F-35 by the numbers

[MigBuster 2,884]

 

[Skyviper 1,101]

Beautiful.

[Atreides 144]

-1.  We Canadians aren't buying it, and rightfully so.  We don't need the F-35.  The Super Hornet that is being considered is more than enough for us, fiscally it makes way more sense for us.  Also, there was NO competition run by the previous government, they just decided on F-35.  Not taking shots at the F-35 like Pierre Sprey but a single engined aircraft to patrol our vast and yet sparsely populated landmass makes no sense.

[JediMaster 451]

What are the stats on losses of F-16 due to engine failures vs Hornets? In other words, how many times has a Hornet made it home when an F-16 did not? How many Hornets were lost when the one engine failure was so bad that it went down anyway, either due to fire or taking out the 2nd engine, making redundancy irrelevant?

 

I always hear this 1970's era argument about engine reliability thrown about, but that was based on the reliability of engines in the 1960s. How do engines in the 21st century actually behave?

 

Of course, I'm sure Canada believes the US Navy has no regard for its pilots and doesn't care if they all splash down in the middle of the ocean which is why they had no qualms using single engined jets like the 35B and C, or the A-7s, or the A-4, or any of a vast number of single engined planes over the last 100 years. Only Canada is smart enough to realize that one engine = FREEZING DEATH TO PILOTS, naturally. If only the DoD had someone as intelligent and with as much experience as armchair generals, then no single engined plane would be developed or purchased ever again.

 

But yeah, I'm sure buying a plane that has 2x the number of engines (and therefore will have 2x the number of failures) that will be obsolete in just a couple of decades is better than buying a plane that will be competitive for as long as the old Hornets have been around. Why buy a 2017 car you can use for 20 years when there's a 1997 model with low mileage available, even if the laws say it will be banned from road use in 5 years because of emissions standards?

 

Buying a military platform based on what is best for peace time instead of war time seems a bit shortsighted...

[+daddyairplanes 10,281]

a few pennies thrown in...

dunno what your talking about no regard for pilots as far as the USN. the A-7 had some of the most reliable engines of their era, and A-4 was designed so small it didnt need to fold wings on the flight deck (kinda hard to do that on a twin jet platform). so far of the three types the C model F-35 is the best of the batch. it has consistently met or exceeded test goals. but you have to scour for that nugget of info because the A model not being able to shoot a gun for a few more years or B model's questionable IOC sell more headlines than the C model doing well.

as to Canada's needs,  for homeland defense the Super Bug is in fact better. more stations equals more gas, more weapons if needed and you dont need to sneak around your home turf. Now, if Canada wants to play to global game with the US in the future as an equal partner*, then you might either get some Growlers as well (we are stupidly sacrificing EW for stealth) or some other airframe to fill a niche we are neglecting or get some F-35s to play along on day one. But a squadron with dedicated attack mission should suffice, with much support from the US branch flying the same model. I would suggest the C if you are concerned about reliability. If you were to get teh A model, call it the CA-135 just to needle the USAF figher mafia.

over all i think the F-35 will work out once we figure out what to do with them. the last "designed" jack of all trades couldnt find enough thrust in all of Christendom to be a naval fighter. but it went on to be the best deep strike aircraft for around two decades and with some ingenuity even managed CAS ok (tank plinking anyone?). but enough about the F-111, back to teh F-35.  as a day one door kicker and day three quarterback i think it will be a game changer (much like how the F-22s are being used). down in the mud supporting the joes? well, only the Marines seem fully willing to do that where a $0.50 round might take down a (however many this week) millions dollars aircraft. the more important thing will be training and tactics to deal with current and hypothetical threats and not fully believing teh hype of stealth.

* sorry to the Canadians here but you all dont seem to get around as much as teh US or UK; and while i've seen you guys in Iraq and Afghanistan I dont recall you helping the Queen since the Second World War. to be honest i dont recall any Canadian led interventions anywhere. Which probably isnt a bad thing as the "great" powers tend to screw that up abit.

[Atreides 144]

On 9/19/2017 at 12:00 PM, JediMaster said:

Buying a military platform based on what is best for peace time instead of war time seems a bit shortsighted...

We wouldn't be Canadian if we weren't shortsighted.  We have a dumb ass, former drama teacher, liberal who's now our PM, is a self proclaimed feminist and okayed the sale of 100+  APC's to that great humane ally of the west, you know, you guys have sold them your cutting edge Eagles, the Saudis.  Our government rewarded 10 million to a terrorist who killed an American medic in astan. You're asking a lot from our current "PM" 

  On topic though, tell me why we need a 5th gen fighter if we don't go at it alone but are almost always with you and the British ?  The Brits don't have Stealth (not counting the handful of 35's they have at the moment), if I'm not mistaken their Typhoon aren't all even equipped with AESA yet, whereas the Super Hornet is.  If it's good enough to be marketed to other nations why not for Canada ?  Our defence budget is pocket change compared to that of the US.  If the Liberals do purchase the 35, which they most likely wont, there'll be cutbacks made somewhere else like Veterans Affairs, as a former Armed Forces member I'd rather see them stick with the Super Hornet and "hope" more money makes it's way to our current vets.

On 9/19/2017 at 12:00 PM, JediMaster said:

arm chair generals

 I'd rather you just call be a dumb asshole rather than that slur.

[Toryu 156]

On 19.9.2017 at 6:00 PM, JediMaster said:

What are the stats on losses of F-16 due to engine failures vs Hornets? In other words, how many times has a Hornet made it home when an F-16 did not? How many Hornets were lost when the one engine failure was so bad that it went down anyway, either due to fire or taking out the 2nd engine, making redundancy irrelevant?

The whole North is pretty full of large birds that will ruin your day if you take a ride through a flock. Geese are pretty fat and dumb (and who knows - happy?) and won't yield to a fighter coming along at 450kts. Now, take one down your intake and your engine is a goner*.
Split the intakes, have them feed an engine each and put them on each side of the fuselage and you'll have a much better chance of coming home - if we're talking a low number of birds anyway.

Ask Sully how he feels about a flock of geese (or that E-3 crew out of Elmendorf ). Eagles aren't that bright either, btw.

Now, the F-35 has a higher bypass-ratio than other fighter engines, to get that mass-flow up. Therefore, chances of survival are slightly higher, as the chance of the bird missing the engine core are slightly higher (a tiny bit more bypass-air area compared to the core-air area on that fan-stage) - but still: Take a goose down the intake and you'd better strap on those walking-boots really quick.

 

Pure and good old-fashioned engine-failures are very much a thing of the past, thanks to extensive on condition monitoring and preventive MX. Actual engine-failures nowadays are more down to a production- or QM-related issue than to a random component failure.



* We're talking low bypass turbofans - that bird WILL go down your core and duck up your LPC and hot-section.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Toryu