AlexanderM said:The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.
Well then - better than an outside chance.
AlexanderM said:The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.
AlexanderM said:The Rafale is not a single engine fighter.
The current version of the fighter does not have the best thrust to weight ratio, although not bad, but for the contract to India, which may not happen, they were to develop a more powerful version of the engine, with an afterburner thrust of 90 kN, which would make it equal with the Typhoon in a smaller airframe. If we did go with the Rafale I would hope we would also go with the 90 kN engine, although I'm not entirely certain of the status of that engine, as to where they are in terms of development.Oldgateboatdriver said:my understanding is that Rafale has the best Thrust to weight ratio of all the available fighters on the market currently - something that fighter jocks appreciate in a dog fight (I have been told that push-come-to-shove, a Rafale M could be backed up to the stern of the Charles-de-Gaule and take off without catapults if need be. Anybody seen that also?)
MarkOttawa said:Cheap (single-engine) F-16V with AESA radar anyone--maybe then some money for RCN :
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/21/lockheeds-new-f-16v-flies-advanced-aesa-radar/74319238/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-enhanced-f-16v-makes-first-flight-418014/
http://www.janes.com/article/55400/adex-2015-f-16v-takes-first-flight
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newslockheed-completes-maiden-flight-of-f-16v-aircraft-4699541
Mark
Ottawa
Spectrum said:A question for SupersonicMax and others in the know...
What's the ballpark minimum number of airframes that would be required to meet our NORAD commitments while factoring in training and maintenence?
Eye In The Sky said:I hope the fighter sqn's get more than 40. We had what, 130'ish CF-18s at the get go. In the tradition of replacement we in Canada tend to face (replace 40 of the old with 20 of the new...then use them beyond the intended date), I hope it is more into the 60 range at least.
But, going off recent (last 2 decades) history of getting needed replacement tails for the RCAF, I think the Hornet Sqn's might want to start designing their "50th Anniversary" patch like the Sea King community had the...'opportunity'...to do. And then pass it onto us 140 folks, so we don't have to start from scratch either.
Mr Trudeau might present a different public face to the LPC, but I'll wait for proof that the party overall isn't the 'same bunch of folks from before'. Early indications aren't giving me a warm and fuzzy.
Hahahaha... Oh, you were serious?jmt18325 said:There was nothing scandalous about Gagnier, other than what was manufactured.
I hope so.PuckChaser said:Hahahaha... Oh, you were serious?
Spectrum said:A question for SupersonicMax and others in the know...
What's the ballpark minimum number of airframes that would be required to meet our NORAD commitments while factoring in training and maintenence?
Retired AF Guy said:I've being out of the field for a long time but I would say what you are asking for is probably classified.
There was nothing scandalous about Gagnier, other than what was manufactured
Retired AF Guy said:I've being out of the field for a long time but I would say what you are asking for is probably classified.
Thucydides said:If anyone seriously believes the RCAF will get a new fighter to replace the CF-18 once the CF-35 is cancelled, then you are smoking something that you should share with the rest of us.
The CF-18 replacement will be on infinite hold like the Sea King replacement, and eventually the RCAF will be a global favourite at air shows with its "historic aircraft" flypasts.
Being unable to interoperate effectively with allies, much less be able to fight in the interconnected "networked nodes" forms of high end warfare (or defend against the peer enemies who also fight that way) is of little concern to politicians who rarely pay in blood or treasure for the results of their decisions.
Good2Golf said:I took EITS' comment to refer to the theme of Liberal election-related posturing using Defence capabilities as the pawns, ie like Chretien's Red Book: "I says zero 'elicopters! Zip! Nada! Zilch!" This time: "We'll hold a fair and transparent competition...that will exclude the F-35."
Maybe it was me, though, and EITS was referring to Gagnier? ???
G2G