japan develops 5:gen after all!

[b1a2j3m4b5]

I wonder if this plane would also be a better fit for Canada than the F-35? It would take longer but at least it has two engines. I wonder what per unit cost will end up being?

[djcross]

I wonder if this plane would also be a better fit for Canada than the F-35? It would take longer but at least it has two engines. I wonder what per unit cost will end up being?

It is a demonstrator, not an airplane capable of wartime operations.

[obligatory]

Twin engine design inherently adds weight which in turn adds drag,
it also inherently messes up area distribution which, again adds drag.

Canada need range above all else, for almost exclusively A2A/CAP work,
and with todays engine reliability i don't see how a twin engine fighter can be a better fit than a single engine design

[J-20 Hotdog]

Twin engine design inherently adds weight which in turn adds drag,
it also inherently messes up area distribution which, again adds drag.

Canada need range above all else, for almost exclusively A2A/CAP work,
and with todays engine reliability i don't see how a twin engine fighter can be a better fit than a single engine design

pros and cons my friend

twin engine designs also give that redundancy security some air forces wants especially for over water operations
also adding in one more engine that increases weight by a certain percentage, allows a much more significant payload increase as a result.

[obligatory]

Yes, that was my point in response to the notion of "at least it has two engines"
-as if that is God -given.
The adding of a 2nd engine for more thrust is another pro & con,
more thrust grant more payload -if/when used,
-but also increase fuel consumption and thus shorten range,
regardless if it carry more payload or not.

So as you said pro & con, what does Canada need ?
cheaper to buy & operate and longer range interceptors ?
or more payload for strikes at ~600 nm ?

Since USN, just about the only over water operator, is going for a single engine design,
i'm taking for granted they have study the issue at great length.

IMO the only function of Canada AF, and then only in the totally unlikely event of a major war with Russia,
is to intercept cruise missiles.
(and possibly 4 fighters deployed for CAS in Afghanistan)
There won't ever be the case where they have to launch massive anti ship strikes vs an impending Russian invasion

[Sintra]

ATD-X also removes any objections within the US Government for allowing Japan to build licensed F-35s and allowing Japan to modify them for JSDF-specific requirements.

You mean that the translation of "ATD-X" to English is "Replica"?

Might be.

[Amiga500]

Twin engine design inherently adds weight which in turn adds drag,
it also inherently messes up area distribution which, again adds drag.

I'd disagree with these two straight out.

Name the fastest fighters and best interceptors in the world.

I'm not seeing too many single engines in there.


[I'd also say a second engine makes Mach-Area a touch more difficult, but still far from impossible.]

Canada need range above all else, for almost exclusively A2A/CAP work,
and with todays engine reliability i don't see how a twin engine fighter can be a better fit than a single engine design

Canada needs MiG-31BMs or a western equivalent.

[Sintra]

Canada need range above all else, for almost exclusively A2A/CAP work,

Oh blasted...
The RAF chaps were in a bloody hurry to scrap them...

[swerve]

You mean that the translation of "ATD-X" to English is "Replica"?

:diablo:

[obligatory]

I'd disagree with these two straight out.

Name the fastest fighters and best interceptors in the world.

I'm not seeing too many single engines in there.


[I'd also say a second engine makes Mach-Area a touch more difficult, but still far from impossible.]



Canada needs MiG-31BMs or a western equivalent.

That is not a contradiction, you get more effect/thrust with another engine, obviously, but it is less efficient. Good for acceleration but bad for range.
I agree with the concept of MiG-31, but today engines are good enough for a single engine design, and will be several times cheaper to operate.

[obligatory]

Oh blasted...
The RAF chaps were in a bloody hurry to scrap them...

Yes, free tornado fighters would have been perfect, but i now think Fugly-16 b60 with CFT is the best deal.

[b1a2j3m4b5]

Canada needs MiG-31BMs or a western equivalent.[/QUOTE]

How about the F-14D?

[TR1]

I agree with the concept of MiG-31, but today engines are good enough for a single engine design, and will be several times cheaper to operate.

What single engine is there today that you could get MiG-31 performance with?

You can certainly get way cheaper, but if you want the range/performance/payload characteristics of the MiG-31, you either need one monster engine, or two.

[TR1]

Canada needs MiG-31BMs or a western equivalent.

How about the F-14D?[/QUOTE]

Powerful radars + long range AAMs aside, their performance spectrum and design characteristics are pretty far apart.

[obligatory]

What single engine is there today that you could get MiG-31 performance with?

You can certainly get way cheaper, but if you want the range/performance/payload characteristics of the MiG-31, you either need one monster engine, or two.

There is probably not any other engine around optimized for a/b, (except concorde) low volume - poor acceleration but efficient a/b.

But consider the fact that Gripen NG has exactly half the thrust than F-18E, same engine but 1 vs 2,
Yet it is ~1/3 faster, and it is clear that aerodynamics
can more than compensate for lack of thrust in sustained speed,
and even more so after M0.8

[MadRat]

Maybe the Saudi Tornadoes will ave hours left on them when they trade them in for Typhoon. Any progress on those talks?

