Captain Crunch,
interesting tidbits on upgrades, had not thought of it, indeed i've never investigated how close canada may have been to craft purchased as alternatives to the f-18. i know we had at least one f-16 for a 'test-drive', it was painted up in a zarky flag color scheme.
as to the two-engine requirement now that i think aboot it it makes a lot of sense.
israel for example, small country as it is, something like a one-engined Kfir could lose power and stand a chance of landing safely. but in canada said plane might be over the NWT or something, not as rosy of a situation.
in fact the arrow for example, i think one of the requirements stated before the design team started was twin engines.
also combat survivability, lifting loads, etc. many reasons why twin engines are a good idea.
not sure what craft wold be ideally suited to canada. we're a 10% partner in the joint strike fighter program, are we not? or did we pull out?
lots of 4th/5th generation fighters 'on the market' these days seem to be one-engined, like the eurofighter, the rafale, the gripen (if available).
i do like your idea of using older soviet stuff, their avionics and control suites are pretty archaic but the airframes in general are in my opnion far superior to their westen equivalents, like their ability to recover from stalls, land on rougher surfaces, plus the power-to-weight ratios of
the MiG-29 and Su-27 are very impressive.
most importantly the passive IR detection systems are out-of-this-world. if the americans ever get into an air battle where they don't have air superiority i think a lot of their gizmos will look real junky. what good is stealth if you're painting yourself by using radar?
i think passive detection is a huge asset on tomorrow's battlefield.
i wonder if the americans would get a bee in their bonnet if we bought Su-27 variants and MiG-31s? that foxhound is a real arrow-type plane, fast and big.
|