GostHacked Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 The US uses the F-16 in Alaska...Ditto for the Danes and the Norwegians. The F-35 is superior to that aircraft in every way save for top speed, and has the exact same number of engines. BTW, the F-35 will eventually replace the F-16 and so will also be used in Alaska. He address that as well. Norway is small and has a good concentration of airstrips. The US mainland also has a very high concentration of air strips. Canada, not so much, and he also brought up the point of search and rescue if one of the planes goes down. He brings up the F-104 Starfighter and how bird strikes end up in the deaths of close to 40 pilots. That lesson was learned in the 1980s. Along with the point that Canada (2nd largest land mass)does not have the concentration of airstrips that the US or Norway would have. So the distance between airstrips is much larger. Look at where our cities are. Most within a 300KM range of the US/Canada border. And that is where most of our runways are. The more you go north, the less you will have. The US used F-16s in the north, but they also station a lot of the F-22s there. The F-22 is good for long range and can get back home if one engine goes out. The chances of both engines failing at the same time are very low. Try that in a single engine plane and you are going to have a hard time. The US has several planes that they can use in situations. The US Navy used many F-18 Superhornets. Essentially these replaced the Tomcats. The US navy demands twin engine aircraft for missions over large bodies of water. But with the amount of aircraft carriers the US has does make up a bit for that. The US does not soley use the F-22 in the arctic. But it may be their main plane. Other planes would fill other roles. Canada is looking at this F-35 to replace almost all of our planes. Quote
Smallc Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 Canada flys the F/A-18 A/B and is replacing it with the F-35A. The F-35C is replacing the F/A-18 C/D (the newer version of the Hornets we fly) for the US Navy. It has the same number of engines as the F-35A. I don't see his argument at all. Watch what happened at the Lethbridge airship for what happens often when an F-18 loses one engine. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 Canada flys the F/A-18 A/B and is replacing it with the F-35A. The F-35C is replacing the F/A-18 C/D (the newer version of the Hornets we fly) for the US Navy. It has the same number of engines as the F-35A. I don't see his argument at all. Watch what happened at the Lethbridge airship for what happens often when an F-18 loses one engine. F-18s have two. F=35 has one. The maneuvers with the altitude of the plane at Lethbridge would take out any aircraft. At a higher altitude, the pilot would have been able to recover properly. But mechanical failures do happen. I never said there was no risk, I said the risk of a crash is less likely in a two engine plane. Imagine if we simply put one engine on international and intercontinental passenger flights. Quote
Smallc Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 The report says that F-16s fly off of aircraft carriers. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 Just listened to an interview with Micheal Byers and have downloaded his "One Dead Pilot" that I will read later. One issue he brings up that is hard to argue with and is a widely accepted sentiment with any and all pilot's I have ever worked with which goes along the lines of "you can't ever put too many engines on an airplane" Quote
Smallc Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 That's why almost every fighter has one engine. Quote
Topaz Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 Today, it was reported that 3 of the jets on the list, have TWO engines. Quote
Smallc Posted June 9, 2014 Report Posted June 9, 2014 And are inferior to the F-35 in every way. Many fighters throughout history have had 1 engine. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 10, 2014 Author Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) While I consider the F-35 fighter program to be an absolute disaster, this one engine concern is complete rubbish. One of the main reasons two engines were produced for most fighter airplanes was to provide extra thrust. The F-35 has, IRC, the most powerful fighter engine ever built, so this was less of a concern. It's also not built or meant to be much of a dogfighter, so if it works properly it doesn't need to have the weight/thrust ratios that some of the more agile planes have. As for birds, most of the concern there is just rubbish too. The F-16, as already mentioned, works fine with one, and the fact that Canadian F-35's may have to travel way further up north and thus further from airfields isn't much of a concern either. The vast vast vast majority of bird strikes (ie. almost all of them) happen during take-off and landing, which by its very definition is close to an airfield where the planes should be able to land safely. Edited June 10, 2014 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
