CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Colin Parkinson]

I was not aware that the Taliban had an air force that we would need an escort to protect us from?  ;D

We are replacing our CF-18’s with fewer F-35, although the initial availability will be higher than current aircraft, as the fleet matures, that will change. It’s also unclear if the training loss rate will be the same or less than the CF-18, but we won’t be able to bear the same number of training losses. It would be interesting to see across the nations what the exchange rate for aircraft will be, but I do not think anyone is replacing on a 1 for 1 basis, I may be wrong on that.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Gov't on (likely?) Super Hornet buy in Question Period today:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/mark-collins-things-looking-better-for-f-35-in-canada-not-super-hornet-buy-leaks/#comment-17404

Mark
Ottawa

 

[WingsofFury]

I was not aware that the Taliban had an air force that we would need an escort to protect us from?  ;D

We are replacing our CF-18’s with fewer F-35, although the initial availability will be higher than current aircraft, as the fleet matures, that will change. It’s also unclear if the training loss rate will be the same or less than the CF-18, but we won’t be able to bear the same number of training losses. It would be interesting to see across the nations what the exchange rate for aircraft will be, but I do not think anyone is replacing on a 1 for 1 basis, I may be wrong on that.

Taliban no...but ISIS shot down an F-16, did they not?

Fewer jets but greater lethality.  It's also a sign of budget cuts...again...sigh...

As for a loss rate, with the engine being of much better quality, I believe there'll be fewer training losses.  On the upside, if there is an upside to a plane going down, I believe we'd be able to purchase a new one for the same price as what the LRIP lot being produced at that time is.

 

[Altair]

I'm a tad bit disappointed.

Seems like the need to buy American will leave only the super hornet and the F35 as plausible options. A shame, because I am not really impressed by either the SH or F35.

Then again, I'm no pilot.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Taliban no...but ISIS shot down an F-16, did they not?

This.  You don't need a "all bells and whistles" GBAD/IADS to bring down a single aircraft.  Any wing-nut with a later gen MANPAD will do just fine.

Bringing down 1 won't win you the war, but how would Canada react if a similar thing happened that happened to the Jordanian F-16 driver?  I have no doubt in my mind what would happen (political decision) and then effectively, you've removed one of your adversaries quickly and effectively.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm a tad bit disappointed.

Seems like the need to buy American will leave only the super hornet and the F35 as plausible options. A shame, because I am not really impressed by either the SH or F35.

Then again, I'm no pilot.

Eurofighter and Gripen NG aren't any better. Unless you're looking at Russian or Chinese options?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This.  You don't need a "all bells and whistles" GBAD/IADS to bring down a single aircraft.  Any wing-nut with a later gen MANPAD will do just fine.

Bringing down 1 won't win you the war, but how would Canada react if a similar thing happened that happened to the Jordanian F-16 driver?  I have no doubt in my mind what would happen (political decision) and then effectively, you've removed one of your adversaries quickly and effectively.

So what is the effective ceiling for a modern Manpad? What is the effective ceiling for lobbing guided bombs? The non-fighter bombtruck would not be going low altitude, more the same level as a B1 I suspect. I can see a role for a bomber that is not heavily specialized to fight in higher intensity battles and use as much common commercial aviation components as possible. This would be good for smaller nations and ones involved in a lot of bush wars. 

 

[Kirkhill]

This item caught my eye - from John Ivison

But the planes are not carbon copies and the new additions will mean the creation of a mixed fleet, something the RCAF has rejected on the grounds that it lowers capability and raises costs.

If part of the motivation is to free up money that can be diverted to the shipbuilding program, it would be interesting to first find out the full life cycle cost of operating two fleets.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-by-sole-sourcing-super-hornets-liberals-now-look-identical-to-tories-on-fighter-jets-file

I can't find it just now but I seem to recall the National Fighter Secretariat did look at a mixed fleet solution.  Or is old age creeping up on me that fast?

 

[SupersonicMax]

So what is the effective ceiling for a modern Manpad? What is the effective ceiling for lobbing guided bombs? The non-fighter bombtruck would not be going low altitude, more the same level as a B1 I suspect. I can see a role for a bomber that is not heavily specialized to fight in higher intensity battles and use as much common commercial aviation components as possible. This would be good for smaller nations and ones involved in a lot of bush wars.

Manpads aren't the only threat.  Don't have to look very far back to understand we did face a relatively potent threat:  we fought a country armed with radar guided SAMs, to include mobile SAMs (Libya (2011), Kosovo (1999), Iraq (1991)).  With groups like ISIS taking over airfields and military bases in foreign countries, it wouldn't surprise me to see them get their hands on guided stuff (and they have the money and/or power to buy people to train them to use it). 

You are living in yesterday's and today's conflicts.  You can't project what we did/are doing in the future.  We cannot handcuff ourselves to a platform that cannot go in, drop bomb and come back in a country with a contested sky.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I get your argument, but I suspect that costs of the modern fighter is going to handcuff us in other ways.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Since we need to do NORAD, we need a fighter-type aircraft. As soon as you have this requirement, you are looking at $100M per airplane plus support.  The NORAD requirement is not going away.  Might as well fet the bang for our buck...

