• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-22 or F-35

Status
Not open for further replies.
While the US has stated that it wont export the F-22, it may be the only way to keep the production line going and possibly bring down aircraft cost. The cost of the aircraft is probably the biggest limitation to most potential buyers. Anyway I found that allied pilots have trained to fly the B-2,F-117 and F-22.

In July, RAF Flight Lt. Dan Robinson completed flight training in the F-22A Raptor at Tyndall AFB, Fla., with the 43rd Fighter Squadron. As the first allied pilot to train on the fifth generation fighter, Robinson is now serving a three-year tour at Langley AFB, Va., with the 27th Fighter Squadron.

British pilots have been assigned to F-117 Nighthawk squadrons almost since that aircraft became operational in the early 1980s.
 
I have no inside knowledge of course, but I wouldn't just bet the whole farm that the US won't someday export F-22s, especially if it keeps the line production lines open and allows the USAF to to buy more airframes at a slightly cheaper cost.  The Israelis and Japanese have both expressed interest- I would bet on the Japanese having the best chance.

I'm not sure if they were offered to us, if it would make sense to buy some.  I could see that case for a couple of dozen to be operated in a NORAD context, with another fighter type being purchased for expeditionary work, especially if we did not insist on any mods or that we conduct any OTU activity in Canada.  My back of the cigarette pack figuring puts the cost of 24 F-22s at around $8 billion Cdn.

IMHO, 80 F-35s are going to cost around $17 Billion anyway, if we go that route.

Pile that ontop of all of warships needing replacement between 2010 and 2020, along with buying Chinooks, C-130Js, FWSAR, UAVs, Aurora replacements...that is a crapload of cash.  Will the Canadian public stand for it?
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Pile that ontop of all of warships needing replacement between 2010 and 2020, along with buying Chinooks, C-130Js, FWSAR, UAVs, Aurora replacements...that is a crapload of cash.  Will the Canadian public stand for it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8gNz8F2j6U
 
In April 2007, the Pentagon revealed that the total cost of the JSF had increased to $299.8 billion for 2,458 aircraft, or $121.97 million per aircraft. This is far in excess of the prices mentioned by Lockheed Martin, the program’s prime contractor, which are generally in the $60-$70 million range...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.31267251.1196177158.spoIl38AAAEAAFQjW3oAAAAS&manuel_call_cat=5&manuel_call_prod=88477&manuel_call_mod=feature&modele=jdc_inter

The story is about a less-capable version for foreigners to get around US arms export regulations.

More on Canada and the F-35 here:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/canada-and-f-35-non-story.html

Meanwhile Australia is already buying  24 F/A-18Fs regardless of their F-35 decision: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.31267251.1196177158.spoIl38AAAEAAFQjW3oAAAAS&manuel_call_cat=5&manuel_call_prod=88477&manuel_call_mod=feature&modele=jdc_inter

The story is about a less-capable version for foreigners to get around US arms export regulations.

Well, understandably, the US couldn't just give their hard-earned stealth technology away like that. I guess national security comes before foreign relations.
 
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-jsf-hit-by-serious-design-problems-04311/

by Johan Boeder in The Netherlands. Earlier versions of this article have been published in the Dutch press and Defense-Aerospace. DID has worked with the author to create an edited, updated version with full documentation of sources.

On May 3, 2007, during the 19th test flight of the prototype of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a serious electrical malfunction occurred in the control of the plane. After an emergency landing the malfunction could be identified as a crucial problem, and it became clear that redesign of critical electronic components was necessary. Producer Lockheed Martin and program officials first announced there was a minor problem, and later on they avoided any further publicity about the problems.

The delay has become serious, however, and rising costs for the JSF program seem to be certain. In Holland, Parliament started a discussion again last week. Understanding the background behind these delays, and the pressures on European governments, is important to any realistic assessment of the F-35's European strategy – and of the procurement plans in many European defense ministries…

The Fateful Incident

On December 15, 2006 the experienced Lockheed Martin chief test pilot Jon Beesley takes off for the first time with the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter), also known as F-35 Lighting II. The coming years, some 3000 Joint Strike Fighters are scheduled to be delivered to replace F-16 and Harrier fighters in the USA and in the air forces ad navies of several European countries. In most cases, replacement contenders are some combination of the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen and JSF. In many cases, the new fighters must also be available by 2014-2018 ultimately, when early-model F-16s bought in Europe will reach their end-of-life stage. Any further delay brings high maintenance costs, and too low operational availability.