GostHacked Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 The report says that F-16s fly off of aircraft carriers. But it is not the ONLY plane they fly. Last time I checked, we simply do not have the numbers, nor the variety of aircraft that we operate. We are looking at replacing out MAIN fighter with the F-35. Front line material. Limited range, less maneoverability, low weapons capacity. And damn we are not even getting the V/STOL version, which MIGHT actually be beneficial where if you ran into trouble, it could be landed anywhere with a little open space. Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) It doesn't fly off of aircraft carriers. Almost everyone is replacing their main fighter with the F-35. Edited June 10, 2014 by Smallc Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 While I consider the F-35 fighter program to be an absolute disaster, this one engine concern is complete rubbish. One of the main reasons two engines were produced for most fighter airplanes was to provide extra thrust. The F-35 has, IRC, the most powerful fighter engine ever built, so this was less of a concern. It's also not built or meant to be much of a dogfighter, so if it works properly it doesn't need to have the weight/thrust ratios that some of the more agile planes have. As for birds, most of the concern there is just rubbish too. The F-16, as already mentioned, works fine with one, and the fact that Canadian F-35's may have to travel way further up north and thus further from airfields isn't much of a concern either. The vast vast vast majority of bird strikes (ie. almost all of them) happen during take-off and landing, which by its very definition is close to an airfield where the planes should be able to land safely. If it happens during landing, you might be lucky and make it to the runway. If it happens on T/O, you are likely into the weeds. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Today, it was reported that 3 of the jets on the list, have TWO engines. That's exactly right, and Mr. Byers pointed the stats that show why we went to twin engine after the 104. It's one engine, and one that has a lot of problems. It runs too hot to try and get the thrust to weight ratio it needs. It falls short in many other ways as well. Software, visibility, speed, range, on and on. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 It was testing after mods. I'm no expert on those systems but how it was described to me was that with me as a target, the radar and the optic sighting system "talked" to each other and then calibrated the weapons systems. I was asked to change altitude as well as distance and speed to test the stuff. Last flight I was asked to partake in a shipboard version of what would normally be called GCA and then invited aboard for coffee. So you claim to have partook in the calibration of the Huron’s CIWS post-TRUMP (Out West in the Juan de Fuca strait) by orbiting in circles around the ship in a chartered flight? That’s odd, since a PAC for CIWS (be it Phalanx, Goalkeeper etc) has to determine both gun deflection and mean point of impact. This can’t be determined mathematically by an orbiting target when the CIWS is intended to engage closing and perpendicular targets…..to say nothing of the limited firing arcs imposed on said CIWS by the end user. As to the rest, I’ve sailed aboard both Huron and Algonquin (pre and post TRUMP), as such know that the post TRUMP ship-wide shakedowns were conducted on the East coast for the class (so any needed corrections could be undertaken at the yard that performed the work). To say nothing of the fact that Huron started to go into reduced operating status (of which it never returned) in late 1999, this fact combined with the air force still operating dedicated EW/utility squadrons (on both coasts) until ~2002 would negate your claim of flying a charter in such a role…… And of course, out West, any calibrations to a ships radars wouldn’t take place in a busy shipping and international air route such as the Straits of Juan de Fuca………. I call Bull-Jive on your claim. But back to the F-35 That's exactly right, and Mr. Byers pointed the stats that show why we went to twin engine after the 104. It's one engine, and one that has a lot of problems. It runs too hot to try and get the thrust to weight ratio it needs. It falls short in many other ways as well. Software, visibility, speed, range, on and on. Byers doesn’t have a clue……..What made us actually choose the F/A-18 over the cheaper F-16 was that at the time, the Falcon didn’t have the required radar integration with the AIM-7 Sparrow, which we required for NORAD…….. As to the CF-104 lawndart and it’s very high rate of crashes, this is clearly attributed to intended role well in service, which was our contribution to low-level NATO (nuclear) strike in West Germany. As mentioned above, aircraft are vulnerable to swallowing a bird at low levels (take off & landing), so an aircraft that’s intent is to fly at low levels increases this risk factor. As to your inane statement on the P&W F135, due to the nature of it’s VCE technology, it’s performance allows the F-35 to fly (and fight) a profile that legacy aircraft can only achieve with reheated thrust, which also adds numerous negative attributes (the cyclic argument of external tanks and increased drag namely), which ultimately decreases the effectiveness of legacy aircraft (when contrasted with the F-35) Simply put, a legacy aircraft, loaded with external ordinance and fuel tanks will have a cruising speed, marked level of agility and range far less then a clean F-35 that carries it’s stores and ordinance internally. As to visibility, how many legacy aircraft can track and engage targets with a 360 degree coverage arc? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 So you claim to have partook in the calibration of the Huron’s CIWS post-TRUMP (Out West in the Juan de Fuca strait) by orbiting in circles around the ship in a chartered flight? That’s odd, since a PAC for CIWS (be it Phalanx, Goalkeeper etc) has to determine both gun deflection and mean point of impact. This can’t be determined mathematically by an orbiting target when the CIWS is intended to engage closing and perpendicular targets…..to say nothing of the limited firing arcs imposed on said CIWS by the end user. As to the rest, I’ve sailed aboard both Huron and Algonquin (pre and post TRUMP), as such know that the post TRUMP ship-wide shakedowns were conducted on the East coast for the class (so any needed corrections could be undertaken at the yard that performed the work). To say nothing of the fact that Huron started to go into reduced operating status (of which it never returned) in late 1999, this fact combined with the air force still operating dedicated