Canadian Concern About Purchase of Single Engine F-35
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
I like your persistence. 87-1701 was initially a controlled landing with a port main landing gear collapse (which I would submit is not the same as scenario under discussion). It seems to me you value avionics above health of the crew. I do not:
"The aircraft was on a routine training mission at 11:00 hours local time when the pilot noticed a landing gear malfunction. Shortly after touchdown, while still moving at 140 knots, the pilot noticed the port main landing gear was not supporting the plane. The landing gear collapsed and the left wing hit the runway, making the F-16 veer of the runway sharply. The crew ejected immediately, and moments later the aircraft overturned. Both crewmembers survived the ejection. Aircraft as of 2011 is still being repaired to return to flight."
_______________
Then 79-0377
"Twice as Nice
This USAF F-16 crashed twice, but was repaired both times - hence it got named 'Twice as Nice'. It was later sold to Israel. The first crash was in 1984 - sometimes when aircraft systems designers integrate various components into an airframe, they forget to examine what happens if a component should fail. Such was the case in the original F-16 design. An electrical connector (cannon plug) came loose and unfortunately the wiring for critical components like brakes and arrestor hook all went through the same connector. The pilot attempted to land the aircraft and engage the arrestor wires. Both wires were missed and the aircraft went off the end of the runway. The pilot stayed with the aircraft and the rescue crews had to cut through the canopy to reach hime - the hole in the canopy can be seen in the photo. After this accident they changed the electrical schematic and wiring harness so that those features went through different connectors now. The second crash occurred a few years later. Cause of mishap was a stuck throttle cable at 70% power. The incident happened at MacDill and the pilot landed the aircraft then ejected when he couldn't stop it. It then went off the end of the runway."
In both instaces for 'Twice as Nice' (ain't no sugar nor spice) the aircraft was landed by the pilot. Your scenario of ejecting just before touchdown is not fulfilled and remains a stupid idea. But thanks for trying.
"The aircraft was on a routine training mission at 11:00 hours local time when the pilot noticed a landing gear malfunction. Shortly after touchdown, while still moving at 140 knots, the pilot noticed the port main landing gear was not supporting the plane. The landing gear collapsed and the left wing hit the runway, making the F-16 veer of the runway sharply. The crew ejected immediately, and moments later the aircraft overturned. Both crewmembers survived the ejection. Aircraft as of 2011 is still being repaired to return to flight."
_______________
Then 79-0377
"Twice as Nice
This USAF F-16 crashed twice, but was repaired both times - hence it got named 'Twice as Nice'. It was later sold to Israel. The first crash was in 1984 - sometimes when aircraft systems designers integrate various components into an airframe, they forget to examine what happens if a component should fail. Such was the case in the original F-16 design. An electrical connector (cannon plug) came loose and unfortunately the wiring for critical components like brakes and arrestor hook all went through the same connector. The pilot attempted to land the aircraft and engage the arrestor wires. Both wires were missed and the aircraft went off the end of the runway. The pilot stayed with the aircraft and the rescue crews had to cut through the canopy to reach hime - the hole in the canopy can be seen in the photo. After this accident they changed the electrical schematic and wiring harness so that those features went through different connectors now. The second crash occurred a few years later. Cause of mishap was a stuck throttle cable at 70% power. The incident happened at MacDill and the pilot landed the aircraft then ejected when he couldn't stop it. It then went off the end of the runway."
In both instaces for 'Twice as Nice' (ain't no sugar nor spice) the aircraft was landed by the pilot. Your scenario of ejecting just before touchdown is not fulfilled and remains a stupid idea. But thanks for trying.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
F-15E accident report released Posted Sep/26/2012
Release Number: 120925
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/st ... =123319607
"9/26/2012 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. -- Catastrophic failure of the right engine caused an F-15E Strike Eagle to crash May 3, 2012, according to an Air Combat Command Accident Investigation Board report released today. The aircraft crashed south of the host nation air base in Southwest Asia.
The mishap aircraft and air crew are forward deployed with the 391st Expeditionary Fighter Squadron to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing. When the accident occurred, the mishap crew MC was conducting a routine training sortie simulating enemy fighter tactics against friendly forces.
According to the investigation, the cause of the engine failure was a rare ignition of the titanium components within the engine, resulting in an extremely destructive fire. The fire led to associated failure of other critical hydraulic and electrical systems. The loss of the right engine and critical systems made the aircraft uncontrollable, resulting in the crash.
With the mishap aircraft at the prescribed bailout altitude and fire continuing to burn in the right engine compartment, the mishap pilot used hand signals to command bailout. The mishap crew safely ejected from the aircraft without injury and was quickly recovered by host nation search and rescue forces. Seconds after the crew ejected, the aircraft crashed in an unpopulated area and was destroyed upon impact. The loss is valued at approximately $45.5 million. There were no civilian casualties and while some small trees and irrigation lines received some damage there was no significant damage reported at the impact site."
