Canadas Next Fighter

[NineLine]

The F-35 is more than we need _now_, and frankly, if you go by attitudes, we may as well disband the air force.

 

As for the F-35 being 'too much' ... why buy something that does less for the same eventual cost?

 

When would we fully utilize the F-35, what scenario? Heck we probably have never fully utilized what we have now. I'm looking at it from both sides of the coin... we are already a airforce centered around the Hornet, would make sense the Super Hornet would be easier and cheaper to get into than the F-35, I know its not that black and white of course.

[mig29movt]

Stupid question of the day: which fighter is it going to replace? The CF-18 already??

 

btw: Swiss Air Force wanted to replace their old (junk, ILS-lacking) F-5E by either the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen E (the latter was chosen during the tests) aaand guess why we won't buy anything the next few years, yup politics.... (We had to vote if we'd accept the foundation of separate fund to buy the JAS39E Gripen)

[Emu]

Developing our own aircraft is not an option. It would be better than a decade out and no company currently existing is willing to do it.

 

Trudeau stated he will cancel the F-35 as part of his platform.

 

I support Super Hornets.

Agreed, if you think the F-35 is too expensive, go develop your own 5th gen and see how much it costs. My bet is near twice as much. There are really many options TBH. F-18 to replace F-18 just raises the obvious question of, "why bother?"

[Brisse]

Everyone keeps saying "we" so I'm going to assume y'all Canadians :)

 

And what happened to the "no politics" policy of these forums?

 

Sorry for off topic. Just though it was an interesting observation.

 

Grippies

 

That is a very catchy nickname :)

[NineLine]

F-18 to replace F-18 just raises the obvious question of, "why bother?"

 

Well the same reason any airforce upgrades to a new variant of any aircraft. I believe the CF-188 is an upgraded A unless I am mistaken, I am sure the Super Hornets bring a little more to the table, but I dont know specifics.

[NineLine]

Everyone keeps saying "we" so I'm going to assume y'all Canadians :)

 

And what happened to the "no politics" policy of these forums?

 

Sorry for off topic. Just though it was an interesting observation.

 

Its not really a political discussion, beyond the new government cancelling plans of the F-35. Nobody has been getting political beyond that.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Well the same reason any airforce upgrades to a new variant of any aircraft. I believe the CF-188 is an upgraded A unless I am mistaken, I am sure the Super Hornets bring a little more to the table, but I dont know specifics.

As far as I can remember they were bought A versions designed for the Navy but sub siquently upgraded to Canadian standards for cold weather ops. It's nice to see the discussion with hard facts but we'll have to observe the competition as it is see through and clear so WE know what's going on behind the curtains.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Its not really a political discussion, beyond the new government cancelling plans of the F-35. Nobody has been getting political beyond that.

Better than Hockey eh

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[mig29movt]

Well the same reason any airforce upgrades to a new variant of any aircraft. I believe the CF-188 is an upgraded A unless I am mistaken, I am sure the Super Hornets bring a little more to the table, but I dont know specifics.

 

A 3rd bigger (size, weight, engines) the "ordinary" Hornet looks tiny beside it and it has a phased array radar (AESA), the "old" ones used mechanic antennas IIRC.

 

Except for the name, I think these two Hornets don't have much in common when it comes to systems and parts...

[Sabre-TLA]

If you were flying into a hot zone fighting ISIL or some other faction what plane would you like to use? I sure hope they talk to the pilots to find out what they would want.

 

It's anybody's guess what we end up with. It could take years for the govt to make a decision while our existing planes get older and older.

 

My vote would be to go the Super Hornet route as I would expect the learning curve from the CF-188 to that airframe wouldn't be as steep. Maybe we could save a few dollars for the taxpayers (me). :thumbup:

[Gladman]

The Super Hornet is bigger (25% larger wing area), has longer range (carries 33% more internal fuel = 41% increase in mission range), can carry more weapons (has two extra weapons hardpoints) than the old Hornets, and it is fitted with the newest electronics.

