, and its inboard exhaust substantially reduce its IR signature.

If stealth and sensors have rendered traditional fighter characteristics like agility and speed obsolete, then why not adapt a bomber platform to carry out the air-superiority role?

With a similar RCS, the ability to cary a much higher payload of missiles, a longer loiter time, longer range, and the possibility of being fitted with a massive sensor package; a bomber platform could make for an impressive air-superiority platform.

With the USAF's Next Generation Bomber (NGB) coming soon, is it time to consider its potential role in air-to-air combat?






Published: By: Unknown - 6:47 AM

QOTW: WHAT IS THE "REFERENCE THREAT"?

Su-35

No discussion about Canada's next fighter would be complete without asking the simple question:  What could they be up against?

During the Cold War, the answer was easy:  Whatever the Soviets were flying.

These days, the answer is a lot more complicated.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has become less of a threat.  Recent events in the Ukraine have brought some of those Cold War tensions back, however.

Russian fighters are quite well known among aviation enthusiasts.  Cold War era Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrums have been updated to keep with the times.  Sukhoi's latest, the Su-35, may look like its 80's vintage predecessor, but the addition of thrust vectoring, fly-by-wire, RCS improvements, and a PESA radar make it a thoroughly modern fighter.

Then, of course, there is also the impressive PAK FA on the horizon.

Chengdu J-10B

Russia is not the only possibly adversary, however.  China's predominance has brought it up to the status of full-blown superpower.  In the past, China predominantly used Soviet equipment, or variants of Russian designs, like the Shenyang J-15 (based on the Su-30).

Now, China is more determined to use its manufacturing might to construct its own indigenous fighter designs.  The most notable of which, the J-10 "Vigorous Dragon", bears a striking resemblance to Israel's failed IAI Lavi concept.

Some have dismissed China's previous attempts to build fighters in the past.  Two "5th generation" fighters under development, the Chengdu J-20 "Mighty Dragon" and the Shenyang J-31 "Falcon Hawk", have caused quite a stir, however.  The fact that China used classified F-35 design documents to help in the design may have something to do with that.

Dassault Rafale

There is always the possibility of going up against a presumably "friendly" fighter design.

Political alliances can change, regimes can change, and governments can fall.  This can sometimes lead to unfriendly nations equipped with cutting edge "western" hardware.

Iran still flies American-sourced F-14 Tomcats.  During the Falklands conflict, British Sea Harrier found themselves up against French made Mirage IIIs and Mirage Vs.  Iraq utilized Mirage F1s during the first Gulf War.

With buyers still being sought out for the F-16, F-15, Super Hornet, and F-35, there is always the possibility of history repeating itself with American hardware finding itself in the "wrong hands".  One must also not ignore the recent sales of Typhoons and Rafales to middle-eastern countries (a region not known for its stability).

I'm going to ignore the SAM missile threat debate...  For now.  

So which possible threat should be considered the "standard" possible threat that a future RCAF fighter might face?

My vote would be for the J-10B at a bare minimum, with the Su-35 being considered as a "high-end threat".  Aircraft like the J-20 and PAK FA are still a ways off, and it is debatable whether or not anything in the western inventory short of a F-22 would be match.

Oddly enough, I believe the Dassault Rafale should set the standard.  (This is not a dig at the French, of course!) It is an impressive aircraft in all respects, so one could not be faulted for wanting a fighter that can match or exceed its capabilities.

What do you think? Published: By: Unknown - 6:05 AM

JUST A REMINDER... BE RESPECTFUL, OR BE BANNED.

It's amazing how nasty people can get when defending their favorite airplanes.

It's also amazing that they believe they can make a convincing argument by insulting, berating, and brow-beating those that don't see their point-of-view.

Since that is the only sort of language these people seem to understand, allow me to speak to them in their native tongue...

BE RESPECTFUL GET THE FUCK OUT.

I'm sick of moderating comments of assholes who think they can come here and insult everybody.  

