Sukhoi T50 PAK-FA

[rickshaw]

Another subtext to that would be that finally, after decades, Canada decides to grow a pair and not shop in the US for their aircraft.  By and Large that would be a far better choice compared to the nice shiny polished turd JSF.  Superbugs would be better, for gods' sakes.

I am unsure why people are so anti-F-35.  If you're want to fight older MiGs, then the "Superbug" will be fine.  If you're only intending to drop bombs on Taleban and Al Q'aeda type insurgents, then it will be fine.  You want to fight people with PAK-FAs, the the F/A-18F won't do as well as the F-35.

[Sauragnmon]

I am anti-JSF because there is such a limited payload for the aircraft, it lacks thrust vectoring, and overall is being over-marketed as a supreme aircraft if only because the US refuses to export F-22s.  Canada in this case is aiming to replace its combat aircraft, of which there is only the CF-188 airframe, with JSF.  Unlike other countries acquiring it, like Britain, this is to be the sole aircraft we use, for missions such as northern patrols and other long-leg flights.  If the engine gives out in the middle of nowhere, the pilot quite likely is in the position marked "screwed" because there are large tracts of unforgiving wilderness where not a soul lives on the northern patrols.

The economic benefits are not even garunteed with regards to the F-35 - there's a Possibility we'll get contracts, but nothing is set in stone, so declaring it's good for the economy is not entirely true.

[Taiidantomcat]

overall is being over-marketed as a supreme aircraft if only because the US refuses to export F-22s. 

If its any consolation, not even the US got as many F-22s as it desired, and is being told the same thing about the awesomeness that is the F-35.  No one is safe.

[pyro-manic]

Plus it's ugly. That is of course the most important factor.

[dy031101]

I am anti-JSF because there is such a limited payload for the aircraft, it lacks thrust vectoring, and overall is being over-marketed as a supreme aircraft if only because the US refuses to export F-22s.

You do realize that F-35, too, can carry payload externally, right?

If the engine gives out in the middle of nowhere, the pilot quite likely is in the position marked "screwed" because there are large tracts of unforgiving wilderness where not a soul lives on the northern patrols.

Although theoretically twin-engine layout allows an airplane to in case of a single-engine failure limp back to base with the good one, so far I have failed to notice any twin-engine combat jet having a better crash record than a single-engine one.  And just one engine throwing a fit would ground a twin-engine plane as well.

Would modern aircraft be designed as a twin-engine one just because it's meant to operate over the ocean?  Or is it just because the airframe is too heavy for a single engine?

[GTX]

[Off topic Rant - sorry!]

What a a load of ignorance! 

such a limited payload for the aircraft

It can carry internal and external + if you are using PGMs why bother with large loads?  Learn a bit about modern air warfare.

it lacks thrust vectoring,

So friggin' what?  Thrust vectoring is over-hyped and of minimal real usefulness. 

Unlike other countries acquiring it, like Britain, this is to be the sole aircraft we use, for missions such as northern patrols and other long-leg flights.

Oh, and Australia is so different? One could also call it being efficient - multiple different platforms is more costly!

If the engine gives out in the middle of nowhere, the pilot quite likely is in the position marked "screwed"

I am so sick of hearing this so-called twin engine requirement touted.  It is gibberish!  Modern jet engines are incredibly reliable...so much so that the businesses involved with maintaining them are facing extremely bleak prospects for the future. 

there's a Possibility we'll get contracts, but nothing is set in stone, so declaring it's good for the economy is not entirely true.

Maybe you should check your facts - Canadian companies have already won numerous contracts.  I only wish my Government gave the same level of support to your companies as mine!

There are far to many people around who like to do nothing more than bash the F-35.  In fact I am convinced they want nothing more than a 'notch on their belts'. How about being constructive for a change!

Greg

[rickshaw]

I am anti-JSF because there is such a limited payload for the aircraft, it lacks thrust vectoring, and overall is being over-marketed as a supreme aircraft if only because the US refuses to export F-22s.  Canada in this case is aiming to replace its combat aircraft, of which there is only the CF-188 airframe, with JSF.  Unlike other countries acquiring it, like Britain, this is to be the sole aircraft we use, for missions such as northern patrols and other long-leg flights.  If the engine gives out in the middle of nowhere, the pilot quite likely is in the position marked "screwed" because there are large tracts of unforgiving wilderness where not a soul lives on the northern patrols.

Others have pointed out the illogicality of many of your arguments.  I'm merely add that the twin-engine argument was one which really died when the F-16 was adopted by Norway.  They make extensive over-sea flights in the far north and have not had an appreciably higher loss rate merely because the F-16 has a single engine.  The twin-engine issue might have been relevant 30+ years ago.  Today?  Not really valid IMO.

As to the difference between the F-22 and the F-35 - the F-35 IMHO is going to end up a great deal more advanced than the F-22.  The only major difference will be range and payload.   The F-35's systems, particularly that EO observation system will be considerably in advance of the F-22.   So, not exporting the F-22 has given the US a short-term advantage but in the long-term, it will actually be negated by the advances of the F-35 which they will be exporting.

As for thrust vectoring, I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 actually has that ace up its sleeve.  Afterall, the rear nozzle is vectorable.  Whether it can be done in flight has yet to be demonstrated but I wouldn't be surprised if it can.

The economic benefits are not even garunteed with regards to the F-35 - there's a Possibility we'll get contracts, but nothing is set in stone, so declaring it's good for the economy is not entirely true.

I think you're talking more about off-sets.  I have no idea what the contractual arrangements are for the F-35 but if a nation purchasing it can't swing a deal on off-sets then they really have no one else to blame IMO.

[dy031101]

F-CK-1 would have been a single-engine aircraft if the US would export the F100- and that is a fighter made to cater the ROCAF, an air force operating in an island environment and whose enemies will always have to come over the ocean.

[Fulcrum]

I sure hope we can get back on topic & not re-enact a previous arguement.

[GTX]

Yes, back to normal programming.  How about an uninhabited version - may happen in the life of the T50:



Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Carrier version perhaps:



Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

Would a Yak-41-style STOVL what-if place the internal weapon bays in jeopardy? 

[Spey_Phantom]

the T-50 now has a new designation, it is now known as the Su-57 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-new-su-57-stealth-fighter-might-be-giant-waste-21736