F-35s single-engine design too dangerous for Canadian air force, report says


mentalfloss
#1


F-35’s single-engine design too dangerous for Canadian air force, report says

A new report is urging the federal government to forego the purchase of the F-35 fighter to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 fleet because its single-engine design is ill-suited to Canada’s north and dangerous to pilots.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’s report, called “One Dead Pilot” and written by UBC political science Michael Byers, says the “decision to purchase a single-engine fighter would almost inevitably result in the needless loss of Canadian pilots,” according to a news release.

In the report, Byers compares the F-35 to the Lockheed Corporation-made CF-104 Starfighter, which Canada operated from 1961 to 1987. Byers writes that while the CF-104 never saw combat, “39 Canadian pilots lost their lives while flying these planes.” Some 110 of the 239 planes were involved in a crash, giving the plane the ominous nickname “Widow Maker.”

Byers notes that 25% of the crashes were due to bird strikes and there not being a second engine to keep the plane in the air. He suggests that little has changed despite technological improvements.

“Engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash. The issue is especially important for Canada, which has the longest coastline in the world and vast Arctic territories,” Byers writes.

The federal government’s search for a replacement for the aging CF-18 fleet has been fraught with controversy and stops and starts.

In 2012, the Conservatives put a temporary halt on the purchase of the F-35 after a series of damning reports by Canada’s auditor general and Parliamentary Budget Office. A group of senior officials was appointed to examine the government options to replace the CF-18 but no decision has publicly been made.

Last week Reuters, citing sources, said Canada would soon announce it would be purchasing 65 F-35 fighters.

The Department of National Defence initially pegged the cost of the F-35 project at about $14.7 billion but former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page said the price would actually be closer to $29 billion.

F-35’s single-engine design too dangerous for Canadian air force, report says
 
EagleSmack
#2
 
relic
Free Thinker
+4
#3  Top Rated Post
Wow, that's a brilliant comment by pigeon poop. Seems the only people that like this turkey are the people trying to sell it and torys.
 
mentalfloss
#4
And idiots.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#5
Of course you would believe a writer who believes in climate change and is against the tar sands and also believed in negotiating with the Taliban....
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#6
Honestly, I never really liked the F-35. It's design, it's look, it's functionality, etc..... sure it has a lot of improvements and some innovation, but it's not really the best option out there when it comes to purchasing long term replacements for Canadia's air force.

And another issue:
The New F-35 Fighter Jet Can Be Taken Down Without A Bullet Ever Being Fired
The New F-35 Fighter Jet Can Be Taken Down Without A Bullet Ever Being Fired | Business Insider

"ALIS.... Looks basically like a laptop computer, and the pilot carries it out to the plane and sticks it in a slot right next to him in the cockpit. That contains all the information about the mission he’s gonna fly. The servers which run all of this software take up a room about the size of a shipping container.

This is a juicy, juicy target for a hacker. If your adversary can hack into all that software that’s running [the mission], then they’ve essentially defeated the plane. All without firing a bullet.

So it seems the ALIS has been given too much power over the F-35. For example, ALIS has the ability to ground planes indefinitely if it detects anything wrong with the plane. Human intervention cannot overrule ALIS, either.

If hackers could manage to infiltrate the network that ALIS relies on, it is very possible that they could brick an entire F-35 fleet. This would render the plane, the most expensive weapons system ever, completely useless."


I like computers and all that, but there's a limit to how much to hand over to a computer, especially when it comes to things like this.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#7
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has been described as a "left leaning" think tank policy research institute in Canada.[1] It concentrates on economic policy, international trade, environmental justice and social policy. It is especially known for publishing an alternative federal budget on an annual basis. The CCPA claims that its estimates of budgetary surpluses have consistently been more accurate than those of the government. The CCPA has charitable status. The CCPA is based in Ottawa but has branch offices in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Regina, Toronto and Halifax. It is funded primarily through individual donations, but also receives research grants, and has institutional support from trade unions. The CCPA has recently launched a new research and public awareness campaign called the Growing Gap. Its research claims to demonstrate the growth of income inequality in Canada and offer solutions.
 
mentalfloss
#8
You know things are fukked up when the left are more fiscally conservative than our government.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#9
Denying the armed forces new equipment to replace antiques older than the operators is not fiscally conservative , rather it is criminally irresponsible.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Denying the armed forces new equipment to replace antiques older than the operators is not fiscally conservative , rather it is criminally irresponsible.

