Thanks to Kelly for sending me this manuscript! Sidenote. Others have talked about this but I misplaced/didn't follow up on it till tonight. To everyone else that sent links etc...thanks, my bad...
But yes, the extra money it takes to get and maintain a twin engine aircraft pays for itself over time and is worth the effort if you have some serious missions in mind other than being a ariel police squad car on a neighbourhood patrol.
*extra*, F35 is like 200M ea, F18s like 50Mea, I believe F18s are cheaper to operate too. The F16s are not much cheaper, they probably should be, but they aren't
The Canadians should probably get refurbished or factory fresh F-18's again. They wont enter a conflict all alone to independently need a be all you can be aircraft like the F-35. Most probably they will enter a conflict with USA. In that case USA takes the lead and Canada Follows. Buying F-35 at a stupendous cost and still following......doesn't make sense. The rest of the time its just patrolling over Canadian Territory. Add to that the fact that Canada doesn't have any troublesome border neighbours.
Interesting, but I would not put an X on single engines. One of the best cold whether weapons designers are Swedes and they create absolutely awesome Draken, Viggen and Grippen... they all had only one engine. But it's true that having two engines is better then just one.
If we were to take Climate, Landing Options and Land Mass to monitor, wouldnt Russia then be the Grand Daddy of them all ?........Especialy with Neighbours like China and Proximity to North/South Korea, Japan, NATO etc.
In modern fighters if you got hit in one engine you probably lost both, they are too close to each others. Maybe some small arms only can damage one engine without harm to other but when you got hit by SAM is no mater how many engines you have.
Bird / FOD ingestion is the more likely engine killer, followed by mechanical failure. Both can be mitigated by a 2 engine design. Even though a missile detonation can potentially damage both engines, it is not always the case.
True, that's the classic discussion, what is better at the end, two or one. One cost less, maintenance is shorter, replace is faster, fuel consumption smaller, overall mass and size of plane smaller. Two are as you said more reliable in case of Bird/FOD ingestion, they give you more power, lost of one engine in fight don't mean you lost a plane, you can carry more ordinance (in theory)...
Both designs had + and - but I'm sure we can't say that one is superb over other. Sometimes one engine in plane is better, sometimes two.
Shas, An F-18 returner to base in Irak after being hit in one engine by a missile. The same for a Mig29 It's not always the case, but at least those pilots returned. Here in Canada is not a warm environment, you have to feel what's -40º Celsius to understand what we are talking about.
Nah -40C temp is nothing new to me, I even like it. I always prefer cold over hot climate.
Sometimes even direct hit in one engine don't crack it, Thunderchiefs in 'Nam ware able to return to base with direct hit in engine exhaust. You just need to have that luck, if you don't have one missile that hit you in the middle between both engines can shred it both with shrapnel's and you done. Or just one, or even don't damage them... weirder things happen.
Do you live in Canada? One thing is to get out few minutes to remove the snow from your main entrance, wearing Columbia Jackets and extra insulated gloves, and another thing is to stay out with your pilot suit for several or hours or days in a windy remote area at -40ºC. You won't return to tell us your stories.
I'd prefer Hot to Cold Climate anytime. Wounds and Bruises hurt like a motherfucker in the cold. The coldest I've been is -21 degree celcius. We were driving to Khardung La near Leh and it was decent wheather. Out of no where comes a blizzard and our vehicles had no snow chains. That was the first time i ever put on snow chains on the vehicle. Wasnt the last though. And on the opposite spectrum, the place where i am right now is +42 degrees celcius.
Canada is one of the three (of eight) F-35 "partners" -- meaning it has money in F-35 R&D -- which has not yet put money down to procure a faulty F-35 prototype. It's rather embarrassing since Canada is normally a reliable US lap-puppy in military matters. But the F-35 fiasco contributed to a fall of the Canada government Mar 25, 2011, involving a coverup of facts similar to what we're now seeing again, so .....once burned twice shy.
