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

[Good2Golf]

Boeing will have no trouble doing that, considering they have operations here:

By "no trouble doing that", you mean after Boeing has provided all the ITBs for the C-17s and CH-147Fs?  Off hand, do you know how much Boeing is on the hook for, for those other programs and how that compares to their Canadian operations?  Just wondering...

Regards
G2G

edit: editorial

 

[MarkOttawa]

USN wants 24 more Super Hornets, looks like line going for some time (DoD doc at link):

2017 Supplemental Funding Request Invests In Aircraft Procurement; May Be Too Late For Some Maintenance Needs

...the Navy’s portion of the supplemental spending bill devotes $5.8 billion to support mid- to long-term readiness through acquisition of 24 F/A18-E/F Super Hornets, six more P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, two more MV-22 Ospreys, and other planes and munitions...
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/16/24661

Note p. 9: Super Hornet cost about US$ 100M each--24 for dollars 2,320M; five extra USAF F-35As for dollars 596M.  Whatever basis for those figures.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Another question for the flying guys, is there enough aircraft, maintainers, fuel for you to get your required flight time per year? I know there used to be a shortage of flight hours for the number of pilots that wanted to fly.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It depends on the Squadron and how healthy their maintenance departments are.  In my 6 years in Bagtown, including 2 at Wing Ops (technically staff), my lowest year was 140 hours, highest was 340 hours and average was 200 hours.  Minimim currency requirements are 140 hours a year (national and NATO minimums for combat readiness).  140 is not a lot.  There is no way you can maintain any sort of proficiency in all our mission sets with that. 200-225 hours seems to be the magic number between decent proficiency and not being extremely busy.

In terms if availability of flying hours, in my experience, we always end up having enough even when the initial allocation is below what would be required.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Wonder if gov. will go after Block III Super Hornet for RCAF if sold to USN:

Boeing’s Block III Super Hornet ‘High End’ Complement To F-35: [acting Navy Secretary Sean] Stackley
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/boeings-block-iii-super-hornet-high-end-complement-to-f-35-stackley/

SAS 2017: Boeing Unveils F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III with New Capabilities
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2017/sea-air-space-2017-show-daily-news/5075-sas-2017-boeing-unveils-f-a-18e-f-super-

...

...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Has that reached IOC?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Block III configuration hasn't flown as far as one knows--Boeing probably want's something close to guaranteed buy by USN.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Ohhh!  So the Hornet is still in development after 39 years.  And they still haven't finalized design or code?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Ohhh!  So the Hornet is still in development after 39 years.  And they still haven't finalized design or code?

Any different than the LAV 3 "upgrade"?  :warstory:

 

[Kirkhill]

Any different than the LAV 3 "upgrade"?  :warstory:

No.  And my snarky point is that all weapons systems constantly evolve and are capable of being upgraded.  That includes Hornets, LAVs, Leos (Leopard 2A4M CAN and Leopard 2A6M CAN), Abrams and M1069s. (Typo)

The difference with the F35, in my understanding, is the degree to which the ability to modify and upgrade the aircraft is built into the system.

The Hornet entered US service in A/B variants in 1983/84.  It went into block upgrade in 1987, 3 or 4 years later, to the C/D standard to correct deficiencies, including structural ones and to incorporate new systems.  In 1992 it got a new engine.  In 1995 someone discovered the scale-up button on Auto-CAD and the E/F variant was born.  It has constantly been recertified for new weapons, radars, sensors. 

The Hornet/SuperHornet/SecretSquirrelHornet evolution is an example of the traditional method of aircraft development that sees aircraft "grow like Topsy" until they can't fly anymore.

The F35?  Well, these days when I buy a computer I buy some plug-ins with it and add some older compatible plug ins but I have no idea what plug ins I will have on board by the time the blue screen of death shows up for the last time.  I have no idea when I will finish developing that system or what it will look like.  And in the meantime it does most things well enough that I manage to make a living from it despite people constantly sending me patches.

Snark ends. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to this post,

...
Note p. 9: Super Hornet cost about US$ 100M each--24 for dollars 2,320M...
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1480554.html#msg1480554

USN cost still looks around US$ 100M each all in--no bargain for RCAF:

U.S. Navy Wants 130 More Super Hornets Over Next Five Years

The U.S. Navy wants to buy 130 additional Super Hornets over the next five years at a price of $13.6 billion...
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/us-navy-wants-130-more-super-hornets-over-next-five-years

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jmt18325]

And again, that's not really something that we can know, given that we don't know the costing method used.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm sorry, all, but I think this Super Hornet thing has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft or "capability gaps." It appears to me that this is all (and only) about kicking the expensive CF-18 replacement problem as far down the road as possible. This government has an agenda ~ a green, feminist and sunny ways agenda ~ that does not include national defence and, especially, does not include making hard choices about procurement. This, an interim buy of available, "off the shelf" aircraft, has silenced the media and accomplished the aim: defence is "off the table." And, given the controversial lifetime gag orders, we may never know the full story.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm sorry, all, but I think this Super Hornet thing has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft or "capability gaps." It appears to me that this is all (and only) about kicking the expensive CF-18 replacement problem as far down the road as possible.

All of the rest of your post is political fluff, but this I agree with.  This is exactly why the SH is being purchased.  It's the same reason that the Conservatives decided to further upgrade the CF-18 instead of just buying the Super Hornet like they said they would.

 

[sandyson]

F 35's now at 94.6 million US. That's at a batch of a hundred but what the heck. We should find something to do with the extras.
Le Pentagone veut une ristourne de 5% sur le F-35.  http://fr.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idFRKBN17C23E-OFRBS

 

[PuckChaser]

F-35 keeps dropping in price, while SH keeps climbing in order to attempt to match capabilities of the F-35.

 

[jmt18325]

It would be nice to be able to have a like comparison where we could see exactly what it costed in each case.

 

[Flavus101]

It would be nice to be able to have a like comparison where we could see exactly what it costed in each case.

Not even the buyer knows that information.  ;D

 

[McG]

Wonder if gov. will go after Block III Super Hornet for RCAF if sold to USN:

No.  They will not buy an aircraft that is under development to avoid buying an aircraft that is under development.  They know how wide open that would leave them to attack by even the ignorant ... not to mention the legal attack that would incite from team F-35.  No.  We will get whatever is in production and coming off the lines.

 

[McG]

Moving along ....

With the evolving events in Syria, would the F35 be more desirable if we wanted to go back into that theatre or would we be content sending F18 while a grumpier Russia defenda the skies for Syria's air ops?