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

[jmt18325]

Why buy something that is 20 years old for the same price as something brand new with new technology?

Considering that their principle user is still buying them brand new, as we will be - no.

 

[jmt18325]

There will be a procurement at some point.  Do it right. Once.

So you pick nothing (for at least a decade).  That's fine.  Just know that would be the choice you'd be making.

 

[SupersonicMax]

They are buying them to supplement an existing fleet (and retiring their legacy fleet) while waiting for the F-35.  They are not buying an entirely diffeent fleet to fill a gap.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So you pick nothing (for at least a decade).  That's fine.  Just know that would be the choice you'd be making.

If it takes another 10 years to get the replacement, I'll quit.  And I am only half joking.  There are means to do this now the way most canadians ones.

I don't think we are prepared to support another squadron.

 

[dapaterson]

Pilots: The RCAF owns pilot training.  If it is broken, that's not a government problem, but an RCAF problem.

Maintainers: Ditto.


It's nice to be a purist. "Do it once, do it right".  But that will not happen now, or within the mandate of this government.  And it will not be a priority for the next government, or the one after that.  So, in 2025, will the RCAF look back and say "Good thing we never bought those Super Hornets" or "Shit! the legacy hornets are ageing out (for airframe and avionics reasons) and we've got nothing on hand to mitigate the gap!"?

Again, politics is the art of the possible.  A bifurcated fleet of legacy Hornets and Super Hornets is better than only a fleet of legacy Hornets in 2025.

Or start lobbying to restart the F22 line for US and a limited number of foreign partners...

 

[SupersonicMax]

Pilots: The RCAF owns pilot training.  If it is broken, that's not a government problem, but an RCAF problem.

Maintainers: Ditto.


It's nice to be a purist. "Do it once, do it right".  But that will not happen now, or within the mandate of this government.  And it will not be a priority for the next government, or the one after that.  So, in 2025, will the RCAF look back and say "Good thing we never bought those Super Hornets" or "crap! the legacy hornets are ageing out (for airframe and avionics reasons) and we've got nothing on hand to mitigate the gap!"?

Again, politics is the art of the possible.  A bifurcated fleet of legacy Hornets and Super Hornets is better than only a fleet of legacy Hornets in 2025.

Or start lobbying to restart the F22 line for US and a limited number of foreign partners...

We were fine with 4 operational squadrons.  Ramping up training and getting bodies for an extra squadron is an issue that is unforseen.  We need to create positions or move them somehow.  This is a political problem that was delegated not only to the RCAF but to the CAF as a whole.  But don't be mistaken, this whole thing is a political problem.  We only suffer the consequences of the decisions that are made.

 

[jmt18325]

They are buying them to supplement an existing fleet (and retiring their legacy fleet) while waiting for the F-35.  They are not buying an entirely diffeent fleet to fill a gap.

So we get what we were going to have anyway (actually, it sounds like we get to keep 77 CF-18s instead of 65 if they're going to meet stated obligations.), and 18 more and better aircraft.  That sounds like a win over the alternative (nothing).

 

[jmt18325]

If it takes another 10 years to get the replacement, I'll quit.

That was always the plan, modifying and updating the hornet to last until (at least) 2025. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Want a true gap filler?  But those Aussies or Kuwaities legacy Hornets. Put them in existing squadrons and increase the number of serviceable jets on any given day.

The Super Hornet is only marginally better than the legacy Hornet.  The only advantage I see is getting the APG-79 but the cynic in me doubts this will happen.  In which case we are back to a bigger legacy Hornet with a worse targetting pod, canted pylons and potentially operating it in a way we have never operated Hornets (with a backseater).  Is it still "that" great?

That was always the plan, modifying and updating the hornet to last until (at least) 2025. 

Because we fly Hornets till 2025 doesn't mean we'll get the replacement in 2025.  In fact, it'd be stupid to do so.

 

[Loachman]

So we get what we were going to have anyway (actually, it sounds like we get to keep 77 CF-18s instead of 65 if they're going to meet stated obligations.), and 18 more and better aircraft.  That sounds like a win over the alternative (nothing).

It is not a win if eighteen aircraft simply get parked because there are no Pilots to fly them, and no techs to maintain them, and more money is spent to operate two fleets rather than one.

There is simply no justification for this purchase. It is a waste of money and effort.

 

[jmt18325]

It is not a win if eighteen aircraft simply get parked because there are no Pilots to fly them, and no techs to maintain them, and more money is spent to operate two fleets rather than one.

It's far more likely that 18 legacy hornets would get parked, leading me to....

 

[SupersonicMax]

At least it'd be cheap and we could use the parts.

 

[jmt18325]

Want a true gap filler?  But those Aussies or Kuwaities legacy Hornets. Put them in existing squadrons and increase the number of serviceable jets on any given day.

...this.

That is not a realistic solution.  Those aircraft would need months if not years of work (there are not Australian aircraft available anyway, as far as I know) to bring them to the same standard as ours, and we'd still end up in no better of a position.  We'd have clapped out hornets that have sat in the desert sun and wind.

The Super Hornet is only marginally better than the legacy Hornet.  The only advantage I see is getting the APG-79 but the cynic in me doubts this will happen.

Do they even build it without one anymore?  Only marginally better (in your opinion) is still better.

 

[SupersonicMax]

...this.

That is not a realistic solution.  Those aircraft would need months if not years of work (there are not Australian aircraft available anyway, as far as I know) to bring them to the same standard as ours, and we'd still end up in no better of a position.  We'd have clapped out hornets that have sat in the desert sun and wind.

Why would it take years to bring them to our standards?  Please be detailed.

Do they even build it without one anymore?  Only marginally better (in your opinion) is still better.

Boeing will sell you want you want. Both radars are compatible. 

My opinion comes from more than 1400 hours in legacy Hornets and experience in the Super Hornet with the US Navy.  By marginally I mean nothing that will make us better war-fighter.  In a clean aircraft, you have more excess power.  I have never flown a clean aircraft operationally.  That's about it.  Roll rate and turn rate are more sluggish and systems are essentially the same. 

FWIW, most Fighter pilots feel it is a bad decision (and 12 ex-RCAF commanders)  Some with far more experience than I have in both platforms.  Does that mean anything?  I think so.

 

[jmt18325]

Why would it take years to bring them to our standards?  Please be detailed.

They would need to be refurbished.  They would need equipment changes.  They would still be old.  The Super Hornet won't be.

Boeing will sell you want you want. Both radars are compatible. 

When was the last time they made one with a different radar?

{FWIW, most Fighter pilots feel it is a bad decision.  Some with far more experience than I have in both platforms.  Does that mean anything?  I think so.

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.

 

[Loachman]

It's far more likely that 18 legacy hornets would get parked, leading me to....

... finally understand that the politically-generated "justification" for this, a hastily-manufactured "capability gap" that "requires" eighteen MORE aircraft, not eighteen replacement aircraft, is a blatant lie?

 

[jmt18325]

I've said before - I support getting the F-35 post 2021 when it's actually ready for us to use to the full spectrum of capabilities.  The reality is that this government (like the one before them) will not buy the F-35 any time soon.  This government is willing to buy something.  Lets (collectively as Canadians) take the something.

 

[jmt18325]

... finally understand that the politically-generated "justification" for this, a hastily-manufactured "capability gap" that "requires" eighteen MORE aircraft, not eighteen replacement aircraft, is a blatant lie?

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).

 

[SupersonicMax]

They would need to be refurbished.  They would need equipment changes.  They would still be old.  The Super Hornet won't be.

What would need to be refurbished?  They are flying now.  What equipment would need to be changed?  The fact they are old (and they are younger than ours, mid-1990s) means nothing.  They are low hours and the price could be right.

When was the last time they made one with a different radar?

Makes no difference.  It has been integrated already (and the Navy still flies SH with 73s).  Because they haven't built them wih 73s in years is irrelevant.  It's not harder to install a 73 vs a 79.

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.

For 5B$?  Nope.  Not when we can get JSF for the same price.  I have an idea.  Let's get F-35 as a fill gap.  It's more capable in its state now that the SH will ever be.  Would you agree with that?

 

[jmt18325]

What would need to be refurbished?  They are flying now.  What equipment would need to be changed?  The fact they are old (and they are younger than ours, mid-1990s) means nothing.  They are low hours and the price could be right.

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.

Makes no difference.  It has been integrated already (and the Navy still flies SH with 73s).  Because they haven't built them wih 73s in years is irrelevant.  It's not harder to install a 73 vs a 79.

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

For 5B$?  Nope.  Not when we can get JSF for the same price.  I have an idea.  Let's get F-35 as a fill gap.  It's more capable in its state now that the SH will ever be.  Would you agree with that?

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.

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.