After a series of 7 quite successful flights, the test flight program stops in February 2007 to fix some minor problems in the JSF flight control software. This is not unusual in the early stages of a test flight program. In March 2007, the JSF returns to flight status and takes off for the first supersonic flight. At the end of April the JSF prototype AA-1 takes off several times a week. But then, destiny strikes. On May 3, 2007 with the second test pilot Jeff Knowles at the stick, a serious malfunction hits the JSF. At 38,000 feet (12 km) level flight and at a speed of some 800 km/hour, the plane executed a planned, 360-degree roll but experienced power loss in the electrical system about halfway through the manoeuvre.

In an emergency procedure, power is restored and Jeff Knowles regains control of the plane. The pilot cuts short this 19th test flight and makes an emergency landing in Fort Worth, TX. Due to control problems with right wing flaperons, the JSF has to make that landing at an exceptional high speed of 220 knots (350 km/hr). The plane's undercarriage, brakes and tires are damaged. The plane is stopped, surrounded by emergency vehicles, and towed away, but several eyewitnesses take pictures of the emergency landing.

Lockheed Martin technicians identify a component in the 270-power supply as the culprit in the near-accident. The JSF's new technology includes new electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs) for the flight control system, replacing more conventional hydraulic systems. In April 2007, chief test pilot Jon Beesley told Code One Magazine that the EHAs were production versions, and that testing could be restricted to the AA-1:

"The electro-hydrostatic actuators, or EHAs, are another excellent example of risk reduction we're accomplishing on AA-1. This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity—not hydraulics. The F-35 is the only military aircraft flying with such a system. We proved that the approach works on six flights of the AFTI F-16 during the concept demonstration phase of the JSF program. We already have many more flights on EHAs on this test program. Because we are flying production versions of the EHAs on AA-1, we won't have to prove the EHA design on subsequent F-35s."

After several weeks of evaluations, the engineers learn that there are serious design problems in this new electrical system. Expensive redesign will be necessary.

'No serious problem'?

Normally whenever the JSF takes an itty-bitty baby step, the manufacturer reports it to the media for PR purposes. First engine run? Reported. Roll-out? Reported. First flight? Reported. First Wheel-up flight? Reported. But "first emergency landing"? Not reported. Fully two weeks later, on May 17, 2007, chief test pilot Beesley comments in a short press bulletin: "It was not a serious problem and the pilot never lost control of the airplane". Company officials say they don't expect any delays in the flight-test program as a result of the incident, and repairs will be combined with some regular, planned maintenance. Plans call for the fighter to return to flight status in June 2007.

However, on July 10, 2007 Flight International announces disturbing news. Lockheed Martin official Bobby Williams now explains that there is a serious design problem in the aircraft's electrical system. The fault was caused by a shortcoming in the 270 volt system, when a lead inside a box touched the lid. A complete review of close-tolerance spacing and all electrical boxes is necessary. He adds that: "We will be back into flight in August."

Another fact was discovered via a military employee of one of the European air forces, who works within the JSF project team, and is a liaison person for several air forces. He says that flying in 2012 with the JSF may be safe and the JSF can be used as a plane to fly around. But, the several software modules for weapons system integration will not be ready. Ground attack capability is the priority, so early-build F-35s will primarily be "bomb trucks" until the additional software modules can be tested and loaded. Air superiority capabilities will be restricted, and completed only after 2015. This means that full multi-role capability is possible by 2016 at the earliest, if and only if no major problems occur in development and testing of the weapon systems software.

So, will there be JSFs on European airbases without complete air superiority capability in 2016? A sobering thought in the light of the intensifying scrambling from UK and Norway since Russian TU-95 Bears have began entering air space near Norway again in 2006.

