F-22 or F-35

[belka]

I would think the F-18E/F would be a very good option.  Similar airframes and systems - the techs and pilots are familiar with the plane from day 1 (cuts down training costs).  Parts will be available for quite a long time I think.  The US Navy just finished converting its Tomcat squadron with the E/F version and the Prowler squadrons are beginning to be replaced with the G version.  Plus it's dual engine. 

We don't need last generation fighters.  There will be ways to lock the "invisible" airplanes on radar soon enough. 

The Superbugs are only 20% compatible with our current C/D models. Everything is different, the engines are bigger, the landing gear is beefier, flight controls are larger, etc. I had a chance to compare a Superhornet to our Hornet side by side and the difference was very noticeable. The E/F models are also last (4th) gen fighters, so again, we won't be upgrading to the latest and greatest.

Also, today's engines are extremely reliable and failures are rarely an occurrence. The engines are the most reliable part of the hornet. I don't think anyone feels safer crossing the Atlantic on a 2 engine aircraft vise one with 4.

 

[SupersonicMax]

NINJA, yes, the airplane is different but the systems are very similar from what I hear.  The cockpit layout is very similar which makes the transition easier form the Hornet to the Superhornet.  I'm not talking about compatibility but similarity (by the way, we have upgraded A/B models, not C/D.  The D version was designed to have a WSO in the back, which our B models obviously don't have). 

2 vs 4, no question, I feel safe in both.  1 engine vs 2?  I'll take the 2 engines thank you.  You ask the question to any Canadian Fighter pilot out there right now and they'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you.  And you can also tell that to my instructor and good friend that ejected after a HP Turbine Blade failure on the Hawk not too long ago. 

Max

 

[observor 69]

F-16 vs F-18, we chose  18's, why? Two engines. At least that's the way I remember it. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You ask the question to any Canadian Fighter pilot out there right now and they'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you."

Would love to if any where on this board.

 

[belka]

You ask the question to any Canadian Fighter pilot out there right now and they'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you. 

I'm not doubting that pilots FEEL safer in a 2 engined fighter jet. I overheard a conversation at work with our pilots discussing the single-engined F-35. No doubt they prefer having two engines flying over the Arctic in the middle of winter. I wonder how many F-16's were lost due to engine failures.

F-16 vs F-18, we chose  18's, why? Two engines. At least that's the way I remember it. 

If two engines are such a concern to the Air Force, then why put all this money towards the F-35? They possibly couldn't change their minds so soon.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I'm not doubting that pilots FEEL safer in a 2 engined fighter jet. I overheard a conversation at work with our pilots discussing the single-engined F-35. No doubt they prefer having two engines flying over the Arctic in the middle of winter. I wonder how many F-16's were lost due to engine failures.

If two engines are such a concern to the Air Force, then why put all this money towards the F-35? They possibly couldn't change their minds so soon.

Remember (or were you in the CF when that happenned?) when a guy's jet coming back from the East Coast threw a whole turbine out the side of his jets?  He had to shut down his left engine.  If it had been a single engine aircraft, he would have had to use the most reliable piece of kit in the airplane IMHO, the Ejection Seat (not the engines like you seem to suggest).  Thankfully, he had 1 good engine (the second one) and was able to recover at home plate where he engaged the cable IIRC. 

I fly a single engine jet every day (well, almost every day) and even though I love the plane and the flying, I can't wait to see the day I'll fly something with more than 1 engine on it. There was so far (in the 8 years we've been operating the Hawk), 2 crashes due to Mechanical Engine Failure (that is 100% of the airplanes that have been written off).  How many airplanes did we write off in the 25 years we've been operating the Hornet have been written off due to Engine Faillures?

Max

 

[belka]

How many airplanes did we write off in the 25 years we've been operating the Hornet have been written off due to Engine Faillures?

From what I've found so far out of 18, only 1. The other crashes did not indicate the causes however, so who knows what the real number is.

Is the reason why Canada does consider single-engined (besides the F-35) because of the size of the country and lack of airfields? The dutch have F-16's and although the country is small, I doubt that if one of them lost thrust, he would be able to find an airfield to land in. Fighters aren't exactly the best gliders. I'd rather have a sqn full of "disposable" fighters, like the 16's, which are cheap and easier to maintain.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The F-35 isn't quite disposable, especially if you have only 60...

EDIT:  Fighters aren't gliders but they can still glide at a decent ratio.  They don't just fall like a brick.

 

[belka]

The F-35 isn't quite disposable, especially if you have only 60...

haha. But the F-35 isn't what I was refering to. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

No, but we're not debating if we should buy F-16s..  But F-22, F-35 or an other potential candidate, the Superhornet. 

