• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
79
Points
280
SR 71 black bird would make the recce flights and other quick VIP flight very fast, but a lot of fast trips to deploy the DART team.

Concorde for STAT AIRLIFT. the frnech province would like that, the manuals are already in french, save money there on translating them. Cash Cow for Quebec. Jumpers beware that first step out at MAch 1 is a big one.

2017 for replacement time for the Cf 18s, that  would be right in line with most major aircraft purchases for Canada. you have to wait till they are fly  museum pieces and the spare parts are all on display in various Museums, just like the navy's spare parts for gulf war 1, borrow firing pins and other parts from museums.
Canada has a bad record of not replacing anything till it is so old they have to be creative in making new parts.
C130 oldest airframes flying i hear.
Seakings  no need to go there
Turtor Jets. they are one of many of museum aircraft still working for the airforce.
other aircraft........a lot over due for replacement.

army  fleet
MLVW  needs replacement but no firm dates yet
Iltis piece meal replacement program, 2 platforms picked and none exactly what  is required but it was replaced
HLVW going to need repalcement soon,  small fleet lots of hours, lots of miles on them..........no program yet?
avgp fleet, lots of programs offered just not what everyone thinks we need or want
MBT wishing but not happening

Navy

DD ships, old, need retro fits, or replacement
City CLass Frigs..................re fits coming i hope soon
Subs. could be years before the new to us fleet is ready for water work.


The Canadian Forces and government have a record of making equipment  last as long as some soldiers careers. do not expect airforce replacements before the next generanation of pilots are coming in.

personal note here

my grand father was a platoon leader and company commander in the RCOC
started with the LEE Enfield svc wnp
traded that for the FN wnps family
retired

I worked for a SGT MAJOR my  first summer in Petawawa 1989
The RQ was a corporal in my  grandfather's platoon. FN was retired that  year and replaced by  the C7 Family
RQ retired that  year because he said when sons join it is not too bad but when grand children join up , it is time to go.

So the next level of new kids coming in is when the CF  will make the next major purchases.




 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
DD ships, old, need retro fits, or replacement
City CLass Frigs..................re fits coming i hope soon

2 comments, the 280s are too old to take another major refit so for the next few years you will see short work periods to keep them running with very little in the form of upgrades or replacements until the Single Surface Combatant program comes on line or the government actually listens to the Navy and replaces them sooner *holds breath*

The Halifax class FELEX program been outlined in other threads.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Lancaster said:
Australia wants 100 JSF fighters and the Netherlands wants some too. Canada paid out millions to be a partner but it doesn't mean you must buy that fighter. Since Canada are Spain are both mid size countries we both have same size total GDP economy. Spain is in the process of buying   87 Euro fighters that will cost them approx. $9.0 US billion ($104.5 US million each) to replace their F-18's(and some Mirages) which are the same age of fighter as Canada's, so then why can't Canada afford new fighters?

The problem in Canada is ideology, not money. The countries of which you speak have dealt with ideology, from which the money then flows.

Until Canadians actually have war forced upon them within the borders of the country, do not expect a change in ideology. Of course, by that time it will be too late.
 

oyaguy

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
whiskey601 said:
Until Canadians actually have war forced upon them within the borders of the country, do not expect a change in ideology. Of course, by that time it will be too late.

A tad alarmist wouldn't you say?
 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michael O'Leary said:
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.

You are right I never said this would be a cheap option but one that may be worth considering.   As to your points.....

The F-15 allows pilots to perform the patrols that everyone seems important over Canadian Airspace in a fighter that is capable of responding quicker to any possible threat to that space.   It also allows Canadian pilots to continue to perform ground attack roles as the 15 are capable of firing everyinthing in the air to ground arsenal.   So i really don't see the roles or tasks being any different then they are now other then being done in a more capable plane(my opinion).

Aircraft training/maintence:   This would not be a quick swap i am sure we would be able to keep our 18's in the air long enough to train some of the personal to fly them, and 2)mantain them.   this could be done through sending crews to US bases to learn from them or having them come up here to teach the crews on our own soil.   Think of it as a really long Mapple Flag exercise.
This to would apply to the maintence lifecycle as parts would still be avaliable through the manufacture of of the planes.   And worse case scenerio you steal parts to keep them flying ( i know this may be a new concept to keeping Canadian birds in the air)

I will kinda lump the rest together as i am tired right now.

Number of planes.   This would be a decesion made by personal way above my pay grade but i would say in the order of 130-110 to meet the requirments daily of training for both flight operations and maintence scheduling.   Plus ( looking at the glass half full) you have to account for expansion of the CF as it is the flavour of the day.   how much it would cost to re-tool the maintence facilites, in reality i have no idea but both are from the same manufacture and i am sure a deal could be struck with the US Air Force in order to gain their maintence capabilities.   By support of the wing areas did you mean both of them or all the Wings in Canada.   I think that the active wings Cold Lake and Bagatville (not spelt right) would be able to maintain them with little cost overrun as they had room for more planes then they have now, even though the 15 is bigger then the 18.   We could also activate new areas to store the planes where the facilites already exist, such as Borden and Greenwood, MooseJaw.   Yes it may be expenisve but sometimes that is the cost of doing business.   If we could save x billion dollars buying the 15's over the 35's that money could be spent on the infastructure needed to maintain the 15's.

