Author Topic: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.  (Read 48509 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1080 on: July 22, 2019, 11:12:34 AM »
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/story-christine-longest-serving-f-14-tomcat-u-s-navy/



The US Navy's longest serving F-14 Tomcat 1975-2005. "Christine" was the 5th F-14 D (R) jet to be delivered to the Navy.  The (R) means remanufactured or a former "A" variant that was remanned into a D variant.  There were 37 brand new a/c built as F-14 D's, with another 18 F-14 A's remanufactured into  F-14 D(R) for a total of 55 F-14 D variants.  The Secretary of the Navy had requested 132 F-14'Ds, Dick Cheney wanted to cancel all F-14 production, but Congress kept the production lines open and 55 D variants were built and delivered to the Navy.  Not every F-14 squadron got a D variant though.

The D variant got a glass cockpit, the newer NACES ejection seat(Maverick would no longer thave to tell Goose to punch them out as they couldnt reach the face curtain ejection handle located over their heads as the D variant got the SJU-17(V) Naval Aircrew Common Ejection Seats (NACES) with its handle located in between their legs.
The AWG-9 radar was replaced by the  AN/APG-71 radar which was similar to the F-15 unit.
The most important change was that the F-14 D got the upgraded General Electric F110 engine same as the F-14 B variant got.  These engines were so much more powerful that afterburner cat launches were only used when at max takeoff weight.  The F110-GE-400 engine produced 23,400 lbf of thrust with afterburner at sea level, which rose to 30,200 lbf at Mach 0.9.
The new F110 engines made as much Military Power(max thrust dry, without using augmentation/afterburners) as the original P&W TF-30s.
The D variant also got a backup fly by wire system that played along with the Tomcats hydraulic system.

The F-14 was to go out the door with the original; Pratt and Whitney TF30 engines originally used in the failed F-111B a/c which was the F-111 for carrier use, but the F-111B was too heavy, but its engines lived on in the new F-14. The engines were to be replaced with newer engines as part of the F-14A+ upgrade which later became the F-14 "B" variant.  But instead of going directly to the A + upgrade, larger numbers of F-14 A variants were produced and re powering the A's was deferred.  The F-14 from the outset was never given the attention/funding/support it required from the government.  Grumman did the best it could.  A main reason for retirement was the bad maintenance issues that were being incurred. This happens as aircraft ages. As the A variants aged their maintenance requirements increased.  This would have been improved largely if more A variants were retired and more D variants using brand new airframes built brand new in the mid 90's were bought and used in service, but Cheney thought the F-14 was a jobs program using 60's technology.
The F-14 was originally designed as an air superiority fighter with an air to ground capability by Grumman, but the Navy put the F-14 in the Fleet Air Defense role where its immense combat radius, speed-supersonic on the deck with a full combat load with over Mach 2 capability at altitude and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile with its 100 mile range and targeting computer that could track 24 targets at once and could fire 6 missiles at 6 different targets. So the air-ground weapons separation testing was halted.
 The issue with the Phoenix missiles is that each one weighed 1000 pounds and each weapons rail also weighed 1000 pounds. So with a full load of AIM-54s we are talking about 6 missiles and rails weighing in at 12,000 pounds.  This meant that the F-14 could NOT land back at the carrier with 6 missiles aboard. The maximum arrested carrier landing weight was 54,000 pounds or a maxiumum landing weight at a land based runway of 60,000 pounds.

F-14D had a max takeoff weight of 74,349 pounds, with an empty weight of 43,735 pounds.  While an F-14 can easily launch with a full compliment of AIM-54 Phoenix's it can only land back at the carrier with 4 of them.  Those heavy assed weapons pylons ahd winches and cables inside them that allowed the weapons guys to quickly load up AIM-54 missiles.  The low drag AIM-53 pylonds also allowed the gravity bombs to be carried in a low drag config in between teh engines in the "weapons tunnel".  For a Fleet Air Defense mission, the typical loadout was 4 Phoenix missiles, 2 AIM-7 SParrow RADAR missiles(504 pounds each) and 2 AIM-9 heat seeking Infrared missiles(194 pound each) along with 2 -280 gallon drop tanks.

