CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Humphrey Bogart]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.