Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-35 fighter jets are what Canada needs
GuelphMercury.com ^ | 2/7/2011 | Marty Burke

Posted on 02/06/2011 9:36:29 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld

As a former military pilot, a present airline pilot, and (if so honoured), a future Conservative member of Parliament for Guelph, I feel obliged to respond to Geoffrey Stevens’ recent column on the F-35.

Stevens seems concerned the F-35 has only one engine-like the 1950’s vintage CF-104 Starfighter he calls the “widowmaker.”

I ask, what is more reliable — a ’55 Chevy or a 2011 Honda?

It’s been 60 years since the CF-104. There have been enormous technological advances over that period, and the aviation world has made huge advancements in technology and reliability. Aero engines today are designed better, forged cleaner, assembled with computer precision, use better metallurgy, and are digitally monitored. The reliability has improved exponentially. Because of this, civilian airliners have gone from four to three to two engines, and fly over the most remote polar or maritime environments with ease.

But we are talking about a military pilot flying a military aircraft. What if an engine failure occurred during “long-distance patrols across the Canadian North and along long coastlines?” Stevens wonders. He is ill-informed and doesn’t realize that long-distance patrols are conducted not by fighters, but by multi-engine, long-distance patrol aircraft. I used to fly them in my previous role as a Canadian Forces pilot.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.guelphmercury.com ...


TOPICS: Canada; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; canada; f35; jsf; rcad; rcaf

1 posted on 02/06/2011 9:36:35 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

“Stevens seems concerned the F-35 has only one engine-like the 1950’s vintage CF-104 Starfighter he calls the “widowmaker.” “

IIRC, the Starfighter’s reputation as a widowmaker came not from its single engine, but the unforgiving design. It was blazingly fast and, in the hands of a pro, astoundingly maneuverable. But it was also supposed to be nearly impossible to recover from a spin and tended to exact a high price for other mistakes in the cockpit.

(FReepers in the know, feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong)


2 posted on 02/06/2011 9:45:34 PM PST by DemforBush (Eat steak, eat steak, eat a big ol' steer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DemforBush

Chuck Yeager nearly lost his life in the plane while trying to set a altitude record.


3 posted on 02/06/2011 9:54:20 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DemforBush

The F-104 dug ditches across much of Germany, Lockheed’s way of continuing WW2.


4 posted on 02/06/2011 10:01:48 PM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
Never hear any gripes about the single engine F-16.
5 posted on 02/06/2011 10:20:23 PM PST by ryan71 (Dear spell check - No, I will not capitalize the "m" in moslem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

What?!
That’s the biggest complaint about the “Lawn Dart”.
That, because it’s an otherwise ASTOUNDING aircraft.

But, the single engine thing is a big gripe among SOME pilots.


6 posted on 02/07/2011 3:03:30 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
But, the single engine thing is a big gripe among SOME pilots.

Big deal. Just dead stick land it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0DdpC7GV3A

7 posted on 02/07/2011 4:24:07 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
What if an engine failure occurred during “long-distance patrols across the Canadian North and along long coastlines?” Stevens wonders. He is ill-informed and doesn’t realize that long-distance patrols are conducted not by fighters, but by multi-engine, long-distance patrol aircraft.

Right, just send an CP-40 Orion-eh to deal with Russian bomber overflights


8 posted on 02/07/2011 4:28:54 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DemforBush

“astoundingly maneuverable”

I hear you, and I really get into its looks and speed, but it is not maneuverable by any measure. It was essentially a rocket with small fins for wings.

I flew two different fighters during my Air Force career and used to engage the 104 in Low Fly 7 in Germany (back in the day). The 104 was fast. It was clean looking. It was not, to be honest, maneuverable. It would zip in (hard to see visually) and be gone in a blink of an eye.


9 posted on 02/07/2011 6:24:19 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
I have. . .after over 20-yrs in the Air Force and as a fighter pilot.

Single engine is not the best solution, and while engine technology has improved significantly over the years, engine failures due to manufacturing flaws, bird ingestion, ice, frag, whatever, still do happen.

You plan to fly your fighter into harms way, believing you will win—it is the fighter pilot way. However, you also know you will be flying the aircraft in very dangerous airspace and are very aware of any small ‘ping’ from the engine.

We don't fly airliners with only one engine, though it would be a hack of a lot cheaper from an acquisition point of view. Regional jets would be perfect for single engine operations. We don't do that because we know all it takes is one small issue and you have huge problems.

If we fly multi-engine passenger jets because of safety, don't you think we should also do so for fighters, after all, besides the “normal” issues that airliners face regarding weather and maintenance, we also have combat damage to contend with. IMHO, of course.

10 posted on 02/07/2011 6:32:58 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Ha. . .yeah. . made me laugh. Good one.

Always nice to have concrete below at all times. . .but wait. . .oh, never mind.

;-)

11 posted on 02/07/2011 6:35:15 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson