Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Canada to purchase Superhornets for RCAF


Thanato

Recommended Posts

Thoughts, Thanato? I heard a brief summary of this on the radio the other day. Are these hornets any good? I'm guessing "no"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, aztek said:

depends for what, for spending money they are just what doctor ordered, for anything else, it depends,

They are very good aircraft with many advanced capabilities, including an AESA radar, is low maintenance and Canada s already very familiar with Boeing's supply and support chain.  I think it is a great fit for Canada given their familiarity with the C/D models.   It comes in two versions, the single seat E and two seat F models but I expect Canada would buy the E model.  It is a very different aircraft than the older models Canada is currently flying however and far more capable than those birds. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i recall the argument to buy the Hornet...It was "Canada has huge territory/ water...2 engines are better in case 1 fails.".

The Super Hornet is an excellent choice...Best buy... In the mean time, and between time, it is a good decision.

So why would a 1 engine fighter be considered as a valid contestant for future consideration- here in the vast expanses/water, when the argument to buy a 2 engine machine won the day, yesterday?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Thoughts, Thanato? I heard a brief summary of this on the radio the other day. Are these hornets any good? I'm guessing "no"..

The Super Hornet is the easiest transition from the hornet given that we already work with Boeing with the hornet.

it has the capability to carry more and go further then the current hornet which will be a great capability for both NORAD and NATO Operations.

it is a state of the art fighter and is just a stop gap solution until the fighter competition is complete but will hopefully continue to serve in the RCAF for mainly NORAD missions.

the only other typenofnfighter I'd accept is the f-15.

 

the only down side to this is that we won't be getting a new major purchase for 5-8 more years. By then the f-18 hornets will be beyond saving and the Super Hornets will be over worked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

They are very good aircraft with many advanced capabilities, including an AESA radar, is low maintenance and Canada s already very familiar with Boeing's supply and support chain.  I think it is a great fit for Canada given their familiarity with the C/D models.   It comes in two versions, the single seat E and two seat F models but I expect Canada would buy the E model.  It is a very different aircraft than the older models Canada is currently flying however and far more capable than those birds. 

6 minutes ago, Thanato said:

The Super Hornet is the easiest transition from the hornet given that we already work with Boeing with the hornet.

it has the capability to carry more and go further then the current hornet which will be a great capability for both NORAD and NATO Operations.

it is a state of the art fighter and is just a stop gap solution until the fighter competition is complete but will hopefully continue to serve in the RCAF for mainly NORAD missions.

the only other typenofnfighter I'd accept is the f-15.

 

the only down side to this is that we won't be getting a new major purchase for 5-8 more years. By then the f-18 hornets will be beyond saving and the Super Hornets will be over worked.

Thanks for that. Military aircraft is not my forte but it is interesting. I recall the radio also suggesting these purchases were to buy time/fill in a gap until more concrete solutions are found.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark_Grey said:

Thanks for that. Military aircraft is not my forte but it is interesting. I recall the radio also suggesting these purchases were to buy time/fill in a gap until more concrete solutions are found.

 

Well the biggest issue is that the f-35 is far from serviceable in a front line capability (even though it's been stated ready) there are to many glitches and by the time Canada Probabaly buys them they will be cheaper and the bugs will be worked out to make them capable fighter bombers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Poppi said:

How aboot the two engine argument?

Well given the size of Canada, the vast distance between suitable airstrips and the large number of birds and possibility of an engine failure two engines could save the plane 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same functionality saved numerous pilots in WWII in the Pacific theater when the P-38 Lightning came on scene.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning

A spare engine when you need it is a WONDERFUL thing...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US Navy picking another single engine aircraft is beyond my comprehension, especially when the things cost north of $100M apiece

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air combat has mostly been won by the more competent pilot. Buddy could be flying a barrel, and still win. We do not need triple million dollar aircraft. The new Supers will be all we need...Canada has not fought a lot of air to air lately...A prop plane would be much more cost effective than any jet- air to ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Poppi said:

Air combat has mostly been won by the more competent pilot. Buddy could be flying a barrel, and still win. We do not need triple million dollar aircraft. The new Supers will be all we need...Canada has not fought a lot of air to air lately...A prop plane would be much more cost effective than any jet- air to ground.

However there has been intercepts over te Arctic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Thanato said:

Well given the size of Canada, the vast distance between suitable airstrips and the large number of birds and possibility of an engine failure two engines could save the plane 

it does not really matter, even if one engine pops in flight, pilots wont try to land it, they'll eject,  same thing would happened with single engine plane.  sure if 1 engine loses power they may try to land it, but if something hits the plane, or the engine catches on fire\ blows up the pilot will eject. as seen few times on cctv footage,  2 engines was not done with reliability concerns, it is about best configuration size\weight\power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.  Additionally, the thing about the pilot trying to land the plane with one engine is a really dangerous maneuver, and there are very few people who will claim that it is even worth the attempt (it makes great movie footage, but in real life, you get out of that bird fast).  Single engine pilots don't even have to worry about whether they can land the plane or not, which makes the decision to do what they are supposed to do (not kill themselves trying to land a defunct plane) much easier.

Also, keep in mind that the engines on twin engine planes aren't 100% redundancy.   The decision to use two engines was not for redundancy purposes, but rather because each engine individually would not have enough power to push the entire plane (models vary, of course).  Generally, a two engine plane loosing an engine has lost about 80% of its thrust, not just 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

Agreed.  Additionally, the thing about the pilot trying to land the plane with one engine is a really dangerous maneuver, and there are very few people who will claim that it is even worth the attempt (it makes great movie footage, but in real life, you get out of that bird fast).  Single engine pilots don't even have to worry about whether they can land the plane or not, which makes the decision to do what they are supposed to do (not kill themselves trying to land a defunct plane) much easier.

A hornet can fly and land on a single engine and the procedure is practiced by the aircrew all the time.  It is not all that difficult given the close proximity of the engines to each other but neither is it desirable but it is most certainly worth the attempt.  Any pilot who couldn't land single engine shouldn't be flying the Hornet.  The Tomcat A-model, with less thrust to weight than either Hornet, could also land, on the carrier, single engine although it was a much more difficult maneuver given those T/W issues and the fact that the engines were spaced so far apart.  

It is always desirable to bring the plane home, especially when they have gotten so expensive, and no pilot would eject because he had lost one of his two engines.  That said, the choice of aircraft should not be made based on engine redundancy given the reliability of the new engines, especially the massively powerful F135 engine the Lightning will be equipped with.

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean they haven't been talked into sharing the F-35 superturkey and have gone for something proven and known to be up to the job? The MIC's lobbyists have fallen down badly there. Good job there's a new President soon or they'd have a few questions to answer. :angry: 

Edited by Grand Moff Tarkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

If you like.

It's not whether I like it or not, it is the truth.  Please refer me to where you read that an F-18 can't land single engine and I'll attach an image of the single engine landing procedure from my old F-14 PCL ?  If a big old Tomcat with .7-1 thrust to weight engines that are about twelve feet apart can land on the carrier single engine then don't you think a little Hornet with 1.1-1 thrust to weight and engines next to each other can land single engine? 

IMG_20161124_0004.jpg

IMG_20161124_0006.jpg

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

It's not whether I like it or not, it is the truth.  Please refer me to where you read that an F-18 can't land single engine and I'll attach an image of the single engine landing procedure from my old F-14 PCL ?

Merc, you need to stop making things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Agreed.  Additionally, the thing about the pilot trying to land the plane with one engine is a really dangerous maneuver, and there are very few people who will claim that it is even worth the attempt (it makes great movie footage, but in real life, you get out of that bird fast).  Single engine pilots don't even have to worry about whether they can land the plane or not, which makes the decision to do what they are supposed to do (not kill themselves trying to land a defunct plane) much easier.

Also, keep in mind that the engines on twin engine planes aren't 100% redundancy.   The decision to use two engines was not for redundancy purposes, but rather because each engine individually would not have enough power to push the entire plane (models vary, of course).  Generally, a two engine plane loosing an engine has lost about 80% of its thrust, not just 50%.

Wrong.

2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

If you like.

Childish response

36 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

Merc, you need to stop making things up.

 Not making things up, just correcting something that was wrong and misleading.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

Merc, you need to stop making things up.

Never saw Merc making things up...

Chapter 11.4.1 'Single engine operation' from 18E/F manual speaks for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all a bit academic since Canada doesn't have any carriers, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.