Canadian Govt buys 18 Super Hornets

[trampbike]

Rockie, how about you read this: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/Vimy_ ... per_33.pdf, then come back to us with your toughtful criticisms? And I'm not talking about an emotional response to you imagining having your single engine fail out on you.

[Rockie]

Rockie, how about you read this: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/Vimy_ ... per_33.pdf, then come back to us with your toughtful criticisms? And I'm not talking about an emotional response to you imagining having your single engine fail out on you.

An interesting read. It paints a clear picture of a process resembling fencing leading a herd of cows into a single file toward one destination - in this case the F-35. The author illustrates why the government was "predisposed" to get the F-35 , and also points out that the assessment of other options was carried out by the severely understaffed office at DND (5 people) that was responsible for the F-35. The details of that assessment are unknown given the classified nature. The statement of requirements for the new aircraft was also heavily influenced by those 5 people and included 6 items that only the F-35 could fill. When other departments were briefed in the author states they came around to the F-35 as the only option able to meet those requirements, in other words they bought the sell job.

I maintain there needs to be a proper, realistic competition starting from a zero baseline involving all the appropriate government departments, using all appropriate considerations and without any predisposition toward any of the contenders. It is the only way to avoid the corralling effect toward a predetermined choice, and if that process chooses the F-35 so be it. But that hasn't happened yet.

My opinion on the single engine is not emotional, it is based on physics you should understand well:

- Lift opposes gravity
- Lift requires speed
- Drag opposes speed
- Thrust opposes drag

Ergo, no thrust = smoking hole in the ground.

Simple physics.

[frosti]

My opinion on the single engine is not emotional, it is based on physics you should understand well:

- Lift opposes gravity
- Lift requires speed
- Drag opposes speed
- Thrust opposes drag

Ergo, no thrust = smoking hole in the ground.

Simple physics.

Your thinking is obsolete and no one else who operates, or will soon operate, F-35s in the North (USAF, Finland and Denmark) agrees. 12 western-oriented air forces have chosen the F35 over the Super Hornet with the exception of Canada. Does this make everyone else, or us, stupid? Your extra engine will be irrelevant when you are shot down from a far more advanced aircraft that you can't see.

[goingnowherefast]

I'm sure every operator of the F-35 agrees that an engine failure is likely to cause a crash, and probably non-fatal at that. However they don't see it as particularly relevant. It's a modern turbofan, one of the most reliable propulsive devices available. Not an old R-2800 or Merlin.

These are also war planes, designed to fly towards people trying to kill you. You need to consider the aircraft's ability to survive combat. A bad guy firing a missile at you doesn't care how many engines you have. They're more concerned about your ability to evade that missile. The F-35 is probably the more survivable aircraft in combat despite it's single engine.

I agree that 2 engines is better than one, but the only 5th gen aircraft that fits that role is the F-22 and it's not available. Next choice is the F-35.

Also, don't forget that there's a very good chance this crash wouldn't have happened if it was a single engine jet. Half the engines, so 50% better odds right there. More reliable engine in the F-35 too, so lets say a 70% chance it wouldn't have happened.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le6220481/

[AuxBatOn]

My opinion on the single engine is not emotional, it is based on physics you should understand well:

- Lift opposes gravity
- Lift requires speed
- Drag opposes speed
- Thrust opposes drag

Ergo, no thrust = smoking hole in the ground.

Simple physics.

So, according to you, a glider produces no lift? Interesting science right there... I'd like to hear more.

[Mach1]

I maintain there needs to be a proper, realistic competition starting from a zero baseline involving all the appropriate government departments, using all appropriate considerations and without any predisposition toward any of the contenders. It is the only way to avoid the corralling effect toward a predetermined choice, and if that process chooses the F-35 so be it. But that hasn't happened yet.

I couldn't agree more. So, let us not sole source a purchase in the meantime and do what needs to be done... hold the competition.

[dhc#]

Speaking of 'effed up' procurement contracts isn't the FWSAR one due to be announced by the feds in the next while

[Rockie]

My opinion on the single engine is not emotional, it is based on physics you should understand well:

- Lift opposes gravity
- Lift requires speed
- Drag opposes speed
- Thrust opposes drag

Ergo, no thrust = smoking hole in the ground.

Simple physics.

So, according to you, a glider produces no lift? Interesting science right there... I'd like to hear more.

