Canadian Govt buys 18 Super Hornets

[Mick G]

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

I rest my case.

......but seriously, i have enjoyed this friendly banter and my interest is not adversarial, but is one which is born of the best interest for Canada and the men and women of the RCAF

[AuxBatOn]

Engines shut downs don't mean engine failure even if the reason for the shutdown is not due to sensor issues. You don't rest your case because you don't have complete data.

Friendly advise: if you mean a friendly debate, don't call people arrogant, ignorant and lacking common sense...

[trampbike]

I hope we pick a good sensor package (APG-79 with Growler upgrade option).

How optimistic are you about this?

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.

Lack of common sense could also be why some people are convinced they have relevant facts and arguments about fighter operations to share with a current CF-18 pilot and qualified test pilot...

[Zaibatsu]

Choosing of equipment should not be within the realm of politicians and changing governments. The RCAF should be given an allowance to purchase whatever equipment it needs and only be accountable for the dollars spent.

If that means buying 12 F-35s because it represents a better investment than 50 Super Hornets... ...or 150 Super Tucanos instead because quantity over quality.... ...the experts should decide.

[Rockie]

I scanned through those CADOR's quickly and found I think 10 outright failures. Bear in mind this was only in Canada, and only back to 1993. It does not include failures outside Canada, failures not reported outside the military for security reasons, or failures occurring in the 10 years previous to that.

What it also cannot tell are the engines that would have failed had they not been deliberately shut down as a precaution, which a single would not enjoy the luxury of doing.

Still, that's 10 airframes and pilots recovered that wouldn't have been in an F35.

Like it or not, the single engine is an issue especially since any losses will not be replaced.

[trampbike]

Still, that's 10 airframes and pilots recovered that wouldn't have been in an F35.

Half the number of engines, so let's say 5, and half the aircraft, so let's say 3, and 40 year better technology, so let's say 1... Most people flying the Hornet now do not share your opinion about this "issue". Get over it.

[Rockie]

Still, that's 10 airframes and pilots recovered that wouldn't have been in an F35.

Half the number of engines, so let's say 5, and half the aircraft, so let's say 3, and 40 year better technology, so let's say 1... Most people flying the Hornet now do not share your opinion about this "issue". Get over it.

No Trampbike, since I'm a taxpayer, and one with first hand experience with this issue, I don't have to "get over it". Engines quit - for all kinds of reasons. Having two of them makes it no big deal. Having one means the guaranteed loss of the airplane and possibly the pilot. Simple arithmetic.

[Gannet167]

If we were in the design phase of the JSF, single vs dual engine would be a consideration. Right or wrong, for better or worse, it's a single engine airplane.

This may sound callous and culturally is a significantly different outlook from the normal, risk adverse, super redundant and conservative culture of commercial aviation; but, this is a tactical aircraft and if it's what is required to maintain air superiority - with an associated cost of lost air frames and potentially pilots, then that is considered "acceptable loss" and is the cost of doing business.

The merits of two engines are far overstated in this case. But, even with the draw backs of a single engine - the risks are known, they're accepted and there's a strong argument that they are necessary. The superiority of the JSF is so advantageous that losing an air frame and possibly a pilot every X hours (rather than every X+? hours in a SH) is well worth winning the battle, or hopefully deterring it from ever starting. In short, it's worth it. The extra risk is minor compared to the extreme advantage. Crews know the risks. It's the price of getting the job done. Inferior kit that will be dominated in a 5th Gen world, regardless of the number of engines isn't worth wasting money on.

This is political theatrics to make an appearance of pulling weight in NATO and buy an American aircraft, and probably has a lot to do with Trump's complaints (justifiable) of NATO members not pulling their weight. It's a tiny purchase and merely a show of optics to appease political pressures. It's "temporary" to allow the "open competition." Somehow the competition is planned to take 5 years and despite being "open" the gov't has promised to not buy one of the main competitors, openly admitting bias. 5 years is ridiculous and it's obviously kicking the can down the road to avoid the uncomfortable Liberal contradiction of both promising not buying JSF and yet also holding an "open" competition.

[pelmet]

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.

A technical question if I might. What is the benefit of PMG's on the generators.

[trey kule]

Mick G...

Please...the adults are talking and I am interested in what they have to say.

[frosti]

I have personally seen half a dozen bird strikes in CF-18 engines. All but one caused a complete shut-down and what was revealed later, structural damage to the airframe. For the most part, unless the bird is the size of a Canadian goose, the engine won't even care nor will the pilot notice. The dual engine need is over hyped and frankly stupid considering the USAF will operate the F35 in Alaska. When an engine fails its catastrophic, meaning blades or components fly in all directions - including in the path of the other engine. The SH essentially shares the same F404 as our CF18 which has its own share of issues. Two geriatric engines are not safer.

[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.

A technical question if I might. What is the benefit of PMG's on the generators.

PMGs are mostly there for powering the flight control computers in case of total electrical failure. No flight controls in a Hornet means ejection. Just a way to bring a sick bird back.

[Rockie]

I have personally seen half a dozen bird strikes in CF-18 engines. All but one caused a complete shut-down and what was revealed later, structural damage to the airframe. For the most part, unless the bird is the size of a Canadian goose, the engine won't even care nor will the pilot notice. The dual engine need is over hyped and frankly stupid considering the USAF will operate the F35 in Alaska. When an engine fails its catastrophic, meaning blades or components fly in all directions - including in the path of the other engine. The SH essentially shares the same F404 as our CF18 which has its own share of issues. Two geriatric engines are not safer.

1. The F35's in Alaska will not be straying far from home and will stick mostly within their training area, where there is extensive SAR capability in place. They are also part of the force that could quickly deploy to Asia if necessary. A far cry from Canada.

