Derek 2.0

As said numerous times, the RAAF purchased the Super Hornets to replace their F-111 medium bombers, well adding an integral EW capability to their military with the purchase of the Growlers.......they haven't reduced their planned F-35 purchase.

Canada, like Australia, is a tier III partner and has already paid our portion of development costs...... Lockheed is not to blame for reduced DoD orders, which in turn effect production costs, due to US Government spending cuts. The projected F-35 figures include inflation based on today's dollar....The Super Hornet, not so much. It does when you include ECM, upgrades, and integration to the avionics of an end users fleet……these of course are hidden costs not only associated with the Super Hornet, but other legacy types…..Of course, these costs are accounted for with the F-35 which has said systems integral to the aircraft on production Over 50% of the cost of all modern aircraft programs is the avionics and electronics. And the "experts" also said several years ago the program would be binned.........As I said, I'll swim against the stream, and await to be proven wrong in a few years time......

You answered, right there, why I’m not concerned with the single engine F-35…...Advancements in technology, coupled with the proven record of both Lockheed and P&W…….simply put both companies have been in the business for a very long time and have delivered products with proven success…..As to cost, though it’s certainly expensive, all defense programs are, especially when developing new technologies. What matters is the finished product, of which a great many nations have continued high expectations and confidence in.

Actually, I am (since 1985) and I understand the engineering strides achieved in engine safety over that span……..likewise I understand that safety is far more nuanced then what you purport, as such, single engine types are not of the level of concern that you suggest…….after all, the most populous current Western fighter, with the best safety record, is currently the single engine F-16.

Not at all....I just relayed USAF stats, which show that bird strikes are not a major concern..........

The USAF tables have been provided for you several times already......

If you know the answer, why are hung up on the fact that the Americans........ Numbers for LRIP aircraft..... So the current cost of a Super Hornet isn't a valid contrast when using F-35 costing in ~5 years? The RAAF didn't purchase a pod for each aircraft. No it's not, I provided the actual USN budgeted amount, with the inclusion of the required "pods", and was ~75 million, or roughly the projected cost of the F-35A.

Strawman........the single engine types, in USAF service, have a greater safety record than twins........The range numbers are what they are.......the F-35 has a greater range then the legacy types it will replace with external stores.....thats a fact.

The helmet does work...........the stealth does work, but of course the legacy aircraft are not stealth and the issue with the engine was proven to not be a systemic problem........as we talked about before, when the Super Hornet was at the same stage early in it's service, it too faced issues with it's engine. As to range..........well again, you're ignorant on this point........the F-35 has a greater range on internal fuel then a Super Hornet with two drop tanks...

As would a Super Hornet, f-16, Rafale, etc when faced with a modern, well trained adversary........Of course, of those aircraft, the F-35 benefits the most from modern technology.........

Ahh but you’re wrong…the F-35’s fuselage, like the F-22, was engineered to generate lift to a greater extent than legacy aircraft……….And the F-35 with internal stores isn’t faced with the same penalties as legacy types with external stores… As such, a Super Hornet with two drop tanks (needed to equal the F-35’s internal fuel capacity), a couple of JDAMs, a targeting pod, an ECM pod, two medium and two short range missiles won’t equal the F-35’s maneuverability or speed when carrying the same load……. Big difference between combat and airshow configurations……..

Ahhhh……..no you didn’t, you just regurgitated Wikipedia……..A legacy aircraft, like the Super Hornet, with external stores is at both a speed and maneuverability disadvantage due to drag when compared to a F-35 with an equal load carried externally…….this of course is due to drag.

No you didn't answer the question: Yes or no, or I'll go watch tv........

What of it? I'll ask once more: If you're not going to answer the question, since you clearly don't understand the concept, say so........I don't intend to waste the evening reading your cut & paste wikipedia posts........

Would external fuel tanks and missiles under the wings cause further drag to said aircraft?

Do you understand how drag works?

So you admit that a Super Hornet with weapons and fuel carried externally will be at a disadvantage in terms of maneuverability and speed caused by drag when contrasted to a fighter that carriers its stores internally..

What's the drag penalty for missiles and fuel carried by a Super Hornet?

What about 426 squadron? They, like the rest of the RCAF didn't operate Sabres or any other combat type in Korea.

And most other legacy types that carry their stores externally.

They don't count as a RCAF operation or victory..........no RCAF combat squadrons have Korean war Battle honours.

On a great many things.

How did I dismiss the service of any members of the RCAF?I clearly stated pilots could have served on exchange in Korea...... The last air to air for the RCAF was WW II.........no amount of time you spend on wikipedia will change that......sorry

Flying for the USAF, in Sabres owned by the US Government......what more do you need to know? Again, thank-you for attempting to both confirm my point, well teaching me stuff I already know

What part of on exchange with the USAF don't you get?