Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

its only the predecesor to this predator:





I'm inlove with this plane

   

For russian planes the S-37 / Su-47

as was posted above

or the mig-35



For US planes, YF-23, F-22, or the F-35, the last one will probably be canada's next fighter.



for europe there is the eurofighter

   

Su 35 or the Mig 35 can do ALL the tasks required.. SU 37 is a hot aircraft but a little too out there for many people here in canada.. great design though..No cold war on now.. means we don't have to limit ourselves to US products...

   

Let's get realistic, we're not going to be buying Russian military hardware anytime soon. Even though the stats for some of the russian fighters aren't bad, you have to look at the other factors that overwhelm the fact of a decent plane or a cheap buy.

For one, our pilots, technicians, and support personnel are all trained and used to operating Western (NATO) aircraft in the Canadian Forces. Comparing maintenance and training between Western and Russian fighters is like comparing apples and bananas. Both fruit, but different physics.Second, ever since the start of aviation in the Canadian military (literally), we have always built our own hardware or purchased from the NATO club of military goodies. You will never see any leading Western governments, especially the CANADIAN goverment, involved in any arms buy purchasing with Russia or her allies anytime soon.

As twister stated, the F-14 was in competition with the F/A-18 for Canada's new fighter program back in the late 70's, but the British Tornado was also in the game, too. Both were beat. Tornado is ground attack, Tomcat is air supeority, CF-18 is multi-role. Another reason why the F-14 was beat was because it was unlikely the U.S. was going to sell it to us anyways, because the whole Iran Revolution was going on at this time. The U.S. had just sold F-14s to Iran before this, so they were a little cautious about selling their crown jewels.

As for performance between the -18 and -16, pilot performance is a major factor, but the two planes are more or less the same. The F-16 and F-18 are two fighters in the American military that are classified 'multi-role', meaning that they can both handle air-to-air and air-to-ground missions effectively. Both of them entered militarty service at around the same time (F-18 slightly before) and both have advantages and disadvantages over the other but are of generally equal performance.

Nate

   

Earlier it was mentioned that the F-15 was not available to Canada at the time the CF-18 was chosen. I'm pretty sure that McDonnell Douglas did in fact try to sell us the F-15 but was turned down due to cost and the CF-18s greater emphasis on multirole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone heard this report that Canada might be buying new Hercs along with a couple of Antonovs?

   

HAAAAAAAA... those stupid f*ckers put the damn wings on backwards!!!???
LMFAO

   

Defence Minister Graham is requesting money to purchase 15-20 C-130J tactical transport aircraft, about 15 SAR aircraft (probably C-27J), and 20 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. Don't know if it will go through, though.

Nate

   

The wings are no backwards so that the plane is far more unstable, ie it will want to turn and do loops and want to do anything but fly in a straight line, as long as there is a computer to keep it stable, it will fly superbly and be extremely manueverable. If the computer dies (and it's back-up and so on), the pilot should hope that the ejection seat works.[quote]

   

[quote="dgthe3"]The wings are no backwards so that the plane is far more unstable, ie it will want to turn and do loops and want to do anything but fly in a straight line, as long as there is a computer to keep it stable, it will fly superbly and be extremely manueverable. If the computer dies (and it's back-up and so on), the pilot should hope that the ejection seat works.[quote]
He was making a joke.

   

A good reason for Canada to either use US products or, better yet, produce its own, is the logistical issue of politics.

Purchase a bunch of Russian fighters and what happens to your spare parts supply if the adversary turns out to be Russia or a more plausible China that is also very cozy with Russia?

No matter how messed up relations between Canada and the US can get, when a war starts up we'll all forget about softwood and crap like that and just start passing out the ammo.

I must say that I'd like to see Canada develop an air superiority fighter of her own. That'd be cool.

   

Yup. An expensive order! I wasn't too surprised about the Hercs and Chinooks but the bit about the Antonovs through me for a bit of a loop. I swear I read this the other day in the paper, but so far haven't found anything on the net.

   

Actually the canard airframe configuration is extremely stable. Just ask Bert Rutan.

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/App ... anards.htm

   

Regina, I know that he was joking around, but i just thought to take that oppertunity to explain the main advantage of having reverse swept wings on a fighter-plane. PluggyRug, i was talking about the reverse swept wing, not the canard.

Sorry to all those who think that i am an ass. I just get like that when i get technical

   

Hey... no problem...I too studied aerodynamics and had a lot of fun building odd looking model airplanes.

Once had a canard, main wing swept forward with anhedral, rear engine pusher configuration. Flew pretty good, once I found were to locate the CG.

   

front swept anhedral with a pusher, and it flew ... good?!?!? Must have had a good design and a little bit of good luck on that, especially on a model. You always see esentially the opposite, straight wing with a dihedral and a prop in the nose. But i guess the laws of physics don't much care where the forces are comming from just so long as drag is less than thrust and lift is less than gravity.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next