Nobody is denying new equipment for the armed forces, but it is wise to go through all the alternative choices in replacements than to just jump on the band wagon of one option because it looks cool or is simply more popular, regardless of the flaws, problems or functionality of it for what it is needed for... and price.

As an example, the IPhone is very popular and some think it looks good, but its value and functionality is not on par with other options out there.
 
BaalsTears
#11
Canada could always outfit its air force with Piper Cubs. They're dependable.

Btw, why does Canada need an air force? Seriously?
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

Canada could always outfit its air force with Piper Cubs. They're dependable.

Btw, why does Canada need an air force? Seriously?

Because our latest Catapult designs still don't reach high enough to knock down any invading Russian bombers.

 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by relicView Post

Wow, that's a brilliant comment by pigeon poop. Seems the only people that like this turkey are the people trying to sell it and torys.

Pigeon poop... I like it.
 
mentalfloss
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Pigeon poop... I like it.

He also came up with 'captain moron'.

Harsh, but worth a snort.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#15
That's what happens when you buy American stuff. It doesn't work.
 
EagleSmack
#16
The F-35 is far superior than any Euro fighter.

The Brits use mostly US Equipment nowadays.
 
mentalfloss
#17
 
coldstream
#18
Canada's primary fighter has been of two engine design since the very earliest period of the jet age. Simply for the reason that the huge expanse of Canada with few airports lends itself to redundancy in power systems.

The F35 has become a fiasco. It's too complex, it has too may design requirements for different force specifications, it's years behind schedule and $10's of billions over budget.

Canada should look at the French Dassault Rafale as a weapons platform. Cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain.. and at least as effective and flexible.
Last edited by coldstream; Jun 11th, 2014 at 12:33 PM..
 
EagleSmack
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

Canada's primary fighter has been of two engine design since the very earliest period of the jet age. Simply for the reason that the huge expanse of Canada with few airports lends itself to redundancy in power systems.

The F35 has become a fiasco. It's too complex, it has too may design requirements for different force specifications, it's years behind schedule and $10's of billions over budget.

Canada should look at the French Dassault Rafale as a weapons platform. Cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain.. and at least as effective and flexible.

When Canada was designing the F-35... did that come up in any of the meetings?

I am sure Canadian pilots are very capable of flying single engine fighters.

Just Ask Juan...

 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#20
I'm the wrong one to ask. Why have a competition if you're going to pick the most expensive and problematical of the lot? The Stealth Eagle is a proven aircraft with the range, speed, and the weapons capability that Canada needs. The Super Hornet is very closely related to the CF-18 that Canada is currently flying. The Dassault Rafale also sounds like a logical choice. The F-35 is a single engined fighter in a role where two engines are needed. If you lose an engine over the high Arctic, you need a back up engine to get you back to base.
 
DaSleeper
#21
Why doesn't the government ask the guys flying those things what is needed....simple...Non?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Why doesn't the government ask the guys flying those things what is needed....simple...Non?

You are confusing the issue with logic....
 
EagleSmack
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I'm the wrong one to ask..

So you know... I had a picture of your single engine Canadian F-86 up under my "Just Ask Juan". It was meant because you flew single engine fighters. The photo must not have stuck.

I wasn't trying to suck you into a debate. I was just giving props to CanCons resident fighter pilot.



Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

If you lose an engine over the high Arctic, you need a back up engine to get you back to base.

