F-35’s single-engine design too dangerous for Canadian air force, report says
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
So, when you say about the F-35 following a dogfight with an F-16,
F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week
“The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability.”
You really mean the F-16 driver danced around your F-35 until you got dizzy and had to land, right? F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week
Umm. . . every jet fighter (and prop job) has been "the most expensive ever." Until the next one, that is.
Ah.....The Eurofighter is faster, able to fly higher. , and has a longer range than the F-35....I don't know how it is superior..:roll:
Faster is of limited benefit, higher is useless, and longer range is of limited benefit.
I remember all the gloom in the 80's and 90's about M1 tanks in the desert.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.
Yup... not suited for desert warfare. Too much technology and the sand would play havoc on the engines.
A few months later they mauled the every piece of Iraqi armor in front of them.
Battle of Medina Ridge. Bigger than Kursk. Greatest armor battle in history, and totally one-sided. I worked intel on that one. Pretty exciting.