The 2011 election was forced on the F-35 pre-text regarding some parliamentary malfeasance by the Conservatives in a minority parliament. The public has no interest in parliamentary minutia and the Liberals and NDP(socialists) have no credibility with regard to the military, thus the Conservatives were returned with a majority government.
For some reason us Canadians are hard on fighter jets. Just look at our record with F-18's versus Australia. Perhaps you, someone has some insight into this.
The Pentagon test organization DOT&E is testing US F-35 prototypes but not foreign ones. Why is that a problem? Because the foreign aircraft are not identical to the US aircraft as I write about here. The US has paid Lockheed to redesign them and make them different.
So the foreign designs will be untested. Also Lockheed has retained the F-35 data rights so foreign countries don't even have access to the specifications of aircraft components. Many of these components are a part of the complex computer-based aircraft and weapons control systems and are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items which change frequently and are subject to a mandatory replacement regimen which I write about here. Foreign countries will be completely dependent upon the Lockheed-operated F-35 Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) system.
So good luck to other countries. Even after a 2019 production decision, they they will encouraged to procure an untested system with unknown components and be completely dependent upon badly-reputed Lockheed for support. Buying faulty prototypes before a production decision is even more problematical, as retrofit will be required at the least.
@ Scar Lett You can take your "nice words Don" slam and stick 'em where the sun doesn't shine.
I presented full evidence that the Pentagon has spent three-quarters of a billion dollars to redesign foreign F-35 aircraft to make them different from US aircraft, so the differences are real and not "supposed" unless one believes that this redesign program was simple a giant scam.
Single Engine Starfighter- Lockheed
ReplyDeleteSingle Engine F16- Lockheed
Single Engine F35- Lockheed
Hero of Canadian Fighters, twin engine F18- Boeing
This public service announcement is brought to you by- Boeing.
But yes, the extra money it takes to get and maintain a twin engine aircraft pays for itself over time and is worth the effort if you have some serious missions in mind other than being a ariel police squad car on a neighbourhood patrol.
Delete*extra*, F35 is like 200M ea, F18s like 50Mea, I believe F18s are cheaper to operate too. The F16s are not much cheaper, they probably should be, but they aren't
DeleteThe Canadians should probably get refurbished or factory fresh F-18's again. They wont enter a conflict all alone to independently need a be all you can be aircraft like the F-35. Most probably they will enter a conflict with USA. In that case USA takes the lead and Canada Follows. Buying F-35 at a stupendous cost and still following......doesn't make sense. The rest of the time its just patrolling over Canadian Territory. Add to that the fact that Canada doesn't have any troublesome border neighbours.
DeleteInteresting, but I would not put an X on single engines. One of the best cold whether weapons designers are Swedes and they create absolutely awesome Draken, Viggen and Grippen... they all had only one engine. But it's true that having two engines is better then just one.
ReplyDeleteThe Swedes have far less territory and more landing options than in Canada.
DeleteBut they operate in more or less similar climate. If we take climate as important factor of course.
DeleteIf we were to take Climate, Landing Options and Land Mass to monitor, wouldnt Russia then be the Grand Daddy of them all ?........Especialy with Neighbours like China and Proximity to North/South Korea, Japan, NATO etc.
DeleteWhen you have two engines in combat and one gets hit, you still have one engine.
ReplyDeleteThese aircraft are for fighting wars, not airshows.
In modern fighters if you got hit in one engine you probably lost both, they are too close to each others. Maybe some small arms only can damage one engine without harm to other but when you got hit by SAM is no mater how many engines you have.
DeleteBird / FOD ingestion is the more likely engine killer, followed by mechanical failure. Both can be mitigated by a 2 engine design. Even though a missile detonation can potentially damage both engines, it is not always the case.
