CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Humphrey Bogart]

You can't peacekeep with fighter aircraft, unless the RCAF is hiding a UN-blue paint scheme somewhere.

Puckchaser, your comments in this thread are 100% out to lunch.  I feel like I'm reading a CBC comments section when I read your posts here.

Peacekeeping is a task in the spectrum of conflict and fighter aircraft are perfectly capable of playing important roles in a peacekeeping operation, what do you think our CF18s did in the Balkans? 

Your comments about prioritization and cuts are also way off base.  The biggest mistake I see from people wearing green when they look at issues facing other services is they tend to apply their own cultural biases to it.

Comparing a B fleet truck to a modern fighter aircraft or warship is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard but I see hard Army types make the comparison all the time.  Fighter aircraft are complex machines that require years of training to be able to build up the requisite skills sets and have systems in place to make them useful.  If the tap is turned off, it will not be turned back on at the drop of a hat.

I believe maintaining a multi-role fighter force capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict is something this country absolutely needs.  The Air Task Force we can deploy now is a very good capability that gives the government plenty of options.  It needs to be enhanced, not reduced in capability and scope.

6/12 pack of fighters, refuellers, auroras for ISR with Lockheed sniper advanced targeting pod on the fighters themselves.  Team this up with SOF on the ground and the Government of Canada has a pretty good little capability for making a valuable military contribution to an expeditionary mission.  Relegating the Fighter wing of the Air Force to a home defence role only would be a massive mistake. 

I'm an infantry officer by trade but if I were king for a day and was given the choice of cutting regiments or the multirole fighter force, I would choose to cut regiments. 

 

[PuckChaser]

What I'm saying, is that the fighter community is going to have to make a choice between taking a very limited number of Super Hornets now, which will be kept for 35 years and eat into the money for eventual replacements, or push to get the procurement of the replacements faster than 15 year current timeline. Getting these things arent a magic extra $3B boost in defense spending, we'll end up with a split fleet later on, or maybe even more screwed in the mid term as the government can punt the fighter replacement decision down the road.

 

[dapaterson]

It's not a fighter community decision.  It's a CAF decision in resource prioritization - both to acquire new aircraft (and necessary support such as hangers, test facilities etc) and to sustain both the legacy fleet and the new (interim?) fleet.

And there will be tradeoffs,  because defence doesn't have unlimited resources.  So other acquisitions (not only for the RCAF) may be deferred or cancelled, or reduced in scope.

 

[Lumber]

Why must we be relegated to only a single class of fighter? Instead of the Super Hornet being an "interim" replacement for the 188s, why not clearly state, right now, that we will "By 2025, have a mix fleet of Super Hornets and F-35/Grippen/Rafale (etc), each supporting various, different, but often overlapping missions? Play this up not as a "panic move to get something done", but rather a strategic decision to provide variety and depth?

 

[dapaterson]

In part because multiple fleets increase costs for sparing, training, R&O and interoperability, among others.

With a larger RCAF, multiple fleets make sense.  Given our size (and low probability of any growth in the near term), a single fleet is more cost-effective.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Puckchaser, your comments in this thread are 100% out to lunch.  I feel like I'm reading a CBC comments section when I read your posts here.

Peacekeeping is a task in the spectrum of conflict and fighter aircraft are perfectly capable of playing important roles in a peacekeeping operation, what do you think our CF18s did in the Balkans? 

Your comments about prioritization and cuts are also way off base.  The biggest mistake I see from people wearing green when they look at issues facing other services is they tend to apply their own cultural biases to it.

Comparing a B fleet truck to a modern fighter aircraft or warship is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard but I see hard Army types make the comparison all the time.  Fighter aircraft are complex machines that require years of training to be able to build up the requisite skills sets and have systems in place to make them useful.  If the tap is turned off, it will not be turned back on at the drop of a hat.

I believe maintaining a multi-role fighter force capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict is something this country absolutely needs.  The Air Task Force we can deploy now is a very good capability that gives the government plenty of options.  It needs to be enhanced, not reduced in capability and scope.

6/12 pack of fighters, refuellers, auroras for ISR with Lockheed sniper advanced targeting pod on the fighters themselves.  Team this up with SOF on the ground and the Government of Canada has a pretty good little capability for making a valuable military contribution to an expeditionary mission.  Relegating the Fighter wing of the Air Force to a home defence role only would be a massive mistake. 

I'm an infantry officer by trade but if I were king for a day and was given the choice of cutting regiments or the multirole fighter force, I would choose to cut regiments.

A better comparison would be the Subs vs the fighters

 

[Kirkhill]

In part because multiple fleets increase costs for sparing, training, R&O and interoperability, among others.

