Canadian Govt buys 18 Super Hornets

[Mick G]

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

[YYZSaabGuy]

A misleading headline on the part of the CBC; the story goes on to say that what the Liberal government is going to do is to "immediately explore" the acquisition of the SHs. No word on when or if a commitment will be made. Given the history (over multiple governments) of military procurement in this country, I'm not holding my breath.

This immediate exploration of course is in addition to a new 5-year competition to decide on a long-term replacement for the CF-18s.

Plus ca change......

[Kitzbuhel]

Purely political finagling in hope to save themselves from their foolish election promise. At the end of the day it will cost the tax payers more when we finally get the F35 after the "fair" procurement process takes place.

It's going to cost billions because over the course of the last 20 years no one wanted to pull the plug on new airframes. Now we have to update pilots and technicians to figure out this jet and then re-qual again on the new jet...

[Duke p]

Why can't we all just accept that "flavour of the year" politics will always play a stronger role in the makeup of our military capability than any form of common sense.

Once we accept that, we can all just move along on this topic.

Nothing to see here anyway.

DP.

[Old fella]

Why can't we all just accept that "flavour of the year" politics will always play a stronger role in the makeup of our military capability than any form of common sense.

Once we accept that, we can all just move along on this topic.

Nothing to see here anyway.

DP.

The most sensible statement I have heard to date on the multiple threads/commentary relating to RCAF and F-35 vs SH.

[Moose47]

G'day

I am afraid that once we get the Super Hornet, the urge to acquire its successor will be diminished greatly. The Liberals will extoll the virtues of the aircraft, lulling the unsuspecting "know nothing about the military" public into thinking there is no rush to replace it for another 20 or 30 years.

Cheers...Chris

[Mach1]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e32970784/

They REALLY need to just hold that open and transparent competition they campaigned on.

[AuxBatOn]

I think the SH as a stop gap is a good idea albeit a little too late. Nonetheless, I hope we pick a good sensor package (APG-79 with Growler upgrade option).

[Kitzbuhel]

I think the SH as a stop gap is a good idea albeit a little too late. Nonetheless, I hope we pick a good sensor package (APG-79 with Growler upgrade option).

Being able to turn these into growlers down the line is the only positive thing about this deal...

[AuxBatOn]

Is it? We are getting 18 new aircraft that will keep our fleet relevant for some time, potentially get some exposure to AESA radars and advanced sensors and it we will be able to have a true competition as it should to get the best aircraft for our need. Furthermore, in the case we get JSF down the line, we get to keep the 18 SH for NORAD operations and putting the 2 engines vs 1 engine debate to rest. Best of all world in my mind. The Aussies went this way back in 06... We're only 10 years late.

[Kitzbuhel]

It's not a terrible thing don't get me wrong. But unless we use these to their full potential as growlers down the line, the expense of re training pilots and techs, standing up a new Sqn and the logistical nightmare of having two fleets will be a steep price to pay for a political party to save face. My opinion only take it for what it's worth.

[altiplano]

+1

This is positive.

And as AuxBat says, whatever machine wins the eventual procurement contract we keep these and IMO having multiple fleets/capabilities is a good thing.

[AuxBatOn]

Pilot conversion is 2 sims and 1 flight. I have flown both (Hornet and Super Hornet) and they very much operate the same way. You don't need to open up a new squadron, you can use the two fleets in existing squadrons. Yes, the two aircraft are different but training our technicians will not be that difficult. The big changes are the radar, the hydraulic system (5000 psi vs 3000 psi), the electrical system (PMGs on the generators) and a bit of the flight control (same software but there is no mechanical reversion mode). Everything else is very similar.

[Mick G]

Purely political finagling in hope to save themselves from their foolish election promise. At the end of the day it will cost the tax payers more when we finally get the F35 after the "fair" procurement process takes place

Kitzbuhel....I hope to god the Canadian Government never commits to buy the F35. It is a very poorly thought out plan for one main reason; the F35 has a single engine. This platform IS NOT going to cut it in the high arctic. There have literally been DOZENS of cases over the last 30 years of the current CF18 Fighters losing an engine in the Arctic and limping back on the remaining. If we move to the F35, lives WILL BE LOST, not to mention 100 Million every time. Ask any CF pilot and you will get the same answer. Surviving in the frigid arctic if over water is mere minutes....

Part of our Arctic sovereignty requires and air-frame with redundancies, otherwise we are going to be in for a very rude awakening.....

[AuxBatOn]

There have literally been DOZENS of cases over the last 30 years of the current CF18 Fighters losing an engine in the Arctic and limping back on the remaining.

Please educate me. I have never heard of those "dozens of engine failures" and CF-18s "limping back from the Arctic on one engine". And I have been flying the aircraft for quite some time.

[Kitzbuhel]

Thanks for the insight Auxbat, I was under the impression the conversion wasn't so straight forward. Definitely will make things simpler if they are able to just integrate the new frames into the existing Sqn.

