Canada to buy the Super Hornet

[Gladman]

Yeah baby.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210

[Goldsmack]

Awesome news! Unfortunately it is only a band aid solution for now but agree with the choice. Did not think the liberals would do something responsible.

[Pilotasso]

I think the Russians are happier too. lolz couldnt resist. :D

[Sweep]

I think the Russians are happier too. lolz couldnt resist. :D

 

+1

[Tirak]

So because the Trudeau government got wrapped up in opposing something they didn't understand, they're going to shell out the cost for 18 Super Hornets, $400 dollars in temporary upgrades to their Legacy Hornets, a full life extension program for those same Legacy Hornets, and then run an 'independent competition' to find that the F-35 is the better aircraft anyway and purchase those, with the additional potential cost of trying to buy back into the program, and the potential loss of contracts withdrawn from Canadian contractors? Am I getting this right?

Edited November 23, 2016 by Tirak

[Davee]

So because the Trudeau government got wrapped up in opposing something they didn't understand, they're going to shell out the cost for 18 Super Hornets, $400 dollars in temporary upgrades to their Legacy Hornets, a full life extension program for those same Legacy Hornets, and then run an 'independent competition' to find that the F-35 is the better aircraft anyway and purchase those, with the additional potential cost of trying to buy back into the program, and the potential loss of contracts withdrawn from Canadian contractors? Am I getting this right?

 

Not quite.

 

Canada's role, Domestic, NATO and UN is undergoing evaluation in consideration of shifts in world affairs and alliances. Once that is completed, then they will go shopping for equipment for the four services to meet those requirements.

 

There is a lot more to it than just picking what the public assumes is the "best".

 

The previous Government got into bed with the U.S. military industrial complex. Hardly an open bidding process.

[Wizard_03]

I want to know what other competitors do they have in mind..

[Gladman]

Personally I see no reason to look at other competitors. The SH does everything we need to fulfill our allied requirements and I don't care what you buy we cannot defend a country this big with 50-100 of anything in production or on the drawing board.

[NineLine]

I think the Russians are happier too. lolz couldnt resist. :D

 

Not sure they would be too concerned either way...

[Gladman]

My question now is what squadron will get them. Will they bring back a retired squad such as the 416 or 441? Will they transition them through the 410 or send people states side to be qualified?

 

No matter what, I'm very excited to see something (anything) happen for our air force.

[SkateZilla]

TBH, I really think the ASH Program will be very worth while....

[javelina1]

Being Air Forces models, these birds are absent of all Carrier ops related equipment?

[Tirak]

Being Air Forces models, these birds are absent of all Carrier ops related equipment?

 

Nope. They thought about making a 'land' version of the original legacy hornet and scrapped it. A few legacy hornets in other countries do have some minor modifications, like removal of the launch bar, but they found that caused swaying in the nose wheel, so most put it back or replaced it with a dummy bar.

 

'Decarrierizing' an aircraft generally just isn't worth while. You're not going to replace the landing gear, most combat aircraft have hooks anyway, the heavy structure reinforcement is part and parcel of the airframe and can't be removed anyway, and removing the launch bar nets you next to nothing.

[javelina1]

Nope. They thought about making a 'land' version of the original legacy hornet and scrapped it. A few legacy hornets in other countries do have some minor modifications, like removal of the launch bar, but they found that caused swaying in the nose wheel, so most put it back or replaced it with a dummy bar.

 

'Decarrierizing' an aircraft generally just isn't worth while. You're not going to replace the landing gear, most combat aircraft have hooks anyway, the heavy structure reinforcement is part and parcel of the airframe and can't be removed anyway, and removing the launch bar nets you next to nothing.

 

interesting. thanks for the insight.

 

-Jav

[SkateZilla]

Nope. They thought about making a 'land' version of the original legacy hornet and scrapped it. A few legacy hornets in other countries do have some minor modifications, like removal of the launch bar, but they found that caused swaying in the nose wheel, so most put it back or replaced it with a dummy bar.

 

'Decarrierizing' an aircraft generally just isn't worth while. You're not going to replace the landing gear, most combat aircraft have hooks anyway, the heavy structure reinforcement is part and parcel of the airframe and can't be removed anyway, and removing the launch bar nets you next to nothing.

 

 

ie: F/A-18L, Lighter Cheaper Version, Literally, no Country Showed Interest.

 

RAAF and Some Other Countries manually removed "Some" of the Carrier Equipment to save weight, but have since put them back, to be able to do carrier ops during joint operations and training exercises if needed.

[Tirak]

ie: F/A-18L, Lighter Cheaper Version, Literally, no Country Showed Interest.

 

It's a little more complex than that. McDonnall Douglas and Northrop worked together when making the F/A-18. A lot of countries were looking into getting the F-18L, which Northrop would primarily be responsible for making, enough in fact that McDonnall Douglas got concerned about not being able to sell any of their own F-18s on the international market, so they sued Northrop. By the time the dust had cleared on the settlement, interest for the F-18L died out because of other aircraft (the F-16 and the full version of the F-18 ) had already filled the potential orders that the F-18L was originally intended for.

 

It's definitely one of the bigger "**** You's" in aviation manufacturer history.

[Hummingbird]

The Swiss Hornets had the wing folding mechanism removed and the wings fuzed for a 9 G rating.

[SkateZilla]

The Swiss Hornets had the wing folding mechanism removed and the wings fuzed for a 9 G rating.

 

I'm Pretty Sure the Swiss Hornets still have the Wing Fold.

 

Their 9G Comes from Titanium Materials and re-designed pylons.

[Hummingbird]

I'm Pretty Sure the Swiss Hornets still have the Wing Fold.

 

Their 9G Comes from Titanium Materials and re-designed pylons.

 

Might be right, I just remember being told a long time ago that they fuzed the wing folds.

 

EDIT: This puts a rest to that story:

 

Canada ought to do the same with their CF-18's if they can.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

Might be right, I just remember being told a long time ago that they fuzed the wing folds.

 

EDIT: This puts a rest to that story:

 

Canada ought to do the same with their CF-18's if they can.

 

I would imagine that'll fall under the $400 million dollar upgrade already promised, and the life extension program not yet estimated.

[vRCAF]

Excellent news

[SkateZilla]

Swiss basically opted to use titanium and a modified wing design at the cost of some weight, which isnt important as they dont do carrier ops.

[QuiGon]

Might be right, I just remember being told a long time ago that they fuzed the wing folds.

 

EDIT: This puts a rest to that story:

 

Canada ought to do the same with their CF-18's if they can.

 

I bet this is pretty useful when operating from their secret underground air bases :D

[gospadin]

Personally I see no reason to look at other competitors. The SH does everything we need to fulfill our allied requirements and I don't care what you buy we cannot defend a country this big with 50-100 of anything in production or on the drawing board.

 

True, but really, you hardly have to defend the whole of your land mass. A half dozen big cities and ports on each coast and call it a day.

 

If someone wanted to invade via Nunavut, good luck to them.

[Gladman]

True, but really, you hardly have to defend the whole of your land mass. A half dozen big cities and ports on each coast and call it a day.

 

If someone wanted to invade via Nunavut, good luck to them.

 

LMAO, personally, I'd leave the cities and defend dam near anything else.