If you lose a single engine anywhere you are in trouble. The Arctic... the desert... the ocean.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#24
The F-35 will never get into service, it's a piece of junk what's only success to date is it's ability to suck money out of taxpayers. In that regard, only, it is the best fighter ever built.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

So you know... I had a picture of your single engine Canadian F-86 up under my "Just Ask Juan". It was meant because you flew single engine fighters. The photo must not have stuck.

I wasn't trying to suck you into a debate. I was just giving props to CanCons resident fighter pilot.





If you lose a single engine anywhere you are in trouble. The Arctic... the desert... the ocean.

Hi Eagle
My point was that I am convinced that the single engined strike fighter is not the way to go so I am biased. Back in the days when we were choosing between the F-16 and the F-18 the F-18 won out mainly because it had twin engines. I hope we are wise enough to choose the right aircraft again. The F-35 issue is so filled with political b.s. that we've lost sight of the goal, which is to buy the best fighter for the money we have. My choice is the Super Hornet for obvious reasons. We bought a hundred and twenty odd F-18s and now our stupid government want to tell us that sixty eight F-35s will replace the CF18s though they are slower, and have less range than the aircraft they would be replacing.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#26
I think it is likely that the new replacement fighter will be purchased sometime after the next election. It has been suggested that Canada will buy a small number of the F-35s and open the bidding on the rest to the whole field of manufacturers. If Harper loses the election, it will probably be a whole new game.
 
coldstream
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

When Canada was designing the F-35... did that come up in any of the meetings?

I am sure Canadian pilots are very capable of flying single engine fighters.


I'm doubt the American would have listened.

Canada as i remembered put in $100M into the design process, just to reserve a place in the queue. And that gave them NO input into the design.

It was a poor choice in the first place. The decision makers should have realized that the number of cooks stirring the pot on this one would have spoiled the stew. And it was always going to be a single engine fighter, an anathema to traditional design criteria for Canadian fighters.

AND.. Canada has produced excellent fighter pilots throughout the history of the RCAF.. going back to the top Ace of the allies in the WW1, Billy Bishop (72 kills).. or George Beurling (32 kills) in WW2 to the present day. Besides anything the Americans can do.. we can probably do better.

I'm just not sure all of the computers and fly by wire technologies means you need anything but computer input specialist in the 5th generation jet cockpit.. certainly not the seat of the pants aviators of old. In fact you wonder if they'll need a pilot at all in the 6th Gen. fighter.. it might all be flown from a laptop.
Last edited by coldstream; Jun 12th, 2014 at 12:43 PM..
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

I'm doubt the American would have listened.

Canada as i remembered put in $100M into the design process, just to reserve a place in the queue. And that gave them NO input into the design.

It was a poor choice in the first place. The decision makers should have realized that the number of cooks stirring the pot on this one would have spoiled the stew. And it was always going to be a single engine fighter, an anathema to traditional design criteria for Canadian fighters.

AND.. Canada has produced excellent fighter pilots throughout the history of the RCAF.. going back to the top Ace of the allies in the WW1, Billy Bishop (72 kills).. or George Beurling (32 kills) in WW2 to the present day. Besides anything the Americans can do.. we can probably do better.

I'm just not sure all of the computers and fly by wire technologies means you need anything but computer input specialist in the 5th generation jet cockpit.. certainly not the seat of the pants aviators of old. In fact you wonder if they'll need a pilot at all in the 6th Gen. fighter.. it might all be flown from a laptop.

As it turns out, the F-35 is the most expensive ever single engined jet fighter, if not the most expensive fighter ever. For the money I would expect it to be clearly better than the aircraft it is replacing. It is clearly not.
 
EagleSmack
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

I'm doubt the American would have listened.

Canada as i remembered put in $100M into the design process, just to reserve a place in the queue. And that gave them NO input into the design.

Ahhhh...



If it matters... I remember the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 all stunk at their conception simply because people said they did. Too big, too expensive, too much technology, prone to break down... Soviet aircraft will maul them. All hyperbole.

They even said before Desert Storm that all M-1 Tanks would never work in the desert and were made to fight in Europe only. That prediction fell flat as well.
 
no new posts