# Canadian Future Fighter Capability



## FMR (8 Jan 2009)

The CF-18 is a close Air Support...in 1970's when Canada had annonced the replacement program of the CF-101/CF-104 and CF-116..we had three choice :
- Tornado 
- F-16
- F-18 
The F-16 was the primary choice for future fleet because he was not expensive and that can permit to CF to maintain a fleet of 600+ fighter and was used for long range patrol. But at this time that was a program for multi-role fighter who can replaced all the fleet of CF-101,CF-104 and CF-116 for one unique aircraft (that was the project of conservative and Liberal)..the remaining choice was the Tornado and F-18 (based aircraft carrier)...the Tornado was very expensive but seriously better than the F-18 because he wasn't designed for aircraft carrier (short range patrol) but for long range patrol (don't need external fuel tank). But that was confirmed a contract of 150 CF-18 and 50 in option but was finally changed for 138 CF-18 and the option of 50 was abandoned. The CF-18 today have many problem and never receive modernization like since 2000s in PHASE I and PHASE II for 5 billion dollar (40 million each CF-18).  They have no replacement project, Harper had announced a program of 100 F-35 for finally 65 and later confirmed isn't sure due of the poor capacity of F-35. 

But the CF-18 are a close-air, the 88 CF-116 was supposed to be replaced in 1980s like the CF-101 and CF-104 but finally had a full services duty to 1995. Today some Gen. such Gen. Rick Hillier (Former General) had said we need a large among of fighter (Interceptor and multi-role) approximately 500-600 fighter because the 80 CF-18 who still in services are not enough to protect Canadian sky this is the minimum for USA to secure his sky imagine for Canada two time larger than USA...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9afjpS8VA0w here a video from Discovery Channel about the CF-18 close air support..to prepare CF in Afghanistan


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2009)

FMR said:
			
		

> the Tornado was very expensive but seriously better than the F-18 because he wasn't designed for aircraft carrier (short range patrol) but for long range patrol (don't need external fuel tank).



The Tornado IDS has notoriously short legs and most certainly does need external fuel tanks to accomplish its mission of low-level penetration and strike.



> poor capacity of F-35.



A tad bit early to make that determination isnt it ?


----------



## thunderchild (8 Jan 2009)

If what I was reading was correct that it was suggested that we need 500-600 aircraft? If we use 1 airframe fleet that is favoured and stay at the proposed fixed price from Lockheed of 50 million us per aircraft that would mean that it would cost $25-30 billion(U.S.)or $30-36Billion (CAN) just to purchase.  The budget to build 15 destroyers is only $20 billion (CAN). pricey program?  Should we go this route we had better be building them here!


----------



## wannabe SF member (9 Jan 2009)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Should we go this route we had better be building them here!


Building them here?! With what?
Any expertise in fighter planes that might have been in Canada (avro Arrow I'm looking you're way) is long gone. What company would build such a plane? Bombardier?
Do not be mislead by their name they don't produce any kind of military hardware. I don't see any company producing fighters on Canadian soil unless we could convince one to actually build a production or research facility on Canadian soil and that would be a long shot methinks.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Jan 2009)

In fact, the CF was offered F-14s and rejected them.  The fix was in during the competition - the two-engine stipulation was primarily intended to disqualify the F-16, so the pilots' choice of the F-15 would be acquired - then the F-18 came up the middle, met the minimums, and was a lower cost.  Demonstrating the dangers in situating the estimate - sometimes it just doesn;t work out the way you plan.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jan 2009)

FMR said:
			
		

> The CF-18 today have many problem and never receive modernization like since 2000s in PHASE I and PHASE II for 5 billion dollar (40 million each CF-18).  They have no replacement project, Harper had announced a program of 100 F-35 for finally 65 and later confirmed isn't sure due of the poor capacity of F-35.



Problem solved, we've been told the only suitable aircraft for Canada is a Canadianized OV-10D NOGS.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2009)

Man, there are alot of model airplane enthusiasts on the forums these days.... ???


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jan 2009)

Maybe some aviation forum had a purge.


----------



## FMR (9 Jan 2009)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> If what I was reading was correct that it was suggested that we need 500-600 aircraft? If we use 1 airframe fleet that is favoured and stay at the proposed fixed price from Lockheed of 50 million us per aircraft that would mean that it would cost $25-30 billion(U.S.)or $30-36Billion (CAN) just to purchase.  The budget to build 15 destroyers is only $20 billion (CAN). pricey program?  Should we go this route we had better be building them here!



Canada in 1970s had 600+ Interceptor/multi-role ground attack (CF-101,CF-104 and ..CF-116) today only 80 aircraft (40 in reserve), if the plan "Canada First Defence" are real (because it's only a speech not a real plan) , the CF will be receive 10.000 new recruit for 2009-2010 (right now 100.000 personal in CF approximately) we can for sure have 200-300 fighter and maybe 50-80 "ground" attack such the CF-116 (but more modern) so the plan of Gen. Rick Hillier for 500-600 fighter are very close of the realism.  Canada had planing an acquisition of 200 CF-18 in 1970s  and had remain the fleet of 88 CF-116 , so approximately 300 fighter, 300-400 its much more realist but 80..80 sound so small for Canada...is nothing between 1970 and today when in 1970s we had 600 fighter and now in 2009 only 80+40 in reserve (they're not modernized in PHASE II). I understand Canada want the F-35, its a "bomber" who can be used as a fighter (multi-role aircraft) they are supposed to be the next replacement of A-10 fleet (a true air-support aircraft).


----------



## Steel Badger (9 Jan 2009)

We had 600+ Fighters? Musta been hidden behind all the Chimera Tank Detroyers from Corps 86


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jan 2009)

FMR said:
			
		

> Canada in 1970s had 600+ Interceptor/multi-role ground attack (CF-101,CF-104 and ..CF-116)



CF-101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-101_Voodoo



> The USAF indicated that it was prepared to make 56 F-101B interceptors and 10 F-101F trainers available (by employing Convair F-102s in less demanding NORAD sectors) for Canadian purchase. ...
> 
> Between 1970 and 1972, Canada traded the 56 survivors of the original CF-101 fleet back to the USAF for 66 replacements, ...



CF-104
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-104_Starfighter



> The Canadair CF-104 production was 200 aircraft ...
> 
> Over the course of the aircraft's lifespan in service, some 110 were lost to accidents,  ....



CF-116
The CF-5 (officially designated the CF-116 Freedom Fighter)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5



> Total production by Canadair for Canadian Forces was 89 single-seat aircraft and 46 dual-seat aircraft,




*56 + 10 + 200 + 89 + 46 = 401*

And that total assumes they all existed simultaneously in Canadian service (and ignores the fact that some were variants other than _"Interceptor/multi-role ground attack"_).


----------



## FMR (11 Jan 2009)

Wow , i create a Topics???!? ...that was a reply....someone can delete this post...that was a terrible mistake.. :-\


----------



## FMR (11 Jan 2009)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> CF-101
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-101_Voodoo
> 
> CF-104
> ...



You forget the CF-100 with over 600 exemplar..1952 to 1981 , they were supposed to be replaced by the famous CF-105.


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Jan 2009)

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Jan 2009)

dileas

tess


----------