With a larger RCAF, multiple fleets make sense.  Given our size (and low probability of any growth in the near term), a single fleet is more cost-effective.

DAP:

It is more cost effective to buy and maintain a bag of hammers - but occasionally a screwdriver or a wrench comes in handy.

 

[dapaterson]

But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.

 

[Kirkhill]

But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.

Absolutely.  Excuse me while I run out to Home Depot.  I'll be back in 15 years.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.

I agree DP, but history has shown we've got a clear need for a fighter force that's multirole and flexible.

Germany, Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq/Syria, Eastern Europe.

The CF18s have seen plenty of mileage overseas and giving up the capability to conduct these sorts of operations would be a major mistake. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

... The question should be "What do we want the jets to do", before we ask ourselves "What do we need" ...

That right there  :nod:

 

[Lumber]

But why buy them "just in case"?  Buy what you need when you need it.

Need: To pummel third-rate militaries and terrorist groups who have little to no AA capabilities.
Satisfied by: CF-189 Super Hornets

Need: To pummel 2nd-first rate militaries with demonstrated AA capabilities, or to provide CAP in defence of NORAD.
Satisfied by: CF-355 Lighting II

 

[jmt18325]

That implies that the super hornet is third rate.  The USN will be flying said third rate fighter for at least 25 more years.

 

[Kirkhill]

That implies that the super hornet is third rate.  The USN will be flying said third rate fighter for at least 25 more years.

No. It implies that some assets are adequate when properly employed.  The B52, born in 1948, can still provide value when used appropriately.

 

[Lumber]

That implies that the super hornet is third rate.  The USN will be flying said third rate fighter for at least 25 more years.

Actually, I'm implying that it is second rate (assuming F-35s and -22s are First Rate). It's a matter of bringing a gun to a knife fight. No need to bring an F-35 to bomb ISIL if vanilla CF-188s were more than enough.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Actually, I'm implying that it is second rate (assuming F-35s and -22s are First Rate). It's a matter of bringing a gun to a knife fight. No need to bring an F-35 to bomb ISIL if vanilla CF-188s were more than enough.

And would also be assuming the fight you are going to be in XX years down the road will be the same WRT threats and enemy ORBAT.  Not the best way to plan, IMO.

As Canadian governments have shown that they are willing to accept decade long procurements to replace equipment that has already been "extended" (Seakings are a great example), I can see why ANYONE in the CAF would want to push for the government to buy the gun, not the knife.

:2c:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have argued that the F-35 will never be used for CAS the way older assets have been, they will be to few and to expensive. Up against real AD they will do better than most. If you need a bomb truck to drop bombs onto technicals and grape huts, then perhaps a non-fighter with good payload and loiter time is needed. Now if they agreed to buy 40 SH's right now and 40 F35 in 5-10 years, I would be happy.

 

[Lumber]

And would also be assuming the fight you are going to be in XX years down the road will be the same WRT threats and enemy ORBAT.  Not the best way to plan, IMO.

As Canadian governments have shown that they are willing to accept decade long procurements to replace equipment that has already been "extended" (Seakings are a great example), I can see why ANYONE in the CAF would want to push for the government to buy the gun, not the knife.

:2c:

Sorry, I can see how I wasn't completely clear; I'm using too many metaphors! The Super Hornets are the gun in a knife fight. They are more than adequate. The F-35s are more like .50 cals. Overkill in a knife fight, but perfect when the other guy has a gun.

We seem to be doing a lot more of bombing people who can't shoot back than bombing people with sophisticated AA defences, or a CAP of their own. So why not keep costs down and accomplish these missions with an air frame with a lower maintenance cost, while keeping the F-35s around just in case something really hazardous comes along.

That's what I was getting at.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If you need a bomb truck to drop bombs onto technicals and grape huts, then perhaps a non-fighter with good payload and loiter time is needed.

Others agree.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/august-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3028-first-air-strike-with-gbu-12-against-isil-in-iraq-for-french-navy-atl2-maritime-patrol-aircraft.html

 

[WingsofFury]

I have argued that the F-35 will never be used for CAS the way older assets have been, they will be to few and to expensive. Up against real AD they will do better than most. If you need a bomb truck to drop bombs onto technicals and grape huts, then perhaps a non-fighter with good payload and loiter time is needed. Now if they agreed to buy 40 SH's right now and 40 F35 in 5-10 years, I would be happy.

Just out of curiousity, if the F-35 can carry a greater payload via SDB's, and are produced and utilised by more nations than other legacy fighters like Hornets, Vipers, or even Eagles for that matter, how could there be too few of them to perform in the CAS role the way that legacy fighters continue to do to this day?

Sorry, I guess I'm missing something here....

And we can't just buy a bomb truck; it's self escort strike or go home.