Release Number: 120925
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/st ... =123319607
"9/26/2012 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. -- Catastrophic failure of the right engine caused an F-15E Strike Eagle to crash May 3, 2012, according to an Air Combat Command Accident Investigation Board report released today. The aircraft crashed south of the host nation air base in Southwest Asia.
The mishap aircraft and air crew are forward deployed with the 391st Expeditionary Fighter Squadron to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing. When the accident occurred, the mishap crew MC was conducting a routine training sortie simulating enemy fighter tactics against friendly forces.
According to the investigation, the cause of the engine failure was a rare ignition of the titanium components within the engine, resulting in an extremely destructive fire. The fire led to associated failure of other critical hydraulic and electrical systems. The loss of the right engine and critical systems made the aircraft uncontrollable, resulting in the crash.
With the mishap aircraft at the prescribed bailout altitude and fire continuing to burn in the right engine compartment, the mishap pilot used hand signals to command bailout. The mishap crew safely ejected from the aircraft without injury and was quickly recovered by host nation search and rescue forces. Seconds after the crew ejected, the aircraft crashed in an unpopulated area and was destroyed upon impact. The loss is valued at approximately $45.5 million. There were no civilian casualties and while some small trees and irrigation lines received some damage there was no significant damage reported at the impact site."
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 639
- Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
- Location: Halifax
Hello everyone, I'm new on here. I'm from Canada & I am a novice when it comes to being a jet enthusiast. I'm one of the few Canadians you'll meet who supports the F-35 for my country.
Well, the acquisition just took a hit. Leave it to the CBC to cause problems yet again. I personally believe their partisanship ways outweigh their search for the truth. Last night the CBC`s Fifth Estate (News magazine) ran this:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/ ... ghter.html
Sigh followed by a facepalm!
Well, the acquisition just took a hit. Leave it to the CBC to cause problems yet again. I personally believe their partisanship ways outweigh their search for the truth. Last night the CBC`s Fifth Estate (News magazine) ran this:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/ ... ghter.html
Sigh followed by a facepalm!
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 919
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
- Location: Canada
@arrow-nautics..... Welcome to the F-35 Forum on F-16.net Here is a question for you? When CBC and Global news did their F-35 news segments how many Aeronautical Engineers and Test Pilots did they interview?
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 639
- Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
- Location: Halifax
Lockheed denied their request for an interview which I thought was a shame. LM had an opportunity here. There were 2 critics; Winslow Wheeler & Pierre Sprey whom I know of & didn`t trust before I even watched this. Lieutenant General Steve Lucas (Former Chief of Canadian Airstaff) spoke in favor of the F-35 Lightning II.
- Banned
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23
arrow-nautics wrote:Hello everyone, I'm new on here. I'm from Canada & I am a novice when it comes to being a jet enthusiast. I'm one of the few Canadians you'll meet who supports the F-35 for my country.
Well, the acquisition just took a hit. Leave it to the CBC to cause problems yet again. I personally believe their partisanship ways outweigh their search for the truth. Last night the CBC`s Fifth Estate (News magazine) ran this:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/ ... ghter.html
Sigh followed by a facepalm!
Ah, so it IS true; most Canadians DON'T want the F-35 (contrary to assertions by Canadians already here). Question though: What DO they want?
-Nothing?
-Eurofighter?
-Gripen?
-Rafale?
-Superhornet?
-F-15?
-F-16?
-Su-35?
-Mig-35 (this completes the remotely possible list)
-Arrow Redux?
-J-31?
-J-20?
-PAK-FA?
I'd love to see a survey like this given to the Canadian public. I wouldn't mind seeing them leave the JSF program as a 60 plane order is hardly worth all the crying.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 563
- Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25
The CBC, aka the Canadian Broadcorping Castration is ignored by 90% of Canadians. It is full of lefties and social justice types and nobody pays it much heed.
The show was full of the usual assortment of "experts" and was a typical drive by, one sided anti RCAF screed. The dude in the bow tie was especially hilarious and the bald headed moon face guy was just so self righteously ridiculous . . .
Nothing to see here . . . . Move along now.
The show was full of the usual assortment of "experts" and was a typical drive by, one sided anti RCAF screed. The dude in the bow tie was especially hilarious and the bald headed moon face guy was just so self righteously ridiculous . . .
