J.O. Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I believe that the VTOL capability is an option - and indeed it is an option Canada doesn't need. But if you talk to the front line guys, they'll tell you there's no other choice than the F35 if we want to modernize our capabilities. The Super Hornet just isn't in the same atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, J.O. said: I believe that the VTOL capability is an option - and indeed it is an option Canada doesn't need. But if you talk to the front line guys, they'll tell you there's no other choice than the F35 if we want to modernize our capabilities. The Super Hornet just isn't in the same atmosphere. Unfortunately the "Nay-sayers", with respect to aquiring the F35 for Canada, are akin to a sparrow fart heard in a hurricane.....How sad if we really do acquire the "new toy"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 If one side has 2000 Mosquitos and a target and the other is defending with 200 F 35's, I'd bet on the Mosquitos being the successful force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Canada does pretty well with the clapped out F-18 fleet we currently operate in the grand scheme of things. Sure we need to replace said clapped out aircraft but do we need the latest and "greatest" fighter? There are other options available that may not be as shiny and high tech but equally capable of shooting missiles and dropping bombs. The VTOL is indeed an option and one that we certainly do not need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-coming-soon-1.3861487 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 No surprise here, the only surprise may be the cost as it would appear to be a sellers market. Liberals to 'explore acquisition' of interim fighter jets CTV News Channel: Feds look to acquire 18 jets The Liberal government says it will 'explore the acquisition' of 18 Boeing-made Super Hornet jets until a permanent replacement is found. Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press Published Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:10PM EST OTTAWA -- The federal Liberal government says it will "explore the acquisition" of 18 new Boeing-made Super Hornet jets on an interim basis until it can decide on a permanent replacement for Canada's aging fleet of fighter planes. The government plans to meet with the U.S. and Boeing to purchase the 18 planes "at a cost, time, level of capability and economic value that is acceptable to Canada" in order to fill a "capability gap" in the country's air defences. The decision marks what will surely be another controversial turning point in the long, protracted effort to replace the air force's workhorse CF-18s, which Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says are long past due for replacement.Ronald Reagan in the West Sea, South Korea, on Oct. 28, 2015. "The government will launch, in its current mandate, a wide-open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fleet," Sajjan told a news conference Tuesday. In addition, we will enter into discussions immediately with Boeing on the acquisition of 18 Super Hornets to address the capability gap." Sajjan said the military will implement a range of new measures including recruitment and training in order to extend the range of service of the existing CF-18 fleet. "All of these actions, taken together, are necessary to address the situation this government has inherited." This past spring, the government had been eyeing the Super Hornets as a stop-gap option until an outcry from industry and the opposition forced them back to the drawing board. During last year's election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised not to purchase Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter, long the preferred option of the previous Conservative government. The government has been struggling with how to fulfil that promise for fear any attempt to exclude the stealth fighter from a competition would result in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit. Canada will remain a member of the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program, which gave rise to the F-35, Sajjan added. "With this investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force over the short and long term, Canadian air space will be better defended," said Gen. Jonathan Vance, Canada's chief of the defence staff. "We will be a stronger partner in our own defence through Norad and we will have the capacity to meet our NATO obligations and continue to contribute meaningfully to global security." There is precedent for buying Super Hornets on an interim basis after Australia bought 24 of the aircraft to replace antiquated F-111 jets until newer F-35s were ready. However, the idea of Canada needing to follow suit was largely dismissed by a government-appointed expert panel and the military's research branch as too expensive, since the air force would be operating two types of aircraft, demanding different training, infrastructure and supporting equipment. One key question will be how much the Super Hornets would cost. The Liberals pegged the cost of one F-35 at $175 million and one Super Hornet at $65 million, but those numbers have been repeatedly questioned. Meanwhile, Kuwait recently announced plans to buy 40 Super Hornets