3900 replies to this topic

[waldo]

you've hit upon one of his expressed concerns... range. In regards the type of mode/flying for Northern patrols/reconnaissance, care to offer up those respective range numbers for each plane:

CF-18 => ???? km

F-35 => ???? km

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-agrees-to-f-35a-combat-radius-reduction-369287/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

Now of course, there are other range numbers, but for interception missions, this is the important one.

yes, yes there are other range numbers... like the one you conveniently bypassed in regards my purposeful reference to (northern) patrols/reconnaissance. What about that flight mode... that related range?

as for your emphasis on "combat range"... interception... we seem to have made out just fine with the CF-18 range in terms of the MacKay "rousting the Russian Bear" photo-ops, hey?

[Smallc]

as for your emphasis on "combat range"... interception... we seem to have made out just fine with the CF-18 range in terms of the MacKay "rousting the Russian Bear" photo-ops, hey?

And so we should do even better having an aircraft with twice the internal fuel range. The fewer times they have to refuel, the better.

Edited by Smallc, 26 April 2012 - 04:56 PM.

[waldo]

And so we should do even better having an aircraft with twice the internal fuel range. The fewer times they have to refuel, the better.

nothing to say about the particular range number you're so avoiding... like the plague?

[Derek L]

The military in the USA has been moving towards a UAV fleet since the early 80's when they were thinking about it. The goal was to eliminate the pilot from the aircraft so lives are saved (oh the irony). ... It's not funny, it's a reality.

Why did they just put a portion of their Global Hawk fleet in storage, well keeping the U-2 still going?

[Derek L]

So you can read the news reports and articles and know everything you need to know about those jets to say he's wrong, but he, an aerospace engineer and former fleet manager, is wrong because he retired? Whatever you say.

No, his opinion is just that and, based on when he retired, his opinion isn’t anymore valid then anyone else’s outside of the program.

[Derek L]

nothing to say about the particular range number you're so avoiding... like the plague?

What range number is that? The F-35 has a larger range radius on internal fuel then our current Hornet and the Super Hornet with internal fuel and external tanks.

[Smallc]

What range number is that? The F-35 has a larger range radius on internal fuel then our current Hornet and the Super Hornet with internal fuel and external tanks.

And with external tanks, the F-35 should have a massive range.

[Derek L]

And with external tanks, the F-35 should have a massive range.

Even the “B” will be comparable to the Hornet, but when you consider it’s replacing the Harrier, coupled with a vastly superior bring back weight, it will be a much greater improvement over it’s predecessors.

[punked]

Must be lying in this article then.

The F-35 does have stealth, but the technology requires compromises with respect to other capabilities. F-35s can fly only 2,220 kilometres without refueling, unless non-stealthy external tanks are added. The CF-18s now in service have a range of 3,330 kilometres, which, again, is handy in the Arctic.

Unless you are making the argument the only time you need the stealthyness, which we are paying huge dollars for, is for short range trips. Whats the point of making a stealth fighter when the stealth only works in situations when you need it the most.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada

Edited by punked, 26 April 2012 - 06:29 PM.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Whats the point of making a stealth fighter when the stealth only works in situations when you need it the most.

That's precisely the reason for "making" a stealth strike fighter.

[Derek L]

Must be lying in this article then.



Unless you are making the argument the only time you need the stealthyness, which we are paying huge dollars for, is for short range trips. Whats the point of making a stealth fighter when the stealth only works in situations when you need it the most.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada

Do you know how an external (drop) tank works?

The argument is a strawman…..The Hornet’s range figure is including external tanks (two under the wings and one centerline), where is the F-35’s is without said tanks.

[Derek L]

That's precisely the reason for "making" a stealth strike fighter.

It's trying......I really think Lockheed should start paying me

[bush_cheney2004]

It's trying......I really think Lockheed should start paying me

Forgive them...for they know not what they think. I guess they think they can save money by renting a stealth pod just for strike missions.

[Derek L]

Forgive them...for they know not what they think. I guess they think they can save money by renting a stealth pod just for strike missions.

And then some bring up UCAVs “patrolling our North”……The whole curvature of the Earth thing is not taught in schools anymore I suppose………The roaming charges would be immense

Edited by Derek L, 26 April 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[punked]

Do you know how an external (drop) tank works?

The argument is a strawman…..The Hornet’s range figure is including external tanks (two under the wings and one centerline), where is the F-35’s is without said tanks.

That is the point. We can add all the tanks we want to the Hornet we aren't paying for a stealth fighter with it.