CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Altair]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

/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]

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]

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

Fixed 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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]

Link?

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

 

[Altair]

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]

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?