[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The biggest advantage the Super Hornet has over the F-35 is that it has two engines.

That is about the only advantage the Super Bug has over the F-35, besides sticker price.

Sticker price is another advantage, as is the fact that the Super Hornet is related the current CF-18s, which in theory, means the adjustment for ground crews should be easier than for the F-35.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

if one does go out, on the F-35, we'll likely lose the pilot and the plane, whereas the Super Hornet and its pilot will probably make it back to Yellowknife safe and sound.

No ejection seats on the F-35?

Sure he can eject.

How long the pilot survives 200+ km north of Inuvit - that's the Beaufort Sea BTW - is another question. Even if it's summer, the possibility of hypothermia setting in in a matter of minutes is realistic (in the winter, forget about it). So, even if SAR (currently based out of Comox or Winnipeg) does find the guy, he'll probably be dead by the time they get there...that's my point.

[saturn_656]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Again, what good does a small RCS do if you increase the signature with external fuel tanks? I want what's best for the Canadian Forces, not what's shiny and new and popular. It's a single-engine aircraft, that is ridiculously expensive, has been plagued by development problems and wasn't even put in a competitive bid. That's what I hate most about this; no other aircraft were given the chance.

The '35 carries over 18,000 pounds of fuel internally. More than the Super Hornet, never mind our legacy Hornets. If you don't want to compromise your RCS, don't use them.

The A and C models have an operating radius of over 1000 kilometers on internal fuel only (I'm sure this is assuming no external stores).

I'm all for a competition. I believe the F-35 would win anyway on its merits.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sticker price is another advantage, as is the fact that the Super Hornet is related the current CF-18s, which in theory, means the adjustment for ground crews should be easier than for the F-35.

I'm sure those poor ground crews have the ability to adapt to a new aircraft.

$1:

Sure he can eject.

How long the pilot survives 200+ km north of Inuvit - that's the Beaufort Sea BTW - is another question. Even if it's summer, the possibility of hypothermia setting in in a matter of minutes is realistic (in the winter, forget about it). So, even if SAR (currently based out of Comox or Winnipeg) does find the guy, he'll probably be dead by the time they get there...that's my point.

You're asserting that Air Command doesn't equip (or plan for) its pilots to survive ejections on northern air sovereignty patrols?

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sticker price is another advantage, as is the fact that the Super Hornet is related the current CF-18s, which in theory, means the adjustment for ground crews should be easier than for the F-35.

I'm sure those poor ground crews have the ability to adapt to a new aircraft.

Sure they can, I just listed another advantage (easier switch over). Less training means less cost...

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Sure he can eject.

How long the pilot survives 200+ km north of Inuvit - that's the Beaufort Sea BTW - is another question. Even if it's summer, the possibility of hypothermia setting in in a matter of minutes is realistic (in the winter, forget about it). So, even if SAR (currently based out of Comox or Winnipeg) does find the guy, he'll probably be dead by the time they get there...that's my point.

You're asserting that Air Command doesn't equip (or plan for) its pilots to survive ejections on northern air sovereignty patrols?

Of course they do. That doesn't mean that everything always works out though, now does it? Shit happens. With SAR 4-5 hours away from such places, it's a long time to wait in an ocean that's either near freezing or on an inhospitable frozen chunk of land/ice.

To my knowledge, we haven't had many CF planes crash in the Arctic (other than the C-130 that crashed near Alert in the early 90s), but it has happened. Like I said, I don't expect it to happen very often, but when we're talking about a $90 million airplane (and the life of a highly trained pilot), we need to make sure that we're making the right decision.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure they can, I just listed another advantage (easier switch over). Less training means less cost...

We shouldn't be always aiming for the lowest bidder. Keep in mind these aircraft will be our only fighter force for the next 35 to 40 years.

$1:

Of course they do. That doesn't mean that everything always works out though, now does it? Shit happens. With SAR 4-5 hours away from such places, it's a long time to wait in an ocean that's either near freezing or on an inhospitable frozen chunk of land/ice.