Up to 13,000 pounds of:
Air-to-Air Missiles (up to)
6 AIM-7 Sparrows
4 AIM-9 Sidewinder
6 AIM-54 Phoenix

Air-to-Ground Ordnance
MK-82 (500 lbs.)
4 MK-83 (1,000 lbs.)
4 MK-84 (2,000 lbs.)
MK-20 cluster bomb
4 GBU-10 LGB
GBU-12 MK-82 LGB
4 GBU-16 MK-83 LGB
4 GBU-24 MK-84 LGB

one MK-61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon


Fitting he F-14D with AMRAAM AIM-120 missiles was even underway, but this effort was also axed by the gov.
Another reason given for the F-14 retirement was deck space. It should be noted that with the wings overswept  During flight the wings automatically sweep from 20º to 68º.  Upon landing the wings can be OVERSWEPT to 75º to save carrier deck space. At 75º the wings overlap the horizontal tail stabilizers. The F-14 in parking mode with its wings overswept to 75º actually makes a smaller footprint than the F-14's replacement the F-18 "E" "F" 1 and 2 seater Superhornets respectively and the F-18 "G" variant named the Growler as the EA-18 G Growler replaces the EA-6B Prowler(which was a stretched A-6 Intruder) which was a 4 seater electronic warfare Navy aircraft.  The exact same AN/ALQ-99 pods are used on he newer EA-18 Growler as were used on the EA-6 Prowler aircraft.
A major selling point of the F-18 E and F Superhornets was that "most" f the parts and systems of the legacy F/A-18 A B C D Hornets were the same as the F-18 E and F Superhornets, when in reality over 80% of the parts are different.  In reality the F-18 E and F should have been referred to as something other than a Hornet, but its marketing was genius.

No matter the marketting hype about the new F-18 Superhornets one glaring fact is evident, the F-14's combat radius is 150 nautical miles greater and its Time Over Traget(TOT) is greater than than its replacement the F-18 E and F Superhornets.

The NAvy should have gotten triple teh number of F-14 Ds that it received. Future versions such as Quickstrike  "which was an F-14D with navigational and targeting pods, additional attach points for weapons, and added ground attack capabilities to its radar" which was to use F-14  to replace the retiring A-6 Intruder would have been nice.

Super Tomcat 21
- same shape and body as the Tomcat
-would have kept the F14 D's AN/APG-71
-New GE F110-129 engines were to provide a supercruise speed of Mach 1.3 and featured thrust vectoring nozzles
-increased fuel capacity and modified control surfaces for improved takeoffs and lower landing approach speed

Attack Super Tomcat 21
-was the last Super Tomcat proposed design
-even more fuel capacity, more improvements to control surfaces, and possibly an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from the canceled A-12 attack aircraft

last "Tomcat" variant was the ASF-14 (Advanced Strike Fighter-14)
-not be even remotely related to the previous Tomcats save in appearance
-incorporating the new technology and design know-how from the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) and Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) programs
-In the end, the Attack Super Tomcat was considered to be too costly.

In the end, Cheney had a burr up his ass about Grumman and the "cheaper" Superhornet was chosen.

The Super Tomcat 21 would have worked very nicely serving along the new F-35 B and F-35 C variants these days.

peace
Hog


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1081 on: July 22, 2019, 11:53:57 AM »
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-used-australian-fighter-jets-now-flying-in-canadian-colours-plans-underway-to-extend-jet-fleet-to-2032

We Canadians received 2 of the Australian F-18s we bought back in February.  The 2 are now in Canadian livery and are now serving with the Canadian Armed Forces.

We will be getting another 16 more jets for 18 total in flyable condition, with the other 7 F-18s in the form of spare parts.

These jets will bring our fleet of aging CF-18 A and CF-18B to a total of 94 flyable airframes.  We initially bought 98 A single seat variants and 40 CF-18 B two seat variants for a total of 138 CF-18s which were procured from 1982 through 1986 for a total of $4 billion in 1982 dollars.

The day after the 2 new Aussie jets were repainted and had the Canadian software downloaded I saw the 2 of them pass over my house.  Old or not, those hornets sure do impress.  Canada has always had the 2nd largest force of Hornets in teh world, next to our brothers and sisters to the South and North West.