[swerve]

Who said they were trading them in?

The Saudis have just upgraded their Tornados (apart from the Tornado ADVs, which have been replaced by Typhoons, retired, & AFAIK scrapped) to GR4 standard, with Storm Shadow et al integrated. They've already been in service quite a long time, & I think the Saudis fly quite a few hours. By the time they're replaced, I doubt they'll have many airframe hours left.

[Levsha]

How about the F-14D?
Powerful radars + long range AAMs aside, their performance spectrum and design characteristics are pretty far apart.

I don't think that Canada actually needs the MiG's outright performance - if Canada actually needs a twin-seat twin-engined fighter at all. Which aircraft was more cost effective to operate?

[MadRat]

F-35A will ultimately suit them well. It's not like there are any real options with McKay in there.

[TooCool_12f]

other options exist, que only quetion is whether they're ready to look into them

[obligatory]

Now that LM picked up production of F-16 again,
there is an politically acceptable option in North America.

[Amiga500]

But consider the fact that Gripen NG has exactly half the thrust than F-18E, same engine but 1 vs 2,
Yet it is ~1/3 faster, and it is clear that aerodynamics
can more than compensate for lack of thrust in sustained speed,
and even more so after M0.8

Now now...

Just because the Hornet (all variants) are a piece of crap aerodynamically, doesn't mean a comparison of it to the gripen can be applied on a more general basis.


For instance, how does an F-15 compare to an F-16?


Also, as you probably know drag squares with speed subsonically, and as an even higher function of speed when supersonic. Inlet design is particularly important at high speeds, but grunt is still critical.

[J-20 Hotdog]

There is probably not any other engine around optimized for a/b, (except concorde) low volume - poor acceleration but efficient a/b.

But consider the fact that Gripen NG has exactly half the thrust than F-18E, same engine but 1 vs 2,
Yet it is ~1/3 faster, and it is clear that aerodynamics
can more than compensate for lack of thrust in sustained speed,
and even more so after M0.8

some would argue that the reason some designs opt for two engines is because there isnt a suitable single engine alternative. for example is there a single engine powerful enough to power an Su-27?

[J-20 Hotdog]

Twin engine design inherently adds weight which in turn adds drag,
it also inherently messes up area distribution which, again adds drag.

Canada need range above all else, for almost exclusively A2A/CAP work,
and with todays engine reliability i don't see how a twin engine fighter can be a better fit than a single engine design

do they need just range?
Canada's threats to its boundaries tend to be either
1. Wiley Russian bears going close to Canadian space
2. US claims over Canadian water ways

little Canadians can do against the US.. but against the Russians?

lets say Canadians like to eat Putin for lunch :diablo:

[TooCool_12f]

Now that LM picked up production of F-16 again,
there is an politically acceptable option in North America.

you forget the SH which is, from the political PoV just as acceptable

[obligatory]

Now now...

Just because the Hornet (all variants) are a piece of crap aerodynamically, doesn't mean a comparison of it to the gripen can be applied on a more general basis.


For instance, how does an F-15 compare to an F-16?


Also, as you probably know drag squares with speed subsonically, and as an even higher function of speed when supersonic. Inlet design is particularly important at high speeds, but grunt is still critical.

Yes, it is unlikely the world will ever see such a striking example of how "less is more" again, but as engines slowly improve and speed increases,
so will interest in aerodynamic perfection increase.
Rising fuel cost will just make it even more desirable.

[MadRat]

I still think the Canadians and ANG should have opted for an F-106A type of solution, only modernized. KISS principle.

[Sign]

canadian AF f-35 or not, and japan 5 gen have nothing in common so please choose an other thread..

[obligatory]

I think a moderator should split the entire 2nd page into a Canada AF thread,

and @MadRat just brought up a fighter that always disappear from my memory altogether for some reason, that i would like to use in reply to TR1 & Amiga500
From wiki
F-106 Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 Ferry range: 4,300 km
MiG-31 Maximum speed: Mach 2.83 Ferry range: 3,300 km

With the improvements in engines from the 50's to 2010, F-106 would get a major boost, but MiG-31 not much because of the exponentially increasing drag,
and a single engine fighter is thus the ultimate interceptor today,
especially range wise.
The fact that you could operate ~3 times as many fighters for the same money is just the icing of the cake

[JSR]

Yes, it is unlikely the world will ever see such a striking example of how "less is more" again, but as engines slowly improve and speed increases,
so will interest in aerodynamic perfection increase.
Rising fuel cost will just make it even more desirable.

rising fuel cost should not bother Canada but Canada is turning into Norway/Saudi . Canada is deindustrilizing at fast pace. pretty soon it will need all its Oil to sell just to maintain its living standard.

single engine fighters have lower operational altitude, slower acceleration, less upgrade potentional, less power supply to onbaord electronics and generally shorter life due airframe streessed out than twin engine fighters.
There is not a chance of single engine fighter to catch twin.
The role of single engine fighters will be taken by UCAVs.