2. The F35's Canada loses will not be replaced, and we are only getting the bare minimum to do the job as envisioned today.

3. Precautionary shutdowns, including the one I did, are done to prevent the engine from shredding itself and shedding parts. Can't do that in an F35.

4. Bird strikes are not the only reason engines quit. Of the ten I saw in the CADOR's birdstrike was not mentioned.

5. Far from being over-hyped and stupid, the engine issue has not been seriously considered as it was with the CF-18. In fact the dual engine redundancy of the CF-18 was one of the deciding factors given Canada's geography, climate, and inability to replace lost airframes.

[AirFrame]

Out of curiosity: What's a "Growler" upgrade? I'm guessing it isn't the carrying of a container of local craft brew behind the pilot's seat?

[Old fella]

Deleted.

[Rockie]

Putting all the technical aspects aside (which I know nothing about), let’s call a spade a spade. This whole issue on the SH is nothing short of crass politics. PMJT doesn’t want the F-35, period and full stop, he said so in his campaign last year leading up to his victory October 2015. If he starts the open completion for complete replacement now the F-35 just may indeed win and what a pickle he would be in leading up to 3 yrs. time for another mandate. That’s why the 5-year process, put this issue off until next mandate (should he get that and judging by current slate of CPC warmed over has-beens, that shouldn’t be a problem). The planned purchase of 18 Super Hornets as an interim measure is telling his critics aka CPC at least I am doing something, you guys did eff all during your 10 years in power other that create a huge mess with the F-35 and there is a certain element of truth into that. It’s just JT playing for time, that’s it.

Shack.

[tailgunner]

Let's put this into some historical context. This decision is the same as buying Gloster Gladiators when the Hurricane and Spitfire were available. It is like purchasing F4U Corsairs when the Sabre was already flying. Like purchasing Sabre MK6's when the F4 Phantom was already flying. Like purchasing F4 Phantoms when the F14/15/16/18 were already flying......

[Rockie]

Let's put this into some historical context. This decision is the same as buying Gloster Gladiators when the Hurricane and Spitfire were available. It is like purchasing F4U Corsairs when the Sabre was already flying. Like purchasing Sabre MK6's when the F4 Phantom was already flying. Like purchasing F4 Phantoms when the F14/15/16/18 were already flying......

Like buying the Honda CR-V you can afford to run around town, instead of the Porsche Cayenne you can't.

[tailgunner]

Rockie, you have to purchase the equipment with the idea that they are going to be used for combat, and not for show and tell. The British government took a huge decision in the mid thirties to buy expensive new fighters. Those expensive fighters (Spifire/Hurricane) held the line 5 years later.
I would prefer to give our Airforce the latest, not the cheapest. The pilot of the enemy Sukhoi could care less about affordability as he waxes an overwhelmed and outmatched SH

[frosti]

1. The F35's in Alaska will not be straying far from home and will stick mostly within their training area, where there is extensive SAR capability in place. They are also part of the force that could quickly deploy to Asia if necessary. A far cry from Canada.

2. The F35's Canada loses will not be replaced, and we are only getting the bare minimum to do the job as envisioned today.

3. Precautionary shutdowns, including the one I did, are done to prevent the engine from shredding itself and shedding parts. Can't do that in an F35.

4. Bird strikes are not the only reason engines quit. Of the ten I saw in the CADOR's birdstrike was not mentioned.

5. Far from being over-hyped and stupid, the engine issue has not been seriously considered as it was with the CF-18. In fact the dual engine redundancy of the CF-18 was one of the deciding factors given Canada's geography, climate, and inability to replace lost airframes.

Without going into the same arguements again, all I'm going to say is the F-35 will be the sole operator in the Arctic, be it with the USAF or our allies. The SH offers absolutely zero advantage in engine reliability by having two of them. Single engine fighters have been operating in the arctic for decades now and with modern jet engine technologies failures are extremely rare.

[Rockie]

I would prefer to give our Airforce the latest, not the cheapest.

Sure you would, but your preference is not the only criteria here. A Canadian Admiral said a few years ago regarding the Navy that numbers are a force multiplier, the flip side being insufficient numbers are a detriment. The latest fighter can't defend anything unless it's physically there.

The SH offers absolutely zero advantage in engine reliability by having two of them.

You're right of course. What it has is the advantage in survivability.

[frosti]

New patches are out.

[B208]

.......the USAF will operate the F35 in Alaska......

How long have they been operating and how many have they lost?

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
Without rehashing all off our posts, the F35, with all of its abilities , precisely allows it to be in the right space at the right time. It is nowhere near the same level as the SH in information gathering and use. Airspace patrol done by 4 SH's, with their limited(compared to the F35) electronics, can be accomplished by 2 F35's.
It can accomplish this without even using the onboard radar. It can use NORAD's radar feed in real time, or the USN Ageis radar feed....
Countries that buy cheap, have historically lost the fight for airspace.

[Rockie]

Rockie,
Without rehashing all off our posts, the F35, with all of its abilities , precisely allows it to be in the right space at the right time. It is nowhere near the same level as the SH in information gathering and use. Airspace patrol done by 4 SH's, with their limited(compared to the F35) electronics, can be accomplished by 2 F35's.
It can accomplish this without even using the onboard radar. It can use NORAD's radar feed in real time, or the USN Ageis radar feed....
Countries that buy cheap, have historically lost the fight for airspace.

Yes I know all that, but in order to make use of all that information it has to physically be there. Canada is a big place and all they can afford are 65 of them. Minus ones used for training, minus ones in maintenance, minus ones deployed, minus the ones lost through attrition, then split the remainder in half for either end of the country.... Getting spread pretty thinly I'd say.

The most capable piece of gear is useless if it isn't where it needs to be, when it needs to be there.