# Can. Govt. intends to upgrade CF188s for service until 2025



## CougarKing (30 Sep 2014)

Final retirement date moved from 2022 to 2025...

Toronto Star



> *Canadian CF-18 fighter jets to be kept in use until 2025*
> 
> The Conservative government says it will extend the life of its fleet of CF-18 fighters.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Sep 2014)

I miss the bad old days, when we had an interceptor for intercepting





and a fighter/bomber to fight and bomb.




But we also had a high altitude interceptor in the nuclear deterrent role




so, I guess the idea of buying a jet to do one thing, and then using it in a different way is not without precedent...


----------



## AlexanderM (30 Sep 2014)

I'm thinking it takes a bit of presure off and buys some time for them to show that the F35 is the right choice?  

Like seeing the pic of the Starfighter, remember reading somewhere that when it was taken out of service there still weren't many fighters that could keep up to it, especially at low alttitudes.  Anyone for an updated F104? lol


----------



## GR66 (30 Sep 2014)

I'd hardly put forward the CF-5 as an example of good aircraft procurement practice.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Sep 2014)

Meanwhile, overheard at the Hanger in Cold Lake; "Dang! Corporal better order some more duct tape and crazy glue."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2014)

Sea King.  Buffalo.  Aurora.  Tutor.

Why would anyone be surprised we are flying old fighters?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2014)

You're not the only ones struggling

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/ramshackle-army-at-odds-with-berlin-s-global-aspirations-a-994607.html

Bundeswehr - Operational Capability of Select Weapons Systems

Weapons System	Total Number	Available	Deployable

Tiger helicopter	31*	10	10
NH90 helicopter	33*	8	8
Sea King helicopter	21	15	3
Sea Lynx helicopter	22	18	4
CH53 helicopter	83	43	16

Eurofighter fighter jet	109	74	42
Tornado fighter jet	89	66	38

K130 corvette	5	2	2
U212 submarine	4	1	1
Frigates	11	8	7

Marder tank	406	280	280
Boxer tank	180	70	70

Total stock = all procured units
Available = in operation, including systems currently out of service because of maintenance or repair
Deployable = can be used immediately for missions, exercises or training


----------



## Quirky (30 Sep 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, overheard at the Hanger in Cold Lake; "Dang! Corporal better order some more duct tape and crazy glue."



That stuff is usually an HPR from Montreal or Edmonton.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Sep 2014)

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Like seeing the pic of the Starfighter, remember reading somewhere that when it was taken out of service there still weren't many fighters that could keep up to it, especially at low alttitudes.  Anyone for an updated F104? lol



There is an air demonstration team in the US that fly former CF Starfighters.  As they say in the videos, it is the fastest jet at the airshow.  

Here is a vid of an airshow from 2009.


----------



## AlexanderM (30 Sep 2014)

General Disorder said:
			
		

> There is an air demonstration team in the US that fly former CF Starfighters.  As they say in the videos, it is the fastest jet at the airshow.
> 
> Here is a vid of an airshow from 2009.


Awesome!!  Thanks for that!  The Starfighter had a 48-69Kn engine and Mach 2 speed, imagine it with the most powerful f16 engine, I believe they have one around 160Kn, now that would be fast.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Oct 2014)

Just my 0.02, but I would think probably the most efficient overall upgrade would be a one for one lease swap for F18F Advanced Super Hornets. There is precedent for this with the CF101 Voodoo upgrade swap in the 1960's, and yes the 2 aircraft were essentially different platforms altogether but the government still went ahead.

I am guessing that retaining the current CF18 fleet, whether flying with or without upgrades until 2025 seems like an impossible task without essentially upgrading every major system on the aircraft several times over. It seems to me that the cost of this, taken together with the costs of eventually acquiring the F-35, the combined price tag will be astronomically higher than the figures already under review. 

Somebody needs to have some leadership here. Just switch the aircraft one for one, get on with it and get it done ASAP. Then, in 2030, start looking at whatever will be replacing the F22 and F 35.


----------



## dimsum (1 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Just my 0.02, but I would think probably the most efficient overall upgrade would be a one for one lease swap for F18F Advanced Super Hornets. There is precedent for this with the CF101 Voodoo upgrade swap in the 1960's, and yes the 2 aircraft were essentially different platforms altogether but the government still went ahead.



I'm assuming you mean the F/A-18E (single seat) instead of the F variant (dual-seat, with a Weapons Systems Officer at the back)?  If you mean F (fair enough), we need to train ACSOs as WSOs, etc.  Not impossible (and I'm sure some would welcome it) but it'd take some time, even if we piggy-backed on the USN or RAAF WSO training system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm assuming you mean the F/A-18E (single seat) instead of the F variant (dual-seat, with a Weapons Systems Officer at the back)?  If you mean F (fair enough), we need to train ACSOs as WSOs, etc.  Not impossible (and I'm sure some would welcome it) but it'd take some time, even if we piggy-backed on the USN or RAAF WSO training system.



Isn't there some ASO-flavoured ACSOs who are looking for seats to fly in?  8)


----------



## dimsum (1 Oct 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Isn't there some ASO-flavoured ACSOs who are looking for seats to fly in?  8)



No food, strapped into a bang-seat for the entire time and you get to pee into a bag (I think).  I can't see too many ASOs going for that!   

Oh, and your postings are Cold Lake or Bagotville.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No food, strapped into a bang-seat for the entire time and you get to pee into a bag (I think).  I can't see too many ASOs going for that!
> 
> Oh, and your postings are Cold Lake or Bagotville.



Ya...I figure most would run and hide after the words "_no toaster_" were spoken.   >


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Oct 2014)

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Awesome!!  Thanks for that!  The Starfighter had a 48-69Kn engine and Mach 2 speed, imagine it with the most powerful f16 engine, I believe they have one around 160Kn, now that would be fast.



Airplanes are not really my specialty but I will compare it to a car originally equipped with a six cylinder being upgraded to a 6.2 L Hemi engine producing almost 500 HP. If not reinforced properly the car frame will twist and bend from the torque of the Hemi.
Could the F-104 airframe handle such an upgrade?


----------



## observor 69 (1 Oct 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No food, strapped into a bang-seat for the entire time and you get to pee into a bag (I think).  I can't see too many ASOs going for that!
> 
> Oh, and your postings are Cold Lake or Bagotville.



So I assume a posting request to Wing Ops at Bagotville or Cold Lake is out ? >


----------



## dimsum (1 Oct 2014)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> So I assume a posting request to Wing Ops at Bagotville or Cold Lake is out ? >



Unless they just created a new town/city called Bagotville or Cold Lake on Vancouver Island or BC mainland coast that I wasn't aware of....


----------



## AlexanderM (1 Oct 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Airplanes are not really my specialty but I will compare it to a car originally equipped with a six cylinder being upgraded to a 6.2 L Hemi engine producing almost *700* HP. If not reinforced properly the car frame will twist and bend from the torque of the Hemi.
> Could the F-104 airframe handle such an upgrade?


An update would require some redesign, no question, and the materials we have now are superior to then, so wouldn't likely be a problem.  The redesign would include supercruise and internal bays, don't ask me where though, as this is all just fantasy land.  lol


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 Oct 2014)

Might aswell buy something new...   To be honest, the systems in the aircraft are not the issue.  The airframe is.  And this is quite expensive to replace (centerbarrel replacement for example).

What we SHOULD have done is buy Super Hornet back in early 2000s instead of upgrading legacy Hornets to R2.  Then we would have time to make an informed decision on NGFC....


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Oct 2014)

General Disorder said:
			
		

> Here is a vid of an airshow from 2009.



THAT was awesome. I remember 104s screaming overhead at an altitude of maybe 500 feet, balls to the wall, when they used to fly from Cold Lake to Winnipeg (I think) when I was about 11 or 12 (1968/69) IIRC. Very cool.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Oct 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm assuming you mean the F/A-18E (single seat) instead of the F variant (dual-seat, with a Weapons Systems Officer at the back)?  If you mean F (fair enough), we need to train ACSOs as WSOs, etc.  Not impossible (and I'm sure some would welcome it) but it'd take some time, even if we piggy-backed on the USN or RAAF WSO training system.



No, I think this is a newer or at least a different version than that of the E/F models. Boeing seems to make the differentiation themselves at their website: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/military/fa18ef/ 


The Super Hornet is built by a team that includes Boeing, Northrop Grumman, GE Aviation, and Raytheon.

For more information on the Super Hornet, read the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet overview (PDF) or Product card (PDF)

For more information on the Advanced Super Hornet, read the overview (PDF) or Product Card (PDF).


----------



## AlexanderM (2 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> No, I think this is a newer or at least a different version than that of the E/F models. Boeing seems to make the differentiation themselves at their website: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/military/fa18ef/
> 
> 
> The Super Hornet is built by a team that includes Boeing, Northrop Grumman, GE Aviation, and Raytheon.
> ...



You mean the Advanced Super Hornet??  Conformal fuel tanks, weapons pod, etc.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy-pleased-with-quotadvancedquot-super-hornet-tests-wants-more-397927/


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Oct 2014)

Yes, as per the pdf that I attached in my last posting.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2014)

W601

Maybe they don't need to lease 70 or 80 Super Hornets.  Maybe 24 would get them by until the next decision point.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2014)

The problem with leasing a small number of Super or Super-Duper Hornets will be the same problem we have in the Army written large: multiple micro fleets which are not logistically comparable with each other, and having a logistics cost that consumes all available resources. If it is crippling with relatively simple kit like trucks, imagine what will happen when you do this with multi million dollar aircraft......


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Oct 2014)

Yet the Aussies intend to do just that with 24 SH, 12 Growlers and 72 F-35's. Frankly I think the RCAF is capable of such a feat as well.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Nov 2014)

From last month...

*Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Source: *National Post*

*Matt Gurney: We don’t have enough fighter jets to whip out*



> _Excerpt:_
> 
> Whatever the current state of our fighter force, however, there is something that can’t be denied. We need a much, much bigger air fleet than we currently have, or that we are expected to have after we purchase our next fighter jet to replace the aging CF-18s. As I have detailed in a previous column, our current Air Force fields four operational squadrons (Air Force geeks: Yes, I know they’re only grouped into two administrative squadrons) of 12 CF-18s each, for a total of 48.
> 
> ...


----------



## YZT580 (1 Nov 2014)

rounded up?  Bet that .6 is a tricky beast to land.


----------



## Danjanou (1 Nov 2014)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> rounded up?  Bet that .6 is a tricky beast to land.



it doesn't


----------



## smale436 (1 Nov 2014)

It's all well and good for them to quote how many are "available". Serviceability is a whole other story and based on the last 2 of my 7 years working on this airframe, I honestly hope I'm not working on them in 2016 let alone 2025. Even not counting manpower issues, the supply system will be the nail in the coffin. (And that's no fault of the individuals who work in the supply system.) So many jobs held up for weeks waiting on washers and bolts that seem to only be kept at depots in Montreal or Halifax or wherever. Or even if you have get the part you need immediately, other problems happen in the repair process that delay things even further. 

But I digress. We do what we can. The pilots and bosses are grateful. And if I was a pilot, I'd have full confidence strapping in. But things will only get worse before they get better.


----------



## observor 69 (2 Nov 2014)

"Canada Wades Into The Fight Against ISIS With Dated Weaponry"
A pair of CF-18 Hornets, a CC-150 Polaris tanker-transport and a CP-140 Aurora took to the skies above Iraq yesterday as part of the international mission that is now known officially as Operation Inherent Resolve. This was Canada's first aerial foray into the battle against ISIS militants in Iraq.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/canada-wades-into-the-fight-against-isis-with-dated-wea-1653657537/+pgeorge

Some interesting reading and photos about our CF-18s in Operation Inherent Resolve.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2014)

Interesting points about platform vs weaponry. 

Especially with this "USAF Strike Chief Urges B-52 Engine Replacement " 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141019/DEFREG02/310190014/USAF-Strike-Chief-Urges-B-52-Engine-Replacement

Also the point about the AIM-9X could be juxtaposed with this "Lockheed Martin to upgrade F-22 for AIM-9X missile"

http://army.ca/forums/threads/116766/post-1335418.html#msg1335418


----------