If I get so much as a whiff of an inkling that your intent here is to troll, berate, or otherwise cause shit...  You get banned.  No warning, no "friendly reminders"...  Just banned.  Warnings take a lot more time than the simple two clicks I have to perform in order to ban someone.  

You want to talk down to someone?  Do it somewhere else.  I'm out of patience.  

I honestly don't give a damn if your pro-JSF or anti-JSF.  I honestly don't give a damn if you talk shit to me.  But being shitty to other commenters or anybody else in general is not acceptable.  


Published: By: Unknown - 5:30 AM

F-35 ZOMBIE SHUFFLE: FLEET SIZE "UNDER REVIEW".

"That's enough?"

It would seem as though the summer is a very unlucky time for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Last summer, the F-35 weathered some stormy PR after spontaneously combusting during take off.  This would have been bad enough by itself, but the incident caused the JSF to be a no-show at its international debut.

This summer, Lockheed Martin and Joint Program Office are mobilizing their PR departments once again after a not-so-complimentary report was leaked detailing the F-35's lack of dogfighting prowess.  Some have dismissed the report as "garbage" (yet still slam the JSF for being a "bloated failure").  Whatever the merit of the report, it is still a harsh blow to a program that once boasted of the JSF's superiority compared to fourth-generation fighters.

This latest bit of PR shenanigans may soon be forgotten if this next shoe drops, however...

In a document addressed to the United States of America's Senate Armed Services Committee, (SASC), Marine General Joseph Dunford addressed questions about the F-35's troubles thusly:

[QUESTION:]  “Do you believe the nation can afford to procure these aircraft at a cost of $12B to $15B per year for nearly the next 20 years for an aircraft design that will be 30 years old at the completion of the program procurement phase?”

[ANSWER:]  “Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number."

This could be big.

This could mean that the Pentagon is looking at purchasing more F-35s, but given the context, it seems unlikely.   While the U.S. Military seems to have undying patience for the JSF program, the politicians in charge of the pursestrings do not.

Internationally, the Joint Strike Fighter has not quite met the sales expectations envisioned at the start of the program.  While some orders have trickled in, most partner nations have drastically cut their intended numbers.  Others have decided to "wait and see" while upgrading and extending the life of older fighter inventories.  Some, like Canada and Denmark, have "reset" in order to examine other options.

Bottom line:  The F-35 will not sell as well internationally as originally hoped.  If the USA decides to cut its numbers, there could be trouble for the program.  The JSF depends on economies of scale to help bring down unit price.  As sales decrease, the unit price increases.  As price increases, sales decrease.  (etc, etc...)  This could lead to the infamous "death spiral".

I have stated before that the "death spiral" is an unlikely scenario.  There is too much invested already to deem the aircraft a complete failure and start fresh.  Instead, numbers will be drastically cut and the F-35 will become more of a niche aircraft like the B-1B or F-22 instead of next F-16.

Like a proverbial zombie, the JSF program will continue to shuffle along...  But rotten chunks of it are starting to fall off.

[For those who haven't read it, you can find my original "Zombie Shuffle" post here] Published: By: Unknown - 6:37 AM

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: IS THE DOGFIGHT DEAD?

Welcome to QUESTION OF THE WEEK!  During the summer, I hope to post a (hopefully) weekly series asking a simple question with a difficult answer!

Last weeks revelation that the F-35 fared poorly against a F-16 in a simulated dogfight seems to have left aviation experts (and the not-so experts) debating as to whether or not the test was even relevant, given the fact that the F-35 in question was not fitted with some of its more advanced features that would typically give it the advantage.

“It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

This excuse for the F-35's poor performance only highlights what many see as one of the JSF's glaring problems.  It is a "one-trick-pony".  Without its much publicized stealth and sensor technology, the aircraft cannot match fighter designs that are decades old and available for a fraction of the price.

Let's hope stealth and tech is enough...

