Another F-18 Down

[JD¹³]

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.

[roastpuff]

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

[heero78]

"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.

[EmperorIS]

so now we got 3 left?

[FN-2199]

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

A Canadian Forces pilot ejected from his fighter jet moments before it crashed near Cold Lake in northern Alberta overnight.
The CF-18 went down near CFB Cold Lake, 300 kilometres northeast of Edmonton.The CF-18 went down near CFB Cold Lake, 300 kilometres northeast of Edmonton. (CBC)

A military spokesman says Capt. Darren Blakie was at the controls when his CF-18 went down in a field 13 kilometres northwest of Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake a few minutes before midnight Wednesday night.

Blakie ejected from the twin-engine plane and was recovered close to the crash site by a military helicopter crew about two hours later, said Lt. David Lavallee.

Blakie — a member of the 409 Tactical Fighter Squadron at Cold Lake — was taken to hospital and was expected to be released following an examination.

The jet was returning to CFB Cold Lake from a mission and was trying to land when something went wrong, said Capt. Keith Hoey of the Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centre at CFB Trenton in eastern Ontario.

"At approximately seven miles [11 kilometres] from landing, something happened and the pilot was forced to eject out of the aircraft," Hoey said. "We're not sure what it was. At this time, it would be purely speculative."

Hoey said the pilot was found safe following a 90-minute search.

"The weather and the fact that it was dark just made it difficult to find him," he said.

Blakie was rescued after he set off a flare to draw the attention of the helicopter team.

The rescue crew and the RCMP worked together to pinpoint the scene, said Capt. Nicole Meszaros, a spokeswoman at CFB Cold Lake.

"That effort to get everybody involved in finding the downed aircraft and finding the downed pilot was obviously critical in making sure Capt. Blakie survived after the crash."

Bone-chilling cold

It was cold, but Meszaros wasn't sure if it was snowing. It was –13 C around that time, with the wind chill making it feel like a bone-chilling –22 C.
Capt. Riel Erickson, a CF-18 pilot, returns from a recent mission in Hawaii. A CF-18 went down in a field 13 kilometres northwest of Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake a few minutes before midnight Wednesday night.Capt. Riel Erickson, a CF-18 pilot, returns from a recent mission in Hawaii. A CF-18 went down in a field 13 kilometres northwest of Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake a few minutes before midnight Wednesday night. (DND)

But Blakie would have been well-prepared, she suggested.

"One thing about flying in northern Alberta, our pilots are well-equipped and well-trained to deal with the elements, so when they go flying, they certainly wear the right military equipment to ensure their safety in the event of a crash," she said.

"We have an extensive program run by our flight safety staff on the base," she said. "Cold weather is something that members of the Canadian Forces operate in."

The jet was destroyed on impact. A flight safety team from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa was to examine the wreckage and determine what caused the crash.

This is the second crash of a CF-18 jet in 2010. In late July, a pilot survived a crash during an air show at the airport in Lethbridge, Alta.

[StylinRed]

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

and this

US defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey who called the F-35 "heavy and sluggish" as well as having a "pitifully small load for all that money", and went on to criticize the value for money of the stealth measures as well as lacking fire safety measures. His final conclusion was that any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s compared to buying into the F-35 program.

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....

[tofu1413]

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!

[daytona675]

Originally Posted by tofu1413

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!

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

[rsx]

^^but this looks bad ass!!

[tofu1413]

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

hmm...

[belka]

Originally Posted by roastpuff

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

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

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

We are buying the A model.

[JD¹³]

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.

[gars]

Originally Posted by tofu1413

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

there are better options out there.

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.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by rsx

^^but this looks bad ass!!

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".

[CorneringArtist]

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.

[StylinRed]

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)

[dachinesedude]

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

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by dachinesedude

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.

[seakrait]

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

[tofu1413]

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.. that would be a good option too.. its more of a proven design, and its all what canada really need..

[belka]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by seakrait

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

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.

Originally Posted by tofu1413

its more of a proven design, and its all what canada really need..

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.

[too_slow]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

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)

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

[Hondaracer]

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

[adambomb]

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

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

[tofu1413]

Originally Posted by belka

. 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.

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.. although a 4.5 gen, a SU-30MKK or SU35 wouldnt be too bad.

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



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