Surely you know the difference between a glider and a combat fighter, and that the glider is constantly losing altitude relative to the air that it's in?

Tell me you know the difference...

[Rockie]

I'm sure every operator of the F-35 agrees that an engine failure is likely to cause a crash, and probably non-fatal at that. However they don't see it as particularly relevant. It's a modern turbofan, one of the most reliable propulsive devices available. Not an old R-2800 or Merlin.

These are also war planes, designed to fly towards people trying to kill you. You need to consider the aircraft's ability to survive combat. A bad guy firing a missile at you doesn't care how many engines you have. They're more concerned about your ability to evade that missile. The F-35 is probably the more survivable aircraft in combat despite it's single engine.

I agree that 2 engines is better than one, but the only 5th gen aircraft that fits that role is the F-22 and it's not available. Next choice is the F-35.

Also, don't forget that there's a very good chance this crash wouldn't have happened if it was a single engine jet. Half the engines, so 50% better odds right there. More reliable engine in the F-35 too, so lets say a 70% chance it wouldn't have happened.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le6220481/

In 1989 a Mig-29 crashed at the Paris Airshow when it lost an engine doing exactly the same maneuver this CF-18 was. Immediately afterward the CF-18's doing displays in Europe had to prove that they could recover from that maneuver with the remaining engine under the same circumstances before they could continue doing displays entailing the high alpha pass. Remember this was the year after the Ramstein crash and air show authorities were not keen on another disaster.

Bottom line, the Lethbridge crash was recoverable on the remaining engine if he was around 25 degrees AOA. Paradoxically he would have had to reduce thrust from max afterburner on the remaining engine though.

[AuxBatOn]

Double post

[AuxBatOn]

My opinion on the single engine is not emotional, it is based on physics you should understand well:

- Lift opposes gravity
- Lift requires speed
- Drag opposes speed
- Thrust opposes drag

Ergo, no thrust = smoking hole in the ground.

Simple physics.

So, according to you, a glider produces no lift? Interesting science right there... I'd like to hear more.

Surely you know the difference between a glider and a combat fighter, and that the glider is constantly losing altitude relative to the air that it's in?

Tell me you know the difference...

I had no idea Rockie. Thanks for patronizing me though!

Debating with you is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious.

On that note, I am done replying to your posts. Your condecending, abrasive and childish attitude leads nowhere....

[Rockie]

Well you did say you'd like to hear more didn't you? Look, asking a ridiculous, argumentative question like you did about the glider and then getting all defensive when it's answered is a bit surprising from someone like you. Nice talking to you though.

[Blakey]

I recall all the same rhetoric and thoughtful discussion the last time we bought a new fighter. My viewpoint on the purchase of Super Hornets is a bit different than most though.

I believe that the Super Hornet is the wrong airplane to buy but I hope they write a check for 20 of them this week. Why you ask would I want them to do that? Sounds like I'm on both ends of the argument. I'm not; I'm actually making a different argument.

In 1980, we were shopping for a plane to replace the CF-104 and one of the contenders was the Phantom 2000. This was an F-4 with upgraded engines, avionics and RADAR. A very capable airplane and a TON cheaper than that fancy F-18 or the F-16. They actually were impressive aircraft but, if we had cheaped out and bought them, we would be flying F-4 Phantoms right now. (Not to mention sending our pilots into 2 shooting wars and a number of other nasty spots riding a 50-year old design.) I see the Super Hornet in a similar light; it is not a derelict old clunker now but the basic design is 40 years old. It's time to move forward.

No doubt, many would not agree with my view but all would ask, "If you feel that way about the aircraft, why would you want to see them bought"? Well, my reasoning is that the Liberals seem to have their checkbook open and they are ready to buy. This generosity will not last through the next federal budget report!

The major problem I see with our fighter force is that we keep trying to do too much with too little. We currently try to cover the second largest country in the world, and our foreign engagements, with 77 aircraft. Even with perfect serviceability, you could only be in 77 places at once. Taking into account realistic serviceability rates and acknowledging that fighters work far better in pairs, we find that we have a pitiable capability to do much beyond basic NATO tasks and even those fall off the table from time to time. The Super Hornet is a capable airplane and one that we can buy off the shelf. If we buy 18 of them now, we will have more airplanes NOW. Not the ones I think we should have and they come with all the problems of a split fleet but they would be on the line while we "study" a long-term purchase for another 10 years. Hopefully, they would be found to be too old a design and converted to Growlers but they would have already been bought. I believe we need 150 fighters but that is not liable to happen; buying 18 Super Hornets now will give us 18 more than we had before. The Minister's response to Mike Hood's assessment says the same thing "We need more planes". Let them buy some then and we'll get the 100% solution later.