Defenders of the JSF would point out (and rightly so) that missile and sensor technology has advanced to the point that where the traditional "dogfight" is a relic better left to Hollywood blockbusters.  

As exciting and romantic a dogfight may seem, modern fighter tactics would really prefer pilots to avoid them altogether.  Better to take your opponent out from a distance, preferably before they even know you are there.  This is the promise of the F-35; a ninja-of-the-skies taking down its opponents unseen.  Basically, if an enemy JSF shows up on your scopes...  It's already too late.

Of course, this was the same line of thinking that got  U.S. airpower in trouble over Vietnam.  Fast powerful fighters like the F-4 found that their AIM-7 Sparrow missiles faired poorly against nimble MiGs.  The Sparrow's lack of accuracy was exacerbated by the fact that early F-4 models did not have a cannon.

In order to "lock on" to an enemy target with an AIM-7 Sparrow, the launching fighter needed to "paint" the target with its radar.  The Sparrow would then follow this reflected radar beam onto the target.  This is not so hard to do with bomber flying straight and level, but not so easy with an enemy fighter that can turn faster and is shooting at you.

Similarly, in order for a heat-seeking missile like the AIM-9 Sidewinder to work, its seeker head would have to have a clear view of the enemy's exhaust (the hottest part of the aircraft).  Again, not so easy when the enemy would rather shoot you first.

The JSF standard issue AMRAAM.

Of course, the modern day AIM-120 AMRAAM is a far deal more sophisticated than Vietnam-era Sparrow.  As are modern versions of the Sidewinder.  More accurate, more agile, and "smarter"; the the latest missiles are capable of both LOAL (lock-on after launch) and HOBS (high off-boresight).  This, combined with the JSF's sensors and helmet mounted display, allows the pilot to simply look at the intended target, pull the trigger, and let the missile do all the work.

Indeed, the ability to lock on to and fire a missile at enemy without all the stress of "getting on their six" would put the F-35 at a distinct advantage...  If it was the only aircraft of doing so.

Thales TopSight (as used the MiG-29K and Su-30MKI)

Helmet mounted displays are nothing new.  Aircraft like the Su-27, MiG-29, and Eurofighter Typhoon have been using them for years.  While the F-35's HMD may be the most advanced version available, it still has some teething issues to work out.

HOBS and LOAL capability is not exclusive to the F-35 either.  Almost every fighter in the NATO inventory is compatible with the AMRAAM and Sidewinder.  Missiles like the IRIS-T, Meteor, and MICA offer similar capabilities as well.

While information on Russian air-to-air missiles is rather limited, it would be foolish to assume western superiority.  Russian missiles are actually said to be quite good.

As missile technology has advanced through the years, countermeasures have followed suit.  Modern aircraft have access to far more than the traditional "flares and chaff".  Towed decoys, expendable active decoys, and active radar jamming or "spoofing" can throw off radar-guided missiles.  Heat-seekers can be countered by lasers that lock on to and confuse their seeker head.  

Of course...  There is also the possibility of taking out a missile with another missile.

"But I don't want to fight..."

What "5th generation" fighters like the F-22 and F-35 offer that others cannot is stealth.  While other fighters may be able to match them in weapons, sensors, and countermeasures, 5th-gen fighters should, in theory, have the ability to "see-first, shoot-first".  

The F-22 and F-35 differ in performance, however.  Take away its stealth, and the F-22 Raptor is still a helluva fighter.  Thrust vectoring, supercruise, and a monstrous radar give it an edge over most fighters in any situation.  Add stealth, and you have a near unstoppable force.  Still, the Raptor has an achilles heel, it still pumps out a great deal of heat, and it lacks an IRST suitable for WVR combat.  Get in close enough with an agile aircraft and it could be "Raptor Salad".

The F-35 lacks the F-22's raw performance, but clearly outshines it in sensors.  The 360° Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) certainly should give the pilot a much better idea of what is around the aircraft.  But is this enough?

First, being able to turn your head and target your opponent is of little use if you physically cannot move your head because the helmet is too big for the cockpit.

Second, being stealthy may not be as big of an advantage as it is made out to be.  Radar technology will likely catch up sooner or later.  Unlike other countermeasures, stealth is not easily upgraded since it is "baked in" to the aircraft's design.

Third, stealthiness is not strictly the domain of American fighter manufacturers.  The next 20 years should see a proliferation of stealthy fighters originating from Russia, China, Japan, Turkey, Korea, and possibly others.

China's J-20

So does the F-35's advanced sensors and stealth give an edge in air-to-air combat?  Probably, but this edge would not be 100% effective, nor would it last very long given current advancements technology.

Stating that the F-35 will be able detect and eliminate enemy fighters using no other method but sheer technological superiority seems to be putting all the eggs into one basket.  A basket that happens to need batteries and an active wi-fi connection.

Right now, declaring the dogfight dead seems premature.

What do you think?  Please let me know in the comments below and/or the poll in the upper right hand corner of the blog (may not be visible on the mobile version).

Published: By: Unknown - 10:21 AM

F-35 CAN'T DOGFIGHT. SUPRISED?

Were you surprised by the recent hullaballoo regarding the F-35's lack of dogfighting prowess?  If so, you have not been paying much attention.

Several days ago, an article was posted on the "War is Boring" blogsite entitled:  Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight.  The article described a 5-page report in which a test pilot criticized the JSF's performance during combat testing against a F-16D Fighting Falcon.  Shortly after, War is Boring published the entire report.

Aviation week has hosted the report in PDF form here. Or you can read it below.

F-35 High AoA Maneuvers

The exercise, which occurred in January, pitted an early production F-35A (the standard CTOL model) against a Block 40 F-16D.  The F-35 had no stealth coating, nor did it have weapons mounted internally or externally.  The F-16D carried no weapons, but did mount two 370 gallon wing tanks.

The F-35A seemed to have every advantage.  Its stealth coating would have been on no use in WVR combat, but the absence of it and internal weapons likely saved a few pounds.  Meanwhile, the two-seat F-16D is one of heavier F-16 variants, but its GE-100 engine lacks the thrust of Block 50 models equipped with either the General Electric F110-GE-129 or Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-129 (28,000lbs of thrust vs 29,400lbs).  The F-16D was also carrying two external fuel tanks, limiting maneuvers to 7g until they were empty, as well as adding weight and drag.

To put is simply, the Viper was sandbagging.

Despite this, the F-35 faired poorly.  Its mass, small wing area, lack of thrust, intrusive flight software and cumbersome helmet all conspired against it.

The report is well worth a read, but here are some choice bits:

• Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability. 

• The EM of the F-35A is substantially inferior to the F-15E with PW-229s due to a smaller wing, similar weight, and ~15,000 Ibs less in afterburner thrust. So, in general, the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential. Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement. 

• Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. 

• No effective guns defense was found during this test. 

• The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There were multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him.

• Though the aircraft has proven it is capable of high AOA flight, it wasn't effective for killing or surviving attacks primarily due to lack of energy maneuverability. 

The report also goes into detail about the HMD displaying HMD BST FAULT lights as well as intrusive flight software that would fight the pilots commands initially, but then perform the inputed maneuver after-the-fact.

I can't imagine how those "antlers" could be a problem...

Some of these problems, like the intrusive flight software could be fixed with a mere software patch.  Others, like the bulky helmet, might be correctable in the future given a redesign of the cockpit and/or helmet itself.  

Other issues, like the lack of power, high weight, and small wings are a little tougher to fix.  While a more powerful engine is being studied for the JSF, do not expect to see it anytime soon.  Even then, it likely would not be enough.  As the report states, the F-35 weighs nearly as much as an F-15E, yet makes do with about ¾ of the power and wing area.  By comparison, the F-16 weighs in at just over half of the F-15Es weight, and fittingly has 50% of the power, and 50% of the wing area.

In short, you cannot change the laws of physics.  The F-35 simply has less thrust and lift than the F-16 compared to its weight.

So why is everybody surprised by this report?

It probably has not helped that, in its fervor to promote the controversial JSF, Lockheed Martin has made claims that the F-35 has equal or better kinematics than 4th generation fighters.

As luck would have it, the Lockheed Martin test pilot in the video above extols the virtues of both the F-35's dogfighting capability and its helmet...  Two issues specifically noted in the report as being lacking.

Following this latest report, the folks at Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office have done some backpedaling, stating that the 5-page report "Doesn't Tell the Entire Story", since the F-35 used  "was not equipped with many of the features that gives it an advantage".

“It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

Given that the report mentioned issues with the helmet's mobility this might not have been much of a game changer.  Also, while the AMRAAM is HOBS (high off-boresight) missile, using it thus reduces the missile's energy as it maneuvers and reduces its probability of kill (pK).  There is also no mention that the F-16 (or any other modern fighter) could potentially have the same HOBS capability, as well as a more suitable WVR missile like the AIM-9X or IRIS-T.

Long time JSF defenders, The Lexington Institute, have gone so far as to call the F-35's lack of dogfighting chops to be a feature, not a bug.  Err...  Yeah.

While it is true that BVR combat has been predominant since the Gulf War, that does not mean the days of the dogfight are over.  Air combat throughout the last few decades has been extremely lopsided.  A vastly superior force taking on antiquated fighters that are outnumbered, poorly maintained, flown by less experienced pilots, and lacking modern AWAC support.

The USAF had declared the gun passé prior to the Vietnam War, a deadly mistake for its pilots.  Are they making the same mistake again?  (More on this in a later post...)

Is it just for decoration?

Last summer, during my "Fighter Jet Fight Club" series, I routinely gave the F-35 low marks in the dogfighting category.  While this was mostly educated guessing on my part, I can now back up those low scores even more.  

With more evidence that the F-35 simply is not a good dogfighter, the Joint Program Office seems to be downplaying the need for such.  Instead they continue to play to the JSF's strengths.  They state the F-35 was superior to both the A-10 and F-16 during a close air support (CAS) exercise, without going into detail as to what that exercise entailed.  They also remind us that the F-35 is still meeting "test points" like dropping bombs onto target.

This could be a sticky one, however.  The idea of a fighter jet that cannot "turn and burn" as good as an aircraft designed in the 70s seems like a giant step backward to some.  At the very least, it will make people question if an aircraft that is so expensive, and so late, is even worth it. Published: By: Unknown - 4:06 PM

Get well soon!

Best selfie after getting hit by car on my bike and having surgery for fractured hip. No F-35 flying for a while. pic.twitter.com/UapUW0qiV3

— billie flynn (@billieflynn) June 18, 2015

I have not always agreed with Lockheed Martin test pilot (and former CF-18 pilot) Billie Flynn, but I hope you will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery so he can get back to doing the thing he obviously loves.

Get well soon, Billie!
Published: By: Unknown - 6:31 PM

UPDATE: Hungarian Gripens are NOT GROUNDED

(from FoxtrotAlpha.Jalopnik.com)

Contrary to some reports, the Hungarian Gripen fleet has not been grounded following two incidents over the last two months.

The cause of the second crash was likely caused by a software error that prevented the front landing gear from deploying, forcing the pilot to initiate a belly landing (as seen in the cool .GIF above).  The pilot suffered a vertebrae fracture thanks to a non-separating ejection seat.

The previous accident, which involved a two-seater JAS-39D overshooting the runway was caused by ""The crew not brake during landing two seater and before the end of the track was ejected. Both pilots are fine. The airplane rolled out of the flight and landing runways free field " .  It remains under investigation, but the aircraft is a write-off.

