Jump to content

Boeing out of Canadian fighter competition


Dawes
 Share

Recommended Posts

Podcast excerpt of a former Canadian (later an F-35 test pilot) fighter pilot discussing the F-35's suitability for Canada.  This clip begins at 1:25:20

 

Edited by shep854
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Canada's original aircraft requirements was it to have a two engined fighter. I guess that requirement has disappeared, but I wouldn't want to be a CAF pilot flying a long distance mission in bad weather conditions in a Gripon or Lightening 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bille Flynn, a former CAF fighter pilot and later Lockheed Martin test pilot (thus not unbiased), explains on his blog that this wish of having two engines is more of a psychological issue than based in facts.

https://billieflynn.com/the-fighter-engine-debate-more-is-not-better/

Edited by Daan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article.  It mentions if a bird gets sucked into the engine and states that as the aircraft is optimized for flight at 30,000 feet no bird flies this high. Yet taking off and landing are not mentioned. I get a magazine called Airforce Monthly and in it's pages is a section all about aircraft crashes and their cause. Bird ingestation is a common cause for engine failure in about 10% of cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also has a blog entry with his perspective on bird strikes including his experiences when the F-16 he was flying took a bird against the canopy. In the blog entry above, he states the F-135 is somewhat more resistant against FOD than legacy engines. True? It is of course a trade-off: a 4th gen non-VLO aircraft with two older engines and perhaps a better survivability against bird ingestion, versus a much more modern VLO aircraft with a single, but more advanced engine.

https://billieflynn.com/boeings-mythical-canada-goose/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TrustMe said:

One of Canada's original aircraft requirements was it to have a two engined fighter. I guess that requirement has disappeared, but I wouldn't want to be a CAF pilot flying a long distance mission in bad weather conditions in a Gripon or Lightening 2.

That was for the last competition in the seventies, and even then they considered the F-16.

Generally when one of two engines in a jet fighter fails, the other either fails soon after or the aircraft cant get home on one anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Daan said:

Bille Flynn, a former CAF fighter pilot and later Lockheed Martin test pilot (thus not unbiased), explains on his blog that this wish of having two engines is more of a psychological issue than based in facts.

https://billieflynn.com/the-fighter-engine-debate-more-is-not-better/

Also the interviewee in the Fighter Pilot Podcast I posted--for those who didn't check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R011 said:

That was for the last competition in the seventies, and even then they considered the F-16.

Generally when one of two engines in a jet fighter fails, the other either fails soon after or the aircraft cant get home on one anyway.

I bow to your superior knowledge on Canada on this. I does seem that Canada with it vast airspace would want a twin engined fighter. The F18E/F/G is a bit short range as two engines uses twice the fuel, so maybe the F35A would have a longer range. Does Canada have aerial refuelling capability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  Three. old Airbus with probe and drogue tanks added.

The new aircraft need to have the same range as the old F/A-18A Hornets they're replacing.  I imagine both the ones remainingnas well as the F-18E have comparable range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-15 was rejected in favour of the F/A-18 the last time because It costs more. That hadn't changed.  If we were going to buy Boeing, we'd have bought the F-18E this time.  Boeing wasn't rejected for performance issues.

My guess is that we're buying the F-35A which wasn't bought earlier due to partisan politics.  Those specific political factors have faded.  Gripen is only being included so the government can claim there was a competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Colin said:

or as Ed Nash surmises they restart the process, therefore pushing the deal down the road another 5 years.

I think they've already done that as much as they dare.  The Hornets are already a decade overdue for replacement.  They won't be able to keep them in the air long enough to delay more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Colin said:

or as Ed Nash surmises they restart the process, therefore pushing the deal down the road another 5 years.

Or restart with the goal of including, and choosing, the F-15EX.  This, according to Nash would meet US/NATO data integration much more cheaply than F-35, and with more versatility.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...