Operation Noble Eagle
This is a joint USA/Canadian op. has the USA contributing F-15 Eagles and F-16 Fighting Falcons and the Canadians using their CF-18's.  The operation began on September 14 2001 and continues to this day.  The US Army National Guard provided short range air defense systems (AVENGER/MANPADS) to provide close range air defense protection under the control of the US Air Force JADOC (joint air defense operations center).

All our CF-18s your F-15s and F-16s all have the same equipement to be able to tactically communicate. 
- an air surveillance fusion system
- C2 connectivity center
- Link 16 capable terminal 
-Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) capability

Our CF-18s began to deploy JDAM gravity weapons for the first time during Operation Mobile in 2011. 
Deployed assets
Royal Canadian Air Force
-6 CF-18s plus a 7th on reserve, with a further 7 CF-18s ready to support if needed.
-2 CC-177 Globemaster III strategic transport jets.
-2 of our CC-130 tactical transporters
-2 CC-150 Polaris air-air refueling jets
-2 CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft

Royal Canadian Navy
2 Halifax class  frigates the HMCS Charlottetown and HMCS Vancouver

Canadian Special Operations Forces Command
Joint Task Force-2 (JTF2)  (someone had to hold the LASER target designators)


Sorties to date  as of 05:30 GMT, 25 October 2011

CF-188 Hornet fighters   946
CC-150 Polaris tankers   250
CP-140 Aurora long-range patrol aircraft 181
CC-130J Hercules airlifters   23
CC-130 Hercules tankers   139
CF-188 Hornet fighters   946
CC-150 Polaris tankers   250
CP-140 Aurora long-range patrol aircraft 181
CC-130J Hercules airlifters   23
CC-130 Hercules tankers   139

March 21, 2011 Canadians begin operations in Libya

Mach 2, 2011 Two CF-18s again flew missions on Tuesday, 22 March. However they had to abandon their planned attack on a Gaddafi Libyan airfield as the high possibility of collateral damage was against the strict rules of engagement. For a second day a CC-150 tanker refuelled Canadian aircraft as well as other coalition aircraft.

March 27 2011 -A second ammunition depot, this time located 92 kilometres (57 mi) south of Misrata, was destroyed in an operation by four CF-18s utilizing 227 kg (500-pound) laser-guided bombs; in addition CF-18s coordinated other attacks involving up to 20 other coalition aircraft. Enforcing the arms embargo a CP-140A Aurora flew the first Canadian Maritime Patrol mission

May 13 2011 HMCS Charlottetown was involved in a naval battle near the port of Misrata.  This was the first time since the Korean war that a Canadian naval ship was involved in naval combat.

May 19 2011 Canadian pilots participated in NATO air strikes that destroyed eight Libyan warships. HMCS Charlottetown also participated in the operation.

May 27 2011 Canadian pilots dropped 240 laser-guided bombs on Libyan targets since 31 March.  I guess those JTF2 guys can hold a LASER designator on a ship quite well

2 June- On Monday morning, HMCS Charlottetown came under heavy fire. The Libyan army had deployed a dozen BM21 launch vehicles at the port city of Misrata and opened fire on the Canadian warship. Charlottetown did not return fire and did not sustain damage


peace
Hog

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1082 on: July 22, 2019, 12:55:10 PM »
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/story-christine-longest-serving-f-14-tomcat-u-s-navy/



The US Navy's longest serving F-14 Tomcat 1975-2005. "Christine" was the 5th F-14 D (R) jet to be delivered to the Navy.  The (R) means remanufactured or a former "A" variant that was remanned into a D variant.  There were 37 brand new a/c built as F-14 D's, with another 18 F-14 A's remanufactured into  F-14 D(R) for a total of 55 F-14 D variants.  The Secretary of the Navy had requested 132 F-14'Ds, Dick Cheney wanted to cancel all F-14 production, but Congress kept the production lines open and 55 D variants were built and delivered to the Navy.  Not every F-14 squadron got a D variant though.

