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

[SupersonicMax]

You just said why buy something old - I agree.  We shouldn't buy someone else's 20 year old hornets.  I've heard (I don't know where, I looked but can't find it) that the Kuwait hornets are actually in far worse shape than you would expect for their relatively young age

I said don't buy and old, new aircraft.  For a fraction (1/10th) of the price, I would buy used aircraft.

So you're assuming that we'll get something that they don't build the aircraft with now.

You don't understand.  I know for a fact that they can put 73s in as easily as a 79.  If our government ask for it, we'll get it. 

This competition is not between the F-35 and the Super Hornet.  We aren't getting the F-35 (right now).  We weren't getting the F-35  right now no matter who won the 2015 election.  This is between the Super Hornet and nothing.  I know what I would pick.

Let me re-phrase.  What woukd you say here if the government purchased F-35As as an interim measure?

And just to explore (at a very very basic level) some of the differences between a legacy hornet and a super hornet:

https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/

There is actually a great deal of capability that we lack in the super hornet vs the hornet, even if there are drawbacks.

Remove APG-79 and tell me what added significant capability we get from those Rhinos that we wouldn't get from used legacies?

 

[Loachman]

So given the option of something better (more modern with more modern technology - new and able to last into the future at least 25 years operated along side our allies) and nothing, you take nothing.  I'm glad we're clear on that.

It is not better enough to justify the cost. I care about how my tax dollars are misused. You may not.

We bought old Chinooks as an interim measure until our own, truly better, ones could be built and delivered. Buying older Hornets as an interim measure, if any are available and in decent-enough condition, would make similar sense (but we would still need more people to fly and maintain them, and that is a problem).

Buying new machines does not even remotely resemble an interim measure. They will become permanent additions/replacements. That means that we will either be stuck with an increasingly obsolescent/obsolete design for several decades as all of our current fighters are replaced by the same thing - and we will gradually become marginalized - or we will be forced to bear the costs of operating and maintaining two small fleets when some politician wakes up and develops the spine to purchase what we should have bought all along.

We could order F35 now and receive the first ones in more than enough time to replace our old aircraft.

The only obstacle to such common sense is a prime minister who is too arrogant to break a stupid election promise that he should not have made in the first place. He would rather waste billions of our money than admit a mistake and correct it.

He caved on the election-meddling promise. Enough pressure may generate similar results.

I (and you, like me) have no idea if any aircraft will be parked.  I'm speculating on the most likely outcome if aircraft have to be parked (you don't park the new car and find a driver for the old one, generally).

The Liberals are claiming that we do not have enough aircraft as the justification for this purchase. If we do not have the Pilots to fly or the techs to maintain eighteen additional aircraft, what else is going to happen other than eighteen aircraft being parked? There is, therefore, no gain for the billions spent and their "capability gap" remains. The exercise, therefore, is completely stupid as we could have our F35s, and a true capability improvement, within the same timespan.

 

[jmt18325]

New aircraft almost always have a higher availability rate.

Of course, you're just guessing.  You don't know what the plan is at this point any more than I do.

 

[jmt18325]

I said don't buy and old, new aircraft.  For a fraction (1/10th) of the price, I would buy used aircraft.

\

Do you have the pricing figures in front of you?

You don't understand.  I know for a fact that they can put 73s in as easily as a 79.  If our government ask for it, we'll get it. 
Let me re-phrase.

If - if.

If my grandma had wheels....

What woukd you say here if the government purchased F-35As as an interim measure?

Exactly the same thing that I'm saying now (provided it arrived when we could actually use it to shoot at moving targets on the ground, something we do regularly).

Remove APG-79 and tell me what added significant capability we get from those Rhinos that we wouldn't get from used legacies?

I think we're back to my grandma's wheels.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Exactly the same thing that I'm saying now (provided it arrived when we could actually use it to shoot at moving targets on the ground, something we do regularly).

