RCAF Hornet replacement.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

I’m not in Canada any more so I can’t quote them chapter and verse.

It depends on aircraft type and mission. A Hawk on a training mission and a Hornet on a live scramble will have subtly different limits.

I guess what you're after are temperature limits. From what I remember the lower limit is -35C ambient (might be -30C) with a wind chill limit of -40 I think. Basically bloody cold and a CO can authorise lower if required for operational reasons. CRFI or JBI limits are also key but not really relevant to this conversation. Unless you buy F35B I guess then friction doesn’t matter. That is a joke by the way.

What I meant to add to my previous post was a point about requirements.

Several years ago the Canadian government selected F35. You don’t accidentally choose F35 if what you wanted was a conventional fighter. The requirement must have been for 5th gen characteristics otherwise F35 would not have been selected.

So, assuming the requirement hasn’t changed, how can the answer be any different this time around? Super Hornet and Gripen NG may claim next gen capabilities but I don’t know if they are on a par with F35.

Anyway, just hot air from me really because I don’t know the answer and it doesn’t affect me either way. Although as a Canadian citizen I am, of course, outraged by the flawed and protracted procurement process of my (joint) adopted land.

BV

Thanks for that.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

i’m quite aware of each jets characteristics and history. I shan’t repeat what I said previously. May I politely suggest you re-read it instead?

Reread it. Multiple times. And I think I see my error. You're saying the jets as designed (with zero input of Canadian arctic requirements) nevertheless meet those arctic requirements. That may be true but I find that highly unlikely. I believe it's more likely that the Canadian government hasn't even really considered the Canadian arctic requirements. I believe it's more likely this was a political decision much more than a requirements driven decision. The fact that Canada is buying a stealth aircraft specifically designed for first-day-of-war operations penetrating an area defended by an integrated air defense system when Canada has zero plans to do such a thing, and zero plans to buy all the other military infrastructure to engage in such operations makes me believe this was NOT a requirements driven procurement decision.

[BEagle]

F-35C can refuel from Canada's CC-150T and CC-130 tankers, which F-35A cannot unless Canada wants to be raped by LM to pay for a probe-equipped F-35A and no doubt the associated R&D + OT&E costs....

F-35C also carries more fuel than the -A model - and the tailhook would be quite useful if landing on some contaminated short RW somewhere north of Buttfuk-middle-of-nowhere-Saskatchewan?

[melmothtw]

F-35C also carries more fuel than the -A model - and the tailhook would be quite useful if landing on some contaminated short RW somewhere north of Buttfuk-middle-of-nowhere-Saskatchewan?

True, but it's also heavier and draggier. Don't have the figures to hand, but IIRC the A has the greater range/endurance of the three variants.

The A has a tailhook for emergencies - https://theaviationist.com/2016/05/2...t-edwards-afb/ , or the Canadians could opt for the braking parachute fitted for the Norwegians.

You're quite correct on the aerial refuelling issue though - no easy way to square that circle for Canada without opting for the C.

The fact that Canada is buying a stealth aircraft specifically designed for first-day-of-war operations penetrating an area defended by an integrated air defense system when Canada has zero plans to do such a thing, and zero plans to buy all the other military infrastructure to engage in such operations makes me believe this was NOT a requirements driven procurement decision.

To be fair, that could be said for all of the F-35 customers save the US, UK and maybe one or two others.

Agree on the single-twin-engine debate. If a single-engine Gripen or F-16/F-35 is good enough for flying over the high-north of Sweden or Norway, the I dare say it is good enough for Canada also.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by BEagle

F-35C also carries more fuel than the -A model - and the tailhook would be quite useful if landing on some contaminated short RW somewhere north of Buttfuk-middle-of-nowhere-Saskatchewan?

F-35A (along with other USAF fighters like F-15, F-16, F-117, F-22) have tail hooks for that very reason (indeed even Typhoon has a tail hook). They just aren't rated for the loads imposed by an arrested carrier landing.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by KenV

F-35A (along with other USAF fighters like F-15, F-16, F-117, F-22) have tail hooks for that very reason. They just aren't rated for the loads imposed by an arrested carrier landing.

I would have never of thought that.

[Bob Viking]

And then there were 4...

...possibly.

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/dassau...ement-project/

BV

One other thing. For BEagles’ benefit. Aside from the fact that, as already mentioned, every jet I can think of has a tail hook nowadays. Any jet landing in your ‘middle of nowhere’ might be lucky to find a runway with a cable in the first place. And there aren’t many asphalt runways in the middle of nowhere anyway.

I understand your point about drogue refuelling but I still don’t think anyone would buy the F35C if they did not plan to put it on a carrier. The A model, even unrefuelled, has pretty good range. Add external fuel tanks (fine for a Q scramble) and it’ll be even better.
The NORAD tasking could easily justify the use of a USAF tanker and anywhere else they can rely on the US anyway. Or maybe buy some new tankers.

Again, this is only semi uninformed ramblings not scientific fact so please take it at face value.

