3 ms·

I think the F-16 would have been a good bird for Canada's needs. The F-18 had the advantage of two engines, which strikes me as a good thing in the Arctic. If

by jleyank 5mo ago

I think the F-16 would have been a good bird for Canada's needs. The F-18 had the advantage of two engines, which strikes me as a good thing in the Arctic. If these two are off the table, things like the Saab are reasonable. There's only 2-3 countries one needs stealth fighters for, and 30-40-ish won't matter in such cases.

switchbak 5mo ago
We've long pushed for 2 engines - which has made sense in the past. Even a successful ejection over the vast arctic would basically be a death sentence. Though some of our allies don't seem to have the same reservations, and it seems modern engines are a lot more reliable - certainly the F-35 only has one, so it looks like we're ok with it now. The modern F-18's and the new F-15's would have also made sense, but agreed that modern F-16s would seem to be a nearly perfect fit if a single engine is now deemed acceptable. Given we like to keep equipment for as long as physically possible (and then some), the F-35 might have more runway (rimshot) in that regard though.
- jleyank 5mo ago
  If the F-15 line is still in production, it's a damn fine bird and has broad mission capability. And the remaining B-52's are probably older that most of the HN community. At least those not retired or cashed out.
  - switchbak 5mo ago
    The F-15 EX looks to be pretty popular right now, export-oriented and will probably be around for a while. To be honest, which aircraft we choose isn't going to be the make or break part. All the other terrible decisions that politicians make will be. Like waffling on a decision for another 10-15 years, paying cancellation fees, etc.
nradov 5mo ago
The F-16 lacks the range to operate effectively in Canada. They would need to load it up with multiple conformal or external fuel tanks, which wrecks performance, and would still need extensive tanker support.

by jleyank 5mo ago

switchbak 5mo ago

We've long pushed for 2 engines - which has made sense in the past. Even a successful ejection over the vast arctic would basically be a death sentence. Though some of our allies don't seem to have the same reservations, and it seems modern engines are a lot more reliable - certainly the F-35 only has one, so it looks like we're ok with it now. The modern F-18's and the new F-15's would have also made sense, but agreed that modern F-16s would seem to be a nearly perfect fit if a single engine is now deemed acceptable. Given we like to keep equipment for as long as physically possible (and then some), the F-35 might have more runway (rimshot) in that regard though.

jleyank 5mo ago
If the F-15 line is still in production, it's a damn fine bird and has broad mission capability. And the remaining B-52's are probably older that most of the HN community. At least those not retired or cashed out.
- switchbak 5mo ago
  The F-15 EX looks to be pretty popular right now, export-oriented and will probably be around for a while. To be honest, which aircraft we choose isn't going to be the make or break part. All the other terrible decisions that politicians make will be. Like waffling on a decision for another 10-15 years, paying cancellation fees, etc.

nradov 5mo ago

The F-16 lacks the range to operate effectively in Canada. They would need to load it up with multiple conformal or external fuel tanks, which wrecks performance, and would still need extensive tanker support.