The F-35 can hit moving targets, you just need to do it manually, like we do now.  Shocker...

 

[jmt18325]

The F-35 can hit moving targets, you just need to do it manually, like we do now.  Shocker...

So it would make a great interim aircraft.

Now, who is proposing buying it?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Perhaps you should ask the government why it doesn't consider it as the "interim" solution.

 

[jmt18325]

Perhaps you should ask the government why it doesn't consider it as the "interim" solution.

Because politics.  The same reason that the last government didn't buy it.

Also because the US doesn't consider it to be ready for combat.  How do I know that?  Well, because they said so.  They also said that it would be valuable in the fight against ISIS.  Yet it isn't there.  That's interesting.  Maybe in a few years, they say.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Because politics.  The same reason that the last government didn't buy it.

Also because the US doesn't consider it to be ready for combat.  How do I know that?  Well, because they said so.  They also said that it would be valuable in the fight against ISIS.  Yet it isn't there.  That's interesting.  Maybe in a few years, they say.

Ah no, Its considered "ready for combat." It has passed USAF and USMC IoC. Those are not insignificant milestones. With Block II and Block IIIF, it is significantly more capable than the F/A-18E will ever be.

Last month it went to Red Flag, the US Military's premier operational training/testing exercise. In a high threat, high tempo, operational environment (as close to war as can be simulated) it exhibited a 90% mission ready rate and a 17-1 kill ratio, destroyed 49 SAM Sites. It is currently being deployed to Iwakuni Japan to operate in the second most challenging threat environment in the world, the Chinese A2AD in the Western Pacific. Two weeks ago the USMC asked to double their procurement rate, as did the USAF who wants to accelerate their production after 2019. There is talk by the Senior USAF brass that they will deploy them to operate over Syria later this year. This is an aircraft that is already operational in threat environments that far outstrip anything the Liberals may be considering.

I have a number of friends in other air force/procurement communities, Japan, US, UK, AUS, and DK, and we're a complete and utter laughing stock by the arguments our government and people like you spout out. The Liberal's only saving grace is that we have an electorate who doesn't give a **** about the military, and is willing to take their bald faced lies at face value.... even if its going to cost them $7 billion dollars to actually decrease the combat capability of the RCAF.

 

[Loachman]

New aircraft almost always have a higher availability rate.

Really?

Typically, in the early days of a new fleet, techs are still learning about the aircraft, therefore troubleshooting and fixing tends to take longer, moving parts are wearing in, and insufficient spares have been purchased. It can take years to get past that point.

Of course, you're just guessing.  You don't know what the plan is at this point any more than I do.

My guessing, however, is based upon a little more knowledge and experience than you have.

As for "the plan", I don't even think that there is one.

 

[jmt18325]

Yes - that's called guessing.  My guessing is actually non existent.  I'm not willing to guess because if I guess wrong, someone here will jump all over me for it.  I'd rather just read and at best interpret information that's available.

As for the F-35 being ready for combat - they haven't sent it into combat.  They say it would be useful there.  It's not there.  We have a thread for that though, so my apologies for bringing it here.

In fact, at this point, the F-35 doesn't really belong in this discussion at all.

M

 

[HB_Pencil]

As for "the plan", I don't even think that there is one.

There isn't one. People are scrambling to make this work, but the very clear strictures won't let them. The pilot training pipeline, which the RCAF has tried to fix a number of times, can't be increased. The contract cannot be easily modified, and there is no more budget to purchase additional aircraft that might be able to increase the rate.

The other side is that the retention levels are bad, and about to get worse. The Liberal party might be able to fool the electorate this is a good idea, but as SuperMax makes clear, they aren't fooling the operators who know what this decision is about.

This plan was hatched by the PMO and the Minister's political appointees, specifically a certain Ex-CBC reporter.... who has absolutely zero experience in this area. They put the gag order on the Forces, then made them make this turd work. That's the reality of it.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Yes - that's called guessing.  My guessing is actually non existent.  I'm not willing to guess because if I guess wrong, someone here will jump all over me for it.  I'd rather just read and at best interpret information that's available.