for $13 billion. While the deal includes eight Super Hornets dedicated to electronic warfare, that still works out to $335 million per plane. At the same time, Denmark is moving ahead with plans to buy 27 F-35s at a cost of $4 billion, which amounts to about $148 million per plane. Even then, both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have said comparisons with other countries do not reveal the true costs for Canada, which would require a different package than other countries. There is also the issue of how much Canadian business would benefit from the decision. The Liberal government paid $33 million in June to stay within the F-35 program, bringing Canada's total contribution to $311 million since 1997. The government's argument for making the payment was to keep Canadian companies in the running for billions of dollars in work, of which they have so far received more than $1 billion. Industry Canada estimated in December 2014 that Canadian companies could win more than $9.5 billion in work associated with the F-35. Supporters of the F-35 have said such contracts would represent leading-edge work for Canada's aerospace sector and see them feeding into a global supply chain in support of the stealth fighter. But the work is also not guaranteed, and Canadian companies would need to compete for each contract. In contrast, Boeing would likely be bound by the government's long-standing rule that requires foreign companies to re-invest into Canada after winning federal contracts. The policy has been previously criticized, while critics say any work associated with the Super Hornet would be on old technology. But Boeing indicated in the summer that it could target those required investments by expanding its sizable commercial operations in Canada. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-to-explore-acquisition-of-interim-fighter-jets-1.3171779 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Malcolm said: the air force's workhorse Oh it would be so nice to read an article that is not written by a journalistic hack who can only write in cliches. I quit reading the article at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 For an accurate quote, Fido, your quote should have read: 2 hours ago, in an article Malcolm posted, it said "the air force's workhorse". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Another POV on the Superhornets: John Ivison: Liberals’ jet purchase a political solution to political problem Today, November 22, 2016, 2 hours ago | John Ivison The uncomfortable attempting to justify the indefensible. That was how it looked as government ministers Harjit Sajjan, Judy Foote and Navdeep Bains delivered the news that Ottawa will sole source the interim purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets. They appeared to be secretly ashamed at the trumpery of it all, as well they should have been. The Liberal government had a political problem: it campaigned on the promise that it would not purchase Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, and that it would “immediately” launch an open and transparent competition to replace the aging CF18 fighter fleet. But it could not risk being too open, transparent or immediate, lest the F-35 win before the next election. So political operatives in the Prime Minister’s Office came up with a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a fox: buy a small number of the F-35’s competitor and push off the competition to replace the fleet for five years. Sajjan, the defence minister, decried the mismanagement of the previous Conservative government — “a highly politicized process” — that has left just 77 CF-18s in the fleet and no replacement jets on order. In this, he’s right but it hardly excuses instigating a repeat of history as farce. By sole sourcing the interim purchase, the Liberals will be doing exactly what the Conservatives did when they chose the F-35 in the first place. Sajjan waved away such suggestions. Canada has a “capability gap,” he argued, and is unable to meet its Norad and NATO commitments. He presented the new plan as a political solution to a national security problem. The reality, of course, is that the Liberals have brought forward a political solution to solve a political problem of their own making. The commander of the air force, Lt.-Gen Mike Hood, who was noticeable by his absence, previously told Parliament he needs just 65 aircraft to fulfil Canada’s commitments, so the capability gap argument is unconvincing. (Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, was present at Tuesday’s press conference and said the Air Force cannot meet its current missions and have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances. But really, what else was he going to say? This is a political decision and Vance is obliged to suck it up or resign.) Hood told a parliamentary committee last spring that he was confident the Air Force could cope, if a decision on a replacement fleet was taken “in the next five years.” That was why Foote, the procurement minister, said the government will undertake a lengthy competition “to avoid the mistakes of the past; we will not cut corners.” Ottawa has already held two rounds of consultations with industry on the fighters. How much more is there to learn? Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister of materiel at the Department of National Defence, has said a competition could produce results within a year. But that would mean a winner could be chosen before the next election — an unacceptable political outcome for the Liberals. Hence the curious solution of Canada now “exploring” the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornets with Boeing. “Before proceeding, the government reserves the right to decide if they can provide the interim fleet at a cost, time, level of capability and economic value that is acceptable to Canada,” said the official news release. But surely that decision has already been taken. If there were any doubts about Boeing’s ability to deliver or about the price, why make the announcement? Foote said the Super Hornet was chosen because it is “not in development,” a veiled reference to the F-35, even though the U.S. air force declared its first squadron of F-35A fighters combat ready in August. What is clear is that the interim purchase will reduce the amount available to buy a replacement fleet. The government had previously earmarked $9 billion for 65 new jets. Foote could not say what the interim purchase would cost and Sajjan would not say how many jets the Air Force might still need, after the interim purchase of 18 new planes. But we do know Kuwait bought 40 full-loaded Super Hornets, with support, equipment and training, for US$10.1 billion this week. We also know that the 18 jets will be more expensive than they might have been, had the downward pressure on costs of a competition not been removed. By sole sourcing from Boeing, the government may well have skewed the outcome of any future competition. The purchase of new Super Hornets will mean the RCAF will be operating a mixed fleet. The two jets share common weapons systems but have different engines, radar and electronics. Is the government willing to complicate things further, with the attendant cost implications, of adding a third jet to the mix? Foote said, “Anyone who meets the criteria and wants to compete will be able to compete.” Yet the Liberal platform was clear that the CF-18 replacement competition “will exclude requirements that do not reflect Canada’s interests such as first-strike stealth capabilities” – for which read the F-35. Yet what is apparent to anyone with eyes is that Canada’s interests have been supplanted by the Liberal Party of Canada’s interests. We may never know which aircraft best suits Canada’s needs. But we can be in no doubt about which best favours Liberal fortunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Harjit Sajjan and Bill Morneau are the two biggest disappointments in the cabinet. They have chucked their special talents to just follow political lines. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st27 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Morneau even contradicted the findings of his OWN book! Canada Pension Plan Government Orders 10:25 a.m. Conservative Erin O'Toole Durham, ON Madam Speaker, what concerns me most about the government is that on fiscal and economic policy affecting all Canadians, it says one thing one day and then takes a totally opposite view the next. The Prime Minister opposed deficits, then it turned into a $10-billion deficit, and now we have a $30-billion deficit. The Minister of Finance is the same. Before he ran, when he was a pension executive in Toronto, he wrote a book called The Real Retirement that said that retirees were much better off than most experts were saying, but today he says that people cannot retire in dignity. In his book, he said that it makes little sense to incent early retirement, yet he then rolled back old age security modernization. Today he talks about this being the right time and says there will actually be job gains. That contradicts what his own department is saying, which is that there will be job losses as a result of these reforms. On a morning when Bombardier has just announced 2,000 layoffs, amid an economic crisis in Alberta, the flight of capital, and the imposition of a carbon tax that will make manufacturing uncompetitive in Ontario, why is the government implementing yet another barrier to job creation in Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Even though Harper had taken on a particularly nasty dictatorial style, we at least had someone in charge that had real qualifications for the job of PM. Canada now has a probably stoned snowboarding drama queen running the show ... what was it about this guy that gave Canadians the idea he had any ability whatsoever to lead a Country? Is the promise of 'free stuff' all it takes anymore to get new Canadians and the Left to elect a total incompetent to high office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, DEFCON said: what was it about this guy that gave Canadians the idea he had any ability whatsoever to lead a Country? He has nice hair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Fido said: He has nice hair and he loves to travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACAV Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 If inclined, Please sign the petition: http://www.therebel.media/equip_our_troops Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 We need new fighters...YES. do we need the cutting edge, state of the art fighters, NO. These state of the art F-35 fighters require extensive infrastructure upgrades to deal with the speed digital communication systems required for battlefield awareness. Canada currently relies on the USA for that. Canada would either ned to spend the additional funds or tie themselves to the US. Give us an up to date fighter,capable of fulfilling the role we require it for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st27 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Has anybody actually counted the number of days our new PM has sat in the House since he has been elected? After just returning from Cuba and a couple stops in S America, he is now over in Africa and Mozambique.spreading the word that Canada is back, preaching the gospel about being sustainable, inclusive, and responsible. And spending what used to be your and my $$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Interesting development re the F-35s and the purchase of Super Hornets: Canada's CF-18 fighter jets can all fly past 2025, RCAF commander says The Canadian Press Published Friday, November 25, 2016 2:48PM EST OTTAWA -- The head of the Royal Canadian Air Force says all 77 of Canada's CF-18 fighter jets will be able to fly until 2025, and even later. Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood also says Canada's allies are developing ways to upgrade the aging aircraft to reduce the risks and costs if they are needed for even longer periods of time. The comments are contained in documents filed with the House of Commons defence committee this week as the Liberal government prepares to negotiate the purchase of 18 new Super Hornet fighter jets. Related Stories Five-year search for Canada's new fighter jets 'ridiculous': analyst Liberals to 'explore acquisition' of interim fighter jets More than 200 officials forced to sign lifetime gag order on fighter jets A timeline of Canada's march to getting new fighter jets The government says it needs the Hornets to address an urgent shortage of warplanes until a competition to replace all 77 of Canada's CF-18s can be finished -- a process it says could take up to five years. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office says Hood's comments don't address the fact many of the aging CF-18s are out of service on any given day because of maintenance issues. But others say the general's comments are a clear indication he is comfortable with the state of Canada's CF-18 fleet, and that buying the Hornets before a competition is unnecessary and politically motivated. Hood will testify before the Senate defence committee on Monday, his first public appearance since the Liberals announced their plan to buy Hornets earlier this week. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says-1.3177134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Malcolm said: Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office says Hood's comments don't address the fact many of the aging CF-18s are out of service on any given day because of maintenance issues. Being a ground pounder I give him leeway in finding this surprising. 2 hours ago, Malcolm said: to replace all 77 of Canada's CF-18s Canada still has 113 CF-18s. I found out recently that onl 80 frames received the 'upgrade' back a few years ago. But we should maybe look at 'upgrading' some of the other 36 frames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) 113 CF-18s 80 + 36 = ???? Wikipedia says............ 98 A and 40 B models bought. 17 lost, 8 retired. RCAF website says................. 77 modernized aircraft The actual number depends on who you believe Edited November 26, 2016 by Kip Powick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 17 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: The actual number depends on who you believe We bought 138 minus 17 lost in accidents minus 8 retired due to fatigue 138 - 25 is 113 The 77 comes from 80 being upgraded and presumably 3 of those have been lost due to accidents I presume that the government of the day chose to only upgrade 80 frames but is there a reason why some of the remaining 36 could not be upgraded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 34 minutes ago, Fido said: We bought 138 minus 17 lost in accidents minus 8 retired due to fatigue 138 - 25 is 113 The 77 comes from 80 being upgraded and presumably 3 of those have been lost due to accidents I presume that the government of the day chose to only upgrade 80 frames but is there a reason why some of the remaining 36 could not be upgraded? I guess the answer would depend on if the remaining aircraft were "Mothballed" and are intact or robbed for spare parts leaving a shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 For those who love the F/A-18 Hornet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 A great show put on by an experienced pilot in a very nimble aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Ran across this today and I thought others might fine it of interest: Hornet vs Viper Part One March 12, 2015 C.W. Lemoine 3 Comments Military Aviation “So which is better?” It’s the first question aviation enthusiasts ask me when they find out I’ve been lucky enough to fly both the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet and the Lockheed-Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon. And