I thought Canada had issues with single engine planes, and that's why they had the CF-188 rather than the F-16?
Registered User
I thought Canada had issues with single engine planes, and that's why they had the CF-188 rather than the F-16?
Originally Posted by heavyfuel
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Registered User
Canada has issues with a lot of things for no factual reasons. lol.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Yes, one of the deciding factors that went in to us ending up with CF-188's instead of the F-16 was they liked the dual engines. They excluded the F-14, F-15, and Panavia Tornado because the purchase price at the time was too high, which makes the people suggesting that we buy the F-15 now hilarious for a couple reasons...one of them being that the original purchase plan was in 1977, and they're suggesting that we just buy the thing we didn't want then now. That being said, I love the F-15, and if there was a legitimate deal on the table to buy an updated version of it it would be the only Gen 4 worth even considering.
When you look at the loss rates for F-16 vs F-15, F-14, F-18, and really any other dual engine alternative, it starts to become fairly apparent quickly that Single vs dual engine doesn't really make a difference in the incident rate. Controlled flight into terrain is the number one loss for all of them. Engine failure either due to impact with objects or otherwise, is a minuscule percentage of the loss rates in any of them, and this whole idea that you can lose an engine and make it back with a twin engine fighter doesn't seem to occur as much as people seem to think it does.
Last edited by Go4Long; 09-06-2018 at 09:41 AM.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Registered User
I just glanced at the CF18 hull losses on wiki and most of them appear to be training related. So a single engine would not matter in most cases.
Registered User
Not all training related, but 100% of the CF-18 losses have been human error. I think the only one that is kinda up in the air is the one in 1990 over the pacific.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Here's a list of all of the F-15's incidents...same trend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses
and here's a database of F-16 incidents...
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-databas...and-accidents/
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Registered User
Yeah, I always thought it was a garbage reason to not have the F-16.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Registered User
It was, that being said, the F-16 ACTUALLY has a tiny range, while the F-35 people just think it does. lol.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Internal fuel to internal fuel the F-35 has similar or greater range than the other options...people love to quote the range with external tanks of the other jets. The F-16 only has 7'000lbs of internal fuel btw. Israel is also the driving force at the moment for securing 6'000lb external fuel tanks for their fleet of F-35's
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Registered User
Are the Israelis thinking about (fuel) bags or CFTs?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Registered User
I believe the israelis specifically were talking of bags. I can't remember who is going forward on the CFT front, but I know they're being worked as well.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Registered User
Almost all aircraft accidents are human error. Planes don't break much anymore.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Registered User
The Lethbridge crash was caused by a mechanical issue with 1 engine (failing) - there was almost nothing the pilot could have done to save their ship at that position....so even two engines made no difference.
But things like the F16 Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System are really saving lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZGL7RQBVw
It pulled almost 9Gs in this case.
Registered User
I actually totally forgot about the Lethbridge crash.
F-16’s are another awesome, but aged platform. They do some cool stuff with them. But comparing them to an F-35 is just not even fair.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Registered User
Interesting video. Makes sense. I just thought that was the pivotal factor that led us to the CF18's and not the single engined airframes we were looking at at the time. I guess tech and reliability have also come a long way.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Last edited by OTown; 09-06-2018 at 10:20 PM.
Registered User
I personally think that a lot of the reason for excluding the single engine F-16 was due to the loss rate of the CF-104's, which were not necessarily the most pilot friendly aircraft regardless of how many engines they had.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Registered User
Was the Lethbridge crash an actual mechanical failure, or just a compressor stall at a high AOA?
Also, we almost ended up with F-14s... the ones destined for Iran almost came to the RCAF.
That woulda been sweet.
Registered User
Originally was said to be a compressor stall during the high alpha pass. The pilot did an interview a year later saying he was having a mechanical issue. Read into that what you will. Lol
Yes, that woulda been awesome. Iran still flies theirs (the ones we would have ended up with) actually.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Registered User
Yea I saw the report - it had something to do with a broken/mis rigged fuel flow valve or VSV armature..... something along those lines.... and apparently has been giving issues in the past.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The other engine was OEM upgraded to help with the problem, but this one had not been apparently.
Registered User
The Lethbridge CF18 crash was one of very few where it was proven to be completely unavoidable by the pilot. I got the from the officer who was part of the team inspecting it, Jason "Fudge" Paquin, high school friend, flown 40+ types including 7 modern fighters, and currently runs the fighter standards and eval team. You can see the nozzle of the engine on that Hornet completely closed IIRC due to it stalling/failing, and at that nose attitude and altitude, as well as speed - there is no escaping that, it's like being out of the autorotation profile in a helo, you're just going in, have a nice day. Go4Long is right though IMO, a huge majority, massive majority of military crashes are pilot or human error. It's amazing in fact there aren't more of them tbh.
Jason did the F35 training at the school in the USA back when we were still buying them. In his and every other RCAF pilot I've spoken to, it's the fighter they want. The range/fuel fraction/etc thing has been covered here. The only issue is the A model is setup for USAF tankers (probe) while are few tankers are all basket/drogue, but since the USAF tankers support ALL of our NORAD duties anyhow, not a huge issue IMO. We COULD buy the C model, it does have stronger gear and other strengthened areas for naval use, and that has served the RCAF well with our Hornets. No internal gun, but the 25mm pod is pretty stealthy still, and works OK so far.
IMO the best option is this new plane that Japan is being pitched, an F22/F35 hybrid, take the F22 engines/airframe and put the new F35 DIAS and ECM tech into it. Goody. Goody. Gumdrops. If Canada was to get in on this, it'd increase the odds of it happening too, and since we're SO far down the list on F35 procurement now due to dropping out, this may not be a bad idea if it comes off.
I wish we'd ended up with the Shah's F14s. Perfect interceptor for Canada - still had all the tough navy gear/etc, far superior range to the Hornet, the AW9/Phoenix would be great for NORAD, the list goes on and on. I fly online with a guy who has 4 live Phoenix shots (Vandy VX F14 squd after he finished teaching at Top/Gun Fallen), the most of any pilot alive. He talks about how the F14D last tour in Afghanistan, where Superhornets need 3 plugs, the F14d needed..none, all internal/external bags for fuel on similar missions. Maintenance is a and would have been more costly, but IMO in the end run the F14 would have been a better fighter for Canada, I agree on this completely.
Still, we now have an opportunity to get in on a possible interceptor fighter/bomber combo with this new USAF/Japan initiative. Hope it moves forward.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/lock...-the-usaf-too/
I dunno. As I understand it, the F-14 was considered a piece of garbage all along. It's just a missile platform for a 60's era missile. No thanks. The F-16 added capability a ton since the original. But the original was basically considered a toy car by pilots at the time.
F-25, F-22, etc...all aren't even what Canada needs. What are we going to do, stop bombers from coming over the arctic circle? lol
What we should do is invest in a large, and super sophisticated fleet of drones.
Registered User
canada needs military planes like a rubber duck needs a life jacket.
what a waste of money.
Registered User
Cool thanks for your input. Troll post ftwThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I guess the world is just full of rainbows and butterflies in Gestalt's world.
Posting Permissions
Quote
