CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[PuckChaser]

Th USN has said that the SH will be the bulk of their fleet until 2035, and will be flying until at least 2040 - probably longer.

Navytimes article, 2035 retirement date, mostly due to reluctance to buy stealth as an operational feature, and to replace their legacy hornets prior to 2022. That means if we buy them, we'll get about 12 years out of them before one of the bigger customers is done flying them, and the production line is closed prior to 2020.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/03/07/fa-18-service-life-extension-strike-fighter-f-35/24381745/

 

[Good2Golf]

Key word: you like.  You have no real substantiation other than glossy brochure from the manufacturer.  The SH, while I am not a fan of the aircraft as a replacement for our fleet, has the most potential in terms of upgradability and would be my pick (between the 3 options) IF we absolutely exclude the JSF. 

If we could open up the competition, I'd go with some F-15E variants (not the Silent Eagle, but the F-15E airframe with custom, but US made, sensors).

:nod:

- F-35
- F/A-18E
- Typhoon (RAF variant - 5-eyes compliant, at greater cost than Euro-pur Typhies)
- Rafale
- F-5...oops, er, Gripen.

:2c:

 

[Altair]

:nod:

- F-35
- F/A-18E
- Typhoon (RAF variant - 5-eyes compliant, at greater cost than Euro-pur Typhies)
- Rafale
- F-5...oops, er, Gripen.

:2c:

The same rafale that has not found a single export market to date?

That plane, while nice, is expensive as hell and doesn't offer much more, if anything, than a gripen.

Gripen

Eurofighter

F35

Rafale

Stupid hornet.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The same rafale that has not found a single export market to date?

That plane, while nice, is expensive as hell and doesn't offer much more, if anything, than a gripen.

Gripen

Eurofighter

F35

Rafale

Stupid hornet.

Egypt receives 3 more Rafale fighter jets from France
Ahram Online, , Friday 29 Jan 2016


Egypt received three Dassault Aviation-built Rafale fighter jets from France on Thursday, the second batch of the jets to be dispatched as part of a deal signed last year.

The first three jets arrived in Egypt in July 2015 as part of the deal, which consists of 24 Rafale jets and a FREMM (Frégate Européenne Multi-Missions) multipurpose frigate. The FREMM frigate, the Tahya Misr, was delivered in June 2015.

"This deal allows the Egyptian naval and air forces to achieve a special step in its ability to fulfill its missions in supporting efforts to achieve safety and stability in the Middle East," army spokesman Brigadier General Mohamed Samir said in a Thursday statement.

A ceremony took place, attended by Egyptian and French delegations, to formally receive the jets.

The jets then performed an air display over Greater Cairo.

Samir said the six Rafale fighter jets that Egypt now owns "represent a huge addition to the air forces' fleet and are considered a new addition to the armement system and combat readiness, and enhances the combat capabilities of, the armed forces.”

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/1/0/186198/Egypt/0/Egypt-receives--more-Rafale-fighter-jets-from-Fran.aspx

 

[PuckChaser]

Eurofighter is nice but super expensive, especially CPFH on that link Altair posted. They'd all have to be built in Europe too, they do the decentralized manufacture and even if we assembled in Canada, the shipping for the parts would make a pricey plane even worse.

 

[Altair]

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/1/0/186198/Egypt/0/Egypt-receives--more-Rafale-fighter-jets-from-Fran.aspx

I stand  corrected. One export market.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I stand  corrected. One export market.

Signed with Qatar and in the process of signing with India.  Good try though 

 

[Good2Golf]

The same rafale that has not found a single export market to date?

That plane, while nice, is expensive as hell and doesn't offer much more, if anything, than a gripen.

Gripen

Eurofighter

F35

Rafale

Stupid hornet.

When you're not busy doing your own job not related to aviation, try perusing some history of the various airframes and check into their development history and performance.  Read up on a guy named John Boyd, yes the OODA-loop Boyd, but famous for a more important reason, then figure out where Rafale sits on the Energy-Manouevre scale of performance and tell me the French messed up...

:not-again:

 

[Altair]

When you're not busy doing your own job not related to aviation, try perusing some history of the various airframes and check into their development history and performance.  Read up on a guy named John Boyd, yes the OODA-loop Boyd, but famous for a more important reason, then figure out where Rafale sits on the Energy-Manouevre scale of performance and tell me the French messed up...

:not-again:

is it worth the price tag is my main issue.

As for not being a sme, cool. Next nobody should have an opinion in politics since we are not politicians...

 

[Good2Golf]

is it worth the price tag is my main issue.

As for not being a sme, cool. Next nobody should have an opinion in politics since we are not politicians...

Quit being whiney.  You're a voter, so you get a (reasonably) informed say in politics.

 

[Journeyman]

As for not being a sme, cool. Next nobody should have an opinion in politics since we are not politicians...

/pout

But we are all creatures of, and subject to, politics.  Not everyone is an aviator....or a defence economist....or a strategic thinker.

ONE MORE TIME......there are opinions, and there are informed opinions.

 

[childs56]

NFTC (NATO Flying Training Canada) doesn't train on F-18s. It trains students on Harvard II and Hawk on the basic and advanced flight training as well as fighter lead-in training.  Past that (OTU on the Hornet), training is the responsibility of individual countries.  This is not at all an argument to buy F-models.

Sorry I miss worded the program. 410 TFS runs the Basic Fighter training course for Canada, they also run advanced Fighter training courses for not only our pilots but those of our allies ( usually have one foreign pilot). It is important to have a two seat Fighter trainer, for instructing new pilots and also to provide further training to both junior and experienced pilots.
Although we do not conduct a large Fighter Training school, we do provide some of the best training in NATO for such. That is due to the style of instruction, the type of airspace we have and also the style of aircraft we have,

Yes you can instruct new pilots using a single seat aircraft, but they will have a much slower learning curve to get up to speed.

I think the simple question at hand is where does Canada want to be in the next 20 years with its fighter fleet. It seems no one has actually answered that question since the F35 has not met its deadlines of performance and delivery dates. What is a good interm replacement for our Jets right now? Has to be off the shelf, and ready for start of delivery within a year of signing the deal.

 

[WingsofFury]

I think the simple question at hand is where does Canada want to be in the next 20 years with its fighter fleet. It seems no one has actually answered that question since the F35 has not met its deadlines of performance and delivery dates. What is a good interim replacement for our Jets right now? Has to be off the shelf, and ready for start of delivery within a year of signing the deal.

With respect, I think your first sentence is entirely the problem with how people look at this situation.

Canada never has only looked ahead 20 years with regards to any military aviation purposed platform as we normally fly things for almost 40 years.  A government 20 years from now isn't going to be looking at buying new planes.

Some thoughts for Altair....

I don't know you and I'm not involved in the military.  My background is that of someone who has written and photographed RCAF exercises and issues for the last 10 years, something which I loved doing but do no longer.  I chose to listen to those who were involved with the nuances of the jet program, especially pilots who have flown multiple air frames including the Gripen, Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Strike Eagle. One such pilot is on this forum and has shared his thoughts on the matter in this thread.

While I can appreciate your adoration of the Gripen, I'd suggest doing further research and listening to the opinions of those who have actual experience in the fast air realm.  Not one of them has said that the Gripen will do anything to even sustain the capabilities which the RCAF has in its current legacy fleet of Hornets. Food for thought, isn't it?

The politics on this matter are something entirely different...

The Liberals promised that they would never buy the F-35.  This is based on how the Conservatives mismanaged the file and due to inaccurate reporting on the F-35 by people who don't know or understand the first thing about military aviation.  In this world of everyone with a blog or a website suddenly becoming subject matter experts the truth about performance and technical details has been thrown to the wind and disregarded, which is quite sad.

Now, the Liberal government has members in parliament which have flown non upgraded CF-18's, which is cool. At least one of those MP's has previously spent time on a FB fan page trying to convert people to the notion that the Super Hornet is the right plane and that the F-35A has no future in Canada.  This factor, along with the fiasco that the Conservatives created, led to the Liberal election campaign promise.  The promise wasn't based on performance parameters which have already been assessed by pilots who have access to classified information which people like you and I will never have.

What concerns me, and I don't say this lightly, is that politics is going up against what the RCAF Commander has said regarding fast air capabilities over the next 10 years when the current Hornet fleet is scheduled to retire; namely that there will be a capabilities gap which, in my opinion, is complete bollocks.  One simply shouldn't make the Commander look like he doesn't know what he's talking about simply to score political points...but then again, what does the average Canadian really care about what happens to those who defend our country?

This is a political decision...and the Liberals know that if they were to hold an open source competition that they'd have to include the F-35 and that, more than likely, it'd win.  By moving ahead with a Super Hornet purchase, they'll avoid the competition.  However, by not having the competition, they're selling the RCAF short on capabilities for the long 40 - 50 years that the plane will be in service which will lead to yet another situation similar to what we find ourselves in right now.  That said, the Super Hornet out of the planes available isn't a bad plan and does have the greatest room for expansion over the forseeable future. 

But check out the stats on the Strike Eagle variants and ask yourself if Boeing is selling itself short by only offering the Super Hornet to Canada in order to keep the line open...yet another economic reason why they're selling the Super Hornet to us.

Hope you enjoy research...there's a lot to read out there and if you look at it all critically...well, let's just say it'll be interesting to see if your viewpoint changes.

Cheers.

 

[Loachman]

Yes you can instruct new pilots using a single seat aircraft, but they will have a much slower learning curve to get up to speed.

Your second clause is based upon what experience or reference(s)?

Those currently flying F35s qualified without one. Have you seen any comments from any one of them regarding any impairment of their learning curve as a result?

Were dual-cockpit training fighters actually required in this age of simulation, there would be a dual-cockpit F35. There is not, nor will there be.

Progress marches on.

And it will march past Super Hornet and all other contenders much more quickly than it will F35, and leave them all in its dust.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Just what one expected–hardball from LoickMart about jobs! jobs! jobs!

Lockheed may shift F-35 fighter work away from Canada

Top U.S. weapons maker Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) is studying whether to shift work on its multibillion-dollar F-35 fighter jet away from Canadian firms given uncertainty about Ottawa’s plans to buy the jet.

Jack Crisler, Lockheed’s vice president of business development for the F-35 program, told Reuters Lockheed was under pressure from other partner countries that had placed firm orders or accelerated orders to shift more work to them.

“This is not anything punitive [SURE]. It is just business,” he said in a telephone interview from the Netherlands, where the [Dutch air force] F-35 will fly in its first international air show on Saturday [June 11].

Canadian firms will account for development and production work on the F-35 program worth about $1 billion by the end of 2016, Crisler said…
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-canada-fighter-idUSKCN0YW14E?il=0

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Plus Canadian industry:

Gloves off as Canadian aerospace firms slam Liberals for favouring Super Hornets over F-35s

The gloves came off Thursday after a group of companies involved in the F-35 project blasted the Super Hornet, and warned the Liberals that Canada’s aerospace industry will be permanently hamstrung if the government doesn’t stick with the stealth fighter.

“Not selecting the F-35 will set off a chain of events that will see hundreds of millions of investment dollars lost, and high-tech jobs leaving Canada,” the Canadian JSF Industrial Group said Thursday. “It is doubtful that any other procurement would provide the same industrial benefits.”

However, the Liberal government and Boeing Co., the company that makes the Super Hornet, have pushed back, saying not buying the F-35 won’t be the end of the world — or the end of Canada’s aerospace industry.

“New skills and technologies gained through access to the (F-35) program have helped position Canadian industry to take advantage of other advanced aerospace and defence projects,” said Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

“While we appreciate the CJIG’s concerns,” she said, “the government of Canada makes decisions based on what is best for Canada and our Canadian Armed Forces.”..
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/gloves-off-as-canadian-aerospace-firms-slam-liberals-for-favouring-super-hornets-over-f-35s

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

OK - a modest veer from the track:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-considering-nato-request-to-send-1000-canadian-troops-to-eastern-europe

Is it possible that the Liberals are creating a capabilities gap that demands the provision of new flight hours?

NATO wants to beef up the eastern flank. Specifically it wants four battle groups: one each for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.  They are short one and pressure  seems to be mounting to have Canada provide one for Poland to match the US, UK and German groups in the other three countries.

This would put Canadian troops directly in line of sight of Russian weapons and would be a return to the days of the Inter-German Border.

This does not sound like a Trudeauvian policy.  Neither pere nor fils.

It would also require men and machines the Army doesn't have and money the Government is reluctant to spend.

What to do?

Do what generations have always done: send in the Navy and the Air Force.

But - we don't have ships and we don't have planes.

We can maintain a patrol over North America and on occasion we can send a six-pack overseas but the pressure from NATO demands a bigger show - perhaps a full squadron or better yet an expeditionary wing with at least one full squadron of Canadians.

Perhaps NATO can be bought off with more Aircraft rather than more troops.

All of a sudden it appears that there may be an urgent need for more jets to whip out.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Based on previous informed decisions, we bought Bomarc, then had buy a replacement interceptor that we said we would never had needed after cancelling our own. We then used Starfighters as one way bombers, then as ground attack aircraft, bought the CF-5. About the one thing we did do ok in was buying the CF-18. No offense, but leaving it completely to the experts and politicians has not resulted in a solid track record.

I would also say it will be difficult to accurately predict where technology will lead us in 40 years and where the world will be politically in 40 years. 

 

[Kirkhill]

“This is not anything punitive [SURE]. It is just business,”

:rofl:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

OK - a modest veer from the track:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-considering-nato-request-to-send-1000-canadian-troops-to-eastern-europe

Is it possible that the Liberals are creating a capabilities gap that demands the provision of new flight hours?

NATO wants to beef up the eastern flank. Specifically it wants four battle groups: one each for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.  They are short one and pressure  seems to be mounting to have Canada provide one for Poland to match the US, UK and German groups in the other three countries.

This would put Canadian troops directly in line of sight of Russian weapons and would be a return to the days of the Inter-German Border.

This does not sound like a Trudeauvian policy.  Neither pere nor fils.

It would also require men and machines the Army doesn't have and money the Government is reluctant to spend.

What to do?

Do what generations have always done: send in the Navy and the Air Force.

But - we don't have ships and we don't have planes.

We can maintain a patrol over North America and on occasion we can send a six-pack overseas but the pressure from NATO demands a bigger show - perhaps a full squadron or better yet an expeditionary wing with at least one full squadron of Canadians.

Perhaps NATO can be bought off with more Aircraft rather than more troops.

All of a sudden it appears that there may be an urgent need for more jets to whip out.

Actually, if sending the Air Force to Europe is our answer to help front line Eastern European nations for NATO, then stealth becomes an important asset, and the best beast for the job becomes the F-35, with F-15 second best.

Based on previous informed decisions, we bought Bomarc, then had buy a replacement interceptor that we said we would never had needed after cancelling our own. We then used Starfighters as one way bombers, then as ground attack aircraft, bought the CF-5. About the one thing we did do ok in was buying the CF-18. No offense, but leaving it completely to the experts and politicians has not resulted in a solid track record.

I would also say it will be difficult to accurately predict where technology will lead us in 40 years and where the world will be politically in 40 years. 

The abandonment of the Arrow and acquisition of Bomarc, then the widow maker, were all made as uninformed decisions, under a lot of American pressure, and definitely not as decisions made based on what was best for Canada or the Canadian armed forces.