Another F-18 Down
 

We lost another bird late lastnight about 11km from CFB Cold Lake. No news or even rumours as to what went wrong. Pilot ejected safely, jets are all grounded at the moment.

Bring on the F35's please.

Yowzers. Do you think it's mechanical failure or something else?

"17 November 2010: Captain Darren Blaikie ejects from his CF-18 on approach to CFB Cold Lake. The aircraft crashes 13 kilometres from the base"

seriously...these birds are old...time for them to retire after almost 30 years.

so now we got 3 left?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...jet-crash.html

according to the RAND Corporation (the world renowned think tank group) the F35s are garbage (losing to SU-35s)

They received so much shit from this from the govt. that they had to "clarify" they didn't consider certain aspects :rolleyes:

and this

China also says it sucks but they do have their own motives however when coupled with the US's own RAND corp and experts saying the same....

just because we're neighbours with the US.. we buy the F35.

there are better options out there.

I think canada would be better off with the Saab Gripen. theyre small, cheap, well armed, NATO weapons friendly, have good range and the best thing is.. they can take off on highways!

http://www.cas2.com/images/JAS39Gripen_000.jpg

the F35 is STOL aircraft with vectoring thrust. it will be able to take off on highways :thumbsup:

^^but this looks bad ass!!

not sure if we're buying the conventional model, STOL model.. or the VTOL model..

hmm...

Mechanical failure was ruled out already. Jets are no longer grounded.

We are buying the A model.

I think we'll be getting the 'Navy' version of the F35 with larger control surfaces and beefed up landing gear. No STOVL versions at this time.

EDIT - I stand corrected by Belka.

We're also getting the F35 for a really good price as well though... Compare how much the US has spent on it, and look at how much we're spending on it; and we're also getting contracts for our canadian companies, which helps our economy.

That's a good looking plane but the F35 is no slouch in the looks department either.

I don't care which we get really but buying new planes is a necessity after these "mechanical failures".

I think there was talk of wanting fifth-generation aircraft in the thread about the F-35. I think the Gripen is a 4.5-gen. I personally would rather opt for the Gripen, or even the Eurofighter Typhoon or carrier-based Dassault Rafale M at the least. F-35 is fine, if the government is really gonna pony up for them.

they're probably just not upkeeping them as much since they decided to go for new ones

but even the experts say, like i quoted, we'd be better off just maintaining our f18s but since they went thru with it the f35 is okay to look at (i think the f18s look better still)

on a side note, how many F-22's does Canada have? cuz those things are sexy as hell

0 and never will, they won't be exported out of the US to anyone.

f-35s are single-engined craft. not the best for arctic patrol. look what happened to the older two-engined f-18s.

i think we should have purchased the F-18E/F Super Hornets (Rhinos). cheaper (two-thirds the price), vaguely more compatible with our current inventory/skill sets than the f-35, twin-engined, etc

it's the US Navy's current air superiority fighter. should be good enough for our armed forces.

f-35:

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[nb 1] (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[nb 2] (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²[82] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[51][nb 3][191] (22,470 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[nb 4] (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[192][nb 5] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[192][193] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg)[nb 6]

Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[77] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: over 590 nmi[nb 7] (1,090 km) on internal fuel[194]
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[195] (18,288 m)
Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight:

With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07
g-Limits: 9 g[nb 8]

Armament

Guns:
1 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[nb 9][77]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[77][82] and 2 × internal bays with 2 pylons each[82] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[52] and provisions to carry combinations of:

Missiles:
Air-to-air: AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, IRIS-T, Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) (after 2020)[196]
Air-to-ground: AGM-154 JSOW, AGM-158 JASSM[88]

Bombs:
Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
JDAM-series
B61 nuclear bomb[197]

Avionics:
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar


F/A-18E/F:

General characteristics
Crew: F/A-18E: 1, F/A-18F: 2
Length: 60 ft 1¼ in (18.31 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 8½ in (13.62 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 500 ft² (46.45 m²)
Empty weight: 30,600 lb (13,900 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (in fighter configuration)
Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,900 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans
Dry thrust: 14,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each
Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,530 kg), F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,145 kg)
External fuel capacity: 5 × 480 gal tanks, totaling 16,380 lb (7,430 kg)

Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+[12] (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s[12]
Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission[93]
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,000+ m)
Wing loading: 94.0 lb/ft² (459 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.93
Design load factor: 7.6 g[94]

Armament

Guns:
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan nose mounted gatling gun, 578 rounds

Hardpoints:
11 total: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance

Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or 4× AIM-120 AMRAAM, and
2× AIM-7 Sparrow or additional 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM
Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-65 Maverick
Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM-ER)
AGM-88 HARM Anti-radiation missile
AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
Anti-ship missile:
AGM-84 Harpoon

Bombs:
JDAM Precision-guided munition (PGMs)
Paveway series of Laser guided bombs
Mk 80 series of unguided iron bombs
CBU-87 cluster
CBU-78 Gator
CBU-97
Mk 20 Rockeye II

Others:
SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod or
Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod or
AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Targeting pods or
up to 3× 330 US gallon (1,200 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time or 1× 330 US gal (1,200 L) tank and 4× 480 US gal (1,800 L) tanks for aerial refueling system (ARS).

Avionics:
Hughes APG-73 or Raytheon APG-79 Radar

i dont think we really need all those fancy stealth capabilites. the 4.5 gen planes carry greater payload than the F35. I wouldve opted for the euro counterparts too actually.



hmm.. i swear lockheed must've gave a politician a free bbq set with the purhcase of 100 F35's.

seakrait// i almost forgot about the super hornet.. :facepalm: that would be a good option too.. its more of a proven design, and its all what canada really need..

That first statement is complete bullshit - give your head a shake. We don't just stop caring about maintenance because we may or may not buy new aircraft. I'm sure the pilots would feel perfectly safe flying "why bother fixing these" aircraft. :rolleyes:

Second, it will cost A LOT more in the long run to keep these 30 year old fighters flying. This isn't an airliner that just cruises at 40,000ft, its a fighter jet that pulls constant G's that puts immense stress on all the components.

Why are they not the best for arctic patrol, because of the single engine? What happened to the older two-engined f-18s? With the last few CF-18 crashes, the number of engines didn't matter. Look at the Lethbridge crash, it lost one engine and couldn't recover even with the other one perfectly fine.

How do you know what Canada needs or not, because the idiots at the CBC told you so? The Super Hornet is already an old design that will be long gone before the F-35. This is called getting the best bang for the buck.

LOL @ suggestion that Russian fighters are better. :rofl:

Were you serious,or are you just trolling? :rolleyes

im asuming that those speeds the F35 cannot achieve mach speeds without afterburners as the 22 can?

Hmm... An USAF F-22 went down yesterday... :willnill:

An aerial search is underway in the Alaskan wilderness after a U.S. fighter pilot crashed during a training exercise.
A single-seat F22 fighter jet - the most sophisticated in the U.S. Air Force fleet - left Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on a routine training run but crashed after 80 minutes of flight on Tuesday evening.

Wreckage of the high-speed aircraft has been found about 100 miles north of Anchorage but officials hope the as-yet-unnamed pilot could have survived the crash


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz15giQfsKi

its one of those why not opinions. sure, i dont run the canadian military, but if the super hornet is proven to serve the USN well, why couldnt we use it..?

its an updated, slightly larger and slightly more capable Hornet. we'll just use it just like the current Hornet.

something tells me Canada is gonna end up buying something more than we could afford.... but we would be equipped though, with a limited number of 5th generation fighters.

too bad we've been good neighbours to the Americans.. it'll be nice to shop for Russian hardware too.. :D although a 4.5 gen, a SU-30MKK or SU35 wouldnt be too bad.

too bad Sukhoi didnt decide to make a production SU47...

http://sportscarforums.com/gallery/d...u47_clouds.jpg

imagine this plane in Canadian skies... :thumbsup: but one could only dream.