Skip to comments.Michael Byers: Thank goodness for the CF-18s
Posted on 04/27/2014 10:22:27 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Canadians are lucky to still have fighter jets that can go toe-to-toe with Russian MiGs and Sukhois. The fast and manoeuvrable CF-18s were built during the Cold War specifically for aerial combat.
The F-35s that Canada is considering purchasing, however, are designed for a very different mission: evading air defences during the first wave of shock-and-awe attacks on the command sites, radar bases and anti-aircraft missiles of rogue states such as Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran.
The recent decision to deploy six CF-18s to Poland is almost serendipitous. Earlier this month, Stephen Harper received a long awaited options analysis from the Royal Canadian Air Force concerning the possible replacements for those jets.
Soon, the Prime Minister will have to decide whether to push ahead with the purchase of F-35s, or hold a competition involving alternative aircraft.
All the alternatives the Boeing Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Dassault Rafale are designed first and foremost for dogfighting with other fighter jets.
The F-35, in contrast, is a compromise aircraft that stems from the Pentagons desire to procure a single model for the Air Force, Navy and Marines: an unachievable aircraft that would land vertically, evade radar detection, conduct ground attacks, and still hold its own in aerial combat.
Instead, all three versions of the F-35 are oversized, overweight, underpowered and still under development.
In 2008, a RAND Corporation study found that the F-35 has a high wing loading and a poor thrust loading compared to other fighter jets. The biting conclusion: It cant turn, cant climb, cant run.
In 2013, Michael Gilmore, the Pentagons Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, revealed that the U.S. government was downgrading the specifications for the F-35 by reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 su
(Excerpt) Read more at fullcomment.nationalpost.com ...
The F-35 will have a top speed of just Mach 1.6, compared with Mach 1.8 for the three decade-old CF-18. Way back in 1958, a test version of the Avro Arrow hit Mach 1.9.
Sorry, I can't let it go.
It’s bad enough that this POS will cripple our military for decades, but to push it on our ‘friends’ is unconscionable.
The Avro Arrow was the birth of all modern aircraft we see today, so at least something good came of it.
I think we’d be far better served to go with a super hornet, or heck, F-15s are great too. Something tried and true with new avionics. Why not?
I don’t know why they killed the f-22 program. We already have the tooling in place and the things work in clearing the sky. If they need ground attack then keep the a-10 program alive, too.
I hope so, far better bang for the buck, and cheaper to train pilots, as they’ve already been flying f-18s.
I believe we have already nixed the F-35 Edsel. I think we agreed to continue to commit to development, but not buy the aircraft. Buy a bunch of updated Super Hornets and let our guys and gals play with a practical jet.
Nor should you let it go, IMHO...
A movie made in the 90s with Dan Akroyd tells the story of the Avro Arrow, designed in the 50s and then the fastest jet in the world, was dropped by the Canadian government under pressure from the Americans...
History repeats itself with the F35 Turkey...
That’s probably the nicest demonstration livery I’ve seen. Snowbirds use it?
The Arrow was dropped because Canadians elected a government in 1957 that was unwilling to continue to invest in the project. Diefenbaker did not believe in it and he absolutely detested C. D. Howe, the liberal politician behind the Arrow. Killing the Arrow was personal revenge for Dief.
It was much sexier to depict the US as the bad guys rather than to tell the real story.
There is a lesson here. People get the government they deserve and politicians acting for personal reasons do not act in the interest of the nation.
What if every Grumman, Lockheed etc. project that got tested then shelved for any number of reasons - financial - political - had the cultural currency and staying power of the Avro Arrow?
Get over it, Canada!
And by the way, an F-18 is an F-18, an M-16 or M-4 is not a “C-Whatever” and a Harrier is a HARRIER! Americans don’t have to call it an “A-3 Jump Jet” because they’re insecure.
...But at least the Americans have Smithsonian ideals...
Though the Musee Canadien de’l’Aviation is simply outstanding...
What really steams Canada about the Avro is that nobody had the common sense to keep more original equipment than a nose cone!
(Love, another FPC, golux)