The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[AlexanderM]

Full afterburner takeoffs should not take a lot of runway. It might be terminology, but using afterburners and doing a vertical zoom climb was pioneered back in the 80's by F-15 and F-16 pilots. The aircraft had power to weight ratios over unity with afterburner, allowing them to accelerate in vertical climbs.....

I'm not clear if the F-35 has a greater than usual landing run compared to similarly sized fighters, but the Paris Airshow demonstration had the plane with a full loadout so was landing heavier than what may be normal.

I'm now thinking that the extra runway length is likely only required when it carries a full external load, as it can carry quite a bit of external weapons and fuel. I imagine that we would normally use the aircraft with internal weapons and fuel only so it wouldn't normally require more runway, it's just that we would need it just in case.

 

[Loachman]

the length of runway is for landing?

I am not quite sure what your question is.

More runway is generally required for landing, compared to take-off.

One can generally begin one's take-off run at or near the threshold of a runway, but the touchdown zone is generally between 500 and 1000 feet down the runway.

A jet engine is more powerful than brakes. An aircraft will accelerate more quickly than it can decelerate, hence the landing roll will be longer.

Tailhooks and drogue chutes can be used to shorten the landing roll, but I do not believe that F35A has either.

Some information regarding runways and markings can be found at http://code7700.com/aim_point_vs_touchdown_point.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway

 

[AlexanderM]

I am not quite sure what your question is.

More runway is generally required for landing, compared to take-off.

One can generally begin one's take-off run at or near the threshold of a runway, but the touchdown zone is generally between 500 and 1000 feet down the runway.

A jet engine is more powerful than brakes. An aircraft will accelerate more quickly than it can decelerate, hence the landing roll will be longer.

Tailhooks and drogue chutes can be used to shorten the landing roll, but I do not believe that F35A has either.

Some information regarding runways and markings can be found at http://code7700.com/aim_point_vs_touchdown_point.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway

Your obviously not quite sure what my question is. In order to operate the F-35 I remember that in the original $9B budget there was money to lengthen some of our airfields, so when I saw how quickly the F-35 got up in the air I thought, it doesn't look like it needs much runway, so why do we need to lenghten some airfields? That is all.

 

[YeomanScrap]

I am not quite sure what your question is.

More runway is generally required for landing, compared to take-off.

One can generally begin one's take-off run at or near the threshold of a runway, but the touchdown zone is generally between 500 and 1000 feet down the runway.

A jet engine is more powerful than brakes. An aircraft will accelerate more quickly than it can decelerate, hence the landing roll will be longer.

Tailhooks and drogue chutes can be used to shorten the landing roll, but I do not believe that F35A has either.

Some information regarding runways and markings can be found at http://code7700.com/aim_point_vs_touchdown_point.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway

F-35A has a dinky Air Force hook. Wouldn't want to use it every landing.

Your obviously not quite sure what my question is. In order to operate the F-35 I remember that in the original $9B budget there was money to lengthen some of our airfields, so when I saw how quickly the F-35 got up in the air I thought, it doesn't look like it needs much runway, so why do we need to lenghten some airfields? That is all.

Building off Loachman's explanation:

It's landing with a load. The F-35 can carry a hell of a lot more than the Hornet (empty weight 29,000lb vs. 23,000lb, but MTOW 70,000lb vs. 52,000lb), and trying to bring that back at 160kts is a tonne of kinetic energy. Said tonne of energy has to be carried away by 2 brakes for which weight and size are far more important than performance. This takes time and runway length.

Now, regarding the actual budget: Maybe the crosswind rwy at Bagotville? It's the only one I can think that's a bit tight (if you can call a full nautical mile tight). The main runways at CYOD and CYBG are 10,000ft. or more. The other option is a political hatchet job. Always a possibility with the F-35.

 

[jmt18325]

I thought the runways that may have needed lengthening were Inuvik and Rankin Inlet? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_NORAD_Region_Forward_Operating_Locations

Edit: Based on that possibly Yellowknife as well - Iqaluit would seem to be fine, and Goose Bay (not an official FOB, but used as a forward operating location) would definitely be fine.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some F-35As will have drag chute:

Dutch join Norwegians on F-35 brake chute development
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dutch-join-norwegians-on-f-35-brake-chute-developmen-432109/

Canada had shown interest:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norway-set-to-receive-first-drag-chute-equipped-f-35-402965/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Round and round they go (note other manufacturers):

Liberal ministers meet Lockheed Martin at Paris Air Show, snub Boeing

The Trudeau government appears to have given aerospace giant Boeing the cold shoulder in Paris -- the latest sign that the Liberal government's plan to buy Super Hornet fighter jets could be on the rocks.

Three cabinet ministers are in the French capital this week to promote Canada's aerospace sector and meet various companies at the Paris Air Show, one of the largest such exhibitions in the world.

Those meetings included discussions with Lockheed Martin, which is hoping its F-35 stealth fighter will replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s whenever a competition is launched. Meetings between Canadian officials and three other fighter-jet makers -- French firm Dassault, Sweden's Saab and European consortium Eurofighter -- were also scheduled [emphasis added].

But in separate interviews, Transport Minister Marc Garneau and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains said there were no plans to sit down with Boeing officials.

Bains specifically cited Boeing's complaints to the U.S. Commerce Department about Canadian rival Bombardier as the reason for the snub.