like any good fighter pilot, my answer is almost always, “It depends.” Like comparing a Ford Shelby Mustang GT500 to a Chevrolet Camaro ZL1, it’s a rivalry that often boils down to operator preference and skill– a head-to-head battle that rarely disappoints and sometimes comes down to what one pilot had for breakfast, or how much sleep the other got. Of course, in that comparison, there’s also the Navy versus Air Force comparison that also invariably pops up. Although fighting under the same Department of Defense under the same American flag, the two services can be drastically different, affecting how each aircraft is employed. In this series, I’m going to give my perspective from an operator’s point of view. Beyond the rivalries and the rhetoric, we’ll take a look at some of the basic differences in piloting America’s lightweight strike fighters. A Legacy F/A-18C Hornet from VFA-106 “Gladiators” in a stunning celebratory “30 Years of Hornet” paint scheme simulates a bolter while performing at the NAS Oceana Airshow The competition between the Hornet and the Viper began at birth. As a result of Vietnam-era lessons learned in dogfighting, the Air Force called for a new lightweight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio in the early 1970s. Out of the five finalists participating in the Lightweight Fighter Program, the YF-16 and YF-17 were born. Put forth by Northrop, the YF-17 “Cobra” was derived from the F-5E and featured longer fuselage leading-edge root extensions, two powerful General Electric YJ101-GE100 turbofan engines, partial fly-by-wire control, and twin vertical stabilizers. In testing, the aircraft attained a top speed of Mach 1.95, a peak load factor of 9.4G, and demonstrated the ability to sustain 34 degrees angle of attack in level flight. At its plant in Fort Worth, TX, General Dynamics rolled out its YF-16 competitor. Like the YF-17, the YF-16 was a 9G-capable supersonic fighter weighing in at just under 20,000 pounds. The single tail fighter had only one engine, sharing the same Pratt and Whitney F100 engine as the F-15. The 482 FW Flagship taxis out to depart Patrick AFB, FL during the Cocoa Beach Airshow. The competition was fierce, but on January 13, 1975, the Air Force declared the YF-16 to be the winner, citing superior acceleration, climb rates, endurance, turn rates, and engine commonality with the F-15. Five months later, the Navy announced that it had selected the YF-17 under its Navy Air combat Fighter competition, and the F/A-18 Hornet was born. Forty years later, the aircraft in service today barely resemble their prototype grandparents. The F-16C Blocks 30, 40, and 50 have all been upgraded, sporting advanced radar software, datalink, color displays, and helmet-mounted cueing systems. The aircraft has matured from a lightweight fighter to a capable multi-role aircraft that has seen combat all over the world. “Ocho” flies a Block 50 F-16CJ through Bulldog MOA in eastern Georgia during a training mission. The F/A-18A-D Hornet and F/A-18E-F Super Hornet have seen similar upgrades. The aircraft is bigger and more capable than its YF-17 Cobra granddad, but also heavier and slightly less maneuverable. It has traded some of its lightweight fighter capabilities to become a more robust and durable strike fighter. Today, the missions of these aircraft are very similar. Both aircraft are capable of fighting their way into a contested environment, dropping precision guided bombs, and fighting their way back out. They are both active in the Middle East providing Close Air Support to troops on the ground using advanced targeting pods, and both aircraft can be called upon to provide defensive counter-air to protect high value targets like ships and air bases from air threats. I’ve been fortunate to fly the F-16 Block 25, 30, and 42 as well as the F/A-18A,B,C and D. Although I have four times as many hours in the F-16 as I do in the F/A-18, I think both jets are phenomenal aircraft, and in the right hands, they’re equally deadly to a potential adversary. There are hundreds of pilots that have flown both, and I’m sure that if you ask all of them, you’ll get a hundred different opinions on the pros and cons of each. These are just my own humble musings on the topic. A Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet departs the beach in spectacular fashion. With that said, as I go through these comparisons, some of the differences are nothing more than different ways of doing business between the Air Force and Navy. To Air Force guys, some of the Navy methods may leave them scratching their noggins, while the same is probably true for Navy guys reading about Air Force techniques. A lot of it is personal preference and based solely on training. I was trained by the Air Force and transitioned later in my career. Most guys who fly both start out in Hornets and later transition to the Air Force and F-16s, so it’s important to keep that in mind. So with the ground school/disclaimers out of the way, in the next edition I’ll talk about the differences in ground ops from suiting up to takeoff. Here is a link to the other articles: https://fightersweep.com/?s=hornet+vs+viper+part+two when you reach the page, just click on the heading (part two etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now