 

[tabernac]

No, but we're not debating if we should buy F-16s..  But F-22, F-35 or an other potential candidate, the Superhornet. 

Why dont we just sign a 2-part "super" contract with LockMart that details part 1 as temporary replacement using the Superhornet, and part 2 as permenant replacement with F-35? Part 1 would replace at 1:1 all combat and training aircraft, with only a few Superhornets as spares.

After several years (call it 2025) the aircraft would A) be sold back to LockMart or B) be sold off to some deserving nation (wouldn't it be nice if that nation were Afghanistan?) as part 2 of the contract would be set in motion: phasing in x number of F-35s to equip 2 Cmbt Sqns and a Trg Sqn.

With 2025 as a (randomly selected date) teething problems should be a non-starter. One of the issues would be the training of the folks who repair these beasts.  Ideally by 2025 the cost for the F-35 would have fallen to a more reasonable level.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The Superhornet is built by Boeing, so that makes it just complicated right there.  Again, I'm not so sure how the 1 engine thing will fly.  The government spent some money on it already (just to secure the production of parts in Canada) but we never commited to the F-35 itself.  I personally hope it will fall through and we'll get something with 2 engines.

Superhornet Pros:  Cheaper, something we already are familiar with, maintenance (ie:  no big moving parts like the F-35), 2 engines. 

Max

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Superhornet doesn't have big moving parts?

 

[vonGarvin]

The Superhornet doesn't have big moving parts?

Nope.  It's just one BIG moving part! ;D
(I'm sure it does, I think the "moving parts" phrase might have been a metaphor for "it's simpler to maintain")

 

[tabernac]

The Superhornet is built by Boeing, so that makes it just complicated right there.

IIRC, Airbus pitched the idea that they would buy some Hercs for the CF to use, but they would worry about maintaining them. Once the A400M came online, the Hercs would be replaced. Again, Airbus would worry about the details.

 

[belka]

(I'm sure it does, I think the "moving parts" phrase might have been a metaphor for "it's simpler to maintain")

It's not called the "Superbug" for nothing.

 

[SupersonicMax]

NINJA, the F-35 isn't even operational yet.  The Superhornet is.  We needed a new fighter yesterday.  How many more years will it take before we see the first F-35 operational flight?  How many years of delay will it encounter? 

For the moving part comment, I know we would be getting the Land Version (non-STOL), but I was referring more to the Navy version (Big turbine rotating to redirect the thrust for STOL). 

Max

 

[Good2Golf]

NINJA, the F-35 isn't even operational yet.  The Superhornet is.  We needed a new fighter yesterday.  How many more years will it take before we see the first F-35 operational flight?  How many years of delay will it encounter? 

For the moving part comment, I know we would be getting the Land Version (non-STOL), but I was referring more to the Navy version (Big turbine rotating to redirect the thrust for STOL). 

Max

You mean we'll need a new fighter once the ECP583 R2 birds aren't supportable.  I suggest you ask some of the operational pilots around Cool Pool about the 583 birds.  Your incoming CO seemed pretty excited about the capabilities when I was talking to him last week....then again, he only has several thousand hours on the Hornet....

G2G

 

[belka]

NINJA, the F-35 isn't even operational yet.  The Superhornet is.  We needed a new fighter yesterday.  How many more years will it take before we see the first F-35 operational flight?  How many years of delay will it encounter? 

Don't forget, this is the Canadian government we are talking about. They like to fly aircraft until they are completely coming apart in the sky. Take a look at the Herc, the Sea King, the Buffalo's, etc. From an recent CND AF article I read, the Hornets are at 25% of their life span. I agree, we needed new fighters yesterday. But what is the point of getting SuperHornets, a 4th gen fighter?

We won't be like Australia and just get the new Hornets to supplement us until a 5th gen fighter is available. I believe it's a waste of time to get trained on a new airframe that will be in service for less than a decade. We simply don't have the people for that.

For the moving part comment, I know we would be getting the Land Version (non-STOL), but I was referring more to the Navy version (Big turbine rotating to redirect the thrust for STOL). 

IIRC, Canada is interested in the F-35C, the carrier version. Reason being is that it has a larger wingspan which will allow it to hold more fuel, as well as stronger gear for those landings in Inuvik.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You mean we'll need a new fighter once the ECP583 R2 birds aren't supportable.  I suggest you ask some of the operational pilots around Cool Pool about the 583 birds.  Your incoming CO seemed pretty excited about the capabilities when I was talking to him last week....then again, he only has several thousand hours on the Hornet....

G2G

Removed for OPSEC.