The D variant got a glass cockpit, the newer NACES ejection seat(Maverick would no longer thave to tell Goose to punch them out as they couldnt reach the face curtain ejection handle located over their heads as the D variant got the SJU-17(V) Naval Aircrew Common Ejection Seats (NACES) with its handle located in between their legs.
The AWG-9 radar was replaced by the  AN/APG-71 radar which was similar to the F-15 unit.
The most important change was that the F-14 D got the upgraded General Electric F110 engine same as the F-14 B variant got.  These engines were so much more powerful that afterburner cat launches were only used when at max takeoff weight.  The F110-GE-400 engine produced 23,400 lbf of thrust with afterburner at sea level, which rose to 30,200 lbf at Mach 0.9.
The new F110 engines made as much Military Power(max thrust dry, without using augmentation/afterburners) as the original P&W TF-30s.
The D variant also got a backup fly by wire system that played along with the Tomcats hydraulic system.

The F-14 was to go out the door with the original; Pratt and Whitney TF30 engines originally used in the failed F-111B a/c which was the F-111 for carrier use, but the F-111B was too heavy, but its engines lived on in the new F-14. The engines were to be replaced with newer engines as part of the F-14A+ upgrade which later became the F-14 "B" variant.  But instead of going directly to the A + upgrade, larger numbers of F-14 A variants were produced and re powering the A's was deferred.  The F-14 from the outset was never given the attention/funding/support it required from the government.  Grumman did the best it could.  A main reason for retirement was the bad maintenance issues that were being incurred. This happens as aircraft ages. As the A variants aged their maintenance requirements increased.  This would have been improved largely if more A variants were retired and more D variants using brand new airframes built brand new in the mid 90's were bought and used in service, but Cheney thought the F-14 was a jobs program using 60's technology.
The F-14 was originally designed as an air superiority fighter with an air to ground capability by Grumman, but the Navy put the F-14 in the Fleet Air Defense role where its immense combat radius, speed-supersonic on the deck with a full combat load with over Mach 2 capability at altitude and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile with its 100 mile range and targeting computer that could track 24 targets at once and could fire 6 missiles at 6 different targets. So the air-ground weapons separation testing was halted.
 The issue with the Phoenix missiles is that each one weighed 1000 pounds and each weapons rail also weighed 1000 pounds. So with a full load of AIM-54s we are talking about 6 missiles and rails weighing in at 12,000 pounds.  This meant that the F-14 could NOT land back at the carrier with 6 missiles aboard. The maximum arrested carrier landing weight was 54,000 pounds or a maxiumum landing weight at a land based runway of 60,000 pounds.

F-14D had a max takeoff weight of 74,349 pounds, with an empty weight of 43,735 pounds.  While an F-14 can easily launch with a full compliment of AIM-54 Phoenix's it can only land back at the carrier with 4 of them.  Those heavy assed weapons pylons ahd winches and cables inside them that allowed the weapons guys to quickly load up AIM-54 missiles.  The low drag AIM-53 pylonds also allowed the gravity bombs to be carried in a low drag config in between teh engines in the "weapons tunnel".  For a Fleet Air Defense mission, the typical loadout was 4 Phoenix missiles, 2 AIM-7 SParrow RADAR missiles(504 pounds each) and 2 AIM-9 heat seeking Infrared missiles(194 pound each) along with 2 -280 gallon drop tanks.

Up to 13,000 pounds of:
Air-to-Air Missiles (up to)
6 AIM-7 Sparrows
4 AIM-9 Sidewinder
6 AIM-54 Phoenix

Air-to-Ground Ordnance
MK-82 (500 lbs.)
4 MK-83 (1,000 lbs.)
4 MK-84 (2,000 lbs.)
MK-20 cluster bomb
4 GBU-10 LGB
GBU-12 MK-82 LGB
4 GBU-16 MK-83 LGB
4 GBU-24 MK-84 LGB

one MK-61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon


Fitting he F-14D with AMRAAM AIM-120 missiles was even underway, but this effort was also axed by the gov.
Another reason given for the F-14 retirement was deck space. It should be noted that with the wings overswept  During flight the wings automatically sweep from 20º to 68º.  Upon landing the wings can be OVERSWEPT to 75º to save carrier deck space. At 75º the wings overlap the horizontal tail stabilizers. The F-14 in parking mode with its wings overswept to 75º actually makes a smaller footprint than the F-14's replacement the F-18 "E" "F" 1 and 2 seater Superhornets respectively and the F-18 "G" variant named the Growler as the EA-18 G Growler replaces the EA-6B Prowler(which was a stretched A-6 Intruder) which was a 4 seater electronic warfare Navy aircraft.  The exact same AN/ALQ-99 pods are used on he newer EA-18 Growler as were used on the EA-6 Prowler aircraft.
A major selling point of the F-18 E and F Superhornets was that "most" f the parts and systems of the legacy F/A-18 A B C D Hornets were the same as the F-18 E and F Superhornets, when in reality over 80% of the parts are different.  In reality the F-18 E and F should have been referred to as something other than a Hornet, but its marketing was genius.