[melmothtw]

Add external fuel tanks (fine for a Q scramble) and it’ll be even better.

The F-35 does not come with the option of external fuel tanks, though test pilot Billie Flynn (a Canadian himself suitably enough) doesn't seem to think it will be a problem.

Twitter

[Bob Viking]

Drop Tanks

My bad. Good spot.

Assumption on my part. You know what happens when you assume...

BV

[ORAC]

IIRC the wing pylons were originally planned to be wet, but the piping was removed as part of the weight saving program.

I believe the IAF F-35s have the piping installed and that Cyclone have a contract to provide 480g underwing tanks and Elbit to provide conformal fuselage tanks.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336925615844218041/

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by KenV

F-35A (along with other USAF fighters like F-15, F-16, F-117, F-22) have tail hooks for that very reason (indeed even Typhoon has a tail hook). They just aren't rated for the loads imposed by an arrested carrier landing.

Knew the others did, didn’t know the F-117 had a hook.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by ORAC

IIRC the wing pylons were originally planned to be wet, but the piping was removed as part of the weight saving program.

I believe the IAF F-35s have the piping installed and that Cyclone have a contract to provide 480g underwing tanks and Elbit to provide conformal fuselage tanks.

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/336925615844218041/

Holds breath awaiting sight of these stealthy force multipliers....hang that's a mirage tank LOL!!

[BEagle]

Surely there's a considerable difference between a tailhook which will allow an approach end engagement and the smaller version which will allow a slow end engagement in the event of brake failure etc...?

[SpazSinbad]

Originally Posted by West Coast

Knew the others did, didn’t know the F-117 had a hook.

Diagram F-117A TailHook Location from: https://0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf (7Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

There are plenty of stories about 'cold/hot' weather testing of an F-35B in the CLIMATIC Chamber at Eglin AFB with LM Test Pilot Billie Flynn. Also the three variants underwent mission testing at Eielson AFB Alaska at beginning of year along with Brake Chute testing on their icy runways.

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/how-it-works-f-35a-drag-chute-system & http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/2018021..._with_F-35.pdf
OR http://www.eielson.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1432771/jott-conducts-f-35-pre-iote-cold-weather-testing-at-eielson/

F-35 Lightning II Hot/Cold WX Testing Test Pilot Billie Flynn

You Tube

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Originally Posted by BEagle

Surely there's a considerable difference between a tailhook which will allow an approach end engagement and the smaller version which will allow a slow end engagement in the event of brake failure etc...?

Does it say somewhere that it can’t handle an approach end engagement? There have been plenty of approach end engagements in various jets with a ‘USAF-style’ hook. Even did a few myself, and it wasn’t a problem.

[Commander Taco]

Latest is Dassault won’t be competing with the Rafale due to the difficulty in incorporating the interoperability required by the contract terms.

[SpazSinbad]

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard

Does it say somewhere that it can’t handle an approach end engagement? There have been plenty of approach end engagements in various jets with a ‘USAF-style’ hook. Even did a few myself, and it wasn’t a problem.

JSF Tail Hook Testing Begins at Edwards AFB 2016

"The JSF Integrated Test Force here conducted the first set of tests for the F-35A's tailhook. F-35s have landed using a tailhook before [2010], but not at the speeds and weights being tested now....

...The initial testing included powering the F-35A at 180 knots over the ground; about 200 miles an hour.... [2016] " http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160511_Tailhook.pdf (113Kb)

Same story here: https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article...ns-at-edwards/
PHOTO: https://media.defense.gov/2016/May/1...-ZZ999-413.jpg (406Kb)

[KenV]

Originally Posted by BEagle

Surely there's a considerable difference between a tailhook which will allow an approach end engagement and the smaller version which will allow a slow end engagement in the event of brake failure etc...?

Indeed there is. The tailhooks on USAF aircraft are essentially single-use devices meant for emergency use only. Once deployed they cannot be stowed (in flight) and once used for an arrested engagement they need to be removed and replaced before the next flight.

[johnwill]

Originally Posted by KenV

Indeed there is. The tailhooks on USAF aircraft are essentially single-use devices meant for emergency use only. Once deployed they cannot be stowed (in flight) and once used for an arrested engagement they need to be removed and replaced before the next flight.

Not true. I was General Dynamic structures engineer for F-16 arresting hook engagement tests at Edwards AFB in 1979. We did approximately 95 engagements at various weights, speeds, and offset distance with no hook change. The hooks are also used to restrain the airplane during ground engine runs. The hook is fully qualified for full airplane lifetime of emergency and engine run use. The hooks are not deployed in flight. Flight manual procedure is to land, lower the nose gear to the ground, then deploy the hook. Hook engagement with nose gear off the ground can slam the nose down hard enough to exceed the nose gear limit load.

The big difference in Navy carrier hook and Air Force emergency hook design strength is due to the difference in cable run out, 200 - 250 ft for carrier, 1000 ft for land based emergency arrestment.