And Mick, you're entitled to your opinion but I'm not sure you spoke to the same CF pilots I have. Most if not all are fans of the F35 which is going to be the future NATO workhorse. There's maybe merit to the one engine scenario but I honestly think it's overblown. Understanding that you can make stats say whatever you want, they lost more F18s then F16s due to engine failure and I have confidence that a new modern jet engine will have a very low likelihood of failure in the middle of nowhere. The US operates F35s and F16s (albeit in a "training" role) in Alaska without thinking twice about it.

[Mick G]

There have literally been DOZENS of cases over the last 30 years of the current CF18 Fighters losing an engine in the Arctic and limping back on the remaining.

Please educate me. I have never heard of those "dozens of engine failures" and CF-18s "limping back from the Arctic on one engine". And I have been flying the aircraft for quite some time.

AuxBatOn:
Check the CADORS query and you will start to get a picture. Enter MCDONNEL DOUGLAS as the make and CF-18 HORNET as the model. I will mention though, for security reasons, not all events are disclosed on public record. I have contacts which have shown me metrics on the CF18's reliability and maintenance history and outright engine failures happen more often than you might think.

Remember, one of the most fundamental safety aspects of flight is to always have a backup in the event of a primary system failure. Having one engine does not make sense in extended flight over water and in remote parts of the high arctic. Yes the US uses these in Alaska, but that is a far cry from the Canadian high arctic. Aircraft engines are mechanical devices and no matter how modern they are, THEY WILL have failures. A single engine is simply asking for trouble and anyone who argues different is either arrogant or misinformed.

[frosti]

From the government:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1158669&tp=1

November 22, 2016 – Ottawa – The Government of Canada

A modern fighter jet fleet is essential for defending Canada and Canadian sovereignty – especially in our northern skies. It is a vital contribution to our partnership with our most important ally, the United States (U.S.), and for the protection of the continent that we share.

Today, the Government of Canada has announced that it will launch, within its current mandate, an open and transparent competition to replace the legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. This competition will ensure that the Government gets the right aircraft for our women and men in uniform – at the right price – while maximizing economic benefits to Canadians.

In addition, Canada will immediately explore the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement arrives. The Government will enter into discussions with the U.S. Government and Boeing regarding use of these jets for an interim period of time.

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.

Canada’s current fleet is now more than 30 years old and is down from 138 aircraft to 77. As a result, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) faces a capability gap. We have an obligation to NORAD to have a certain number of fighter jets mission-ready at all times, as well as an obligation to NATO. The number of mission-ready planes we can put in the air today is fewer than our NORAD and NATO obligations combined. The RCAF does a good job risk-managing that gap, and has been doing so for a number of years.

Taken together, these measures will ensure that our women and men in uniform have the equipment and support they need to do the important job we ask of them every day.

So lease 18 SH until they make up their minds.

[AuxBatOn]

I am a current Hornet pilot and have some very intimate insights on its operations, given my position. In the last 10 years at least, I haven not seen catastrophic engine failures up North. I have seen and done myself precautionary arry shut downs but that was to preserve the engine in case the indications were real which most time ended up being sensor failures.

I consider myself informed and generally professionally prudent in my way of doing buisness.

[AuxBatOn]

For the record, unles a flight safety incident compromises operational security, it will be unclassified and available throught the flight safety channel. If an incident is not in the CADORS it's because civilian agencies were not involved, not because of some obscure security concerns.

[Mick G]

I am a current Hornet pilot and have some very intimate insights on its operations, given my position.

Sir. With due respect, even if somehow the F35 engine miraculously never fails, what about the unknowns such as bird ingestion? I would not want to be the one sitting in a $60M (USD) glider over frigid Arctic waters with help hours away at best. Its what our world is truly lacking nowadays, a serious lack of common sense.

[AuxBatOn]

And now you say I lack common sense. How about having data to back your claims up? What kind of bird flies at 20k in the winter in the Arctic?!

[SuperchargedRS]

Why does Canada even need these?


I mean it's kinda silly

Everyone know Canada is Americas hat, and America won't let anyone mess with their hat.

[Mick G]

And now you say I lack common sense. How about having data to back your claims up? What kind of bird flies at 20k in the winter in the Arctic?!

AuxBatOn......who said anything about wintertime only and at 20K? Bird injestion is typically at MUCH lower altitudes and can happen year-round.

[AuxBatOn]

You are the one talking about gliding down and iceberg up North and arguing against the JSF for that reason. When we fly up North for NORAD, we don't normally fly at low altitude. In any event, if you ingest a bird at low altitude and if your engine fails, you force land on a piece of concrete or eject and get picked up.

Do you have CF-18 engine failures due to bird ingestion data? Or even engine failure period?

I know that since 1988, we shut down 225 engines by precaution and the vast majority were sensor issues.