EW/utility squadrons (on both coasts) until ~2002 would negate your claim of flying a charter in such a role…… And of course, out West, any calibrations to a ships radars wouldn’t take place in a busy shipping and international air route such as the Straits of Juan de Fuca………. I call Bull-Jive on your claim. But back to the F-35 Byers doesn’t have a clue……..What made us actually choose the F/A-18 over the cheaper F-16 was that at the time, the Falcon didn’t have the required radar integration with the AIM-7 Sparrow, which we required for NORAD…….. As to the CF-104 lawndart and it’s very high rate of crashes, this is clearly attributed to intended role well in service, which was our contribution to low-level NATO (nuclear) strike in West Germany. As mentioned above, aircraft are vulnerable to swallowing a bird at low levels (take off & landing), so an aircraft that’s intent is to fly at low levels increases this risk factor. As to your inane statement on the P&W F135, due to the nature of it’s VCE technology, it’s performance allows the F-35 to fly (and fight) a profile that legacy aircraft can only achieve with reheated thrust, which also adds numerous negative attributes (the cyclic argument of external tanks and increased drag namely), which ultimately decreases the effectiveness of legacy aircraft (when contrasted with the F-35) Simply put, a legacy aircraft, loaded with external ordinance and fuel tanks will have a cruising speed, marked level of agility and range far less then a clean F-35 that carries it’s stores and ordinance internally. As to visibility, how many legacy aircraft can track and engage targets with a 360 degree coverage arc? Call whatever you want. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Call whatever you want. That's quite the little prattle you've gone on. Now, do you have any idea what a VOR/DME is as opposed to a TACAN? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 That's quite the little prattle you've gone on. Now, do you have any idea what a VOR/DME is as opposed to a TACAN? Sure...why do you ask? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Sure...why do you ask? Because since I was flying a civil a/c I had the former. Because the ship was military, they had the latter. One of the snags we had was me trying to accurately guess my distance from them, which they wanted altered from time to time as they were on the move as well. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Because since I was flying a civil a/c I had the former. Because the ship was military, they had the latter. One of the snags we had was me trying to accurately guess my distance from them, which they wanted altered from time to time as they were on the move as well. Sure you were……..As stated, there was no contracting out to charters, post TRUMP modifications, fore the air force had aircraft dedicated to said tasks..........As to your claim of difficulty in determining distance, are you now suggesting the SPQ 502 was down? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Sure you were……..As stated, there was no contracting out to charters, post TRUMP modifications, fore the air force had aircraft dedicated to said tasks..........As to your claim of difficulty in determining distance, are you now suggesting the SPQ 502 was down? You sound like a young pup. And apparently you don't know the difference between VOR and TACAN. So here's some advice, you ass is the thing you sit down on, and your elbow is the thing you bend to pick up the phone. When you sort those two, or the other two out, get back to me. Do you happen to know the designation or the "restricted" zone off Esq. harbour? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 You sound like a young pup. And apparently you don't know the difference between VOR and TACAN. So here's some advice, you ass is the thing you sit down on, and your elbow is the thing you bend to pick up the phone. When you sort those two, or the other two out, get back to me. Do you happen to know the designation or the "restricted" zone off Esq. harbour? Hardly young…..and I do know the difference between both in their civil and military applications, fore I have a background in both fields, but I fail to see what this would have to do with a PAC for CIWS…..So why was their trouble in determining range in your fairy tale? Was the ships air search radar not working? Was the earth's magnetic field interfering with triangulation and other basic maths? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Hardly young…..and I do know the difference between both in their civil and military applications, fore I have a background in both fields, but I fail to see what this would have to do with a PAC for CIWS…..So why was their trouble in determining range in your fairy tale? Was the ships air search radar not working? Was the earth's magnetic field interfering with triangulation and other basic maths? the radar in conjunction with the optical sighting was exactly what was being calibrated, on a moving ship. So tell me, what is your idea of the dif between VOR and TACAN. I'm interested to know. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 the radar in conjunction with the optical sighting was exactly what was being calibrated, on a moving ship. So tell me, what is your idea of the dif between VOR and TACAN. I'm interested to know. Which radar? The ships? You still haven’t addressed why a civilian charter was used as opposed to then operational military owned and operated, dedicated aircraft. Was the HeliDet aboard at the time? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 And as a matter of fact I recall the last request I had from the ship after we had wrapped things up was if I would do a couple of radar controlled approaches to the ship, which I happilly did, being conversant with having done GCA's into Comox a time or two. Have I confused you now? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.