Nothing to see here . . . . Move along now.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 639
- Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
- Location: Halifax
The CBC & the Canadian media in general do not have a clue what they are talking about with regards to the F-35. There's accusations by some that the United States of America has a "media mafia". It starts at the AP & there becomes a simplified idea of what is reportable & what is not. It's to the point that if one were to read 10 newspapers, you'd still get the same article on any subject in 8 of them, or it would sound the same.
Canada has a "media mafia" as well it seems. The only media that have a different perspective is Sun News, our equivalent of Fox. The problem here is, our right wing Sun is too busy over hyping & exaggerating the F-35. At the end of the day, there's no truth. Canadians have no idea about the F-35.
Also, the longer we wait to buy the aircraft the more the acquisition will cost. If we decide on the Super Hornet, after we sort out this silly competitive process, the Super Hornet will likely cost $15 million more per plane or something foolish like that.
Pierre Sprey really got me angry that he foretold partner nations will drop out, implying that it's given that the F-35 orders will drop very significantly. He then went on to explain the "Death Spiral" & how less aircraft produced cause cost per plane to go up. That's all true about the "Death Spiral" however, we don't know yet if there will be cuts to orders. It's possible yes. Absolutely predictable? No. Pierre Sprey is crystal ball gazing with tea leaves to prove his point.
What Canadians don't know & what the "media mafia" isn't telling them in the most clear language is the concept of when acquiring military aircraft, there's an old saying;
"TOO EARLY TO TELL, TOO LATE TO STOP".
The media won't explain to Canadians that we are past the "too late to stop" point & thus the F-35 is our buy. It's over.
That's what they don't know.
Canada has a "media mafia" as well it seems. The only media that have a different perspective is Sun News, our equivalent of Fox. The problem here is, our right wing Sun is too busy over hyping & exaggerating the F-35. At the end of the day, there's no truth. Canadians have no idea about the F-35.
Also, the longer we wait to buy the aircraft the more the acquisition will cost. If we decide on the Super Hornet, after we sort out this silly competitive process, the Super Hornet will likely cost $15 million more per plane or something foolish like that.
Pierre Sprey really got me angry that he foretold partner nations will drop out, implying that it's given that the F-35 orders will drop very significantly. He then went on to explain the "Death Spiral" & how less aircraft produced cause cost per plane to go up. That's all true about the "Death Spiral" however, we don't know yet if there will be cuts to orders. It's possible yes. Absolutely predictable? No. Pierre Sprey is crystal ball gazing with tea leaves to prove his point.
What Canadians don't know & what the "media mafia" isn't telling them in the most clear language is the concept of when acquiring military aircraft, there's an old saying;
"TOO EARLY TO TELL, TOO LATE TO STOP".
The media won't explain to Canadians that we are past the "too late to stop" point & thus the F-35 is our buy. It's over.
That's what they don't know.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 639
- Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
- Location: Halifax
Besides Wheeler & Sprey? None! And with those 2 characters it'd may as well be none at all.alloycowboy wrote:@arrow-nautics..... Welcome to the F-35 Forum on F-16.net Here is a question for you? When CBC and Global news did their F-35 news segments how many Aeronautical Engineers and Test Pilots did they interview?
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 639
- Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
- Location: Halifax
Hi Popcorn. Thanks for the welcome.popcorn wrote:Welcome arrow-nautics..
How did the Canadian public react to the initiative to,revive the Avro,Arrow,in lieu of acquiring the F-35?
It was a fleeting idea that lasted for a week...maybe. Most of the public here just eat from the CBC trough. Usually it's your typical 1/2 hour broadcast. Very few Canadians get into the details on political shows comparable to "Meet the Press" in the USA. So the majority of Canadians are about as aware of a new CF-105 as they are aware of the specifications of the F-35A. A new Arrow has no traction for that reason. Also, our opposition party's here will not suggest alternatives but it's obvious why they refuse to.
If they suggest an alternative as you know (I am preaching to the choir), the opposition will have to have a total platform prepared on cost estimates for 40 years while at the same time suggesting how we ensure the estimated 12 billion to our aerospace industry remains in Canada under different projects.
Good luck with that.
The government has totally botched this whole thing & we have an impotent opposition who can only whine about the Super Hornet without a solid plan to back it up.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 919
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
- Location: Canada
The irony about the Super Hornet is it would be easy to scope out of contention for the Canadian Military in a fly off because the F-18E has poor range and is only a 7.5G fighter.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2346
- Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34
alloycowboy wrote:The irony about the Super Hornet is it would be easy to scope out of contention for the Canadian Military in a fly off because the F-18E has poor range and is only a 7.5G fighter.
It has a better range than other fighters (eg. MiG-29) and better avionics package than most competing fighters (including MiG-35/MiG-29+). Oh and here is the best part. Unlike most other jets, there is the option of buddy refueling.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests