F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

That is the point. We can add all the tanks we want to the Hornet we aren't paying for a stealth fighter with it.

And we can add all the tanks we want to the F-35 for NORPATs and have a much greater range.

[Smallc]

And we can add all the tanks we want to the F-35 for NORPATs and have a much greater range.

And if you need to go stealth, then you drop them. If you drop them from a SH...you have a SH. Also, the F-35 has more than some stealth.

[Guest Derek L]

And if you need to go stealth, then you drop them. If you drop them from a SH...you have a SH. Also, the F-35 has more than some stealth.

Exactly.......As for single engine aircraft in the Arctic:

USAF F-16s, some even on the ramp

Norway's largest F-16 base

And a forward base for the Danes F-16s

[punked]

And we can add all the tanks we want to the F-35 for NORPATs and have a much greater range.

That really isn't the point. The point is once we add the tanks it doesn't have stealth so why pay for stealth at all?

[Smallc]

That really isn't the point. The point is once we add the tanks it doesn't have stealth so why pay for stealth at all?

Because if the planes are threatened, they can drop the tanks, and they're stealth. The SH, EF, and Raf don't have that ability.

[Guest Derek L]

That really isn't the point. The point is once we add the tanks it doesn't have stealth so why pay for stealth at all?

Because we can choose not to add tanks or choose to drop said tanks, and the aircraft is stealth, the Hornet…..not so much.

[punked]

Because we can choose not to add tanks or choose to drop said tanks, and the aircraft is stealth, the Hornet…..not so much.

It is stealth it just can't be used. I wonder if all those dropped tanks Harper calculated in the life cycle costs?

[Guest Derek L]

It is stealth it just can't be used. I wonder if all those dropped tanks Harper calculated in the life cycle costs?

Why can’t it be used? As for the cost of drop tanks, like munitions, I don’t see how one could estimate their expenditures. How many wars/conflicts will Canada be involved in between now and the 2050s?

[punked]

Why can’t it be used? As for the cost of drop tanks, like munitions, I don’t see how one could estimate their expenditures. How many wars/conflicts will Canada be involved in between now and the 2050s?

That really isn't my point is it?

[Smallc]

That really isn't my point is it?

What is your point? I'm not sure you even know.

[Guest Derek L]

That really isn't my point is it?

I fail to see your point, it seems to be ever so changing………The point, as I understand it, from the article you linked to was that the current Hornet (and Super Hornet & Eagle) was a superior platform for Arctic Sovereignty patrols, based on it’s two engines and “greater range than the F-35”, with both “points” being proven false.

[DogOnPorch]

Drop tanks tend to get jettisoned before entering the combat zone as they are a liability. This has been the deal since WW2. The idea is to have the longest time possible in the combat zone while under combat power. Since mid-air refueling has become very reliable (and plentiful), drop tanks are now optional rather than mandatory for most missions.

[DogOnPorch]

A notable historical exception to this would be the B-58 Hustler that was designed around its massive droppable pod which carried the fuel for the outward bound leg + yer Hydrogen Bomb. Once the device was lobbed towards the target, the Hustler could then gun-it to its intended Mach 2 speed and head for home base clean. Provided there was a home base.

Jingoistic, chest thumpy video w/ Brig. Gen. Jimmy Stewart USAF

Edited April 27, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

No, his opinion is just that and, based on when he retired, his opinion isn’t anymore valid then anyone else’s outside of the program.

the retired CF-18 'fleet manager's' statement suggests the F-35 has less range than the CF-18... and that from a Canadian north patrol/reconnaissance aspect, the F-35 is disadvantaged in relation to the CF-18. This same range reference shows up, many times over across various sites... if the guy has it wrong, if all these other appearances of the same reference are wrong, just what are the range numbers that would correspond to that type of flight mode; i.e., patrol/reconnaissance?

I've also read several references that suggest the F-35 drop tanks only realize a minimal 8% gain over the range associated with the internal tank... drag performance considerations. In any case, MLW member punked hit the other point I was lining up around - stealth. If you're so accepting to dropping stealth for maximizing range... and that, supposedly, that dropping stealth only realizes you an additional (and measly) 8% range gain, isn't "dropping stealth" a non-starter?

but again, what are the range numbers for the flight mode associated with flying patrol/reconnaissance... CF-18 versus F-35?

[Smallc]

the retired CF-18 'fleet manager's' statement suggests the F-35 has less range than the CF-18

But it doesn't as you can see, and has already been posted. The F-35 can go farther on internal fuel than any other option. The same is true on external fuel.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Smallc

[waldo]

But it doesn't as you can see, and has already been posted. The F-35 can go farther on internal fuel than any other option. The same is true on external fuel.

so what are the range numbers... the ones that seem to be in 'dispute'... you know, relative to the typical flight mode suggested/anticipated for northern patrol/reconnaissance? You know, not "combat range"...

nothing to say about that suggested measly 8% gain that drop tanks bring to the overall F-35 range?

