Canadian Govt buys 18 Super Hornets

[Darkwing Duck]

I believe that should we acquire the F-35 we will be getting the most advanced aircraft out there. However getting a model like the SH or Raphael, or Eurofighter is like buying a last year model car. It is still nice, can do the job but does it have all the bells and whistles you really want, or more important, need, in the newer model? And is the F35 the best platform? I personally cannot answer that. I was a big advocate for the F35 but after some research I am now undecided. Well we all have our opinions. I do believe that we need a tool that will be the best for our Air Force. It is like a carpenter using only one saw when in fact he will need several types to build a house. He can probably do the job but how much time, accuracy and quality is put into the job with just that one type of saw.

Another argument is can we buy more SHs (for example) vs the F35 for the same coin to get the job done? Perhaps we need to go back to what happened in WWII and look at the Panzer tanks used by the Germans vs the Sherman tanks used by the Allies. We all know the Panzers were far superior in quality and stamina than the Shermans. Yet because of the ability to assemble and produce a Sherman faster and in greater quantity, because they were not as complex or as well built, the Allies were able to overcome the German might and win the war with quantity vs quality. Is this something we have to look at as well? I sure hope not but maybe something to consider.

[frosti]

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

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

Denmark, USA, Sweden and Norway are all operators of single engine fighters in the Arctic and have been for decades. They aren't concerned and our situation isn't that special. We don't spend enough time up north to justify a two-engine platform. The majority of the time our CF18s never go further north than Cold Lake anyway. Flying up north is expensive and unnecessary.

[AirFrame]

No, seriously... Why is a SH called a "growler"?

[Nark]

No, seriously... Why is a SH called a "growler"?

It's not. It's a different model performing a different mission:electronic warfare.


http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/135 ... per-Hornet

[MrWings]

Let's put this into some historical context.

OK.

In the last 50 years, how many times has the Canadian Air Force been in an actual dogfight?

[tailgunner]

Darkwing,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but using the Sherman vs. Panther is a very poor choice. Research has shown that on average it took 5 Sherman's to kill a Tiger/Panther. 4 of those being totally destroyed with the majority of the crews lost. The Germans even nicknamed the Sherman the "tommy cooker".....I would rather be fighting a Tiger/Panther with at least another Tiger/Panther, but even better it ha Leopard..

[AuxBatOn]

No, seriously... Why is a SH called a "growler"?

The Super Hornet is called the "Rhino" on carriers and the "Growler" is called "Grizzly"

The Growler is an upgraded F/A-18F for Electronic Warfare. The Aussies bought their F/A-18F with the option of converting them to the F/A/18G (Growler). This will provide them with organic airborne electronic support/attack capabilities..

[AuxBatOn]

Let's put this into some historical context.

OK.

In the last 50 years, how many times has the Canadian Air Force been in an actual dogfight?

This isn't about dogfight. This is about the threat we will likely face (like it was the case in the 40s).

Today's most potent threats are SAMs. The only capable aircraft that I know of that can even consider operating in today's SAM threats are the F-22s and the F-35s. Even what we consider third world countries have very capable surface-to-air threat (S-300/400) that I would never want to be faced again in my F-18.

[AirFrame]

The Growler is an upgraded F/A-18F for Electronic Warfare. The Aussies bought their F/A-18F with the option of converting them to the F/A/18G (Growler). This will provide them with organic airborne electronic support/attack capabilities..

Ah, okay. Thanks muchly! (and to Nark too for answering). I hadn't heard the Growler name before.

[Darkwing Duck]

Darkwing,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but using the Sherman vs. Panther is a very poor choice. Research has shown that on average it took 5 Sherman's to kill a Tiger/Panther. 4 of those being totally destroyed with the majority of the crews lost. The Germans even nicknamed the Sherman the "tommy cooker".....I would rather be fighting a Tiger/Panther with at least another Tiger/Panther, but even better it ha Leopard..

I know fully well the comparability of the Panzer to the Sherman. Perhaps my explanation of the comparison was wrong. I was trying to allude to the fact of quality (Panzer) over quantity (Sherman). Even though it took several Shermans to eventually knock out a Panzer, superior numbers eventually turned the tide, but at a significant cost. Do not forget the Panzer was so well engineered that if and when repairs in the field had to be made the average mechanic did not have the skills to repair it in a quick and competent manner. Where as the opposite was true for the Sherman. Years ago I read an article as to the argument as to who had the right approach in this philosophy, the superior engineering and design of the Germans or the thousands of pop out tin cans.