"We think that approach makes no sense, and we've been very clear about the fact that we reject those allegations that they're making," Bains said by telephone.

"Hence that is why we didn't engage with Boeing at this stage."

Boeing also had its invitation to a reception hosted by Canadian Ambassador to France Lawrence Cannon rescinded, said one source who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-ministers-meet-lockheed-martin-at-paris-air-show-snub-boeing-1.3466645

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Quirky]

I thought the runways that may have needed lengthening were Inuvik and Rankin Inlet? 

They need lengthening regardless of what aircraft we operate, unless of course Arctic Sovereignty isn't a priority anymore. The strips at Inuvik and Rankin are tiny.

 

[suffolkowner]

I don't think there's anyway that runway improvements were included in the $9B/65=$138. I think this has been discussed at length here before but I don't think the F-35 actually needs 10,000 ft of runway, there's a healthy safety margin in there

 

[George Wallace]

Looking at this, and fearing that someone in the Government may have seen it as well, I fear that the Good Idea Faerie may find this the least expensive way to purchase enough F-35's to replace all our fighter fleets and still have money to spare.  For your viewing pleasure, the possible future of the RCAF fighter element:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhzoH17yf3o

>

 

[Spencer100]

This that how the Iranians did it with their own homegrown "5th gen stealth" fighter? 

If it can work for them..........

 

[AlexanderM]

I don't think there's anyway that runway improvements were included in the $9B/65=$138. I think this has been discussed at length here before but I don't think the F-35 actually needs 10,000 ft of runway, there's a healthy safety margin in there

The minimum is 8,000 ft, 10,000 is preferred. I don't believe any of the forward operating bases have the required minimum and it was included in the original budget.

Here is the source.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page

Here is the quote.

Infrastructure: New construction as well as upgrades to existing infrastructure is required for two Main Operating Bases, in Bagotville, Quebec and Cold Lake, Alberta and for the five Forward Operating Locations in Inuvik and Yellowknife in the North West Territories; Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet in Nunavut; and Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador. A preliminary cost estimate to potentially accommodate an F-35A fleet has been developed based on a number of planning assumptions related to operational concepts in Canada and the current understanding of facility requirements published by the F-35 Joint Program Office.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Runways is one of the many infrastructure issues that need to be resolved.

 

[suffolkowner]

The minimum is 8,000 ft, 10,000 is preferred. I don't believe any of the forward operating bases have the required minimum and it was included in the original budget.

Here is the source.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page

Here is the quote.

Infrastructure: New construction as well as upgrades to existing infrastructure is required for two Main Operating Bases, in Bagotville, Quebec and Cold Lake, Alberta and for the five Forward Operating Locations in Inuvik and Yellowknife in the North West Territories; Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet in Nunavut; and Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador. A preliminary cost estimate to potentially accommodate an F-35A fleet has been developed based on a number of planning assumptions related to operational concepts in Canada and the current understanding of facility requirements published by the F-35 Joint Program Office.

I don't doubt that the infrastructure needs to be done just that it can be done within a $9B budget. Hangers will probably need to be insulated and fireproofed and adding 2000-4000 ft of runway to inuvik and rankin inlet is not going to be cheap. I believe the 10000 ft is to give enough room to abandon a take off attempt. 

18 interim F-35's would be an interesting development in this whole saga, I wonder how serious the Liberals are about their Boeing feelings and what it means for the CP-140 and CC-150 replacement?

 

[Quirky]

I don't doubt that the infrastructure needs to be done just that it can be done within a $9B budget. Hangers will probably need to be insulated and fireproofed and adding 2000-4000 ft of runway to inuvik and rankin inlet is not going to be cheap. I believe the 10000 ft is to give enough room to abandon a take off attempt. 

What they should do is stop with this Cold Lake and Bagotville non sense. New hangars and infrastructure needs to be build, might as well start fresh at YEG and Mirabel, hell all our parts depots are there anyway. Retention problems fixed.

 

[jmt18325]

What they should do is stop with this Cold Lake and Bagotville non sense. New hangars and infrastructure needs to be build, might as well start fresh at YEG and Mirabel, hell all our parts depots are there anyway. Retention problems fixed.

That's a great idea, actually.

 

[Good2Golf]

What they should do is stop with this Cold Lake and Bagotville non sense. New hangars and infrastructure needs to be build, might as well start fresh at YEG and Mirabel, hell all our parts depots are there anyway. Retention problems fixed.

Until they're driven out of the big cities like the city folk did to the Sabres in Downsview...

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[jmt18325]

I don't doubt that the infrastructure needs to be done just that it can be done within a $9B budget. Hangers will probably need to be insulated and fireproofed and adding 2000-4000 ft of runway to inuvik and rankin inlet is not going to be cheap. I believe the 10000 ft is to give enough room to abandon a take off attempt. 

18 interim F-35's would be an interesting development in this whole saga, I wonder how serious the Liberals are about their Boeing feelings and what it means for the CP-140 and CC-150 replacement?

I think the Liberals are very serious about Boeing.  As for the CP-140: Swordfish or Sea Herc.  For the CC- 150: Voyager.

 

[Kirkhill]

... for the CP-140: Swordfish ....

Good choice.

Proven track record.  Low maintenance.  Low infrastructure requirement.  Short field capable.  Good all round vision.

Always liked the Stringbag.

 

[Kirkhill]

I presume this is the one you were talking about.

http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf