CF-18's not being replaced???

[Gill557]

I heard a rumour that said the CF-18 was not going to be replaced at the end of their service life.  The rumour went on to say that Canada had decided not to have fast air anymore, and was going to concentrate on Hercs as most of our airforce.

Anyone hear anything about this or is this rumour just another story?

 

[McG]

Source?

 

[TheCheez]

Anything you've heard so far is just speculation. So much can change in the next 15 years I dont think anyone knows for sure whats in store. We've invested in JSF but have also started using UAVs. Ive heard both rumours and like most things around here, until it happens I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Gill557]

Source?

Buddy from Trenton was telling us that that's what Gen. Hilliar was saying to them.

 

[Sam69]

Your buddy is incorrect or mis-heard the CDS. To my knowledge there is no intent to not replace the CF-188 - there is currently funding planned in the SCIP for a new fighter aircraft.

 

[Infanteer]

With all the hoopla on "JSS" and "Expeditionary" footings, the JSF VTOL seems like a logical candidate.  Any word on how that is progressing?

 

[Gill557]

With all the hoopla on "JSS" and "Expeditionary" footings, the JSF VTOL seems like a logical candidate.   Any word on how that is progressing?

I've heard they're still in the testing phase right now.  Still trying to work out all the bugs

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

A lot can happen between this CDS and the next... we are holding on our F-18 for a while.  Phase 1 of its updates is almost completed.  Phase 2 should have started by now.  I think the Typhoon should be the next fighter.  With our dispute with Denmark, we will need a 2 engine fighter, for the northern patrols.

-Mario-

 

[JBP]

Posted by: Infanteer
Insert Quote
With all the hoopla on "JSS" and "Expeditionary" footings, the JSF VTOL seems like a logical candidate.  Any word on how that is progressing?

Here's a clip of some general info... This kind of thing is common in aircraft development, especially when it's a completely new jet. If you look at the development history of fighter aircraft, almost every aircraft has run behind scheduel and over estimated costs in some part of the development phase...

By the end of 2003 it appeared that the cost of developing the Joint Strike Fighter, a radar-evading jet, could increase by as much as $5 billion, to $38 billion, and the project could fall more than a year behind schedule. The increase would be mostly because of the higher-than-expected cost of developing parts of the technology and the addition of new capabilities for the fighter jet. Part of the additional cost would be to add anti-tampering technology to the plane, which would prevent foreign buyers from replicating sensitive systems. That could add $1 billion to $2 billion to the program's budget. The proposed increase would also put aside more money for unforeseen changes in design requested by the military or for development problems. The Joint Strike Fighter is expected to be the largest weapons program in Pentagon history, ultimately costing nearly $200 billion. The first fighter is expected to enter service in 2008.

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

Another very informative link: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

It looks incredibly a lot like the F/A-22 when you look at it, especially from the top. Very close design... Click here to take a look: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf6.html

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

we will need a 2 engine fighter, for the northern patrols.

Is this still an issue with modern engines?

It looks incredibly a lot like the F/A-22 when you look at it, especially from the top. Very close design...

It's supposed to: costs were kept-down by "stealing" the stealth technology developed for the Raptor (which has a unit cost more than double that of the JSF).

 

[JBP]

Posted by: I_am_John_Galt
Insert Quote
Quote from: 404SqnAVSTeach on April 12, 2005, 20:57:08
we will need a 2 engine fighter, for the northern patrols.

Is this still an issue with modern engines?


Quote from: R031 Pte Joe on April 12, 2005, 21:22:53
It looks incredibly a lot like the F/A-22 when you look at it, especially from the top. Very close design...

It's supposed to: costs were kept-down by "stealing" the stealth technology developed for the Raptor (which has a unit cost more than double that of the JSF).

Makes sense... If your a fellow aviation enthusiest etc... Maybe you heard about how in Europe/European Union, they are using F-16 cockpit fuselage section+fly by wire systems to build a new fighter. Can't remember if it's the X-31 EFM or the Eurofighter 2000, although I think someone confirmed before the Eurofighter is a completely new airframe+jet altogether...

Joe

 

[Good2Golf]

Buddy from Trenton was telling us that that's what Gen. Hilliar was saying to them.

I very much doubt this.  I personally asked "then L"Gen Hillier (as CLS) in December on a visit to Kingston in front of 300 Army officers about how he saw the Air Force contributing to CF operations in the future.  He mentioned four capabilities in a framework relating to his experience as COMISAF IV:

• Big honking helicopters...wheels (LAV 3) can't go everywhere over the AOR,
• Tactical airlift...Hercs are keeping Julien running,
• Aurora...when the spot radar and other goodies come, I want them providing C4ISR, and
• It would be nice to see roundels with maple leaves on six grey jets to provide me or other nations in the force with teeth.  They could fly out of Bahgram or somewhere nearby to support operations.

