CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Quirky]

and generators

Which are complete garbage and are prone to failure. The generators haven't been improved but there was a massive upgrade of the avionics since delivery in the 80's.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Seat harness? try complete ejection seat system.

Exterior light? try two engines and generators

Software? Try replacing all the displays and hoping our software works with it.


It is ridiculous and costly. Plus those things need corrosion studies done to see how much life are left in them

So what you're saying is, this is the Air Force version of the Upholder Submarine fiasco, right?

I suppose it's the Army's turn next. Maybe they could buy us used US Marine rucksacks... oh... wait.... those are actually way better than what we have now, so that won't do. Just like their (Vancouver Canada based Arc Teryx made) raingear.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Which are complete garbage and are prone to failure. The generators haven't been improved but there was a massive upgrade of the avionics since delivery in the 80's.

The generator issues as across all F-18A-D fleets around the world.  They are not exclusive to us.

As far as mods on the RAAF aircraft, there are a fair amount but they all are relatively simple to embody (in fact, most were mods we did a couple of years ago).  Thr biggest issue will be configuration control of the aircraft and parts management.

Not saying it is a good idea to buy the aircraft (I see it as a way for the government to hit pause on the fighter file for a couple of years, nothing more) however we have to be fair in our assessment of the amount of work to be done to get the aircraft up to speed.

 

[Loachman]

But - will this purchase actually improve anything?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Are the engines any use to the Aussies? In other words we bought airframes, not aircraft.

 

[RDBZ]

The generator issues as across all F-18A-D fleets around the world.  They are not exclusive to us.

As far as mods on the RAAF aircraft, there are a fair amount but they all are relatively simple to embody (in fact, most were mods we did a couple of years ago).  Thr biggest issue will be configuration control of the aircraft and parts management.

Not saying it is a good idea to buy the aircraft (I see it as a way for the government to hit pause on the fighter file for a couple of years, nothing more) however we have to be fair in our assessment of the amount of work to be done to get the aircraft up to speed.

Would the RCAF bother with the structural upgrades though?  When the RAAF did the math on that they decided they weren't needed given the low hours on the airframes and the planned phase out timetable  (the classics have a pretty short lifespan ahead of them in RAAF service, with the last of the initial order of 72 F-35s to be delivered by 2023).  If these really are "interim" aircraft why would the RCAF see it differently?

 

[dapaterson]

But - will this purchase actually improve anything?

If we get more YFR then yes.  Pilots want to fly.  More YFR means more flying for pilots.  Happy pilots.  And happy pilots are more likely to stay.

 

[observor 69]

If we get more YFR then yes.  Pilots want to fly.  More YFR means more flying for pilots.  Happy pilots.  And happy pilots are more likely to stay.

And this scenario will also result in enough techs to reach optimal YFR?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Just one thing confuses me here: Did we acquire 18 airframe from Australia, meaning once the jets get over here we ship the engines back to the Aussies?

If so, it raises many questions:

1- Did the cost advertised by the government or determined by the PBO include acquisition of engines or not?
2- If not, then how much more will those engine cost? Or,
3- If we don't plan to buy engines (and use the airframes for spare parts), how does that increases the number of available airframes to the needed level of coverage of our "gap"?

Just asking as I don't get this airframe/engine separation thing that air forces do (our ships have come complete with motors ever since we abandoned sails  :nod.

 

[Loachman]

If we get more YFR then yes.  Pilots want to fly.  More YFR means more flying for pilots.  Happy pilots.  And happy pilots are more likely to stay.

As much YFR can be assigned as dictated by higher.

But, unless additional Techs can be minted, knitted, or purchased to match the additional number of airframes - or we take away the Saturdays, half of the Sundays (still allowing them to attend Church in the mornings, of course), and the lunch breaks from the existing ones and go full-Dickensian - there will be no more serviceable machines on the ramp than there are currently, and none of that increased YFR will be burnt off.

We are already well below the establishment of Pilots (I cannot speak to the Tech situation, but doubt that it's much rosier), and it's not just numbers that are concerning. Experience is a significant problem. We cannot retain and train enough.