No matter the marketting hype about the new F-18 Superhornets one glaring fact is evident, the F-14's combat radius is 150 nautical miles greater and its Time Over Traget(TOT) is greater than than its replacement the F-18 E and F Superhornets.

The NAvy should have gotten triple teh number of F-14 Ds that it received. Future versions such as Quickstrike  "which was an F-14D with navigational and targeting pods, additional attach points for weapons, and added ground attack capabilities to its radar" which was to use F-14  to replace the retiring A-6 Intruder would have been nice.

Super Tomcat 21
- same shape and body as the Tomcat
-would have kept the F14 D's AN/APG-71
-New GE F110-129 engines were to provide a supercruise speed of Mach 1.3 and featured thrust vectoring nozzles
-increased fuel capacity and modified control surfaces for improved takeoffs and lower landing approach speed

Attack Super Tomcat 21
-was the last Super Tomcat proposed design
-even more fuel capacity, more improvements to control surfaces, and possibly an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar from the canceled A-12 attack aircraft

last "Tomcat" variant was the ASF-14 (Advanced Strike Fighter-14)
-not be even remotely related to the previous Tomcats save in appearance
-incorporating the new technology and design know-how from the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) and Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) programs
-In the end, the Attack Super Tomcat was considered to be too costly.

In the end, Cheney had a burr up his ass about Grumman and the "cheaper" Superhornet was chosen.

The Super Tomcat 21 would have worked very nicely serving along the new F-35 B and F-35 C variants these days.

peace
Hog

There is an interesting history behind the various methods to initiate ejection seats, each method (face curtain, center pull, side pull) had its advantages and disadvantages.  Primarily concerns were proper pre-ejection positioning and limb flail. 


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1083 on: July 23, 2019, 12:26:52 AM »
On a somewhat related note:
Quote
a 64-year old civilian passenger ejected for unknown reasons from a French Air Force twin-seat Rafale B fighter jet as the aircraft was taking off from Saint-Dizier 113 air base on Mar. 20, 2019.

The incident occurred at 13.52 LT as the aircraft was taking off for a training mission. The pilot managed to land the aircraft with minor injuries to his hands (caused by the broken canopy).

According to several French outlets, as a consequence of the really unusual incident, part of the French Rafale fleet was grounded as a precautionary measure, while the incident was investigated. The flight restriction involved only training activities: operational flights and test flights were not be affected by the grounding. It’s not clear whether the partial safety grounding involved both single and twin-seat jets. Whatever, we still have no clue about what triggered the ejection: it might have been a voluntary ejection, an involuntary one or even a failure, even though modern ejection seats are extremely reliable and malfunctions are extremely rare.

The Rafale is equipped with the MkF16F ejection seat, designed by Martin Baker. It features two rocket motors giving a zero/zero (0 altitude and 0 speed) ejection capability, the first one is installed under the seat and the second one on the lateral side
https://theaviationist.com/2019/03/28/french-rafale-jets-grounded-after-passenger-was-accidentally-ejected-from-a-two-seater-last-week-return-to-flight/





Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1084 on: July 25, 2019, 10:35:23 AM »
There is an interesting history behind the various methods to initiate ejection seats, each method (face curtain, center pull, side pull) had its advantages and disadvantages.  Primarily concerns were proper pre-ejection positioning and limb flail.
I remember reading something about UK pilots and they would always prefer using a face curtain ejection.  Not sure of the seat or a/c types.  %They did say that they wanted the protection of the face curtain as it helped keep their facemasks on and in place during the ejection, spinal alignment (pre-ejection positioning) was also mentioned.  The UK guys would go for face curtain ejections with at least some of them coming out or riding right on the seats envelope of capabilities.

I guess the NACES took all that decision making out of the pilots/RIO/WSOs hands.
The Aiforce and NATOPS literature really does spell it out.  If you depart controlled flight below 10,000 feet, EJECT.


