The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Eye In The Sky]

Do they though? 

I'd say the spread across the Air Force is probably pretty equal across the platforms in terms of aircraft being employed operationally.  Fighter jets are on NORAD duty 24/7, 365 days a year. 

Well, part of the NORAD missions is the maritime approaches as well, and Aurora crews are on duty 24/7, 365 days a year, west and east coast.  I had a few no fly months last year, and I still logged IVO 750 hours.

NORAD link

NORAD Mission
The North American Aerospace Defense Command conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America.

NORAD Missions

In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.

I'd say each community is pulling their weight, and then some.  We have a small force afterall, and getting new platforms is a royal PITA, as this and other threads on here have proven. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

In the Army, we let Corporal drive the bus.  Just saying...

And if remember correctly, in WW2, it was overwhelmingly NCO's flying gliders - when they had only one chance to get 'er right >

 

[Good2Golf]

That was my point, just didn't quite make it as well as you did.  :nod:

Sometimes the folks we called "Driver" in the blackhat world need to be reminded they're just part of the effort that makes a mission a success.  You can fill a CP-140 with 20 pilots.  The best ones in the RCAF, or heck, make it the Aurora community.  The only way it is moving, let alone taking off, is behind a Mule. 

And that Mule...would be operated by maintainers appropriately qualified and authorized personnel. 

Sorry for the slight derail!

I have seen Flight Engineers, Loadmasters and Pilots qualified on D-4 (and FE and LM on D-8 and up).  Can't vouch for Nav/ACSOs or AESOPs as I did my own navigation and operated my own EO-IR. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Loachman]

So...








Who gets to tow the CF18 replacement?

 

[SupersonicMax]

I think it's a very difficult question to answer right now..

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I have seen Flight Engineers, Loadmasters and Pilots qualified on D-4 (and FE and LM on D-8 and up).  Can't vouch for Nav/ACSOs or AESOPs as I did my own navigation and operated my own EO-IR. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Shhhhhhhhhhhh...I am trying to get this thread interesting for a bit with some  :slapfight: stuff.  8)

And..okay, the Aurora can be towed around with a Mule driven by a Pilot, works for me too.  The other 20 onboard still aren't getting off the ground.  8) 

 

[Underway]

Would there be a possibility of the F/A-18F being converted into a Growler (prewired etc...)?  Also, the Advanced Super Hornet AFAIK only comes in the F derived model so a two seater is the only option if that is what the Gov't is looking at.  What's the advantage/disadvantage for a Nav in the back of a regular two seat fighter (serious question)?  I can understand a Growler (task management for the EW portion) but why the Rhino?

 

[Loachman]

Put one of those blow-up emergency co-pilots from Airplane in the back seat.

Or R2D2.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Would there be a possibility of the F/A-18F being converted into a Growler (prewired etc...)?  Also, the Advanced Super Hornet AFAIK only comes in the F derived model so a two seater is the only option if that is what the Gov't is looking at.  What's the advantage/disadvantage for a Nav in the back of a regular two seat fighter (serious question)?  I can understand a Growler (task management for the EW portion) but why the Rhino?

If we're acquiring Rhino, wouldn't it make sense to utilize the tactics developed by the US NAVY which would necessitate integration of Growler units too?  Even if not all 18 were Growlers?

 

[dimsum]

Would there be a possibility of the F/A-18F being converted into a Growler (prewired etc...)?  Also, the Advanced Super Hornet AFAIK only comes in the F derived model so a two seater is the only option if that is what the Gov't is looking at.  What's the advantage/disadvantage for a Nav in the back of a regular two seat fighter (serious question)?  I can understand a Growler (task management for the EW portion) but why the Rhino?

From Wiki:

On 27 February 2009, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced that 12 of the 24 Super Hornets on order would be wired on the production line for future fit-out as EA-18Gs. The additional wiring would cost A$35 million. The final decision on conversion to EA-18Gs, at a cost of A$300 million, was to be announced in March 2012.[57][58]

On 23 August 2012, the Australian Government announced that 12 RAAF Super Hornets would be fitted with Growler capability at a cost of $1.5 billion;[59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler#Australia

 

[CBH99]

Anybody have any further information on the $300M projected price, to the $1.5B final price, for the conversions?  Or am I misunderstanding the context of that statement?

 

[suffolkowner]

From Wiki:

On 27 February 2009, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced that 12 of the 24 Super Hornets on order would be wired on the production line for future fit-out as EA-18Gs. The additional wiring would cost A$35 million. The final decision on conversion to EA-18Gs, at a cost of A$300 million, was to be announced in March 2012.[57][58]

On 23 August 2012, the Australian Government announced that 12 RAAF Super Hornets would be fitted with Growler capability at a cost of $1.5 billion;[59]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler#Australia

I thought the Aussies changed their mind again and kept the 24 SH's and bought an additional 12 Growlers?

 

[suffolkowner]

Anybody have any further information on the $300M projected price, to the $1.5B final price, for the conversions?  Or am I misunderstanding the context of that statement?

I think in the 1.5B is the cost of furnishing the sensor pods etc.., wiring/potential is one thing but outfitting can be variable and up to end user

 

[MarkOttawa]

Another possible Super Hornet upgrade:

US Navy revives interest in Super Hornet engine upgrades

The US Navy has revived interest in studying a major upgrade of the engine that powers the Boeing F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and two foreign fighters, including the possible addition of new technologies.

In early February, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) notified industry that it would ask GE Aviation to submit a proposal for a contract for the company’s engineers to perform a study on an “F414-GE-400 core enhancement evaluation”.

Such notifications are required when the government plans to award a contract without inviting competing bids. No other details about the contents or objectives of the study were provided in NAVAIR study, which is described only as an assessment of “how upgrades ... could improve engine performance, as well as F/A-18E/F and EA-18G performance”.

Asked to comment on the contract notification, GE released a statement to FlightGlobal that was approved by NAVAIR.

“NAVAIR has expressed interest in GE evaluating how our latest engine technologies could be applied to the F414 Enhanced Engine,” GE says.

GE’s proposed Enhanced Engine design surfaced as a proposal several years ago as part of Boeing’s Super Hornet bid for India’s fighter competition. GE has tested the durability or thrust upgrades in laboratory rigs. NAVAIR also paid GE in late 2013 to evaluate the F414 Enhanced Engine, with the possibility of funding a development programme two years later, although that follow-on contract never materialised...

NAVAIR’s interest in upgrading the F/A-18E/F’s propulsion system comes after a remarkable turn-around for the Boeing production line in St. Louis. A year ago, the programme appeared to be close to winding down after completing remaining deliveries to the USN. Then, Boeing won long-sought deals to deliver at least 28 Super Hornets to Kuwait, 36 fighters to Qatar and a commitment from Canada to buy at least 18 F/A-18E/Fs [emphasis added, note that "buy"]. Moreover, US Defense secretary Jim Mattis said in late January that the F/A-18E/F could continue to be used as an internal competitor against the F-35...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-revives-interest-in-super-hornet-engine-upgr-434227/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Pretty long and well-researched (lots of links)--but ignores USN uses SH for fleet air defence, somewhat analogous to NORAD mission.  And lack of inter-operability with F-35A for continental air defence seems bit overstated.  Note emphasis on personnel problems:

Super Hornets, Eh? Canadian Airpower Falls Short on North American Defense
...
Dr. Gary Schaub, Jr. is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Military Studies, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.

Richard Shimooka is a Research Fellow at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/super-hornets-eh-canadian-airpower-falls-short-on-north-american-defense/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

We'll see--if buy SH for RCAF soon presumably would not have extra capabilities:

Trump Eyes ‘Big Order’ of New F/A-18XT Super Hornets

President Donald Trump on Friday announced he’s considering a “big order” of advanced Super Hornet fighter jets designated F/A-18XT and made by Boeing Co.

“We are looking seriously at a big order,” he told the audience at Boeing’s South Carolina facility during the unveiling of the company’s 787 Dreamliner. “Do you care if we use the F-18 Super Hornets?”

The comments came less than a month after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis ordered a review of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a fourth-generation fighter, as a potential lower-cost alternative to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, the carrier version of a fifth-generation fighter made by Lockheed Martin Corp...

According to White House pool reports from the Trump event, Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, was spotted holding a brochure for the “F/A-18 XT.” The XT is the Advanced Super Hornet, or the Block III fighter jet concept for the Navy, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to Military.com.

“While Boeing demonstrated advanced Super Hornet capabilities in flight in 2013, the package of upgrades has evolved to best complement F-35, EA-18G and E-2D as they will be operating together in the air wing well into the 2040s,” Boeing said in a description of the XT/Block III aircraft.

Boeing developed the Block III jet concept to “address the strike fighter shortfall as well as to ensure the air wing has the capabilities needed to win in the 2020s and beyond,” the description said.

The new variant will feature an enhanced network capability to allow large amounts of data on and off the airplane, which would increase the ability to receive targeting information from aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, EA-18G Growler and the E-2D Hawkeye, according to Boeing.

The twin-engine plane is also designed to come equipped with longer-range, low-drag, stealthy conformal fuel tanks; long-range sensors that can detect and target threats without having to depend on radar; a new advanced cockpit system to enhance situational awareness, providing the pilot with the capability to see, track and target multiple long range targets; and improved low-observable next-generation radar cross section for increased survivability, according to the company...

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/17/trump-order-fa-18xt-super-hornets/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

If the US get's the XT/ block III, I think it would be more likely to see it appear in any open competition the liberals hold in the future, which I fear the libs would push towards.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would all this suggest that the F35 is pushing forward as a well armed Recce force (Pathfinders) while the Gen 4/4.5s (And Gen 1s - B52s) are supplying your aerial artillery or bombardment force? 

The F35s are armed but it seems as if their greatest advantage is being able to get close and then designate targets for stand-off missiles carried by older platforms.  The longer they keep their bays closed the longer they stay unobserved and don't need to bug out.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook:

And Gen 1s - B52s

Actually BUFF is Gen 2--B-45 Gen I  :
http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/na_b-45.php
http://www.airplanesofthepast.com/b45-tornado.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair comment