CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[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]

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]

"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.

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.]

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.]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.