As for the F-35 being ready for combat - they haven't sent it into combat.  They say it would be useful there.  It's not there.  We have a thread for that though, so my apologies for bringing it here.

In fact, at this point, the F-35 doesn't really belong in this discussion at all.

M

Complete and utter BS. This post shows just how ignorant you actually are about any of this. Do you know what Redflag is? Here, go and read this book (which was on the CSAF reading list this year), and learn a bit before coming and talking about this.

What excuse are you going to give at the end of this year when its over Syria? What would you say to the USMC pilots who are currently flying the F-35Bs in a cold war type environment against Chinese forces.... are you really going to tell them that their experiences "don't count." I guess the F-15 was never "combat ready" until the Gulf War because it never saw combat, yet was at nearly 20 years of Red Flags... and showed what it was capable of there.

If you're going to troll, do it somewhere else please.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest from Laurie Hawn ...

“Per Ardua Ad Dis-Astra.” This altered RCAF motto sums up what the federal the government’s convoluted process to buy 18 “interim” Super Hornets to fill a “capability gap” really means. It will kill Canada’s fighter force.

Everything can be traced to the prime minister’s election campaign promise to never buy the F-35 fighter jet, allegedly because it is too expensive and doesn’t work.

His conclusions are being proven wrong, but he seems determined to proceed without a timely competition, thanks to a politically created “capability gap.” That gap was based on aircraft numbers that have never been demanded simultaneously; by fudging actual CF-18 operational serviceability history; and by the false narrative that the CF-18 cannot keep operating until we start getting new aircraft.

Any imagined gap, however, could be filled by 27 available Kuwaiti F-18C/D aircraft for $330 million US. Or, we could upgrade our entire fleet of 76 CF-18s to close to Super Hornet systems status for about 20 per cent of what we’ll pay for 18 Super Hornets. Neither option was explored.

We don’t have technicians and support capacity for today. Eighteen Super Hornets will cost about $7 billion Cdn and add 350 non-existent personnel and Super Hornet-specific infrastructure. We are already losing pilots to voluntary release at rates we can’t re-generate, and we certainly don’t have extras for the Super Hornet.

Many real experts were never consulted, and 240 were forced to sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements, which hides the truth. The Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer should take an interest.

Competitions don’t take five years, and to satisfy everyone, we need to start one immediately. Denmark did one quickly, and Canada already has a (now suppressed) options analysis that points to the F-35. As in the past, the F-35 will win any competition not rigged against it.

The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft for its roles and time, but we need a fighter for projected threats into the 2050s. The Super Hornet also has a thorny safety issue in its oxygen system, which has resulted in 297 incidents and permanent grounding for some aircrews.

One argument that doesn’t stand up is that the F-35 doesn’t work. Its operational development continues and in every exercise where F-35 participates, its effectiveness is very evident. In our own primary aim of air sovereignty, the F-35’s clean configuration will allow it to conduct higher-altitude intercepts that the Super Hornet cannot.

Another argument that doesn’t stand up is cost. The latest cost for the F-35A is $8.5 billion US for 90 aircraft, or $94.6 million per aircraft. But as predicted, that cost will continue to decrease and in 2020, when we should start receiving our aircraft, it will be about $85 Million. The F-35 is cheaper than the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet will not be interim. Even if the F-35 were to win a competition, we would suddenly realize that we can’t afford two small fleets, due to duplication of everything. That will apply to the Super Hornet and CF-18, and assuredly to the Super Hornet and F-35. The Aussies are doing it, but we are not them, and we would be stuck buying more Super Hornets.

Canadian aerospace industries, jobs and the economy will also be losers on our current path. We will lose out on billions in contracts and be out of step with future technology. This will be an industry-killing Avro Arrow redux and/or a costly Sea King redux.

