Tone vs. Content
No, I'm a SuperMod (brown tag - note the colours of posters tags. Brown = SuperMod, Red = Mod, Blue = Defence Professional, Green = Snr Member.
If Flight Time is supposed to infer that you're rated, then you're the first pilot I've come across in 30 years that can't spell. Somehow I have a doubt. The fact that you still have not drawn an association between the reliability of modern single jet engine aircraft, don't have an awareness that when an engine in a twin goes that it invariably causes problems in its mate is fascinating. eg, the engines are colocated, there is no armoured barrier between them and that means that if one goes catastrophic from a bird strike or missile strike then bits of it end up next door - it seems unusual that someone promoting an awareness through flight time (inferred expreience) and SAR as their experience base would be unaware of the problem
As for dehydration issues, its also a common posting courtesy to address posters specifically when challenging or responding to their comments.
If you're going to make throw away claims about the tenure of the starfighter, I suggest that you also do some more research.
As a Mod I'll exercise my obligations in keeping the forum on track - note the other respondents to your thread to date? they're either Mods or Defence professionals - ie in one of the services, ex service, industry or some are double hatting. IOW, they are people who already have had their credentials established. For Defence Professional status, we also insist that people provide evidence as too often or not people pretend to be something they're not. As you have claimed flight time hours and experience for SAR then feel free to provide evidence.
But, to the original point, two engines is a canard and the reliability of modern managed engines such as the F404 and F414 are testimony to their reliability. Again, if we want to talk facts , then the F16 has highest engine reliability and availability rate of any modern fighter.
I'd be more concerned about you coming into a forum making bold claims which are easily challenged.
Nobody here has a vested interest in selling aircraft either, quite a few of us work either for Defence agencies, departments and/or the trade. Aircraft companies don't use forums to promote their wares, they're a little more sophisticated than using forums for product promotion
Respectfully to the crowd throwing stones at bouser, yourself included, I would say that the tone of your emails makes me wonder about your motives. You may question his spelling but perhaps you could check your sentence structure and grammar first.
As for the ticket (license), I am not sure that being a pilot is a be all end all. Many of the decision makers on the major programs you guys are talking about have only been in a cockpit on a flight line at an air show. As for letting only pilots contribute to the discussion, this would be a great way to generate incestuous and circular thinking of the kind that kills innovation and out-of-the-box thinking.
I, for one, as a non military rated pilot with an IFR ticket and all my acro training learned from a retired LTC with U2, tactical instruction and other very special flying skills, I can tell you that it takes a special breed to fly these kinds of missions. The fighter pilots I know from the US, Sweden, Belgium, France and Israel are altogether a more like and mundane sort, albeit a very special lot with arguably very specific skills and their own kind of right stuff. But there are very few to whom I would entrust my tax dollars without oversight. The wings you earn don't, by any stretch of the imagination, make you a competent program manager or policy maker.
As for the content specifically, there are clearly two sets of aircraft: the heavier, increasingly twin seat, twin engine, fully capable aircraft for long range knock down the door missions. At the same time, and mostly for financial reasons, there is also a second set of aircraft that are single pilot (though the Israelis and, for many missions, the French have opted to go two seat here too), single engine aircraft to add quantity to the full spectrum capabilities of the first category.
It can be argued that the Canadians, like the Australians have a choice to make about the power projection component of the mission set they wish to assign to their air forces. It seems to me that the Australians are a little more 'forward leaning' in this matter (easily explained by their geography and proximity to the Pacific theater's threats).
It would seem to me, humbly (and in my non gold-winged state of nothingness) that strategically it could pay off for both Canada and Australia to imagine continuing their tradition of buying essentially carrier-capable aircraft which could (contrary to what has been done so far) actually be used on allied carriers in a crisis. It would be a very demanding set of skills to develop but the French lit a fire under their own program to grow their carrier-borne air assets by initiating exchanges with the US at Pensacola and, sparingly, in USN units. The Australians could definitely begin this with their Super Hornets.
On this point, there are, you are right, the US way to do this (with the F35) or the French way to achieve the same with an updated version of the Rafale (available now and if purchased in the right quantities, cheaper than F35 with not a huge loss of capability). I don't know, personally if the F35 will fully deliver the knock the door down capability being advertised. It may or may not. I lament that so much of the West is now dependent on this one program.
Controversially, the UK is offering India to develop a naval version of the Typhoon (if for no other reason than it was originally envisaged and dropped to focus on RAF version) If F35 platform fails to perform, the UK could still opt for the naval Typhoon, particularly if the Indians choose it.
One thing the brits have figured out is that you can pool AF and Navy assets in joint forces (e.g.: helicopter fleets, attack helicopters and formerly with harriers) The French missed an opportunity to do this with Rafale but are now spending the time training army crews to routinely operate their Tigers and other ALAT assets on Amphibious Assault Assets and their Carrier.
The bottom line is heavier, two seat is routinely chosen for longer range. I'll quote an IDF F15 flight leader on why the Israelis picked the F16, despite their preference for the more expensive F15. It was cost, almost exclusively, because in the 'F15, to loose a dogfight against another type, you almost have to do it on purpose'. This is the reason they stuck bombs under their early F15As when headed to Tunis to hit the PLO. The range over water and hostile air threat on the way their meant they did not want to be in F16s. I agree, that's just one country with one mission profile. My two cents (or three)
Regards and peaceful thoughts to all,