Your right this is buy no means a trade and save option but it is one that will lead Canadian forces Airmen and Women into the futrue of aviation on a steady platfrom instead of an aging one.   Does this solve all the problems, no is it the only option, no is it the least expensive option, prob not.   Is it a good option, I think so.  

The major problems i see in doing this are.   1) the landing gear is not up to CF standard and would need a serious upgrade (we like carrier gear), the second is the number of qualified personal we have to be able to wrk on the birds needs to be brought up, once this is done then getting the pilots is the next step.   The Super Hornet is another option that is avaliable and may be a cheaper option.   Does this mean it is better, no, does it mean it is worse, nope.   But i do like some of the post that are on here.   Pilots if you would post your preferance.   Heck pretend money is not even an option.


 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ex-Dragoon said:
A tad naive if you beleive that we will never be targetted don't you think?

On this i could not agree more. 

People locking the barn door after the horse escapes does not replace the horse.  We have to be able to stop the attack before it happens or worse case respond efficently and effectively if it does happen.

MOO
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
I would like to see the CF5 brought back for air space defence in North America  and also as a Jet trainer. (it is fast and manouverable). We  have a few of these in storage and parts are still plentyfull around the world. Is it the most up to date aircraft? No but the ones we have are all glass cockpit and could be retrofitted with the latest up to date missiles. A low cost solution to our problem with keeping up the commitment level of air space defense.

We could focus a fleet of lets say 40 modern aircraft (F/A 18 or Joint strike fighter)for deployments out side of the country. This would cut down on cost of maintence and wear on the operational fleet for over seas deployment. This fleet could focus on actual deployments in support of over seas missions.

I think we should have a mixed fleet of a/c. Even if it is a very limited mixed fleet.



 

JBP

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gentleman, here is some hard facts for you on the future of the CF-18...

Collectively, the abovementioned initiatives will ensure that Canada has a state-of-the-art CF-18 fighter force that remains effective and operationally credible until the 2017-20 timeframe.

That is directly from this webpage:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/future_e.asp

Last paragraph...

Strangely enough, that timeframe is just about when the F-35, or Joint-Strike-Fighter, is set to be operational...

Gee I wonder what aircraft we'll be recieving!!!
 

h3tacco

Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
Under our current government and CDS I don't think replacing the CF18 will be a  priority anytime soon. If we were to replace it I think the F15E would be a step backwards in many ways. While Korea is currently accepting newbuild F-15K's (F-15E derivative), the F15 is actually an older desing than our F-18A. The F-15E is better ground pounder (better range, larger payload, second crewmember)  but with all the extra avionics and conformal fuel tanks it would actually be a decrease in performance in the intercepter/fighter role. Not only that they would likely be significantly more expensive to operating CF-18s let alone the start-up cost. If the air force was considering a new fighter right now I would think likely competitors would be as follows in no particular order: :

F/A-18E/F
F-35
Typhoon
Rafale

As it is right now  with replacement not happening for probably another 10 years or so I think the F-35 will be the main contendor if Canada decides to stay in the fighter business. 
 

JBP

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well I highly doubt it would be F/A 18E/F because the USN is set to replace them about 2020's sometime. They're a holdover for now as the entire navy fleet is retiring the F-14's and putting the new Super Hornets in until the next best thing comes around. Which will be the F-35 navy variant.

We have already invested funds into the development of the F-35 so I highly doubt we'll stray off to some other airframe... It would have to be a pretty damn sweet deal for us to take a jet not North American made!

 

1feral1

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IMHO, the F18 family of a/c will be around for yrs to come. We still fly the F111's here, and they are Viet Nam vintage a/c.

Cheers,

Wes
 

h3tacco

Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
We haven't really put any money into the F-35 we basically paid $600 million to allow canadian companies to bid on sub-contracts.

As for the F-18E/F it is almost an entirely new aircraft and one of the few next-gen actually in service. I wouldn't be surprised if we end seeing long delays in the F-35, just look at how far behind the F/A-22 program is right now. Of course none of this matters because the CF is not currenlt looking for new fighters and probably will not for another 10 years.
 

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
h3tacco said:
Under our current government and CDS I don't think replacing the CF18 will be a   priority anytime soon. If we were to replace it I think the F15E would be a step backwards in many ways. While Korea is currently accepting newbuild F-15K's (F-15E derivative), the F15 is actually an older desing than our F-18A. The F-15E is better ground pounder (better range, larger payload, second crewmember)   but with all the extra avionics and conformal fuel tanks it would actually be a decrease in performance in the intercepter/fighter role. Not only that they would likely be significantly more expensive to operating CF-18s let alone the start-up cost. If the air force was considering a new fighter right now I would think likely competitors would be as follows in no particular order: :

F/A-18E/F
F-35
Typhoon
Rafale

As it is right now   with replacement not happening for probably another 10 years or so I think the F-35 will be the main contendor if Canada decides to stay in the fighter business.  