Narrated by first flight Pilot of F-14 Bob Smythe.
The very first F-14 ejection out of the very first prototype F-14(F-14 a/c #1) was a very close call.  You can easily see the overhead face curtain ejection handles on F-14 a/c #2 at 1:48 of the video.


Under Bob Smythe at Grumman was Hal Farley, who was working on a new HUD for F-14.  Hal got the call from Skunkworks and Hal went on to be First Flight and Chief Test Flight Pilot for F-117.  Hal was also Chief Test Pilot for F-22 and F-35, as Hal had already had a First Flight of the F-117 under his belt, he decided to "share the load" and he  "allowed" those first flights to other Test Pilots Dave Ferguson-YF-22(AirForce) and Tom Morganfeld(Navy)-X35, even though as Skunk Works Chief Test Pilot, he had the right to fly tose first flights himself.  It takes a big man to allow others into the limelight.

Here's Hal Harley and his story regarding F-117.  Great video.


peace
Hog



Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1085 on: July 25, 2019, 10:59:57 AM »
With our temporary needs for fighter aircraft at least temporarily satisfied with the 18 flyable F/A-18s coming over from Australia, todays paper stated that we are still looking for replacements. In the running are:
1) F-35, no idea which variant(s).
2) F/A-18 E/F Advanced Superhornets, same a/c that the US Navy flys, except that these would be Advanced Superhornets which include some attempts at Low observability compared to non Advanced Superhornets. "The U.S. Navy buys Super Hornets for $52 million per aircraft, while the advanced version would cost $6–$10 million more per aircraft, depending on options selected."
3)Eurofighter Typhoon
4) Saab Gripen


Call me old fashioned, but I think as a country with the 2nd largest surface area of any country in the world, a twin engine, powerful, decent fuel load, air-to-air, with an air-ground capability, perhaps even a F-15-E derivative such as F-15-X or F-15 Silent Eagle should be on that list.

peace
Hog

Canada is a Level 3 partner in the F-35 program.  Over the last 12 years Canada has received 1.3 billion in contracts for parts for the JSF program.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1086 on: July 25, 2019, 01:40:02 PM »
With our temporary needs for fighter aircraft at least temporarily satisfied with the 18 flyable F/A-18s coming over from Australia, todays paper stated that we are still looking for replacements. In the running are:
1) F-35, no idea which variant(s).
2) F/A-18 E/F Advanced Superhornets, same a/c that the US Navy flys, except that these would be Advanced Superhornets which include some attempts at Low observability compared to non Advanced Superhornets. "The U.S. Navy buys Super Hornets for $52 million per aircraft, while the advanced version would cost $6–$10 million more per aircraft, depending on options selected."
3)Eurofighter Typhoon
4) Saab Gripen


Call me old fashioned, but I think as a country with the 2nd largest surface area of any country in the world, a twin engine, powerful, decent fuel load, air-to-air, with an air-ground capability, perhaps even a F-15-E derivative such as F-15-X or F-15 Silent Eagle should be on that list.

peace
Hog

Canada is a Level 3 partner in the F-35 program.  Over the last 12 years Canada has received 1.3 billion in contracts for parts for the JSF program.

The biggest problem nations who buy non-US military hardware discover is, while fly/drive/sail away costs may be lower, life cycle costs and logistical support issues eat up initial price savings on the back end.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1087 on: July 25, 2019, 04:55:31 PM »
The biggest problem nations who buy non-US military hardware discover is, while fly/drive/sail away costs may be lower, life cycle costs and logistical support issues eat up initial price savings on the back end.
I think that Canada will go with an American designed a/c. I think a F-15CX/EX would do well, but as much as I dislike the Superhornets, it will be either the Superhornet or F-35 that ends up in RCAF hangars.
Our gov just put out a Request For Proposals(RFP)(this passed Tuesday) for a $19 billion procurement plan for 88 airframes.  Back in 1982 we bought 138 Hornets, 98-CF-188-A single seat models and 40 CF-188-B models with dual seats.
"The CF-18 was procured from 1982 to 1988, at a total capital cost of $4 billion in 1982 dollars." or about 29 million per airframe."