He went on to provide a bit more detail but his message was a solid balance of aerospace force to provide responsive and effective support, first and foremost, to troops on the ground.  I see nothing in his first few months as CDS to make me believe he's changed his mind.

Personally and professionally, I believe fast air as an example of National will/force projection will remain with us for some time to come...I know of some folks close to him who have heard that fast air will remain a capability that will continue to present an option to international operations in the future.

Cheers,
Duey 

 

[yoman]

I had a master warrant officer from the air force come to my cadet squadron telling us that the future of aviation will be with helicopters and that fighter jets will no longer be an important part of the air force. So he said that he doesn't believe that the CF will purchase any more fighter aircraft. It was part of his speech about the new Cyclone the CF bought. This was a couple of weeks ago, if I remember correctly he was some sort of technician.

 

[JBP]

Posted by: yoman
Insert Quote
I had a master warrant officer from the air force come to my cadet squadron telling us that the future of aviation will be with helicopters and that fighter jets will no longer be an important part of the air force. So he said that he doesn't believe that the CF will purchase any more fighter aircraft. It was part of his speech about the new Cyclone the CF bought. This was a couple of weeks ago, if I remember correctly he was some sort of technician.

Strange, without fighters, you cannot gain air superiority over the battlefield, which is extremely important in a "3-D" war... I suppose if that was the case we'd have to rely on the USAF to cover us in that area... Oh wait, don't we for the most part already???  :

Our fighter jockeys are some of the cream of the crop of fighter pilots in the world. They've proved it time and again through training with various allies (NATO) and in combat... Remember when we helped bomb the sh*t out of Kosovo? Only war ever won directly by airpower alone...

There will always be some sort of "air superiority" aircraft, whether it remains a manned platform I believe is the question of the future. I think after JSF and other 5th generation aircraft like the F-22, Eurofighter 2000 etc... People won't be flying fighters...

 

[GK .Dundas]

Strange, without fighters, you cannot gain air superiority over the battlefield, which is extremely important in a "3-D" war... I suppose if that was the case we'd have to rely on the USAF to cover us in that area... Oh wait, don't we for the most part already???   :

Our fighter jockeys are some of the cream of the crop of fighter pilots in the world. They've proved it time and again through training with various allies (NATO) and in combat... Remember when we helped bomb the **** out of Kosovo? Only war ever won directly by airpower alone...

There will always be some sort of "air superiority" aircraft, whether it remains a manned platform I believe is the question of the future. I think after JSF and other 5th generation aircraft like the F-22, Eurofighter 2000 etc... People won't be flying fighters...

From my rather baised point of of view I would'nt object to some close air support.Having said that you cannot have one with out the other.

 

[JBP]

From my rather baised point of of view I would'nt object to some close air support.Having said that you cannot have one with out the other.
Posted on: Yesterday at 21:53:04
Posted by: R031 Pte Joe

Exactly, close air support is integral to a 3D battle and any modern conflict. An attack/fighter aircraft is like a flying tank, but better. Our current CF-18's fill that role also, they're fighters and attackers. They can do both hence why we purchased them.

Even the F-22 has a secondary attack role and can be fitted with JDAM munitions etc etc.... Close air support won't dissapear ever either.

Say for example we had excellent air defence forces, many ATADS or whatever they're called, and other surface-to-air missle defence systems. Those can all be thwarted by aircraft even though they're designed to kill them. A "wild weasel" (SAM supression/AAA)  mission by a few attack aircraft can blow up a lot of air defence installations and/or systems. We need and will always need "fast air" like fighters/attack aircraft.

 

[daniel h.]

Unmanned aircraft may be inevitable, but they would be damn expensive.

 

[Blue Max]

... Remember when we helped bomb the sh*t out of Kosovo? Only war ever won directly by airpower alone...

I thought that it had been argued effectively that air power did NOT win the war in Kosovo solely, but rather in conjunction with the perceived threat of a NATO land invasion.

 

[Sam69]

I thought that it had been argued effectively that air power did NOT win the war in Kosovo solely, but rather in conjunction with the perceived threat of a NATO land invasion.

In fact, it has also been strongly argued that  Russian diplomatic intervention helped convince the Serbs to eventually agree to NATO's demands. The initial effect of the 78 day Kosovo air war was to actually accelerate the ongoing ethnic cleansing at the time.

The Senate has a very good report on Kosovo here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/fore-e/REP-E/rep07apr00part1-e.htm#The%20Effectiveness%20of%20the%20Air%20Campaign

Sam

 

[JBP]

Well, if you look at the Kosovo conflict from the standpoint of "action taken", not words, it was the only war that ever ended (a better way to put it?) from air strikes alone. No land invasion did happen, even if thier was a highly anticipated/percieved threat of a land invasion.

Diplomatic pressure is what really stopped it, but again, in terms of sheer action, it was airpower.