# CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter



## Wizard of OZ

Before i get slammed all over i am just curious as to how much time people think we have left in our CF-18's.  If there is not much left in them what would we replace them with?  F-15E's? or wait until the Jsf or F-35 is fully ready.  Personally i think the F-15e would fill the role nicely and would cost only a fraction of what the F-35 would cost the Canadian Tax payer. But i am looking for your thoughts on this.  If you don't like my fit then maybe another aircraft comes to mind.  These are the specs i found on the F-15e and will compare them to the CF-18's.

     
BASIC INFORMATION :

Designation: F-15E Strike Eagle
Type: Air-to-ground attack aircraft
Manufacturer: McDonnell Douglas Corporation
Country: United States
Service Date: 1988
Crew: 2
   DIMENSIONS:

Length: 63.8 ft (19.44 m)
Wingspan: 42.8 ft (13 m)
Height: 18.5 ft (5.6 m)
Weight (Empty): NA
Weight (Loaded): 81,000 lbs (36,450 kg)

      
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS:

Powerplant: 2 x Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners delivering 25,000 - 29,000 pounds each engine.
Max Speed: Mach 2.5
Max Range: 2,400 miles (3,840 km) 
Service Ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of Climb: NA
   MAIN ARMAMENT(S):

1 x 20mm multibarrel gun mounted internally with 500 rounds of ammunition. 
4 x AIM-7F/M Sparrow missiles
4 x AIM-9L/M Sidewinder missiles
8 x AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles
Any air-to-surface weapon in the Air Force inventory (nuclear and conventional) 

and now for the CF-18's

      
BASIC INFORMATION :

Designation: F/A-18 Hornet
Type: Fighter / Bomber
Manufacturer: McDonnell Douglas
Country: United States
Service Date: NA
Crew: 1 or 2
   DIMENSIONS:

Length: 60.3 ft (18.5 m)
Wingspan: 44.9 ft (13.68 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.87 m)
Weight (Empty): 23,832 lbs
Weight (Loaded): 56,000 lbs

      
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS:

Powerplant: 2 x F414-GE-400 turbofan engines delivering 22,000 pounds (9,977 kg) static thrust per engine. 
Max Speed: Mach 1.8+
Max Range: 1,275 nm (2,346 km) 
Service Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Rate of Climb: NA
   MAIN ARMAMENT(S):

1 x M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20 mm Cannon
AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder AAM (projected)
AIM-7 Sparrow AAM
AIM-120 AMRAAM AAM
Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile
Harm Anti-Radiation Missile
SLAM
SLAM-ER (projected)
Maverick AGM
Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW)
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
Data Link Pod
Paveway Laser Guided Bomb
Plus various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets. 

I personally like the idea of getting the F-15's of course this is just MOO in honestity i don't think the feds would go for it.  But think the Americans would be getting rid of these birds as the F-22 replaces them and we could get them for a good deal.  They do everything we need of fighters.  And hell we could even keep some of the CF-18s around as they are both made by the same manfacture and could maybe get a good deal on parts.

thoughts???????


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You do know the CF18s are undergoing a major rebuild and upgrade program right as has been discussed here right?


----------



## Bert

Theres alot of factors that determine the best aircraft fit; logistics, maintenance, parts
provision, cost of everything, roles, base support, politics, etc.   The CF acquired the CF-18
for many reasons but one being the ability of the aircraft to be proficientat multi-roles;
interceptor, fighter, bomber, close air support.   Easier to maintain a multi-role
aircraft everywhere than support multiple aircraft for different roles (as the size of the air force
prohibits).   The F-15, though a formidablercraft in itself, may not be as proficient all tasks
as what can be assigned to the F-18.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I know the CF-18 is undergoing this upgrade to bring it on line with NATO standard equipment.  The sad part is we will be losing alot of aircraft to make this upgrade possible.  Is that a balance that we want?  I know that we have aprox 80 in the CF right now (airforce link: http://airforce.mil.ca/dairpa/subjects/aircraftwing/aircraft/hornet_e.pdf)

And i read in the Journal that aprox 66 of these will be refitted to meet NATO standards.  With the purchase of the 15's which are already 2 generations ahead of our 18 not only would we save money we would gain a further enhanced aircraft.  One in which the Americans have never exported as they few it as an extremely lethal machine.  Of course this is only my view I am open to other points.  But i don't see how getting rid of more of our aircraft to make those that remain flyable when we don't have enough now makes any sense.  I think if we could swing a deal and have the 15's for 10 yrs or so until the bugs are worked out of the F-35 then it may be a wise decision.  As long as the cost balance was positive how could it be a mistake.  The F-15E's are more then capable then the Cf-18's we have when it comes to ground attack aircraft as they can handle anything in the American air to ground arsenal.  When it comes to Air superiority not to many other aircraft has the ability to match the 15's in the sky in that manner either.  I see it as a win win for Canada and the US.  They get to upgrade an ally and we get the superior plane that we need.  This is if and only if they will sell the planes to us.

MOO


----------



## Sf2

Wizard, are you an Air Cadet by any chance?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Wizard,

before you get into a debate with the pilots comparing two airframes, why don't you lay out your entire appreciation for us:

Tasks and roles to be conducted.
Aircrew training requirements.
Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.
Costs to replace all CF-18 specific support assets with new version.

As you can see, simply comparing statistics and unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing based on "_As long as the cost balance was positive how could it be a mistake_." I'll add new points if I think of any. I am sure the pilots and flight line maintainers (Offr and NCM) on the forum can suggest a few more that must be considered in developing a proposal for new aircraft.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Don't forget the major lack of 500 series techs. Its also a reality, and seriously I don't think the CF is capable of buying a new A/c right now.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

first off new combat jets are low on the purchase wish list. there is talk once the new US fighter is on production lines the Canadians might be interested. last time Canadian Forces purcahsed planes we helping to pay  for the line setup and stuff which ran the costs up. Some where I read that  if and when Canada buys new combat aircraft they want to buy in after it is up and running with another country so the production line is up and running, cheaper for us to buy that way.
Second the F 18 is going thru mid life upgrades which is a normal thing to do with an aircraft of this age. 
it was the same we got into the airbus conversion program for refuelers wait till the program is running to save money

Canada has always maintained that  aircraft has to have dual engines, because of over water time in flights in and around the country.
has to be dual purpose because Canada is no longer flying more then one kind of airframe. cost saving measure there. 
F15 is a very  costly  bird to buy and maintain, more costly  then f18 i would think. 
it is not like we have been in any major  air wars in years so number of birds flying is not a huge deal. 66 update aircraft beat 90 out of date aircraft. 

it is like everything else here we arm chair quarter back it, not like anyone here is in the decesion making.
because if i had my  choice, we would have  harriers for ground support and  f 22 for air to air, f18 kept as the fighter bomber


----------



## Pencil Tech

"I know that we have aprox 80 in the CF right now"

I thought we had 120 or so but they are upgrading 80.


----------



## TCBF

Whatever we have left of the 138 we bought, they have been bombing the heck out of the Wainwright Annex these days.

Tom


----------



## ChopperHead

American Planes are nice and everything But personally I would much rather see an all Canadian designed and buit aircraft to replace the CF-18 whenever that day comes. I know there is alot of ups and downs to this the biggest ones being cost and time for development and testing etc etc but Never the less I think It would be something for the whole country to be proud of.   show the world what Canada can come up with.


Kyle


----------



## TCBF

We could call it "The AVRO Arrow 2".  Then, the Conservatives could get elected and cancel it.

Isn't it great living in a sub-arctic banana republic?

Tom


----------



## oyaguy

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> has to be dual purpose because Canada is no longer flying more then one kind of airframe. cost saving measure there.
> F15 is a very  costly  bird to buy and maintain, more costly  then f18 i would think.



I know for a fact that both the F-18 and the F-16 were developed in response to the big costs of developing the F-14 and the F-15. Both the US Navy  and the US Air Force got a supremely capable aircraft, but also an expensive aircraft. To equip all their fighter squadrons would have cost too much, even for the US military. So light-weight fighters came into vogue.

I also think that the F-14 and F-15 (especially the earlier production models) were not as flexible as the F-16 and F-18 when it comes to dual roles, that don't quote me on that.



			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> Canada has always maintained that  aircraft has to have dual engines, because of over water time in flights in and around the country.



As Mr. FormerHorseGuard puts the reason why the F-18 was selected over the F-16. 

Interesting enough though, Canada almost got F-14s because Iran's F-14s were going to start falling apart due to lack of spares, and the fact they couldn't get any spares from the States. Then the whole Iran Hostage crisis swept into town, and whatever favour Iran was showing Canada back then kind of fell out when the Canadian Embassy smuggled out some American nationals.


----------



## jmacleod

Boeing Canada is contracted for the upgrades of the CF CF18A (CF188). DND planners
are focused on the current operational fleet being in full inventory until 2017. There is to my
knowledge no plan at the present time to replace them. On the other hand DND is a financial
participant in the Lockheed-Martin led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to some $400 million. Michael
O'Leary's post is quite correct and well thought out - that is the formula that DND planners
will have to consider when advising the Government of options in a CF major crown purchase
(MCP) of a replacement aircraft, plus some other factors based on Canada's role in NATO and
support for other committments 12 -14 years from now. Difficult and expensive decisions. The
CF-18 A Hornet that Canada bought cost about $18.6 million in 1981 - it appears that a new
state-of-the-art F/A-18 E/F costs approximately $35 million US per ship set, (although this figure
is not confirmed by Boeing or partners at the moment, and the per ship set price is negotiable
in any event) MacLeod


----------



## Lancaster

Most countries are purchasing new fighters such as France's Rafaele, Europe's Euro fighter and USA's F-22 which are air-superior fighters. They are expensive and have two engines for reliability. Since we have existing F-18s Hornets that are two engine and are a multi-role (bomber and fighter) air superiority fighter we should keep this versatile tradition by considering the new US Super Hornet F-18E/F as a replacement by year 2010, instead of the Joint Strike Fighter for 2017 (JSF F-35), which is basically a stealth bomber, and under development. But stealth has important advantages of lower radar detection. Also, US General Loh's view (from book Fighter Wing 2004) any air force that buys new aircraft that are not stealthy nor equipped with new generation precision aircraft and fire and forget weapons is committing a "criminal act". But the US 2004 defence subcommittee hearing, US Admiral Vernon E Clark on the F/A -18E/F program said "Highly praised for tactical capability and platform reliability" and also compatible with the F-22's. If we purchase the US. Super Hornet F-18E/F by 2010 our existing F-18s will be on average 25 years old, so if the recent Canadian budgets have produced surpluses we should purchase new fighters now while the economy is hot. By year 2017 Canada's Air Force will retire the F-18s, but what happens if we are in a recession? Would a new government say that we need fewer fighters because we have started a precedent with only 80 updated F-18s in last 10 years? The U.S. Super Hornet F-18E/F cost is $57 US million each, but if we negotiate and buy 80 Super Hornets on the last production block around the year 2010, we could potentially get $41 US million each or $3.3 US billion total(price based on last production run cost), instead of JSF (carrier version) fighter of $67 US million each or total of $5.4 US billion. The difference between the two fighters is a saving of $2.1 US billion. So buying a fighter at the end of Super Hornet production run is much cheaper than at beginning to mid  JSF production run in 2017, which will be will be very expensive. The Super Hornet is low maintenance with 40 % fewer parts and the old Hornet has been reliable and would be an all-weather fighter in the Canadian climate with a larger payload than the old F-18 Hornet. The experience with the US Stealth bomber shows that it requires a lot of maintenance for the stealth coatings so I presume it would be the same with the JSF. Australia wants 100 JSF fighters and the Netherlands wants some too. Canada paid out millions to be a partner but it doesn't mean you must buy that fighter. Since Canada are Spain are both mid size countries we both have same size total GDP economy. Spain is in the process of buying  87 Euro fighters that will cost them approx. $9.0 US billion ($104.5 US million each) to replace their F-18's(and some Mirages) which are the same age of fighter as Canada's, so then why can't Canada afford new fighters?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Lancaster said:
			
		

> ....., so then why can't Canada afford new fighters?



An excellent question, and rather than just tossing out numbers from industry and military websites, I will offer you the same challenge that was put forth to Wizard:



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> before you get into a debate with the pilots comparing two airframes, why don't you lay out your entire appreciation for us:
> 
> Tasks and roles to be conducted.
> Aircrew training requirements.
> Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
> Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
> Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
> Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
> Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.
> Costs to replace all CF-18 specific support assets with new version.
> 
> As you can see, simply comparing statistics and unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing....


----------



## a_majoor

A few other things to think about:

The "CF-15E" will be much bigger and heavier than either the CF-18 or its F/A-18  cousin. This would limit the ability to deploy to fairly large and sophisticated airfields with long runways. (This is not to say you could land a CF-18 on a dirt road...) This will limit the ability to support overseas expeditions, since not only are there range issues, but also "space" issues, since the airfields which can handle F-15s will already be full of American F-15s, taking up the hard stands, hangers, maintainence bays, etc.

In fact, if we were really serious about getting some hot new airplanes to support deployed expeditionary forces in austere environments, we would start looking at something like the MiG-29 or the Swedish SAAB Gripon instead....


----------



## TCBF

No doubt, all of the aviators on this board are shaking their heads at all of us pongos saying "Lets buy SR-71s and use them on CIMIC overflights" and whatnot.  Just like all of the light and dark blue jobs telling us what tanks to buy.

Loads of laughs.





Tom


----------



## aesop081

TCBF said:
			
		

> No doubt, all of the aviators on this board are shaking their heads at all of us pongos saying "Lets buy SR-71s and use them on CIMIC overflights" and whatnot.   Just like all of the light and dark blue jobs telling us what tanks to buy.
> 
> Loads of laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom
> 
> you read my mind Tom !!


----------



## Zoomie

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Lets buy SR-71s and use them on CIMIC overflights" and whatnot.



Better yet Tom, they just retired the fleet of Concorde's - why not pick them up for a fair penny, paint them grey and VOILA - instant strategic troop lift - get yer boys to combat super fast!


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

SR 71 black bird would make the recce flights and other quick VIP flight very fast, but a lot of fast trips to deploy the DART team.

Concorde for STAT AIRLIFT. the frnech province would like that, the manuals are already in french, save money there on translating them. Cash Cow for Quebec. Jumpers beware that first step out at MAch 1 is a big one.

2017 for replacement time for the Cf 18s, that  would be right in line with most major aircraft purchases for Canada. you have to wait till they are fly  museum pieces and the spare parts are all on display in various Museums, just like the navy's spare parts for gulf war 1, borrow firing pins and other parts from museums. 
Canada has a bad record of not replacing anything till it is so old they have to be creative in making new parts. 
C130 oldest airframes flying i hear.
Seakings  no need to go there
Turtor Jets. they are one of many of museum aircraft still working for the airforce.
other aircraft........a lot over due for replacement.

army  fleet
MLVW  needs replacement but no firm dates yet
Iltis piece meal replacement program, 2 platforms picked and none exactly what  is required but it was replaced
HLVW going to need repalcement soon,  small fleet lots of hours, lots of miles on them..........no program yet?
avgp fleet, lots of programs offered just not what everyone thinks we need or want
MBT wishing but not happening

Navy

DD ships, old, need retro fits, or replacement
City CLass Frigs..................re fits coming i hope soon
Subs. could be years before the new to us fleet is ready for water work.


The Canadian Forces and government have a record of making equipment  last as long as some soldiers careers. do not expect airforce replacements before the next generanation of pilots are coming in. 

personal note here

my grand father was a platoon leader and company commander in the RCOC 
started with the LEE Enfield svc wnp
traded that for the FN wnps family
retired

I worked for a SGT MAJOR my  first summer in Petawawa 1989
The RQ was a corporal in my  grandfather's platoon. FN was retired that  year and replaced by  the C7 Family
RQ retired that  year because he said when sons join it is not too bad but when grand children join up , it is time to go.

So the next level of new kids coming in is when the CF  will make the next major purchases.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Reality is harsh, but it does make sense...unfortunately.   :'(


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> DD ships, old, need retro fits, or replacement
> City CLass Frigs..................re fits coming i hope soon



2 comments, the 280s are too old to take another major refit so for the next few years you will see short work periods to keep them running with very little in the form of upgrades or replacements until the Single Surface Combatant program comes on line or the government actually listens to the Navy and replaces them sooner *holds breath*

The _Halifax_ class FELEX program been outlined in other threads.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Lancaster said:
			
		

> Australia wants 100 JSF fighters and the Netherlands wants some too. Canada paid out millions to be a partner but it doesn't mean you must buy that fighter. Since Canada are Spain are both mid size countries we both have same size total GDP economy. Spain is in the process of buying   87 Euro fighters that will cost them approx. $9.0 US billion ($104.5 US million each) to replace their F-18's(and some Mirages) which are the same age of fighter as Canada's, so then why can't Canada afford new fighters?



The problem in Canada is ideology, not money. The countries of which you speak have dealt with ideology, from which the money then flows. 

Until Canadians actually have war forced upon them within the borders of the country, do not expect a change in ideology. Of course, by that time it will be too late.


----------



## oyaguy

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Until Canadians actually have war forced upon them within the borders of the country, do not expect a change in ideology. Of course, by that time it will be too late.



A tad alarmist wouldn't you say?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

oyaguy said:
			
		

> A tad alarmist wouldn't you say?



A tad naive if you beleive that we will never be targetted don't you think?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Wizard,
> 
> before you get into a debate with the pilots comparing two airframes, why don't you lay out your entire appreciation for us:
> 
> Tasks and roles to be conducted.
> Aircrew training requirements.
> Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
> Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
> Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
> Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
> Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.
> Costs to replace all CF-18 specific support assets with new version.
> 
> As you can see, simply comparing statistics and unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing based on "_As long as the cost balance was positive how could it be a mistake_." I'll add new points if I think of any. I am sure the pilots and flight line maintainers (Offr and NCM) on the forum can suggest a few more that must be considered in developing a proposal for new aircraft.



You are right I never said this would be a cheap option but one that may be worth considering.   As to your points.....

The F-15 allows pilots to perform the patrols that everyone seems important over Canadian Airspace in a fighter that is capable of responding quicker to any possible threat to that space.   It also allows Canadian pilots to continue to perform ground attack roles as the 15 are capable of firing everyinthing in the air to ground arsenal.   So i really don't see the roles or tasks being any different then they are now other then being done in a more capable plane(my opinion).

Aircraft training/maintence:   This would not be a quick swap i am sure we would be able to keep our 18's in the air long enough to train some of the personal to fly them, and 2)mantain them.   this could be done through sending crews to US bases to learn from them or having them come up here to teach the crews on our own soil.   Think of it as a really long Mapple Flag exercise.
This to would apply to the maintence lifecycle as parts would still be avaliable through the manufacture of of the planes.   And worse case scenerio you steal parts to keep them flying ( i know this may be a new concept to keeping Canadian birds in the air)

I will kinda lump the rest together as i am tired right now.

Number of planes.   This would be a decesion made by personal way above my pay grade but i would say in the order of 130-110 to meet the requirments daily of training for both flight operations and maintence scheduling.   Plus ( looking at the glass half full) you have to account for expansion of the CF as it is the flavour of the day.   how much it would cost to re-tool the maintence facilites, in reality i have no idea but both are from the same manufacture and i am sure a deal could be struck with the US Air Force in order to gain their maintence capabilities.   By support of the wing areas did you mean both of them or all the Wings in Canada.   I think that the active wings Cold Lake and Bagatville (not spelt right) would be able to maintain them with little cost overrun as they had room for more planes then they have now, even though the 15 is bigger then the 18.   We could also activate new areas to store the planes where the facilites already exist, such as Borden and Greenwood, MooseJaw.   Yes it may be expenisve but sometimes that is the cost of doing business.   If we could save x billion dollars buying the 15's over the 35's that money could be spent on the infastructure needed to maintain the 15's.

Your right this is buy no means a trade and save option but it is one that will lead Canadian forces Airmen and Women into the futrue of aviation on a steady platfrom instead of an aging one.   Does this solve all the problems, no is it the only option, no is it the least expensive option, prob not.   Is it a good option, I think so.   

The major problems i see in doing this are.   1) the landing gear is not up to CF standard and would need a serious upgrade (we like carrier gear), the second is the number of qualified personal we have to be able to wrk on the birds needs to be brought up, once this is done then getting the pilots is the next step.   The Super Hornet is another option that is avaliable and may be a cheaper option.   Does this mean it is better, no, does it mean it is worse, nope.   But i do like some of the post that are on here.   Pilots if you would post your preferance.   Heck pretend money is not even an option.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> A tad naive if you beleive that we will never be targetted don't you think?



On this i could not agree more.  

People locking the barn door after the horse escapes does not replace the horse.  We have to be able to stop the attack before it happens or worse case respond efficently and effectively if it does happen.

MOO


----------



## childs56

I would like to see the CF5 brought back for air space defence in North America  and also as a Jet trainer. (it is fast and manouverable). We  have a few of these in storage and parts are still plentyfull around the world. Is it the most up to date aircraft? No but the ones we have are all glass cockpit and could be retrofitted with the latest up to date missiles. A low cost solution to our problem with keeping up the commitment level of air space defense. 

We could focus a fleet of lets say 40 modern aircraft (F/A 18 or Joint strike fighter)for deployments out side of the country. This would cut down on cost of maintence and wear on the operational fleet for over seas deployment. This fleet could focus on actual deployments in support of over seas missions. 

I think we should have a mixed fleet of a/c. Even if it is a very limited mixed fleet.


----------



## JBP

Gentleman, here is some hard facts for you on the future of the CF-18...



> Collectively, the abovementioned initiatives will ensure that Canada has a state-of-the-art CF-18 fighter force that remains effective and operationally credible until the 2017-20 timeframe.



That is directly from this webpage:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/future_e.asp

Last paragraph...

Strangely enough, that timeframe is just about when the F-35, or Joint-Strike-Fighter, is set to be operational...

Gee I wonder what aircraft we'll be recieving!!!


----------



## h3tacco

Under our current government and CDS I don't think replacing the CF18 will be a  priority anytime soon. If we were to replace it I think the F15E would be a step backwards in many ways. While Korea is currently accepting newbuild F-15K's (F-15E derivative), the F15 is actually an older desing than our F-18A. The F-15E is better ground pounder (better range, larger payload, second crewmember)  but with all the extra avionics and conformal fuel tanks it would actually be a decrease in performance in the intercepter/fighter role. Not only that they would likely be significantly more expensive to operating CF-18s let alone the start-up cost. If the air force was considering a new fighter right now I would think likely competitors would be as follows in no particular order: :

F/A-18E/F
F-35
Typhoon 
Rafale 

As it is right now  with replacement not happening for probably another 10 years or so I think the F-35 will be the main contendor if Canada decides to stay in the fighter business.


----------



## JBP

Well I highly doubt it would be F/A 18E/F because the USN is set to replace them about 2020's sometime. They're a holdover for now as the entire navy fleet is retiring the F-14's and putting the new Super Hornets in until the next best thing comes around. Which will be the F-35 navy variant. 

We have already invested funds into the development of the F-35 so I highly doubt we'll stray off to some other airframe... It would have to be a pretty damn sweet deal for us to take a jet not North American made!


----------



## 1feral1

IMHO, the F18 family of a/c will be around for yrs to come. We still fly the F111's here, and they are Viet Nam vintage a/c.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## h3tacco

We haven't really put any money into the F-35 we basically paid $600 million to allow canadian companies to bid on sub-contracts.

As for the F-18E/F it is almost an entirely new aircraft and one of the few next-gen actually in service. I wouldn't be surprised if we end seeing long delays in the F-35, just look at how far behind the F/A-22 program is right now. Of course none of this matters because the CF is not currenlt looking for new fighters and probably will not for another 10 years.


----------



## daniel h.

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Under our current government and CDS I don't think replacing the CF18 will be a   priority anytime soon. If we were to replace it I think the F15E would be a step backwards in many ways. While Korea is currently accepting newbuild F-15K's (F-15E derivative), the F15 is actually an older desing than our F-18A. The F-15E is better ground pounder (better range, larger payload, second crewmember)   but with all the extra avionics and conformal fuel tanks it would actually be a decrease in performance in the intercepter/fighter role. Not only that they would likely be significantly more expensive to operating CF-18s let alone the start-up cost. If the air force was considering a new fighter right now I would think likely competitors would be as follows in no particular order: :
> 
> F/A-18E/F
> F-35
> Typhoon
> Rafale
> 
> As it is right now   with replacement not happening for probably another 10 years or so I think the F-35 will be the main contendor if Canada decides to stay in the fighter business.



The Mig-35 IIRC was not procured by Russia due to cost but they claim it can match the F-22 so how about that?  ...not for sale I assume...

Seriously though, apparently France is having a heck of a time getting anyone to buy the Rafale, as there is a glut on the market and the Rafale is IIRC 60 million dollars. BUT, as a 4-role heavy fighter, isn't the Rafale basically the next best thing after the F-22, considering it is available for export and the F-22 is not and other plans either have fewer roles, only one engine or are very light?


----------



## JBP

daniel h. said:
			
		

> The Mig-35 IIRC was not procured by Russia due to cost but they claim it can match the F-22 so how about that?  ...not for sale I assume...
> 
> Seriously though, apparently France is having a heck of a time getting anyone to buy the Rafale, as there is a glut on the market and the Rafale is IIRC 60 million dollars. BUT, as a 4-role heavy fighter, isn't the Rafale basically the next best thing after the F-22, considering it is available for export and the F-22 is not and other plans either have fewer roles, only one engine or are very light?




I hate it when people compare many aircraft to the F-22... I'd believe the Russian Mig-35 is comparable... Seeing as they're both made for the same job. I don't believe you can make an accurate comparision of the Rafale with the F-22... The F-22 is strictly developed as an "Air Dominance" fighter... The old "Air Superiority" mission but doubled... It's suppose to go directly into enemy airspace and smash any opposition to pieces... With a secondary role for ground-pounding... If it has to... It's not suppose to be the primary Close-Air-Support plane... 

The Rafale is a multi-role combat aircraft, designed to be both good at air-to-air ops and air-to-ground... Beautiful little aircraft. Perfect for Close-Air-Support roles as "fast-air" resource for troops on the ground, and be able to defend the skies over the battle front. It's also carrier deployable... Very robust aircraft, but not in the same ways or element as the F-22... It's more comparable to the "Typhoon" or Eurofighter 2000. 

Anyway, eehhh gads, out of my lane! I'm just an aircraft enthusiast... My humble opinions are these!


----------



## PL

Why are you guys talking about the F22 anyway?

It is an Air to Air fighter. When is the last time Canada used Fighters into actual air to air combat with fighters from a foreign country?

Thats right. We don't need Air to Air capacities. Only interception capacities to protect our own air space. The JSF is, from my point of view, the best bang for the buck. However, the stealth capacities of the airframe is going to cost us millions to maintain. Furthermore, maintenace will reduce the availability of jets on the flight line.

Considering the fact that the Hornets are supposed to be simple to maintain, and considering the fact that I see only 10ish Hornet on the flight line in Bagotville each day (and we are supposed to have a super squadron...), I cant imagine having 30 F35 in here and seeing only 5 on a flight line in 20 years.

I would go with the super hornet. Perfect for what we NEED (stop talking about other countries for god sack, and talk about what Canada needs!!!) People are already trained on Hornets (both pilots and tecs) and it does both A/G and A/A. We would be able to keep the SuperHornets until what, 2030, and then see if we still need manned air vehicles.


----------



## 23007

^^^^^^^^^^I don't think it can be said anymore perfectly than what PL just stated. What Canada needs is the Super Hornet.


----------



## childs56

Lets look at the purchase of a modern day fighter with a/g and a/a abilities. 
Any a/c that we buy in the future will have to be compatible with what our NATO allies are flying. The comms, Navy, and all those other intricate electronics that we use to tell us who the bad guys are and aren't. Things such as weapons systems will have to be upgradable  due to the ever increasing demand for smarter and more accurate wpns to reduce cost and collateral damage, we will have to keep up graded if we want to play with the big boy's so to speak.  

What is the perfect a/c for our needs? who knows, until we decide in Canada what commitments we want over seas to support and what priority it is for support of the troops on the ground we won't know for sure. Our role in NATO will have a direct reflection as to what a/c we will purchase in the future if any. 

We may not have contributed a lot of cash on a per capita basis as other country's have towards the JSF F35, but our technical expertise towards electronics and other systems on the a/c have been invaluable towards it's production and has more then made up for any monies that we may have not paid towards it. (Some one will ask for proof of this, well kinda hard when most of the design is hush hush). Will we see the JSF in the near future, who knows.  Although no replacement has been formally announced for the CF/18 we all know that we will follow suit as to what our allies do. 

No one on here can reflect that they know what our needs are or should be in the future until we actually start to support our troops on the ground in the A/G role. Until such time all we can do is speculate as to what we think or feel we should have. 

My thoughts are we need a close air support platform that can take a beating and keep moving (A10 Whart Hog comes to mind) 
We also need an aircraft that can intercept and neutralize foreign A/C and or other platforms that may intercept our National airspace or suppress our air superiority above our troops on the ground.( FA/18  Super Hornet).


----------



## daniel h.

23007 said:
			
		

> ^^^^^^^^^^I don't think it can be said anymore perfectly than what PL just stated. What Canada needs is the Super Hornet.




Super Hornet is 57 million each, Rafale is 60 million...though Rafale is considered to be a heavy, multirole fighter, I checked the dimensions on the internet ande the Rafale is many several feet shorter when it comes to length, width, height, weight, though flight ceiling is greater for the Rafale.


----------



## childs56

Problem with buying aircraft from over seas is the ability to gain access to parts quickly for maintenance with out holding a huge over head and surplus of very expensive and limited items here in Canada. 

Things mentioned before such as pilots and ground crew already familiar with the FA/18 family of planes would mean a very small learning curve, then trying to introduce a completely different fleet of fighter A/C.  

In the end who really knows what we will get.


----------



## PL

CTD said:
			
		

> Problem with buying aircraft from over seas is the ability to gain access to parts quickly for maintenance with out holding a huge over head and surplus of very expensive and limited items here in Canada.
> 
> Things mentioned before such as pilots and ground crew already familiar with the FA/18 family of planes would mean a very small learning curve, then trying to introduce a completely different fleet of fighter A/C.
> 
> In the end who really knows what we will get.



No one really know. And actually, the canadians are not ready to buy new planes. Public opinion would be number one priority.

And about the Rafales, Daniel H., you seem to forget that France is not considred as a good allied. In fact, they are not part of NATO anymore, they are selling secrets to China and weapons to anyone who asks. The SuperHornet in 2010 will cost less the 45millions a piece for sure. And the Rafale is not a very good airframe, acording to articles published in the OPME HIF475. We have a guys here that did A/A with Rafales and they actually did very well against them, they even shoot down a couple of them.

I am still sticking to the SuperHornet.


----------



## old fart

PL said:
			
		

> "And about the Rafales, Daniel H., you seem to forget that France is not considred as a good allied. In fact, they are not part of NATO anymore, they are selling secrets to China and weapons to anyone who asks".



The French remain in NATO to this day.   They remain political members of a military alliance, they withdrew as full players in 1966.  They still particpate (some would say undermine) NATO military operations.


----------



## Infanteer

I think we should aquire (in order of preference):

1.  MiG 15's
2.  The Space Shuttle Endevour
3.  TIE Fighters

This thread is cracking me up - if we want a serious discussion on airframe requirements for the CF, somebody has to approach the questions Michael O'Leary posed at the start, or else this is just a bunch of mental masturbation focusing on the models hanging from some kids ceiling.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Wizard,
> 
> before you get into a debate with the pilots comparing two airframes, why don't you lay out your entire appreciation for us:
> 
> Tasks and roles to be conducted.
> Aircrew training requirements.
> Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
> Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
> Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
> Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
> Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.
> Costs to replace all CF-18 specific support assets with new version.
> 
> As you can see, simply comparing statistics and unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing based on "_As long as the cost balance was positive how could it be a mistake_." I'll add new points if I think of any. I am sure the pilots and flight line maintainers (Offr and NCM) on the forum can suggest a few more that must be considered in developing a proposal for new aircraft.


----------



## ChopperHead

I dont think there really is the "perfect" fighter out their to fit the needs of Canada. So no matter what you can sujest in this thread there will always be negatives and reasons why a certian other jet would be better. your not really getting anywhere just a back and forth kinda thing goin on here. 




Kyle.


----------



## JBP

Well heck! I thought Infanteers' suggestion of a TIE fighter was bang on! Lol.... Except, I'd rather the Rebel X-Wing, it's more versatile with 4 weapons and shields too! 

....

True, there will never be a perfect aircraft to fit Canada's needs. But we can get close, with either the Super Hornet or the F-35 JSF. I personally choose the F-35, more advanced and modern, stealthy and longer range which is important for us to keep control of the air up North of course...

Anyways...

Joe


----------



## Infanteer

I found a paper regarding this very topic, hopefully it can promote more serious discussion.  The author does not believe that the JSF will fulfill the requirements Canada needs from a fighter aircraft.

http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc/csc31/exnh/frawley.pdf


----------



## daniel h.

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Well heck! I thought Infanteers' suggestion of a TIE fighter was bang on! Lol.... Except, I'd rather the Rebel X-Wing, it's more versatile with 4 weapons and shields too!
> 
> ....
> 
> True, there will never be a perfect aircraft to fit Canada's needs. But we can get close, with either the Super Hornet or the F-35 JSF. I personally choose the F-35, more advanced and modern, stealthy and longer range which is important for us to keep control of the air up North of course...
> 
> Anyways...
> 
> Joe




The F-35 has more range? Interesting.


I thought the Star Wars fighters were zero-gravity spaceships? Would they even fly this close to earth?


----------



## Infanteer

Another critical look at Canada's future requirements - this time courtesy of the Canadian Military Journal:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/vol6/no1/PDF/08-Techno_e.asp.pdf


----------



## daniel h.

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Another critical look at Canada's future requirements - this time courtesy of the Canadian Military Journal:
> 
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/vol6/no1/PDF/08-Techno_e.asp.pdf




I read the article and although I am not qualified to determine the aircraft for Canada, I will say this:

why is it framed that Canada can only afford the JSF or the UAV? We can easily afford both if that is our priority. There is no reason our defence budget can't be increased.

I realize many are sympathetic to the United States, but we never voted for the merging of Canada into the United States defence apparatus and we have every reason to defend ourselves withour outside help. The idea that allowing foreign planes to occupy Canada would "defend" us is hilarious. It would give our sovereignty to another country.


Small countries like Israel and Japan have over 600 planes and they say we might not need a mere 120 planes? I think it is embarassing we don't have more--and we could design our own planes our get American planes under the defence sharing agreement we signed decades back--which is still on the books if I recall correctly.

The article claimed the choice was between "making war and making peace", as if having fighter jets means you plan on using them in war--they are for defensive purposes too.

Canadians must stop believing that "making permanent world peace" is possible in the long run. It is to a point, but we seriously overestimate our influence in creating "world peace", which is IMO pacifist communist ideology. Not suggesting we should be warmongers, but to suggest we should disarm I find disturbing.


----------



## a_majoor

As was said earlier, a lot of this thread is ignoring the actual requirments of the CF.

In a _*perfect world*_, we should have a wing of CF-15s for air patrols and defence, since they have very long legs to cover the far north and out to the 200 mile limit. For overseas expeditions, particularly in areas with limited/damaged infrastructure, we would need a plane that can operate from austere airfields, or accept unreasonably long transit times and multiple air to air refuelling missions to get there and back. Someone pointed out the need for a CAS capability, the A-10 fits the bill, or perhaps a further upgrade to the AV-8 Harrier II.

Given that there is little support for defense spending in general, asking for several wings of different aircraft is simply out of the question (you will notice the AWACs, JSTARS, air to air refuelling planes and strategic and tactical transports were not mentioned, and helicopters havn't made an appearence either), so the CF-18 will soldier on for several decades to come. We are lucky it is a versatile airframe, and can only hope that whatever is on the market in 2020 will be equally good.



> Well heck! I thought Infanteers' suggestion of a TIE fighter was bang on! Lol.... Except, I'd rather the Rebel X-Wing, it's more versatile with 4 weapons and shields too!



I really couldn't say. My time was in a "Y" wing squadron, and it ended rather badly....


----------



## daniel h.

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As was said earlier, a lot of this thread is ignoring the actual requirments of the CF.
> 
> In a _*perfect world*_, we should have a wing of CF-15s for air patrols and defence, since they have very long legs to cover the far north and out to the 200 mile limit. For overseas expeditions, particularly in areas with limited/damaged infrastructure, we would need a plane that can operate from austere airfields, or accept unreasonably long transit times and multiple air to air refuelling missions to get there and back. Someone pointed out the need for a CAS capability, the A-10 fits the bill, or perhaps a further upgrade to the AV-8 Harrier II.
> 
> Given that there is little support for defense spending in general, asking for several wings of different aircraft is simply out of the question (you will notice the AWACs, JSTARS, air to air refuelling planes and strategic and tactical transports were not mentioned, and helicopters havn't made an appearence either), so the CF-18 will soldier on for several decades to come. We are lucky it is a versatile airframe, and can only hope that whatever is on the market in 2020 will be equally good.
> 
> I really couldn't say. My time was in a "Y" wing squadron, and it ended rather badly....




I didn't mean to suggest Japan was small economically, but both Israel and Japan (especially Israel) are a fraction of Canadian territory and yet have very large militaries.

Israel has 19 army divisions and 600 jets with only what, 5 or 10 million population?

As for no support for defence spending, I think there is some support in the public, but the government does a good job of managing public opinion.


----------



## armyvern

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Israel has 19 army divisions and 600 jets with only what, 5 or 10 million population?



Yes they accomplish this via Mandatory Military Service for both males and females aged 17 and over living in Israel proper. The IDF also draws it's serving personnel from Jewish Communities throughout the world, not just those living within Israel.


----------



## Infanteer

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Israel has 19 army divisions and 600 jets with only what, 5 or 10 million population?



Yes, but Canada hasn't been in a state of War and faced extermination with defeat for the last 50 years.


----------



## armyvern

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes, but Canada hasn't been in a state of War and faced extermination with defeat for the last 50 years.



Exactly, ergo the reason their defense spending (with the assistance of other supporting nations/persons) much out paces ours and their ability to man and field this equipment.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I could be wrong but the last time I saw an IDF TO&E it was organized up to brigade strength not division....


----------



## armyvern

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I could be wrong but the last time I saw an IDF TO&E it was organized up to brigade strength not division....



Yes for standing Forces. After serving their 3 years (males) and 22 months (females), Israeli's continue to serve in the IDF Reserve Forces until they reach the age of 50, normally training at intervals throughout the year and spending 1 full month in service. Their Reserve system allows them to "stand up" hundreds of thousands of Reserves within hours and the whole strength of the IDF within 48 hours when required.


----------



## jmnavy

I was talking to a griffon pilot a couple of months ago who was telling me that he thinks the 18s will be our last manned fighters.  My own background is in software engineering and AI and from that point of view the technology is certainly getting close to being there.  It would also suit the political and idiological climate in Canada where we don't like risking lives.  The jsf-generation of fighters are probably going to be the last manned ones anyway aren't they?  From the sound of things they're starting to push the limits of what a pilot could physically survive (thank you Discover Channel!)

I know all the cf18 pilots are going to jump down my throat for suggesting I eliminate their wicked-cool jobs, but hey, most of you will be retired by 2020 anyway!

I don't know much about the UCAVs that are being developed, but I thought I'd toss it out there as an idea.  Any thoughts?


----------



## daniel h.

jmnavy said:
			
		

> I was talking to a griffon pilot a couple of months ago who was telling me that he thinks the 18s will be our last manned fighters.   My own background is in software engineering and AI and from that point of view the technology is certainly getting close to being there.   It would also suit the political and idiological climate in Canada where we don't like risking lives.   The jsf-generation of fighters are probably going to be the last manned ones anyway aren't they?   From the sound of things they're starting to push the limits of what a pilot could physically survive (thank you Discover Channel!)
> 
> I know all the cf18 pilots are going to jump down my throat for suggesting I eliminate their wicked-cool jobs, but hey, most of you will be retired by 2020 anyway!
> 
> I don't know much about the UCAVs that are being developed, but I thought I'd toss it out there as an idea.   Any thoughts?




I'm no expert but I still think there are roles for manned fighters, even if unmanned fighteres surpass them.

Unmanned fighters may prove expensive, unreliable if western nations are in a cash crunch in the future....


----------



## Zoomie

Unmanned fighters is most definately the future - when you think about how much weight of a fighter is for life support and crew comfort - a dramatic resizing of future fighters is sure to happen.  Our modern day fighters are stressed to exceed the physical stress that we can put on the human body - by removing the pilot from the equation the aircraft will be far more maneuverable and deadly.


----------



## Cloud Cover

It's going to take a mix of aircraft, IMO. I guess I'm old school, but to me the fighter is more than a platform to deliver weapons and take/relay pictures.   Think of those Bear bombers of the 60-90's near or over our airspace- it often required an interceptor aircraft flown by an aggressive pilot managed by instinct in those "eyeball to eyeball" situations to resolve the issue without killing. There may be some increased temptation on the part of an aggressor to try and outsmart and deceive the pilotless aircraft that otherwise might not be present in interceptions involving manned aircraft. In order to convey the message to "frig-off-or-I-will-shoot." and then to watch and if necessary, shoot, requires human interaction in close proximity, not by remote control. It would be a mistake to remove the human thought process required to kill in some situations yet in others, many others, it would likely be desirable to remove the human element altogether, especially when attacking property and not people. But when life taking is required, I think it is in all of our best interests to keep a little of that human touch in play, if only for the accountability aspect of it.      

