# Superhornets for the CF?



## Hebridean (6 Jun 2006)

Here is an idea why doesn't the CF buy about 60 Superhornets instead of spending money upgrading our old CF-18's.  The current CF-18's could be transfered to a reserve fighter-wing.  Buy about 60 Superhornets.  The problems with upgrading our current CF-18's is that the airframes are wearing out.  Why put in new avionics in an old jets?  Our pilots are already familiar with the F/A-18 so they will not training for scratch for these planes.  The Superhornet will provide us with an interim fighter until the JSF is put into service.  After the JSF enters service the Superhornets could be used to patrol maritime areas or passed on to the new reserve fighter wings that could be stationed at major cilivian airports.  Is this too crazy an idea??


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2006)

I think I hear Bill Cosby's Noah voice now saying "Right!"


----------



## Hebridean (6 Jun 2006)




----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2006)

Cascading of equipment in this fashion is popular in European militaries.  Unfortunately, Canada doesn't very often look at it as being a method to rejuvenate its' Reserve Forces.  Our "Bean Counters," from Dept. of Supply and Services, look at it as not feasible, when they can recoup a few pennies by selling off military assets as scrap.

Nice sentiments though.  Many of us would like to see the Government do things like what you propose, but are cynical enough to know better.


----------



## Bograt (6 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think I hear Bill Cosby's Noah voice now saying "Right!"



LOL.

I haven't heard that in 25 years. Thanks for the smile. I am up for a game of buck buck.


----------



## Astrodog (6 Jun 2006)

Hebridean said:
			
		

> Buy about 60 Superhornets.  The problems with upgrading our current CF-18's is that the airframes are wearing out.



Too late mon ami, as I understand it all A model hornets are now ECP upgrades


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Jun 2006)

The pricetag is too high... don't Superhornets run about $60M USD each? Don't get me wrong I would love to have them, but we need heavy-lift helos, tactical and strategic airlift more... armed reconnaissance helos would also be more usefull to the current operational environment IMHO...


----------



## Journeyman (7 Jun 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> ...but we need heavy-lift helos, tactical and strategic airlift more... armed reconnaissance helos would also be more useful...



Plus we're likely approaching that time when the tribal elders come up with a new uniform or another SHARP-type program - - and those don't come cheap  :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jun 2006)

> Plus we're likely approaching that time when the tribal elders come up with a new uniform or another SHARP-type program - - and those don't come cheap



Good point- we haven't had a good old "search the entire CF for missing Somalia documents day" for a few years now.  We are about due for something boneheaded to happen again...


----------



## munky99999 (9 Jun 2006)

Why not upgrade to have them last until 2020-2025. Then buy the F-35 to replace the cf-188 and then drop down the cf-188, which would still be working as per them being upgraded, to the reserves as you say. In the meantime spend money on our helicopters; they are pretty dismal at the moment.

Not to mention that the JSF will be far superior to the superhornets and cheaper. $60 million per superhornet, compared to the roughly $30 million for the JSF. We would be buying twice as much for the better plane.

Analogy time: We would be buying 240 Pentium 5s instead of 120 Pentium 3s.

Glaring difference; then if we just buy 120 Pentium 5s. We have a load of money to spend on our sad helicopters.


----------



## Inch (9 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Why not upgrade to have them last until 2020-2025. Then buy the F-35 to replace the cf-188 and then drop down the cf-188, which would still be working as per them being upgraded, to the reserves as you say. In the meantime spend money on our helicopters; they are pretty dismal at the moment.
> 
> Not to mention that the JSF will be far superior to the superhornets and cheaper. $60 million per superhornet, compared to the roughly $30 million for the JSF. We would be buying twice as much for the better plane.
> 
> ...



Ok, I'm not sure what planet you're on, but what sad helicopters are you talking about? The Sea Kings that have a replacement on the way in 2 years? The 10 year old Griffons? The 5 year old Cormorants? What's so sad about them?

So you're suggesting keeping the Hornet until 2025? So that means they'd be in the range of 40 years old, the best part about that statement is that you mention it in the same paragraph that you say the helo state is pretty dismal. I can only assume you were talking about the 40 year old Sea King.

Also, your $30 million for the JSF off fas.org is in FY94 dollars, that price is over 10 years old. Not to mention that recent reports state the price is starting to increase and is now in the $80 million range.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (9 Jun 2006)

> We have a load of money to spend on our sad helicopters.



If the CF's, not _our_ in your case, helicopters are so "sad", then why on earth are you applying to be a pilot when you might be, I guess as you would see it, "stuck" flying one?


----------



## Astrodog (9 Jun 2006)

Not to mention that the Superbug pricetag isn't going to sit idle at 60mill once the JSF is out and 20 years down the road... i think the most practicable scenario is one in which Canada purchases superbugs to replace the current CF-18As and Bs.... realistically Canada won't deploy fast air assets to any theatre in which the United States aren't currently deployed, thus a fleet of CF-18Es or Fs could nicely complement a coalition force in which they can contribute light CAP work and lots of mud moving for which a F-35 is not required.. just my thoughts


----------



## Bograt (9 Jun 2006)

Inch,

Nice to see you back. I'm off to Portage next week.



> If the CF's, not our in your case, helicopters are so "sad", then why on earth are you applying to be a pilot when you might be, I guess as you would see it, "stuck" flying one?


"if you can't hover...."

Well, if we are shooting the bull, I would like to throw my hat behind the Typhoon. I've got atleast 150 hours already on that aircraft's sim (EF 2000).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jun 2006)

Disclaimer: My knowledge of all things air is limited.  

My understanding is that the “Super-Hornets” have not lived up to their billing, but they would make the transition a lot easier. 

I would like to see the Air reserve split into 3 task groups, CAS, Transport and SAR/coastal patrol.

CAS reserve could be done using more of those Hawks used in training fitted with hard points ( I would like A10’s, but I am trying to be realistic here) 

Reserve Air transport could work as a relief pool for the regular force guys or flying leased civilian cargo jets.

SAR reserve could either be augmentation of existing SAR resources or extension of that with smaller aircraft that would focus more on search duties and only be able to drop equipment bundles (SAR techs take a lot of upkeep)

  coastal patrol could be based around Dash 8’s or similar sized aircraft, reduce the stress on our Aurora fleet


----------



## Astrodog (9 Jun 2006)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Well, if we are shooting the bull, I would like to throw my hat behind the Typhoon. I've got atleast 150 hours already on that aircraft's sim (EF 2000).



ahhh the first of the combat SIMs... if we're counting hours then I should be able to apply for a USANG unit with my 200 odd combat hours in Korea in the F-16!!


----------



## munky99999 (9 Jun 2006)

> If the CF's, not our in your case, helicopters are so "sad", then why on earth are you applying to be a pilot when you might be, I guess as you would see it, "stuck" flying one?


Well first of all. As a Canadian Citizen, including you, it is technically OUR. Secondly, who says I am applying for pilot any longer anyhow? I just finished my air crew medical today, so if I were to go for pilot I wouldn’t be doing anything until May 2007. Now I’m not sitting at home for 11 months to start doing anything. So instead I will be going NCM and I will get certain things done: basic training, bilingual training, some distance training toward a degree, and experience in the military.

I have amazing 20/10 eyes and very healthy eyes, according to the optometrist today.

Also furthermore, I have no interest in helicopters and have very little knowledge of helicopters, while I know A LOT of physics theory and lots of basic aircraft knowledge, and I also have played and learnt LOMAC well enough.

Even if I choose to move into pilot field. I am most interested in multi-engine planes, I dont wish to be a jet fighter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jun 2006)

Astrodog said:
			
		

> ahhh the first of the combat SIMs... if we're counting hours then I should be able to apply for a USANG unit with my 200 odd combat hours in Korea in the F-16!!




One of my hovercraft captain also had his twin engine IFR endorsement and was allowed to write off 10% of his required flight time to maintain the endorsement on a Micro soft Flight Sim. I also work beside civil aviation here at TC, they use flight sims to test pilots and to prefly proposed airshow and such.


----------



## FoverF (10 Jun 2006)

The choice between the SH and the F-35 comes down largely to what kind of war Canada wants to be able to fight. 

