Posted on 01/07/2013 11:45:28 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Saab USED to make great, awesome cars...in 1985 I bought a 900 Turbo Hatchback..5 speed..one of the best cars I ever owned..drove it daily for 8 years..over 130k miles..then used it for a station car for a few years..just followed regular maintainance..never had a single problem..taught both my daughters to drive on it..wanted them to learn how to drive a stick from the get go....then gave it to my oldest when she went off to college..built like a rock..had safety features waaay ahead of its time..she sold it when she graduated..had over 200K miles on it..and was running perfectly..
Canada needs four types of aircraft:
1) The Saab JAS39 Gripen E
2) The A-10 Warthog
3) An AWACS capable aircraft.
4) A small fleet of super tankers.
I have been saying since Day 1, when Defense Minister Peter MacKay did that photo op in the cockpit of that F-35 Edsel prototype, that the F-35 was not the right aircraft for Canada.
First off, one engine. In the arctic?
Secondly, by the time these things are built (if ever) the bad guys will have “stealth” all figured out. It will be useless.
Cost. Please.
Yes, go with the Super Hornet. It will be good for the next twenty years, anyways. Good fighter, good ground support aircraft. And, they’re still in production, we can buy them right off the shelf. If not, then consider the Eurofighter.
Mean time between mission failures for turbofan engines tends to be over 80,000 hours. Mean time between mission abort would be about half that, or 40,000 hours.
With two engines, mean time between mission abort would be 40,000 hours.
You simply fly a single engine aircraft differently. With a hiccup, you abort and fly back. With a two engine aircraft with a hiccup, you continue to fly, and monitor it. If you lose an engine, you fly back.
All bets are off if someone is slinging 37mm cannon fire at you. You are nearly as likely to lose both fighter engines from one hit as you are to lose one engine. That is because two engine fighters have the engines close to each other.
If they buy it, they'll be gripen'.
My thinking is, if you’re flying around somewhere in the Arctic Circle, hundreds of miles away from anyone or anything, and a turbofan engine developes a “hiccup”, I’d like to have another engine to get me somewhere else.
Same thing with Navy aircraft. Two hundred miles away from the boat, I’d like to have “another” engine.
I’m only talking about mechanical failure.
Do not purchase armament from Sweden. When my Dad, his brothers and friends were getting their asses shot off in wwii, the swedes were selling munitions to the Gerries. When Sweden steps up and takes on a NATO role and stops being a cowardly arms merchant maybe then but not now.
Do not purchase armament from Sweden. When my Dad, his brothers and friends were getting their asses shot off in wwii, the swedes were selling munitions to the Gerries. When Sweden steps up and takes on a NATO role and stops being a cowardly arms merchant maybe then but not now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.