Fast air to ground strike and air to air [fighter on fighter] will likely be a good role for unmanned fighter aircraft when in an actual war or whatever the term of the day may be. Passive surveillance and sensors for unmanned airframes built to that spec. will also be acceptable use of the technology. 

Launching to intercept and warn/fend off/defend should always be the role of a manned high performance aircraft with a pilot making the decisions to engage provided the necessary latitude exists to make those decisions.     Give the pilot the weapons to engage a superior performing pilotless aircraft, but taking the pilot out of the battle space and confining him to Play Station warfare in the back of a truck or deep in a bunker is not going to be the answer for all missions of the future and may actually cause unnecessary harm while solving other problems. 

There have to be some measurable consequences for war, the only one that seems to really make an impression is the death toll and fear of becoming a casualty statistic in a war- lets not take that away or we will definitely frig up whats left of this planet.


----------



## daniel h.

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Unmanned fighters is most definately the future - when you think about how much weight of a fighter is for life support and crew comfort - a dramatic resizing of future fighters is sure to happen.   Our modern day fighters are stressed to exceed the physical stress that we can put on the human body - by removing the pilot from the equation the aircraft will be far more maneuverable and deadly.




Smaller objects are less capable in some ways.


----------



## daniel h.

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> It's going to take a mix of aircraft, IMO. I guess I'm old school, but to me the fighter is more than a platform to deliver weapons and take/relay pictures.   Think of those Bear bombers of the 60-90's near or over our airspace- it often required an interceptor aircraft flown by an aggressive pilot managed by instinct in those "eyeball to eyeball" situations to resolve the issue without killing. There may be some increased temptation on the part of an aggressor to try and outsmart and deceive the pilotless aircraft that otherwise might not be present in interceptions involving manned aircraft. In order to convey the message to "frig-off-or-I-will-shoot." and then to watch and if necessary, shoot, requires human interaction in close proximity, not by remote control. It would be a mistake to remove the human thoughtfulness to kill in some situations yet in others, many others, it would likely be desirable to remove the human element altogether, especially when attacking property and not people. But when life taking is required, I think it is in all of our best interests to keep a little of that human touch in play, if only for the accountability aspect of it.
> 
> Fast air to ground strike and air to air [fighter on fighter] will likely be a good role for unmanned fighter aircraft when in an actual war or whatever the term of the day may be. Passive surveillance and sensors for unmanned airframes built to that spec. will also be acceptable use of the technology.
> 
> Launching to intercept and warn/fend off/defend should always be the role of a manned high performance aircraft with a pilot making the decisions to engage provided the necessary latitude exists to make those decisions.     Give the pilot the weapons to engage a superior performing pilotless aircraft, but taking the pilot out of the battle space and confining him to Play Station warfare in the back of a truck or deep in a bunker is not going to be the answer for all missions of the future and may actually cause unnecessary harm while solving other problems.
> 
> There have to be some measurable consequences for war, the only one that seems to really make an impression is the death toll and fear of becoming a casualty statistic in a war- lets not take that away or we will definitely frig up whats left of this planet.




I completely agree. To me, people who label this attitude "old-fashioned" are missing the point. Sure there will be roles for unmanned aircraft, but we already have the weaponry to do a lot of damage, we might want to use it unless required. We may gain something simply because it is newer, but we very well might not.

This reminds me of George Grant's "Lament for a nation" where he decried the liberal nature of America in building a soceity around "chasing" the newest technology and the asuumption of progressive improvement via the acqustion of better and better technology.

The reality is for most human beings life is hard enough, and while we are forced to keep up to defend ourselves from competitive opponents, we still do live in a human society whether liberal technocrats like it or not.

The idea that we will need large numbers of unmanned aircraft for interception ignores the fact that most nations cannot even afford even out of date aircraft, and with nuclear weapons few nations are stupid enough to provoke something for no reason.


----------



## In the light of things

Before I comment on the new aircraft idea, I would like to take the time to say something;
f*** john diefenbaker, not only did he destroy a plane, and the international respect of the air force, but a big chunk of nationalism.

And second, I believe that although the f15 is cheap, should we not have the best equiptment possible?  I, personally, would rather have 2 f-22 raptors, than 10 eagles.  Not only that, but we should be considering, as a country, to strengthen relations with Russia.  They have amazing scientists and technologies than massly over publicized f-22's.  Not saying f-22's are bad, on the contrary, they're one of my favourite.  And I believe, not only as a militaryman, but as a citizen and tax payer, I would be happy to dish out a few hundred bucks to gain the respect as a country back, that john diefenbaker killed.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying canadians aren't respected, but most of that respect has gone down the drain.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Respect is earned, not worn."


----------



## daniel h.

In the light of things said:
			
		

> Before I comment on the new aircraft idea, I would like to take the time to say something;
> f*** john diefenbaker, not only did he destroy a plane, and the international respect of the air force, but a big chunk of nationalism.
> 
> And second, I believe that although the f15 is cheap, should we not have the best equiptment possible?   I, personally, would rather have 2 f-22 raptors, than 10 eagles.   Not only that, but we should be considering, as a country, to strengthen relations with Russia.   They have amazing scientists and technologies than massly over publicized f-22's.   Not saying f-22's are bad, on the contrary, they're one of my favourite.   And I believe, not only as a militaryman, but as a citizen and tax payer, I would be happy to dish out a few hundred bucks to gain the respect as a country back, that john diefenbaker killed.   And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying canadians aren't respected, but most of that respect has gone down the drain.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Respect is earned, not worn."




1 - Diefenbaker must take responsibility though who knows who made the decision.....I don't think a reduction of naitonalism is an accident--it must be by design. Diefenbaker championed nationalism, yet he ended up signing a defence-sharing agreement where Canada would get to bid on contracts with U.S. defence manufacturers and be guaranteed branch plants but we promised not to build another aircraft for 99 years!!!! Who would sign such an agreement? Unless we simply were agreeing to help them become the next empire....we had a population of 12 million when the Arrow was cancelled, and Sweden builds the Saab Gripen with a population of only 7 million NOW....it must have been colonialism due to our foreign ownership, attitude, along with the cold war mentality, etc....also, nation states were seen as a thing of the past to globalist who created this integration we now see so much of.....

2 - Regarding Russia, I agree wholeheartedly, though isn't it the Mig-29 you think we should procure?

I don't believe Russia is willing to sell the Mig-35, and the U.S. won't sell the F-22 I believe.


----------



## In the light of things

You're right. We would get the junky old ones.  But I think we should concentrate on strengthening world relations, and cut the crap on Canada/US relations.  What do they really do for us?  They got this nifty thing called NAFTA, aka the North American F*** Canada Agreement.  But that's besides the point.  Because of CAN/US relations, I would make a guess at that being the reason Russia would not want to work with us, in fear of us giving the US the technology.  And I don't blame them, politicians would jump at a chance to get some votes.



> don't believe Russia is willing to sell the Mig-35, and the U.S. won't sell the F-22 I believe


And again the "friendship" gets us nowhere. 

With regards to the Mig-35, I was thinking more about the su-27/37's   And please, to all of you that think all I want to do is badmouth the US, you're right!

Hand cramp.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

If your intent was to come here and badmouth the US, then you are in violation of the Forum Guidelines:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

Trolling is not wanted or accepted.


----------



## In the light of things

that was actually intended as a joke


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Maybe....still violates the Guidelines.

On to your other point of adopting Russian Aircraft. Bad Idea as I don't forsee them setting up a plant in Canada. Getting quality spare parts might be dicey and that supply line across the oceans just does not seem very smart to me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Not to mention that getting cockpit/avionics converted to North American standard would be a nightmare... as would adding a 1553 databus aftermaket, because there is no way we could do it in the factory in Russia without violating more than a couple of sections of ITAR... as would converting the weapons stations and main CPU to drop/fire our weapons...then we would have to flight test the crap out of it...then we would have to figure out how to give it a certificate of airworthiness...

Or we could just stick to a nice western designed and built aircraft and save ourselves 10 years of headaches redesigning an airplane...


----------



## daniel h.

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe....still violates the Guidelines.
> 
> On to your other point of adopting Russian Aircraft. Bad Idea as I don't forsee them setting up a plant in Canada. Getting quality spare parts might be dicey and that supply line across the oceans just does not seem very smart to me.




Just ask the U.S. to sell Alaska back to the Russians. ;D


----------



## daniel h.

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not to mention that getting cockpit/avionics converted to North American standard would be a nightmare... as would adding a 1553 databus aftermaket, because there is no way we could do it in the factory in Russia without violating more than a couple of sections of ITAR... as would converting the weapons stations and main CPU to drop/fire our weapons...then we would have to flight test the crap out of it...then we would have to figure out how to give it a certificate of airworthiness...
> 
> Or we could just stick to a nice western designed and built aircraft and save ourselves 10 years of headaches redesigning an airplane...



1 - I believe the Mig-29 is available for export with western avionisc.

2 - Could you explain what ITAR is for the amature crowd like myself?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

ITAR- International Traffic In Arms Regulations.  Which I realized that I misused (thinking one thing, typing another).

More properly, I doubt we could get permission from US Congress to take export of US technology (like a 1553 databus, which they must approve) and then haul it to a factory in Russia for installation in a hypothetical Russian Jet by Russian techs.

We weren't talking Mig-29s either, Mig-35s were being discussed.

Anyway, it approaches Science Fiction or Fairy Tales on the scale of probabilty of happening.  IE- it won't.

Cheers.


----------



## In the light of things

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that we should concentrate more on world relations than pure US/British relations.  We have been working for so long to keep the US happy and haven't got much out of it (not saying they haven't done anything but I would definitely like to see more on their part) except for some old half-broken subs and seakings (hold on I got something to say about seakings after this).  I want canada to have a wide variety of partners, not one or two.  And I didn't mean getting the migs and such, I was referring to helping the russians/other countries (and vice versa) to develop future technologies.   

Ok and about the seakings, if any of you have flown in one hopefully you'll agree that the stabelization avionics on it are still advanced compared to many aircrafts, and I would hope that the SeaKings would be redesigned to accomodate faster speeds/better sub tracking/other, and/or put those avionics on newer or future aircrafts.


----------



## geo

Up until recently, Marine 1, Dubya's personal helicopter has been a Seathing.
Certainly one that has not ben beaten to death with umpteen deployments and one that has dedicated mechanics and an inexhaustible supply of parts and has been cared for & polished 24/7 but a sea thing nevertheless.... it's a good airframe. It's just that ours are from the original production line.


----------



## Inch

In the light of things said:
			
		

> Ok and about the seakings, if any of you have flown in one hopefully you'll agree that the stabelization avionics on it are still advanced compared to many aircrafts, and I would hope that the SeaKings would be redesigned to accomodate faster speeds/better sub tracking/other, and/or put those avionics on newer or future aircrafts.



I have flown one, yesterday. I'm guessing you haven't flown in an S-92. I've had the opportunity and let me tell you, it's better. I know, I know, hard to believe, but the computer aided stabilization is much nicer than the mechanical stabilization you'll find in the Sea King. The ASE on the Sea King is not all it's cracked up to be, hardovers and channel failures do happen. It doesn't hold heading worth a damn, though it's supposed to hold it with in 5 degrees and when you do want to change heading, it requires 4-6 lbs of pressure on the pedal to release the heading hold.

While the ASE is a nice feature in the Sea King, any helo pilot worth is salt can fly it just as smooth without the ASE, I'm still working on that skill.

You can't even compare what you'll find on the S-92 to the Sea King, we're talking around 50 years in technology advancement here. The new sonar will be in the neighbourhood of a 10 times increase in sonar range, there's going to be link 11 or better and it's going to have an FMS inside the glass cockpit. Trust me, it's a huge step towards the future.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Ok and about the seakings, if any of you have flown in one hopefully you'll agree that the stabelization avionics on it are still advanced compared to many aircrafts, and I would hope that the SeaKings would be redesigned to accomodate faster speeds/better sub tracking/other, and/or put those avionics on newer or future aircrafts.



Sea King?  What is this "Sea King" to which you refer?  :

The stabilization equipment, or ASE, was the last word in advanced in 1967.  Not so much any more.

You may wish to have just a passing glance at my profile before lecturing me about Sea Kings.

Any chance you could fill in your profile somewhat?  You might help your credibility somewhat here on this board...

Ummm.. we were talking about CF-18s, right?


----------



## In the light of things

Wasn't lecturing you, in fact I wasn't talking to you period. And, I don't need to be credible, I don't care if people believe me or not, it's my opinion.


----------



## SHF

OPINION "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty".  Seems to fit with your comments.  I now see the reason for the quick verbal warning.  The attitude certainly doesn't reflect well upon your "opinions".  Food for thought.


----------



## In the light of things

That's your opinion.


----------



## In the light of things

Forum - "A medium of open discussion or voicing of opinions."


----------



## Infanteer

In the light of things said:
			
		

> Wasn't lecturing you, in fact I wasn't talking to you period. And, I don't need to be credible, I don't care if people believe me or not, it's my opinion.



Well sir, you do have to be credible - or at least qualify your information; it's right in the Forum guidelines:



			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Due to the anonymous nature of these forums, it can be hard to tell if information is coming from someone in a position to know or just someone who "has a friend whose uncle served with the Botswana Defence Force in the 70's."
> 
> So our request is this: Please qualify unconfirmed information posted here.
> 
> ....There are lots of discussions which take place on this forum in which either none or all of us are "experts" in some way (politics, rifles, etc).  It's great that we can all discuss the daily news and have civil debate on contentious matters, however these boards are no different than the real world, and if you provide information to back up your claim, you better be willing to give us some proof.  If you base your opinions off of hearsay and rumor, be prepared to be called to task when you use up bandwidth on this board to tell us about it.



We aim for professional discussion here and look down upon the odd comment chucked in from the peanut gallery that does nothing but confuse, distract, disrupt, and suck up bandwidth.


----------



## In the light of things

But I wasnt submitting information, how can an opinion be wrong?


----------



## Infanteer

In an effort to keep the signal:noise ratio down, how about this:  If you know, explain - if you don't, listen.


----------



## In the light of things

If nobody was supposed to share their views on the subject, I doubt there would be 83 posts in this topic.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

So you have actually flown one or are you just making this up?....think carefully here,...
Quote,
Ok and about the seakings, if any of you have flown in one hopefully you'll agree that the stabelization avionics on it are still advanced compared to many aircrafts, and I would hope that the SeaKings would be redesigned to accomodate faster speeds/better sub tracking/other, and/or put those avionics on newer or future aircrafts.


----------



## Guardian

In the light of things said:
			
		

> But I wasnt submitting information, how can an opinion be wrong?



Postmodernism at its finest... 

Keep in mind that the very reason a military exists in the first place is because some opinions are worth more than others. We went to war in 1939 because we judged Hitler's opinion about the future of Europe to be less valid than ours. We went to war in 1950 because Kim Il-Sung's opinions about Korean reunification were judged less valid than our own. We went to war in 2001 because Osama's opinion of America and the West threatens our civilization.

Opinions are not all created equal. Around here, we still hold to that backward, medieval, passé idea that to be credible, an opinion should be based in fact or experience - or at the very least a logical inference from commonly accepted facts.

Your opinions, thus far, haven't met either standard.


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... some opinions are expressed more forcefuly than others....

Japan not happy with US.... expressed by - Pearl Harbour
Japan not happy with UK.... expressed by Singapore & Hong Kong
Germany not happy with Russia... expressed by Op Barbarossa

Guardian.... maybe you've oversimplified things a tad 

IMHO


----------



## Guardian

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... some opinions are expressed more forcefuly than others....
> 
> Japan not happy with US.... expressed by - Pearl Harbour
> Japan not happy with UK.... expressed by Singapore & Hong Kong
> Germany not happy with Russia... expressed by Op Barbarossa
> 
> Guardian.... maybe you've oversimplified things a tad
> 
> IMHO



Granted - you're right. My examples seem to prove "might makes right" - not exactly the point I'm trying to make...  :-X

Maybe I'll try it this way, then. If all opinions are created equal, then why share them at all? After all, if his opinion is as good as anyone else's, then it has no need of correction, and he has no possible way to learn. Neither does he have any right to expect his comments will benefit anyone else, as their opinions are already valid.

In which case, _In the light of things_' comments neither add or detract from our discussion at all, and thus, do not matter. We are free - even more, are required - to ignore them as the irrelevant noise that they are.

[/off topic tangent]


----------



## karl28

Just a thought if where not  able to replace the F-18 completely until around 2017-20 . Why cant we do a partial replacement with the super hornets ?  Just an example would be like keep half of our upgraded ones replace the rest with about 60 super hornets


----------



## geo

Ohhh..... we'll prolly do something like that in the end but, if you ask the CDS right now, he'll be more inclined to get :
new Strategic lift aircraft,
replacement tactical lift aircraft,
Medium lift tactical helicopters.....

Once we get that out of the way.... we can look at the Buzzing Hornets


----------



## karl28

Thanks GEO your right it will probably happen that way . To bad there just isn't enough cash to go around . It would be nice to get every thing  at once the CF deserves allot better treatment .  :'(


----------



## In the light of things

> we promised not to build another aircraft for 99 years



Just thought I'd bring this up... why don't we just go back on that promise?  I can't see people getting mad at us for opening up a new market in Canada, especially since with the 25-30 year cut-backs we've endured it would take us about 50 years to undo the damage with the size/budget of our country considered.  Although the new market would open up many new jobs and add to the economy, and since it is a military fueled market, most likely, the government may send the taxes it collects from that market back into the military.  Oh wait I forgot, we have to maintain our stereotype as a half-neutral, nice, promise keeping, do-good, military that only peacekeeps country.  My mistake.

And with the "military that only peacekeeps country", but that I'm really offended.  Only 1/8 of our military is in peacekeeping operations.


----------



## Strike

Forget the fighter junk!  What we need are some Cobras!!!!  (PG, if you surf this site, that one's for you!)


----------



## In the light of things

I'd rather have apaches  ;D


----------



## aesop081

In the light of things said:
			
		

> I'd rather have apaches   ;D



Great...another ninja-sniper-counterstrike mastekiller !!   :


----------



## In the light of things

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Great...another ninja-sniper-counterstrike mastekiller !!    :



Nothing of the sort, haven't you checked my profile.


----------



## Strike

> Nothing of the sort, haven't you checked my profile.



Completely believable.


----------



## aesop081

In the light of things said:
			
		

> Nothing of the sort, haven't you checked my profile.



Of course i have........



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Completely believable.



Exactly


----------



## In the light of things

:X got a recorded warning for that, guess sarcasm is against the rules


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sarcasm isn't against the Guidelines, posing is.   :


----------



## In the light of things

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?


----------



## Popurhedoff

I was a young Corporal in Cold lake when we got the the first two "Twin Tailed Plastic FAG Jets"  ....  now before some of the Trolls get excited... FAG = Fighter Air Group.

FAK do I feel old now... Lets see   I have worked on 60 year old DC-3's, 50 year old CT-133 Silverstars, 40 year old Sea Kings, and a few other types... so an aircraft less than a quarter century is like.... "Brand New"

... "Strike"  keep quiet about the age... or I'll have to throw you over my knee and spank you ... thats if I remember how? >

Cheers
Pop


----------



## Strike

> ... "Strike"  keep quiet about the age... or I'll have to throw you over my knee and spank you ... thats if I remember how?



Yup, I can't wait until tomorrow.  Watch your 6 'cause you may be getting a swift kick from that direction. :dontpanic:


----------



## daniel h.

In the light of things said:
			
		

> Just thought I'd bring this up... why don't we just go back on that promise?   I can't see people getting mad at us for opening up a new market in Canada, especially since with the 25-30 year cut-backs we've endured it would take us about 50 years to undo the damage with the size/budget of our country considered.   Although the new market would open up many new jobs and add to the economy, and since it is a military fueled market, most likely, the government may send the taxes it collects from that market back into the military.   Oh wait I forgot, we have to maintain our stereotype as a half-neutral, nice, promise keeping, do-good, military that only peacekeeps country.   My mistake.
> 
> And with the "military that only peacekeeps country", but that I'm really offended.   Only 1/8 of our military is in peacekeeping operations.




I honestly think many western world elites back in the 1950s and onward thought we would be living under a world government reinforced by the U.S. military under the United Nations.

John Diefenbaker actually spoke of INCREASING our sovereignty, and was totally out of step with the globalization happening at the time. Then he signed the defence-sharing agreement and that 99-year things, and Lester Pearson signed the Auto Pact (which wasn't that bad in retrospect) as well as FTA/NAFTA later on.

Why would they PROMISE not to build another fighter for 99 years? Either cowardice or part of a deal I guess--would be a good research assignment to find out the mentality of the thinking....after all, it was the cold war era...and then there is that whole Avro Arrow thing.

Regarding why we don't build another fighter--there is no point with our current foreign policy. We wouldn't need enough to make it feasible, and there is already a glut of fighters for export. We wouldn't want to export it anyway if it were the best or something.

If you want to ask the why question, why are we the only country who allows itself to be foreign-owned up to 100% in key industries? Even the Hudson's Bay Company is being circled by the sharks...all western nations are somewhat globalist, but we let anyone buy us up. We have been pawns in the globalist shell game, but the future could be brighter.


----------



## geo

Daniel,
Hate to give you the bad news but, the Hudson's Bay Company of the past is not the HBC of the present. The old trading stores are alive and doing well under the name of "The Northwest Company" AKA "northern Stores". 
HBC stores of yore were stripped of their name by the Thompson family some 15 years ago.... but the illusion continues that these HBC stores trace back their history to 1670... BS.... they are tracing back someone else's history.
BTW - NWC is owned in good part by the Ont & MB Teachers' pension fund.

Whups - sorry for the tangent...........

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Why would they PROMISE not to build another fighter for 99 years?



Umm... could someone kindly provide some sort of proof/evidence that a Canadian government has actually signed an agreement to this effect?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## daniel h.

geo said:
			
		

> Daniel,
> Hate to give you the bad news but, the Hudson's Bay Company of the past is not the HBC of the present. The old trading stores are alive and doing well under the name of "The Northwest Company" AKA "northern Stores".
> HBC stores of yore were stripped of their name by the Thompson family some 15 years ago.... but the illusion continues that these HBC stores trace back their history to 1670... BS.... they are tracing back someone else's history.
> BTW - NWC is owned in good part by the Ont & MB Teachers' pension fund.
> 
> Whups - sorry for the tangent...........
> 
> Back to our regularly scheduled discussion




1 - Why would the Thompson's do this...to reinvigorate the business?

2 - I WAS aware that Hudson's Bay Co. no longer used many Canadian suppliers and has essentially turned itself into a de facts version of SEARS--much like Simpson's and Eaton's which actually sold out to SEARS.

This being said, the takeover is more symbolic than anything else, and also symbolizes how our government and business class care little about countries...at least their own.


----------



## daniel h.

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Umm... could someone kindly provide some sort of proof/evidence that a Canadian government has actually signed an agreement to this effect?
> 
> Thanks in advance!




I'm positive it existed and it likely is still on the books, though I'm sure it could be abrogated....it's probably forgotten by many in government.

It's hard to find proof of this, I'll post it when I find it.


----------



## In the light of things

> Regarding why we don't build another fighter--there is no point with our current foreign policy. We wouldn't need enough to make it feasible, and there is already a glut of fighters for export. We wouldn't want to export it anyway if it were the best or something.



1.  We don't really have any very good fighters for export.
2.  The company wouldn't have to specialize in one fighter, it could build all sorts of vehicles based on what CF personel need/want.  It could be a whole new sector of the military controlled by and regulated by the CF.
3.  Not wanting to export it doesn't matter, other countries don't export their technology 'till it's old and outdated either.  Then we can sell them to some poor country.  (even though most of the time we end up being the poor country, maybe there's someone in the same boat [not a submarine joke]).


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

new thought. since we seem to be getting new transport planes  or at least there is some serious talking going on now.  my idea is all new pilots who want to fly new fighters , have to buy  their own and spare parts, as a cost saving measure, have own plane, will hire.

all joking aside when the F18 are on the way  out, in 2015  or so, there will be a whole new line of fighters to pick from including European, American and  maybe Japanese, or South American . they all looking to build so who knows what  we will get.

but it will have the following 
dual engines ( must have accordding to the DND buying powers) 
some Canadian content
long life of refits...always a Canadian plan from the start
must last longer then the service career of the first pilots, so grand kids can fly them too, aka sea kings
must not be updated in time for action, see CF 18s and not able to comm with other NATO forces or use smart weapons
must have massive cost overs
no lend lease jobs.....does not work

but it will have wings, a cock pit, and wheels, bullets and bombs  extra $$$$


----------



## daniel h.

In the light of things said:
			
		

> 1.   We don't really have any very good fighters for export.
> 2.   The company wouldn't have to specialize in one fighter, it could build all sorts of vehicles based on what CF personel need/want.   It could be a whole new sector of the military controlled by and regulated by the CF.
> 3.   Not wanting to export it doesn't matter, other countries don't export their technology 'till it's old and outdated either.   Then we can sell them to some poor country.   (even though most of the time we end up being the poor country, maybe there's someone in the same boat [not a submarine joke]).




1. I meant other countries have planes for export--not Canada. 

3. There are some exceptions. Russia sold some planes to China like mig-29s IIRC and Su-27s which aren't their best but are something. China is now trying to improve them.

--The U.S. exports stil lvery cometent planes like F-16s and F-15s.

--Sweden is exporting their still-new Saab Gripen to South Africa IIRC.

--France is trying to export their new Rafale.


----------



## daniel h.

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> new thought. since we seem to be getting new transport planes   or at least there is some serious talking going on now.   my idea is all new pilots who want to fly new fighters , have to buy   their own and spare parts, as a cost saving measure, have own plane, will hire.
> 
> all joking aside when the F18 are on the way   out, in 2015   or so, there will be a whole new line of fighters to pick from including European, American and   maybe Japanese, or South American . they all looking to build so who knows what   we will get.
> 
> but it will have the following
> dual engines ( must have accordding to the DND buying powers)
> some Canadian content
> long life of refits...always a Canadian plan from the start
> must last longer then the service career of the first pilots, so grand kids can fly them too, aka sea kings
> must not be updated in time for action, see CF 18s and not able to comm with other NATO forces or use smart weapons
> must have massive cost overs
> no lend lease jobs.....does not work
> 
> but it will have wings, a **** pit, and wheels, bullets and bombs   extra $$$$




Let's not buy Japanese or South American please....I don't care how European the Brazilian Embraer engineers are.  (They are largely immigrants from American, Japan and Europe.)


----------



## geo

FGH,
You are being unfair about the 18s... up till their service in Aviano - Kossovo service, their comms with the other NATO countries (aka the US) was fine... it's just the delays in getting the upgrades processed that caused problems at that point.

with respect to the rest.... we've been screwed by the best.

The US, the UK and some would argue... Canada as well.... 

BOHICA!


----------



## big bad john

This Backgrounder was posted today and i thought that it might answer some questions from the newer members of the site.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1601

CF-18 Modernization
BG–06.025 - August 31, 2006

A total of 80 CF-18 Hornet aircraft are undergoing a thorough mid-life upgrade to ensure that the Canadian Forces have a modern and interoperable fighter fleet until 2017. Various modernization projects are combined in two distinct phases of the overall aircraft modernization program.

Of the 138 CF-18s procured between 1982 and 1988, 97 aircraft remain in flying status today: 17 were lost to accidents, three were sold and the remaining aircraft have reached the end of useful life and will be declared surplus. Of the surplus aircraft, several will be retained for spare parts, some will be used for technician training or will be displayed on pedestals or in museums (i.e. aircraft number 901 has been inducted into the Canada Aviation Museum) and the others likely will be offered up for sale. At this time, none of these aircraft has formally been declared surplus.

The role of the CF-18
In order to maintain the capability to protect Canadian sovereignty, to contribute to the collective defence of North America within the NORAD agreement, and to provide a credible contribution to UN, NATO, and coalition-led operations, Canada’s fighter force needs to be modernized.

The CF-18 is a proven and durable fighter aircraft. Today, Canadian Air Force CF-18s, their pilots, and aircrews are deployed with NORAD, ready to respond to threats to North America. 

The CF-18 is a modern and capable fighter aircraft with a secure communications capability, which was, however, not fully inter-operable with our allies. With the completion of Phase I of the Incremental Modernization Project in 2006, the CF-18 will achieve secure communication inter-operability.

Modernizing the CF-18 fleet will support an extended operational viability to at least 2017. 

Phase I of modernization
This first phase of CF-18 modernization is a cornerstone project that entails the procurement and installation of a new radar, “Have-Quick” jam-resistant radios, combined interrogator/ transponders, stores management systems, mission computers and embedded global positioning systems/inertial navigation systems. 

The upgrade is based on a U.S. Navy Engineering Change Proposal (ECP 583) and is the most cost effective, minimum-risk method to satisfy the CF-18 modernization requirements. The systems have been tested extensively and flown operationally.

Earlier this month, the Commander of 1 Canadian Air Division, in Winnipeg, granted full operational capability for the Phase I Modernized CF-18 based on the successful achievement of project implementation plan milestones and demonstration of specific capabilities. 

The Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) was also procured by Canada in parallel with Phase I of the CF-18 Modernization Project.

Phase II of modernization
Phase II will outfit Canada’s CF-18s with the latest in technologically advanced equipment. 

The fighter jets will be equipped with a secure data and communications link that allow CF-18 crews to stay in constant contact with other jets, ground stations and airborne warning and control systems (AWACS) to maintain awareness in their constantly evolving environment. 

New state-of-the-art colour display panels will provide pilots with improved access to flight data and communications. The colour displays will significantly improve the pilots’ ability to refine the reams of data they receive. Pilots’ helmets will be outfitted with new visors that display readings from the instrument panel, so that they can maintain visual contact with a target without having to look down into the cockpit to monitor flight instruments. A new ejection seat, in support of this new helmet display system, will also be procured under Phase II. The aircraft will also be outfitted with a new missile countermeasures chaff/flare dispenser. Two prototypes are currently being modified at the Naval Air Warfare Center, in China Lake, California. Production is planned to begin in October 2006 at the L3 Communications MAS facilities in Mirabel, Quebec and will last for three years. 

Off-aircraft projects
In addition to the two modernization phases for CF-18 aircraft, other off-aircraft projects are in various stages of development or implementation include: the Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation System; the Night-Vision Imagery System; the Advanced Distributed Combat Training System; the Advanced Multi-Role Infrared Sensor; a new Defensive Electronics Warfare Defence Suite; and Advanced Precision-Guided Munitions. 

Modernization program costs
The entire modernization program, phased over eight years, will create employment and technology development opportunities for Canadians. Although the overall cost of the project has not been finalized, approvals to date total approximately $2.3-billion. 

Boeing is the prime contactor for both phases of the CF-18 Modernization project. L-3 Communications has been sub-contracted by Boeing to carry out the Phase I and Phase II installations at its Mirabel plant outside Montreal.

Canada’s is not the only Air Force conducting a wholesale upgrade to the Hornet. The Royal Australian Air Force, the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy are also extending the life of their F-18s.

The new multi-purpose displays were developed as a cooperative project between Canada and Australia, resulting in a significant cost savings for Canada. Since the Royal Australian Air Force had already contracted Boeing for work on their F/A-18 A & B aircraft, selecting the same prime contractor minimized project risk. Boeing sub-contracted the development and production of these new colour displays to L3 Communications Electronic Systems (ES) of Toronto, Ontario.

CF-18 Modernization is a fiscally responsible and financially feasible method of continuing to provide Canada with a safe, reliable and effective fighter aircraft fleet. It will provide the Canadian Forces with up-to-date equipment, increase Air Force interoperability with our allies and enhance CF flexibility to meet future national and global missions.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Cool but what about a replacement project? Any one thinking ahead yet?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I wonder who we sold the 3 to?


----------



## Good2Golf

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html


----------



## PMars

> I wonder who we sold the 3 to?



One went to Finland where it is being used in a rebuild project. As to the other two? Good question.

I don't see mention on replacing/repairing the centre barrel section. Was this part of the project or is it being contemplated?


----------



## cobbler

> The new multi-purpose displays were developed as a cooperative project between Canada and Australia, resulting in a significant cost savings for Canada.



But unfortunatly, not for Australia.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Well they would be wouldn’t they:



> Boeing frustrated by Canada’s move to extend life of fighter jets
> 
> U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co. is frustrated by Canada’s decision to extend the life of its aging fleet of fighter jets, a move that will delay a decision on buying replacements, a company official said on Wednesday [Nov. 19]…
> 
> Canada said in September that it would extend the life of its fighters to 2025 from the previous 2020 end-date.
> That could be bad news for Boeing, which is seeking orders to keep its F/A-18 production line running past 2017…
> 
> Boeing says it is confident it can maintain F/A-18 output through the end of 2017. [Dan] Gillian [Boeing’s vice-president in charge of the F/A-18] said if more orders materialize, production lines could continue working beyond 2020.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/boeing-frustrated-by-canadas-move-to-extend-life-of-fighter-jets/article21659048/#dashboard/follows/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## WingsofFury

A day late...but I shot this bird out in Cold Lake back in 2012.  It's callsign was often Nightmare 01.

Cheers.



409 Nightmare by Attila Papp, on Flickr


----------



## CougarKing

I hope our Hornets don't have this problem too:

Breaking Defense News



> *Oxygen Problems Afflicted 297 Navy & Marine Hornets*
> By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on February 04, 2016 at 4:24 PM
> 
> 
> CAPITOL HILL: It turns out Navy pilots like to breathe. That’s a potential problem in the Navy’s mainstay fighter, the F-18 Hornet, which is suffering failures of its On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS). While rare, a single case of in-flight oxygen deprivation could potentially kill the pilot, destroy a $30 million to $60 million aircraft, or both — and after five years, the Navy’s still searching for a fix.
> 
> “I’m concerned about the high rate of hypoxia — which is caused by a lack of oxygen — and other physiological events apparently being experienced by the crew members of F-18 aircraft over the past five years,” said Rep. Niki Tsongas, a senior Democrat on the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## SupersonicMax

We don't have OBOGS.  We use LOX.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We don't have OBOGS.  We use LOX.



I have the right to remain silent....but not the ability.

Do you serve bagels with LOX? I'm joking.....

SO what is LOX?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

LOX= liquid oxygen

OBOGS= onboard oxygen generation system


----------



## Good2Golf

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I hope our Hornets don't have this problem too:
> 
> Breaking Defense News



As Max notes, no, but the USN Hornets aren't the only plane having on-board oxygen generation issues.

Remember the F-22 Raptor's issues in 2011/2012 with pilots not getting enough oxygen?  Serious enough that some pilots refused to fly the F-22.   The F-22 now has a back-up oxygen system incase the OBOGS fails: F-22 Raptor stealth jets to get automatic backup oxygen systems to prevent new hypoxia-like symptoms.  Perhaps the USN Hornets will get the same type of upgrade?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

i wonder if both have common systems or some common parts. O2 systems have been on the books for what, 60+ years and now we are seeing this?


----------



## Spencer100

Learn new stuff everyday.

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/Defense_Brochures-documents/Life_Support_Systems.pdf

Honeywell looks to be the manufacturer.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Seeing as RCAF plans to fly CF-18 until 2025 could we benefit from US legacy Hornet SLEP?



> U.S. Navy Budget Underscores Need To Extend F-18 Use
> 
> With F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) delays and continued expanded reliance on F-18 aircraft, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are working hard to make the legacy Hornets last much longer than they were meant to, budget documents show.
> 
> “Until the F-35B/C aircraft are available in required numbers, the Navy plans to mitigate the inventory challenge with service life extension of the legacy F/A-18A-D airframes to 8,000-10,000 hours (over original design of 6,000 hours),” the Navy notes in documentation supporting the fiscal 2017 budget request submitted this week.
> 
> “Extension of legacy Hornet life requires additional inspections and deep maintenance that were not originally envisioned for the aircraft,” the Navy says. “Average repair time has significantly increased because of required engineering of unanticipated repairs, material lead times and increased corrosion of airframes. Throughput at Navy aviation depots is improving in fiscal 2016 and is projected to achieve required capacity in fiscal 2017, which will improve inventory.”..
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-budget-underscores-need-extend-f-18-use



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

RAAF lesson for RCAF?



> Australian algorithm extends life of “Classic” Hornets
> 
> A new fatigue monitoring algorithm for Australia’s Boeing F/A-18 A/B Hornet fighters will allow for greater operational flexibility.
> 
> The algorithm was created by Australia’s Defence Science Technology Office (DSTO), and is called MSMP3. It replaces an algorithm that, the DSTO says, “over-predicted the damage due to small load cycles resulting in unnecessary conservatism”.
> 
> The new algorithm has already been applied to Canberra’s fleet of Hornets, with the strain records of each aircraft adjusted from September 2015.
> 
> “As a direct result of the upgrade of the Hornet monitoring program, the reprocessing of the entire fleet’s usage history indicates that fatigue is no longer the main driver to the planned withdrawal date,” says DSTO research leader Loris Molent.
> 
> The DSTO adds that the modified monitoring programme will give the Royal Australian Air Force more flexibility amid “the increased tempo of current operations”...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australian-algorithm-extends-life-of-classic-horn-423803/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

USN and USMC plan to operate their classic Hornets for quite some time:



> F/A-18 Hornet Service Life
> 
> ...The United States Navy is the most important user of the aircraft type and, according to the present plans, the USN will decommission its F/A-18 C/D models by 2025. The United States Marine Corps will continue using the aircraft until the end of 2031. The USMC and Switzerland are upgrading their mission computers so as to be comparable with those in the F/A-18 Super Hornets.
> 
> Upgrading the mission computer is a long and expensive project. Australia will phase out its F/A-18 A/B aircraft in 2022 and Canada in 2025. In the early 2020s Finland will be solely responsible for the software development of the present mission computer, as a result of which the costs of software updates and support will grow exponentially...
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-service-life.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

That article is wrong, after the Liberals reset the process, we'll be using the CF-188 until late 2030s.


----------



## Cloud Cover

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> USN and USMC plan to operate their classic Hornets for quite some time:
> Mark
> Ottawa




Interesting, I wonder how they are going to do that with no money, and having to reclaim parts from museums just ti keep the F-18 fleet flying. 

The video was interesting: "we don't know where the wings are" ; "we are supposed to be flying jets, not rebuilding them". ; "Marine Corps squadron to deploy in the next few days with only 2 of 14 aircraft capable of flying"..

Budget cuts leaving Marine Corps aircraft grounded:  URL:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/15/budget-cuts-leaving-marine-corps-aircraft-grounded.html


EXCLUSIVE: Since 1775, the U.S. Marine Corps has prided itself on being “The Few" and "The Proud." But while the Corps takes pride in doing more with less, senior Marine officers are warning that the Corps' aviation service is being stretched to the breaking point.

Today, the vast majority of Marine Corps aircraft can’t fly. The reasons behind the grounding of these aircraft include the toll of long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the fight against ISIS and budget cuts precluding the purchase of the parts needed to fix an aging fleet, according to dozens of Marines interviewed by Fox News at two air stations in the Carolinas this week.

Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the Marine Corps inventory, only about 30% are ready to fly, according to statistics provided by the Corps. Similarly, only 42 of 147 heavy-lift CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters are airworthy.

U.S. military spending has dropped from $691 billion in 2010 to $560 billion in 2015. The cuts came just as the planes were returning from 15 years of war, suffering from overuse and extreme wear and tear. Many highly trained mechanics in the aviation depots left for jobs in the private sector.

“Quite honestly, it is coming on the backs of our young Marines,” Lt. Col. Matthew “Pablo” Brown, commanding officer of VMFA(AW)-533, a Hornet squadron based at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina. “They can do it, and they are doing it but it is certainly not easy.”

Brown's squadron is due to deploy to the Middle East in the coming days.

Lack of funds has forced the Marines to go outside the normal supply chain to procure desperately needed parts. Cannibalization, or taking parts from one multi-million dollar aircraft to get other multi-million dollar aicraft airborne, has become the norm.

To get one Hornet flying again, Marines at Beaufort stripped a landing gear door off a mothballed museum jet. The door, found on the flight deck of the World War II-era USS Yorktown, was last manufactured over a decade ago.

“Imagine taking a 1995 Cadillac and trying to make it a Ferrari,” Sgt. Argentry Uebelhoer said days before embarking on his third deployment. “You're trying to make it faster, more efficient, but it's still an old airframe … [and] the aircraft is constantly breaking.”

Maintaining the high-performance Hornets is a challenge with 30,000 fewer Marines, part of a downsizing that has been ongoing since 2010.

“We don't have enough of them to do the added work efficiently. We are making it a lot harder on the young marines who are fixing our aircraft,” said Maj. Michael Malone of Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 31.

Sometimes it takes the Marines 18 months to get parts for early model F-18 jets whose production was halted in 2001.

“We are an operational squadron. We are supposed to be flying jets, not building them,” said Lt. Col. Harry Thomas, Commanding Officer of VMFA-312, a Marine Corps F/A-18 squadron based at Beaufort. 

The cuts include those made by the Obama administration as well as the sequestration cutbacks agreed to by Congress. 

Asked about the Marines’ concerns on Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest put the onus on Congress to right the problem – and said Republicans have blocked spending reforms that would have helped military readiness. He said Republicans “championed” the sequester cuts. 

Lt. Col Thomas, call sign “Crash,” deployed to the Pacific with 10 jets last year. Only seven made it. A fuel leak caused his F/A-18 to catch fire in Guam. Instead of ejecting, he landed safely, saving taxpayers $29 million.

Thomas has deployed eight times in all, including six to Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now only two of his 14 Hornets can fly. His Marines deploy in three months.

“We are supposed to be doing the type of maintenance like you would take your car to Jiffy Lube for replacing fluids, doing minor inspections, changing tires, things of that nature, not building airplanes from the ground up,” he added.

The aircraft shortage means pilots spend less time in the air.

“This last 30 days our average flight time per pilot was just over 4 hours,” said Thomas.

Ten years ago, Marine Corps pilots averaged between 25 and 30 hours in the air each month, according to one pilot. “This is the worst I’ve seen it,” he added. Another pilot who asked to remain nameless told Fox News that Chinese and Russian pilots fly more hours each month than Marine Corps pilots.

Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets are supposed to have a shelf life of 6,000 hours, but they are being refurbished to extend the life to 8,000. There is talk that some aircraft might be pushed to 10,000 hours while the Marine Corps waits for the 5th-generation Joint Strike Fighter, which is slated to replace the F-18, but has been plagued by cost overruns.

“Our aviation readiness is really my No. 1 concern,” Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller told Congress last month. “We don’t have enough airplanes that we would call ‘ready basic aircraft."

Col. Sean Salene oversees nine helicopter squadrons at Marine Corps Air Station New River in North Carolina.

“Unlike previous wars, we did not have a period of time afterwards where we did not have tasking,” said Col. Salene. “There was no time to catch our breath.”

Maj. Matt Gruba, executive officer of HMH-461, a Super Stallion squadron at New River took Fox News reporters inside one of the large helicopters, which has sent thousands of fully loaded Marines into combat over the past three decades.

Inside, hundreds of small wires cover every surface of the helicopter except the hard non-skid deck. It’s up to the Marine maintainers to inspect each one. One failure could be catastrophic, as happened in 2014 when a Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon crashed off the coast of Virginia after a fire engulfed the aircraft due to faulty fuel lines.

"It would be easy to miss some small minute detail, some small amount of wear [which] could potentially, eventually cause a fire,” Gruba said

Lt. Gen. Jon M. "Dog" Davis is the Marine Corps' deputy commandant for aviation, tasked with getting his aircraft back in the air.

Davis ordered the Corps to refurbish all of the old CH-53E helicopters to their pre-war condition, including fixing the chafing wires and jerryrigged fuel lines that were repaired in theater.

"The biggest thing is right now after 15 years of hard service, of hard fighting and deploying around the world, is we don't have enough airplanes on the flight line,” Davis said. 

The cuts have not sat well within the military leadership. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Fox News’ Bret Baier in a recent interview that he felt betrayed when told to cut billions from the budget after having already done so.

“I guess I’d have to say I felt double-crossed. After all those years in Washington, I was naïve,” he said.

And last week, the Army’s top officer, Gen. Mark Milley, said cuts could mean more American troops could lose their lives.

“If one or more possible unforeseen contingencies happen, then the United States Army currently risks not having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our national leadership. ... And most importantly, we risk incurring significantly increased U.S. casualties,” Milley testified last week on Capitol Hill. 


Lucas Tomlinson is the Pentagon and State Department producer for Fox News Channel. You can follow him on Twitter: @LucasFoxNews

Jennifer Griffin currently serves as a national security correspondent for FOX News Channel . She joined FNC in October 1999 as a Jerusalem-based correspondent. You can follow her on Twitter at @JenGriffinFNC.


----------



## CBH99

I guess this could help explain the USN asking congress for X number of additional Super Hornets, referring to the "fighter gap."

On paper, the USN has more than enough aircraft.  But, if only 2 of 14 aircraft are operational in the example squadron, and other aircraft are being cannibalized for wings, engines, etc - then they can't really be counted as being "in service".  In service doesn't always mean operational, I suppose.

What are the options available to the USN in regards to this problem?  I'd think a SLEP program for Super Hornets could be done via Boeing in a fairly organized manner.  Is it just not able to process aircraft fast enough?  Or is the SLEP expected to be done at the squadron level using USN maintainers, which could very well hinder progress.

Just curious.


----------



## Flavus101

This 2 out of 14 airframes operational per squadron seems to be very similar to the problem the Germans are currently having.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CBH99: See:



> US Navy: Slow F-35C Arrival=Super Hornet Life Extension
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/mark-collins-us-navy-slow-f-35c-arrivalsuper-hornet-life-extension/
> 
> US Navy plans SLEP for Super Hornet fleet
> http://www.janes.com/article/57646/us-navy-plans-slep-for-super-hornet-fleet
> 
> How Long Will the F/A-18E/F Line Growl On? Part 2 (with RCAF implications)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/mark-collins-how-long-will-the-fa-18ef-line-growl-on-part-2-with-rcaf-implications/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I guess this could help explain the USN asking congress for X number of additional Super Hornets, referring to the "fighter gap."
> 
> On paper, the USN has more than enough aircraft.  But, if only 2 of 14 aircraft are operational in the example squadron, and other aircraft are being cannibalized for wings, engines, etc - then they can't really be counted as being "in service".  In service doesn't always mean operational, I suppose.
> 
> What are the options available to the USN in regards to this problem?  I'd think a SLEP program for Super Hornets could be done via Boeing in a fairly organized manner.  Is it just not able to process aircraft fast enough?  Or is the SLEP expected to be done at the squadron level using USN maintainers, which could very well hinder progress.
> 
> Just curious.



The USMC doesn't operate USN aircraft.  And the Marines don't have Super Hornets (and don't want them).

I believe that one of the many issues is fleet management:  they don't manage the fleet as a whole, but they manage aircraft in a squadron.  Some squadrons have all their jets and some have 2...  But no tail swaps between Squadrons.

We have same and older lots aircraft and we manage to have a decent serviceability rate.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Perhaps the USMC would operate the Super Hornet if they did not have reason to believe that doing so would cut their numbers of STOVL F-35? It seems to me the long  term goal of marine corps aviation is to get their aircraft entirely off of the decks of CVN's for some reason (corps cohesion?). I'm not suggesting they are running down their fleet on purpose, the op tempo is taking care of that.....but they were forced to agree to dedicate 5 squadrons of their F35 order to the flight decks of the USN super carrier fleet.  It seems to me the RN queen Elizabeth class would be the preferred type of flight deck for marine corps aviation doctrine. (without the RN of course...)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Torn 50-50 on this piece between this and the F-35 thread, but landed here ...


> The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”
> 
> Rather than a full replacement of the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet, it’s believed the purchase will be labelled an interim measure to fill what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has warned is a pending “gap” in Canada’s military capabilities.
> 
> The Liberals promised during the election campaign not to buy the F-35 to replace the CF-18s. But the government has been struggling with how to fulfil that promise for fear any attempt to exclude the stealth fighter from a competition will result in a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit, according to one senior defence official.
> 
> There is precedent for purchasing Super Hornets on an interim basis; Australia bought 24 of the aircraft about five years ago for $2.5 billion, to replace that country’s antiquated F-111 jets until newer F-35s were ready.
> 
> Sajjan, who recently visited Australia, warned last month that Canada’s CF-18s “need to be replaced now. And the fact they have not been replaced means we are facing a capability gap in the years ahead.” He indicated the government planned to move quickly.
> 
> An official in Sajjan’s office reiterated that sense of urgency on Saturday, saying the Royal Canadian Air Force has had to “risk-manage” its fighter jet fleet. Recent air operations in the Middle East and Eastern Europe have exacerbated the problem, the official said ...


----------



## PuckChaser

So much for open and transparent. Wonder how much money Lockheed will win for lost profits when the lawsuit is done because PSPC cooked the competition? Is Canada ready to pay $200M per aircraft when you factor that in?

We all know "interim" means "that's all you are getting for 40 years".


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Interesting, if true.

Which version, I wonder- E? F? Growlers? A mix?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Looks more to me like the government is puling a "Harper", something they greatly decried at the time: Kit needed now justifies single sourcing acquisition without any competition (In Harper's government case: C-17/Herc's H/Chinooks).

We'll have to see if it's a limited purchase or a wholesale replacement, which would then delay the need for further replacement to whenever the Super-Hornet line gets shut down and support of the type for the American Navy runs out.

It would let the Liberal claim that they did not purchase the F-35, as promised; completely de-bunk their claim of fair and open competition; and (in my estimation) make them look strangely incompetent when the actual individual cost of the F-35 for international sales is set and then compared to the cost of acquiring these rhinos.


----------



## Journeyman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Which version, I wonder- E? F? Growlers? A mix?


.....second-hand?

(demonstrating distain for the military prudent fiscal management -- one of their strong suits)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It just occurred to me that this may be part diversionary and part counter-narrative.

One of the big problem for the Liberal with acquisition programs, the political aspect at least, is the disastrous Liberal decision concerning the Seaking replacement. To which extent this suddenly discovered "gap" in capability (whose sudden appearance is weird, considering how well the CF-18 performed in Lybia and against ISIS) has been found so super-hornets can be bought and the urgent need to proceed without competition be placed on the shoulders of the Conservatives - in a "Seaking" type of way (regardless of the fact that  a"gap" in the future is quite different than "taking my pen and writing Zero helicopters" on an already signed contract).

Putting the onus on the Conservative to have to proceed this way would both help them say they fulfilled their promise of no F-35 and, by blaming the past government, justify their not holding a competition at all (which in all fairness, the F-35 would have won hands down as the Norwegian have proven.


----------



## Kirkhill

When you can't make a decision - do both.

Thing is - right now the government is only running the risk of Lockmart's lawyers coming at them.  Just like EH's lawyers did.  

With this "decision" they now face the prospect of both Lockmart and Boeing beating them up in a Canadian court as Lockmart argues their case for breach and Boeing defends the government decision.  Oh well.  It's all infrastructure anyway.

Lots of money for lawyers.....


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It just occurred to me that this may be part diversionary and part counter-narrative.


According to the original article, the *only*  issue the government has with the whole process is “working on the right narrative to support it.”

Pro-government self-congratulatory pronouncements, with bonus points for blaming the previous government are inevitable -- seeing this as the identical non-transparent, single-source acquisition behaviour they previously decried will not flicker on their spin deliberations.


----------



## PuckChaser

Are we at an urgent need? We bought Gwagons because people were dying in Iltis. We bought RG31s as we had a capability gap, same with Chinook and Globemaster. As long as we stop all the extra crap, and focus the CF18s on NORAD, can they not last? We no where have near the budget to buy interim aircraft and then a full capability later, and the Super Hornet has lost every head to head competition to F-35, and even Eurofighter.


----------



## dapaterson

Chinooks and C17s were unique in the marketplace, so there was no competition (the A400 was still not operational at the time).  The GWagon was a competitive process.

In this case, if we argue that the F35 does not yet meet the HLMRs for NGFC (which it the case), then buying an off-the-shelf piece of equipment is eminently justifiable.  How you then exclude certain competitors becomes another issue, but I think given the sensitivity of information needed and generated by modern fighter aircraft, limiting competition to Canada, US, UK, Australia and NZ would also likely pass the test.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Looks more to me like the government is puling a "Harper", something they greatly decried at the time: Kit needed now justifies single sourcing acquisition without any competition (In Harper's government case: C-17/Herc's H/Chinooks).



The CPC skipped the process because those items were what was available, we were at war and needed them now.

The liberals can use none of those excuses in trying to justify their position.


----------



## YZT580

Now if we still had a "six pack" in Iraq we could then claim operational necessity because of the afore-mentioned inability to meet other NORAD/NATO commitments to due our aging and diminished fleet but Trudeau destroyed that argument when he ordered the withdrawal.


----------



## PuckChaser

From the NP article:



> ndustry representatives warned there could be a fight if the government does move to purchase the Super Hornet, even if it’s labelled an interim measure. But one Defence Department officials said the government might be able to sidestep legal questions by citing urgent national security needs.



What urgent national security needs would that be? We're not at war with ISIL. Trudeau has made that vehemently clear. The only reason to buy interim aircraft is because they know they can't fix the procurement cycle that takes 10-15 years, with which they reset the fighter replacement program back to square one. They are looking at a life extension program for CF-188 to bring them until 2025 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-975.page), so a proper competition gets aircraft in hangers (without interims) prior to end of life.

The army had to cut half of its truck fleet, and didn't get interim replacements. Maybe the RCAF (and realitistically the government sending them) needs to start prioritizing missions?


----------



## Kirkhill

PC:

Trucks need a boat to get them to and from.

The aircraft are self-deployable and easily retrieved.

In the words of an old song: "Get in. Get out. No f!cking about."

It appears that the Red Team is learning on the job.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They are looking at a life extension program for CF-188 to bring them until 2025 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-975.page), so a proper competition gets aircraft in hangers (without interims) prior to end of life.



2025 doesn't mean we will have all airframes available until then.  It will be a gradual reduction in fleet.  2025 means the last CF-18s will be retired then.  We won't have the same capabilities we have now, in 2025.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The army had to cut half of its truck fleet, and didn't get interim replacements. Maybe the RCAF (and realitistically the government sending them) needs to start prioritizing missions?



We cut out fighter fleet from 138 to 80 in the mid-2000s.  The RCAF does prioritize its missions.  Our leadership (supported by every level) makes it crystal clear that a failure in NORAD will put everything else to a halt.  This is our #1 mission.  Out FG effort may not look like it but, in all fairness, the NORAD game we play now is a very straight forward game and, from the tactical level, very easy to execute.


----------



## PuckChaser

By prioritize I mean cut everything that's not NORAD, or FG pilots for the fighter stream. No more REASSURANCE, IMPACT, even the Demo aircraft is something we can use for actual missions, not airshows and hotels.


----------



## SupersonicMax

You cannot cut FG and expect pilots to be able to perform when called upon.  You need to keep your skills sharp.  This requires 150 hours a year per pilot minimum, ideally 200.  4 Squadrons of 16 plus an OTU, that's around 10,500 minimum, ideall 12,500 hours a year.  We are expected to do multi-role (and getting rid of that capability would be an enormous mistake IMO) therefore we need to train to it.  Believe it or not, IMPACT, MOBILE and REASSURANCE lenghten the life of the jets (the types of missions we conduct on operation are easier on the airframe) therefore it extends the amount of hours we can fly on a given airframe.

The puzzle is much more complicated than "cut this and re-instate when we will need it again".  Such a decision would have far reaching impacts well into the next decade and maybe into the 2030s.  

If the government decides we only do NORAD then they lose a very easy tool to deploy when they want to keep the footprint down while still contributing on the international stage.

The Demo is a recruiting tool, just like the Snowbirds.  This is at the Strat level...


----------



## The Bread Guy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Now if we still had a "six pack" in Iraq we could then claim operational necessity because of the afore-mentioned inability to meet other NORAD/NATO commitments to due our aging and diminished fleet but Trudeau destroyed that argument when he ordered the withdrawal.


Trudeau can't use it now, but it could have been used pre-Trudeau -- and didn't get used.

Methinks only the lawyers will win here, not the folks needing decent planes ...  :'(


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If the government decides we only do NORAD then they lose a very easy tool to deploy when they want to keep the footprint down while still contributing on the international stage.



You can't peacekeep with fighter aircraft, unless the RCAF is hiding a UN-blue paint scheme somewhere.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can't peacekeep with fighter aircraft, unless the RCAF is hiding a UN-blue paint scheme somewhere.



You can enforce no-fly zones mandated by the UN (Operations Southern + Northern Watch).  But that's beside the point.  The question should be "What do we want the jets to do", before we ask ourselves "What do we need".  As far as I can see, the government haven't really defined what our mission is expected to be between now and 50 years for now, to include potential threats.  This will drive our requirements. 

If would be incredibly short-sighted to confine us to NORAD IMO.  I have no doubt that a government, between now and 50 years from now, will feel compelled to deploy fighter/attack aircraft to some theater.  If all you have done for the last 10 years is NORAD, you can't do that very easily:  you'll need months if not years of catching up (and it is beyond flying for proficiency, you will need to buy a good tactics manual from somebody, comprehend it, apply it and train to it).  Flying a fighter is not like jumping in your car and going.  It is mentally involved and requires constant training, mostly for the brain.  I have been out of flying tactically for less than 1 year and I wouldn't be able to jump in and fly any tactical mission safely and effectively, nevermind lead anything tactically complex (and I considered myself at the peak of my tactical proficiency when I left).  

I think our leadership understands this and I hope they'll be able to convince the government the same.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe the RCAF (and realitistically the government sending them) needs to start prioritizing missions?



It does,  AND it's not quite as simple as 'just saying no'.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can't peacekeep with fighter aircraft, unless the RCAF is hiding a UN-blue paint scheme somewhere.



Puckchaser, your comments in this thread are 100% out to lunch.  I feel like I'm reading a CBC comments section when I read your posts here.

Peacekeeping is a task in the spectrum of conflict and fighter aircraft are perfectly capable of playing important roles in a peacekeeping operation, what do you think our CF18s did in the Balkans?  

Your comments about prioritization and cuts are also way off base.  The biggest mistake I see from people wearing green when they look at issues facing other services is they tend to apply their own cultural biases to it.

Comparing a B fleet truck to a modern fighter aircraft or warship is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard but I see hard Army types make the comparison all the time.  Fighter aircraft are complex machines that require years of training to be able to build up the requisite skills sets and have systems in place to make them useful.  If the tap is turned off, it will not be turned back on at the drop of a hat.

I believe maintaining a multi-role fighter force capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict is something this country absolutely needs.  The Air Task Force we can deploy now is a very good capability that gives the government plenty of options.  It needs to be enhanced, not reduced in capability and scope.

6/12 pack of fighters, refuellers, auroras for ISR with Lockheed sniper advanced targeting pod on the fighters themselves.  Team this up with SOF on the ground and the Government of Canada has a pretty good little capability for making a valuable military contribution to an expeditionary mission.  Relegating the Fighter wing of the Air Force to a home defence role only would be a massive mistake.  

I'm an infantry officer by trade but if I were king for a day and was given the choice of cutting regiments or the multirole fighter force, I would choose to cut regiments.


----------



## PuckChaser

What I'm saying, is that the fighter community is going to have to make a choice between taking a very limited number of Super Hornets now, which will be kept for 35 years and eat into the money for eventual replacements, or push to get the procurement of the replacements faster than 15 year current timeline. Getting these things arent a magic extra $3B boost in defense spending, we'll end up with a split fleet later on, or maybe even more screwed in the mid term as the government can punt the fighter replacement decision down the road.


----------



## dapaterson

It's not a fighter community decision.  It's a CAF decision in resource prioritization - both to acquire new aircraft (and necessary support such as hangers, test facilities etc) and to sustain both the legacy fleet and the new (interim?) fleet.

And there will be tradeoffs,  because defence doesn't have unlimited resources.  So other acquisitions (not only for the RCAF) may be deferred or cancelled, or reduced in scope.


----------



## Lumber

Why must we be relegated to only a single class of fighter? Instead of the Super Hornet being an "interim" replacement for the 188s, why not clearly state, right now, that we will "By 2025, have a mix fleet of Super Hornets and F-35/Grippen/Rafale (etc), each supporting various, different, but often overlapping missions? Play this up not as a "panic move to get _something_ done", but rather a strategic decision to provide variety and depth?


----------



## dapaterson

In part because multiple fleets increase costs for sparing, training, R&O and interoperability, among others.

With a larger RCAF, multiple fleets make sense.  Given our size (and low probability of any growth in the near term), a single fleet is more cost-effective.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Puckchaser, your comments in this thread are 100% out to lunch.  I feel like I'm reading a CBC comments section when I read your posts here.
> 
> Peacekeeping is a task in the spectrum of conflict and fighter aircraft are perfectly capable of playing important roles in a peacekeeping operation, what do you think our CF18s did in the Balkans?
> 
> Your comments about prioritization and cuts are also way off base.  The biggest mistake I see from people wearing green when they look at issues facing other services is they tend to apply their own cultural biases to it.
> 
> Comparing a B fleet truck to a modern fighter aircraft or warship is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard but I see hard Army types make the comparison all the time.  Fighter aircraft are complex machines that require years of training to be able to build up the requisite skills sets and have systems in place to make them useful.  If the tap is turned off, it will not be turned back on at the drop of a hat.
> 
> I believe maintaining a multi-role fighter force capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict is something this country absolutely needs.  The Air Task Force we can deploy now is a very good capability that gives the government plenty of options.  It needs to be enhanced, not reduced in capability and scope.
> 
> 6/12 pack of fighters, refuellers, auroras for ISR with Lockheed sniper advanced targeting pod on the fighters themselves.  Team this up with SOF on the ground and the Government of Canada has a pretty good little capability for making a valuable military contribution to an expeditionary mission.  Relegating the Fighter wing of the Air Force to a home defence role only would be a massive mistake.
> 
> I'm an infantry officer by trade but if I were king for a day and was given the choice of cutting regiments or the multirole fighter force, I would choose to cut regiments.



A better comparison would be the Subs vs the fighters


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In part because multiple fleets increase costs for sparing, training, R&O and interoperability, among others.
> 
> With a larger RCAF, multiple fleets make sense.  Given our size (and low probability of any growth in the near term), a single fleet is more cost-effective.



DAP:

It is more cost effective to buy and maintain a bag of hammers - but occasionally a screwdriver or a wrench comes in handy.


----------



## dapaterson

But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.



Absolutely.  Excuse me while I run out to Home Depot.  I'll be back in 15 years.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.



I agree DP, but history has shown we've got a clear need for a fighter force that's multirole and flexible.

Germany, Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq/Syria, Eastern Europe.

The CF18s have seen plenty of mileage overseas and giving up the capability to conduct these sorts of operations would be a major mistake.


----------



## The Bread Guy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ... The question should be "What do we want the jets to do", before we ask ourselves "What do we need" ...


That right there  :nod:


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.



Need: To pummel third-rate militaries and terrorist groups who have little to no AA capabilities.
Satisfied by: CF-189 Super Hornets

Need: To pummel 2nd-first rate militaries with demonstrated AA capabilities, or to provide CAP in defence of NORAD.
Satisfied by: CF-355 Lighting II


----------



## jmt18325

That implies that the super hornet is third rate.  The USN will be flying said third rate fighter for at least 25 more years.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That implies that the super hornet is third rate.  The USN will be flying said third rate fighter for at least 25 more years.



No. It implies that some assets are adequate when properly employed.  The B52, born in 1948, can still provide value when used appropriately.


----------



## Lumber

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That implies that the super hornet is third rate.  The USN will be flying said third rate fighter for at least 25 more years.



Actually, I'm implying that it is second rate (assuming F-35s and -22s are First Rate). It's a matter of bringing a gun to a knife fight. No need to bring an F-35 to bomb ISIL if vanilla CF-188s were more than enough.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm implying that it is second rate (assuming F-35s and -22s are First Rate). It's a matter of bringing a gun to a knife fight. No need to bring an F-35 to bomb ISIL if vanilla CF-188s were more than enough.



And would also be assuming the fight you are going to be in XX years down the road will be the same WRT threats and enemy ORBAT.  Not the best way to plan, IMO.

As Canadian governments have shown that they are willing to accept decade long procurements to replace equipment that has already been "extended" (Seakings are a great example), I can see why ANYONE in the CAF would want to push for the government to buy the gun, not the knife.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have argued that the F-35 will never be used for CAS the way older assets have been, they will be to few and to expensive. Up against real AD they will do better than most. If you need a bomb truck to drop bombs onto technicals and grape huts, then perhaps a non-fighter with good payload and loiter time is needed. Now if they agreed to buy 40 SH's right now and 40 F35 in 5-10 years, I would be happy.


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And would also be assuming the fight you are going to be in XX years down the road will be the same WRT threats and enemy ORBAT.  Not the best way to plan, IMO.
> 
> As Canadian governments have shown that they are willing to accept decade long procurements to replace equipment that has already been "extended" (Seakings are a great example), I can see why ANYONE in the CAF would want to push for the government to buy the gun, not the knife.
> 
> :2c:



Sorry, I can see how I wasn't completely clear; I'm using too many metaphors! The Super Hornets are the gun in a knife fight. They are more than adequate. The F-35s are more like .50 cals. Overkill in a knife fight, but perfect when the other guy has a gun.

We seem to be doing a lot more of bombing people who can't shoot back than bombing people with sophisticated AA defences, or a CAP of their own. So why not keep costs down and accomplish these missions with an air frame with a lower maintenance cost, while keeping the F-35s around just in case something really hazardous comes along.

That's what I was getting at.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> If you need a bomb truck to drop bombs onto technicals and grape huts, then perhaps a non-fighter with good payload and loiter time is needed.



Others agree. 

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/august-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3028-first-air-strike-with-gbu-12-against-isil-in-iraq-for-french-navy-atl2-maritime-patrol-aircraft.html


----------



## WingsofFury

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have argued that the F-35 will never be used for CAS the way older assets have been, they will be to few and to expensive. Up against real AD they will do better than most. If you need a bomb truck to drop bombs onto technicals and grape huts, then perhaps a non-fighter with good payload and loiter time is needed. Now if they agreed to buy 40 SH's right now and 40 F35 in 5-10 years, I would be happy.



Just out of curiousity, if the F-35 can carry a greater payload via SDB's, and are produced and utilised by more nations than other legacy fighters like Hornets, Vipers, or even Eagles for that matter, how could there be too few of them to perform in the CAS role the way that legacy fighters continue to do to this day?

Sorry, I guess I'm missing something here....

And we can't just buy a bomb truck; it's self escort strike or go home.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was not aware that the Taliban had an air force that we would need an escort to protect us from?  ;D

We are replacing our CF-18’s with fewer F-35, although the initial availability will be higher than current aircraft, as the fleet matures, that will change. It’s also unclear if the training loss rate will be the same or less than the CF-18, but we won’t be able to bear the same number of training losses. It would be interesting to see across the nations what the exchange rate for aircraft will be, but I do not think anyone is replacing on a 1 for 1 basis, I may be wrong on that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't on (likely?) Super Hornet buy in Question Period today:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/mark-collins-things-looking-better-for-f-35-in-canada-not-super-hornet-buy-leaks/#comment-17404

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## WingsofFury

Colin P said:
			
		

> I was not aware that the Taliban had an air force that we would need an escort to protect us from?  ;D
> 
> We are replacing our CF-18’s with fewer F-35, although the initial availability will be higher than current aircraft, as the fleet matures, that will change. It’s also unclear if the training loss rate will be the same or less than the CF-18, but we won’t be able to bear the same number of training losses. It would be interesting to see across the nations what the exchange rate for aircraft will be, but I do not think anyone is replacing on a 1 for 1 basis, I may be wrong on that.



Taliban no...but ISIS shot down an F-16, did they not?

Fewer jets but greater lethality.  It's also a sign of budget cuts...again...sigh...

As for a loss rate, with the engine being of much better quality, I believe there'll be fewer training losses.  On the upside, if there is an upside to a plane going down, I believe we'd be able to purchase a new one for the same price as what the LRIP lot being produced at that time is.


----------



## Altair

I'm a tad bit disappointed. 

Seems like the need to buy American will leave only the super hornet and the F35 as plausible options. A shame, because I am not really impressed by either the SH or F35.

Then again, I'm no pilot.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Taliban no...but ISIS shot down an F-16, did they not?



This.  You don't need a "all bells and whistles" GBAD/IADS to bring down a single aircraft.  Any wing-nut with a later gen MANPAD will do just fine.

Bringing down 1 won't win you the war, but how would Canada react if a similar thing happened that happened to the Jordanian F-16 driver?  I have no doubt in my mind what would happen (political decision) and then effectively, you've removed one of your adversaries quickly and effectively.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm a tad bit disappointed.
> 
> Seems like the need to buy American will leave only the super hornet and the F35 as plausible options. A shame, because I am not really impressed by either the SH or F35.
> 
> Then again, I'm no pilot.



Eurofighter and Gripen NG aren't any better. Unless you're looking at Russian or Chinese options?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This.  You don't need a "all bells and whistles" GBAD/IADS to bring down a single aircraft.  Any wing-nut with a later gen MANPAD will do just fine.
> 
> Bringing down 1 won't win you the war, but how would Canada react if a similar thing happened that happened to the Jordanian F-16 driver?  I have no doubt in my mind what would happen (political decision) and then effectively, you've removed one of your adversaries quickly and effectively.



So what is the effective ceiling for a modern Manpad? What is the effective ceiling for lobbing guided bombs? The non-fighter bombtruck would not be going low altitude, more the same level as a B1 I suspect. I can see a role for a bomber that is not heavily specialized to fight in higher intensity battles and use as much common commercial aviation components as possible. This would be good for smaller nations and ones involved in a lot of bush wars.


----------



## Kirkhill

This item caught my eye - from John Ivison



> But the planes are not carbon copies and the new additions will mean the creation of a mixed fleet, something the RCAF has rejected on the grounds that it lowers capability and raises costs.
> 
> If part of the motivation is to free up money that can be diverted to the shipbuilding program, it would be interesting to first find out the full life cycle cost of operating two fleets.



http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-by-sole-sourcing-super-hornets-liberals-now-look-identical-to-tories-on-fighter-jets-file

I can't find it just now but I seem to recall the National Fighter Secretariat did look at a mixed fleet solution.  Or is old age creeping up on me that fast?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin P said:
			
		

> So what is the effective ceiling for a modern Manpad? What is the effective ceiling for lobbing guided bombs? The non-fighter bombtruck would not be going low altitude, more the same level as a B1 I suspect. I can see a role for a bomber that is not heavily specialized to fight in higher intensity battles and use as much common commercial aviation components as possible. This would be good for smaller nations and ones involved in a lot of bush wars.



Manpads aren't the only threat.  Don't have to look very far back to understand we did face a relatively potent threat:  we fought a country armed with radar guided SAMs, to include mobile SAMs (Libya (2011), Kosovo (1999), Iraq (1991)).  With groups like ISIS taking over airfields and military bases in foreign countries, it wouldn't surprise me to see them get their hands on guided stuff (and they have the money and/or power to buy people to train them to use it).  

You are living in yesterday's and today's conflicts.  You can't project what we did/are doing in the future.  We cannot handcuff ourselves to a platform that cannot go in, drop bomb and come back in a country with a contested sky.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I get your argument, but I suspect that costs of the modern fighter is going to handcuff us in other ways.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Since we need to do NORAD, we need a fighter-type aircraft. As soon as you have this requirement, you are looking at $100M per airplane plus support.  The NORAD requirement is not going away.  Might as well fet the bang for our buck...


----------



## PuckChaser

Super Hornet isn't going to be any cheaper than a F35, especially when the FMS charges around 5% on the price. Australians paid roughly $212M including support (until 2025) per aircraft (x24) for their interim order in 2013. $5B for planes they don't plan on flying 10 years from now.


----------



## Ostrozac

Colin P said:
			
		

> I can see a role for a bomber that is not heavily specialized to fight in higher intensity battles and use as much common commercial aviation components as possible. This would be good for smaller nations and ones involved in a lot of bush wars.



If all you want to do is drop bombs from high altitude on people that can't shoot back, then you don't need to buy a specialized airframe just for that purpose -- the Syrian Air Force does this on a daily basis with transport aircraft. Also, doesn't our CP-140 already have a perfectly good bomb-bay? Add to the mix that the RCAF still intends to buy a large UAV with a weapons-delivery capability, and I think that our simple bomb truck capability is covered.

But simple bomb trucks can't tangle with Serbia's Air Defence network -- or contribute to enforcing a no-fly zone. For that you need a multi-role fighter.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> If all you want to do is drop bombs from high altitude on people that can't shoot back, then you don't need to buy a specialized airframe just for that purpose -- the Syrian Air Force does this on a daily basis with transport aircraft. Also, doesn't our CP-140 already have a perfectly good bomb-bay?



It has a bombbay that could potentially be configured.  However, there is (IMO) no will on the government or Senior RCAF leaderships part to pursue this capability.  The French saw a capability, and then funded it.  My sense is no such desire exits in Canada WRT the CP-140 going that way.  I see a lack of political will and funding shortfalls as the kilers of what could be a good capability to have in our pocket.



> Add to the mix that the RCAF still intends to buy a large UAV with a weapons-delivery capability, and I think that our simple bomb truck capability is covered.



It's non-existent right now.  The RCAF needs FWSAR, the Cyclone project...etc.  I don't see the money coming from this governments term, myself.



> But simple bomb trucks can't tangle with Serbia's Air Defence network -- or contribute to enforcing a no-fly zone. For that you need a multi-role fighter.



Did you mean Syria?  They do have some shit wired tight.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Super Hornet isn't going to be any cheaper than a F35, especially when the FMS charges around 5% on the price. Australians paid roughly $212M including support (until 2025) per aircraft (x24) for their interim order in 2013. *$5B for planes they don't plan on flying 10 years from now.
> *



I wouldn't be too sure of that.  If I remember correctly, the F-35s were meant to replace their legacy Hornets, not the Supers and the Growlers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The SH replaced their F-111 on a 1 to 1 basis from my reading.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> So what is the effective ceiling for a modern Manpad?



I can only direct you to open source stuff on that, and can't comment on how accurate that info is.  Here's a few links for reference though.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/9k338.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792628/but-language-manual-syrian-rebels-eagerly-unpack-brand-new-surface-air-missiles-china.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fn-6.htm



> What is the effective ceiling for lobbing guided bombs? The non-fighter bombtruck would not be going low altitude, more the same level as a B1 I suspect.



Probably not something you'll be able to get an answer on here about.  There's lots of variables that can affect what altitude people do/don't operate from.


----------



## PuckChaser

Colin P said:
			
		

> The SH replaced their F-111 on a 1 to 1 basis from my reading.


Because the F111C service life was done well before their Hornets. I can see them keeping Growlers, that's a niche aircraft. Super Hornets are there until they get full order of F35.


----------



## Ostrozac

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did you mean Syria?  They do have some crap wired tight.



Actually, I was thinking of the Kosovo War in 1999 -- but Syria is also a good example. Medium sized countries can have decent air defence capabilities.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Syria is also a good example. Medium sized countries can have decent air defence capabilities.



And it's not like all their kit is accounted for...



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Manpads aren't the only threat.  Don't have to look very far back to understand we did face a relatively potent threat:  we fought a country armed with radar guided SAMs, to include mobile SAMs (Libya (2011), Kosovo (1999), Iraq (1991)).  With groups like ISIS taking over airfields and military bases in foreign countries, it wouldn't surprise me to see them get their hands on guided stuff (and they have the money and/or power to buy people to train them to use it).



http://freebeacon.com/national-security/isis-gets-syrian-air-defense-system/  " _it is uncertain whether the associated fire control radar and other equipment needed to fire the missiles were captured_"

It only takes a few seconds for your day to go from good to bad.







An image released by the Islamic State on 20 January shows a 1S91 engagement radar ['STRAIGHTFLUSH'] at the 2K12 Kub battery northeast of Dayr al-Zawr city.   

_The Islamic State has released images of large quantities of materiel it said it captured during the offensive, including a 1S91 engagement radar, at least one 2P25 launcher, and at least two missiles from a 2K12 Kub (SA-6 'Gainful') surface-air-missile (SAM) system.

The Islamic State captured a 2P25 launcher from retreating Syrian forces in 2014, but this is the first time its fighters have been seen with the 1S91 radar needed to form an operational 2K12 system._

Source: 27 Jan 2016 Janes article.

What does the STRAIGTHFLUSH find targets for?






SA-6 'GAINFUL' ( 2 x TELs shown here with the STRAIGHTFLUSH center-rear)

Here's one any ESM scope dope should get.   ;D


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Eurofighter and Gripen NG aren't any better. Unless you're looking at Russian or Chinese options?


euro fighter ng Gripen and rafale. 

Each has their wrinkles, same as the SH and F 35.

I did like the industrial benifits that the NG would have given us.

I will admit to being biased and wanting to be free from always buying an american plane. Why limit ones options? A pity.

Edit: It's also far cheaper, both in initial price and future maintenance, allowing canada to either buy more aircraft or put the savings into the navy.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because the F111C service life was done well before their Hornets. I can see them keeping Growlers, that's a niche aircraft. Super Hornets are there until they get full order of F35.



I'm almost positive that's not thr plan anymore.  The Australians are buying fewer F-35s.  The USN, similarly, is going to keep their Super Hornets until at least 2040.


----------



## RDBZ

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm almost positive that's not thr plan anymore.  The Australians are buying fewer F-35s.  The USN, similarly, is going to keep their Super Hornets until at least 2040.



The Supers are scheduled to be retired in the 2020s, either by additional F-35s or possibly by a yet-to-be developed platform that meets requirements.  Additional F-35s would have to be the most likely option.     http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/dwp-2016-the-future-raaf/


----------



## jmt18325

Saying that you'll look at options for replacement in the late 2020s makes it sound like you're not sure yet.  A late 2020s option also speaks to an operational life approaching at least 2030.


----------



## Edward Campbell

RDBZ said:
			
		

> The Supers are scheduled to be retired in the 2020s, either by additional F-35s or possibly by a yet-to-be developed platform that meets requirements.  Additional F-35s would have to be the most likely option.     http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/dwp-2016-the-future-raaf/




If we are going to buy a "new" fighter aircraft for billions and billions of dollars then _I guarantee_ that working politicians will expect it to last for 25+ years ~ they will not want to hear the words "jet" and 'fighter" again until they are retired and it is someone else's problem.

This, even more than the Sea King replacement, has been agonizing for two or three governments. Canadians don't like spending money on the armed forces ~ not even when we have troops in contact with an enemy. The national attitude my be unreasonable but it's be pretty consistent since _circa_ 1960.


----------



## MarkOttawa

By one who has flown both:



> Ask A [USN] Fighter Pilot: Hornet vs Super Hornet!
> https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/



Via _MILNEWS.ca_:
https://milnewsca.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/news-070755edt/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If we are going to buy a "new" fighter aircraft for billions and billions of dollars then _I guarantee_ that working politicians will expect it to last for 25+ years ~ they will not want to hear the words "jet" and 'fighter" again until they are retired and it is someone else's problem.
> 
> This, even more than the Sea King replacement, has been agonizing for two or three governments. Canadians don't like spending money on the armed forces ~ not even when we have troops in contact with an enemy. The national attitude my be unreasonable but it's be pretty consistent since _circa_ 1960 1867.



Fixed that for you


----------



## Eye In The Sky

/frustration rant on/

What really irks me about the whole Canadian fighter replacement program and process is the focus on all the crap that shouldn't matter by people who have ZERO idea about what stuff is out there that is designed to take aircraft out of the sky.  The "must benefit Canadian industry" stuff.  The "we will not buy the F35 because...well we said that to get elected" stuff.  How about making the choice based on 'the best fighter we can afford'.  But, like boots, we (Canada) are more concerned that 'they are made in Canada', who cares if they trash people's feet right?

What are the things that should be considered IMO?

Example #1  Surface to air threats

Example #2  Air to air threats

Example #3  The modern battlespace

Picking an airframe 'because it is not American' or because of politics is stupid (I know, but reality).  It also seems to be "the Canadian way".  

Doing things on our own from scratch = The CH-148 Cyclone.  28 Cyclones have faced repeated development delays since being ordered in 2004 and are not expected to be fully operational on both the East and West Coasts until 2021.

Doing things smarter and in cooperation (IMO) = The NH90 NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter).   I've done exercises with NH90s flying ASW already and not in the past few months either.  

 In June 2000, the participating countries signed a contract for the production of 243 NH90s: France 27 NFH, Germany 80 TTH (with an option on a further 54), Italy 46 NFH and 70 TTH, and the Netherlands 20 NFH. Germany converted 42 options to firm orders (30 TTH for the Army and 12 TTH for the Air Force in June 2007. The first series production TTH helicopter made its maiden flight in May 2004 and the first NFH in August 2007. The French Army ordered an additional 34 NH90 TTH helicopters plus 34 options to replace its aging Puma helicopters. The French Navy placed orders for 27 NH90 NFH helicopters to replace its Lynx and Super Frelon helicopters.

First deliveries of the NH90 took place on 13 December 2006, when three TTH transport helicopters were handed over to the German Army following German type certification.

Deliveries of the TTH to Italy began in December 2007. The Italian Navy received the first NFH helicopter in June 2011.

/frustration rant off/


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> /frustration rant on/
> 
> What really irks me about the whole Canadian fighter replacement program and process is the focus on all the crap that shouldn't matter by people who have ZERO idea about what stuff is out there that is designed to take aircraft out of the sky.  The "must benefit Canadian industry" stuff.  The "we will not buy the F35 because...well we said that to get elected" stuff.  How about making the choice based on 'the best fighter we can afford'.  But, like boots, we (Canada) are more concerned that 'they are made in Canada', who cares if they trash people's feet right?
> 
> What are the things that should be considered IMO?
> 
> Example #1  Surface to air threats
> 
> Example #2  Air to air threats
> 
> Example #3  The modern battlespace
> 
> Picking an airframe 'because it is not American' or because of politics is stupid (I know, but reality).  It also seems to be "the Canadian way".
> 
> Doing things on our own from scratch = The CH-148 Cyclone.  28 Cyclones have faced repeated development delays since being ordered in 2004 and are not expected to be fully operational on both the East and West Coasts until 2021.
> 
> Doing things smarter and in cooperation (IMO) = The NH90 NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter).   I've done exercises with NH90s flying ASW already and not in the past few months either.
> 
> In June 2000, the participating countries signed a contract for the production of 243 NH90s: France 27 NFH, Germany 80 TTH (with an option on a further 54), Italy 46 NFH and 70 TTH, and the Netherlands 20 NFH. Germany converted 42 options to firm orders (30 TTH for the Army and 12 TTH for the Air Force in June 2007. The first series production TTH helicopter made its maiden flight in May 2004 and the first NFH in August 2007. The French Army ordered an additional 34 NH90 TTH helicopters plus 34 options to replace its aging Puma helicopters. The French Navy placed orders for 27 NH90 NFH helicopters to replace its Lynx and Super Frelon helicopters.
> 
> First deliveries of the NH90 took place on 13 December 2006, when three TTH transport helicopters were handed over to the German Army following German type certification.
> 
> Deliveries of the TTH to Italy began in December 2007. The Italian Navy received the first NFH helicopter in June 2011.
> 
> /frustration rant off/


Let's not be silly now.

When it comes to military procurement a great deal of it is political.

Best and cheapest option for the navy would probably be to buy some ships that were already in production as opposed to trying to revive a nearly dead industry in Canada,  but politically that was untenable. 

The aussies seem to have avoided buying Japanese subs to avoid political tensions with China. 

At the end of the day, politicians are on the hook for what they buy for the forces so the whole thing is going to reek of politics.

To my earlier point, the liberals said they wanted a open competition to find Canada's next fighter jet. But according to insiders they can only buy American because of interoperability with norad. So that leaves 2 jets, the SH and the F35 in a open competition. The liberals have been on record for saying they do not want the F35.  Oh jee,  I wonder what that  leaves us with?

Take out the buy American clause and suddenly there are 4 aircraft to choose from(if they are still dead set against the f35) each with their pros and cons as opposed to being forced to buy the SH by default.


----------



## George Wallace

And now from another source, a former high ranking RCAF officer, a former CO who was front and center when we were taking delivery of the Hornets back in the early 80's, and was an MP from Edmonton in the previous CPC party.



> The Liberal fighter plan will compromise national security, seriously hurt our aerospace industry and betray our allies.
> 
> The Government is intentionally creating a false narrative to justify sole-sourcing the Super Hornet, so that the Prime Minister’s ill-informed election promise to deny the F-35 does not get overtaken by the truth.
> 
> There is no urgency to replace the CF-18 and the Commander of the RCAF has confirmed that the aircraft will be viable until 2025. That means that we have lots of time to conduct a fair and open competition, which the Liberals howled for in opposition. With the CF-18 acquisition (and I was there), we went from the start of the evaluation to aircraft on the ramp in less than five years; and that was with six contenders. All information also suggests that we could get F-35s delivered at least as quickly as Super Hornet. The capability gap that they are talking about simply does not exist and they are falsely trying to justify a very bad decision.
> 
> The Liberals say that this would be an interim solution. That’s nonsense and they know it. We simply cannot afford a mixed fleet due to the prohibitive costs of duplicating training, maintenance, infrastructure and other support. We closely examined that when we bought the CF-18, and it was simply not a player. With an even smaller fleet now, that situation would be exacerbated. To say that the Aussies chose Super Hornet as an interim for F-35 is misleading. The Aussies bought the Super Hornet to replace their aging F-111 aircraft (not their current F-18s), and they maintained their firm commitment to buy F-35, which they are doing. The Aussies will continue to use their Super Hornets in an electronic warfare role, but know and have said that they will become irrelevant in the 2030s. If we buy the Super Hornet now, we will be stuck with it for at least 40 years and for at least the last 20 of those years, we will be irrelevant.
> 
> The U.S., U.K., Australia, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Israel have all chosen the F-35 after weighing all the alternatives; and Finland is poised to join that group. That is not a coincidence and there is a detailed report by an independent review panel of qualified Canadians that clearly points to the F-35 as the preferable option. Why won’t the Liberals release that report? Well, because it will put the lie to what they are saying and doing now. And, by the way, the Danes confirmed in their evaluation that the F-35 is, in fact, cheaper than Super Hornet, once all costs are considered.
> 
> The Canadian aerospace industry will also be big losers, and that means jobs and the economy. Canadian companies have done every well in winning F-35 contracts, so far, because they are very good. That will all end if we buy the Super Hornet. Lockheed will not sign contracts with companies in countries that haven’t signed on the line when they have companies in countries that have signed on the line. And, if we miss the F-35 level of technology, we will surely not be in a position to participate in the next level of technology. We went through this with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow and essentially lost that industry overnight. The Super Hornet is near the tail-end of its lifespan and further development; the F-35 is just starting. And, the more that people operate the hundreds of F-35s already flying, the more it is clear that the aircraft is performing as advertised, acknowledging that there have been issues that needed resolving (as there are with every new aircraft, including the CF-18); and they are being resolved.
> 
> The Statement of Requirements (SOR) for the Next Generation Fighter was written in relation to the threat scenarios that are predictable over the next several decades. It appears that the SOR is being re-written to simply exclude the F-35, regardless of the threats that Canada will face at home and abroad. That would raise serious questions of ethics and would certainly compromise our ability to meet our commitments in a dangerous world and give our pilots the best chance for survival. And that would be shameful.


----------



## Lumber

Savage.

EITS, you want to talk Politics? That is an amazing article, but all anyone on will ever see is 'MP from Edmonton in the previous _CPC_ party,' and immediately disregard all the great substance.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And now from another source, a former high ranking RCAF officer, a former CO who was front and center when we were taking delivery of the Hornets back in the early 80's, and was an MP from Edmonton in the previous CPC party.



Link?


----------



## DonaldMcL

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, like boots, we (Canada) are more concerned that 'they are made in Canada_ Quebec_',



Fixed


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Fixed



Good catch!   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

As F-35 Debate Rages On, Canada May Be Forced to Buy Temporary Jet Fleet



> Sputnik International
> Military and Intelligence
> 03:06 07.06.2016(updated 08:16 07.06.2016)
> 
> *As the Canadian government debates whether to buy the infamous F-35, it may be forced to buy the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter to insure its air force remains airborne.*
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is proving to be a contentious issue in Canadian politics. While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise to withdraw the nation’s commitment to the infamous aircraft, the Canadian Air Force remains committed.
> 
> As the two camps continue to spar, however, Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 Hornets isn’t getting any younger.
> 
> "Today, we are risk-managing a gap between our NORAD and NATO commitments and the number of fighters available for operations," Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan said, during the CANSEC defense trade show last week.
> 
> *"In the 2020s, we can foresee a growing capability gap, and this I find unacceptable and it’s one thing that we plan to fix."*
> 
> The solution appears to be Boeing’s Super Hornet. Introduced in 1999, the fighter isn’t exactly cutting edge, but it’s still newer than the CF-18, introduced in 1983. While a final decision is yet to be made, the National Post reports that the Trudeau administration plans to move forward with the purchase.
> 
> While the deal may allow Trudeau to stall on an F-35 decision, it could present new complications. Given that the previous administration of Stephen Harper pledged to purchase 63 F-35s, the current government’s refusal could result in a lawsuit from Lockheed Martin.
> 
> Last month, Danish lawmakers forced defense minister Peter Christensen to explain the military’s decision to purchase the plane despite its poor performance tests.
> 
> "There are always some risks, but we will negotiate the best terms we can and we will do our utmost to clarify details as much as we can before we make the first purchase," he said. "We will look to secure better certainty on costs."



More on LINK.


----------



## PuckChaser

I find it hilarious that the Hornet was originally procured by the Liberals (PET), intended only to last 20 years, punted downrange by the Liberals in the early 2000s, and now its a major capability gap that Justin Trudeau needs to buy Super Hornets. Its like the Trudeau family owns shares in Boeing.


----------



## George Wallace

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Link?



Apparently it was something he posted online today (?).  (It was posted on his FB page.)


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I find it hilarious that the Hornet was originally procured by the Liberals (PET), intended only to last 20 years, punted downrange by the Liberals in the early 2000s, and now its a major capability gap that Justin Trudeau needs to buy Super Hornets. Its like the Trudeau family owns shares in Boeing.


Yup. Almost makes one wish that the previous goverment had sorted it's shit out one way or another so we wouldn't be here today.


----------



## jmt18325

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup. Almost makes one wish that the previous goverment had sorted it's crap out one way or another so we wouldn't be here today.



Yeah, weren't we supposed to buy the F-35 5 - 6 years ago?


----------



## Kirkhill

Yep.  I recall all of the opposition parties rallying around the cause of a new fighter and a common defence policy.  That happened.  Right?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup. Almost makes one wish that the previous goverment had sorted it's crap out one way or another so we wouldn't be here today.



40 years of under funding the CAF is a non-partisan issue. Let's not forget who made the biggest stink about sole-sourcing F-35 (hint, it was the dudes who signed the original MOU). Until we have an Australian-level of all party support (or just the big 2, NDP is dead and Greens don't matter), DND will continue to be a political piggy bank and photo-op for the government of the day.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yep.  I recall all of the opposition parties rallying around the cause of a new fighter and a common defence policy.  That happened.  Right?


Completely did not happen, not even close. 

That all said, the previous goverment had 10 years, 4 of which were a majority so it's hard to pin all of this charlie foxtrot on the current goverment. Had the last one made any fighter jet a fait accompli we wouldn't be talking about this today.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 40 years of under funding the CAF is a non-partisan issue. Let's not forget who made the biggest stink about sole-sourcing F-35 (hint, it was the dudes who signed the original MOU). Until we have an Australian-level of all party support (or just the big 2, NDP is dead and Greens don't matter), DND will continue to be a political piggy bank and photo-op for the government of the day.


pretty much. 

For the record, I am no fan of this upcoming purchase of the super hornet as much as I wasn't a fan of the f35. A pox on all their houses.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> That all said, the previous goverment had 10 years, 4 of which were a majority so it's hard to pin all of this charlie foxtrot on the current goverment. Had the last one made any fighter jet a fait accompli we wouldn't be talking about this today.



We'd be just starting talking about replacements for the jets Chretien/Martin should have bought in the 1990s after the Hornets ran out of life around the 2000-2005 timeframe.... like I said, non-partisan.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The suddenly discovered RCAF fighter "capability gap" with regard to NORAD, NATO: video of MND Parliamentary Secretary John Mckay and opposition MPs.  Such be the level of Canadian political discussion of serious defence matters:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/700904003930

Upchuck.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 40 years of under funding the CAF is a non-partisan issue. Let's not forget who made the biggest stink about sole-sourcing F-35 (hint, it was the dudes who signed the original MOU). Until we have an Australian-level of all party support (or just the big 2, NDP is dead and Greens don't matter), DND will continue to be a political piggy bank and photo-op for the government of the day.





And that is the crux of our procurement and employment problems in the CAF. We are not a serious country when it comes to defending ourselves.

(I guess BQ leader Bouchard was right!)


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> That all said, the previous goverment had 10 years, 4 of which were a majority so it's hard to pin all of this charlie foxtrot on the current goverment. Had the last one made any fighter jet a fait accompli we wouldn't be talking about this today.



Let's see now.  Jean Chretien, you remember him, the guy who scrapped the EH 101 purchase and we are only now getting a replacement, was the one in 1997 who started this whole F-35 process.  Don't go blaming that on the PC's.   The PC's had the brains that if so many billions had been spent, it was an even bigger WASTE to walk away.  Justin Trudeau is not of the same fiscal conservative mindset.  He prefers to throw money around as if it grows on trees.  ....... And as our Deficit grows, he is going to throw Billions away on the F-35 and get ZERO in return?


----------



## tomahawk6

It seems that Trudeau is going to scrap the F-35 deal through the delay game,meanwhile more SuperHornets will be purchased.


----------



## FSTO

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's see now.  Jean Chretien, you remember him, the guy who scrapped the EH 101 purchase and we are only now getting a replacement, was the one in 1997 who started this whole F-35 process.  Don't go blaming that on the PC's.   The PC's had the brains that if so many billions had been spent, it was an even bigger WASTE to walk away.  Justin Trudeau is not of the same fiscal conservative mindset.  He prefers to throw money around as if it grows on trees.  ....... And as our Deficit grows, he is going to throw Billions away on the F-35 and get ZERO in return?



And as Mr Anderson said today on CBC's Power and Politics, the consortium of countries financed a competition between Boeing, Lockheed Martin and one other (I thought it was only the two) and Lockheed won the competition with their F35. So we already have had the open competition (which Chretien, Martin and Harper all signed off on) so lets get on with it! I'm not a fan of the F35 but then I'm sceptical of all Air Force claims (no matter what country they come from). 

Then again if we were a serious country we would have been flying Phantoms instead of the Starfighters, built 18 frigates instead of 12, would of had no gap between AOR's, flying Merlins instead of Cyclones or had Leopards long before the Centurions were ready for the National War Museum.

Our procurement issues predate the last government and will outlast the next couple of governments unless we (the Canadian Citizens) get our head out of our butts and demand that the Libs and Tories smarten up and work together on the interests of National Defence.


----------



## Altair

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's see now.  Jean Chretien, you remember him, the guy who scrapped the EH 101 purchase and we are only now getting a replacement, was the one in 1997 who started this whole F-35 process.  Don't go blaming that on the PC's.   The PC's had the brains that if so many billions had been spent, it was an even bigger WASTE to walk away.  Justin Trudeau is not of the same fiscal conservative mindset.  He prefers to throw money around as if it grows on trees.  ....... And as our Deficit grows, he is going to throw Billions away on the F-35 and get ZERO in return?


If that was the case they should have just bought the damn planes when they had the chance. 

Instead they played political hot potato with it and I'm sorry my friend, but that is their fault. The last the conservatives mentioned the F 35 it was to say that they were going about doing a reset on the program and left it at that.

 So here we are today, and now the Liberals have the chance to buy the only plane they realistically can buy given their views and promises, the Super Hornet. 

So to clarify in a way we can all understand, in the manner in which Oprah gives away cars,

The liberals started this sh!t show!

The conservatives continued this sh!t show!

The liberals have put the finishing touches on this sh!t show!

Everybody caused this sh!t show!


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> If that was the case they should have just bought the damn planes when they had the chance.



To be fair:  I have to agree.

They should never have let the 43 BCAD operating cost red herring deflect from the 6 BCAD purchase price.


----------



## SupersonicMax

For the Super Hornet supporters, from my, albeit very limited, experience flying the Super Hornet, it's no better than our Hornets in terms of systems: Same radar, worse targeting pod, same-ish EW, same weapons.  They have slightly better performance (slightly better acceleration, same turn performance, slightly better range/endurance) and can carry more weapons but I don't believe they would add anything to what we can currently do with our Hornets.  Buying Super Hornets would basically mean status quo in terms of capabilities...  Then again, maybe this is what our government is aiming for, but this hasn't really been defined yet.


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For the Super Hornet supporters, from my, albeit very limited, experience flying the Super Hornet, it's no better than our Hornets in terms of systems: Same radar, worse targeting pod, same-ish EW, same weapons.  They have slightly better performance (slightly better acceleration, same turn performance, slightly better range/endurance) and can carry more weapons but I don't believe they would add anything to what we can currently do with our Hornets.  Buying Super Hornets would basically mean status quo in terms of capabilities...  Then again, maybe this is *what our government is aiming for, but this hasn't really been defined yet*.



You raise a good point.

How is that defence review coming along?  I wonder what the zeitgeist is on nasty killy machiny things.


----------



## Altair

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For the Super Hornet supporters, from my, albeit very limited, experience flying the Super Hornet, it's no better than our Hornets in terms of systems: Same radar, worse targeting pod, same-ish EW, same weapons.  They have slightly better performance (slightly better acceleration, same turn performance, slightly better range/endurance) and can carry more weapons but I don't believe they would add anything to what we can currently do with our Hornets.  Buying Super Hornets would basically mean status quo in terms of capabilities...  Then again, maybe this is what our government is aiming for, but this hasn't really been defined yet.


There should be a poll on which fighter people support on here, because I don't know any super hornet supporters off the top of my head.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> There should be a poll on which fighter people support on here, because I don't know any super hornet supporters off the top of my head.



I find most Super Hornet supporters are only that way because its the only American counter to F-35. They have no idea why they hate F-35, but someone told them it was bad once, so they're dead set on Super Hornet.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I find most Super Hornet supporters are only that way because its the only American counter to F-35. They have no idea why they hate F-35, but someone told them it was bad once, so they're dead set on Super Hornet.


Ya,  I heard about all the problems plaguing the F35 but I didn't just jump on the SH bandwagon.

I started to look into possible alternatives

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/p/lockheed-martin-f-35a-lightning-ii-saab.html?m=1

That was my first stop and I did a bit of research on each one afterwards and I personally like the jas Gripen,  especially if it could be built by bombardier. 

Didn't just settle on the only other American jet. Like the liberals seem to...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Please tell me how the Grippen, in terms of capabilities, would compare to our current fleet of Hornet.


----------



## PuckChaser

Its not even dual engine, which is the main drum beat by anti-F-35 people.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Please tell me how the Grippen, in terms of capabilities, would compare to our current fleet of Hornet.



He can't because he doesn't know, his logic probably revolves around the fact Sweden builds furniture that everyone loves so that must cross over to being able to build awesome Fighter Jets  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

FSTO: Rick Anderson very off-base: only two JSF competitors (Boeing X-32 the loser) and only US and UK involved in deciding the competion:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

Sad how otherwise bright Canadians know so little about defence and care so little, politics aside.

Rant off.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its not even dual engine, which is the main drum beat by anti-F-35 people.



The Gripen doesn't need the extra engine for its primary mission - defence of Sweden.  The highways are designed as alternate landing fields.

https://youtu.be/5Y-nMTahziY


----------



## Altair

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Please tell me how the Grippen, in terms of capabilities, would compare to our current fleet of Hornet.


hey, I'm no sme,  but that said, and in all fairness, why compare the jas Gripen to our cf 18s? The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to its potential competition.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its not even dual engine, which is the main drum beat by anti-F-35 people.


haven't heard of it having any engine issues.

That and it can land on very short airstrip,  or highways in a pinch should something happen.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Altair said:
			
		

> hey, I'm no sme,  but that said, and in all fairness, why compare the jas Gripen to our cf 18s? The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to the cf 18.



I was trying to make it easy for you.  But if you insist, how does it compare to the JSF?


----------



## tomahawk6

Here is the article I read on this topic today.I should have included it in my original post.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/canada-looks-to-delay-tricky-f-35-decision-by-buying-super-hornets/


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> hey, I'm no sme,  but that said, and in all fairness, why compare the jas Gripen to our cf 18s? The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to its potential competition.
> haven't heard of it having any engine issues.
> 
> That and it can land on very short airstrip,  or highways in a pinch should something happen.



Altair:

70% of Canada has no roads - at all -  and that moves vanishingly close to 100% north of latitude 55.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to its potential competition.



Max takeoff weight is less than half a Hornet/Super Hornet = less bombs/missiles. It also has a shorter range, and only a marginal speed increase and the service ceiling is the same. The Super Hornet has a remarkably similar aircraft compared to the Hornet, which means its not an upgrade, its status quo. $9B for status quo is pissing money away.


----------



## Altair

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I was trying to make it easy for you.  But if you insist, how does it compare to the JSF?


Thrust to weight, speed, has supercruise,  same amount of hard points, better wing loading, cost, low maintenance, Combat radius and ferry range. Admittedly about everything else about the F35 is better but is it worth the cost?

Effectively, canada could buy two Gripens for every f35 or the same amount as the f35 and use that extra savings for other things. Maybe uavs?!


----------



## SupersonicMax

Altair said:
			
		

> Thrust to weight, speed, has supercruise,  same amount of hard points, better wing loading, cost, low maintenance, Combat radius and ferry range. Admittedly about everything else about the F35 is better but is it worth the cost?
> 
> Effectively, canada could buy two Gripens for every f35 or the same amount as the f35 and use that extra savings for other things. Maybe uavs?!



Sources?

Also, before making conclusions, you have to compare it to a given mission and mission representitative loadouts.  The Grippen numbers you quoted are optimistic for a clean aircraft.  You want weapons?  You need to strap them outside the aircraft.  

The JSF carries internally as much as we carry now with our Hornets. 

Edit:  I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, you absolutely are. But if you are going to bring it in this discussion, make sure you substantiate it with credible data!


----------



## childs56

To buy anything off shore right now would be a logistics nightmare. Look at the Cormoronts. Parts issues here and even in Europe where they are made. 
The Super Hornet is a viable option to increase our force projection until such time that a next generation fighter is available and operational. We already have L3/ Boeing here in Canada set up with full support and skills to move forward with a minimal delay implementation of the Super Hornet. Which is what Canada needs if we want to deploy Jets to far off lands.

I think we need to stay in the running for the F35, simply we have invested heavily in the technology up to this point, we need to be on the leading edge of defence research and sustainability for the future. 
What we do not need right now is a another bunch of confusion as to what fighter we possibly need to fight some imaginary war in a far off place  10 to 20 years from now. We already did that and choose the F35. But due to delays in R&D, that air platform is a ways off if it even does make it off the ground and reach its full potential.  We need a viable solution for our force today to support our operations we may become involved in. 

Buying off shore provides many parts supply and infrastructure issues. The purpose is to get a quick, reliable platform to full fill our needs until such time as the next Gen fighter gets air worthy and hits the mass production line. Until then we need to keep costs down and infrastructure change low. 
We need a interm solution that is quick and easy to get and train on. Then get in the air. to me that's the Super Hornet.


----------



## FSTO

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> FSTO: Rick Anderson very off-base: only two JSF competitors (Boeing X-32 the loser) and only US and UK involved in deciding the competion:
> http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm
> 
> Sad how otherwise bright Canadians know so little about defence and care so little, politics aside.
> 
> Rant off.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Thanks for the correction. 

I watched the MP's talk and it was truly disheartening to listen to them trying to defend their positions with so much ignorance.


----------



## Altair

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Sources?
> 
> Also, before making conclusions, you have to compare it to a given mission and mission representitative loadouts.  The Grippen numbers you quoted are optimistic for a clean aircraft.  You want weapons?  You need to strap them outside the aircraft.
> 
> The JSF carries internally as much as we carry now with our Hornets.
> 
> Edit:  I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, you absolutely are. But if you are going to bring it in this discussion, make sure you substantiate it with credible data!


http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/p/lockheed-martin-f-35a-lightning-ii-saab.html?m=1

You might know better than this guy, I've seen small variations on some points but this seems correct to me. Unless you know something different?


----------



## YZT580

If the SH is an interim a/c how many are they going to buy?  6, 12, 18? Although it will fit in the same hangar as our current fleet, that is really about all the two a/c will have in common. A full range of parts will be required.  Maintenance crew training to support two types of aircraft doubles the cost and complexity of training.  Do you position one squadron at each base or convert one base to the SH?  Staging overseas would become a logistical nightmare.  Which set of spares do you dispatch?  If you only have 12 aircraft you are very limited when it comes to rotation.  If you have more than you are tentatively reducing the number of eventual replacement aircraft when the tender is finally put forward.  That increases individual costs and ensures that the costs of maintaining a duplicate fleet are continued into the next several decades.  

In short, if you want to buy SH, pay the penalty and buy at least 100 of them because Boeing will likely not be sustaining the production line into the 30's and you are going to need spares.  Buying an interim fleet is as much a waste of money as relying on solar power to sustain Alert through the winter months would be.  Otherwise, run a competition and let the best plane win.  With the re-build on the current F18's we have sufficient time to run it properly and procure whatever airframe is chosen.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Max takeoff weight is less than half a Hornet/Super Hornet = less bombs/missiles. It also has a shorter range, and only a marginal speed increase and the service ceiling is the same. The Super Hornet has a remarkably similar aircraft compared to the Hornet, which means its not an upgrade, its status quo. $9B for status quo is pissing money away.



Except for range and radar.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Yeah, weren't we supposed to buy the F-35 5 - 6 years ago?



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-officially-scraps-f-35-purchase-as-audit-pegs-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Altair said:
			
		

> Completely did not happen, not even close.
> 
> That all said, the previous goverment had 10 years, 4 of which were a majority so it's hard to pin all of this charlie foxtrot on the current goverment. Had the last one made any fighter jet a fait accompli we wouldn't be talking about this today.



See link in my above post.


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If the SH is an interim a/c how many are they going to buy?  6, 12, 18? Although it will fit in the same hangar as our current fleet, that is really about all the two a/c will have in common. A full range of parts will be required.  Maintenance crew training to support two types of aircraft doubles the cost and complexity of training.  Do you position one squadron at each base or convert one base to the SH?  Staging overseas would become a logistical nightmare.  Which set of spares do you dispatch?  If you only have 12 aircraft you are very limited when it comes to rotation.  If you have more than you are tentatively reducing the number of eventual replacement aircraft when the tender is finally put forward.  That increases individual costs and ensures that the costs of maintaining a duplicate fleet are continued into the next several decades.
> 
> In short, if you want to buy SH, pay the penalty and buy at least 100 of them because Boeing will likely not be sustaining the production line into the 30's and you are going to need spares.  Buying an interim fleet is as much a waste of money as relying on solar power to sustain Alert through the winter months would be.  Otherwise, run a competition and let the best plane win.  With the re-build on the current F18's we have sufficient time to run it properly and procure whatever airframe is chosen.




I would take a guess of two squadrons worth plus some spares


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Except for range and radar.





			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For the Super Hornet supporters, from my, albeit very limited, experience flying the Super Hornet, it's no better than our Hornets in terms of systems: *Same radar*, worse targeting pod, same-ish EW, same weapons.  They have slightly better performance (slightly better acceleration, same turn performance, slightly better range/endurance) and can carry more weapons but I don't believe they would add anything to what we can currently do with our Hornets.  Buying Super Hornets would basically mean status quo in terms of capabilities...  Then again, maybe this is what our government is aiming for, but this hasn't really been defined yet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I would take a guess of two squadrons worth plus some spares



Based on?


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Based on?



Well if they were smart, 1 squadron to cover NORAD missions, and 1 for any NATO/expeditionary operations but thats my 2 cents of what I would do


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well if they were smart, 1 squadron to cover NORAD missions, and 1 for any NATO/expeditionary operations but thats my 2 cents of what I would do



Maybe you can put forth some suggestions to the other RCAF fleets/communities as well, on how to do air ops  'if they were smart'.  I'm sure it's covered extensively in Res Svc Bn's.

Going to be a little challenging to get folks qual'd at the OTU if you put all your airframes into 2 line sqn's.


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe you can put forth some suggestions to the other RCAF fleets/communities as well, on how to do air ops  'if they were smart'.  I'm sure it's covered extensively in Res Svc Bn's.
> 
> Going to be a little challenging to get folks qual'd at the OTU if you put all your airframes into 2 line sqn's.



How about 2 sqns, 1 line sqn and 1 OTU?

Better yet, how about 0 sqns, and we just count our losses (and they are only political losses, anyways) and buy the damn Lightings.


----------



## SupersonicMax

In all fairness, I fly SHs with the APG-73 but most SHs have the 79 (AESA) but I doubt we'd buy anything non-AESA.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe you can put forth some suggestions to the other RCAF fleets/communities as well, on how to do air ops  'if they were smart'.  I'm sure it's covered extensively in Res Svc Bn's.
> 
> Going to be a little challenging to get folks qual'd at the OTU if you put all your airframes into 2 line sqn's.



Not if you outsource aircrew trg on type to the USN, entirely. I cannot see us affording an SH OTU, for an "interim" capability.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well if they were smart, 1 squadron to cover NORAD missions, and 1 for any NATO/expeditionary operations but thats my 2 cents of what I would do



That makes zero sense geographically.  You need a minimum of two squadrons for NORAD so you can cover CE and CW.

The Air Force is always operational, unlike the Army.  Right now they have four operational fighter squadrons and one training squadron.  

Two are in Bagotville and Three are in Cold Lake.  Both operational squadrons on each respective base provide assets to the NORAD mission.   

Perhaps a fighter jock can explain why the RCAF decided to reactivate two squadrons?


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> See link in my above post.


Ya,  like I said, they could have just bought the damn things, they played hot potato instead, talked about a reset while seeing if any other jet could meet Canada's needs, didn't talk about the F35 again.

So here we are today, about to commit to the only other north American plane, the Super Hornet. In my opinion,  it's a bipartisan FUp


----------



## Cloud Cover

Are they talking about the E/F model or the Advanced Super Hornet? 
If this discussion was about enhancing the RCAF capability on a interim basis, is this not what Australia did? Note the Singh was recently in Australia following which he claimed the mythical forthcoming capability gap.


----------



## Quirky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Perhaps a fighter jock can explain why the RCAF decided to reactivate two squadrons?



More officer positions.  ;D



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Are they talking about the E/F model or the Advanced Super Hornet?



Sounds to me like the E/F model. However are they going to bother with a training squadron, if not, why bother with a two-seater? Oh yeah, incentive rides to Peter Mansbridge.  :

This sounds like a completely idiotic idea, you'll have to build up a supply network of parts and equipment, training facilities and mainteneance crews, which we are short on with the current hornet anyway, just for an interm solution.  :facepalm:


----------



## MARS

Altair said:
			
		

> Ya,  like I said, they could have just bought the damn things, they played hot potato instead, talked about a reset while seeing if any other jet could meet Canada's needs, didn't talk about the F35 again.
> 
> So here we are today, about to commit to the only other north American plane, the Super Hornet. In my opinion,  it's a bipartisan FUp



I agree, to a point, but I think the politicians were and are simply responding to the fickle will of the populace.  The constituency that actually cares about a new fighter aircraft is tiny and doesn't affect the outcome of any electoral contest.  Plus, most Canadians despise any and all things American, and the F35 and it's associated costs have become a symbol of anti-American sentiment.  And politicians being politicians are of course highly responsive to their voting base. 

 I put this Fup solely on the backs of a willfully ignorant citizenry.  We the public will get the aircraft we deserve.


----------



## jmt18325

Our hornets have AESA?


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-officially-scraps-f-35-purchase-as-audit-pegs-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/



They had a majority government.  They punted in the name of political expedience.


----------



## AlexanderM

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Our hornets have AESA?


I could be wrong but I believe the answer is, nope.


----------



## Underway

Article looking at how the Danes came to their fighter purchase decision.  I found it relatively illuminating what can happen when a country gets all party support for something.  Though their decision to make the F-35 cheaper has more to do with less airframes.  Last I checked we needed a specific number.


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That makes zero sense geographically.  You need a minimum of two squadrons for NORAD so you can cover CE and CW.
> 
> The Air Force is always operational, unlike the Army.  Right now they have four operational fighter squadrons and one training squadron.
> 
> Two are in Bagotville and Three are in Cold Lake.  Both operational squadrons on each respective base provide assets to the NORAD mission.
> 
> Perhaps a fighter jock can explain why the RCAF decided to reactivate two squadrons?



I am making the assumption however if we bought super hornets, we would not retire all of our CF-188's


----------



## jmt18325

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I could be wrong but I believe the answer is, nope.



So then it's likely that the Super Hornet would be a substantial update in that department.  It also has stealth features and a kind of sensor fusion, as well as substantially improved avionics.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This pilot does what appears to be a good job of what the difference is between the SH & F/A-18
https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> This pilot does what appears to be a good job of what the difference is between the SH & F/A-18
> https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/


I find it puzzling that he makes such an issue of how much more fuel the SH carries over the Hornet, yet some say that the SH only has a slightly greater range and on Wiki they are listed as having an almost identical range. I certainly hope we get the conformal tanks and for that matter the most advanced model available.


----------



## GAP

Good Article...


----------



## MilEME09

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I find it puzzling that he makes such an issue of how much more fuel the SH carries over the Hornet, yet some say that the SH only has a slightly greater range and on Wiki they are listed as having an almost identical range. I certainly hope we get the conformal tanks and for that matter the most advanced model available.



Well the most advanced model is the Advanced super Hornet concept that was tested awhile back, some interesting features, and the 50% reduced radar cross section over the SH isn't bad either


----------



## Retired AF Guy

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Our hornets have AESA?



No. Under the latest upgrade program our Hornets were fitted with Raytheon's AN/APG-73 multi-mode radar which is an upgrade of the earlier AN/APG-65. Full details on the upgrades can be found  here, courtesy of CASR.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well the most advanced model is the Advanced super Hornet concept that was tested awhile back, some interesting features, and the 50% reduced radar cross section over the SH isn't bad either


Has ASH even flown yet? Last I heard it was a collection of features in a PowerPoint that Boeing is trying to pass off as an operational aircraft.


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Has ASH even flown yet? Last I heard it was a collection of features in a PowerPoint that Boeing is trying to pass off as an operational aircraft.


This indicates yes, but only to an extent, as I believe these are add on components to an existing aircraft, such as the conformal tanks. The redesign which includes the radar reduction would have to be a new aircraft built to the specifications of the redesign, which likely has not yet occurred. 

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


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFb2ObuhVS4

this aircraft was the test bed in 2013, and the most recent article I could find is here

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-resumes-advanced-super-hornet-push-as-us-navy-425221/


----------



## SupersonicMax

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It also has stealth features and a kind of* sensor fusion, as well as substantially improved avionics*.



Can you elaborate of where you got this?  It certainly doesn't match my experience.


----------



## Cloud Cover

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate of where you got this?  It certainly doesn't match my experience.



These are claims made by Boeing  in the December 2013-January 2014 edition of Frontiers (a Boeing internal publication that you can Google) which seems to substantiate this. What is more, the AHS version appears to also be available as a "conversion" to E/F models. So the aircraft can be built as new, or retrofit to the existing fleets. There does appear to be more than one Advanced Super Hornet flying, and looking again at the Boeing website the aircraft has passed quite a number of milestones in many if not all aspects.  Newer production models of the EA-18 may already incorporate many of the AHS features such as conformal fuel tanks. 
In any event, it is still 1980's technology, late 90's ideas about range, early 2000's ideas about reducing RCS, early 2010 software that is not very flexible and an airframe/engine design with quite a few moving (wearable) parts to maintain. If McDonnell upgraded its design of the VooDoo in the 1970's would Canada have bought it 1982? Missions and circumstances change, so do aircraft designs but at some point a product (even a newly manufactured product) is end of concept and outclassed. Sort of like BlackBerry-Apple.....


----------



## AlexanderM

This earlier article talks about a combat radius of over 700nm?

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-11-15/boeing-pitches-advanced-super-hornet-future-threats


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: Did that yesterday  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/35100/post-1438944.html#msg1438944 

See Prof. Steve Saideman, Carleton U.:



> Plane Speculation
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/stephen-saideman-plane-speculation/



More on the Prof. (an American and now a Canadian):
http://stevesaideman.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> This earlier article talks about a combat radius of over 700nm?
> 
> http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-11-15/boeing-pitches-advanced-super-hornet-future-threats


700nm with external, yet conformal tanks. F-35 pushes 600nm on just internal fuel.


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 700nm with external, yet conformal tanks. F-35 pushes 600nm on just internal fuel.


I'm still not convinced that the SH has a combat radius of 700nm with the conformal tanks, that's why I put the question mark in there. A number of sources indicate that the combat radius of the SH is 390nm, then add the conformal tanks and it extends to 510nm, yet in the article that was posted about the pilot who had flown both he talks about the SH having way more fuel, which would indicated greater range, which would make sense in relation to the article saying 700nm. So I'm a bit confused which is no big deal.

Look, we aren't buying all F-35's, JT won't allow it, yet if they walk away from the F-35 they could get hit with legal action or a trade board ruling costing Canada billions. So I expect they will say, what is the fewest number we can purchase to avoid the nasty business and then we end up with a split fleet, like it or not. I really have no idea what the final outcome will be but it appears we are buying some Super Hornets, so let's get the best ones possible.


----------



## PuckChaser

So what you're saying is, the Liberals are using DND money and the CAF as political props, and will screw us for 35 years with a split fleet to buy a few anti-F35 votes from idiots who don't know what a strike fighter is from a biplane.


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, the Liberals are using DND money and the CAF as political props, and will screw us for 35 years with a split fleet to buy a few anti-F35 votes from idiots who don't know what a strike fighter is from a biplane.


Exactly!


----------



## dapaterson

And this differs from other governments in the past how, precisely?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Shameful:



> F-35 ‘ready to go,’ company says as U.S. Air Force prepares to declare stealth fighter combat-ready
> 
> The company behind the F-35 is pushing back against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s assertion the stealth fighter “does not work,” even as the U.S. Air Force says the planes should be ready for war in the fall.
> 
> Retired lieutenant-general Charles Bouchard, chief executive of Lockheed Martin Canada, said it was “disheartening” to hear Trudeau’s comment on Tuesday, in which the prime minister blasted the F-35 as a plane that “does not work and is far from working.”
> 
> Bouchard did not want to respond directly to the prime minister, but told the Citizen in an interview: “This aircraft is ready to go. This aircraft is doing the job today...
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/f-35-ready-to-go-company-says-as-u-s-air-force-prepares-to-declare-stealth-fighter-combat-ready



Reality--needs Block 3F software:



> ...
> [F-35 joint programme director Lt Gen Christopher] Bogdan and [Pentagon acquisition chief Frank] Kendall also admitted that the 23 F-35s required for initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) won’t be ready in time to begin weapons testing in late-2017, as planned.
> 
> Those aircraft must be upgraded to the “full warfighting capability” known as Block 3F – the final software and hardware iteration required at the end of F-35 development.
> 
> Testing had been due to commence by “late summer or early fall of 2017” but that is now looking more likely to start in the “January and February of 2018 timeframe”...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-block-3f-test-schedule-slips-as-lot-9-10-contra-425713/



Sigh.  Any Canadian journos--or politicians--going to notice?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

"Combat-ready" and "full warfighting capability" are 2 completely different things, Mark.

Also, that National Post article had a completely terrible graphic, unit cost for F-35 is $192M? Lot 7 LRIP is $98M plus engine. Even if that engine is $25M, its still only $125M, not $192M (all in USD). Lot 8 LRIP is down to $94M plus engine. Meanwhile, Super Hornet price keeps going up as Boeing tries to add technology to compete with F-35, and keep its Super Hornet line from closing in 2017. Also, F-35 has 11 hardpoints, 4 internal and 7 external, not 6. 

The Journos are watching, and they're pushing the Liberal narrative.


----------



## estoguy

The Journos are watching, and they're pushing the Liberal narrative.
[/quote]

This is absolutely true... it's pretty disgusting how much the media has been kissing up to JT.  They even still kiss up to Wynne as well, and I have no idea why - these two mindless jerks should be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.

So... honestly, what is the smart play here, putting all the political crap aside - should Canada be buying the F-35?  Or something else?

I imagine if we had of looked at replacement sooner, would the SH have been a good choice?  I want to think it would have been, butI'm neither military or a pilot, so I'd love to here a more learned perspective.


----------



## PuckChaser

The Danes took 14 months to run a full competition and make a decision. We could have a contract awarded in less than 2 years, an open competition and fighters starting delivery in 2019/2020, even if they're F35s.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

estoguy said:
			
		

> The Journos are watching, and they're pushing the Liberal narrative.
> 
> 
> This is absolutely true... it's pretty disgusting how much the media has been kissing up to JT.  They even still kiss up to Wynne as well, and I have no idea why - these two mindless jerks should be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.
> 
> So... honestly, what is the smart play here, putting all the political crap aside - should Canada be buying the F-35?  Or something else?
> 
> I imagine if we had of looked at replacement sooner, would the SH have been a good choice?  I want to think it would have been, butI'm neither military or a pilot, so I'd love to here a more learned perspective.



The smart play, in my opinion, would be for the government to make a comprehensive white paper indicating what sorts of capabilities it wants the military to maintain and then buy the systems that meet those capabilities, whether they be fighters, fighter/bombers, GBAD, AH, or whatever. 

Until that happens than it's essentially a  :argument: between people who either like one system better or have interests in one system vice anything substantive.


----------



## estoguy

Bird_Gunner:  Sounds reasonable to me...

So what is with all the hand wringing then?  :facepalm:  Why do our governments feel this need to drag everything out?  Jesus, the current F-18 airframes are pretty much my age...   :


----------



## YZT580

JT does not give a rats ****s about the Canadian voter.  He has one his majority and is in the catbird's seat for the next four years.  He hates anything that Harper did and he especially hates anything that might give the armed forces a leg up.  He is not doing this because it will buy him votes in 4 years.  He is doing this because of whatever it is internally that caused him to speak out against the acquisition in the first place.  And yes Harper screwed up by not placing the order but, even if he had, Trudeau would have found some reason to cancel just like his party did with the helicopters.  Harper was not expecting to lose the election.  I suspect that by now he would have initiated the competition with deliveries to start about 2022: just in time to replace the upgraded CF18's.  But the liberals have been stalling on that one too.  They have yet to initiate the re-build so yes they can honestly say that time is running out on our current hornets.  |I am very disappointed in the MOD.  Given his record from Afghanistan I thought he had a little more integrity.  Sigh


----------



## Altair

YZT580 said:
			
		

> JT does not give a rats ****s about the Canadian voter.  He has one his majority and is in the catbird's seat for the next four years.  He hates anything that Harper did and he especially hates anything that might give the armed forces a leg up.  He is not doing this because it will buy him votes in 4 years.  He is doing this because of whatever it is internally that caused him to speak out against the acquisition in the first place.  And yes Harper screwed up by not placing the order but, even if he had, Trudeau would have found some reason to cancel just like his party did with the helicopters.  Harper was not expecting to lose the election.  I suspect that by now he would have initiated the competition with deliveries to start about 2022: just in time to replace the upgraded CF18's.  But the liberals have been stalling on that one too.  They have yet to initiate the re-build so yes they can honestly say that time is running out on our current hornets.  |I am very disappointed in the MOD.  Given his record from Afghanistan I thought he had a little more integrity.  Sigh


I doubt the prime minister cancels the order of F35s and needs to pay billions in cancelation fees.

That said, the liberals flat out promised during the campaign to not buy the F 35, if you expected the mod to go against an election promise you are naive at best.

I'm not disappointed that the liberals aren't buying the f35. They promised that. I'm disappointed that they are buying the SH especially without a open competition between the 3 other fighters, excluding the f35.


----------



## ringo

I see no harm at all in a split fleet, would far rather see Canada purchase 2 squadrons of fighters know followed my 2 squadrons of a different type 15 years down the road and avoid the block obsolescence the fleet currently faces.
Remember when CF-18 tasking was increased due USAF problems with F-15 and F-16 engines, a case of over standardization.  
Does the RCAF have any interest in Meteor air to air missile?
Hopefully they buy at least 36 a/c with ASEA radar and conformal fuel tanks.
Maybe current CF-18's can cascade to the Snowbirds if enough SH's are ordered, and SH's can go to Snowbirds when SH replacement is delivered.  
With this government CAF should take whatever they can get as fast as they can get it.
2% GDP DND budget is the real issue, with that kind of budget the CAF troubles would be over.


----------



## PuckChaser

Either one of your scenarios gets the government sued for billions. Look at Oshkosh. Where do those billions come from? Out of the total number of planes we can buy. Excluding the F35 from the get-go is stupid, and smacks of the fear that it would actual win, even if you removed the mandatory requirement for a Gen 5 aircraft. Altair, you may be happy with dooming the RCAF to have an inferior aircraft 20 years from now, but the rest of us are not. Even Boeing throws 2030 out there as a best before date, we'll be flying whatever we buy well into the 2050s. Maybe they can promise a Mega Advanced Super Hornet upgrade, that just slaps lipstick on a pig by then? Only cost us another couple billion.


----------



## MilEME09

estoguy said:
			
		

> Bird_Gunner:  Sounds reasonable to me...
> 
> So what is with all the hand wringing then?  :facepalm:  Why do our governments feel this need to drag everything out?  Jesus, the current F-18 airframes are pretty much my age...   :



Because Politics has no longer been about serving the people for a long time, it's about creating your political legacy and keeping your self elected


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Either one of your scenarios gets the government sued for billions. Look at Oshkosh. Where do those billions come from? Out of the total number of planes we can buy. Excluding the F35 from the get-go is stupid, and smacks of the fear that it would actual win, even if you removed the mandatory requirement for a Gen 5 aircraft. Altair, you may be happy with dooming the RCAF to have an inferior aircraft 20 years from now, but the rest of us are not. Even Boeing throws 2030 out there as a best before date, we'll be flying whatever we buy well into the 2050s. Maybe they can promise a Mega Advanced Super Hornet upgrade, that just slaps lipstick on a pig by then? Only cost us another couple billion.


Why do I get the impression to you don't understand that I DO NOT WANT CANADA TO BUY THE STUPID SUPER HORNET. I don't know how else to make that clear. I do not want the liberals to buy the sucky stupid super  hornet.


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> Why do I get the impression to you don't understand that I DO NOT WANT CANADA TO BUY THE STUPID SUPER HORNET. I don't know how else to make that clear. I do not want the liberals to buy the sucky stupid super  hornet.



Oh c'mon Altair!  You know you wanna!    [


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oh c'mon Altair!  You know you wanna!    [


No. In order of planes I want it would go Jas Gripen,  eurofighter, F35, rafale, then the stupid hornet.

I cannot stress it enough, I do not like the SH


----------



## Kirkhill

A little more effort Altair and you will find yourself taking out a CPC membership.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> A little more effort Altair and you will find yourself taking out a CPC membership.


liberal one is cheaper. 

That said, this is a thread about aircraft.

The actual thread for that sort of stuff is on lockdown.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Altair said:
			
		

> No. In order of planes I want it would go Jas Gripen,  eurofighter, F35, rafale, then the stupid hornet.
> 
> I cannot stress it enough, I do not like the SH



Sam-I-am?

To quote the great philosopher, Dr. Seuss...  ;D


----------



## childs56

I am not sure what the problem is about. The Government did a bid a few years ago, (Liberals) they choose the F35 as the best next generation fighter for Canada. Then the next government (Conservatives) agreed until the reality that the F35 would not be ready for operation as promised, performance and ability was different from original specs. Conservative party had to reevaluate the reality of buying the F35 as it is not  operational on a scale or quality that would be effective as our front line air weapons platform. It will be many years past promise for it to be fully operational. 
Conservatives scramble to figure out a new Platform. election time let the Liberals deal with it. Liberals realize we need a new Weapons platform as fast as possible for future planned missions supporting UN and NATO missions. The best quickest and most viable choice is the Super Hornet. 
We already have Boeing Canada heavily entwined with our Force, the supply net work is already set up and the procedures already in place Plus the commonality with training and learning curve will be quicker and easier to attain with our partner south of the border. 

The reality of buying a fighter from over seas although sees like a excellent idea on paper, in reality it has to many infrastructure, logistics and training issues that would make it cost, training and operational restrictive. When those operating the Eurofiighter, Jas Gripen, Rafale are having logistic issues with parts for their own platforms. Not to mention the actual flight serviceability  issues they are having with maintaining those aircraft.  Those issues multiply when you factor in the cost to build out logistics, support and training required, not only for the Pilots them selves but also the ground crews, supply and civilian 3rd plus line support Then add a ocean between and being at the bottom of the list for parts and support. 
Its not as easy as one two three taa da we have a new fighter. The cost of infrastructure and support is enormous and has to be factored into any long term fighter system we plan on buying as a interm  means until the F35 or next Gen fighter is ready to go.


----------



## Altair

CTD said:
			
		

> I am not sure what the problem is about. The Government did a bid a few years ago, (Liberals) they choose the F35 as the best next generation fighter for Canada. Then the next government (Conservatives) agreed until the reality that the F35 would not be ready for operation as promised, performance and ability was different from original specs. Conservative party had to reevaluate the reality of buying the F35 as it is not  operational on a scale or quality that would be effective as our front line air weapons platform. It will be many years past promise for it to be fully operational.
> Conservatives scramble to figure out a new Platform. election time let the Liberals deal with it. Liberals realize we need a new Weapons platform as fast as possible for future planned missions supporting UN and NATO missions. The best quickest and most viable choice is the Super Hornet.
> We already have Boeing Canada heavily entwined with our Force, the supply net work is already set up and the procedures already in place Plus the commonality with training and learning curve will be quicker and easier to attain with our partner south of the border.
> 
> The reality of buying a fighter from over seas although sees like a excellent idea on paper, in reality it has to many infrastructure, logistics and training issues that would make it cost, training and operational restrictive. When those operating the Eurofiighter, Jas Gripen, Rafale are having logistic issues with parts for their own platforms. Not to mention the actual flight serviceability  issues they are having with maintaining those aircraft.  Those issues multiply when you factor in the cost to build out logistics, support and training required, not only for the Pilots them selves but also the ground crews, supply and civilian 3rd plus line support Then add a ocean between and being at the bottom of the list for parts and support.
> Its not as easy as one two three taa da we have a new fighter. The cost of infrastructure and support is enormous and has to be factored into any long term fighter system we plan on buying as a interm  means until the F35 or next Gen fighter is ready to go.


If the Brazilians can somehow manage it being even further from Northern Europe than we are, I cannot see why this hurdle is insurmountable. There would be an added cost, that's for sure, to get all of the aforementioned infrastructure built up, but looking at a jas Gripen for example, there are many factors that offset that.

Lower cost per unit, lower maintenance over the lifetime.

Saab has already said they would allow the fighters to be built in Canada, almost certainly to be built by bombardier, we can slap a big ole maple leaf on the side of the plane and we would be in control of our own supply chain. As far as I can tell, the Gripen uses a lot of the same armament that we have now.

Would there be some issues to contend with? Probably. But I see a heck of a lot more benifits.


----------



## PuckChaser

Setting aside industrial regional benefits, aka porkbarreling, what makes the Gripen operationally better than American aircraft?


----------



## Loachman

Ask all of the many countries that are buying it.


----------



## tomahawk6

The countries that buy Grippen dont have the operational requirements the US has.Back to the F35,Lockheed is expanding its production line to build 200 ac a year by 2019,just in time for Canada's order to be filled.


----------



## PuckChaser

Thailand, South Africa and Brazil are how we should model our NATO air force, clearly.

Also, 72 Gripen NG cost about $12.4B CAD for development and production, and before Bombardier charges us another couple billion to set up a one-off production line for them. Thats not including the crazy life cycle costs they tried to apply to F35 (haven't seen someone try it with SH yet).

For the math inclined, $172.2M CAD per Gripen NG based on Brazil's recent contact.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Loachman said:
			
		

> Ask all of the many countries that are buying it.



Thailand
Hungary
Czech Republic
South Africa
Brazil

Big military super powers  ;D

Well Brazil is on their way to becoming a bigger military player but it will be a while yet.  Gripen exports are primarily targeted towards countries that can't otherwise afford world class military technology.  

One thing about the Swedes is they do tend to produce pretty good military kit so maybe we are underrating them a bit.  CV90 is an excellent IFV, Bofors, BvS10, Bv206, Excalibur Artillery Ammunition, RBS series of missiles, numerous Anti-tank weapons systems.  Sweden has a long list of combat equipment that's been exported with considerable succcess.

EDIT:  Not only has the gear been exported with success, it's also been proven to be very capable in combat.

The real risk of buying a plane like the Gripen is not being able to sustain it properly.  Lets face it, the Air Forces listed above hardly have the sort of commitments we have in Canada.  Would we be able to maintain the Gripens at a sufficient readiness state in terms of parts, maintenance, etc that we can actually use them when necessary or will they just end up being a bunch of really pretty hangar queens?


----------



## George Wallace

Returning to answer this:



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Link?



The person who posted the original comments on their FB page has had their comments picked up by Matthew Fisher for his commentary:


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Matthew Fisher: Buying Super Hornets, not F-35s, will saddle air force with ‘the wrong aircraft forever'
> National Post
> Matthew Fisher
> Tuesday, Jun. 7, 2016
> 
> A recently retired senior air force officer says he knows of no emergency that would require Ottawa to buy Super Hornets as a stopgap.
> 
> 
> “This gives Canada the wrong aircraft forever, or certainly for the next generation,” says the veteran who spent decades flying fighter jets.
> 
> “The fact is that there is no urgent need to bolster the fighter force right now.”
> 
> By deciding to buy the Super Hornets without a competition, Ottawa is not waiting for the findings of a defence policy review that was supposed to seek input from Canadians about the country’s strategic needs and procurement priorities.
> 
> Even if new fighter jets were urgently needed, there is still time to hold an open and fair competition, says the former officer, who flew CF-18s and CF-104 Starfighters in the High Arctic and Europe before holding key staff positions.
> 
> If the F-35 won such a competition — and it has won every competition where other air forces have pitted it against the Super Hornet and older European fighters — the U.S. Air Force would be willing to slow its acquisition of F-35s to enable the Royal Canadian Air Force to jump the queue and get enough of them within three years to fill any alleged gap in Canada’s ability to defend the Arctic and assist NATO in a time of war.
> 
> The RCAF had told the government and a parliamentary committee  it could safely operate the current CF-18s until 2025 and meet all Canada’s obligations to NORAD and NATO with a $400-million life extension program the Conservative government approved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I assess the situation as entirely political,” the retired officer said. “Nobody will even have this discussion a year from now.”
> 
> This is because with nearly 200 F-35s already flying and solutions being found for initial technical problems with the software and high-tech pilot’s helmet, “it is becoming more and more obvious every day that it is the best aircraft.”
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan suggested several months ago there would be an open competition to choose the next fighter. A few weeks ago, he indicated another shift in policy: the government would  fill “a capability gap” by seeking an interim solution and would make a final choice later on.
> 
> But the retired pilot said it was “disingenuous” of the government to hint that after buying Super Hornets it would buy another type of fighter jet at some point.
> 
> One of the reasons long cited by the Liberals for excluding the F-35 — also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) — was that it cost a lot more than the Super Hornet. That is no longer true because the JSF has dropped dramatically in price. Finland recently costed the Super Hornet at about $92 million each, compared to $85 million for the JSF, he said.
> 
> Repugnant, deceitful and dishonest are some of the milder words used by others in the defence community when asked to describe how the Liberals have handled the fighter jet file.
> 
> While much more polite, the former fighter pilot was highly critical of the government for leaving the defence of Canada for the next 40 years to an aircraft developed more than 40 years ago and rebuilt 20 years ago, instead of acquiring the cutting edge F-35, which has been designed to be invisible to enemy radar. That, he said, was a critical issue in the Far North, where other air forces, including Russia, will soon be flying only stealthy aircraft.
> 
> Debunking the myth that the twin-engine Super Hornet was a wiser choice for Canada’s vast north than the single-engine F-35, he noted engine technologies had greatly improved since Canada bought its CF-18s in the 1980s and jets seldom fly at low altitude any more, rendering them less vulnerable to bird strikes.
> 
> The U.S. has such confidence in the F-35s, they were the only jets being based in northern Alaska.
> 
> Ottawa has argued that by buying Super Hornets as a stopgap measure it would only be following Australia lead, but the retired pilot said, “there is no comparison to be made. That was a very different situation.”
> 
> Australia bought Super Hornets to fill a gap created by the retirement of its F-111 jets. But it had already decided to buy F-35s as its front-line fighter and had remained committed to that purchase.
> 
> “If you do get the Super Hornet in 2016 that would be an upgrade on our CF-18s. Nobody would argue with that,” the officer said. “But it is not going to be updated. The manufacturing process is shutting down and pretty soon the Super Hornet will be frozen in time.
> 
> “The F-35s will have parts and be maintained for five decades. The beauty of the F-35 is that 15 to 20 countries are getting it. Many of them will be working on better radars and more stealth.”



More on LINK.


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Big military super powers  ;D


Maybe.....just maybe.....we should accept that we're _not_  a super power; the civilian population doesn't care, and the governments (of all parties) don't really like it (ok, for bragging rights and photo ops, yes... but not for actual commitments).

We have a lot of real estate to patrol, but so does Brazil and South Africa.  The _major_  risk I currently see is being perceived by the US (our security umbrella) as being ineffective at North American defence.  

Of course, beyond that, any informed decision would require an actual Security, Defence, Foreign Policy review to set the stage.  Mind you, beyond the current estimate-situating, public consultation "Defence Policy Review," such a White Paper may provide the government with uncomfortable facts -- like maybe even the F35 being the best option for our needs.  

We may never know.  :dunno:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe.....just maybe.....we should accept that we're _not_  a super power; the civilian population doesn't care, and the governments (of all parties) don't really like it (ok, for bragging rights and photo ops, yes... but not for actual commitments).
> 
> We have a lot of real estate to patrol, but so does Brazil and South Africa.  The _major_  risk I currently see is being perceived by the US (our security umbrella) as being ineffective at North American defence.
> 
> Of course, beyond that, any informed decision would require an actual Security, Defence, Foreign Policy review to set the stage.  Mind you, beyond the current estimate-situating, public consultation "Defence Policy Review," such a White Paper may provide the government with uncomfortable facts -- like maybe even the F35 being the best option for our needs.
> 
> We may never know.  :dunno:



We are definitely not a superpower, the big difference between us and the Brazilians though is that we project our military power from time to time on a global scale.  None of those countries I listed above have participated in any sort of coalition of the willing halfway across the world.  South Africa is probably the closest with their participation in numerous African peacekeeping/peace enforcement missions.  They had four Gripens on standby at one point ready to support South African Paras in CAR who were under heavy attack from Anti-Seleka rebels back in 2013.

I agree with your assessment that the biggest strategic risk to us is the US perceiving us as weak.  I'm also worried that we will be caught with our pants down like we were in '06 when we sent a Battlegroup in to Southern Afghanistan that was ill-equipped to carry out its mandate.


----------



## Altair

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We are definitely not a superpower, the big difference between us and the Brazilians though is that we project our military power from time to time on a global scale.  None of those countries I listed above have participated in any sort of coalition of the willing halfway across the world.  South Africa is probably the closest with their participation in numerous African peacekeeping/peace enforcement missions.  They had four Gripens on standby at one point ready to support South African Paras in CAR who were under heavy attack from Anti-Seleka rebels back in 2013.
> 
> I agree with your assessment that the biggest strategic risk to us is the US perceiving us as weak.  I'm also worried that we will be caught with our pants down like we were in '06 when we sent a Battlegroup in to Southern Afghanistan that was ill-equipped to carry out its mandate.


Are you just ignoring Sweden? 

They participated in libya and actually sent more aircraft there than Canada did.


----------



## estoguy

I do agree that a big concern will be what the Americans think of us.  If they perceive us as being weaker or lacking capability, they may dictate more of what is done with North American air defence, and leave us out of the equation. If we really want to be a sovereign nation, we need to have the capability to be one.

If they are going to put this to real competition, they need to talk to Denmark about how they did theirs, as another poster in this forum suggested.

And this is a total aside... but an F-18 just flew over the south end of Barrie right over the school I'm supply teaching at. Not sure of exact altitude, but definitely under 10,000 feet. The tailfin I could see looked different from the usual Canadian grey ones I've seen.  It was black with a yellow strip along the top. Where would one like that herald from?  

It was flying north east.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Altair said:
			
		

> Are you just ignoring Sweden?
> 
> They participated in libya and actually sent more aircraft there than Canada did.



They conducted no combat operations and were limited to enforcing a no fly zone and conducting some reconaissance flights.  

It's too bad, could have been a good opportunity to demonstrate the Gripen.


----------



## dimsum

estoguy said:
			
		

> And this is a total aside... but an F-18 just flew over the south end of Barrie right over the school I'm supply teaching at. Not sure of exact altitude, but definitely under 10,000 feet. The tailfin I could see looked different from the usual Canadian grey ones I've seen.  It was black with a yellow strip along the top. Where would one like that herald from?



Did it look like this?  If so, it's this year's Demo Hornet.


----------



## Altair

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe.....just maybe.....we should accept that we're _not_  a super power; the civilian population doesn't care, and the governments (of all parties) don't really like it (ok, for bragging rights and photo ops, yes... but not for actual commitments).
> 
> We have a lot of real estate to patrol, but so does Brazil and South Africa.  The _major_  risk I currently see is being perceived by the US (our security umbrella) as being ineffective at North American defence.
> 
> Of course, beyond that, any informed decision would require an actual Security, Defence, Foreign Policy review to set the stage.  Mind you, beyond the current estimate-situating, public consultation "Defence Policy Review," such a White Paper may provide the government with uncomfortable facts -- like maybe even the F35 being the best option for our needs.
> 
> We may never know.  :dunno:


This part gets to me. 

Because it shows how much of a racket the Americans are running.

The Americans can run joint operations all across the globe with multiple different nations, aircraft, armies and navies,  yet they have made us believe that as long as we here in Canada buy their aircraft all is well.

How much of that is true and how much is that being the Americans making sure Boeing and Lockheed Martin always have Canada locked in as a export market. 

I will be interested to see how much of a fuss they throw if canada decides on the SH (gag) over the F35. I doubt it will be a big one. Even though the SH isn't as good as the F35 they won't care as long as American jobs are there. Second we buy European, the eurofighter for example which is just as good, in my opinion much better, than the super hornet there is going to be talk of how canada doesn't take its security seriously or how it doesn't work within NORAD.

I'm just amazed we were allowed to by German armor and Swedish anti tank weapons. Because when it comes to aircraft it seems like an american rep has to be there to rubber stamp it.


----------



## estoguy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Did it look like this?  If so, it's this year's Demo Hornet.



I don't think so... the yellow was a narrow strip across the top of the tailfin.  I could see some of the side of the plane and didn't see any colour. 

I see the yellow on the wings and horizontal stabilizers... are they also yellow on the underside?  If so, they were not yellow.

Just dawned on me that it's probably here for the Base Borden Airshow this weekend.  Unfortunately, I'll miss it.


----------



## childs56

Canada runs a program called the NATO Air Training Program. Reasons for a twin seat fighter for training. 
We also provide a multipurpose fighter attack fighter bomber. Reason for a proven and reliable platform. 

I know people have a hate on for the Super Hornet, good for you, your entitled to your opinion, just because you speak loud does not make your opinion more correct nor others more correct. Comparing the Hornet to the Gripen is like comparing a 1/2 ton truck to a 1 ton dually. They will both pull 20,000lbs but which one is better suited?

Assembling and manufacturing are two different aspects of the overall process. It would also be a parts supply issue, there is a big ocean and lots of space to reliably get parts.Look at any other airframe we or the US has bought from over seas for the past 30 years.


----------



## dimsum

CTD said:
			
		

> Canada runs a program called the NATO Air Training Program. Reasons for a twin seat fighter for training.



If you're referring to the F/A-18F, the back seat is for the Weapons Systems Officer (WSO), which is an Navigator in most air forces.  I'm not sure what the Supers use for training - I'd assume that there are training variants of the E/F.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thailand, South Africa and Brazil are how we should model our NATO air force, clearly.
> 
> Also, 72 Gripen NG cost about $12.4B CAD for development and production, and before Bombardier charges us another couple billion to set up a one-off production line for them. Thats not including the crazy life cycle costs they tried to apply to F35 (haven't seen someone try it with SH yet).
> 
> For the math inclined, $172.2M CAD per Gripen NG based on Brazil's recent contact.


That runs counter to the official SAAB offer of 65 Gripen NGs with 40 years of maintenance for under 6 billion.


----------



## suffolkowner

I don't see what the Liberals play is here. Being so close to an F-35 IOC/FOC it doesn't seem to make sense to purchase the Super Hornet now maybe 10 years ago it would have but I think our upgrades have been considerably cheaper than Australia's Super Hornet buy. Presumably the Liberals have access to the exact same info as the Conservatives had but are coming to an opposite conclusion on the CF-18 fleet and the comfort level with the F-35. The politics I have a hard time buying as people just don't know or care enough especially once an election is over. Maybe Lockheed-Martin should have spent more time courting the Liberals like maybe Boeing did?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> That runs counter to the official SAAB offer of 65 Gripen NGs with 40 years of maintenance for under 6 billion.


36 aircraft, $6B CAD.

http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/newsandpress/gripen-updates/gripen-news-feed/gripen-ng-contract-with-brazil-becomes-effective/


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 36 aircraft, $6B CAD.
> 
> http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/newsandpress/gripen-updates/gripen-news-feed/gripen-ng-contract-with-brazil-becomes-effective/


I'm assuming that offer comes with lifetime maintenance. I saw the part about technology transfer. So double the offer, 72 aircraft for 12 billion. Still much cheaper than 43 billion for 65 F35s


----------



## PuckChaser

Assumption is the mother of all $&#&ups. The most lucrative part of a fighter is the parts and maint. There's no way in hell that Saab just sold the farm in that respect. Maybe the parts are being built in Brazil, but you can guarantee they have to pay for those parts from the suppliers. Saab isn't covering that bill.

That $43B figure for F35 is BS. Most of that cost is due to pilot training, pay, parts, fuel and maint. You have to pay that regardless of what plane you buy, and whether you get tech transfer or not. You're comparing apples to boulders, and destroying your own argument.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Assumption is the mother of all $&#&ups. The most lucrative part of a fighter is the parts and maint. There's no way in hell that Saab just sold the farm in that respect. Maybe the parts are being built in Brazil, but you can guarantee they have to pay for those parts from the suppliers. Saab isn't covering that bill.
> 
> That $43B figure for F35 is BS. Most of that cost is due to pilot training, pay, parts, fuel and maint. You have to pay that regardless of what plane you buy, and whether you get tech transfer or not. You're comparing apples to boulders, and destroying your own argument.


The maintenance on the Gripen is much much cheaper. That's one of the main selling points. Lower cost per unit and cheaper maintenance. So with all things being equal the Gripen is still a heck of a lot cheaper than the F35 and if the liberals want to route of getting a cheaper plane to pass on some of that savings to other parts of the forces that's the way to go. Not the super hornet.


----------



## PuckChaser

Where's your info to back up that claim?


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where's your info to back up that claim?


http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/

Would you believe it from saab?



> LOW LIFE CYCLE COST
> 
> Gripen has stable, affordable acquisition and low life cycle costs. This gives air forces a reliable basis on which to budget for operations and fleet sustainment over the long term. Gripen’s inherent reliability and low maintenance footprint boosts force levels and operational effectiveness.


or 

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes



> The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.
> 
> The paper says that in terms of ‘fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs’, “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”
> 
> The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.
> 
> “At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”


----------



## dimsum

Altair said:
			
		

> http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/
> 
> Would you believe it from saab?



Of course SAAB (or LockMart, or Boeing, or whatever) would put the best spin on their advertising website.  Definitely not biased...


----------



## Altair

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Of course SAAB (or LockMart, or Boeing, or whatever) would put the best spin on their advertising website.  Definitely not biased...


http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes



> The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.
> 
> The paper says that in terms of ‘fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs’, “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”
> 
> The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.
> 
> “At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”


----------



## PuckChaser

That cost per flight hour looks nice, until you realize you have to run multiple aircraft to approach both the combat radius and payload of a F35 or other aircraft. 432nm radius with max payload of 11,000lbs compared to ~700nm and 18,000lbs. You'd be dropping missiles for drop tanks, reducing payload even more. Last time I checked, our airspace is pretty big, and only has 2 bases covering all of it.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That cost per flight hour looks nice, until you realize you have to run multiple aircraft to approach both the combat radius and payload of a F35 or other aircraft.



And, that's assuming all planes are serviceable.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That cost per flight hour looks nice, until you realize you have to run multiple aircraft to approach both the combat radius and payload of a F35 or other aircraft. 432nm radius with max payload of 11,000lbs compared to ~700nm and 18,000lbs. You'd be dropping missiles for drop tanks, reducing payload even more. Last time I checked, our airspace is pretty big, and only has 2 bases covering all of it.


you seem to be wanting to compare the Gripen to the f35. With the liberals making clear that the F35 isn't going to be Canada's fighter, the Gripen should be in competition should be the other 3. It won't be unfortunately. Liberals seem dead set on the Super hornet instead of a competition between the super hornet eurofighter rafale and Gripen. The f35 would be in it too, only to avoid being sued, but with conditions that would make it impossible to win.


----------



## PuckChaser

Super Hornet has similar specs to F35 in this aspect. Gripen is a lightweight compared to other fighters. It was designed for Sweden's small airspace, not vast expanse of Canada.

Silly me though, I thought we were trying to pick a replacement for the Hornet, not tow the Liberal party line. The only reason to exclude F35 is the fear that all the comments made against it will be proven wrong, if/when it wins. I say when, because it's won every non-partisan competition that's been held, beating Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen in countries that are as close to those production lines as we are to American ones.


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that offer comes with lifetime maintenance. I saw the part about technology transfer. So double the offer, 72 aircraft for 12 billion. Still much cheaper than 43 billion for 65 F35s


Seigneur Altair - garde 43 BCAD

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page



> Table 2:  2014 Full Program Life-Cycle Cost Estimate
> 
> Cost Elements	Estimate
> Million CAD (BY)
> ($)
> *Development*
> 
> Production, Sustainment, Follow-on Development MOU	514
> Project Management Office	36
> Contingency	83
> 
> *Development Total	633*
> 
> 
> *Acquisition*
> 
> Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost
> F-35A Airframe	3,328
> Vehicle Systems	762
> Mission Systems	1,171
> Propulsion System	927
> Engineering Change Orders	124
> URF Sub Total	6,312
> 
> Concurrency Modifications	0
> Country Unique Modifications	15
> Diminishing Manufacturing Sources	56
> Ancillary Equipment	263
> Sustainment Set-Up
> Training Devices	395
> Support Equipment	507
> Autonomic Logistics	83
> Labour	110
> Depot Stand-Up	0
> Sustainment Set-Up Sub Total	1,095
> 
> Initial Spares	331
> Reprogramming Lab	221
> Infrastructure	254
> Ammunition	64
> Initial Training	83
> Project Management Office	178
> Other	42
> Contingency (Note 1)	76
> 
> *Acquisition Total 	8,990*
> 
> 
> Sustainment
> 
> Maintenance	6,147
> Sustaining Support	3,634
> Continuing System Improvements	2,134
> Other	423
> Contingency	1,920
> 
> *Sustainment Total	14,258*
> 
> 
> *Operating*
> 
> Personnel
> Direct Personnel	6,342
> Support Personnel	5,137
> Sub Total Personnel	11,479
> 
> Operating
> Aviation Fuel	3,900
> Unit Level Consumption	1,845
> Base Support Cost	3,512
> Sub Total Operating	9,257
> 
> *Total Operating	20,736*
> 
> *Disposal*
> 
> Disposal	137
> Contingency	42
> 
> *Disposal Total	179*
> 
> *
> Full Program Life-Cycle Cost Estimate	44,796*
> 
> Attrition Replacement (Note 2)	1,036
> 45,832




Let's start from the bottom and work up.

Disposal Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft   179 MCAD +/- 10%
Operating Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 20,739 MCAD +/- 10%  (personnel, fuel and air bases)
Sustainment Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 14,250 MCAD (note that that includes 2 BCAD in upgrades and 2 BCAD in contingency planning and only 3.6 BCAD in ISS.

So far we are up to 35 BCAD of your 43 BCAD and those numbers are not going to vary appreciably regardless of which aircraft is bought.   On the other hand they will vary massively over time depending on the price of fuel, the value of the Canadian dollar and decisions by foreign governments on whether or not to continue supporting the vendors.

Development costs are a mug's game but essentially more aircraft built equals lower development costs per unit.  

And then to Acquisition = Aircraft and Ancillaries for a total of 8,990 MCAD or 8.99 BCAD.

Of that the actual cost apportioned to buying the aircraft was 6,312 MCAD or 6.312 BCAD.  Ancillaries accounted for 2.6 BCAD.

And my expectation is that ancillary costs would be greater in a small, national, orphan fleet than in a fleet where there are a multitude of partners all chasing the same goals and sharing expertise and technologies.

Take the 43 BCAD number and put it anywhere the sun don't shine.  It is a useless metric for comparing aircraft.  It has value in estimating  the cost of providing the service on the day that it is calculated and on that day only because the day after every assumption made will have been invalidated by events.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Super Hornet has similar specs to F35 in this aspect. Gripen is a lightweight compared to other fighters. It was designed for Sweden's small airspace, not vast expanse of Canada.
> 
> Silly me though, I thought we were trying to pick a replacement for the Hornet, not tow the Liberal party line. The only reason to exclude F35 is the fear that all the comments made against it will be proven wrong, if/when it wins. I say when, because it's won every non-partisan competition that's been held, beating Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen in countries that are as close to those production lines as we are to American ones.


We don't decide anything.

We simply put out our preferences and watch as the goverment of the day does what it wants.

The conservatives did it with the f35 until that file became too hot to handle and figured they would address it after the election, and the liberals are doing it now in favor of the super hornet.


----------



## PuckChaser

The Liberals originally bought into the JSF consortium, or did the spin lines from the last election not cover that for you? They deliberately missed the payment to see if the media would notice, trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.

The Liberals are telling the RCAF what fighter its getting, not based on any actual operational requirements, but to fulfill a bullshit promise to cancel Cadillac Fighters. Politicians define a policy, the military SMEs define what military requirements meet that policy. The honourable minister from Winnipeg South Centre, in all his experience as a musician and CBC reporter, knows $@#!-all about what aircraft best meets the defense policy intent. That's why we have RCAF officers and PSPC staff to define a statement of requirement, conduct a competition, and award a contract, all without political interference.

You didn't like F-35 getting sole-sourced (you're allowed to sole-source when nothing available in the market can match it, kinda like a Gen 5 fighter), but you're happy to handicap the competition so your favourite in the political arena can save face. If we do end up with a Gen 4 fighter, are you going to be defending that decision when pilots start dying because we're using inferior planes 40 years from now (20 years after their best-before date)? Its absolutely insane that anyone can sit here as a member of the CAF, and advocate we get less than top of line equipment (with very similar costs) to serve political will. You're in the wrong profession.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seigneur Altair - garde 43 BCAD
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2014.page
> 
> 
> Let's start from the bottom and work up.
> 
> Disposal Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft   179 MCAD +/- 10%
> Operating Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 20,739 MCAD +/- 10%  (personnel, fuel and air bases)
> Sustainment Costs - are going to be similar regardless of the aircraft 14,250 MCAD (note that that includes 2 BCAD in upgrades and 2 BCAD in contingency planning and only 3.6 BCAD in ISS.
> 
> So far we are up to 35 BCAD of your 43 BCAD and those numbers are not going to vary appreciably regardless of which aircraft is bought.   On the other hand they will vary massively over time depending on the price of fuel, the value of the Canadian dollar and decisions by foreign governments on whether or not to continue supporting the vendors.
> 
> Development costs are a mug's game but essentially more aircraft built equals lower development costs per unit.
> 
> And then to Acquisition = Aircraft and Ancillaries for a total of 8,990 MCAD or 8.99 BCAD.
> 
> Of that the actual cost apportioned to buying the aircraft was 6,312 MCAD or 6.312 BCAD.  Ancillaries accounted for 2.6 BCAD.
> 
> And my expectation is that ancillary costs would be greater in a small, national, orphan fleet than in a fleet where there are a multitude of partners all chasing the same goals and sharing expertise and technologies.
> 
> Take the 43 BCAD number and put it anywhere the sun don't shine.  It is a useless metric for comparing aircraft.  It has value in estimating  the cost of providing the service on the day that it is calculated and on that day only because the day after every assumption made will have been invalidated by events.


ok, let's just ignore that number then. What would we go off instead?


----------



## AlexanderM

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Liberals originally bought into the JSF consortium, or did the spin lines from the last election not cover that for you? They deliberately missed the payment to see if the media would notice, trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.
> 
> The Liberals are telling the RCAF what fighter its getting, not based on any actual operational requirements, but to fulfill a bullshit promise to cancel Cadillac Fighters. Politicians define a policy, the military SMEs define what military requirements meet that policy. The honourable minister from Winnipeg South Centre, in all his experience as a musician and CBC reporter, knows $@#!-all about what aircraft best meets the defense policy intent. That's why we have RCAF officers and PSPC staff to define a statement of requirement, conduct a competition, and award a contract, all without political interference.
> 
> You didn't like F-35 getting sole-sourced (you're allowed to sole-source when nothing available in the market can match it, kinda like a Gen 5 fighter), but you're happy to handicap the competition so your favourite in the political arena can save face. If we do end up with a Gen 4 fighter, are you going to be defending that decision when pilots start dying because we're using inferior planes 40 years from now (20 years after their best-before date)? Its absolutely insane that anyone can sit here as a member of the CAF, and advocate we get less than top of line equipment (with very similar costs) to serve political will. You're in the wrong profession.


JT made a promise to help him win an election and in his mind there is no going back, so here we sit. There is no way to make this stick to him because the majority of Canadians don't support spending money on the military, so it doesn't matter how wrong he is, they think he's right. This is the no win scenario. I knew as soon as he got elected that we were getting SH's, there was no other possible outcome. 

Now, having said that, the only hope is to make it clear that if we walk away from the F35 we may face legal action or a trade board ruling that could cost Canada billions and that would stick to him, so play it for all it's worth. I see no other options.


----------



## SupersonicMax

CTD said:
			
		

> Canada runs a program called the NATO Air Training Program. Reasons for a twin seat fighter for training.
> We also provide a multipurpose fighter attack fighter bomber. Reason for a proven and reliable platform.
> 
> I know people have a hate on for the Super Hornet, good for you, your entitled to your opinion, just because you speak loud does not make your opinion more correct nor others more correct. Comparing the Hornet to the Gripen is like comparing a 1/2 ton truck to a 1 ton dually. They will both pull 20,000lbs but which one is better suited?
> 
> Assembling and manufacturing are two different aspects of the overall process. It would also be a parts supply issue, there is a big ocean and lots of space to reliably get parts.Look at any other airframe we or the US has bought from over seas for the past 30 years.



NFTC (NATO Flying Training Canada) doesn't train on F-18s. It trains students on Harvard II and Hawk on the basic and advanced flight training as well as fighter lead-in training.  Past that (OTU on the Hornet), training is the responsibility of individual countries.  This is not at all an argument to buy F-models.


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> ok, let's just ignore that number then. What would we go off instead?



The simple one - The cost of recapitalizing the fleet - the Flyaway cost of the aircraft.  Everything else becomes greyer as assumptions are declared.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Liberals originally bought into the JSF consortium, or did the spin lines from the last election not cover that for you? They deliberately missed the payment to see if the media would notice, trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.
> 
> The Liberals are telling the RCAF what fighter its getting, not based on any actual operational requirements, but to fulfill a bullshit promise to cancel Cadillac Fighters. Politicians define a policy, the military SMEs define what military requirements meet that policy. The honourable minister from Winnipeg South Centre, in all his experience as a musician and CBC reporter, knows $@#!-all about what aircraft best meets the defense policy intent. That's why we have RCAF officers and PSPC staff to define a statement of requirement, conduct a competition, and award a contract, all without political interference.
> 
> You didn't like F-35 getting sole-sourced (you're allowed to sole-source when nothing available in the market can match it, kinda like a Gen 5 fighter), but you're happy to handicap the competition so your favourite in the political arena can save face. If we do end up with a Gen 4 fighter, are you going to be defending that decision when pilots start dying because we're using inferior planes 40 years from now (20 years after their best-before date)? Its absolutely insane that anyone can sit here as a member of the CAF, and advocate we get less than top of line equipment (with very similar costs) to serve political will. You're in the wrong profession.


of course. This is selling point for the sellers of the Gripen super hornet rafale and eurofighter.

Buy our jets, kill your pilots. For every 5 fighters you buy we cover the death benifits of 1 pilot. Our offers cannot be beat!

Man, I drive an lsvw, don't talk to me about inferior vehicles. The Saab Gripen ng is a lot nicer than a lsvw ever was.

The Americans, the , the Aussies, French,  the German,  the British,  the Italians the Spanish the Swedish,  are not exactly nations you think of when you associate inferior machines. They are NATO partners (Minus the swedes and aussies) many of whom take their defense far more seriously than Canada every would.     

So I'm very sorry if I don't take you seriously when you make it sound like these 4.5 Gen aircraft are pieces of junk. Is the f35 a good aircraft ? I'm sure it will be. I don't think it's worth the damn price. Our forces run on less than 1 percent of the gdp, I'd I can find savings anywhere to help preserve capabilities elsewhere I sure as hell use it. So screw off with I'm in the wrong profession. Go pound sand.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The simple one - The cost of recapitalizing the fleet - the Flyaway cost of the aircraft.  Everything else becomes greyer as assumptions are declared.


So you won't compare the maintenance costs of each aircraft?


----------



## PuckChaser

LSVW was a foreign design sold to a Canadian company to prop it up for regional benefits. See the parallels?


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> LSVW was a foreign design sold to a Canadian company to prop it up for regional benefits. See the parallels?


sure do. Apple over there, orange over there.


----------



## PuckChaser

Almost like comparing a full life cycle cost to a purchase only price right?


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Almost like comparing a full life cycle cost to a purchase only price right?


I cannot tell from the link you provided if the full life cycle cost was included in the Brazilian purchase. I use the facts I have available.


----------



## PuckChaser

There is no possible way $6B Canadian is the full life cycle cost of a jet fighter, regardless of how cheap it is per hour. You've already had the Secretariat report broken down for you, with all the numbers that fit for any aircraft, and it was into the $30B range. The real world doesn't do contracting with full life cycle costs, Brazil is not paying Saab to pay it's pilots, fuel it's planes or maintain hangers for them.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There is no possible way $6B Canadian is the full life cycle cost of a jet fighter, regardless of how cheap it is per hour. You've already had the Secretariat report broken down for you, with all the numbers that fit for any aircraft, and it was into the $30B range. The real world doesn't do contracting with full life cycle costs, Brazil is not paying Saab to pay it's pilots, fuel it's planes or maintain hangers for them.


I'm aware.

But some aircraft have inherently lower cost to run than others.

Again, saving money on a more than serviceable aircraft. Money than can be used elsewhere when on considers canada runs it's military on a shoestring budget. If canada spent the 2 percent it's suppose to on the forces, sure, buy the Ferrari of fighter jets. It doesn't. Buy the ford.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm aware.
> 
> But some aircraft have inherently lower cost to run than others.
> 
> Again, saving money on a more than serviceable aircraft. Money than can be used elsewhere when on considers canada runs it's military on a shoestring budget. If canada spent the 2 percent it's suppose to on the forces, sure, buy the Ferrari of fighter jets. It doesn't. Buy the ford.



Altair,

How will the Grippen be relevant in 40 to 50 years when compared to the missions we will be doing against the threat we will be facing?  Yes, the Grippen MAY be suitable now.  It will reach its relevance in the modern battlespace much before we will need to retire it.


----------



## Altair

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Altair,
> 
> How will the Grippen be relevant in 40 to 50 years when compared to the missions we will be doing against the threat we will be facing?  Yes, the Grippen MAY be suitable now.  It will reach its relevance in the modern battlespace much before we will need to retire it.


you can say that about any of the 4 jets that are not the f35. 

The liberals won't be buying the f35. So this is again, the Gripen vs the rafale vs the eurofighter vs the super hornet.

Out of the 4 I like the gripen the best.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Altair said:
			
		

> you can say that about any of the 4 jets that are not the f35.
> 
> The liberals won't be buying the f35. So this is again, the Gripen vs the rafale vs the eurofighter vs the super hornet.
> 
> Out of the 4 I *like *the gripen the best.



Key word: you like.  You have no real substantiation other than glossy brochure from the manufacturer.  The SH, while I am not a fan of the aircraft as a replacement for our fleet, has the most potential in terms of upgradability and would be my pick (between the 3 options) IF we absolutely exclude the JSF.  

If we could open up the competition, I'd go with some F-15E variants (not the Silent Eagle, but the F-15E airframe with custom, but US made, sensors).


----------



## PuckChaser

Problem with SH, is we're on our own for any upgrades post-2030. Everyone else with major fleets will have started retiring them for F-35 or whatever is next. Boeing wants the last little bit of blood out of the stone by flogging ASH, but they'll be focused elsewhere and we'll be left holding the bag.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Problem with SH, is we're on our own for any upgrades post-2030. Everyone else with major fleets will have started retiring them for F-35 or whatever is next. Boeing wants the last little bit of blood out of the stone by flogging ASH, but they'll be focused elsewhere and we'll be left holding the bag.