The F/A-18E/F has serious performance issues (right across the board), but has a lot of gas, can carry a lot of bombs, and is pretty cheap (at today's fuel prices, maybe not so much in a few years). It was essentially tailor-made for the kind of mid- to low-intensity, negligible air threat, limited scope, coalition conflicts we've seen since the end of the cold war. It's not so much a fighter anymore, but it is one of the better bang-for-your-buck bomb trucks out there. It's range/payload/hardpoint combination means in a low-threat environment it will be able to hit way more targets per sortie (although potentially at a lower sortie rate, given it's barely tolerable cruise speeds)

It also has excellent growth potential for future avionics, and is already carrying (in some capacity or another) all of the major systems a 5th gen fighter needs (Phased Array radar, ATFLIR pod, JHMCS, Link 16, etc), despite most definitely being a 4th gen aircraft (more akin to the Gripen and Flanker than Rafale or F-22).



The F-35 is a bit of an unknown, but the technology demonstrators have already shown they have excellent performance potential, especially since their version of the F119 is expected to be rated at 44,000lbs of static thrust once it hits production. 
It's avionics suite is going to be more mature (with a large portion of the architecture based on the F-22A's) than many critics claim, although I'm 100% certain that customers will be waiting years after delivery to get the software for basic capabilities that it's supposed to have out of the box. 
But the F-35 is most definitely designed with high-intensity conflict in mind. The large emphasis on stealth, EW (yes, stealth is a part of EW, I know), and supercruise are all indicators that this aircraft means business. 


There is really only one deciding question between the two:

Does *Canada* mean business? 

Having spent my entire life under the Cretien dynasty, I can say uncategorically that the answer has been NO. 

But how long this will remain the case? We are looking at a procurement that will be here for decades. 

If we are willing to relegate the CF to being an add-on formation to whatever major power is doing the fighting, then the Super Hornet is definitely the way to go. The next time a massive multi-national coalition starts bombing a vastly-outnumbered and technologically hopeless tin-pot dictator, we can toss in an extra half-squadron to show solidarity, and it won't cost us too much money.

But if the CF gets stuck fighting a modern opponent with only the UK or perhaps a small European coalition at our back, with no USN/USAF to kick the door down for us, we will be in trouble. IMHO, the Super Hornet is not up to the kind of air superiority or high-threat SEAD tasking that a modern high-intensity war is going to demand. 

The F-35 is more expensive, probably MUCH more expensive by the time it hits production (although the Canadian government has already dumped more than $400 million into the program to join the Tier III group, and to fund companies bidding on R&D and production contracts). 

But it's a full generation newer, and will be able to fill the SEAD and air superiority roles with the best of them, as well as providing bomb-truck services (just not quite as efficiently as a SH). 

So:

Spend as little money as possible (the SH really *is* the cheapest feasible option), have new fighters now, but relegate the CF fighter squadrons to being the Canadian Wing of the USANG

Or fork over several hundred million dollars more, and have one of the major tools that will be ESASENTIAL for high-tech expeditionary warfare in the future. Remembering that this is money which will be completely wasted if we don't have some of the other tools (or at least access to them), or the POLITICAL WILL TO USE THEM. The last one being the most important.

Are we content only being able to go to war with America's active support? 
Even if we provide the military with the tools they need to go to war, will the Canadian government/public have the stones to send them when they are needed? 

I think the F-35 is easily the best way to go for a Hornet replacement. Right across the board. But my pessimism leads me to say that the Canadian public and government don't have the stomach for any kind of conflict with anyone who can fight back. 

Pragmatically, I can say that the SH will probably suffice. But I would rather see F-35s with maple leaf roundels just in case things head south some time in the next 40 years or so (we're talking about preparing for contingencies that may arise when our children/grandchildren are in uniform).


----------



## Armymatters (11 Jun 2006)

Super Hornets are probally easier to sell to the Canadian public. Any good government can sell this as replacement airframes for the current Hornet fleet, as the name is similar and externally, they do look a bit similar, even though they are totally different aircraft.

The main issue with F-35 is with cost overruns. F-35 is progressively getting more expensive, to a point where some partner nations have seriously considered or are backing out and choosing other options instead. With Super Hornet and the other available options (Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen), the costs are fairly fixed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jun 2006)

One of the biggest problems it seems now is the reluctance to risk hugely expensive aircraft in CAS, so having a multi-role fighter may mean having an aircraft that can not fight as well against other fighters, and not deployed in the ground attack role due to risk to the airframe. 

If you are going to spend huge coin on a uber-fighter, than also purchase a cheaper decent aircraft optimized for CAS. The loss of one or two uber-fighter will likely be the same as the difference in running two different airframes.


----------