Engine problems

Nor are these the only challenging problems facing the F-35 program. The F-35C naval variant's Hamilton Sundstrand power generator was mistakenly designed to only 65% of the required electric output. To accommodate the required increase, it will also be necessary to redesign the gearbox for the standard Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which will be fitted into the conventional F-35A version as well as the naval F-35C. The contract announced by the US Department of Defense in August 2007 says that this engine update won't be ready for use until the end of 2009, which is almost the beginning of low-rate initial production.

Lockheed Martin can issue a subcontract to Hamilton Sundstrand to fix the F135's power generator without any publicity, and they have done so. As of December 1, 2007, neither Lockheed Martin's nor Hamilton Sundstrand's 2007 news archives show any trace of this award. Pratt & Whitney has a separate government contract for the F135 engine, however, and the award's size forces the Pentagon to announce the award under its rules for publicizing contracts.

Although it seemed probable that last October the JSF would fly again, a new problem arose. During a test run of the F135 engine, part of the engine was blown up by overheating. On November 14, 2007, an eyewitness took pictures of the transportation of a new F135 engine. The date for test flight number 20 (of the scheduled 5,000 test flights) is still unknown.

Manufacturer wants to alter JSF testing to save money

In an article that Bloomberg News publishes on August 31, 2007, it is announced that Lockheed Martin is exceeding the budget on the first phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program. The manufacturer warns that the reserves will be spent by the end of 2008, unless cuts are made. Lockheed Martin is seeking US Defense Department approval to lessen the number of test aircraft and personal plus hundreds of test flights to save money, and replenish a reserve fund.

It wants to build 2 fewer prototypes, and skip 800 of the 5,000 planned test flights. This after only 18 successful and 1 almost fatal testflight in half a year's time.

Officialy, Lockheed Martin says the reason for the rising deficit is: "the costs spent on redesigning a critical electronic part that failed during a May test flight." Redesign of something as crucial as control systems in this stage of such a complex project has to alert all involved partners and governments.

Questions in Dutch Parliament

This main threat to the Joint Strike Fighter program, in terms of growing costs and risks for planned delivery should have been made public long ago. In the Dutch parliament the Secretary of Defence was questioned on Monday 19 November when the facts about the JSF delay and rising costs were published in several Dutch newspapers on Sunday, November 18, 2007.

The Situation in Europe

The overall Joint Strike Fighter program is now projected to cost $299 billion, 28% more than its estimate of $233 billion when it started in October 2001. The number of F-25 fighters to be produced, originally estimated at over 3,500, will not be higher than 2,300 in the initial production orders from all partners. Some US sources even speak about an estimated 1,700.

Australia has decided to buy the more traditional, but advanced and reliable F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet, in order to avoid any risks to their air defense stemming from F-35 schedule slips. Some NATO countries, including JSF partner nations Norway and Denmark, are considering other options entirely, instead of the JSF. One European candidate is the advanced but expensive twin-engined Eurofighter, already in service with the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Austria. Another European candidate is the new Saab JAS-39 Gripen Demo, an advanced version of the proven Saab Gripen already operational with Sweden with NATO members the Czech Republic and Hungary.

While the F-35's embedded sensor arrays will continue to offer superior situational awareness, both of its biggest European alternatives are expected to have similar advanced AESA radars and electronics. They would also enter service with multi-role capabilities, without the development risks of the JSF. Saab's Gripen also claims a price per flight hour less than 60% of the JSF or Eurofighter.

The pattern to date is a disturbing one, where a string of difficulties that threaten to have serious impacts on the program's schedule and costs are minimized by the manufacturer and its industrial and governmental partners, or simply not announced. Note that until the recent set of questions in Parliament, the manufacturer succeeded in keeping politicians, the public, and most of the press unaware of the very serious fact that since May 3, 2007 the flight test program has been stopped completely.

Without sufficient transparency, it is difficult for the public to evaluate the fighter procurement choices that will have to be made in the coming years by governments all over Europe – and even more difficult to simply trust assertions that all will be well.

As is our practice, DID has contacted both the Joint Strike Fighter program office and Lockheed Martin, inviting them to offer substantive responses that directly address the issues raised in this article. If these are forthcoming, they will also receive Guest Article status, and a link will be included here.
 
I don't see why we can't just upgrade with the E or F model Superhornets? Pilots don't have to completely re-learn a new aircraft and saves the techs months and months of training on a new airframe.
 
NINJA said:
I don't see why we can't just upgrade with the E or F model Superhornets? Pilots don't have to completely re-learn a new aircraft and saves the techs months and months of training on a new airframe.
Actually it is a new airframe  I seem to recall there is only about 20 % compatibility between a F18 C/D and F18 E/F. Now I could be wrong but that is the figure I've heard.
 
GK .Dundas said:
Actually it is a new airframe  I seem to recall there is only about 20 % compatibility between a F18 C/D and F18 E/F. Now I could be wrong but that is the figure I've heard.

Still, 20% is better than 0.
 
NINJA said:
Still, 20% is better than 0.

Also remember that the F/A-18E/F was designed and procured only as an interim aircraft until JSF comes into service. Even the RAAF has decided to buy it to replace the F-111C as an interim measure until it gets its F-35s.
 
The New Labour Gov. of OZ is think about the F-22.  If they are thinking about it................. >:D



http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw120307p2.xml&headline=New%20Australian%20Government%20Wants%20to%20Consider%20F-22s

New Australian Government Wants to Consider F-22s

Dec 2, 2007
By Bradley Perrett

Australia’s new Labor government is likely to join Japan in seeking to overturn the U.S. ban on exporting the F-22 Raptor, although Canberra is far from deciding it wants to buy the Lockheed Martin stealth fighter.

The government of incoming Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who won a landslide Nov. 24 election victory, is showing a commitment to the armed forces at least as strong as its predecessor’s, with a defense policy that calls for greater readiness for the Australian Defense Force (ADF), not cutbacks.

Australian defense analysts expect Labor to back the main procurement decisions of the former Liberal-National government of John Howard, although the new administration plans a policy review and might face a budget shortfall in a few years.

While in opposition, new Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon repeatedly called for Australia to consider the F-22 instead of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, the previous government’s preferred next fighter.

Under project Air 6000, the Royal Australian Air Force will next decade replace its 70-odd F/A-18A and B Hornets and, possibly, the 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets that Canberra ordered this year. Up to 100 combat aircraft are planned.

Though Fitzgibbon hasn’t gone as far as saying Australia should buy the Raptor, in the election campaign he said that Labor would ask Washington to lift the ban on sales so Canberra could reconsider its options.

The Australian Defense Dept. strongly prefers the cheaper and more flexible F-35 over the F-22, whose design emphasizes air combat. The department is likely to present Fitzgibbon with the same advice now that he has become its minister.

The U.S. Congress reaffirmed the ban on F-22 exports as recently as July. Japan, which is keen to buy the aircraft, responded by launching development of its own stealth fighter demonstrator (AW&ST Sept. 3, p. 24).

Rudd plans to pull Australian troops out of Iraq, but only after consultation with the Iraqi government and with the U.S. and Britain. He may decide simply to switch emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, following Britain’s lead.

Moreover, there’s no other sign that the new government lacks commitment to Australia’s U.S. alliance. Rudd, a Mandarin-speaking former diplomat, has always voiced unusually strong support for the alliance, and he lists it first among the three pillars that support his defense policy. (The others are active membership of the United Nations and comprehensive engagement with Australia’s neighbors.)

Any changes in procurement policy are most likely to appear in a planned review expected next year.

“The new defense white paper will address the requirements for the ADF to deploy more units at higher readiness levels, deploy at shorter notice [and] sustain operations for longer periods,” according to the official Labor policy statement.

The defense budget has been expanded by 3% a year above inflation since 2001, and Labor says it will stick to that policy at least until 2016.

But Australia is planning significant new capabilities for its armed forces while renewing old ones. Analyst Mark Thomson notes that the budget is more stretched than generally realized, saying “the new government will find that there is not enough money to do all the things the previous government planned to do.”

Thomson, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the budget will buy new capabilities but doesn’t have the funds to sustain them. For example, it will pay for six Boeing Wedge­tail airborne early warning and control aircraft, based on the 737, but there’s no additional money for their running costs.

The same goes for extra NH90 helicopters that Eurocopter will build in Brisbane and a pair of 27,000-ton assault ships to be supplied by Spain’s Navantia.

Thomson expects that the Defense Dept.’s habitual slowness in getting projects to contract might cover the gap. If it doesn’t, he thinks the government, awash with cash amid a strong economy, will probably allocate the extra money.

Labor’s policy largely avoids mentioning specific equipment requirements, but two programs for the Royal Australian Navy are emphasized.

One is that Labor wants to get an early start on preliminary work on replacements for the navy’s six Collins Class submarines, even though none of those boats is due to leave service before 2025. Local construction will be necessary, Labor says, partly because an off-the-shelf design wouldn’t fill future requirements—meaning it wouldn’t be big enough to deliver the necessary range and weapons load.

The new government also describes an order for a fourth air-defense destroyer as a “strong option.” Local contractor ASC has been tapped to build three of the 6,250-ton ships to a design by Navantia. Former Defense Minister Brendan Nelson, now leader of the opposition, says a fourth unit would cost A$1.5 billion ($1.3 billion)—an extraordinarily high figure for a production design, indicating the great premium paid for local development and construction.

The new government doesn’t appear likely to drop support for local industry, however—most notably, shipbuilding.



 
Spencer100 said:
The New Labour Gov. of OZ is think about the F-22.  If they are thinking about it................. >:D

Australia can think about the F-22 all it wants.....


The U.S. Congress reaffirmed the ban on F-22 exports as recently as July.
 
CDN Aviator 

      That maybe the position of the US  Congress  but  you never know how things can turn out  . Maybe the US will say to the Australians  that if you want to own the F-22  than stay committed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan  for a few more years  and will give you a deal on them .        That's of course totally hypothetical situation and not based on any facts but you never know with politics .
 
karl28 said:
CDN Aviator 

       That maybe the position of the US  Congress  but  you never know how things can turn out 

Geez...why didnt i think of that ?  ::)

Fact remains that at this time, the US Congress refuses to allow the F-22 to be exported. US politicians are well aware of Australian and Japanese wishes, just like they are aare of the effects export sales would have on the manufacturer. Knowing all that, the decision was still made, and reaffirmed, that no export sales will be allowed.
 
The Australian has a slightly different take:

Pentagon to push sale of fighter

Cameron Stewart | December 05, 2007

THE Pentagon is expected to pressure the Rudd Government for an early commitment to buy the controversial Joint Strike Fighter, despite the project being plagued by rising costs and technical problems.

Alarm is growing in US military circles about the cost of the JSF, or F-35, and the reluctance of any US allies, including Australia, to commit to early orders.


Australian and US officials have held talks on reducing costs, including a reduction of test flight aircraft and greater use of ground-based testing.

No country wants to purchase the early batches of the F-35s, due to start in 2009, because they will be prohibitively expensive compared with those sold in later years, when larger-scale production runs will reduce unit costs by more than half.

The Howard government's $15billion plan to place an order for up to 100 F-35s late next year for delivery in 2013 is now on hold, as the Rudd Government conducts a review of options for the air force.

The review will examine all alternatives in replacing Australia's aged F-111 strike bombers and F/A-18 fighters, including the feasibility of the world's most potent but expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor.

However, the US is likely to seize the opportunity of a newly elected government to step up the pressure on Canberra to place early orders for the F-35.

Media reports this week from Fort Worth, Texas, where the F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin, suggest the rising cost of the F-35 is deterring US allies from placing orders.

According to the Star-Telegram newspaper, Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with Australian officials and other JSF partner nations about placing orders.
...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22872206-31477,00.html  from Defense Industry Daily: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated-02681/


 
CDN Aviator said:
Also remember that the F/A-18E/F was designed and procured only as an interim aircraft until JSF comes into service. Even the RAAF has decided to buy it to replace the F-111C as an interim measure until it gets its F-35s.
S matter of fact it wasn't designed as an interim aircraft the USN' F/A 18 E/F 's were designed and built to get around the Hornet's perceived  failings short range etc.( not to mention getting around Congress hence the belief the Hornet and Super Hornet are basically  different marks of the same model aircraft)
The JSF is primarily a strike aircraft it is the end result of a couple of disastrous decisions made by NAVAIR in the 80's amongst them the dropping the A6F program  in favor of the the never built A 12 .
 