[Smallc]

so what are the range numbers... the ones that seem to be in 'dispute'... you know, relative to the typical flight mode suggested/anticipated for northern patrol/reconnaissance? You know, not "combat range"...

I'm not even sure what you're talking about, really. The F-35A has 2.5x the range of what it replaced, and that's the F-16. 8% gain from drop tanks? What? Do you, you know, happen to have some kind of credible source for that?

Also, do you think that planes on patrol without ordinance (the ferry range for the F-18 that you're talking about) is at all useful, or relevant? You aren't even comparing the same numbers.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not even sure what you're talking about, really. The F-35A has 2.5x the range of what it replaced, and that's the F-16. 8% gain from drop tanks? What? Do you, you know, happen to have some kind of credible source for that?

Also, do you think that planes on patrol without ordinance (the ferry range for the F-18 that you're talking about) is at all useful, or relevant? You aren't even comparing the same numbers.

As mentioned, it's revolutionary that the F-35 doesn't have a steering wheel and an automatic transmission to many.

Joe Public: Where does the oil go??

[waldo]

Also, do you think that planes on patrol without ordinance (the ferry range for the F-18 that you're talking about) is at all useful, or relevant? You aren't even comparing the same numbers.

you're all about "combat/interceptor" flying... how much of that type of flying and related fuel usage is associated with typical (northern) patrol/reconnaissance flying?

care to give representative examples of the type of CF-18 combat/interceptor flying over these last decades...

[Smallc]

you're all about "combat/interceptor" flying...

Nice attempt at a deflect. Again, what are the relevant differences between the range of an aircraft, and the ferry range of an aircraft? What good is a fighter with no weapons?

[cybercoma]

Also, do you think that planes on patrol without ordinance (the ferry range for the F-18 that you're talking about) is at all useful, or relevant? You aren't even comparing the same numbers.

Patrolling, is that all our jets are going to be used for? Or will it be necessary to have better range capabilities for the multitude of tasks they'll probably be required to do?

[waldo]

Nice attempt at a deflect. Again, what are the relevant differences between the range of an aircraft, and the ferry range of an aircraft? What good is a fighter with no weapons?

didn't think you were that obtuse... or is it purposeful? Do you think there are degrees of flying/range between "ferry" and "combat"... that would align with more typical patrol/reconnaissance? As for deflection... yours... care to actually answer the question you avoided. Here, once again: "care to give representative examples of the type of CF-18 combat/interceptor flying over these last decades"? We have you so cavalierly dispensing with the CF-18 fleet manager's assessment... you know, the guy with familiarity on how the CF-18's have been utilized to-date within Canada - go figure!

[Smallc]

Patrolling, is that all our jets are going to be used for? Or will it be necessary to have better range capabilities for the multitude of tasks they'll probably be required to do?

This jet has the best range available.

didn't think you were that obtuse... or is it purposeful? Do you think there are degrees of flying/range between "ferry" and "combat"... that would align with more typical patrol/reconnaissance?

Yes, and the F-35 will have better range in all of those missions. It simply won't go quite as fast. On internal fuel, the F-35 has range that simply can't be matched by the F-18.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Smallc

[waldo]

Yes, and the F-35 will have better range in all of those missions. It simply won't go quite as fast. On internal fuel, the F-35 has range that simply can't be matched by the F-18.

how so? Just a few posts back, you were the guy talking up the need to maximize range before leveraging air-fuelers... so, see CF-18 external drop tanks. What's that... you want to forgo the F-35 "stealth" to presume to claim better range than the CF-18... is that right? Oh my, that's an awful lot to pay for ditching "stealth", hey? Oh wait, didn't I just mention something about F-35 external tanks providing only a measly 8% gain over the internal storage.

[Smallc]

how so? Just a few posts back, you were the guy talking up the need to maximize range before leveraging air-fuelers... so, see CF-18 external drop tanks. What's that... you want to forgo the F-35 "stealth" to presume to claim better range than the CF-18... is that right? Oh my, that's an awful lot to pay for ditching "stealth", hey?

The F-35 is still stealth when it drops the tanks. The CF-18 isn't. I didn't realize that you were so dense.

Oh wait, didn't I just mention something about F-35 external tanks providing only a measly 8% gain over the internal storage.

Yes, you mentioned that. I'm not sure I see the relevance. You're comparing a naked F-18 carrying 3 tanks, and an F-35 with 2 tanks and internal weapons payload.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Smallc