Canadas Next Fighter

[RoflSeal]

But I can tell you that for sure they like the sound of the hornet better than a flying computer.

 

 

 

I don't see how anecdotal thinking like that is in favour of the Hornets.

 

Computer power is increasing year on year. I don't see a problem in taking advantage of it.

 

The "flying computer" will give the pilot much better situational awareness for example.

[Gladman]

GGTharos

 

All the options are flying computers. Hell, all the ones currently in service are flying computers.

[Sweep]

That's why Canada should go with MiG-21, its super fast, its simple and easy to maintain, its easy to train your pilots for, and its so cheap! :P

 

 

Oh also, its not a flying super computer.

[Brisse]

Which fighter is currently the most environmentally friendly? That seems to be important, doesn't it? What's the CO2 emission levels of those Hornets?

[NineLine]

Which fighter is currently the most environmentally friendly? That seems to be important, doesn't it? What's the CO2 emission levels of those Hornets?

 

Yes, they wont be allowed to fly close to Vancouver without a couple catalytic converters hanging out the back end :)

[Gladman]

lmao, and which one is the most politically correct fighter. Maybe it can have a potpouri dispencer instead of flares and chaff.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Time will tell.

 

I can only assume that some of the manufacturing could be done in Canada if the SH was awarded. It has been done in the past with the F-5 and etc. I dunno, its a good point.

Given everybody in this thread seems to know everything (kidding), we should just start our own company and base it on Boeing requirements to ensure we really know whats going on. :)

We all have to remember in the end that it's not us simmers and Canadians but the men and women in uniform proudly serving our nation that will be taking the next generation of fighter aircraft into our airspace to defend our rights and freedoms. Regardless of what aircraft will be chosen I just hope that the DoD looks and studies each one carefully.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[NineLine]

lmao, and which one is the most politically correct fighter. Maybe it can have a potpouri dispencer instead of flares and chaff.

 

Dude, this is Canada, poutine dispenser is a must ;)

[Bullfrog_]

That's why Canada should go with MiG-21, its super fast, its simple and easy to maintain, its easy to train your pilots for, and its so cheap! :P

 

 

Oh also, its not a flying super computer.

 

 

It only has one engine.

 

#F5forCanada

[Gladman]

Mmmmmmmm, Poutine!!!!!

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Oh god I'm at work and you have to mention poutine. I suddenly have a bad case of the flu and Smokes Poutinery is just around the corner on my way home *cough* *cough*

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[DataHawk]

Thread is about Canada's next fighter, not the US Navy ;)

 

Thread is about Canada's next fighter, not the Poutine ;)

 

:D

[NineLine]

Thread is about Canada's next fighter, not the Poutine ;)

 

:D

 

Poutine is more on topic than the USN ;) Welcome to Canada :P

[Sweep]

Maybe they'll put a poutine dispenser in the back of the gunpod...or just replace the gunpod entirely with such a system. :megalol:

 

I wonder if that's in the list for Canadian fighter requirements....?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sweep
xD

[dartuil]

What about rafale?

[Hummingbird]

I don't. Economies of scale plus equipment requirements will drive those costs up. Those two aren't as sweet as some people would like to make them out to be in terms of price.

 

And what's this about maintenance? Are we saying two engines are cheaper to maintain than one? Are we saying that the E/R didn't go through a bathtub maintenance model?

 

The reason for the high maintenance costs is primarily the stealth design, stealth aircraft have always had a much higher maintenance cost.

 

Also IIRC calculations were made in regards to the costs of running the F-35 vs the EF/Rafale and the latter were significantly cheaper.

[GGTharos]

Any maintenance cost calculations made in the beginning of the bathtub will probably be quite inflated :)

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Also depending on how many we would actually want. You have to take into account that most planes will actually be shared between two or even three pilots. So you would have to account for the fact that the use of each plane depending on avaliable slots would be used twice or thrice as much as a plane say in the RAF or USN. Kudos to Boeing for making a plane that can be beat on and used as much as a cheap hooker but still put out like an amateur lol

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Sweep]

LOL at that analogy...

[Hummingbird]

Any maintenance cost calculations made in the beginning of the bathtub will probably be quite inflated :)

 

Perhaps, however concerns are there from the buying countries regarding the costs of maintaining an aircraft so reliant on stealth. It's in everything from the paint/coating to the many extra complex mechanical & electrical parts added in order to carry bombs & missiles internally that are worrying to potential buyers atm.

 

That and then there's the performance issues, many nations don't fancy an aircraft that can't defend their nations sovereignty in terms of effectively intercepting incoming threats. They want something they can outfit in such a way that it can act as a quick response interceptor which is fast enough to catch up most anything that violates their airspace.

[GGTharos]

Just why exactly can't it?

 

That and then there's the performance issues, many nations don't fancy an aircraft that can't defend their nations sovereignty in terms of effectively intercepting incoming threats. They want something they can outfit in such a way that it can act as a quick response interceptor which is fast enough to catch up most anything that violates their airspace.

[Tirak]

Just why exactly can't it?

 

He's harping on about the Mach 1.6 speed limit imposed on the aircraft, because he's willingly forgetting that the F-16, the moment you put a fuel tank under the wings, or a payload of any worth, it drops down to that speed too, or that the much beloved Hornet only hits Mach 1.8 on a good day.

[PiedDroit]

He's harping on about the Mach 1.6 speed limit imposed on the aircraft, because he's willingly forgetting that the F-16, the moment you put a fuel tank under the wings, or a payload of any worth, it drops down to that speed too, or that the much beloved Hornet only hits Mach 1.8 on a good day.

Is the intercept speed equal to max speed? I would have guessed it was lower than max speed (due to the high fuel consumption).

[GGTharos]

The thing is though, it's not like Canada had a faster interceptor in the CF-188. Theoretically the F-35 will be more capable of a supersonic dash.

 

What happens when your interceptors are slower is that you need your EW to give you that warning an additional 5 minutes earlier - simplistic view, but you get the idea.

[Basher54321]

He's harping on about the Mach 1.6 speed limit imposed on the aircraft, because he's willingly forgetting that the F-16, the moment you put a fuel tank under the wings, or a payload of any worth, it drops down to that speed too, or that the much beloved Hornet only hits Mach 1.8 on a good day.

 

 

Even though intercept profiles do specify high Mach and dropping tanks the intercept speed can also depend on the range - simply put in some intercepts you wont be able to fly at full AB because you wont have the fuel.

 

 

With a Centre tank F-16s have been flown over M1.8 (above the M1.6 test limit) - although an F-16 with CFTs would likely get there quicker and fly there for longer (less drag + more fuel) and fly there without any limits.

 

No CF-18 is flying anywhere near M1.8 until it has dropped tanks.

 

If you need range & speed you can have 2 x 370 tanks on an F-16 but with a M1.6 limit and it takes a lot longer to get there - in this situation the F-35A could actually get to M1.6 quicker and stay there longer due to lower drag going through Transonic.

 

Of course should add CFTs and a centre tank on a block 60 could put this back in the F-16 favour to M1.6 - but without the other benefits the F-35 has.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Basher54321