 

You can see the FAS page on the F/A-18 A/B/C/D/E/F Hornet here:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

[Sweep]

Oh btw, look at the drag of the pylons on the Super Hornet... :megalol:

[GGTharos]

Any time we have to intercept bombers coming over the pole? :)

 

Any time we have to 'kick down the door'? You never know. And you plan for 'you never know', not for 'well we're not doing anything now'.

 

And again ... why buy something that'll be osolete decades earlier than the F-35, at the same price?

 

As for the learning curve between F-18A-D and F-18E, the CF-188 is so obsolete, I doubt you'll get any significant gains in terms of the learning curve. And no, the SH does not have the latest electronics. Parts commonality if CF-188 is also probably close to zero. Like it was said here before, they share a name, number, and general shape. That's it.

 

When would we fully utilize the F-35, what scenario? Heck we probably have never fully utilized what we have now. I'm looking at it from both sides of the coin... we are already a airforce centered around the Hornet, would make sense the Super Hornet would be easier and cheaper to get into than the F-35, I know its not that black and white of course.

[Gladman]

GGTharos, you really need to follow that link I posted.

 

I appreciate your passion but if you take the time to read the site you will better understand the ASH is a very capable bird.

 

In my mind we should have a squadron of Growlers as well to best aid in allied missions.

 

http://defense-update.com/20130830_semi-stealth-advanced-super-hornet-completes-first-phase-of-test-flights.html#.Vl9te6O1WSo

Edited December 2, 2015 by Gladman

[Gladman]

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/slide08.gif

[NineLine]

Better than Hockey eh

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

The way the Canucks are playing right now, sure ;)

[NineLine]

When is the last time we intercepted any bombers? ;)

 

And how many interceptors are stationed in Alaska, thats what the general public might asked, we have the tendency to rely on our friends to the south for much of this.

 

If we entered a World War, or atleast a war where we had to worry about more than some people running around on the ground in captured material, I am sure the US would be happy to cut us a deal on whatever we need, whose planes have we flown in most major conflicts we have been involved in :) P-51, Sabre, Spitfires, Hurricanes... sure its a different time, but it would play out similar.

 

Preparing for scenarios that have a small percentage of happening probably arent going to be realistic, you arent going to sell the Canadian public on defence against Russia or China.

 

As for the obsolete thing, I think people over sell that when they want new stuff, I do that to my wife all the time ;) The SHs will be around for a while, and there will be a new government and new goodies available when that happens I am sure.

 

Any time we have to intercept bombers coming over the pole? :)

 

Any time we have to 'kick down the door'? You never know. And you plan for 'you never know', not for 'well we're not doing anything now'.

 

And again ... why buy something that'll be osolete decades earlier than the F-35, at the same price?

 

As for the learning curve between F-18A-D and F-18E, the CF-188 is so obsolete, I doubt you'll get any significant gains in terms of the learning curve. And no, the SH does not have the latest electronics. Parts commonality if CF-188 is also probably close to zero. Like it was said here before, they share a name, number, and general shape. That's it.

[Kayos]

The way the Canucks are playing right now, sure ;)

 

God they have been horrible!

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

The way the Canucks are playing right now, sure ;)

Oh no a canoes fan. Habs here baby

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[fltsimbuff]

When is the last time we intercepted any bombers? ;)

 

And how many interceptors are stationed in Alaska, thats what the general public might asked, we have the tendency to rely on our friends to the south for much of this.

 

If we entered a World War, or atleast a war where we had to worry about more than some people running around on the ground in captured material, I am sure the US would be happy to cut us a deal on whatever we need, whose planes have we flown in most major conflicts we have been involved in :) P-51, Sabre, Spitfires, Hurricanes... sure its a different time, but it would play out similar.

 

Preparing for scenarios that have a small percentage of happening probably arent going to be realistic, you arent going to sell the Canadian public on defence against Russia or China.

 

As for the obsolete thing, I think people over sell that when they want new stuff, I do that to my wife all the time ;) The SHs will be around for a while, and there will be a new government and new goodies available when that happens I am sure.

 

I would like to see Canada remain in the F-35 program even if the US has to somewhat subsidize it. With tensions heating back up, it would be nice to have some 5th-gen fighters covering near the arctic.

 

While we have F-22s in Alaska, they can't really cover further East over the North Pole.