Th USN has said that the SH will be the bulk of their fleet until 2035, and will be flying until at least 2040 - probably longer.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Th USN has said that the SH will be the bulk of their fleet until 2035, and will be flying until at least 2040 - probably longer.



Navytimes article, 2035 retirement date, mostly due to reluctance to buy stealth as an operational feature, and to replace their legacy hornets prior to 2022. That means if we buy them, we'll get about 12 years out of them before one of the bigger customers is done flying them, and the production line is closed prior to 2020.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/03/07/fa-18-service-life-extension-strike-fighter-f-35/24381745/


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Key word: you like.  You have no real substantiation other than glossy brochure from the manufacturer.  The SH, while I am not a fan of the aircraft as a replacement for our fleet, has the most potential in terms of upgradability and would be my pick (between the 3 options) IF we absolutely exclude the JSF.
> 
> If we could open up the competition, I'd go with some F-15E variants (not the Silent Eagle, but the F-15E airframe with custom, but US made, sensors).



 :nod:

- F-35
- F/A-18E
- Typhoon (RAF variant - 5-eyes compliant, at greater cost than Euro-pur Typhies)
- Rafale
- F-5...oops, er, Gripen.

:2c:


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> - F-35
> - F/A-18E
> - Typhoon (RAF variant - 5-eyes compliant, at greater cost than Euro-pur Typhies)
> - Rafale
> - F-5...oops, er, Gripen.
> 
> :2c:


The same rafale that has not found a single export market to date? 

That plane, while nice, is expensive as hell and doesn't offer much more, if anything, than a gripen.

Gripen

Eurofighter

F35

Rafale

Stupid hornet.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Altair said:
			
		

> The same rafale that has not found a single export market to date?
> 
> That plane, while nice, is expensive as hell and doesn't offer much more, if anything, than a gripen.
> 
> Gripen
> 
> Eurofighter
> 
> F35
> 
> Rafale
> 
> Stupid hornet.





> Egypt receives 3 more Rafale fighter jets from France
> Ahram Online, , Friday 29 Jan 2016
> 
> 
> Egypt received three Dassault Aviation-built Rafale fighter jets from France on Thursday, the second batch of the jets to be dispatched as part of a deal signed last year.
> 
> The first three jets arrived in Egypt in July 2015 as part of the deal, which consists of 24 Rafale jets and a FREMM (Frégate Européenne Multi-Missions) multipurpose frigate. The FREMM frigate, the Tahya Misr, was delivered in June 2015.
> 
> "This deal allows the Egyptian naval and air forces to achieve a special step in its ability to fulfill its missions in supporting efforts to achieve safety and stability in the Middle East," army spokesman Brigadier General Mohamed Samir said in a Thursday statement.
> 
> A ceremony took place, attended by Egyptian and French delegations, to formally receive the jets.
> 
> The jets then performed an air display over Greater Cairo.
> 
> Samir said the six Rafale fighter jets that Egypt now owns "represent a huge addition to the air forces' fleet and are considered a new addition to the armement system and combat readiness, and enhances the combat capabilities of, the armed forces.”



http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/1/0/186198/Egypt/0/Egypt-receives--more-Rafale-fighter-jets-from-Fran.aspx


----------



## PuckChaser

Eurofighter is nice but super expensive, especially CPFH on that link Altair posted. They'd all have to be built in Europe too, they do the decentralized manufacture and even if we assembled in Canada, the shipping for the parts would make a pricey plane even worse.


----------



## Altair

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/1/0/186198/Egypt/0/Egypt-receives--more-Rafale-fighter-jets-from-Fran.aspx


I stand  corrected. One export market.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Altair said:
			
		

> I stand  corrected. One export market.



Signed with Qatar and in the process of signing with India.  Good try though


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> The same rafale that has not found a single export market to date?
> 
> That plane, while nice, is expensive as hell and doesn't offer much more, if anything, than a gripen.
> 
> Gripen
> 
> Eurofighter
> 
> F35
> 
> Rafale
> 
> Stupid hornet.



When you're not busy doing your own job not related to aviation, try perusing some history of the various airframes and check into their development history and performance.  Read up on a guy named John Boyd, yes the OODA-loop Boyd, but famous for a more important reason, then figure out where Rafale sits on the Energy-Manouevre scale of performance and tell me the French messed up... 

:not-again:


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> When you're not busy doing your own job not related to aviation, try perusing some history of the various airframes and check into their development history and performance.  Read up on a guy named John Boyd, yes the OODA-loop Boyd, but famous for a more important reason, then figure out where Rafale sits on the Energy-Manouevre scale of performance and tell me the French messed up...
> 
> :not-again:


is it worth the price tag is my main issue.

As for not being a sme, cool. Next nobody should have an opinion in politics since we are not politicians...


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> is it worth the price tag is my main issue.
> 
> As for not being a sme, cool. Next nobody should have an opinion in politics since we are not politicians...



Quit being whiney.  You're a voter, so you get a (reasonably) informed say in politics.


----------



## Journeyman

Altair said:
			
		

> As for not being a sme, cool. Next nobody should have an opinion in politics since we are not politicians...


/pout

But we are all creatures of, and subject to, politics.  Not everyone is an aviator....or a defence economist....or a strategic thinker.

ONE MORE TIME......there are opinions, and there are informed opinions.


----------



## childs56

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> NFTC (NATO Flying Training Canada) doesn't train on F-18s. It trains students on Harvard II and Hawk on the basic and advanced flight training as well as fighter lead-in training.  Past that (OTU on the Hornet), training is the responsibility of individual countries.  This is not at all an argument to buy F-models.



Sorry I miss worded the program. 410 TFS runs the Basic Fighter training course for Canada, they also run advanced Fighter training courses for not only our pilots but those of our allies ( usually have one foreign pilot). It is important to have a two seat Fighter trainer, for instructing new pilots and also to provide further training to both junior and experienced pilots. 
Although we do not conduct a large Fighter Training school, we do provide some of the best training in NATO for such. That is due to the style of instruction, the type of airspace we have and also the style of aircraft we have, 

Yes you can instruct new pilots using a single seat aircraft, but they will have a much slower learning curve to get up to speed. 

I think the simple question at hand is where does Canada want to be in the next 20 years with its fighter fleet. It seems no one has actually answered that question since the F35 has not met its deadlines of performance and delivery dates. What is a good interm replacement for our Jets right now? Has to be off the shelf, and ready for start of delivery within a year of signing the deal.


----------



## WingsofFury

CTD said:
			
		

> I think the simple question at hand is where does Canada want to be in the next 20 years with its fighter fleet. It seems no one has actually answered that question since the F35 has not met its deadlines of performance and delivery dates. What is a good interim replacement for our Jets right now? Has to be off the shelf, and ready for start of delivery within a year of signing the deal.



With respect, I think your first sentence is entirely the problem with how people look at this situation.

Canada never has only looked ahead 20 years with regards to any military aviation purposed platform as we normally fly things for almost 40 years.  A government 20 years from now isn't going to be looking at buying new planes.

Some thoughts for Altair....

I don't know you and I'm not involved in the military.  My background is that of someone who has written and photographed RCAF exercises and issues for the last 10 years, something which I loved doing but do no longer.  I chose to listen to those who were involved with the nuances of the jet program, especially pilots who have flown multiple air frames including the Gripen, Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Strike Eagle. One such pilot is on this forum and has shared his thoughts on the matter in this thread.

While I can appreciate your adoration of the Gripen, I'd suggest doing further research and listening to the opinions of those who have actual experience in the fast air realm.  Not one of them has said that the Gripen will do anything to even sustain the capabilities which the RCAF has in its current legacy fleet of Hornets. Food for thought, isn't it?

The politics on this matter are something entirely different...

The Liberals promised that they would never buy the F-35.  This is based on how the Conservatives mismanaged the file and due to inaccurate reporting on the F-35 by people who don't know or understand the first thing about military aviation.  In this world of everyone with a blog or a website suddenly becoming subject matter experts the truth about performance and technical details has been thrown to the wind and disregarded, which is quite sad.

Now, the Liberal government has members in parliament which have flown non upgraded CF-18's, which is cool. At least one of those MP's has previously spent time on a FB fan page trying to convert people to the notion that the Super Hornet is the right plane and that the F-35A has no future in Canada.  This factor, along with the fiasco that the Conservatives created, led to the Liberal election campaign promise.  The promise wasn't based on performance parameters which have already been assessed by pilots who have access to classified information which people like you and I will never have.

What concerns me, and I don't say this lightly, is that politics is going up against what the RCAF Commander has said regarding fast air capabilities over the next 10 years when the current Hornet fleet is scheduled to retire; namely that there will be a capabilities gap which, in my opinion, is complete bollocks.  One simply shouldn't make the Commander look like he doesn't know what he's talking about simply to score political points...but then again, what does the average Canadian really care about what happens to those who defend our country?

This is a political decision...and the Liberals know that if they were to hold an open source competition that they'd have to include the F-35 and that, more than likely, it'd win.  By moving ahead with a Super Hornet purchase, they'll avoid the competition.  However, by not having the competition, they're selling the RCAF short on capabilities for the long 40 - 50 years that the plane will be in service which will lead to yet another situation similar to what we find ourselves in right now.  That said, the Super Hornet out of the planes available isn't a bad plan and does have the greatest room for expansion over the forseeable future.  

But check out the stats on the Strike Eagle variants and ask yourself if Boeing is selling itself short by only offering the Super Hornet to Canada in order to keep the line open...yet another economic reason why they're selling the Super Hornet to us.

Hope you enjoy research...there's a lot to read out there and if you look at it all critically...well, let's just say it'll be interesting to see if your viewpoint changes.

Cheers.


----------



## Loachman

CTD said:
			
		

> Yes you can instruct new pilots using a single seat aircraft, but they will have a much slower learning curve to get up to speed.



Your second clause is based upon what experience or reference(s)?

Those currently flying F35s qualified without one. Have you seen any comments from any one of them regarding any impairment of their learning curve as a result?

Were dual-cockpit training fighters actually required in this age of simulation, there would be a dual-cockpit F35. There is not, nor will there be.

Progress marches on.

And it will march past Super Hornet and all other contenders much more quickly than it will F35, and leave them all in its dust.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just what one expected–hardball from LoickMart about jobs! jobs! jobs!



> Lockheed may shift F-35 fighter work away from Canada
> 
> Top U.S. weapons maker Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) is studying whether to shift work on its multibillion-dollar F-35 fighter jet away from Canadian firms given uncertainty about Ottawa’s plans to buy the jet.
> 
> Jack Crisler, Lockheed’s vice president of business development for the F-35 program, told Reuters Lockheed was under pressure from other partner countries that had placed firm orders or accelerated orders to shift more work to them.
> 
> “This is not anything punitive [SURE]. It is just business,” he said in a telephone interview from the Netherlands, where the [Dutch air force] F-35 will fly in its first international air show on Saturday [June 11].
> 
> Canadian firms will account for development and production work on the F-35 program worth about $1 billion by the end of 2016, Crisler said…
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-canada-fighter-idUSKCN0YW14E?il=0



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Plus Canadian industry:



> Gloves off as Canadian aerospace firms slam Liberals for favouring Super Hornets over F-35s
> 
> The gloves came off Thursday after a group of companies involved in the F-35 project blasted the Super Hornet, and warned the Liberals that Canada’s aerospace industry will be permanently hamstrung if the government doesn’t stick with the stealth fighter.
> 
> “Not selecting the F-35 will set off a chain of events that will see hundreds of millions of investment dollars lost, and high-tech jobs leaving Canada,” the Canadian JSF Industrial Group said Thursday. “It is doubtful that any other procurement would provide the same industrial benefits.”
> 
> However, the Liberal government and Boeing Co., the company that makes the Super Hornet, have pushed back, saying not buying the F-35 won’t be the end of the world — or the end of Canada’s aerospace industry.
> 
> “New skills and technologies gained through access to the (F-35) program have helped position Canadian industry to take advantage of other advanced aerospace and defence projects,” said Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> “While we appreciate the CJIG’s concerns,” she said, “the government of Canada makes decisions based on what is best for Canada and our Canadian Armed Forces.”..
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/gloves-off-as-canadian-aerospace-firms-slam-liberals-for-favouring-super-hornets-over-f-35s



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

OK - a modest veer from the track:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-considering-nato-request-to-send-1000-canadian-troops-to-eastern-europe

Is it possible that the Liberals are creating a capabilities gap that demands the provision of new flight hours?

NATO wants to beef up the eastern flank. Specifically it wants four battle groups: one each for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.  They are short one and pressure   seems to be mounting to have Canada provide one for Poland to match the US, UK and German groups in the other three countries.

This would put Canadian troops directly in line of sight of Russian weapons and would be a return to the days of the Inter-German Border.

This does not sound like a Trudeauvian policy.  Neither pere nor fils.

It would also require men and machines the Army doesn't have and money the Government is reluctant to spend.

What to do?

Do what generations have always done: send in the Navy and the Air Force.

But - we don't have ships and we don't have planes.

We can maintain a patrol over North America and on occasion we can send a six-pack overseas but the pressure from NATO demands a bigger show - perhaps a full squadron or better yet an expeditionary wing with at least one full squadron of Canadians.

Perhaps NATO can be bought off with more Aircraft rather than more troops.

All of a sudden it appears that there may be an urgent need for more jets to whip out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Based on previous informed decisions, we bought Bomarc, then had buy a replacement interceptor that we said we would never had needed after cancelling our own. We then used Starfighters as one way bombers, then as ground attack aircraft, bought the CF-5. About the one thing we did do ok in was buying the CF-18. No offense, but leaving it completely to the experts and politicians has not resulted in a solid track record. 

I would also say it will be difficult to accurately predict where technology will lead us in 40 years and where the world will be politically in 40 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

“This is not anything punitive [SURE]. It is just business,”







 :rofl:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OK - a modest veer from the track:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-considering-nato-request-to-send-1000-canadian-troops-to-eastern-europe
> 
> Is it possible that the Liberals are creating a capabilities gap that demands the provision of new flight hours?
> 
> NATO wants to beef up the eastern flank. Specifically it wants four battle groups: one each for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.  They are short one and pressure   seems to be mounting to have Canada provide one for Poland to match the US, UK and German groups in the other three countries.
> 
> This would put Canadian troops directly in line of sight of Russian weapons and would be a return to the days of the Inter-German Border.
> 
> This does not sound like a Trudeauvian policy.  Neither pere nor fils.
> 
> It would also require men and machines the Army doesn't have and money the Government is reluctant to spend.
> 
> What to do?
> 
> Do what generations have always done: send in the Navy and the Air Force.
> 
> But - we don't have ships and we don't have planes.
> 
> We can maintain a patrol over North America and on occasion we can send a six-pack overseas but the pressure from NATO demands a bigger show - perhaps a full squadron or better yet an expeditionary wing with at least one full squadron of Canadians.
> 
> Perhaps NATO can be bought off with more Aircraft rather than more troops.
> 
> All of a sudden it appears that there may be an urgent need for more jets to whip out.



Actually, if sending the Air Force to Europe is our answer to help front line Eastern European nations for NATO, then stealth becomes an important asset, and the best beast for the job becomes the F-35, with F-15 second best.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Based on previous informed decisions, we bought Bomarc, then had buy a replacement interceptor that we said we would never had needed after cancelling our own. We then used Starfighters as one way bombers, then as ground attack aircraft, bought the CF-5. About the one thing we did do ok in was buying the CF-18. No offense, but leaving it completely to the experts and politicians has not resulted in a solid track record.
> 
> I would also say it will be difficult to accurately predict where technology will lead us in 40 years and where the world will be politically in 40 years.



The abandonment of the Arrow and acquisition of Bomarc, then the widow maker, were all made as uninformed decisions, under a lot of American pressure, and definitely not as decisions made based on what was best for Canada or the Canadian armed forces.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fully agree, but that is our track record on subject and you can bet US pressure is there again. The difference of course is there is no real domestic fighter aircraft industry at risk, but a lot of subcontractor work is.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

With the exception here, that if the US pressure is for the F-35 over SH, it would tend to align with Canadian interests, both economically and militarily.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, if sending the Air Force to Europe is our answer to help front line Eastern European nations for NATO, then stealth becomes an important asset, and the best beast for the job becomes the F-35, with F-15 second best.


But then, are we buying fighters for *A* job/task (in this case, REFORGER-East), or fighters for POTENTIAL tasks (which would include REFORGER-East _and_ other stuff)?


----------



## Lumber

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But then, are we buying fighters for *A* job/task (in this case, REFORGER-East), or fighters for POTENTIAL tasks (which would include REFORGER-East _and_ other stuff)?



Why not both?

If we are suppose to be protecting North American Air Space, who really hast he capability of threatening us, all the way across the Atlantic and Pacific? Other first world nations (Russia, China obviously, but in 30 years, who know, Italy?)

Do you want 4th gen SHs or 5th Gen F-35 with stealth protecting our air space?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Either way Milnews , the F-35's stealth capability would now come into play. Those that have argued against the F-35 for Canada have almost always used the fact that for what we could expect to do - which did not include fighting for East Europe at that time (and in their sub-text, only included NORAD), you did not need stealth, and stealth was really the only advantage of the F-35 (in their eyes, as the capacity for data fusion and situational awareness in the future battlefield appeared irrelevant to them) over other current fighters.

If Eastern Europe is in the picture now, it  adds this requirement and make the F-35 the choice, IMHO.


----------



## Kirkhill

But then high end assets can do low end tasks....

But then are we spending high end dollars on low end tasks when we could accomplish the tasks with low end dollars.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris: Haven't we crashed enough Aerobatics Team pilots lately - Why do you want to add to their misery with another one  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Buy the best aircraft available for the worst case scenario, that is capable of lower intensity stuff. Should be the same way with our ships and tanks. Unfortunately when that's not done, and that worst case scenario that arrives, it's not the Prime Minister or his cabinet living with the consequences of their short sightedness.


----------



## childs56

Loachman said:
			
		

> Your second clause is based upon what experience or reference(s)?
> 
> Those currently flying F35s qualified without one. Have you seen any comments from any one of them regarding any impairment of their learning curve as a result?
> 
> Were dual-cockpit training fighters actually required in this age of simulation, there would be a dual-cockpit F35. There is not, nor will there be.
> 
> Progress marches on.
> 
> And it will march past Super Hornet and all other contenders much more quickly than it will F35, and leave them all in its dust.



I new someone was going to bring up how current F35 pilots are flying by themselves, and also that simulation is available. Those currently flying the F35 are high hour fully trained pilots on other fighters who also used the F35 simulator to practice before flying the jet. These are NOT brand new entry level just out of basic fighter pilot training. If I am wrong please provide information other wise. 

The question of whether the F35 should have dual Cockpit for student training purpose was objected to by the manufacturer. They insisted that simulation would cover the skills needed to fly the F35. Quietly mentioned that other fighter experience would supplement the training process.

Its funny because the US will never be a one model Jet only force. they will always have a couple of different front line platforms, along with a few models of lead in prop and jet trainers for their pilots. One nice thing about their Talon training aircraft is they have been able to modify their flight system to simulate flying other aircraft. Which helps with training and cuts down on cost of flying front line aircraft. 

Unless Canada is going to soley rely on simulation to flight qualify our New Jet Pilots, I think we also need to maintain a small fleet of twin seat advanced Jets. 

No one is expecting a Brand new Pilot to fly a F35 straight out of Pilot training school, nor are they expecting a junior pilot to be able to fly and utilize the F35 and its capabilities. The F35 is a advanced jet. Such requires more then entry level Pilots to effectively fly and operate it. 

One big question for many smaller countries who maintain small fleets and want a sole platform to supply their fighter needs, is training. Cost of training new pilots on a expensive platform. 
Be as it will, times are changing and simulators are being used to train every pilot, but the gaps for simulation and real life are noticeable but not talked about. The consequences of real verses simulation are even more so. 

The question is, if we go to the F35 as a sole replacement for the CF18, will training on the HAWK be sufficent with F35 simulator training to provide the skill level to fly the F35 with out instructor pilot help in the back seat. 
Or will we be scrambling at the last minute to buy a fleet of two seat model advanced jets to provide a lead in training fleet after there is no money. Or will we have to rely on the US for entry level advanced fighter jet training, or will we have a high loss of aircraft due to pilot error due to lack of training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Altair said:
			
		

> Man, I drive an lsvw, don't talk to me about inferior vehicles. The Saab Gripen ng is a lot nicer than a lsvw ever was.



Nice summary of your credibility (based on experience) on air operations topics, specifically fighters.  Will you stop going on about things you aren't even at the level of 'amateur' yet now?  Specifically, fighters?

Although I am not part of the fighter community, I do have some experience working along side them and in the same battle space.  I offered the following as examples of things that should be considered, from a generic air ops "folks who operate flying thingies in hostile places" perspective.  Then think about that stuff when you think about your Saab fighter.  What is its combat record to date?



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What are the things that should be considered IMO?
> 
> Example #1  Surface to air threats
> 
> Example #2  Air to air threats
> 
> Example #3  The modern battlespace



How is your Gripen kitted out to defeat/survive against the SA-21?  What about the system that will replace the '21?  Just one example question for you to chase down.



> So I'm very sorry if I don't take you seriously when you make it sound like these 4.5 Gen aircraft are pieces of junk. Is the f35 a good aircraft ? I'm sure it will be. I don't think it's worth the damn price. Our forces run on less than 1 percent of the gdp, I'd I can find savings anywhere to help preserve capabilities elsewhere I sure as hell use it. So screw off with I'm in the wrong profession. Go pound sand.



Words from, as you indicated, an LSVW driver.  

It's funny, the fighter or other air ops community guys don't seem to stray into the LSVW replacement thread to offer their uninformed opinion as they've never driven an LSVW...even though they drive cars.  I don't take your opinion on anything Air Ops seriously, and I'm not sorry about that.  You are making guesses and opinions based on what you perceive as bang for the buck, when you have no idea what the 'bang' even is.  

But, hey, its not like an actual SME within the fighter community, who is an expert on the "bang" is giving you/us an informed opinion.  Oh...wait...



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Key word: you like.  You have no real substantiation other than glossy brochure from the manufacturer.  The SH, while I am not a fan of the aircraft as a replacement for our fleet, has the most potential in terms of upgradability and would be my pick (between the 3 options) IF we absolutely exclude the JSF.
> 
> If we could open up the competition, I'd go with some F-15E variants (not the Silent Eagle, but the F-15E airframe with custom, but US made, sensors).



Gear back, get back in your lane and try to learn from 'those that do'.   :2c:


----------



## MilEME09

For those of air ops types, the media loves to say the cross over from the hornet to the super hornet would be low cost due to commonalities. How much is actually common? it's bigger, which means it weighs more, different engines, landing gear, etc... Sounds more like the annoyances of operating a mixed tank fleet of Leopard C2's, Leopard 2 A4's Leopard 2A4M's and Leopard 2A6M's, logistical challenges sky rocketing due to each model requiring it's own line of parts that do not work with the other lines.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> For those of air ops types, the media loves to say the cross over from the hornet to the super hornet would be low cost due to commonalities. How much is actually common?



Well, from wiki:

"The Hornet and Super Hornet share many characteristics, including avionics, ejection seats, radar, armament, mission computer software, and maintenance/operating procedures.[5] The Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft at about 20% larger, 7,000 lb (3,200 kg) heavier empty weight, and 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) heavier maximum weight than the original Hornet. The Super Hornet carries 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% over the "Legacy" Hornet."

It's different enough that for catapult launches and stuff, its call-sign is "Rhino" instead of "Hornet".  It's also a lot louder than the legacy Hornet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> For those of air ops types, the media loves to say the cross over from the hornet to the super hornet would be low cost due to commonalities. How much is actually common? it's bigger, which means it weighs more, different engines, landing gear, etc... Sounds more like the annoyances of operating a mixed tank fleet of Leopard C2's, Leopard 2 A4's Leopard 2A4M's and Leopard 2A6M's, logistical challenges sky rocketing due to each model requiring it's own line of parts that do not work with the other lines.



I am no fighter guy, but as an Aurora guy we have a mixed fleet of Block 2 and Block 3 aircraft.  Maintaining the parts for each..costs money.  YFR spent flying on B2 is time you aren't maintaining currency and developing proficiency on B3.  Tech's have to maintain legacy systems (and tech skillsets) and maintain new systems (and develop new skillsets).  Even between the CP-140 and the CP-140M, it was treated unofficially as 2 'fleets' as far as I am concerned.  Even our annual exams were broken into "Block 2 only" "Block 3 only" and "dual qual'd types".  IMO, it was a shitshow I was happy to leave behind.  You might be prepped to go do an overland mission on B3 with a Backup that was B2.  Hit a snag with a hard wheels-up time and now all of a sudden you are on a B2 aircraft.  Operates fairly different in the back end.  

The 'aircraft' itself (engines, landing gear, etc) stayed the same, but the 'tactical' systems changed and changed dramatically.  As luck would have it, I was able to 'drop' my Block 2 qual and maintain only Block 3 and life is considerably easier to manage.  Maintaining dual qual's on a aircraft type is not the same as being able to drive a wheeled and tracked fleet, and if there are significant gaps in tech used on the tactical systems and avionics, it can be fairly hard to be proficient on one, let alone both.  You want that proficiency, vice currency because you never know when the SHTF factor will kick in.

SSM is the only person I know of on here that has flown both Hornet and Super Hornet;  is it possible to maintain qual on both at once?   :dunno:


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> SSM is the only person I know of on here that has flown both aircraft;  is it possible to maintain qual on both at once?   :dunno:



Yes - Comox still has both.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yes - Comox still has both.



I should have been more specific...I meant the Hornet and SH.  I was a dual qual Aurora button-monkey...wasn't much fun!


----------



## WingsofFury

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I should have been more specific...I meant the Hornet and SH.  I was a dual qual Aurora button-monkey...wasn't much fun!



I don't know about present day, but I do know that during the beginning of the conversion to the SH by the US Navy that there were dual qualified instructors who were doing both legacy and Super Hornet instructing.

Given we'd probably be getting the E variant I believe that a lot of the training would be done via simulator given the majority of differences being system oriented.


----------



## Mick

Here are a few articles that address subjects discussed in this thread, for what they're worth:

Of note, the USAF has been pipelining 'green' pilots onto the F-22 since 2008 - a similar F-35 pipeline seems plausible.  After T-6 Texan II training, and T-38 Talon training, new students fly a few missions in the F-16 (initially 8 flights in 2008 [F-16.net article], but more recently, only 3 flights, as indicated in the 2013 DoD article below):

"Eight F-16 flights will be completed during the lead-in course before the students leave for Tyndall".   
http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article2725.html

"The training also includes three flights in an F-16 Fighting Falcon to prove could [sic] the pilots can withstand 9 G’s of gravitational force, land a fighter aircraft and complete aerial refueling".  
http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120545

Below is another article that describes key differences between Legacy and Super Hornets, as described by a dual-qualified USN naval aviator:

https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/


----------



## jmt18325

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, if sending the Air Force to Europe is our answer to help front line Eastern European nations for NATO, then stealth becomes an important asset, and the best beast for the job becomes the F-35, with F-15 second best.
> 
> The abandonment of the Arrow and acquisition of Bomarc, then the widow maker, were all made as uninformed decisions, under a lot of American pressure, and definitely not as decisions made based on what was best for Canada or the Canadian armed forces.



Until the F-35 is combat ready in 2022 I'd say that isn't the case.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Reference the Saab Gripen. 

According to  Wikipedia, back in Nov 2012, a SwAF LCol stated that the current version (C/D) of the Gripen would be obsolete for air-to-air combat by 2020. Consequently, the Swedish government decided that they would buy 60 upgraded E/F variants.

To produce the Gripen E/F[/url], the Swedes are taking 60 older C/D models and upgrading for a cost $7.4 billion (USD). Besides the 60 Swedish aircraft being ordered, Brazil has also signed a deal for an initial order of 38 aircraft (28 Es and 8 dual seat Fs). Cost of the Brazilian order is put at  4.6 bn (USD) with initial deliveries starting 2019 and final delivery in 2024. 

The first  Gripen-E just rolled out of the factory three weeks ago and is expected to commence its first test flight sometime later this year. Two other test aircraft are in various stages of assembly. IOC for the Swedish Gripen-Es is expected around 2021-2023, with them becoming fully operational two-three years later.  This link also gives information on all the new upgrades that are being incorporated into the new aircraft. 

I'm guessing that because the Swedes and Brazilians are first inline to receive new aircraft, it would mean that if Canada did buy the Gripen E/F, we would be waiting until those two contracts were finished before we could receive our aircraft, which would be too late.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Until the F-35 is combat ready in 2022 I'd say that isn't the case.



We are in 2016 (because, last year according to our PM, we were in 2015). 2022 is in only six years. To those of us with a bit of living under our belt, it's a blink of an eye. (don't think so? My sons were just born yesterday, or so it seems, and now they are off to university !!!).

If Canada was to permanently forward deploy an air group of some description in support of Eastern Europe NATO countries, just planning the required installation , making them available, moving every thing over and making the facility operational would likely take two to four years. That means within two or three years of the facility being operational, the F-35 would be available. 

In the meantime, the current CF-18's would be up to the job. The SH, however, would not be capable of facing the threat likely to exist 15 or 20 years from now - but the F-35 would.


----------



## jmt18325

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We are in 2016 (because, last year according to our PM, we were in 2015). 2022 is in only six years. To those of us with a bit of living under our belt, it's a blink of an eye. (don't think so? My sons were just born yesterday, or so it seems, and now they are off to university !!!).
> 
> If Canada was to permanently forward deploy an air group of some description in support of Eastern Europe NATO countries, just planning the required installation , making them available, moving every thing over and making the facility operational would likely take two to four years. That means within two or three years of the facility being operational, the F-35 would be available.
> 
> In the meantime, the current CF-18's would be up to the job. The SH, however, would not be capable of facing the threat likely to exist 15 or 20 years from now - but the F-35 would.



As the USN will still be flying the Super Hornet in 2040, I sincerely doubt they'll let them become obsolete in that timeframe.

Either aircraft will serve us well.  That has always been my position.


----------



## HB_Pencil

CTD said:
			
		

> I new someone was going to bring up how current F35 pilots are flying by themselves, and also that simulation is available. Those currently flying the F35 are high hour fully trained pilots on other fighters who also used the F35 simulator to practice before flying the jet. These are NOT brand new entry level just out of basic fighter pilot training. If I am wrong please provide information other wise.
> 
> The question of whether the F35 should have dual Cockpit for student training purpose was objected to by the manufacturer. They insisted that simulation would cover the skills needed to fly the F35. Quietly mentioned that other fighter experience would supplement the training process.
> 
> 
> Actually it was objected to by the Air Force,
> 
> Its funny because the US will never be a one model Jet only force. they will always have a couple of different front line platforms, along with a few models of lead in prop and jet trainers for their pilots. One nice thing about their Talon training aircraft is they have been able to modify their flight system to simulate flying other aircraft. Which helps with training and cuts down on cost of flying front line aircraft.
> 
> Unless Canada is going to soley rely on simulation to flight qualify our New Jet Pilots, I think we also need to maintain a small fleet of twin seat advanced Jets.
> 
> No one is expecting a Brand new Pilot to fly a F35 straight out of Pilot training school, nor are they expecting a junior pilot to be able to fly and utilize the F35 and its capabilities. The F35 is a advanced jet. Such requires more then entry level Pilots to effectively fly and operate it.
> 
> One big question for many smaller countries who maintain small fleets and want a sole platform to supply their fighter needs, is training. Cost of training new pilots on a expensive platform.
> Be as it will, times are changing and simulators are being used to train every pilot, but the gaps for simulation and real life are noticeable but not talked about. The consequences of real verses simulation are even more so.
> 
> The question is, if we go to the F35 as a sole replacement for the CF18, will training on the HAWK be sufficent with F35 simulator training to provide the skill level to fly the F35 with out instructor pilot help in the back seat.
> Or will we be scrambling at the last minute to buy a fleet of two seat model advanced jets to provide a lead in training fleet after there is no money. Or will we have to rely on the US for entry level advanced fighter jet training, or will we have a high loss of aircraft due to pilot error due to lack of training.




There are few pilots currently in the pipeline who are "new pilots." A significant proportion of USAF F-22 pilots have only flown that specific type as well.  (edit I see mick has made a comment on that). 

The false premise your argument rests on is that a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. That's just not true anymore. With the advent of fly by wire in the 70s and 80s, then full digital control systems being fitted in the 1990s autopilot systems basically decrease the pilot's workload and skill requirements. Back with the F-4, 104 or CF-5: you would need to spend 90% of your focus on flying, and 10% on operational "stuff", like looking at the radar, manipulating sensors ect. With 4th gen aircraft its probably reversed: 90% of the time on operational stuff and 10% on flying the aircraft. 

A couple of years ago I sat in a Eurofighter simulator (a full one, not a sales one): I'm not a military pilot, but flying it and landing it was very easy. Super Hornets now have JPALS which basically can take over from the pilot on the most difficult part of their job: carrier landings. So the "aviating" (pilot skills) part of the work is becoming easier... but that's really only part of the story. 

The real advantage of aircraft like F-35 and F-22s over the previous generations is the sensor fusions system, and that is radically changing pilots' interaction with their aircraft, and the training required. Good2Golf has put some great posts up in the JSF thread, and I've discussed it a little bit. 

Aircraft of the CF-18 and the F/A-18E ilk require a specific set of skills to operate effectively.  Perhaps the best way to describe it is that their pilots are sensor managers: they need time and  to manipulate the window out into the world to get the information they need and develop situational awareness. This takes years to develop: an F-22 pilot I was recently discussing suggested it took him nine years to become truly proficient in his role on the F-15/16. With the F-35 all of that is gone. the aircraft does a lot of that sensor manipulation and underlying analysis for you. This is mundane stuff, but because the aircraft is generating so much data (perhaps upwards of a terabyte every 5 minutes) its overwhelming for a pilot to do. So the Avionics does that for you. That same F-22 pilot suggests it takes six months on an aircraft like the F-35 for a pilot to become truly proficient. Rather than having to develop the ability to gain situational awareness, you go straight to learning how to use it and apply it effectively. 

He and others have said that coming from a 4th gen aircraft to a 5th gen is more difficult than having a clean sheet experience. Those old habits you gain from being a sensor manipulator does you a disservice when the avionics does that job for you. Watch this video on it to see an actual operator's experience. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

A lot of that training can be done in a synthetic training environment, which does not require an aircraft to do. It may also be operationally prudent: with the F-35 you might not want to be training with these systems as their capabilities are revealed in public. 


To directly answer your question, yes we will need an advanced trainer to provide fighter lead in training, and no, it probably shouldn't be the hawk. You should note that we will need to replace the hawks in  the next decade, and a number of aircraft are positioned to fit into this role. You have configurable cockpits that can made to resemble the fighter they are replacing. In the case of the F-35 vs F/A-18E, they can take a significant portion of the flight hours away from the F-35, and replace the need for a twin seater completely. Oh as a correction: it was the USAF that killed the need for a twin seater F-22, which was seen as redundant and replacable with a different aircraft lead in. They decided to go down that path with the F-35 as well, and use T-X to be the lead-in training aircraft. 


If you're really interested in this topic there are two articles in the Canadian Military Journal that goes over it well. The first is by David Wheeler who discusses the proposed next gen fighter training program (just insert F-35 into any references to next gen aircraft.) I think that answers your question about how a training process without a twin seater will look like. 

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol13/no2/doc/ViewsAndOpinions-Wheeler-Pages6873-eng.pdf

The second one is by Richard Shimooka who looks at the problems with the original CF-18 procurement that relate to training and flight safety, and how they should be avoided for future programs

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no4/page30-eng.asp


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As the USN will still be flying the Super Hornet in 2040, I sincerely doubt they'll let them become obsolete in that timeframe.
> 
> Either aircraft will serve us well.  That has always been my position.



Don't know where you get your information jmt18325, nor from your profile do I get any sense of any experience or knowledge base from which you draw on to comment.

The USN has begin a SLEP program for the Rhinos so they can remain in service up to 2035 (ref: Janes International Defence: http://www.janes.com/article/57646/us-navy-plans-slep-for-super-hornet-fleet )That does not mean they will operate every single one of their Rhinos until then - that means that by 2035, the last of the Rhinos will finally be  entirely replaced by ... well likely the F-35C. 

Basically, it means that they will start replacing their rhinos with F-35C after IOC is completed in two years from now, and complete the gradual replacement 17 years later. That, BTW, is normal procedure for the USN. By the time the last Crusaders were retired, they were well past their best before date; same for the Tomcats.


----------



## jmt18325

It's not really about what I have experience in, but from quotes directly from senior people in the USN:

[link removed as it is in contravention to site policy  dealing with that journalist.]

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin-only/us-navy-could-fly-super-hornets-beyond-2040-rear-admiral-says

Unless you're saying you know more?


----------



## HB_Pencil

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As the USN will still be flying the Super Hornet in 2040, I sincerely doubt they'll let them become obsolete in that timeframe.
> 
> Either aircraft will serve us well.  That has always been my position.



Unfortunately this is incorrect. Its not a question of "obsolete" as in the F/A-18E is now starting the process to become being increasingly relegated to secondary roles. DOD has already stated the aircraft is vulnerable in a range of scenarios. The future CONOPS that is being developed under the cooperative engagement capability has the F/A-18E will basically  as a spear carrier, for aircraft like the F-35. 


This future is already evident in Syria, where the F-22, using a very limited version of Sensor Fusion, that can't trasmit information to other aircraft is basically managing the battlespace for them through voicecoms. 

https://theaviationist.com/2015/08/15/f-22-kinetic-situational-awareness/

This means that if you're flying a 4th gen fighter, like the Super Hornet, you're increasingly going to be under the control of a 5th gen aircraft with sensor fusion.Why would it be any way else? You have a much more limited information window to base your decisions on; you'd clearly want the aircraft that actually has the superior situational awareness to make the correct decision.  

So this reality is not the far future: its already happening. And even with the limits of the system in the F-22, pilots are witnessing the vast potential in such a capability. That's part of the reason why the USN started accelerating their buys of F-35 this year, adding I believe over a dozen aircraft over the next five years to their current buy: they finally understand the vast potential of this system and are attempting to play catch up with the USAF and Marine Corps. 

See, at least the USN has the F-35, so they are fine. Purchasing the F/A-18E will come to the serious detriment of our air force, and its ability to conduct future tasks, like defending our sovereignty in the approaches to our country.


----------



## jmt18325

The missions that the thr F-18 has been tasked with to date would seem to be capably handled by any of the possible purchases we could make.  How many old F-18s have been lost in combat?


----------



## jmt18325

I also can't help but wonder how all of the coalition aircraft over Iraq, including the aircraft flying off of the US carrier offshore, and the aircraft doing reconnaissance, fit into the theory that the F-22 is running things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

F-22 had SFA to do with ISR taskings.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> F-22 had SFA to do with ISR taskings.



Very vulnerable ISR platforms.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Depends on what you mean by vulnerable.   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Until the F-35 is combat ready in 2022 I'd say that isn't the case.



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0XA2U7



> U.S. Air Force says combat-ready F-35 fighter jets on track for 2016
> WASHINGTON | By Andrea Shalal
> 
> The U.S. Air Force said on Wednesday said it still expected to declare an initial squadron of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets ready for combat between August and December, despite delays in the jets' computer-based logistics system.



That's like, 6 years earlier than 2022. Denmark IOC will be 2021 for their F-35s, deliveries from 2021-2027 as they aren't against a brick wall for F-16 replacement. We could very likely be on that same timeline, with a frontloaded IOC to reduce strain on the CF-188 (cannibalize for parts).


----------



## childs56

How about we buy 40 present day operational jets to full fill our present day operations. 20 in Cold Lake and 20 in Bagotville. 
Then we can use those jets to deploy on any near future missions. Keep our lower hour jets we have now for training and Local commitments. 

Then we can buy 100 next generation fighters.bring our total up to 140 good fighters that can serve us well into 2030 even 40. By then a new and better aircraft will be out and we can look at buying it. 

After reading a few articles it seems maybe even the US is not fully sold on their stealth fighters. Understanding that stealth is not completely invisable. Also understanding that the F22 and F35 operate as a combined electronic suite, as all aircraft do when working in the group. The F22 and F35 do it well. It is still up for debate if they do it better then other gen 4 platforms. The pilot interface is one of the strongest benefits of the 5th gen jets. Why can they not install a system of integration with the 4th gens? 

There are other missions where a 5th gen is not needed, and then a few where they are. Until you can show me the full need for a stealth fighter in to days conflicts I will remain skeptical that we require a large fleet. As we continue to go on, this stealth is 20 or more years old. With everything old is new we may see some simple solutions to identifying the weakness in the stealth and or being able to target and track.

Another issue right now is the time line for a fighter replacement for our current fleet. How soon can we take delivery of a fighter ready to go and be able to gain enough airframes to be a credible force with the new jet? 

I think when the Liberals initially signed onto the F35 program it was more as a program to keep the ongoing research and development of next gen capability, as opposed to actually purchasing the jets. Some how it went from the intent to buy, to buying, with the contract singed and done not much that the Conservatives could have done. Only to have the same people who singed the original purchase threaten to cancel it at a huge loss. Sounds like the EH101, deal all over again. 

To throw something out for just purely discussions, Canada has expressed an intent to deploy Fighters to Africa over the pat couple of years. One of the biggest obstacles to doing this is where to base or Fleet for security. Can it possibly be in the books for us to deploy Jets to Africa using a Aircraft Carrier, can this be one reason for the purchase of the Super Hornet? Just one possible reason for the IOR for the new Fighters.


----------



## DonaldMcL

CTD said:
			
		

> There are other missions where a 5th gen is not needed, and then a few where they are. Until you can show me the full need for a stealth fighter in to days conflicts I will remain skeptical that we require a large fleet. As we continue to go on, this stealth is 20 or more years old. With everything old is new we may see some simple solutions to identifying the weakness in the stealth and or being able to target and track.



That's the beauty of the F35 though. Stealth is a "freebie", It costs nothing. Why wouldnt you want it?
Yes, there's missions where the a 5th gen isnt required... that's the beauty of the F35. Slap on some hardpoints and carry more weapons. Why wouldn't you want that?

The physics behind stealth have been around since the invention of RADAR, and are bound by the laws of physics themselves. Nothing is going to change on that front, there's not going to be some magic technology that comes out that makes stealth useless.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Just sharing this here to allow folks with more background than I do to pick apart (or not) The Canadian Press's assessment ...


> ... is Sajjan's statement accurate? Is the procurement debacle surrounding the CF-18s on the verge of rendering the Royal Canadian Air Force incapable of fulfilling its mandate?
> 
> (...)
> 
> This one earns a rating of some baloney — the statement is partly accurate but important details are missing.
> 
> ( ... )
> 
> The Air Force commander himself told the committee there's time.
> 
> "I'm confident that if a decision were taken, certainly in the next five years, we'll be in a comfortable position changing that aircraft," Hood said.
> 
> For that reason, Sajjan's statement earns a ranking of some baloney: the statement is partly accurate but important details are missing.


Have at 'er ...


----------



## Edward Campbell

CTD said:
			
		

> How about we buy 40 present day operational jets to full fill our present day operations. 20 in Cold Lake and 20 in Bagotville.
> Then we can use those jets to deploy on any near future missions. Keep our lower hour jets we have now for training and Local commitments.
> 
> Then we can buy 100 next generation fighters.bring our total up to 140 good fighters that can serve us well into 2030 even 40. By then a new and better aircraft will be out and we can look at buying it.
> 
> After reading a few articles it seems maybe even the US is not fully sold on their stealth fighters. Understanding that stealth is not completely invisable. Also understanding that the F22 and F35 operate as a combined electronic suite, as all aircraft do when working in the group. The F22 and F35 do it well. It is still up for debate if they do it better then other gen 4 platforms. The pilot interface is one of the strongest benefits of the 5th gen jets. Why can they not install a system of integration with the 4th gens?
> 
> There are other missions where a 5th gen is not needed, and then a few where they are. Until you can show me the full need for a stealth fighter in to days conflicts I will remain skeptical that we require a large fleet. As we continue to go on, this stealth is 20 or more years old. With everything old is new we may see some simple solutions to identifying the weakness in the stealth and or being able to target and track.
> 
> Another issue right now is the time line for a fighter replacement for our current fleet. How soon can we take delivery of a fighter ready to go and be able to gain enough airframes to be a credible force with the new jet?
> 
> I think when the Liberals initially signed onto the F35 program it was more as a program to keep the ongoing research and development of next gen capability, as opposed to actually purchasing the jets. Some how it went from the intent to buy, to buying, with the contract singed and done not much that the Conservatives could have done. Only to have the same people who singed the original purchase threaten to cancel it at a huge loss. Sounds like the EH101, deal all over again.
> 
> To throw something out for just purely discussions, Canada has expressed an intent to deploy Fighters to Africa over the pat couple of years. One of the biggest obstacles to doing this is where to base or Fleet for security. Can it possibly be in the books for us to deploy Jets to Africa using a Aircraft Carrier, can this be one reason for the purchase of the Super Hornet? Just one possible reason for the IOR for the new Fighters.




I actually like your ideas ... I see only two problems:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                                        and

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Politicians on the treasury benches just want this whole fiasco to go away; and

Officials, especially in Finance and the Treasury Board, who are _natural conservatives_ regard all defence spending as wasteful, or, at least, unproductive and they want as little of it as possible.

There's a third, smaller problem: _*why 140?*_ Given the performance envelopes of the newer fighters can we not, as we have since _circa_ 1940, do more with less?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone done any simulations of the contenders against the likely 2020-2035 threats?

I assume that classified information about the contenders has played a role in recent contests from which it is interesting to note that the F-35 has been the dominant competitor.

Candidly I would be much more comfortable fielding a smaller fleet of F-35's with some type of long endurance armed UAV for low intensity conflict than a larger fleet of F-18e, Gripen or Eurofighters if those are deemed to be "less capable" against Su-30 class, J-20 class, PAK-FA class fighters as well as S-400 class SAM threats.

Has anyone seen any assessments they can share?  Or provide summaries thereof?

Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## PuckChaser

Gen 5 isn't all about stealth. It's about sensor fusion, data sharing, and computer power that can fly the jet while the pilot makes complex decisions about the situation on the ground and air and weapons employment. You can find stealth characteristics on any aircraft. F-35 is the only one that provides sensor fusion at that level.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I actually like your ideas ... I see only two problems:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians on the treasury benches just want this whole fiasco to go away; and
> 
> Officials, especially in Finance and the Treasury Board, who are _natural conservatives_ regard all defence spending as wasteful, or, at least, unproductive and they want as little of it as possible.
> 
> There's a third, smaller problem: _*why 140?*_ Given the performance envelopes of the newer fighters can we not, as we have since _circa_ 1940, do more with less?



Further to ERC's commentary:



> *In the fall of 1868* *Georges-Étienne Cartier and William MacDougall* were delegated to London to negotiate defence matters. They *had many requests with a view to improving the status of the military in Canada, at England's expense*. But in Great Britain the new Liberal government of William Gladstone had other priorities, and it announced that *within two years British troops would be withdrawn from Canada, Australia and New Zealand*. Only the major naval bases would maintain a garrison, which meant that all troops except those stationed at Halifax would be evacuated from Canada.
> 
> Caught by surprise, *the Canadian delegates did not believe the decision, thinking it a political manoeuvre.* Negotiations degenerated to the point where *Canada even refused to pay an invoice of $4,000 for the repair of weapons damaged by Canadian volunteers - weapons that had come from British army stores*. British taxpayers, over a period of six years, had armed the Canadian volunteers with 40,000 rifled Enfields and 30,000 Snider-Enfields,...



http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/page-495-eng.asp



> From 1755 to 1871 the country, governed in turn by the French, the British and the Canadians, was under almost constant threat of real or apprehended invasion. But when all the battles, troop deployments and ship movements, and all the construction and military exploration, were over, Canada was considerably larger, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Indeed British Columbia had become a Canadian province on July 20, 1871, which marked a Canadian version of Manifest Destiny. It may have been less turbulent than the Manifest Destiny of its neighbours to the south, but it was not necessarily any less successful.
> 
> After all these wars and fears of invasion, all *Canadians*, no matter where their ancestors may have come from, *were tired of armed conflict*. Since it had become clear that there would be no war with the United States,* the Canadian government no longer showed an interest in military problems*. It slashed the army's budget and left its management to a few Anglophile officers....



http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/page-508-eng.asp

The Beginning.  The End.


----------



## WingsofFury

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone done any simulations of the contenders against the likely 2020-2035 threats?
> 
> Has anyone seen any assessments they can share?  Or provide summaries thereof?
> 
> Cheers, Matthew.



I'm quite sure that classified briefings would have been given to any country who was interested in purchasing any one of the contenders.  One will never know the true technical aspects of an enemies defensive or offensive capabilities unless they were to have it fed to them through counterintelligence means.

There are times when certain air frames have taken part in say EX Red Flags out of Nellis or Alaska and whether there were any 1v1 scenarios done during those time would provide some feedback to Allied forces.  I do recall a time when German Typhoon pilots did some 1v1 scenarios against Raptors...


----------



## AlexanderM

I'm wondering, why can't the wing pylons on the Super Hornet be redesigned, sounds like the drag is just brutal?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Of course if you bought 40 SH right now and postponed the buy of 40 F-35's till the end of the production run, you start getting the offset in airframe age you should have. In a perfect world, have half your fleet 15-20 years old and the other half new or coming online. This would postpone the F-35 buy to someone else's government, keep us in to the contracts, reduce the initial outlay of funds, gets us more aircraft and staggers the age of the airframes. Plus we would be getting the best F-35's with all the improvements.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The pylons were initially legacy-like (actually, they were the exact same) but a single weapons configuration (out of hundreds) created weapons-to-weapons contact after release, leading to a redesign of the pylons to avoid this...  Despite the performance cost and the wing re-design cost...


----------



## SupersonicMax

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> There are times when certain air frames have taken part in say EX Red Flags out of Nellis or Alaska and whether there were any 1v1 scenarios done during those time would provide some feedback to Allied forces.  I do recall a time when German Typhoon pilots did some 1v1 scenarios against Raptors...



1v1s don't really show you much in terms of capabilities.  Operating together at an unrestricted level is what will show you really what a platform brings to the table, but the US, rightfully, doesn't like doing this.


----------



## AlexanderM

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The pylons were initially legacy-like (actually, they were the exact same) but a single weapons configuration (out of hundreds) created weapons-to-weapons contact after release, leading to a redesign of the pylons to avoid this...  Despite the performance cost and the wing re-design cost...


So don't use the one single configuration and get back the performance. Yikes!! I can't believe that a decision like that would made made over one single configuration.


----------



## PuckChaser

We can get whatever pylons we want, as long as we have the money for it. "Canadianizing" has never gone poorly before for CAF procurements....


----------



## WingsofFury

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> 1v1s don't really show you much in terms of capabilities.  Operating together at an unrestricted level is what will show you really what a platform brings to the table, but the US, rightfully, doesn't like doing this.



I appreciate you sharing your knowledge, thanks.


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM, what a great idea!  If only DoD/USN had thought about that!  

:

SSM deliberately did not tell you the configuration in question, and for good reason.  As well, if people thought that vehicle certification was a challenge, the world of "stores clearance" makes vehicle certification look easy than teaching a baby to drool...point is, operators are okay with taking the drag hit to use a stable configuration.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Don2wing

Here is an interesting concept that the Kuwait government is doing trading in their old F-18s for new F-18 Super Hornets. -
Super Hornet Fighter Family MYP-III: 2010-2017 Contracts

Nov 30, 2016 00:50 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff  
November 30/16: Just ten days after the US State Department cleared the sale of 40 warplanes to Kuwait, the Gulf monarchy wants more. Major General Lafi al-Azmi, chief of the military’s Armament and Procurement Authority, said that Kuwait plans to purchase external link external link 28 more F-18 Super Hornets as well as return a number of outdated F-18s in their inventory as part of the purchase deal. Details of the sale will only be revealed once it is officially signed

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/super-hornet-fighter-family-myp-iii-2010-2013-contracts-06392/


----------



## RaceAddict

*Majority of CF-18s will fly beyond 'certified safe life': internal report *

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/fighter-jets-extension-risk-1.3876365



> Extending CF-18s past 2025 called a 'high-risk solution, from both a technical and operational perspective'
> 
> The Liberal government's plan to keep a number of its CF-18 fighters flying through the 2020s — possibly up to 2032 — is a "high-risk" and "costly" option, according to an internal government report obtained by CBC News.
> 
> The technical engineering assessment was written for the material group at National Defence in the run-up to the former Conservative government's decision two years ago to extend the life of the front-line jets until 2025.
> 
> It raises questions about the serviceability and survivability of the aging fighters at the crucial transition time when the Liberal government hopes to bring a replacement on line.
> 
> The report takes on fresh relevance in light of the government's decision last week to postpone holding an open and transparent competition for a new fighter. Bidding is not expected to start until next year after the new defence policy has been released and could take up to five years.
> 
> The analysis has the Opposition Conservatives wondering why the Liberal government is not proceeding directly to the competition it promised in the last election.
> 
> 
> 
> shares
> 
> comments
> 
> The Liberal government's plan to keep a number of its CF-18 fighters flying through the 2020s — possibly up to 2032 — is a "high-risk" and "costly" option, according to an internal government report obtained by CBC News.
> 
> The technical engineering assessment was written for the material group at National Defence in the run-up to the former Conservative government's decision two years ago to extend the life of the front-line jets until 2025.
> 
> It raises questions about the serviceability and survivability of the aging fighters at the crucial transition time when the Liberal government hopes to bring a replacement on line.
> 
> The report takes on fresh relevance in light of the government's decision last week to postpone holding an open and transparent competition for a new fighter. Bidding is not expected to start until next year after the new defence policy has been released and could take up to five years.
> 
> The analysis has the Opposition Conservatives wondering why the Liberal government is not proceeding directly to the competition it promised in the last election.
> 
> National Defence says it intends to buy up to 18 Boeing Super Hornets as a stopgap measure until a brand-new fleet arrives.
> 
> The analysis is also significant considering this week's fatal crash of a CF-18 at a training range near Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake in Alberta.
> 
> 
> 
> shares
> 
> comments
> 
> The Liberal government's plan to keep a number of its CF-18 fighters flying through the 2020s — possibly up to 2032 — is a "high-risk" and "costly" option, according to an internal government report obtained by CBC News.
> 
> The technical engineering assessment was written for the material group at National Defence in the run-up to the former Conservative government's decision two years ago to extend the life of the front-line jets until 2025.
> 
> It raises questions about the serviceability and survivability of the aging fighters at the crucial transition time when the Liberal government hopes to bring a replacement on line.
> 
> The report takes on fresh relevance in light of the government's decision last week to postpone holding an open and transparent competition for a new fighter. Bidding is not expected to start until next year after the new defence policy has been released and could take up to five years.
> 
> The analysis has the Opposition Conservatives wondering why the Liberal government is not proceeding directly to the competition it promised in the last election.
> 
> New Liberal policy means there aren't enough fighter jets to go around
> Boeing met federal officials 7 times as often as Lockheed Martin in lead-up to fighter deal
> Canada's fighter jets running out of airframe life, according to data tabled in Parliament
> 
> National Defence says it intends to buy up to 18 Boeing Super Hornets as a stopgap measure until a brand-new fleet arrives.
> 
> The analysis is also significant considering this week's fatal crash of a CF-18 at a training range near Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake in Alberta.
> 
> Sajjan on Super Hornets 0:50
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan last week said permanent replacements for the '80s-vintage jets "will be fully operational in the late 2020s."
> 
> That is further into the future than the former Conservative government had planned.
> 
> "That means we must continue to fly the legacy CF-18s throughout the 2020s, no matter what," Sajjan said during the news conference announcing the government's decision.
> 'A high-risk solution'
> 
> The Conservatives had planned to refurbish the fighters to keep them operational until 2025, something the internal analysis says results in "a reasonably low to moderate technical and operational risk" in light of the fact the U.S. navy intends to keep flying some of its F-18s and Super Hornets during the same timeframe.
> 
> It is after 2025 that the significant concern emerges.
> 
> The CF-18s would require a major overhaul — known as a Control Point 3 life extension — to remain operational after that date.
> 
> "This option is a high-risk solution, from both a technical and operational perspective," says the 13-page, unredacted evaluation.
> 
> "A majority of the fleet (50 aircraft) would need to be flown beyond the currently certified safe life."
> 
> The assessment goes on to list the components that would need replacing, and the list is extensive.
> 
> "A large and costly procurement of new wings and flight controls would be required to support this effort, as the structural lives of these components would expire for many of the fleet's aircraft."
> Shortage of spare parts, weapons
> 
> The report also notes, among other things, that the fighter jets' transponders, which identify them as friend or foe to other aircraft, will have to be upgraded.
> 
> The avionics system will be considered outdated by the early 2020s and won't meet U.S. requirements for encrypted communications, which threatens operations with the Americans and the North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad).
> 
> "From an operational perspective, the fleet will be exposed to a more lethal threat environment," says the analysis. "In addition there will be decreased interoperability with newer aircraft flown by Canada's allies."
> 
> The further into the decade the fighters operate, the more concern there will be about access to weapons and spare parts, the report adds.
> $400-million upgrade needed
> 
> In an interview with CBC News, Sajjan downplayed the analysis, saying the Liberals have conducted their own, more recent studies that give them comfort.
> 
> "The engineers have assured us the life extension can be done in high confidence and we can meet our needs," he said, adding that concern about the overall condition of the fleet is one of the things that drove the Liberals to recommend the interim purchase of Super Hornets.
> 
> "Yes, we can extend our fighters to 2025. After that time they will be slowly graduated out."
> 
> Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are stalling.
> 
> "We know Denmark just did a competition in 11 months. Norway did theirs in about a year and a half. Japan did theirs in a year and 11 months," he said. The Liberals "could do an open and fair competition right now and get a plane faster than they can in five years' time."
> 
> The refurbishment to 2025 is estimated to cost $400 million, but Sajjan was unable to say how much more it will be to keep the fighters flying beyond that date.
> 
> Unpublished, internal defence estimates shown to CBC News suggest the total overhaul cost could rise to $1.3 billion depending on the upgrades selected by air force planners.
> 
> In the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to buy a cheaper fighter in an open competition and plow the savings back into rebuilding the navy.
> 
> With an interim purchase of Super Hornets and a life extension program, the government will be hard-pressed to find savings.
> 
> "Yes, we are investing more. This option costs more money, but this is the situation we were dealt with," said Sajjan.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile in Finland:



> US approves upgrade for Finnish Hornets
> 
> The US State Department has approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Finland for USD156 million of equipment and services in support of its ongoing Boeing F/A-18 Hornet mid-life upgrade (MLU) programme.
> 
> The approval, which was announced by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) on 5 December, covers 90 Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS-JTRSs), as well as software services and contractor/US government technical support. As noted by the DSCA, the MIDS-JTRSs will improve the survivability and communications connectivity of the Finnish Air Force's legacy Hornet fighters.
> 
> Work will be conducted by Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE North America, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, Rockwell Collins, ViaSat, and Data Link Solutions.
> 
> The Finnish Air Force currently fields 55 single-seat F/A-18C and seven twin-seat F/A-18D aircraft that it received in 1996 and 1995 respectively. When they were first acquired, Finland's Hornets were configured for air defence duties only due to a treaty that was signed between Helsinki and Moscow in Soviet times that prevented the country from operating bomber aircraft. However, by the time the aircraft came into service in 1996 the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, so the treaty was no longer in effect. As such, Finland has been progressively enhancing the capabilities of its F/A-18 fleet with an extensive MLU programme led by Patria.
> http://www.janes.com/article/66018/us-approves-upgrade-for-finnish-hornets?hootPostID=988b750b94b3d482367e05a7281e3640



Somewhat relevant:



> Facing the Bear: Nordics’ Fighter Force Greatly to Outnumber Canadian…
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/mark-collins-facing-the-bear-nordics-fighter-force-greatly-to-outnumber-canadian/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

That would be relevant if nordic were a country.


----------



## a_majoor

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone done any simulations of the contenders against the likely 2020-2035 threats?
> 
> I assume that classified information about the contenders has played a role in recent contests from which it is interesting to note that the F-35 has been the dominant competitor.
> 
> Candidly I would be much more comfortable fielding a smaller fleet of F-35's with some type of long endurance armed UAV for low intensity conflict than a larger fleet of F-18e, Gripen or Eurofighters if those are deemed to be "less capable" against Su-30 class, J-20 class, PAK-FA class fighters as well as S-400 class SAM threats.
> 
> Has anyone seen any assessments they can share?  Or provide summaries thereof?
> 
> Cheers, Matthew.



This is a very high level simulation, which is probably as good as you can get in the unclassified realm:

https://warisboring.com/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4#.460oc1ply


----------



## The Bread Guy

And while everyone's looking at the bright shiny FWSAR thing ...


> An open competition to select a new fighter jet to replace Canada’s entire fleet of aging Boeing CF-18 Hornets could take up to five years to complete—well after the next federal election—according to a timetable disclosed by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan, while responding to questions about The Hill Times’ report this week that Canada’s defence department signed a new “decision memorandum” with the F-35 joint strike fighter office last March, said that Canada’s involvement in the F-35 project will not preclude the U.S. defence giant from putting its F-35 up against other competitors for the multi-billion-dollar Canadian procurement to replace the CF-18 fleet.
> 
> Lockheed Martin can still compete for the contract, just as another U.S. aerospace giant, Boeing Company, would also be able to take part in the bidding, despite being in negotiations with the Canadian government for the purchase of 18 of the company’s Super Hornet fighters as a short-term solution to fill the Royal Canadian Air Force’s capability gap, Mr. Sajjan said.
> 
> “We get that question of bias,” said Mr. Sajjan (Vancouver South, B.C.), adding that questions have been raised about both Boeing and Lockheed Martin. “The perception is there, but we are making a decision based on what we need for Canada.” ...


----------



## FSTO

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And while everyone's looking at the bright shiny FWSAR thing ...



WTF? Really? Five more bloody years?

This just goes to prove that our government(s) is not remotely serious about equipping the CAF with the proper kit.

Maybe Lucien Bouchard was correct.


----------



## Quirky

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And while everyone's looking at the bright shiny FWSAR thing ...





> Mr. Sajjan added that the government is going “through a process that’s going to have a very rigorous method of being able to test,” the aircraft options before making a selection.



Didn't they do that already with the F-35 being chosen as the best candidate? I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals hold jet races to determine the eventual winner the way things are going.


----------



## PuckChaser

Quick time appreciation:

Early 2017 - Competition begins
Early 2022 - Competition completed, results announced
Mid 2022 - Contract awarded (generous estimate, I doubt they'd get a contract signed in 3 months)
Mid 2025 - First replacement aircraft arrives in Canada
Sometime 2025 - CF-188 supposed to be retired
Mid/Late 2028 - FOC after last aircraft arrives

By manufacturing a capability gap now, and punting procurement down the road, the Liberals have now created a real capability gap when the replacement aircraft aren't arriving fast enough to pull 35-40 year old planes out of line Squadrons.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> By manufacturing a capability gap now, and punting procurement down the road, the Liberals have now created a real capability gap when the replacement aircraft aren't arriving fast enough to pull 35-40 year old planes out of line Squadrons.



Duh, that's what the 18 Super Hornets are supposed to solve.   :


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting comment on corrosion being more of an issue from sitting aircraft as opposed to active carrier aircraft http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1766670-navy-weighs-sensor-weapons-f-18-upgrades


----------



## MarkOttawa

What about CF-18s and those used RAAF Hornets which will be around for some time?



> USMC to upgrade Hornets with new AESA radar
> 
> The US Marine Corps (USMC) is to replace the radars of its Boeing F/A-18 legacy Hornets with a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) system.
> 
> A request for information (RFI) issued by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 20 March calls for a new AESA system to replace the incumbent Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar on the USMC’s fleet of F/A-18C/D aircraft.
> 
> “The AN/APG-73 has been subject to ongoing maintainability, supportability, and readiness issues,” the RFI noted, adding, “AESA solutions are required due to the increased reliability and sustainability requirements, as well as the associated capability improvements.”
> 
> According to NAVAIR, the contract will begin on 1 October of this year with retrofits commencing in the fourth quarter of 2020 and running through to the fourth quarter of 2022. A total of 98 AESAs are to be procured to cover seven fleet squadrons of 12 aircraft each plus 14 spare systems. In its list of requirements, NAVAIR states that the new AESA should require no changes to the current radar-aircraft interfaces.
> 
> As the incumbent radar provider, Raytheon is likely to pitch its Raytheon Advanced Capability Radar (RACR) that has been adapted from the AN/APG-79 as fitted to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, and is scaled to be compatible with the legacy Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon.
> 
> As the other prime radar provider to the US military, Northrop Grumman is expected to compete with its Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) that is also compatible with the legacy Hornet and F-16...
> http://www.janes.com/article/78735/usmc-to-upgrade-hornets-with-new-aesa-radar



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

How will these compare with current CF-188s and with whatever we do with old RAAF Hornets?



> Kuwait to upgrade legacy Hornets with new countermeasures
> 
> Kuwait is to upgrade its Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornet combat aircraft with defensive countermeasures to be delivered by the end of March 2021.
> 
> According to the US Department of Defense (DoD), Raytheon has been awarded USD32 million to deliver F/A-18 CD-108B/ALE-50(V) control, dispenser, decoy, countermeasures (commonly known as the Integrated Multi-Platform Launch Controller [IMPLC]), Lot 13 full-rate production for the government of Kuwait. In all 38 IMPLCs will be procured to equip the Kuwaiti Air Force’s (KAF’s) legacy Hornet fleet.
> 
> The contract, which is included in a USD34.6 million award that contains the induction and repair of IMPLC assets in support of the US Navy, was announced on 30 July...
> https://www.janes.com/article/82098/kuwait-to-upgrade-legacy-hornets-with-new-countermeasures



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Any chance of such an upgrade for RCAF CF-18s (and used RAAF Hornets)?



> Raytheon to equip classic Hornet with upgraded radar
> 
> Raytheon will equip the U.S. Marine Corps' classic Hornet fleet with an upgraded APG-79(v)4 AESA radar system.
> 
> Raython plans to begin delivering the system in 2021 and finish deliveries by 2022 for the Hornet fleet. No specified contract amount was listed in a news release Tuesday announcing the selection by the Marines.
> 
> The system is a scaled version of the APG-79 AESA radar, which is integrated on the U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Air Force's Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers.
> 
> "With AESA radars, fighter jet pilots and crews tip the scales in their favor over their adversaries," Eric Ditmars, vice president of Raytheon Secure Sensor Solutions, said in a statement. "Now that the APG-79(v)4 is slated to fly on the classic Hornet, Marine Corps pilots will be able to identify, track and engage more targets over a greater distance than ever before."
> 
> Ditmars said the system will provide improved targeting capabilities for air dominance, maritime strike and air-to-surface missions.
> 
> In addition, the company is touting reduced maintenance hours while increasing availability for flight.
> 
> Because the APG-79(v)4 shares more than 90 percent commonality with the APG-79, the company said the Marine Corps will benefit from the "same global sustainment and upgrade path already in place for the system."
> 
> With the radar beam to be steered at nearly the speed of light, the system gives near real-time results.
> 
> Raytheon, which is headquartered in Waltham, Mass., also supplies the F/A-18E/F aircraft with several other systems, including laser-guided weapons, the company said.
> https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/01/15/Raytheon-to-equip-classic-Hornet-with-upgraded-radar/7711547564777/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

The first RAAF F-18s have arrived at Cold Lake.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/02/first-interim-fighter-jets-arrive-in-cold-lake.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The comments on the CAF page announcing this are illustrative of what people think of this.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> The comments on the CAF page announcing this are illustrative of what people think of this.



Here’s mine:

🤦‍♂️ We’ve gone full retard.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> The comments on the CAF page announcing this are illustrative of what people think of this.



I feel for the poor PAO who had to spin that into something positive.


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I feel for the poor PAO who had to spin that into something positive.



A highly challenging task no doubt.  That poor Captain.....


----------



## OceanBonfire

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The first RAAF F-18s have arrived at Cold Lake.
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/02/first-interim-fighter-jets-arrive-in-cold-lake.html



And the modifications:









> https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/posts/2485828274977693


----------



## Rifleman62

Pending PBO Report on 28 Feb 19

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/Interim_F_18_aircraft
*
Fiscal Analysis of the Interim F-18 Aircraft*

28 February 2019 - Posted by: Yves Giroux - Posted in: Upcoming Reports


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just out from the Office of Parliamentary Budget Officer...


> Summary
> 
> This report provides an independent estimate of the impact of the costs of Canada’s procurement of 18 Australian F/A-18 aircraft on the federal budget. This estimate is for a total life cycle cost, thus taking into consideration the total cost of project development, acquisition, operations and sustainment, and disposal of the additional aircraft.
> 
> The findings of this report are as follows: the risk-adjusted life cycle cost estimate of the Interim Fighter Capability Project is approximately $1.09 billion, with a low-end estimate of $1.08 billion and a high-end estimate of $1.15 billion. Breaking this down into the project’s phases, PBO has estimated a Development phase cost of $12.5 million, an Acquisition phase cost of $311.5 million, an Operations and Sustainment phase cost of $756.5 million, and a Disposal phase cost of $11 million.
> 
> The total estimated life cycle cost of 1.09 billion is some 22% higher than the Department of National Defence (DND) estimate.  This is largely driven by costs in the operations and sustainment phase, where the PBO has estimated life extension and upgrade costs that are approximately $120M higher than DND’s.
> 
> Sensitivity analysis surrounding changes in planned flying rates show that the total project life cycle cost estimate can vary by as much as $55.5 million. A delay in the completion of the acquisition phase by one year, such that deliveries of six aircraft slip into the 2022-2023 fiscal year, would increase total project costs by $12.5 million.


More @ link & attachment


----------



## NavyShooter

Sooo...$1.15 Billion is $64Million per airframe....and the US is trying to get the flyaway on the F-35 down to $85 Million????


----------



## Quirky

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Sooo...$1.15 Billion is $64Million per airframe....and the US is trying to get the flyaway on the F-35 down to $85 Million????



When you factor in costs to retrofit a single aircraft at L3, $64mil sounds about right. The engines were not included in the deal either, so we have to find 20 somewhere in the system - assuming they keep 10 in a flyable state. If remember correctly, that means if an engine comes out for rebuild, there won’t enough spares. That aircraft will sit until it’s fixed or they’ll have to rob. It’s going to suck being a hornet maintainer for the next 10 years.


----------



## dapaterson

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Sooo...$1.15 Billion is $64Million per airframe....and the US is trying to get the flyaway on the F-35 down to $85 Million????



That $1.15B figure includes operating costs - fuel & maintenance for the estimated life.  It's not a purchase price, or even purchase plus refit.  It's purchase plus refit plus operating plus disposal at the end of life.

(Plus, the $1.15B is CAD and the $85M is USD).


----------



## MarkOttawa

And that is a hell of a silly way to cost procurements since many of those operating costs etc. are going to exist (at differing levels) for any plane or ship we buy.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And that is a hell of a silly way to cost procurements since many of those operating costs etc. are going to exist (at differing levels) for any plane or ship we buy.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



But the PBO didn't cost the procurement - they costed the lifecycle.  Which is important - otherwise you buy cheap up front, and pay more lifecycle.  Done well, you can avoid (or at least identify in advance) pressure points for money in outyears; otherwise, you're in constant reaction mode.

Interestingly enough, if you add the contingency funding DND has identified that the PBO excluded in their comparison, their figures are remarkably similar...


----------



## The Bread Guy

And, for the record, this from the DND info-machine ...


> *Statement in response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s Fiscal Analysis of the Interim F-18 Aircraft*
> From: National Defence
> 
> Statement
> 
> The Department of National Defence (DND) welcomes the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s Fiscal Analysis of the Interim F-18 Aircraft; we have a good relationship with this office, and value their work.
> 
> Overall, our costing is extremely close to that of the PBO on the majority of line items, including the acquisition of the F-18s, infrastructure, and conversion to the CF-18 configuration. The difference in the final total is largely attributable to two factors:
> 
> First, as noted in the report itself, the PBO did not include our contingency in their calculations of “DND numbers.”
> And second, the PBO figures for upgrades of the interim fighter fleet include estimates for CF-18 combat upgrades; we are still producing options for these upgrades.
> 
> DND’s methodology for full costing has been developed over the last several years and validated in the development of the Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy. While we are confident that our methodology is sound, we will continue to work with the PBO, the Auditor General of Canada, and other outside entities as part of our commitment to responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
> 
> The first two interim aircraft arrived in Cold Lake on February 16, and modifications have already begun to Canadianize them. We look forward to unveiling them in RCAF colours and ready for their first Canadian mission in the coming months.


----------



## Loachman

I am guessing that, for each one of these machines purchased and brought up to our standard at great cost, one of our existing machines, already in that state, will be pushed into a hangar and stored, there being no more Pilots and Techs than there were prior to this purchase.


----------



## RDBZ

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am guessing that, for each one of these machines purchased and brought up to our standard at great cost, one of our existing machines, already in that state, will be pushed into a hangar and stored, there being no more Pilots and Techs than there were prior to this purchase.



Wasn't that the the aim of the purchase; to acquire airframes with significantly fewer fight hours to provide flexibility in managing the fleet until eventual replacement?

I'd be surprised if the cost was "great" though. Conversion seems to be limited to things like changing the seat harness, installing an exterior light, removing a high frequency radio, and reloading software (the RAAF had integrated weapons like AGM-158 JASSM, AIM-132, and JDAM-ER which the RCAF doesn't have in inventory).


----------



## Downhiller229

RDBZ said:
			
		

> Wasn't that the the aim of the purchase; to acquire airframes with significantly fewer fight hours to provide flexibility in managing the fleet until eventual replacement?
> 
> I'd be surprised if the cost was "great" though. Conversion seems to be limited to things like changing the seat harness, installing an exterior light, removing a high frequency radio, and reloading software (the RAAF had integrated weapons like AGM-158 JASSM, AIM-132, and JDAM-ER which the RCAF doesn't have in inventory).



Seat harness? try complete ejection seat system.

Exterior light? try two engines and generators

Software? Try replacing all the displays and hoping our software works with it. 


It is ridiculous and costly. Plus those things need corrosion studies done to see how much life are left in them


----------



## RDBZ

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> Seat harness? try complete ejection seat system.
> 
> Exterior light? try two engines and generators
> 
> Software? Try replacing all the displays and hoping our software works with it.
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous and costly. Plus those things need corrosion studies done to see how much life are left in them



So Canada fitted ejection seats and engines that were different than other F-18 operators?   RAAF seats differ from USN only in terms of the harness.

"Canada’s CF-18s are of a similar configuration to those of the RAAF, having undergone an extensive upgrade in the late 1990s and early 2000s to a configuration similar to that of Australia’s multi-phased AIR 5375 Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG). Canadian CF-18s are fitted with a spotlight on the forward port fuselage, and there are minor differences in the weapons carried and in operational flight program software."

http://australianaviation.com.au/2019/01/raaf-hornet-sale-to-canada-finalised-report/


----------



## Downhiller229

RDBZ said:
			
		

> So Canada fitted ejection seats and engines that were different than other F-18 operators?   RAAF seats differ from USN only in terms of the harness.
> 
> "Canada’s CF-18s are of a similar configuration to those of the RAAF, having undergone an extensive upgrade in the late 1990s and early 2000s to a configuration similar to that of Australia’s multi-phased AIR 5375 Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG). Canadian CF-18s are fitted with a spotlight on the forward port fuselage, and there are minor differences in the weapons carried and in operational flight program software."
> 
> http://australianaviation.com.au/2019/01/raaf-hornet-sale-to-canada-finalised-report/




 we didn’t buy the engines from the Aussies, they will be pulled and shipped back. We will need to find some to use those jets as we have very few spares.

The seat isn’t the same one we use. We will need to buy more.


----------



## Quirky

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> and generators



Which are complete garbage and are prone to failure. The generators haven't been improved but there was a massive upgrade of the avionics since delivery in the 80's.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> Seat harness? try complete ejection seat system.
> 
> Exterior light? try two engines and generators
> 
> Software? Try replacing all the displays and hoping our software works with it.
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous and costly. Plus those things need corrosion studies done to see how much life are left in them



So what you're saying is, this is the Air Force version of the Upholder Submarine fiasco, right?

I suppose it's the Army's turn next. Maybe they could buy us used US Marine rucksacks... oh... wait.... those are actually way better than what we have now, so that won't do. Just like their (Vancouver Canada based Arc Teryx made) raingear.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Quirky said:
			
		

> Which are complete garbage and are prone to failure. The generators haven't been improved but there was a massive upgrade of the avionics since delivery in the 80's.



The generator issues as across all F-18A-D fleets around the world.  They are not exclusive to us.

As far as mods on the RAAF aircraft, there are a fair amount but they all are relatively simple to embody (in fact, most were mods we did a couple of years ago).  Thr biggest issue will be configuration control of the aircraft and parts management.

Not saying it is a good idea to buy the aircraft (I see it as a way for the government to hit pause on the fighter file for a couple of years, nothing more) however we have to be fair in our assessment of the amount of work to be done to get the aircraft up to speed.


----------



## Loachman

But - will this purchase actually improve anything?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Are the engines any use to the Aussies? In other words we bought airframes, not aircraft.


----------



## RDBZ

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The generator issues as across all F-18A-D fleets around the world.  They are not exclusive to us.
> 
> As far as mods on the RAAF aircraft, there are a fair amount but they all are relatively simple to embody (in fact, most were mods we did a couple of years ago).  Thr biggest issue will be configuration control of the aircraft and parts management.
> 
> Not saying it is a good idea to buy the aircraft (I see it as a way for the government to hit pause on the fighter file for a couple of years, nothing more) however we have to be fair in our assessment of the amount of work to be done to get the aircraft up to speed.



Would the RCAF bother with the structural upgrades though?  When the RAAF did the math on that they decided they weren't needed given the low hours on the airframes and the planned phase out timetable  (the classics have a pretty short lifespan ahead of them in RAAF service, with the last of the initial order of 72 F-35s to be delivered by 2023).  If these really are "interim" aircraft why would the RCAF see it differently?


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> But - will this purchase actually improve anything?


If we get more YFR then yes.  Pilots want to fly.  More YFR means more flying for pilots.  Happy pilots.  And happy pilots are more likely to stay.


----------



## observor 69

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If we get more YFR then yes.  Pilots want to fly.  More YFR means more flying for pilots.  Happy pilots.  And happy pilots are more likely to stay.



 And this scenario will also result in enough techs to reach optimal YFR?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just one thing confuses me here: Did we acquire 18 airframe from Australia, meaning once the jets get over here we ship the engines back to the Aussies?

If so, it raises many questions:

1- Did the cost advertised by the government or determined by the PBO include acquisition of engines or not?
2- If not, then how much more will those engine cost? Or,
3- If we don't plan to buy engines (and use the airframes for spare parts), how does that increases the number of available airframes to the needed level of coverage of our "gap"?

Just asking as I don't get this airframe/engine separation thing that air forces do (our ships have come complete with motors ever since we abandoned sails  :nod.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If we get more YFR then yes.  Pilots want to fly.  More YFR means more flying for pilots.  Happy pilots.  And happy pilots are more likely to stay.



As much YFR can be assigned as dictated by higher.

But, unless additional Techs can be minted, knitted, or purchased to match the additional number of airframes - or we take away the Saturdays, half of the Sundays (still allowing them to attend Church in the mornings, of course), and the lunch breaks from the existing ones and go full-Dickensian - there will be no more serviceable machines on the ramp than there are currently, and none of that increased YFR will be burnt off.

We are already well below the establishment of Pilots (I cannot speak to the Tech situation, but doubt that it's much rosier), and it's not just numbers that are concerning. Experience is a significant problem. We cannot retain and train enough.

We just had a new Captain posted in. He was awarded his Wings in Portage in December, and has at least a two-year wait until he gets his Chinook course. And that's not the only lengthy delay between courses. And he's not the only example.

I have seen nothing but decline since the mid-nineties.

Five years from now, these will be The Good Old Days.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> As much YFR can be assigned as dictated by higher.
> 
> But, unless additional Techs can be minted, knitted, or purchased to match the additional number of airframes - or we take away the Saturdays, half of the Sundays (still allowing them to attend Church in the mornings, of course), and the lunch breaks from the existing ones and go full-Dickensian - there will be no more serviceable machines on the ramp than there are currently, and none of that increased YFR will be burnt off.
> 
> We are already well below the establishment of Pilots (I cannot speak to the Tech situation, but doubt that it's much rosier), and it's not just numbers that are concerning. Experience is a significant problem. We cannot retain and train enough.
> 
> We just had a new Captain posted in. He was awarded his Wings in Portage in December, and has at least a two-year wait until he gets his Chinook course. And that's not the only lengthy delay between courses. And he's not the only example.
> 
> I have seen nothing but decline since the mid-nineties.
> 
> Five years from now, these will be The Good Old Days.



Maybe they'll send us their aircrew too, because 'it's 2015+'


----------



## RDBZ

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just one thing confuses me here: *Did we acquire 18 airframe from Australia*, meaning once the jets get over here we ship the engines back to the Aussies?
> 
> If so, it raises many questions:
> 
> 1- Did the cost advertised by the government or determined by the PBO include acquisition of engines or not?
> 2- If not, then how much more will those engine cost? Or,
> 3- If we don't plan to buy engines (and use the airframes for spare parts), how does that increases the number of available airframes to the needed level of coverage of our "gap"?
> 
> Just asking as I don't get this airframe/engine separation thing that air forces do (our ships have come complete with motors ever since we abandoned sails  :nod.



The total buy is 25, with 7 to be used as parts.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RDBZ said:
			
		

> The total buy is 25, with 7 to be used as parts.



Too bad we can't do that with Infantry. Yet.


----------



## Iron 1

10 year+ lurker around here. Finally took the plunge and signed in.

On topic (CF-18): Is there anyone around these parts who's "in the know" with regards to how these RAAF birds will be integrated with our existing tail numbers? Adding new from 188798/188940, or "filling in blanks" for aircraft SOS over the years? 
Not that it matters, just curious.

I am not active military, just another one of those "kids" (I'm 55 this summer) who grew up following my Dad around during the Cold War.
Dad got out in (YOD) '86 after 35 years in ATC. BATCWO. I was there through the IOC of the Hornet and have always had an affinity for it.
Kind of a fan of the CF-104 as well...say no more. 4 years on the "pointy end" in Lahr and Baden and made it to YOD in time to see the "deadeye zips" of 417 do their thing.

Anyways, if anyone's got any idea about the Aussie birds I'd be most interested to know.

All for now, Ron


----------



## SupersonicMax

Single Seats will be 1880XX and two-seaters will be 1881XX.  They essentially keep the last 3 numbers of the Ausie tail numbers (A21-YXX where Y is 0 for single seat and 1 for two-seaters).


----------



## Iron 1

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Single Seats will be 1880XX and two-seaters will be 1881XX.  They essentially keep the last 3 numbers of the Ausie tail numbers (A21-YXX where Y is 0 for single seat and 1 for two-seaters).


Thanks for the prompt reply sir!
Interesting tack they chose, but it makes sense to differentiate these machines from the rest of the fleet as I'm sure there will be variances in maintenance requirements. Perhaps other matters as well. 
I'm on the fence as far as this particular initiative; to whit? I have serious reservations with regards to the current government and their actual commitment to improving the situation for guys like yourself who are on the "pointy end of the stick".
I guess that this initiative will (at the least) boost the number of flightworthy airframes available for the short term, improve/increase yearly seat time/flight hours, and perhaps allow for an aspect that may help in the matter of retention of core aircrew such as yourself? 
FWIW? They finally seem to be getting the message with regards to the (avoidable; IMO) "attrition" within the RCAF at all levels.

I'm going on the record to say that as a taxpayer in this country (for 30+ years), the utter inept handling of this (replacement A/C) file makes me ill.
We should have a couple of F-35 squadrons up and running by this point in the timeline.


----------



## dapaterson

Iron 1 said:
			
		

> I'm going on the record to say that as a taxpayer in this country (for 30+ years), the utter inept handling of this (replacement A/C) file makes me ill.
> We should have a couple of F-35 squadrons up and running by this point in the timeline.



We should be in the pipeline for a fighter replacement.

Even if we had signed off on a purchase order 5 years ago, we'd still have only a handful of a/c at this point; there's a lot of nations in the line, getting their a/c a few at a time.  Besides, there's much more to acquiring a capability than just getting airframes.  Tooling.  Infra (both physical and IM/IT).  Training.  Simulators (both for pilots and ground crew).  It's a complex process.


----------



## Iron 1

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We should be in the pipeline for a fighter replacement.
> 
> Even if we had signed off on a purchase order 5 years ago, we'd still have only a handful of a/c at this point; there's a lot of nations in the line, getting their a/c a few at a time.  Besides, there's much more to acquiring a capability than just getting airframes.  Tooling.  Infra (both physical and IM/IT).  Training.  Simulators (both for pilots and ground crew).  It's a complex process.


Point taken.
You're correct in all of your statements given above. I lived and worked (PSAC/Heating Plant) in Cold Lake throughout the period where the CF-188 entered service. As such, I saw all of the above as it came on line over the course of IOC for the Hornet units. 
What I'm getting at is the fact that we have been involved with this programme from the onset. The fact that we are not at the same level as the RAF or IAF is an exemplar of the mismanagement of the matter by our elected officials, especially when you consider the ever diminishing capabilities of our (now expanding) fleet of obsolescent airframes. The USMC is finding themselves in a similar situation as they too struggle to remain relevant with a fleet of A/B/C/D's (albeit much newer than ours) that is well past its "sell before" date.
_Had the political will been there to tackle this issue *15 years ago *_(as it should have been), we'd be in a far different place than where we currently find ourselves. 
It's embarrassing to our nation (particularly to those that are "wearing the uniform") and that is the point I was trying to make.
I have paid hundreds of thousands of both Corporate and Personal tax dollars to Ottawa over the past 35 years and I'm pretty unhappy that this current situation exists.
Hopefully that provides further clarity.


----------



## Cloud Cover

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We should be in the pipeline for a fighter replacement.
> 
> Even if we had signed off on a purchase order 5 years ago, we'd still have only a handful of a/c at this point; there's a lot of nations in the line, getting their a/c a few at a time.  Besides, there's much more to acquiring a capability than just getting airframes.  Tooling.  Infra (both physical and IM/IT).  Training.  Simulators (both for pilots and ground crew).  It's a complex process.



And no org has more expertise at making things more complex than they have to be than DND!! I'm wondering what the cubicle to fighter ratio will be on the purchase (full lifecycle cost per cube). 200 to 1?


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Hundred of millions more to keep CF-18s fighting fit*
> 
> _The Canadian Press Published Tuesday, January 14, 2020_
> 
> The federal government is planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more to ensure Canada's aging CF-18s can still fight over the coming decade while the country waits for long-overdue replacement jets.
> 
> The extra money follows a warning from the federal auditor general in late 2018 that Canada's fighter jets were at risk of being outmatched by more advanced adversaries due to a lack of combat upgrades since 2008.
> 
> Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger estimates the added cost will be around $800 million, which is on top of the $3 billion the government has already set aside to extend the lives of the CF-18s and purchase 18 secondhand fighter jets from Australia.
> 
> In an interview with The Canadian Press, Meinzinger says the additional investment will result in upgrades for the CF-18s' weapons, sensors and defensive systems so the planes can meet the threats of today and tomorrow.
> 
> Meinzinger says less than half the fleet will receive the full package of upgrades to ensure Canada has enough combat-capable fighter jets while it transitions to more modern planes starting in 2025.
> 
> The transition is expected to last around seven years, if all goes according to plan, with the last CF-18 set for retirement in 2032.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/air-force-to-spend-hundred-of-millions-more-to-keep-cf-18s-fighting-fit-1.4767052

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-millions-dollars-1.5426860


----------



## Czech_pivo

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/air-force-to-spend-hundred-of-millions-more-to-keep-cf-18s-fighting-fit-1.4767052
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-millions-dollars-1.5426860




Anyone want to take bets that we won’t have a single operational replacement jet in Canada in 2025, 5 short years from now?


----------



## MarkOttawa

And pilots for them?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

To put things in perspective, at 100 million a copy, we could have had 38 new hornets or F35s flying in 2025 for the same price with the first ones coming on line within 2 years.    I am guessing that if they start tomorrow (which they won't) the first fully re-built F18 will be returned to the line around about Christmas next year.  What a waste of money


----------



## daftandbarmy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And pilots for them?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



There's the rub....

"Adding Australian Hornets won't necessarily solve the manpower problem, the auditors cautioned. "The purchase will not fix the fundamental weaknesses with the fleet: the aircraft’s declining combat capability and the shortage of personnel."

"The Australian F/A-18s will need modifications and upgrades to allow them to fly until 2032. These modifications will bring the F/A-18s to the same level as the CF-18s but will not improve the CF-18’s combat capability. In addition, National Defense still does not have enough technicians to maintain and pilots to fly the aircraft."

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/canadas-air-force-destined-become-old-obsolete-40802


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets

For anyone curious here is where 46 other Australian jets went. This man has a bigger fighter force then we do.


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets
> 
> For anyone curious here is where 46 other Australian jets went. This man has a bigger fighter force then we do.



Once the F35s are purchased, I wonder if a similar scenario is in store for our F18s, turn them into a private aggressor sqn. It would be a shame to scatter them across the country and put them on sticks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just shows you that you can run more than one type and keep them flying when you have proper systems in place to buy parts and have staff to fix them.


----------



## Quirky

Colin P said:
			
		

> Just shows you that you can run more than one type and keep them flying when you have proper systems in place to buy parts and have staff to fix them.



*When you don’t have Quebec to keep employed. :nod:


----------



## observor 69

"This will allow Air USA to operate at least three fully outfitted squadrons of the 4th generation fighters at all times," 

Sweet J***, how many fully outfitted squadrons do we have?


----------



## MilEME09

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> "This will allow Air USA to operate at least three fully outfitted squadrons of the 4th generation fighters at all times,"
> 
> Sweet J***, how many fully outfitted squadrons do we have?



Technically two


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:
			
		

> Once the F35s are purchased



I'm glad you have such faith in our procurement system.   :


----------



## SupersonicMax

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Technically two



Four.  401 TFS, 409 TFS, 425 TFS and 433TFS, along with an OT squadron, 410 TF(OT)S.


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm glad you have such faith in our procurement system.   :



Agreed. It's a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The latest from the buyandsell.gc.ca website:



> Commercial air transportation services
> 
> The Department of National Defence (DND) requires the supply of commercial air transportation services to transport twelve (12) F/A-18 A/B Hornet aircraft (F/A-18) and up to seven (7) optional F/A-18 aircraft for a total of up to nineteen (19) F/A-18 aircraft, including components and equipment, from Australia to their required delivery point in Canada.



 Link


----------



## MilEME09

Any one have insight into why its been so long after the announced purchase to this? Why not fly them back via c17? Or fly back under their own power?


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Any one have insight into why its been so long after the announced purchase to this? Why not fly them back via c17? Or fly back under their own power?



My guess: Cheaper to send our people to disassemble everything for shipment back to Canada. They will all have to be upgraded anyway by (L3?). Also I can’t imagine the logistics that would be required to fly them from Aus to Quebec, that’s a long long way in a tight cockpit. I find it interesting that this contract is by air transport, wouldn’t sea-transport be more efficient as you could, maybe, do one trip/one ship?


----------



## SupersonicMax

The first couple were brought back via C-17 but I imagine it is putting a strain in the fleet.  Also, we cannot fly with the Australian software and their seat is different than ours and so is our life support equipment (and it is not entirely compatible).  It would be quite the logistical challenge to complete the mods in Australia to fly them in Canada (with tanker support).


----------



## dapaterson

A number of the aircraft (seven, as I recall) are being bought for parts, not as operational flying aircraft.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Any one have insight into why its been so long after the announced purchase to this? Why not fly them back via c17? Or fly back under their own power?



Or, more ignominiously, by cargo ship ...


----------



## Baz

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or, more ignominiously, by cargo ship ...



That is a good question... it's not like they've been in a hurry or need to be.


----------



## OldSolduer

Baz said:
			
		

> That is a good question... it's not like they've been in a hurry or need to be.



And due to the pandemic we'll likely not see anything new until 2075. Maybe.


----------



## suffolkowner

$862 million US to upgrade 36 CF-18's, plus munitions, doesn't seem like money well spent


https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/06/16/canadian-cf-18-upgrade-package-okd-by-us/


----------



## CBH99

FFS...

Even while hemorrhaging money due to closed businesses, CERB payments, COVID related stuff, etc etc -- they STILL can't burn money fast enough   :facepalm:


$862 million... $85M USD per aircraft (Super Hornet & F-35 being roughly equal)...  take into account exchange rate & FMS fees...

That's $862 million that could have been used to directly purchase roughly 8 future fighters, or upgrade base infrastructure for future fighters, or spare parts for future fighters, etc etc.  Or put towards making sure the CSC fleet is filled out.  Or set that aside and use towards a sub replacement, or perhaps ask Sikorski for some additional Cyclone airframes.

But no.  Instead we are buying AESA radars for A model legacy Hornets...  aircraft that are due to be replaced only a few short years after the upgrades are complete...  :tempertantrum:   



Can we just fire these dumb f**ks already?  Pls?  Anybody?   

Could we remind them that our country is currently experiencing a massive shrink of the economy, paying out tons of money via CERB and wage subsidies, are currently unable to complete industry enhancing projects in oil & gas, forestry, etc.  Currently are suffering trade restrictions with China.  And that maybe instead of literally burning almost a billion dollars to upgrade a whopping 36 original Hornets, that money could be used for actually replacing them with jets that already come with the same equipment as the upgrades?  

_(Moderators, I apologize.  Rant is off.  Today seems to be an angry day for some reason.  I try to be a moderate voice on here, but stuff like this just blows me away)  _


----------



## MilEME09

> This sale will provide Canada a 2-squadron bridge of enhanced F/A-18A aircraft to continue meeting NORAD and NATO commitments



So wait two squadrons totaling 36 air frames is enough to meet our NORAD and NATO commitments? but I thought we had a capability gap!? *sarcasm* flying till 2035, if politicians actually let us handle our own procurement we would be receiving deliveries by now.


----------



## CBH99

Not just a capability gap...

An URGENT capability cap, that was one of the government's top priorities.  You know, like 6 years ago...


----------



## Dana381

CBH99 said:
			
		

> FFS...
> 
> Even while hemorrhaging money due to closed businesses, CERB payments, COVID related stuff, etc etc -- they STILL can't burn money fast enough   :facepalm:
> 
> 
> $862 million... $85M USD per aircraft (Super Hornet & F-35 being roughly equal)...  take into account exchange rate & FMS fees...
> 
> That's $862 million that could have been used to directly purchase roughly 8 future fighters, or upgrade base infrastructure for future fighters, or spare parts for future fighters, etc etc.  Or put towards making sure the CSC fleet is filled out.  Or set that aside and use towards a sub replacement, or perhaps ask Sikorski for some additional Cyclone airframes.
> 
> But no.  Instead we are buying AESA radars for A model legacy Hornets...  aircraft that are due to be replaced only a few short years after the upgrades are complete...  :tempertantrum:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just fire these dumb f**ks already?  Pls?  Anybody?
> 
> Could we remind them that our country is currently experiencing a massive shrink of the economy, paying out tons of money via CERB and wage subsidies, are currently unable to complete industry enhancing projects in oil & gas, forestry, etc.  Currently are suffering trade restrictions with China.  And that maybe instead of literally burning almost a billion dollars to upgrade a whopping 36 original Hornets, that money could be used for actually replacing them with jets that already come with the same equipment as the upgrades?
> 
> _(Moderators, I apologize.  Rant is off.  Today seems to be an angry day for some reason.  I try to be a moderate voice on here, but stuff like this just blows me away)  _



Certainly makes me think they are planning on making the future fighter procurement drag on even longer than they are admitting. 

NORAD/NATO must be pushing them to  field more capable aircraft and they know all the fighter money was just sent out to Canadians in $2000 lots!


----------



## suffolkowner

to meet our NORAD commitment we need to be able to have 36 fighters in the air at the same time. 

It does look like the government is moving ahead on infrastructure for the future, although only for Cold Lake.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/future-fighter-capability-project.html

What are we looking at $360 million for the Australian jets and $1B to upgrade 36 jets to help mitigate the transition period? 

To me there is no reason for this as the original order book for the F-35 as late as 2008 had Canada buying 80 F-35's in 5 yrs(yrs 8,9,10,11,12). Lockheed Martin has indicated that they have the capacity plus you have the Turkish spots available. To me the only limiting factor in the ramp up/switch over is the ability to provide/train the pilots and maintainers.


----------



## MarkOttawa

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> to meet our NORAD commitment we need to be able to have 36 fighters in the air at the same time.
> 
> It does look like the government is moving ahead on infrastructure for the future, although only for Cold Lake.
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/future-fighter-capability-project.html
> 
> What are we looking at $360 million for the Australian jets and $1B to upgrade 36 jets to help mitigate the transition period?
> 
> To me there is no reason for this as the original order book for the F-35 as late as 2008 had Canada buying 80 F-35's in 5 yrs(yrs 8,9,10,11,12). Lockheed Martin has indicated that they have the capacity plus you have the Turkish spots available. To me the only limiting factor in the ramp up/switch over is the ability to provide/train the pilots and maintainers.



Harper gov't reduced planned F-35 buy from 80 to 65 in 2008, cost presumably:



> ...
> *December 11, 2006*: In a signing ceremony at the Pentagon, Deputy Minister of Defence Ward Elcock, signs the third-phase JSF agreement, along with the seven other partner nations. Canada commits up to US$551 million over 40 years to the program to be used for, among other things, manufacturing, testing and tooling equipment. The agreement states that _Canada expects to order 80 F-35s, at a rate of 10 per year, from 2014 to 2021, with deliveries starting in 2016_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> *June 19, 2008* - _DND releases its Canada First Defence Strategy. The document states for the first time that the government wants to buy "next generation" fighter aircraft to replace the aging F-18s. It also states for the first time that it will need 65 aircraft and establishes a budget of $9 billion to buy the aircraft_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The F-35 is the only "next generation" fighter available to the Canadian forces. The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a so-called fifth generation fighter but is not sold internationally. China and Russia are developing fifth generation fighters but Canada does not see them as viable options.
> 
> A budget of CDN$16 billion is established to operate and sustain the F-35 for 20 years. The budget is based on DND estimates, but there is no documented analysis to show how the estimates were developed...
> https://www.cbc.ca/fifth/blog/f-35-timeline-canadas-biggest-air-defence-purchase-ever



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

US approves Canadian Hornet upgrade

The US State Department has approved an upgrade for Canada’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18A (CF-18A/CF-188A in national service) Hornet combat aircraft, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 16 June.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-approves-canadian-hornet-upgrade


----------



## MarkOttawa

QuietSpike2020 said:
			
		

> US approves Canadian Hornet upgrade
> 
> The US State Department has approved an upgrade for Canada’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18A (CF-18A/CF-188A in national service) Hornet combat aircraft, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 16 June.
> 
> https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-approves-canadian-hornet-upgrade



Meanwhile USMC to upgrade some 84 of its legacy Hornets with AESA radar and more:



> The Plan For Making Aging USMC F/A-18 Hornets Deadlier Than Ever For A Final Decade Of Service
> _Major upgrades and a smart fleet management plan will give the Marines the most potent Hornets ever during the twilight of the type's service._
> 
> The U.S. Marine Corps is moving towards a streamlined fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35B and C-model Lightning IIs for all of its tactical aircraft (TACAIR) needs post-2030. While USMC leadership juggles the exact planning over the number of the stealthy fighters it will need to meet future requirements, both the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II and F/A-18A-D Hornet fleets will continue to provide Close Air Support (CAS) for Marines on the ground and air cover above the battlefield. Under current plans, the Harrier II will bow out in Fiscal Year 2028, followed by the Hornet in 2030.
> 
> The aging Marine Corps Hornet fleet is composed of a range of 1980s-era F/A-18A-D models, all of which have undergone various upgrades. Now, in order to bridge the decade-long gap between now and the type's retirement, a select batch of approximately 84 Hornets has been earmarked to make it through to the planned “sundown” despite their advanced years via a series of upgrades, the likes of which the Hornet has never seen.
> 
> With the Hornet considered to be the USMC’s most potent air-to-air and air-to-ground “legacy” fighter aircraft, the so-called “best-in-breed” are now receiving High Flight Hour (HFH) inspections during depot-level maintenance that will see them out to 10,000 flight hours. Concurrently, they are being equipped with new technology that will enable them to bridge the gap to the Marine Lightning fleet of 2030-onwards.
> 
> Known unofficially as “Classic” Hornets, these first-generation F/A-18s were ultimately superseded by the larger F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in U.S. Navy service. The original A-D models have now all been retired from the front line Navy fleet. _Some of these aircraft have been redirected into the USMC to help prop up the fleet as the Marines’ eye a planned “sunset” of 2030 for the Hornet_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The F/A-18A-D Program Management Agency (PMA) is actively engaged in future plans for the fleet, which includes managing multiple readiness initiatives, planning an aggressive strike/store plan, and implementing re-engineered end of life Planned Maintenance Inspection (PMI) events. Twice yearly reviews are held to identify the most suitable aircraft that will ensure the Marines keep a credible fleet of Hornets on the flight line now and into the future.
> 
> U.S. Marine Corps leadership has laid out the broad ambition for its Hornet strike fighter fleet in its annual Aviation Plans of recent years. Central to this is a series of upgrades that will ultimately realize up to seven squadrons-worth of best condition Hornets, all of which will receive a new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar in the form of the Raytheon AN/APG-79(v)4.
> 
> This radar is based on the AN/APG-79(v)1 radar that equips Block 2/3 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. Ambitions for an AESA radar for the Classic Hornet have been in train for a decade, as have numerous other plans. In conjunction with a new advanced self-protection system and a suite of modern precision-guided weapons, the Hornet is being made as lethal as possible in order for it to meet high-end missions over the coming decade.
> 
> Speaking to The War Zone, former Hornet Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) Lt Col Michael “Sock” Pavis is the F/A-18A-D Capabilities Lead and F/A-18A-D Air Vehicle Lead for the PMA-265 Hornet Program Office at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. “The Marine Corps Aviation Plan is the foundation of the plan for U.S Marine Corps F/A-18A-Ds. That’s a “sundown” of 2030 and supporting the transition to F-35. During that transition, the Hornet is the Marine Corps aircraft that has the greatest variety of both air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons. So. we need to support that, and the National Defense Strategy, to ensure we are lethal, survivable, and ready.”
> 
> “Keeping that in mind, we are looking at transitioning all our A-D squadrons to be composite squadrons, each with seven F/A-18Cs and five F/A-18Ds. [We will use] the most valuable fleet, [one that gives us] the most capability for the lowest cost of ownership. The F/A-18 was initially designed for 6,000 flight hours, and is now extended to 8,000 hours. Following a High Flight Hour [HFH] inspection, we’re able to fly those F/A-18s to 10,000 hours. That HFH inspection is expensive and time consuming, and [involves] a lot of time where those aircraft are not able to be used because they’re in the depot. The ones that have completed the HFH inspection and are compatible with _capability upgrades like the AN/APG-79(v)4 radar, the AN/ALQ-214(v)5 and AN/ALR-67 electronic warfare suites_ [emphasis added] — those aircraft are the most valuable as they provide the most available flying time with the least expensive depot costs. So, we are able to have our best flyers out there for the longest period of time for the lowest cost. We have a most valuable fleet mindset to reduce cost of ownership and keep the highest capability possible.”..[read on]
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36435/the-plan-for-making-aging-marine-corps-hornets-deadlier-than-ever-for-a-final-decade-of-service



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy

QuietSpike2020 said:
			
		

> US approves Canadian Hornet upgrade
> 
> The US State Department has approved an upgrade for Canada’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18A (CF-18A/CF-188A in national service) Hornet combat aircraft, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 16 June.
> 
> https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-approves-canadian-hornet-upgrade



As previous posters have mentioned, the upgrade is for only two sqns so that the RCAF can fulfill its NORAD/NATO obligation. Interesting, the upgrade includes the acquisition of twenty AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapon (at $720,000 each) which is standoff system capable of engaging various targets including hardened facilities.


----------



## CBH99

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> As previous posters have mentioned, the upgrade is for only two sqns so that the RCAF can fulfill its NORAD/NATO obligation. Interesting, the upgrade includes the acquisition of twenty AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapon (at $720,000 each) which is standoff system capable of engaging various targets including hardened facilities.




My understanding is that the acquisition of the twenty AGM-154 is to replace munitions used in Syria.  So just a 'top-up' of sorts.


----------



## dapaterson

At this point, I suspect any munitions acquisitions are being made with future employment by future airframes as a consideration.  Standardization is a great thing...


----------



## SupersonicMax

CBH99 said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the acquisition of the twenty AGM-154 is to replace munitions used in Syria.  So just a 'top-up' of sorts.



The AGM-154 brings a new capability for us.


----------



## CBH99

I love how even when senior leadership brings it up in a town hall we have, it's still wrong info lol

Thanks for the correction Max


----------



## Retired AF Guy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the acquisition of the twenty AGM-154 is to replace munitions used in Syria.  So just a 'top-up' of sorts.



I didn't realize that the RCAF had previously employed the AGM-154 ... thanks..


----------



## SupersonicMax

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I didn't realize that the RCAF had previously employed the AGM-154 ... thanks..



We don’t have AGM-154s in our inventory nor do we have anything with a similar capability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Twenty sounds like a buy to run a test program and not a serious capability?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin P said:
			
		

> Twenty sounds like a buy to run a test program and not a serious capability?



Hey- we will take what we can get.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin P said:
			
		

> Twenty sounds like a buy to run a test program and not a serious capability?



We are doing our upgrades with the USMC so likely no test required for the integration.  These are weapons you put in storage and crack open once a year to keep a niche cadre of people up to speed and in case of war.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We don’t have AGM-154s in our inventory nor do we have anything with a similar capability.



Thanks ..


----------



## FJAG

Seems the Aussie F 18s are a bit slow in getting online. Who could have predicted that?



> Most of the used fighter jets bought by Canada are still not in service, MPs hear
> Major radar upgrades to the existing fleet are expected to take up to five years
> Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Dec 11, 2020
> 
> Only three of seven F-18 fighter jets purchased from Australia by the Canadian government have been integrated into the air force so far, and the Department of National Defence says key upgrades to as much as one-third of Canada's fighter force will take up to five years, according to documents recently tabled in the House of Commons.
> 
> The slow introduction of the used warplanes — meant to bolster Canada's existing CF-18s squadrons — and the long timeline for radar refurbishment have the opposition Conservatives questioning the value of the interim fleet.
> 
> A written government response to questions posed by the Conservatives last October was put before MPs recently. It said that the older fighters will continue to join the Canadian air force "at regular intervals" but did not lay out a precise timeline.
> 
> "National Defence will continue to work to integrate Australian F-18 Hornet aircraft into its current fleet of CF-18s, as it completes the necessary modifications and upgrades to these aircraft," said the document.
> 
> The Liberal government purchased 18 used fighter jets from Australia. The last of them won't be delivered until the summer of 2021. When it first announced the plan three years ago, the government said it expected to keep most of the existing CF-18 fleet flying until 2032.
> 
> The order paper question also noted that three dozen existing CF-18s will get upgraded radar and the air force is currently deciding which of its fighters — which were built in the 1980s — will get the highly advanced new system.
> 
> Engineers still need to sort out the obstacles involved in combining the new equipment with the older airframe.
> 
> "Within the next months, National Defence will select two aircraft to test the installation process for the APG-79 (v) 4 radar," said the government reply. "The remaining 34 aircraft will be selected over the next 24 months."
> 
> The upgrades will not be completed until June 2025 — which is why Conservative defence critic James Bezan is questioning the wisdom of buying the extra fighters, a purchase the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer says will cost $1.09 billion over the life of the program.



See full article here.

 :cheers:


----------



## Quirky

FJAG said:
			
		

> combining the new equipment with the older airframe.



Someone should inform these donkeys that new equipment comes with new airframes too. Our fighter force fleet (including the CT-114) is getting these upgrades when we could've been flying new airframes years ago.


----------



## CBH99

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

And here I thought this was a prudent use of taxpayer dollars.


----------



## NavyShooter

In terms of me being old....I saw the AGM-154 reference above and immediately though "Phoenix?"  We can't run that - that was on the F-14 only....

Then google/wikipedia told me what it actually was...AIM-54 was Phoenix...AGM-154 is a piece of heck delivered upon your enemy's forehead.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Hornet Extension Project remains on schedule - Skies Mag


----------



## Colin Parkinson

armrdsoul77 said:


> Hornet Extension Project remains on schedule - Skies Mag


"Repeat as required"


----------



## calculus

armrdsoul77 said:


> Hornet Extension Project remains on schedule - Skies Mag


Is it conceivable that the 36 Phase 2 airframes that will receive the APG-79(V)4 AESA radar may actually exceed the some of the capabilities of the Gripen E?


----------



## Quirky

calculus said:


> Is it conceivable that the 36 Phase 2 airframes that will receive the APG-79(V)4 AESA radar may actually exceed the some of the capabilities of the Gripen E?



The Gripen E is a generation late to the game and already outdated at this point. The F-35 selection is but a formality unless politics gets in the way.


----------



## Good2Golf

Why would politics STOP getting in the way???


----------



## Czech_pivo

calculus said:


> Is it conceivable that the 36 Phase 2 airframes that will receive the APG-79(V)4 AESA radar may actually exceed the some of the capabilities of the Gripen E?


Am I reading this correctly that currently CF-188’s are not at operational parity with Russian and/or Chinese adversaries? That they are inferior to their advanced warplanes? 

Are our currently configured fighters considered to be inferior to the Gripen-E’s? Would the soon to be enhanced CF-188’s be considered equal to or superior to the Gripen-E’s?


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> Am I reading this correctly that currently CF-188’s are not at operational parity with Russian and/or Chinese adversaries? That they are inferior to their advanced warplanes?
> 
> Are our currently configured fighters considered to be inferior to the Gripen-E’s? Would the soon to be enhanced CF-188’s be considered equal to or superior to the Gripen-E’s?


I would say inferior due to the Gripen's networking, EW package, and Advanced radar, while it's range is low, it's designed by a country that's small and would be in the front line immediately if war broke out on its border.


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> Are our currently configured fighters considered to be inferior to the Gripen-E’s? Would the soon to be enhanced CF-188’s be considered equal to or superior to the Gripen-E’s?


Keep in mind that the first Gripen E models were just delivered in late Nov to the Swedish and Brazilian Air Forces, so it's quite possible that the public stats on them are incorrect (or based on Gripen C stats).


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Keep in mind that the first Gripen E models were just delivered in late Nov to the Swedish and Brazilian Air Forces, so it's quite possible that the public stats on them are incorrect (or based on Gripen C stats).


Plus new airframes are unlikely to fall out of the sky or have huge maintenance bills attached to them.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Plus new airframes are unlikely to fall out of the sky or have huge maintenance bills attached to them.


Actually, new airframe types (maybe not the airframes themselves, but new capabilities) are more likely to run into unforeseen snags/problems until they're sorted out - AKA the "bathtub curve" of failure rates.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Actually, new airframe types (maybe not the airframes themselves, but new capabilities) are more likely to run into unforeseen snags/problems until they're sorted out - AKA the "bathtub curve" of failure rates.
> 
> View attachment 67860


Agreed - but all the options are in the useful life while the Hornet is past the wear out period


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

In all honesty I think it will come down to this factor if the Government of today  gets to pick the next fighter/attack aircraft. 

Who will let Bombardier, do the actual building, and long term maintenance of the aircraft, and can they do all the work in the Montreal area. After all it would be cheaper for the government to get them the building contract, and then give them the long service agreement than it would be to give them another bailout.  Just think it could be called the F35I ( F35 Ilitis  ) or the F35 MLVW . They could add a piece of metal to the frame and bring up the Canadian content to make it a true Canadian platform


----------



## suffolkowner

I think a real attempt has been made to avoid political interference in the contract awards. Difficult to tell 100% as the decisions are still clouded in some secrecy but if worse comes to worst we can always pick up some Finnish Hornets to round out the fleet. I here some are coming available soon and are in good shape


----------



## armrdsoul77

Canadian Hornets participate in NATO flag exercise after 2-year pandemic hiatus - Skies Mag
"McLeod stressed that for those who attended, it was “almost a doubling down. This is an even more important time now for us to do this exercise. When we arrived, you had this palpable sense of purpose. We are not just getting together to train for the fun of it. [Rather], at the tactical level, there was a renewed sense of purpose in why we do what we do together as an alliance.”


----------



## armrdsoul77

2022 CF-18 demo had a birdstrike while performing in Michigan this week.

RCAF CF-18 Demo Pilot Saves Aircraft After Real-Life 'Top Gun' Incident at Airshow


----------



## Dana381

Hats off to the pilot for hanling it well.


----------



## Quirky

Dana381 said:


> Hats off to the pilot for hanling it well.


Agreed. Top gun pilots just lose control and eject, apparently.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Quirky said:


> Agreed. Top gun pilots just lose control and eject, apparently.


It is Top Gun Canon that USN jets lose control and must be ejected from, if they lose one of two engines. There is apparently no NATOPs procedure to save the fighter…


----------



## MTShaw

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is Top Gun Canon that USN jets lose control and must be ejected from, if they lose one of two engine. There is apparently no NATOPs procedure to save the fighter…


And the canon efficacy that cannons work in dogfight that actually occurr.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MTShaw said:


> And the canon efficacy that cannons work in dogfight that actually occurr.


There is no kill like a guns kill, apparently…

In Top Gun land, BVR missiles do not exist…


----------



## OldSolduer

Well done to the pilot. 👍🏻👍🏻


----------



## RaceAddict

armrdsoul77 said:


> 2022 CF-18 demo had a birdstrike while performing in Michigan this week.
> 
> RCAF CF-18 Demo Pilot Saves Aircraft After Real-Life 'Top Gun' Incident at AirshowView attachment 71320



"Mav's in trouble. He’s in a flat spin, he’s heading out to sea."

Seriously though, the demo bird looks _really_ good this year. Kudos to the team that designed and painted it.


----------



## Dana381

SeaKingTacco said:


> There is no kill like a guns kill, apparently…
> 
> In Top Gun land, BVR missiles do not exist…



Who wants to watch a missile fire and disappear, only to watch a blip on radar disappear also? BVR missiles are awesome but boring in a movie.


----------



## armrdsoul77




----------



## daftandbarmy

armrdsoul77 said:


> 2022 CF-18 demo had a birdstrike while performing in Michigan this week.
> 
> RCAF CF-18 Demo Pilot Saves Aircraft After Real-Life 'Top Gun' Incident at AirshowView attachment 71320



Wait a minute... we actually have a Canadian Forces CF-18 Demonstration Team, and it's not called the 'Snowbirds'?


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Wait a minute... we actually have a Canadian Forces CF-18 Demonstration Team, and it's not called the 'Snowbirds'?


If by "team" you mean one jet, then yes.

But I guess if you're talking about personnel, then yes it's a team.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> If by "team" you mean one jet, then yes.
> 
> But I guess if you're talking about personnel, then yes it's a team.


So which 2* gets to be Team Captain?


----------



## Kirkhill

> a formation of MALDs presenting the returns of F-15E Strike Eagles closing in on a potential target, as one example, could draw a great deal of focus while stealthy F-35s flying at higher altitudes deploy munitions at the same target.











						ADM-160 MALD: America's secret weapon to engage air defenses isn't a weapon at all
					

America's ADM-160 MALD, or Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, may not be a missile or bomb, but it can have a huge effect on the battlefield.




					www.sandboxx.us
				







What happens if your fighter fleet is all stealthy?   How effective are decoys?

If the enemy can see it it knows it is not a threat.

Has this had an impact on the decision to produce small numbers of F15s, F16s and F18s?  To maintain the viability of the threat? 

How about the production of weaponized drones by companies like Kratos that have been building EW target drones for decades?

Do you need to build threats that can be seen in order to screen the threats that can't be seen?

Does that mean that CF-18s should be put on autopilot and go out in a blaze of glory when they are down to their last 100 hours of airframe life?









						ADM-160 MALD - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				









						Kratos UTAP-22 Mako
					

Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the Kratos UTAP-22 Mako including pictures.



					www.militaryfactory.com


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> How about the production of weaponized drones by companies like Kratos that have been building EW target drones for decades?


Don't even need to do that.  The MQ-9A Reaper has already successfully test-fired A2A missiles.

(A2A = Air to Air)

Completely spitballing here, but it's not a huge leap to put an A2A radar and load it up as a "missile truck" to complement crewed fighters, or use as a "defensive barrier".  Probably more stuff too but those are the two A2A roles off the top of my head.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> Don't even need to do that.  The MQ-9A Reaper has already successfully test-fired A2A missiles.
> 
> (A2A = Air to Air)
> 
> Completely spitballing here, but it's not a huge leap to put an A2A radar and load it up as a "missile truck" to complement crewed fighters, or use as a "defensive barrier".  Probably more stuff too but those are the two A2A roles off the top of my head.



In a dollars and cents discussion would buying and operating the MQ-9A in that role be more or lest costly than "drone-carriers"?

Looking at the Loyal Wingman type programmes now







I'm seeing much of a sameness about them.

Except that the Kratos products seem to be considerably lower cost.










						Kratos Reveals Existence Of Secretive Demogorgon Unmanned Combat Aircraft Program (Updated)
					

The company has a rapidly growing portfolio of combat drones, over half of which remain classified, as the Air Force signals an appetite for more.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill, I would not take any Defence Contractor’s press release on cost at face value…


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Kirkhill, I would not take any Defence Contractor’s press release on cost at face value…


Cost, capability, delivery date... all tend to be "creative".


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> Kirkhill, I would not take any Defence Contractor’s press release on cost at face value…


----------



## Kirkhill

All true 

But is a drone going to be closer in cost to and F35 or to a Harpoon?

100 MUSD or 1 MUSD?

I'm betting on the low end of the scale.  2-5 ?


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> Russians had a hell of a time taking a Ukrainian position, machine gun would be silenced. Finally take it only to find out it was a BTR turret being controlled remotely. Ingenious.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1561004494372085762




As I noted in the Ukraine thread - the advantages of letting imagination run free.


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> All true
> 
> But is a drone going to be closer in cost to and F35 or to a Harpoon?
> 
> 100 MUSD or 1 MUSD?
> 
> I'm betting on the low end of the scale.  2-5 ?


It depends on a bunch of things.  

Airframe is just one - there's data bandwidth (which depends if you're using SATCOM or line of sight) cost, and whether there is a ground control station (unlikely for the Kratos ones, so the crewed aircraft have to control it somehow, even if just to give directions to follow it).  

Probably other costs too that don't come up for traditional aircraft.  

So, while the aircraft itself may be cheap(er), adding those other costs will boost the price per unit.  

How much?  No idea.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> Kirkhill, I would not take any Defence Contractor’s press release on cost at face value…


Especially if Canadian governments are involved?


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> Especially if Canadian governments are involved?


Any govt.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> Any govt.


I think Canada operates on a different wavelength to Ukraine and Turkey, or even Denmark and Sweden.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dimsum said:


> Don't even need to do that.  The MQ-9A Reaper has already successfully test-fired A2A missiles.
> 
> (A2A = Air to Air)
> 
> Completely spitballing here, but it's not a huge leap to put an A2A radar and load it up as a "missile truck" to complement crewed fighters, or use as a "defensive barrier".  Probably more stuff too but those are the two A2A roles off the top of my head.


It is a fairly big leap actually, especially given the power requirement of modern radars and required integration (one thing I learned in flight test is to never underestimate how much of your time and money integration takes, and yet, it’ll still be sub optimal).  Shooting an AIM-9 is one thing.  Shooting AMRAAMs is an entirely different ball game.


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:


> It is a fairly big leap actually, especially given the power requirement of modern radars and required integration (one thing I learned in flight test is to never underestimate how much of your time and money integration takes, and yet, it’ll still be sub optimal).  Shooting an AIM-9 is one thing.  Shooting AMRAAMs is an entirely different ball game.



I guess I was focusing on the Air to Ground mission rather than the A2A mission.

That would cover Interdiction and Strike, SEAD and Close Air Support missions and leave the Air to Air missions to the manned aircraft.


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> I guess I was focusing on the Air to Ground mission rather than the A2A mission.
> 
> That would cover Interdiction and Strike, SEAD and Close Air Support missions and leave the Air to Air missions to the manned aircraft.


Reapers, etc already do the A2G mission.  It won't be a big jump for the Kratos aircraft, etc.  

Last I read (a while back), the whole "Loyal Wingman" project was to have an RPA wingman for both A2G and A2A missions.  So the intent is not just having manned aircraft do A2A.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> Reapers, etc already do the A2G mission.  It won't be a big jump for the Kratos aircraft, etc.
> 
> Last I read (a while back), the whole "Loyal Wingman" project was to have an RPA wingman for both A2G and A2A missions.  So the intent is not just having manned aircraft do A2A.



Seen.  

I think I also saw something to the effect that the Brits have kicked their Loyal Wingman programme into the long grass on the grounds that they believe there are now cheaper ways to achieve their goals without the high-end AI aircraft.









						UK walks away from Project Mosquito loyal wingman drone development
					

The Royal Air Force has decided to axe the project to develop a loyal wingman prototype.




					defbrief.com


----------



## MTShaw

FYI, the more modern reaper is the MQ-9B.









						MQ-9B SkyGuardian
					

GA-ASI  has developed a variant of the Predator B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) series that meets NATO standards (STANAG-4671), and in cooperation with the FAA, will subsequently meet airworthiness certification standards domestically and around the world.



					www.ga-asi.com
				




This is the version that will be used by our allies and the front runner for our RPAS program.






						Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) - Canada.ca
					

This project will acquire a medium altitude and armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft System along with associated equipment, weapons, infrastructure and in-service sustainment capability that will support up to three concurrent lines of operation, domestic or international. This project supports...




					www.canada.ca


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> Seen.
> 
> I think I also saw something to the effect that the Brits have kicked their Loyal Wingman programme into the long grass on the grounds that they believe there are now cheaper ways to achieve their goals without the high-end AI aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK walks away from Project Mosquito loyal wingman drone development
> 
> 
> The Royal Air Force has decided to axe the project to develop a loyal wingman prototype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defbrief.com


The RAAF and Boeing's MQ-28A Ghost Bat is still going strong (I think)









						What we know so far about Australia’s Loyal Wingman, the MQ-28A Ghost Bat
					

Boeing’s MQ-28A Ghost Bat is tipped to be a real game-changer in the field of airpower projection. AirForces Monthly explores the asset’s development and testing




					www.key.aero


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> The RAAF and Boeing's MQ-28A Ghost Bat is still going strong (I think)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we know so far about Australia’s Loyal Wingman, the MQ-28A Ghost Bat
> 
> 
> Boeing’s MQ-28A Ghost Bat is tipped to be a real game-changer in the field of airpower projection. AirForces Monthly explores the asset’s development and testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.key.aero



That seems like a reasonable thing to do.  From the RAF perspective.  Let the Aussies proceed down that path and continue with observer status and see what eventuates.  It costs the RAF nothing and allows them to spend their shillings on nearer term possibilities that can integrate into the existing fleet and potentially be integrated into whatever the Aussies and the Yanks come up with.


----------



## Kirkhill

Turkish airframe with Ukrainian engines.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/wydgxk


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579456717745635329


----------



## dimsum

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579456717745635329


Isn't that what they do every time they deploy outside a fighter base or QRA...?


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Isn't that what they do every time they deploy outside a fighter base or QRA...?


I think they meant to say…”every time they operate from runways that the Government is too cheap to lengthen to let them land normally without crashing off the end.”


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> I think they meant to say…”every time they operate from runways that the Government is too cheap to lengthen to let them land normally without crashing off the end.”


It is fine, as long as the brakes are good…or the runway isn’t icy….


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is fine, as long as the brakes are good…or the runway isn’t icy….


For 11 out of 366 days…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> For 11 out of 366 days…
> View attachment 74156


11 is alot, right?


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> 11 is alot, right?


Statistically more than normal! 😉


----------