We cannot afford to continue on the current path for many reasons: Canadian sovereignty and security, taxpayers, technical, personnel, moral, commonality with allies and Canadian industry. I have received virtually unanimous support for my position, most importantly from members of the RCAF at all rank levels.

Lt.-Col. (Retired) Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD is a former RCAF CF-18 Squadron Commander and member of Parliament.

 

[jmt18325]

Complete and utter BS. This post shows just how ignorant you actually are about any of this. Do you know what Redflag is? Here, go and read this book (which was on the CSAF reading list this year), and learn a bit before coming and talking about this.

What excuse are you going to give at the end of this year when its over Syria? What would you say to the USMC pilots who are currently flying the F-35Bs in a cold war type environment against Chinese forces.... are you really going to tell them that their experiences "don't count." I guess the F-15 was never "combat ready" until the Gulf War because it never saw combat, yet was at nearly 20 years of Red Flags... and showed what it was capable of there.

If you're going to troll, do it somewhere else please.

When the F-35 is used in combat over Syria to actually attack something, that will certainly be a milestone (even though we're not buying that one).  The rest is generally fluff meant to support a top early operational date.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So as I understand it, the main issue with pilot/airframe tech retention is being based in Cold lake for most of their career, correct? Can the squadrons be relocated and Cold Lake used as training area, pilots, ground crew and aircraft rotate out of?

 

[dimsum]

So as I understand it, the main issue with pilot/airframe tech retention is being based in Cold lake for most of their career, correct? Can the squadrons be relocated and Cold Lake used as training area, pilots, ground crew and aircraft rotate out of?

Pretty much what the Aussies do, minus one Sqn in Tindal, Northern Territory...but that was more of a political move as they were moved from Malaysia.  Their fighter squadrons are based near their cities and if they need more than the local training area, they deploy there.

The major problem trying to (re?) follow the Aussies and base the fighters in less remote areas is the infrastructure needed. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile USN makes a purchase, Super Hornets are single-seaters;  overall unit price comes to about US $57M so must be without engines (bought separately from GE):

Pentagon Contract Announcement
(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Feb 27, 2017)

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded a $678,679,386 fixed-price, incentive-firm target contract for the procurement of seven Lot 40 EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits and five F/A-18E aircraft.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (43 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (20 percent); Bethpage, New York (15 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (2 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1 percent); Torrance, California (1 percent); Ontario, Canada (1 percent); Greenlawn, New York (1 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1 percent); Irvine, California (1 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1 percent); and various locations within the U.S. (13 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2019.

Fiscal 2016 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $678,679,386 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1.

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-17-C-0003).
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/181516/boeing-wins-%24679m-for-seven-ea_18g-growlers%2C-five-f_18es.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Loachman]

Relocated where, and at what cost?

This would require construction of new bases, with new runways, hangars, and all of the other infrastructure, and land appropriated, and ...

I've not been to Comox for a long time, but I presume that little, if anything, is left of 409 Squadron's old Voodoo facilities, and the local population might not be terribly appreciative of the additional sounds of freedom. Edmonton had a nice runway, once, and facilities for 435 Squadron's Hercs.

Existing airports of suitable size are generally busy enough and lack additional space, but some might be possible - there'd still be a sizeable cost for the necessary infrastructure, though.

 

[George Wallace]

Pretty much what the Aussies do, minus one Sqn in Tindal, Northern Territory...but that was more of a political move as they were moved from Malaysia.  Their fighter squadrons are based near their cities and if they need more than the local training area, they deploy there.

The major problem trying to (re?) follow the Aussies and base the fighters in less remote areas is the infrastructure needed.

Well..... [ ......Sadly we tore down or sold all the infrastructure in St Hubert, Ottawa, Chatham, Summerside, Downsview, Borden, Edmonton, Comox, Abbotsford, and so many other bases across the country.