Still making F-18’s

[ecotourist]

I find California accents very similar to western Canadian. In fact (other than some of the Valley Girls accents) I can't tell them apart.

Canada bought the F18s in part because they have two engines. Canada is a very big place and having to bail out in a remote northern area in bad weather could be fatal. Help simply can't get to you in time. So having two engines is better.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I find California accents very similar to western Canadian. In fact (other than some of the Valley Girls accents) I can't tell them apart.

Canada bought the F18s in part because they have two engines. Canada is a very big place and having to bail out in a remote northern area in bad weather could be fatal. Help simply can't get to you in time. So having two engines is better.

I grew up with two parents with strong Irish accents but I couldn’t tell and only know because my friends would tell me growing up.

I can only tell where somebody is from in Canada if they are from the Maritimes or Quebec obviously.

I have no clue if someone is from Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, etc.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I find California accents very similar to western Canadian. In fact (other than some of the Valley Girls accents) I can't tell them apart.

Canada bought the F18s in part because they have two engines. Canada is a very big place and having to bail out in a remote northern area in bad weather could be fatal. Help simply can't get to you in time. So having two engines is

If Canada sticks with its plan to buy the F35, they are single engine aircraft.

 

[goblin]

...Canada bought the F18s in part because they have two engines. Canada is a very big place and having to bail out in a remote northern area in bad weather could be fatal. Help simply can't get to you in time. So having two engines is better.

I will respectfully express some doubt here...
If such was the case - there would be no Soviet fighter with less than four engines

And I very much doubt that Canada lacks any capacity in a) creating a flight plan & b) making sure that each point of that flight plan is no further tnan X distance from help.

Survivability is higher in a twin engine, which is certainly a good thing when flying over water, as well as in training. It's surely better to bring a crippled plane home (or get close to home) than having to immediately ditch. This certainly has played a role but is unlikely to have tipped the balance.

One way or the other, I'm happy they did, we almost always have a Canadian f18 visit on Memorial Day airshow in Bethpage, and it saves the day on those years when The Thunderbirds visit rather than the Blue Angels (I respect The Thunderbirds but Boy do their f15s look like toys painted by kids compared to the BA's, plus for some reason they fly a bit further from the beach all other things being equal).

 

[4WD]

They have the strongest accents ( and biggest hearts ) in Canada. I used to live there when flying for an airline.

It depends on where they were from in NFLD.

Great people, terrible weather.

Spent many years there - even this tough period which says it all about these fine folks:

https://www.amazon.com/Day-World-Came-Town-Newfoundland/dp/0060559713

 

[ecotourist]

I will respectfully express some doubt here...
If such was the case - there would be no Soviet fighter with less than four engines

And I very much doubt that Canada lacks any capacity in a) creating a flight plan & b) making sure that each point of that flight plan is no further tnan X distance from help.

Survivability is higher in a twin engine, which is certainly a good thing when flying over water, as well as in training. It's surely better to bring a crippled plane home (or get close to home) than having to immediately ditch. This certainly has played a role but is unlikely to have tipped the balance.

The Canadian arctic is huge and the weather for much of the year can be unforgiving.

I'm sure a safe route could be plotted but when you're intercepting Russian bombers that are testing your response ability (which is a fairly common occurence), I would think you would take the fastest route rather than staying close to safe locations.

Several members of an RCAF aircrew died both in and after a crash in the arctic several years ago. The crash site was actually quite close to an airbase but the weather was so bad they couldn't be reached for more than a day either from the air or overland. There was survival equipment on board too but they were unable to locate it in the wreckage. Multiple engines don't help when you run into high ground.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department...emembering-the-crash-of-boxtop-flight-22.html

https://www.baaa-acro.com/operator/royal-canadian-air-force-rcaf?page=1#:~:text=The crash took the lives of five Canadian,in the High Arctic. Thirteen lives were saved.

 

[Astro14]

I find California accents very similar to western Canadian. In fact (other than some of the Valley Girls accents) I can't tell them apart.

Canada bought the F18s in part because they have two engines. Canada is a very big place and having to bail out in a remote northern area in bad weather could be fatal. Help simply can't get to you in time. So having two engines is better.

The CF-105 Arrow was twin engine for that reason, but was killed, amid much political controversy, in 1959.

The US Navy used to have the same logic about twin engine airplanes over remote regions, like the ocean - but they bought the A-4 Skyhawks, the A-7, and now, the F-35.

Engines have gotten better.

The airplane that Canada is considering (in the midst of some political turmoil over the F-35) is the JAS-39 Gripen.

Also a single engine fighter.

 

[Astro14]

Honestly, the CF-105 was going to be a great airplane. Fast. Very long range. Fly by wire (it was the first). Not a dog fighter like the later US “Teens” like F-14 or F-15, or F-16 and F-18, but an interceptor.

It would have been perfect for the RCAF mission of long range interception.

The Orenda Iroquois engines under development for the airplane were considerably more powerful than the J-75s that powered the prototype, and the prototype went Mach 2 with the J-75s.

It remains one of the most elegant, clean aircraft ever designed.

There is an old saying in aviation - if it looks good, it’ll fly good.

