Some great discussion about the pros and cons of the F-35, I'd have no problem seeing us end up with the Super Hornets either. I wonder if the Air Force has a preference to 2 engine models versus 1? I believe that was a factor back when they first decided on the F-18.
I wondered about this too...the only single engine jet we’ve ever had was the CF-104, I believe. Maybe the Vampires too, but that was a really long time ago.
Straight-and-fast? I thought one of the Arrow's traits was maneuverability... wasn't it the first plane to be able to do a 2g turn? Anways, it wasn't just that we lost the Arrow. We lost most of our aerospace industry.
One of the first designed to pull a 2g turn supersonic, but as it turned out in Korea and Vietnam and all subsequent air wars, engagements rarely if ever occurred supersonic.
You are right about the loss though - it was a huge blow to the aerospace industry. The Arrow as a platform was impressive because of our design and engineering capabilities, not because it was going to be a dominant, or even particularly useful, airplane going forward as designed.
__________________
-Scott
The Following User Says Thank You to sclitheroe For This Useful Post:
Why is the F35 STOVL instead of VTOL? (moot as Canada is getting the kind that sucks and can't do this anyway).
VTOL imposes significant payload and range penalties because you can takeoff with only a fraction of a full load (unless the F-35 is radically better at it)...Harriers are typically used in a STOVL mission profile, despite being capable of VTOL., in order to carry a useful payload.
For example, according to wikipedia’s F-35 page: "However the aircraft is able to "bring back" 2 x 1K JDAM, 2 x AIM-120 and reserve fuel to a vertical landing.” If we assume similar or slightly greater takeoff weight, that’s still not a lot of munitions on board when doing a vertical takeoff.
They can accelerate straight up with afterburners. they used to be one of 3 planes that could do this. (the Fulcrum and the F-15?). That ratio doesn't take into account of afterburners kicked in. Go to any airshow with an CF-18 that's a part of the routine. You will watch it slowly walk the airstrip and then almost come to a hovering stop as it kicks in its afterburners and climbs the sky vertically. It's a great site to see (and even better when your in the plane)
I mentioned in another thread that I saw a SU-27 do this at the Abbotsford air show several years ago. Like wow, and I mean really....WOW!
It's great to see this coming together, our 18's are in dire need of replacement. They are cracking all over, need massive avionics upgrades, and can't engage in NATO ops due to compatibility issues. (more avionics). This will put Canada back up front.
Vtol and Stol are useless to Canada. They are used by the Marines, which we don't have, and don't fit Canada's mission profiles. We are lead fighter/bomber and intercept.
As for drones and what our fighters do..... you have no idea how much they do. Do you think the next time some terrorist hijacks a jet you will be able to scramble a few drones? How bout when the russians pop over the cap? Be happy you don't know what they do, cause it means they are doing it right.
I wondered about this too...the only single engine jet we’ve ever had was the CF-104, I believe. Maybe the Vampires too, but that was a really long time ago.
I think its because they really wanted the extra redundancy of a two engine design given how long you may have to fly to get to an airfield in Canada
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Most importantly, how is the trunk space in something like this? I always underestimate this feature when deciding upon which fighter jet I'm going to purchase.
Exactly, I don't see why the helmet mounted huds and targetting that pilots have in the latest fighters can't be adapted for even less to pilots on the ground. This is technology that is going to grow and catch up really fast.
lol, you're asking for a creative, forward looking solution from the Canadian government?
get back in line. we're going to copy the US and you're going to like it! create a mini-empire with a massive inferiority complex!
Apparently the timeframe for the retirement of the current CF-18 Hornet fleet is around 2017.
Other aircraft still rumoured to be in the race are the Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing Super Hornets, or even one of the SAAB fighter aircraft.
I would say there zero chance of buying a non-american fighter, Canadian companies have made $500 million a year threw contracts for the development of the F-35 so far and will probably make alot more once the project gets in full swing, we got those contracts because of a "promise" to replace our F-18's with these.
I give little chance for the super hornet as well, Why replace our fleet with a 4+ generation fighter when you can get a 5th gen? the super hornet isn't a whole lot cheaper and it probably will cost twice as much to maintain and keep in the air.
I'm late to this party, but in regards to the CF-18's, they must have done some electronics upgrades recently then?
Was it not the case in 2002 that they could not fly in Afghanistan because they could not communicate with other NATO forces because the US, UK and Australia had moved on to more advanced communications and electronics systems, which therefore made the CF-18's essentially obsolete at that time? What about weapons guidance systems? All of these planes now use smart bomb technology, and I didn't think Canada's fleet was outfitted with that at the time. Has that changed?