More on F-35 problems:
http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed%20F35%20Program%20Plagued%20with%20Problems%20Remains%20Grounded/article9924.htm

Earlier this week, DailyTech reported that the Pentagon is trying to sweep some money under the rug to pay for additional Lockheed F-22 fighter planes. Increased concerns over the reliability and structural soundness of the 30-year-old F-15 have lead to the calls for more of the $132 million USD F-22s.

It appears that the old F-15 isn't the only aircraft in the U.S. arsenal that is having problems. The F-35 program is facing setbacks of its own. The F-35 program suffered a serious setback on May 3 when a critical electrical system failure occurred while the jet was traveling 500 MPH at 38,000 feet -- the prototype plane, which was on its 19th test flight, had to be brought down for an emergency landing by the pilot and subsequent test flights were cancelled. The plane hasn't flown since and a scheduled flight for December 4 was scrubbed at the last minute.

Defense Industry Daily reports that the electrical system failure was attributed to a problem with the new 270 volt power supply that is used to control the aircraft's electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs).

"This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity -- not hydraulics," said F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley. Unfortunately for Lockheed, the EHA system now has to be redesigned to prevent further incidents.

In addition, the F-35C naval version suffers a design flaw in its power generator which in turn means that the gearbox for the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has to be redesigned -- the redesign won't be complete until the close of 2009. The Pratt & Whitney F135 faced another setback in October when the engine overheated and blew up during bench testing.

But these are the least of the F-35's problems. The F-35 is being built and will be flown in conjunction with the help of a number of allies. European countries, which are eager to get their hands on the F-35, may not have fully functional, multi-role aircraft until 2016. The problem is due to the fact that software modules required to make the plane a competent air-superiority fighter are not yet complete and won't be until 2016 at the earliest.

As a result, the F-35 will be restricted to mainly ground-attack bombing runs
[emphasis added].

There is the issue that the number of F-35s to be produced has been reduced from 3,500 to as little as 2,300 -- effectively raising the cost per plane -- and Australia's decision to go with the F/A-18 F Block II Super Hornet as a stopgate measure until the F-35 is ready.

The rising costs for the F-35 are looming over the entire program. "Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes earlier unless we can help them mitigate the fact the earlier airplanes cost more," remarked Lockheed executive vice president and F-35 program general manager Tom Burbage to the Star-Telegram.

Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor [emphasis added].

The F-35 program mechanical/electrical/avionics problems, delays and cost overruns are becoming burdensome to all nations involved. Many countries are looking to the F-35 to replace their aging fleets because the United States wants to keep its premier F-22 fighter to itself...

Mark
Ottawa
 
It should be interesting to see what aircraft is ultimately picked to replace the 18. While the F35 may seem like a nice choice, you have to remember that it's a single-engine aircraft. Canada is massive and I don't think any pilot would want to bail-out in the middle of winter somewhere between yellowknife and the artic circle. Yes, I know that total engine failure is extremely rare, but it does happen. My best guess is our replacement will be either the F35, the Superbug or the Eurofighter.
 
NINJA said:
It should be interesting to see what aircraft is ultimately picked to replace the 18. While the F35 may seem like a nice choice, you have to remember that it's a single-engine aircraft. Canada is massive and I don't think any pilot would want to bail-out in the middle of winter somewhere between yellowknife and the artic circle. Yes, I know that total engine failure is extremely rare, but it does happen. My best guess is our replacement will be either the F35, the Superbug or the Eurofighter.

Ah yes, should we buy the F-16 or F-18 argument ...deja vu
 
Unless the Air Force gets serious about participating in the war against terror and stops  finding all sorts of good reasons not to contribute to the expeditionary forces we have abroad, all they deserve to receive as replacement for the current CF-18 are used low-hours F-18 airframes.  Why would the Air Force need anything else when all they do is  fly domestic sovereignty missions?  This is not Air Force bashing.  It is fact. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top