DeleteTrue, that's the classic discussion, what is better at the end, two or one. One cost less, maintenance is shorter, replace is faster, fuel consumption smaller, overall mass and size of plane smaller. Two are as you said more reliable in case of Bird/FOD ingestion, they give you more power, lost of one engine in fight don't mean you lost a plane, you can carry more ordinance (in theory)...
DeleteBoth designs had + and - but I'm sure we can't say that one is superb over other. Sometimes one engine in plane is better, sometimes two.
Shas,
DeleteAn F-18 returner to base in Irak after being hit in one engine by a missile.
The same for a Mig29
It's not always the case, but at least those pilots returned.
Here in Canada is not a warm environment, you have to feel what's -40º Celsius to understand what we are talking about.
Nah -40C temp is nothing new to me, I even like it. I always prefer cold over hot climate.
DeleteSometimes even direct hit in one engine don't crack it, Thunderchiefs in 'Nam ware able to return to base with direct hit in engine exhaust. You just need to have that luck, if you don't have one missile that hit you in the middle between both engines can shred it both with shrapnel's and you done. Or just one, or even don't damage them... weirder things happen.
Do you live in Canada?
DeleteOne thing is to get out few minutes to remove the snow from your main entrance, wearing Columbia Jackets and extra insulated gloves, and another thing is to stay out with your pilot suit for several or hours or days in a windy remote area at -40ºC. You won't return to tell us your stories.
I'd prefer Hot to Cold Climate anytime. Wounds and Bruises hurt like a motherfucker in the cold. The coldest I've been is -21 degree celcius. We were driving to Khardung La near Leh and it was decent wheather. Out of no where comes a blizzard and our vehicles had no snow chains. That was the first time i ever put on snow chains on the vehicle. Wasnt the last though. And on the opposite spectrum, the place where i am right now is +42 degrees celcius.
DeleteCanada is one of the three (of eight) F-35 "partners" -- meaning it has money in F-35 R&D -- which has not yet put money down to procure a faulty F-35 prototype. It's rather embarrassing since Canada is normally a reliable US lap-puppy in military matters. But the F-35 fiasco contributed to a fall of the Canada government Mar 25, 2011, involving a coverup of facts similar to what we're now seeing again, so .....once burned twice shy.
ReplyDeleteCanadian Conservative Government has been in power since 2006 according to:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections
The 2011 election was forced on the F-35 pre-text regarding some parliamentary malfeasance by the Conservatives in a minority parliament. The public has no interest in parliamentary minutia and the Liberals and NDP(socialists) have no credibility with regard to the military, thus the Conservatives were returned with a majority government.
DeleteFor some reason us Canadians are hard on fighter jets. Just look at our record with F-18's versus Australia. Perhaps you, someone has some insight into this.
The Pentagon test organization DOT&E is testing US F-35 prototypes but not foreign ones. Why is that a problem? Because the foreign aircraft are not identical to the US aircraft as I write about here. The US has paid Lockheed to redesign them and make them different.
ReplyDeleteSo the foreign designs will be untested. Also Lockheed has retained the F-35 data rights so foreign countries don't even have access to the specifications of aircraft components. Many of these components are a part of the complex computer-based aircraft and weapons control systems and are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items which change frequently and are subject to a mandatory replacement regimen which I write about here. Foreign countries will be completely dependent upon the Lockheed-operated F-35 Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) system.
So good luck to other countries. Even after a 2019 production decision, they they will encouraged to procure an untested system with unknown components and be completely dependent upon badly-reputed Lockheed for support. Buying faulty prototypes before a production decision is even more problematical, as retrofit will be required at the least.
Nice words Don but can you actually point to any of these supposed differences in Foreign F-35s??
ReplyDelete@ Scar Lett
DeleteYou can take your "nice words Don" slam and stick 'em where the sun doesn't shine.
I presented full evidence that the Pentagon has spent three-quarters of a billion dollars to redesign foreign F-35 aircraft to make them different from US aircraft, so the differences are real and not "supposed" unless one believes that this redesign program was simple a giant scam.