We just had a new Captain posted in. He was awarded his Wings in Portage in December, and has at least a two-year wait until he gets his Chinook course. And that's not the only lengthy delay between courses. And he's not the only example.

I have seen nothing but decline since the mid-nineties.

Five years from now, these will be The Good Old Days.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As much YFR can be assigned as dictated by higher.

But, unless additional Techs can be minted, knitted, or purchased to match the additional number of airframes - or we take away the Saturdays, half of the Sundays (still allowing them to attend Church in the mornings, of course), and the lunch breaks from the existing ones and go full-Dickensian - there will be no more serviceable machines on the ramp than there are currently, and none of that increased YFR will be burnt off.

We are already well below the establishment of Pilots (I cannot speak to the Tech situation, but doubt that it's much rosier), and it's not just numbers that are concerning. Experience is a significant problem. We cannot retain and train enough.

We just had a new Captain posted in. He was awarded his Wings in Portage in December, and has at least a two-year wait until he gets his Chinook course. And that's not the only lengthy delay between courses. And he's not the only example.

I have seen nothing but decline since the mid-nineties.

Five years from now, these will be The Good Old Days.

Maybe they'll send us their aircrew too, because 'it's 2015+'

 

[RDBZ]

Just one thing confuses me here: Did we acquire 18 airframe from Australia, meaning once the jets get over here we ship the engines back to the Aussies?

If so, it raises many questions:

1- Did the cost advertised by the government or determined by the PBO include acquisition of engines or not?
2- If not, then how much more will those engine cost? Or,
3- If we don't plan to buy engines (and use the airframes for spare parts), how does that increases the number of available airframes to the needed level of coverage of our "gap"?

Just asking as I don't get this airframe/engine separation thing that air forces do (our ships have come complete with motors ever since we abandoned sails  :nod.

The total buy is 25, with 7 to be used as parts.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The total buy is 25, with 7 to be used as parts.

Too bad we can't do that with Infantry. Yet.

 

[Iron 1]

10 year+ lurker around here. Finally took the plunge and signed in.

On topic (CF-18): Is there anyone around these parts who's "in the know" with regards to how these RAAF birds will be integrated with our existing tail numbers? Adding new from 188798/188940, or "filling in blanks" for aircraft SOS over the years?
Not that it matters, just curious.

I am not active military, just another one of those "kids" (I'm 55 this summer) who grew up following my Dad around during the Cold War.
Dad got out in (YOD) '86 after 35 years in ATC. BATCWO. I was there through the IOC of the Hornet and have always had an affinity for it.
Kind of a fan of the CF-104 as well...say no more. 4 years on the "pointy end" in Lahr and Baden and made it to YOD in time to see the "deadeye zips" of 417 do their thing.

Anyways, if anyone's got any idea about the Aussie birds I'd be most interested to know.

All for now, Ron

 

[SupersonicMax]

Single Seats will be 1880XX and two-seaters will be 1881XX.  They essentially keep the last 3 numbers of the Ausie tail numbers (A21-YXX where Y is 0 for single seat and 1 for two-seaters).

 

[Iron 1]

Single Seats will be 1880XX and two-seaters will be 1881XX.  They essentially keep the last 3 numbers of the Ausie tail numbers (A21-YXX where Y is 0 for single seat and 1 for two-seaters).

Thanks for the prompt reply sir!
Interesting tack they chose, but it makes sense to differentiate these machines from the rest of the fleet as I'm sure there will be variances in maintenance requirements. Perhaps other matters as well.
I'm on the fence as far as this particular initiative; to whit? I have serious reservations with regards to the current government and their actual commitment to improving the situation for guys like yourself who are on the "pointy end of the stick".
I guess that this initiative will (at the least) boost the number of flightworthy airframes available for the short term, improve/increase yearly seat time/flight hours, and perhaps allow for an aspect that may help in the matter of retention of core aircrew such as yourself?
FWIW? They finally seem to be getting the message with regards to the (avoidable; IMO) "attrition" within the RCAF at all levels.