To my knowledge, we haven't had many CF planes crash in the Arctic (other than the C-130 that crashed near Alert in the early 90s), but it has happened. Like I said, I don't expect it to happen very often, but when we're talking about a $90 million airplane (and the life of a highly trained pilot), we need to make sure that we're making the right decision.

I haven't seen the failure rate for the F135 or F136 engines (or the F414 that powers the SH).

While the single versus twin engine should be an element in the decision, it shouldn't be the deciding factor.

In my humble opinion.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure they can, I just listed another advantage (easier switch over). Less training means less cost...

We shouldn't be always aiming for the lowest bidder. Keep in mind these aircraft will be our only fighter force for the next 35 to 40 years.

This has nothing to do with the lowest bidder. This has to do with what our ground crew are currently familiar with.

Think of it like this. You take your car to the local repair shop. If they are used to repairing/maintaining Ferraris, and you bring in a Ford pick-up, then they will probably need training.

Same goes for our fighters. My guess is that ground crew probably won't need too much additional training when it comes to transitioning from the CC-130E/H to the CC-130J, but they will need an entire raft of different training courses to maintain the C-17s.

That's one advantage buying Super Hornets gives us over buying F-35s.

And I'm not saying we don't need new fighters, because we do, but I'm hesitant on the F-35s mainly because of the single engine issue, not cost. Like I said in another thread, had the Conservatives not tacked on the 20 year maintenance plan, the sticker shock wouldn't have been as bad.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Of course they do. That doesn't mean that everything always works out though, now does it? Shit happens. With SAR 4-5 hours away from such places, it's a long time to wait in an ocean that's either near freezing or on an inhospitable frozen chunk of land/ice.

To my knowledge, we haven't had many CF planes crash in the Arctic (other than the C-130 that crashed near Alert in the early 90s), but it has happened. Like I said, I don't expect it to happen very often, but when we're talking about a $90 million airplane (and the life of a highly trained pilot), we need to make sure that we're making the right decision.

I haven't seen the failure rate for the F135 or F136 engines (or the F414 that powers the SH).

While the single versus twin engine should be an element in the decision, it shouldn't be the deciding factor.

In my humble opinion.

I agree that it shouldn't be the only factor, but given our needs (far different from the Americans or even the Brits), it should be fairly important IMHO.

Frankly, in a perfect world, we'd also buy some Super Hornets specifically for Arctic patrols (say two dozen or so) and base them at Cold Lake beside the F-35s. However, even the Conservatives aren't willing to spend as much as is necessary on national defence.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

And I'm not saying we don't need new fighters, because we do, but I'm hesitant on the F-35s mainly because of the single engine issue, not cost. Like I said in another thread, had the Conservatives not tacked on the 20 year maintenance plan, the sticker shock wouldn't have been as bad.

You want sticker shock Boot, look at what the Aussies paid for their Super Hornets.

$1:

I agree that it shouldn't be the only factor, but given our needs (far different from the Americans or even the Brits), it should be fairly important IMHO.

Frankly, in a perfect world, we'd also buy some Super Hornets specifically for Arctic patrols (say two dozen or so) and base them at Cold Lake beside the F-35s. However, even the Conservatives aren't willing to spend as much as is necessary on national defence.

Aussies bought 24 Super Hornets. $6.6 billion is what it cost them.

I'd be more interested in Boeing's Silent Eagle.

[QBall]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The biggest advantage the Super Hornet has over the F-35 is that it has two engines.

That is about the only advantage the Super Bug has over the F-35, besides sticker price.

$1:

if one does go out, on the F-35, we'll likely lose the pilot and the plane, whereas the Super Hornet and its pilot will probably make it back to Yellowknife safe and sound.

No ejection seats on the F-35?

It's more about dealing the vast expanses of hostile wilderness in this country.

We'll get Bear Grylls to pilot our F-35's.