The Mig-35 IIRC was not procured by Russia due to cost but they claim it can match the F-22 so how about that? :) ...not for sale I assume...

Seriously though, apparently France is having a heck of a time getting anyone to buy the Rafale, as there is a glut on the market and the Rafale is IIRC 60 million dollars. BUT, as a 4-role heavy fighter, isn't the Rafale basically the next best thing after the F-22, considering it is available for export and the F-22 is not and other plans either have fewer roles, only one engine or are very light?
 

JBP

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
daniel h. said:
The Mig-35 IIRC was not procured by Russia due to cost but they claim it can match the F-22 so how about that? :) ...not for sale I assume...

Seriously though, apparently France is having a heck of a time getting anyone to buy the Rafale, as there is a glut on the market and the Rafale is IIRC 60 million dollars. BUT, as a 4-role heavy fighter, isn't the Rafale basically the next best thing after the F-22, considering it is available for export and the F-22 is not and other plans either have fewer roles, only one engine or are very light?


I hate it when people compare many aircraft to the F-22... I'd believe the Russian Mig-35 is comparable... Seeing as they're both made for the same job. I don't believe you can make an accurate comparision of the Rafale with the F-22... The F-22 is strictly developed as an "Air Dominance" fighter... The old "Air Superiority" mission but doubled... It's suppose to go directly into enemy airspace and smash any opposition to pieces... With a secondary role for ground-pounding... If it has to... It's not suppose to be the primary Close-Air-Support plane...

The Rafale is a multi-role combat aircraft, designed to be both good at air-to-air ops and air-to-ground... Beautiful little aircraft. Perfect for Close-Air-Support roles as "fast-air" resource for troops on the ground, and be able to defend the skies over the battle front. It's also carrier deployable... Very robust aircraft, but not in the same ways or element as the F-22... It's more comparable to the "Typhoon" or Eurofighter 2000.

Anyway, eehhh gads, out of my lane! I'm just an aircraft enthusiast... My humble opinions are these!
 

PL

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Why are you guys talking about the F22 anyway?

It is an Air to Air fighter. When is the last time Canada used Fighters into actual air to air combat with fighters from a foreign country?

Thats right. We don't need Air to Air capacities. Only interception capacities to protect our own air space. The JSF is, from my point of view, the best bang for the buck. However, the stealth capacities of the airframe is going to cost us millions to maintain. Furthermore, maintenace will reduce the availability of jets on the flight line.

Considering the fact that the Hornets are supposed to be simple to maintain, and considering the fact that I see only 10ish Hornet on the flight line in Bagotville each day (and we are supposed to have a super squadron...), I cant imagine having 30 F35 in here and seeing only 5 on a flight line in 20 years.

I would go with the super hornet. Perfect for what we NEED (stop talking about other countries for god sack, and talk about what Canada needs!!!) People are already trained on Hornets (both pilots and tecs) and it does both A/G and A/A. We would be able to keep the SuperHornets until what, 2030, and then see if we still need manned air vehicles.
 

23007

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
^^^^^^^^^^I don't think it can be said anymore perfectly than what PL just stated. What Canada needs is the Super Hornet.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
Lets look at the purchase of a modern day fighter with a/g and a/a abilities.
Any a/c that we buy in the future will have to be compatible with what our NATO allies are flying. The comms, Navy, and all those other intricate electronics that we use to tell us who the bad guys are and aren't. Things such as weapons systems will have to be upgradable  due to the ever increasing demand for smarter and more accurate wpns to reduce cost and collateral damage, we will have to keep up graded if we want to play with the big boy's so to speak. 

What is the perfect a/c for our needs? who knows, until we decide in Canada what commitments we want over seas to support and what priority it is for support of the troops on the ground we won't know for sure. Our role in NATO will have a direct reflection as to what a/c we will purchase in the future if any.

We may not have contributed a lot of cash on a per capita basis as other country's have towards the JSF F35, but our technical expertise towards electronics and other systems on the a/c have been invaluable towards it's production and has more then made up for any monies that we may have not paid towards it. (Some one will ask for proof of this, well kinda hard when most of the design is hush hush). Will we see the JSF in the near future, who knows.  Although no replacement has been formally announced for the CF/18 we all know that we will follow suit as to what our allies do.

No one on here can reflect that they know what our needs are or should be in the future until we actually start to support our troops on the ground in the A/G role. Until such time all we can do is speculate as to what we think or feel we should have.

My thoughts are we need a close air support platform that can take a beating and keep moving (A10 Whart Hog comes to mind)
We also need an aircraft that can intercept and neutralize foreign A/C and or other platforms that may intercept our National airspace or suppress our air superiority above our troops on the ground.( FA/18  Super Hornet).

 

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
23007 said:
^^^^^^^^^^I don't think it can be said anymore perfectly than what PL just stated. What Canada needs is the Super Hornet.


Super Hornet is 57 million each, Rafale is 60 million...though Rafale is considered to be a heavy, multirole fighter, I checked the dimensions on the internet ande the Rafale is many several feet shorter when it comes to length, width, height, weight, though flight ceiling is greater for the Rafale.
 
Top