I'm going on the record to say that as a taxpayer in this country (for 30+ years), the utter inept handling of this (replacement A/C) file makes me ill.
We should have a couple of F-35 squadrons up and running by this point in the timeline.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm going on the record to say that as a taxpayer in this country (for 30+ years), the utter inept handling of this (replacement A/C) file makes me ill.
We should have a couple of F-35 squadrons up and running by this point in the timeline.

We should be in the pipeline for a fighter replacement.

Even if we had signed off on a purchase order 5 years ago, we'd still have only a handful of a/c at this point; there's a lot of nations in the line, getting their a/c a few at a time.  Besides, there's much more to acquiring a capability than just getting airframes.  Tooling.  Infra (both physical and IM/IT).  Training.  Simulators (both for pilots and ground crew).  It's a complex process.

 

[Iron 1]

We should be in the pipeline for a fighter replacement.

Even if we had signed off on a purchase order 5 years ago, we'd still have only a handful of a/c at this point; there's a lot of nations in the line, getting their a/c a few at a time.  Besides, there's much more to acquiring a capability than just getting airframes.  Tooling.  Infra (both physical and IM/IT).  Training.  Simulators (both for pilots and ground crew).  It's a complex process.

Point taken.
You're correct in all of your statements given above. I lived and worked (PSAC/Heating Plant) in Cold Lake throughout the period where the CF-188 entered service. As such, I saw all of the above as it came on line over the course of IOC for the Hornet units.
What I'm getting at is the fact that we have been involved with this programme from the onset. The fact that we are not at the same level as the RAF or IAF is an exemplar of the mismanagement of the matter by our elected officials, especially when you consider the ever diminishing capabilities of our (now expanding) fleet of obsolescent airframes. The USMC is finding themselves in a similar situation as they too struggle to remain relevant with a fleet of A/B/C/D's (albeit much newer than ours) that is well past its "sell before" date.
Had the political will been there to tackle this issue 15 years ago (as it should have been), we'd be in a far different place than where we currently find ourselves.
It's embarrassing to our nation (particularly to those that are "wearing the uniform") and that is the point I was trying to make.
I have paid hundreds of thousands of both Corporate and Personal tax dollars to Ottawa over the past 35 years and I'm pretty unhappy that this current situation exists.
Hopefully that provides further clarity.


 

 

[Cloud Cover]

We should be in the pipeline for a fighter replacement.

Even if we had signed off on a purchase order 5 years ago, we'd still have only a handful of a/c at this point; there's a lot of nations in the line, getting their a/c a few at a time.  Besides, there's much more to acquiring a capability than just getting airframes.  Tooling.  Infra (both physical and IM/IT).  Training.  Simulators (both for pilots and ground crew).  It's a complex process.

And no org has more expertise at making things more complex than they have to be than DND!! I'm wondering what the cubicle to fighter ratio will be on the purchase (full lifecycle cost per cube). 200 to 1?

 

[OceanBonfire]

Hundred of millions more to keep CF-18s fighting fit

The Canadian Press Published Tuesday, January 14, 2020

The federal government is planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more to ensure Canada's aging CF-18s can still fight over the coming decade while the country waits for long-overdue replacement jets.

The extra money follows a warning from the federal auditor general in late 2018 that Canada's fighter jets were at risk of being outmatched by more advanced adversaries due to a lack of combat upgrades since 2008.

Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger estimates the added cost will be around $800 million, which is on top of the $3 billion the government has already set aside to extend the lives of the CF-18s and purchase 18 secondhand fighter jets from Australia.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Meinzinger says the additional investment will result in upgrades for the CF-18s' weapons, sensors and defensive systems so the planes can meet the threats of today and tomorrow.

Meinzinger says less than half the fleet will receive the full package of upgrades to ensure Canada has enough combat-capable fighter jets while it transitions to more modern planes starting in 2025.

The transition is expected to last around seven years, if all goes according to plan, with the last CF-18 set for retirement in 2032.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/air-force-to-spend-hundred-of-millions-more-to-keep-cf-18s-fighting-fit-1.4767052

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-millions-dollars-1.5426860