 

[PuckChaser]

Super Hornet isn't going to be any cheaper than a F35, especially when the FMS charges around 5% on the price. Australians paid roughly $212M including support (until 2025) per aircraft (x24) for their interim order in 2013. $5B for planes they don't plan on flying 10 years from now.

 

[Ostrozac]

I can see a role for a bomber that is not heavily specialized to fight in higher intensity battles and use as much common commercial aviation components as possible. This would be good for smaller nations and ones involved in a lot of bush wars.

If all you want to do is drop bombs from high altitude on people that can't shoot back, then you don't need to buy a specialized airframe just for that purpose -- the Syrian Air Force does this on a daily basis with transport aircraft. Also, doesn't our CP-140 already have a perfectly good bomb-bay? Add to the mix that the RCAF still intends to buy a large UAV with a weapons-delivery capability, and I think that our simple bomb truck capability is covered.

But simple bomb trucks can't tangle with Serbia's Air Defence network -- or contribute to enforcing a no-fly zone. For that you need a multi-role fighter.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If all you want to do is drop bombs from high altitude on people that can't shoot back, then you don't need to buy a specialized airframe just for that purpose -- the Syrian Air Force does this on a daily basis with transport aircraft. Also, doesn't our CP-140 already have a perfectly good bomb-bay?

It has a bombbay that could potentially be configured.  However, there is (IMO) no will on the government or Senior RCAF leaderships part to pursue this capability.  The French saw a capability, and then funded it.  My sense is no such desire exits in Canada WRT the CP-140 going that way.  I see a lack of political will and funding shortfalls as the kilers of what could be a good capability to have in our pocket.

Add to the mix that the RCAF still intends to buy a large UAV with a weapons-delivery capability, and I think that our simple bomb truck capability is covered.

It's non-existent right now.  The RCAF needs FWSAR, the Cyclone project...etc.  I don't see the money coming from this governments term, myself.

But simple bomb trucks can't tangle with Serbia's Air Defence network -- or contribute to enforcing a no-fly zone. For that you need a multi-role fighter.

Did you mean Syria?  They do have some shit wired tight.

 

[dimsum]

Super Hornet isn't going to be any cheaper than a F35, especially when the FMS charges around 5% on the price. Australians paid roughly $212M including support (until 2025) per aircraft (x24) for their interim order in 2013. $5B for planes they don't plan on flying 10 years from now.

I wouldn't be too sure of that.  If I remember correctly, the F-35s were meant to replace their legacy Hornets, not the Supers and the Growlers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The SH replaced their F-111 on a 1 to 1 basis from my reading.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So what is the effective ceiling for a modern Manpad?

I can only direct you to open source stuff on that, and can't comment on how accurate that info is.  Here's a few links for reference though.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/9k338.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792628/but-language-manual-syrian-rebels-eagerly-unpack-brand-new-surface-air-missiles-china.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fn-6.htm

What is the effective ceiling for lobbing guided bombs? The non-fighter bombtruck would not be going low altitude, more the same level as a B1 I suspect.

Probably not something you'll be able to get an answer on here about.  There's lots of variables that can affect what altitude people do/don't operate from. 

 

[PuckChaser]

The SH replaced their F-111 on a 1 to 1 basis from my reading.

Because the F111C service life was done well before their Hornets. I can see them keeping Growlers, that's a niche aircraft. Super Hornets are there until they get full order of F35.

 

[Ostrozac]

Did you mean Syria?  They do have some crap wired tight.

Actually, I was thinking of the Kosovo War in 1999 -- but Syria is also a good example. Medium sized countries can have decent air defence capabilities.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Syria is also a good example. Medium sized countries can have decent air defence capabilities.

And it's not like all their kit is accounted for...

Manpads aren't the only threat.  Don't have to look very far back to understand we did face a relatively potent threat:  we fought a country armed with radar guided SAMs, to include mobile SAMs (Libya (2011), Kosovo (1999), Iraq (1991)).  With groups like ISIS taking over airfields and military bases in foreign countries, it wouldn't surprise me to see them get their hands on guided stuff (and they have the money and/or power to buy people to train them to use it).

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/isis-gets-syrian-air-defense-system/  " it is uncertain whether the associated fire control radar and other equipment needed to fire the missiles were captured"

It only takes a few seconds for your day to go from good to bad.

An image released by the Islamic State on 20 January shows a 1S91 engagement radar ['STRAIGHTFLUSH'] at the 2K12 Kub battery northeast of Dayr al-Zawr city. 

The Islamic State has released images of large quantities of materiel it said it captured during the offensive, including a 1S91 engagement radar, at least one 2P25 launcher, and at least two missiles from a 2K12 Kub (SA-6 'Gainful') surface-air-missile (SAM) system.

The Islamic State captured a 2P25 launcher from retreating Syrian forces in 2014, but this is the first time its fighters have been seen with the 1S91 radar needed to form an operational 2K12 system.

Source: 27 Jan 2016 Janes article.

What does the STRAIGTHFLUSH find targets for?

SA-6 'GAINFUL' ( 2 x TELs shown here with the STRAIGHTFLUSH center-rear)

Here's one any ESM scope dope should get.  ;D