As of 2019, Qatar will have more fighter aircraft than Canada. We live in a different neighbourhood than they do but we need airframes.

[tailgunner]

Blakey,
65 JSF can and will do the job of a far larger force. That it what is at the core of the design. It is a force multiplier. The integration of ALL sources of RADAR information allows the F35 to be in the precise location where it needs to be. As of today, the Russian Airforce has 20 TU160 Blackjacks on strength. And less than 90 Bears...We can assume that some of these are not airworthy all of the time. The idea of a mass attack over the horizon of large masses of bombers is probably not going to happen.
The F35 is akin to a precision bomb. Some argue that we need more numbers of far less accurate bombs to get the job done. Some argue that we need to purchase iron bombs that are far less accurate to save costs....while the future is in precision weapons that can be in the right place at the right time, everytime.
Cheers.

[Rockie]

Poor analogy about the bombs tail gunner. A 2000 pound smart bomb with laser guidance can't hit a target 200 miles away. Same thing with the F-35. A CF-?? that's physically in weapons range of a target is infinitely more effective than a F-35 that is not despite all the wonderful information displayed to the pilot.

That's why numbers do matter in a country the size of ours.

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
Sorry that you are still stuck on tactics and information that you are familiar with from the late 80's-early 90's.
Let me put it this way. NORAD , reportedly , has the capability to see over the horizon. It is rumoured that they can see Russian bombers in the circuit at their FOB's. It takes at least 6 hours to get from there, to a location where they can be a threat to Canadian cities. Out of Cold Lake, the F35 can use its superior speed and range compared to the SH, to get to The correct FOB. Refuel, and respond if needed... The F35 can use that same RADAR picture to fly to the correct intercept point. Ergo, right place at the right time....
But if you insist on using standard 1980's patrols....burning jet fuel, so be it

[Rockie]

Is NORAD going to scramble jets from Cold Lake every time they spot a Russian bomber in its home base circuit?

I know I haven't actually flown the jet in a while but there are certain physical realities that remain unchanged. One of them is that you can't read intentions from a radar return, another is that you can't teleport an airplane from one spot to another instantly. This airplane is not magic.

Question, is it possible to retrofit existing 4th generation fighters with the data linked information you mentioned in your previous post? Or failing that, is it possible for a 4th generation fighter to be directed to the correct spot based on good old voice communication?

[Mick G]

Rockie,
Out of Cold Lake, the F35 can use its superior speed and range compared to the SH, to get to The correct FOB.

I may be missing something here, but from my research the top speed of the following aircraft is as follows:

Is 15km/hr really the differance between the F35 and the SH, hardly an argument imo. If we are going single engine (which will be a mistake) the Gripen would be the better value for the Canadian taxpayers than the f35

EF - 2495km/hr
Gripen - 2204km/hr
F35 - 1930km/hr
SH - 1915km/hr
Rafale - 1912km/hr


is faster then the F35, come to think of it, the

[tailgunner]

Mick G,
Do not forget that the top speed listed for the SH is in a clean configuration. When you start adding fuel tanks, and AAM's the SH has been described as a dog, a slow dog. The SH has been reported as having a range deficiency by the USN, and the weapons pylons are canted out 3degrees to ensure proper clearance when the stores are dropped. That 3 degrees further adds to the problem.
The F35 carries its AAM internally, so it has a far less drag penalty. It can also carry external fuel tanks, and stores, but also then shares a drag penalty.
Cheers.

[frosti]

Is NORAD going to scramble jets from Cold Lake every time they spot a Russian bomber in its home base circuit?

Question, is it possible to retrofit existing 4th generation fighters with the data linked information you mentioned in your previous post? Or failing that, is it possible for a 4th generation fighter to be directed to the correct spot based on good old voice communication?

You really are out of the loop.

the Gripen would be the better value for the Canadian taxpayers than the f35

I don't think buying a 4th gen aircraft that is further behind the F35 in testing, not combat ready, with unknown costs, no exports and limited range considered value. What's next, getting that disaster of a company called Bombardier to build it?