"In 2001, the Incremental Modernization Project was initiated. The project was broken into two phases over a period of eight years and was designed to improve air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, upgrade sensors and the defensive suite, and replace the datalinks and communications systems on board the CF-18 from the old F/A-18A and F/A-18B standard to the current F/A-18C and D standard.  A total of 80 CF-18s, consisting of 62 single-seat and 18 dual-seat models were selected from the fleet for the upgrade program. The project is supposed to extend the life of the CF-18 until around 2017 to 2020."

Looking back over the CF-18's almost 40 years of service.
"The total program cost for the CF-18 purchase and upgrade programs is approximately $11.5 billion including upgrades, in 2011 dollars.Additionally, the cost of maintenance for any 20-year period has been approximately $5 billion, or $250 million per year."

Earlier in this decade we had worked with Boeing for 18 Superhornets The agreed upon flyaway cost for the 18 jets totalled CAD$1.5 Billion, about CAD$83.3 Million per aircraft. The cost of supporting equipment, training, spare parts, spare engines, and weapons increased the total cost of acquisition to CAD$6.3 Billion.  The Boeing/Airbus squabble ended that deal.

1) Lockheed-Martin  F-35, no idea which variant(s).

2) Boeing F/A-18 E/F Advanced Superhornets, same a/c that the US Navy flys, except that these would be Advanced Superhornets which include some attempts at Low observability compared to non Advanced Superhornets. "The U.S. Navy buys Super Hornets for US$52 million per aircraft, while the advanced version would cost $6–$10 million more per aircraft, depending on options selected."

3)Airbus Eurofighter Typhoon

4) Saab-Gripen

There was a 5th applicant for the 2005 proposal. In 2005, according to Canada.com, a report compiled by Canada's Defence Department reviewing several competing aircraft had noted concerns over the Rafale's interoperability with US forces; Dassault had also then been unable to confirm engine performance during cold weather conditions.
"In November 2018, Dassault withdrew from the competition, reportedly over concerns that interoperability and intelligence sharing requirements, particularly with U.S. forces, were too extensive, complicated by the fact that France is not a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing community." (FIVE EYES membership includes: Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States.)


Apparently it costs the aircraft manufacturers about $15 million dollars to answer to a RFP.
-Bid deadline is due by Spring 2020.
-Winning bid is to be announced in early 2022 with
-Winning aircraft to be delivered in 2025.

Our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ran for the PM spot on the Liberal premise that the F-35 would NOT be pursued, however the Liberal part has backed away on it's promise to back away from F-35, but now it's seen as the lead contender for the CF-18 replacement.

The competition is broken down in the following manner:
Technical merit-60%
Cost-20%
Economic benefits to Canada-20%

Although Canada is a Tier-3 member of the F-35 program, US officials have warned Canada(and other nations) that the development deal that she signed "prohibits Canada from demanding domestic companies receive specific work on the fighter jet."

Lockheed-Martin's competitors-Boeing/Saab and Airbus, are complaining that this competition is designed to favour the F-35 Lightning-II.  Earlier this year(2019) that newer requirements for the new jets put the emphasis on strategic attack and strike ground targets during foreign missions.  The Canadian federal gov. also changed the criteria on how it would assess industrial benefits following the Unites States government threat to pull the F-35 from the competition all together.



The F-15 E came about as a replacement for the FB-111/F-111 fighter bomber. It's an F-15 with
 physical reinforcements made to carry more payload. While this does add some increased initial weight, the extra strength allows for 9 g while loaded. Pretty impressive IMO.  Budget released on 12 March 2019, the Department of Defense requested USD1.1 billion to procure 8 F-15EX fighters of a total planned procurement of 144 F-15EXs.

peace
Hog





Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1089 on: July 27, 2019, 10:51:24 AM »
Someone force-landed a C210 in bush where it couldn't take off again ~80km (50mi) away from a town, so they used a helicopter to carry it all the way out of there slung underneath.



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-27/bush-pilots-pull-off-risky-aeroplane-retrieval-operation/11352006

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1090 on: July 29, 2019, 11:58:29 PM »
"retired"




Don't call it a comeback...

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1091 on: July 30, 2019, 10:45:16 PM »
This is the kind of situation you'd expect from the Bundeswehr, not the USAF:

About 10 Percent of B-1s are Fully Combat-Ready
Quote
Only six of the Air Force’s 61 B-1 bombers are fully mission-capable, a South Dakota senator said July 30.

The B-1 fleet is in the midst of an intensive slate of maintenance work and upgrades. Of the 61 jets, 15 are in depot maintenance and 39 aircraft are down for inspections or other issues, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said during a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for Gen. John Hyten, the US Strategic Command chief who is under consideration to become vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In response, Hyten implored lawmakers to provide B-1 maintenance funding to reverse the fleet’s problems.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Senator-About-10-Percent-of-B-1s-are-Fully-Combat-Ready.aspx

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1092 on: July 31, 2019, 12:41:25 AM »
This is the kind of situation you'd expect from the Bundeswehr, not the USAF:

About 10 Percent of B-1s are Fully Combat-Ready
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Senator-About-10-Percent-of-B-1s-are-Fully-Combat-Ready.aspx

Tearing them bitches down for complete overhauls before X-Hour?



Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1093 on: July 31, 2019, 04:30:32 PM »
http://blazingpress.com/us-navy-jet-crashes-in-california/

Quote
A US Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet jet crashed Wednesday east of Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California, according to the US Navy."


This place is like the new Bermuda Triangle now.


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1095 on: August 04, 2019, 06:48:50 AM »

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1096 on: August 05, 2019, 12:08:51 PM »

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1097 on: August 05, 2019, 12:58:39 PM »

That's the sub/aircraft combination the Japanese were going to use to bomb the Panama Canal.  The floats on the M6A were jettisonable to increase range, speed, and maneuverability on suicide missions.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1098 on: August 05, 2019, 01:43:13 PM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/wspd1pio/status/1157003358974042112

Great video
THAT is amazing. Like a movie but real. I wonder what the initial problem was (assuming it wasn't a beer stop or some crazy guy?) 





Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1099 on: August 07, 2019, 04:36:42 PM »
https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-787-code-leak-security-flaws/ 

"FAA spokesperson wrote in a statement to WIRED that it's "satisfied with the manufac­turer’s assessment of the issue.""

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1100 on: August 11, 2019, 08:47:07 AM »
Sad that I don't have the kind of money for my own fighter.  :-\

You Can Buy Paul Allen's MiG-29 Fulcrum Jet Fighter
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29292/you-can-buy-paul-allens-mig-29-fulcrum-jet-fighter


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1101 on: August 11, 2019, 09:20:11 AM »
Sad that I don't have the kind of money for my own fighter.  :-\

You Can Buy Paul Allen's MiG-29 Fulcrum Jet Fighter
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29292/you-can-buy-paul-allens-mig-29-fulcrum-jet-fighter



Wouldn't you rather have this F-4 in any event?

https://www.platinumfighters.com/phantom2


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1102 on: August 11, 2019, 11:57:40 AM »
Sad that I don't have the kind of money for my own fighter.  :-\

You Can Buy Paul Allen's MiG-29 Fulcrum Jet Fighter
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29292/you-can-buy-paul-allens-mig-29-fulcrum-jet-fighter



Good luck getting spares, especially LRUs.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1103 on: August 12, 2019, 01:40:29 AM »
Good luck getting spares, especially LRUs.
When you're a billionaire, you don't really have to worry too much. The MIG29 at least is still in production and also in operation with a lot of airforces to this day, so spares are probably easier to come by than you'd think.

According to wikipedia, his particular MIG even has an FAA approved maintenance program.



Wouldn't you rather have this F-4 in any event?
Nope.  ;)

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1104 on: August 12, 2019, 06:37:50 AM »


Nope.  ;)

Really?  It's got a tail hook man!




Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1105 on: August 13, 2019, 06:59:34 AM »
Really?  It's got a tail hook man!

For those occasions when a civilian lands on an aircraft carrier.  ::)

That F-4 isn't even airworthy, but even if it were I'd probably still go with the MIG.



Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1106 on: August 13, 2019, 08:59:01 PM »

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1107 on: August 13, 2019, 09:51:50 PM »
For those occasions when a civilian lands on an aircraft carrier.  ::)

That F-4 isn't even airworthy, but even if it were I'd probably still go with the MIG.

So I guess you overlooked that they also have a Suckhawk up for sale as well?


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1108 on: August 17, 2019, 10:13:50 PM »

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1109 on: August 19, 2019, 07:39:02 PM »