 

[Snagglefoot]

The interesting thing to me is the JAS-39 Gripen was developed in Sweden with a population smaller than Canada. Those events in 1959 stymied what could have been the start of a military equipment industry in Canada. I believe the development of missiles at that time had something to do with the decision. From what we are seeing lately, the use of drones will be the way wars are fought in the future. Canada will be getting involved in drone manufacturing as it is much less capital intensive than fighter development.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The interesting thing to me is the JAS-39 Gripen was developed in Sweden with a population smaller than Canada. Those events in 1959 stymied what could have been the start of a military equipment industry in Canada. I believe the development of missiles at that time had something to do with the decision. From what we are seeing lately, the use of drones will be the way wars are fought in the future. Canada will be getting involved in drone manufacturing as it is much less capital intensive than fighter development.

Very impressive what Sweden can accomplish.

https://legionmagazine.com/bomarc-missiles-come-to-canada/

 

[RedSpider]

There is an old saying in aviation - if it looks good, it’ll fly good.

And then, the F-104 came along and ruined all seven of those words.......

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

And then, the F-104 came along and ruined all seven of those words.......

Some may find this interesting.

https://www.dmarge.com/travel/ottawa-international-airport-f104-starfighter-sonic-boom

 

[ecotourist]

The CF-105 Arrow was twin engine for that reason, but was killed, amid much political controversy, in 1959.

John Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, became convinced that there was no future for interceptor aircraft. He believed that the future would be in missiles where interceptor aircraft would play no role. So he killed the CF 105 Arrow project, one of the most promising aircraft developments of the era, and bought missiles instead.

Killing the project was one thing, but destroying all the prototypes and the blue prints was either vindictive or crazy - take your pick. There was at least one flying prototype and others near completion. Many of the designers and engineers went on to NASA.

 

[Tikka]

Hi
Was a Naval version of the F15 ever considered? It is a very impressive airplane. Arguably better than Super Hornet?

 

[y_p_w]

Hi
Was a Naval version of the F15 ever considered? It is a very impressive airplane. Arguably better than Super Hornet?

The F-14 filled that role. Of course there were a lot of compromises, especially the TF30 engines that weren’t meant for that kind of duty and the spacing of the engines, that was meant to accommodate the Phoenix missiles.

I’m not sure how many partner nation Hornet pilots have landed on carriers, but there was this guy on an exchange with the US Marines. It was an American plane and not one he brought with him.

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/N...inland-lincoln-welcomes-partner-nation-pilot/​

A Finnish Air Force pilot made history for his country by becoming the first to land an F/A-18C Hornet on a United States aircraft carrier, March 17.​

​

Capt. Juha "Stallion" Jrvinen preformed an arrested landing on the Nimitz-Class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) and is currently attached to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron (VMFAT) 101 to become qualified as a pilot instructor.​

As for love of military aircraft still being produced, it’s been noted that the current Super Hornet and Growler are not the same as the original Hornet. Very few common parts, etc. But the E-2 and C-130 are still in production and those are more or less the same aircraft.

 

[Astro14]

Hi
Was a Naval version of the F15 ever considered? It is a very impressive airplane. Arguably better than Super Hornet?

No. It takes a lot more than folks realize to make a carrier fighter. You don’t just “navalize” an airplane. The entire structure of the airplane has to be redesigned for the landing and catapult stresses. An F-15 as built, would not survive a cat shot, nor would it survive a landing. The entire airframe, from front to back, has to be strengthened, along with the landing gear, to handle those stresses.

The fixed wing F-14 design study (303F, directed by Navair as a cost cutting option) looked a lot like the F-15: and it was slower, with a higher landing speed, and reduced payload, compared with the variable geometry F-14.

At the time both were built, the F-14 was the better fighter. Better radar, longer range missiles, with multishot capability, and great slow speed handling.

A navalized F-15 was inferior to the F-14.

What you’re talking about, then, is a new airplane. And the budget wasn’t there. The Super Hornet was low risk, low cost. That was the promise. The cost of development was, in fact, modest, in the case of the Super Hornet. About $4.8 Billion. About a third of the cost of the F-15EX development program, another program that modified an existing fighter, which was over $12 billion.

A new airplane, even one based on the F-15, would not have met the Navy’s cost constraints.

 

[supton]

Some may find this interesting.

https://www.dmarge.com/travel/ottawa-international-airport-f104-starfighter-sonic-boom

Reminds me of this story. [I was on a Blackbird kick some time ago, there's some good stories out there.]

 

[Tikka]

Thank you to Astro14 and Y-P-W for answering my questions.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Canada has the oldest Hornets around. The US Navy retired their F/A-18s of that vintage a long time ago, and the Navy had aircraft that were newer.

Canada’s are F-18A models, built in the late 80s or early 90s. Good airplane at the time. Long overdue for replacement, with something modern, upgraded weapon systems, capabilities and new airframes.

By the way, I have flown the F/A-18, and while it is a great airplane, it is not fast. It is slow, for a fighter.

.Looks aren’t everything.

It’s still faster than a F-35, is it not? Mach 1.8 vs Mach 1.6 ? ( but slower than the F-15 and F-22).

 

[Astro14]

It’s still faster than a F-35, is it not? Mach 1.8 vs Mach 1.6 ? ( but slower than the F-15 and F-22).

No. Those numbers are not “real world”. Claimed top speeds are specious.

Strip every weapon and store off the airplane and see how fast it goes? That’s a stunt. No bearing on the real world.

How fast does it go with weapons? That’s what you fly with in the real world. Load an F/A-18 up with pylons (on which you store the weapons) a couple missiles, and a pair of tanks, and it’s nowhere near that fast.