Yes this would be my question actually. There's a concern with single engine fighters going down in our north. I don't want a 1 vs 1 comparison on aircraft just to know what is in your opinion the best single fighter/canadian option to patrol our arctic. I get that you need a mixed fleet for offensive operations. I believe the Canadian fighter to be mostly a russian deterrent so would you want an air superiority fighter or a mixed capability fighter for nato missions to.
thankyou.
Most points have been addressed already, but I noted a couple of 'outliers'.
1. Why would you be under the impression that '2 engines equals greater range?'
Have you bothered to research the stats? The 2x GE F414 engines in the Super Hornet only roughly approximates the thrust that the single F135 engine generates for the F-35. They don't greatly exceed it (and in some reports are significantly inferior). Whilst they are smaller engines, the weight and fuel consumption of 2 high thrust engines, are unlikely to be more efficient than a single engine... So why would you automatically assume they provide greater range? Unless a bias is at work...
2. A single engine jet may crash far in the North of the North American continent. Indeed they may. They may also crash in the South, East or West too. So too may twin engined fighters as we have seen with RCAF Hornet aircraft in recent years... Is your point then that single engined fighhters are less reliable than twins and therefore more prone to crashing? Or that single engined fighters are more prone to crashing in remote areas?
Because several facts seem to contradict your argument. First is the 354th Fighter Wing that has successfully operated F-16's from Eilson Air Force base in Northern Alaska for decades, which is the most Northerly base in North America, as I understand it... That seems to contradict two of your points regarding the dangers of operating single engined fighters in that part of the world.
The other point again relates to the F-16. The world's biggest user of the F-16 is the USAF. It is also the most numerous fighter within the USAF. So if the argument that single engined fighters were more prone to crashes was actually true, you'd expect the F-16 would have a correspondingly large amount of crashes? Logical right?
Except the opposite is ACTUALLY true. The F-16 is statistically the safest fighter aircraft in the USAF and has the lowest rate of crashing of any modern USAF fighter, even allowing for it being the overwhelmingly dominant fighter in terms of numbers.
Seems incongruous doesn't it? It's only got one engine so therefore if that engine shuts down that aircraft should crash right? Of course. Except that the overwhelming majority of modern jet crashes are not engine related. That one engine flaming out is not the cause of the majority of aircraft crashes...
So if the engine really isn't the problem as the factual record appears to actually show, why would the F-35 be more likely to crash than any other aircraft? I must admit this question has me stumped. Since you've made the claim, albeit informed seemingly by incorrect information relating to the likelyhood of modern single engine jet fighter crashes, perhaps you could expand on this point?
The simple facts are -
1. The F-35's predecessor is the safest fighter aircraft the USAF operates and is an aircraft that has been successfully operated in the far northern reaches of North America for decades.
So why is the F-35 so much more at risk than the F-16? The other relevant statistic about F-35 is that at present we have NO air-crash data whatsoever. Quite simply because no F-35 has crashed, at all...