[Exorcet]

the Arrow was revolutionary and 30 YEARS ahead of it's design period as far as range, maneuverability and capability goes.

It was pretty average. Everyone had super high speed heavy interceptors or something similar planned back then. They were all complicated and expensive and ended up being shelved for something else. The only aircraft of the type that lasted was the MiG-25/MiG-31. It has a lot of good points, but it's an inferior dogfighter to basically everything. It's also not a stealth plane.

 

When would we fully utilize the F-35, what scenario?

Technically, any weapon is used everyday just by being held on to. Having fighters makes people less likely to go to war with you, even if they're just sitting around.

[Tirak]

Putting money into Super Hornets would be a boneheaded idea. The aircraft shares next to no parts compatibility or systems capability with the older Legacy Hornets. So this means total overhaul in training, maintenance and tooling. It's an airframe that is being fast left behind, so parts are going to get scarce for it. It doesn't have stealth, which makes it incredibly vulnerable against an integrated air defense system, like the ones that can be fielded by Russia, Iran or North Korea. It is slow, short ranged and has poor payload options, and don't even get me started on the 'stealth pod'.

 

The way you need to look at the problem is like this. What is the aircraft that is going to have the cheapest spares, the easiest coalition compatibility and the best chance of getting back after a mission? The F-35 will be the US's primary strike fighter for the next 40 years. And not just the US. Britain, Israel, Japan, Australia ect. ect. ect. Supporting this airframe in terms of maintenance will be far easier than any other platform. Because of the thousands that will be built, the amount of spares available from multiple potential sources will keep the price low and competitive, making maintaining the fleet easier.

 

Canada's support mission will be drastically improved with the sensor integration and sharing that the F-35 brings to the table. If everyone is working on a common system, there is much less room for confusion and error.

 

Canada can't afford to replace lost aircraft, so you want something that won't get shot down when you send it out. Stealth and the situational awareness the DAS gives you gives an F-35 the best chance of any fighter to get out in one piece. Add in that assistance from the international partners will make maintaining overseas easier, and you have yourself a winner.

 

Long story short, even before getting into political ramifications, the F-35 is the best choice of the bunch. It's powerful, future proof and will be, in the end, the cheapest option going forward once you take into account all factors. Sure, the Hornet may seem like a cheaper aircraft on sticker price, but it won't be effective enough in a warzone, and scarcity of spares and a lack of commonality with international partners will make the price by the time Canada replaces it in a few short years after it becomes painfully obsolete, will be drastically more than the F-35.

[PiedDroit]

[...]

That's a lot of IFs... I think the F-35 will be more vulnerable to integrated defense systems (rather than "traditional" defense systems), since its RCS is optimized only in one direction. It will be seen more easily from multiple angles.

 

What is the commonality between ASH and SH? The U.S. navy already have a bunch of them so the parts pipeline should be here for them.

 

Speaking of the airframes themselves the ASH seem to have more growth potential, even if inferior than the F-35 on stealth, comparing the two should be interesting.

[Sabre-TLA]

Here is some interesting reading related to this discussion:

 

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/big-liberal-win-in-canada-is-bad-news-for-the-f-35-join-1737515488

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-right-fighter-for-canada-is-the-super-hornet-not-t-1587492909

 

And to support the Super Hornet perspective a quote from the last article:

The Super Hornet on the other hand, would offer a near seamless conversion from the Legacy Hornet type and would allow instructors to be qualified on both platforms, just as VFA-122 proved possible, during the multiple years long conversion to the Super Hornet. Similarly, maintenance staff and support personnel would have a much easier and more cost efficient switch to supporting the Super Hornet than an exotic 5th generation fighter, as the Super Hornet not only shares common design elements and maintenance procedures with Legacy Hornets it would replace, but it also shares the same manufacturer, Boeing.

 

You can disagree with the author but I think his points have some merit.

[GGTharos]

It's RCS is optimized everywhere except pretty much rear quarter. You want to see aircraft optimized for frontal stealth'ing'? Look no further than the SuperHornet. I'm not sure how you could reason that the much stealthier F-35 would be more vulnerable to IADS.