Derek 2.0

As said, sources have already be given.........But another: As said various times, it all comes back to L/D ratio....

Isn't that the aircraft you go on about? As I said, On it’s entry into service, the fleet was grounded twice due to engine issues, which resulted in the aircraft getting a new engine…….let me know when the F135 is replaced!!!

I doubt many would consider the bar set by the F-16 as low…….As to results of flight testing, there have been numerous resources relayed, some in this very thread, over the years from this program……you new to this debate or something?

You care for a crack at the pointed question? What is too hot a temp for a single engine?

As pointed out already, the Super Hornet fleet (the one you champion) was grounded twice with engine issues during development.........

In testing, it’s already been proven to surpass both the Falcon and Hornet in “dog-fighting”, coupled with it carrying stores and fuel internally (translating into less drag, sustained g-rating and an improved center of gravity when contrasted to aircraft carrying stores under the wings), it’s ability to track targets with 360 degree coverage in both the x and y axis, reduction in not only radar return, but also infrared and electronic emissions etc etc and yeah……I’d argue that it will be able to dogfight if needed... I've heard (secondhand, but from what I consider a reliable source, so take it for what it's worth), at low speeds and high g turns, will share some/many of the traits as the A-4.

No it is then I see….I won’t waste anymore of your time, since you’re clearly not versed in a engineering background, as such, incapable of getting into the actual technicalities of this subject.

Thanks.....I wonder where they plan to base them with no SOFA? Kuwait maybe?

A WW II era aircraft carrier with a wooden flight deck that was made suitable to operate a VTOL air wing So that's a no on you providing a Knudsen number to define what's too "hot"?

Do you have a link? The only mention of foreign pilots flying aircraft in Iraq I’ve heard of was this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/01/exclusive-putin-s-pilots-set-to-fly-over-iraq.html

At what point, in terms of Knudsen number, would you say is too much "heat" for a single engine? Said scenario was solved decades ago.......hardly rocket science

Then why are you interested in the Gripen? One of the primary intended roles the Swedes had when designing the Gripen was to attack hordes of Soviet tanks.......On the inverse, the F-35 can attack pinpoint targets with JDAMs from over 10 miles away. You are wrong, as I highlighted several posts above: Despite the often associated myth of the troubles of single engine aircraft, what actually prevented us from going with the Falcon was that at the time, the aircraft’s radar (APG-66) wasn’t capable of targeting the AIM-7 Sparrow…..which was a clear-cut requirement we had for NORAD to shoot down the hordes of Soviet bombers. The F-35 will use everything in our current inventory, as to working with NATO, look how many NATO nations are purchasing the Gripen and how many the F-35, and of course, the F-35 surpasses the Gripen's range. Says who? Now the RCAF has never looked at the Gripen......... The production Gripen NG, as outlined in the Swiss deal, will cost more then production F-35As..... The F-35 costs have been dropping for the last several years. Yet you want: With all due respect, you need to gain further understanding of the subject.......

Exactly, and after PACFLT, the most capable navy in the Pacific for decades.....

I assume you’re referring to engines? It’s a myriad of factors, but typically a calculation based on the required amounts of energy the aircraft is expected to need to carry out it’s intended purpose……But with the modernization of technology, we can now do more with less……For example, transoceanic airliners until relatively recently relied upon typically four engine (and some case three) designs….now of course there are safe twins…….with fighters that required longer ranges, a big radar and lots of thrust a larger aircraft was required. With this larger size came weight, and with that a requirement for more energy……..but again as technology has improved, this to has diminished. For instance, the F-35’s single engine we deliver nearly the same level of dry thrust as our current Hornet’s two engines combined.

The Japanese Constitution places very little restraint on what is deemed acceptable levels of “defensive armament”………. The Japanese, going back to the Cold War, have had one of the most modern and capable militaries on the planet……There are very few countries that have an equal or better situated navy or air force then the Japanese........... There is no "excuse", for the threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War was just as real as the Chinese today. Do you have a source? My personal opinion, having been both to Japan and exercising with their military, I fully support any policy their elected Government feels is in it’s own interests. Again, I’ve yet to see any real level of dissent against the Government’s decisions (which would go against cultural norms) on military preparedness over the decades……..not saying there isn't, I just don't know of any, could you provide a source indicating this please?

The price of Brent & WTI crude will skyrocket.......

Pre-what war Iraq?

Exactly.......And even revisiting the Trudeau Governments selection of our Hornet back then, one could find many of the same disjointed arguments used today……For instance Rene Levesque and his PQ party and the Quebec wings of the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals favoured the then cheaper General Dynamics F-16, fore GD promised to allow local production, plus P&W Canada made a portion of the engine……… Despite the often associated myth of the troubles of single engine aircraft, what actually prevented us from going with the Falcon was that at the time, the aircraft’s radar (APG-66) wasn’t capable of targeting the AIM-7 Sparrow…..which was a clear-cut requirement we had for NORAD to shoot down the hordes of Soviet bombers.

I've no skin in this Dog and Pony Show, but I agree, the nastiness applied to Ford by his opponents, right or wrong, could very well get him re-elected..........I would think the best game plan for both Chow and Tory is to ignore him.

It would depend on a whole host of factors in place, but typically it wouldn’t be congruent with a longevity.

This is very true, and being able to consistently forward base assets to those fields (more so Comox and Goose Bay) would be a plus, as you alluded to, that’s more a question of both need and finances…….both of which have indicated no need to base interceptors on our coasts (CFB Comox and CFB Chatham) full-time since the retirement of the Voodoos in the early 80s.

That certainly would have been a consideration several decades ago, both for our North and for our then NATO commitment to Norway, but the investment in infrastructure in places like Cambridge Bay or Resolute Bay (places that already handle scheduled flights from 737s) lessen that requirement.

Actually, the Gripen NG, as I showed aboved with the now canceled (because of rising costs) deal with the Swiss, cost over 110 million per copy as a production unit.......perhaps it's operating costs are drastically cheaper, but the plane itself, like the other European aircraft, isn't cheap.

To further the Gripen versus F-35 "debate": http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finland-should-opt-for-f-35-over-gripen-if-the-price-is-right-minister-says

The F-35 wasn't offered to the Indians, the Typhoon lost to the Rafale, because the French were willing to share more technology ........The Swiss canceled their Gripen NG purchase over rising costs.......And the Norwegians are fully committed to the program.