Despite these two recent incidents, the Gripen remains a remarkably safe aircraft to fly,

Published: By: Unknown - 7:17 AM

Ketchup time...

Yeah yeah...  I know...  I've been away.  That real life stuff happening again.

I'm not going to apologize too much.  The weather has finally turned nice which means I can actually go outdoors and enjoy a beer instead of hunching over a keyboard.  You can pretty much guess which one I find more enjoyable!

Anyway, time to catch up...

The Rafale gets a (small) boost.

I'm still not exactly sure what's going on...

The Indian Rafale deal has finally come to a...  Middle?

The seemingly perpetual on again/off again nature of negotiations between France and India have led to a token buy of 36 French-built Rafales, down from 126; most of which would be built by HAL, India's indigenous aircraft manufacturer.  India's own government seems confused about how and why this all went down the way it did.

India's air force is simply baffling in its variety, why should its procurement be any different?

The blow has been softened considerable for Dassault, with both Egypt and Qatar each ordering 24 Rafales each.

One year ago, the Rafale had no export sales whatsoever, over the last three months, the ink is drying on contracts for 84 Rafales sold...  Not bad.

The Pentagon has lost its dang mind...

"That'll buff right out..."

So what does The Pentagon do when the F-35 is years late, billions over budget, and still cannot make it over the Atlantic ocean due to a tendency to catch fire on the runway?

ORDER MORE!

Not just a few more, but a "group buy" of 450 airframes over 3 years.  This would enable JSF production to proceed at full steam without annual congressional approval.  There is also the "hope" that such a solid commitment combined with increased production will result in a price drop.  This, despite the fact that F-35 prices have shown no evidence of dropping due to increased production in the past.  

I think we all know the real reason behind this.

Committing to 450 airframes would finally put the JSF past the point of no return, not only for the USA, but for its foreign partners as well.  The F-35 is precariously close to that point already, thanks to a lack of true competition for its largest buyers (USAF, USMC, and RAF).  A bulk buy order at this point would ensure the JSF program's survival by virtue of simple momentum.

Peter MacKay steps out

Former Defense Minister Peter MacKay announced his departure from politics a couple of weeks ago, disappointing editorial cartoonists everywhere.  

To say MacKay has had a colorful career in politics would be an understatement.  His tenure as Defense Minister alone was enough to make him a household name, what with the F-35 purchase (and reset), shipbuilding, Cyclone teething problems, hitching helicopter rides, and the like.  His time as Justice Minister was just as "interesting", being behind controversial laws like C-51 and C-36 prostitution bill.  Add to all that is personal life, being romantically linked with Belinda Stronach and Condoleezza Rice, and you have a character is certainly is larger-than-life.

I had the pleasure of meeting the Honorable Peter MacKay, in a record store of all places, and I must say, he was a very well spoken and intelligent man.  I may not agree with him on many things, but I certainly do respect him.  

It just isn't going to be the same without him.

Hungary grounds its Gripens

Ouch

Both Hungary and Czechoslovakia have grounded their Gripen fleets after two Hungarian Gripen crashes in as many months.  

While the timing of both crashes are uncomfortably close together, there seems to be little connecting the two crashes.  The first crash was caused when the aircraft overran the runway.  The second was caused by a malfunctioning front landing gear.  Neither incident resulted in a fatality, but the pilot in the second crash did suffer a spinal injury.  

Investigations are underway to determine the underlying cause of both crashes.  

Summer slow-down

Given the choice between sitting at a computer or riding my bike...  I'll choose my bike.  

This last winter was miserable here in Nova Scotia so I intend on enjoying this summer to its fullest.  With that in mind, I will only be sporadically updating over the next few months.  I also will not be monitoring comments too closely (I barely have time to do that as it is!).

Things will likely heat up again as the election approaches in the fall.  More so if any of the political parties actually have the guts to take a stand on military procurement (yeah right!).

Until then...  Enjoy your summer.

Published: By: Unknown - 8:06 AM