That being said, would less F35s be a better option, a better more sophisticated, up to date airframe, or several more F18 SHs in the hangar? What will be the maintenance hours / flight hour? Not saying the SH is a Sherman but maybe we have to step back and re-evaluate our priorities.

And to Airframe - The Growler is the electronic warfare version of the F18 SH. There was a similar conversion of the A-6 Intruder converted to a 4 man cockpit version the EA-6B Prowler back in the day (Late 60s to approx mid 90s)

[Old Dog Flying]

Ok guys let's settle this matter once and for all

Barney\

[MrWings]

This isn't about dogfight. This is about the threat we will likely face (like it was the case in the 40s).

Today's most potent threats are SAMs. The only capable aircraft that I know of that can even consider operating in today's SAM threats are the F-22s and the F-35s. Even what we consider third world countries have very capable surface-to-air threat (S-300/400) that I would never want to be faced again in my F-18.

OK, good point.

SAM are essentially a not a domestic airspace concern, right? If there are SAMs on Canadian soil then there are much bigger things going on and our handful of any kind of aircraft won't be around for long.

[AuxBatOn]

I wasn't aware that we were employing fighters over Canadian soil exclusively.

[Jet Jockey]

Never mind the Super Hornet or that crappy F35... Let us think big and go for the F22.

Now that Trump is in, maybe he would be willing to sell it to us Canucks at a discounted price.

[2R]

If we are serious about saving NATO by increasing spending to 2 percent of GDP ,then there should be enough money for more Super Hornets , more F-35's and some of the "NEW" F-15's . And dare I say it some BOATS as well .

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... ractor-may
Just the thing for those who feel the need for speed

[all_ramped_up]

Still have no idea why everyone has a hard-on for the Super Hornet... It's just a 1975-era aircraft with some lipstick.

For the amount of time that Canada will stretch the use of them out, we'll still be well behind in capability compared to everyone else flying the Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon and the even the bloody Flanker.

Why people keep on insisting we invest in an old platform to shuffle us into 2067 (Let's be honest, whatever we buy next is going to be dragged along for 50 years like the Sea King and Tutor until an unmanned aircraft is developed.) is beyond me. We need to buy something that is a competent multi-role platform and not a fat pig of a money pit like the F-35.

[frosti]

Still have no idea why everyone has a hard-on for the Super Hornet... It's just a 1975-era aircraft with some lipstick.

Two words. Dual Engine. People are so completely delusional regarding this they can't see the big picture.

If we are serious about saving NATO by increasing spending to 2 percent of GDP ,then there should be enough money for more Super Hornets , more F-35's and some of the "NEW" F-15's . And dare I say it some BOATS as well .

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... ractor-may
Just the thing for those who feel the need for speed

I've always thought the F-15 would be a much better fit, Air Force fighter for our Air Force. We don't need another f***ing Navy carrier jet. The F-15 is a massive flying fuel tank and bomber that can clean up the sky as well. Plus it has a simple landing gear system that doesn't require hundreds of hours of maintenance due to the complexity.

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
I'm sure someone as well read as yourself, realizes that the only model of F15 they currently build is the E model. The Strike Eagle is of course a TWO crew aircraft. So unless you want to double the manning in the RCAF , with double the crewing costs, that is a big NO GO
The only fighters that meets your requirements (Rockies) are the French Rafaels and the Eurofighter .
The Rafael requires a complete repurchase of French armaments, as the Rafael is lagging in integration with NATO standard arms. The Eurofighter still only has plans for an electric Radar. It also is lagging in development

[Rockie]

I don't see anything wrong with a 2nd crew member. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and the old "I'd rather have 200 pounds of gas" joke really is just a joke. Cost of the additional body is a non-factor.

The other choices you mention are all capable aircraft equipped with an essential item the F-35 lacks. Plus the way F-35 advocates talk an Air Force will be inneffective if they don't get that airplane, and that is simply not the case.

[teacher]

Sounds like another Politcally charged procurement disaster in the works and nobody is allowed to talk about it. Echoes of the Sea King replacement, sub purchase, Griffin purchase and countless other equipment purchases chosen for politics rather than military requirements.

http://www.battlefordsnow.com/article/5 ... ghter-jets

[Old fella]

I believe JT is being disingenuous about this whole issue. He made an election promise not to buy the F-35 in the public forum aka election campaign. Well then, get on with it as you are now the governing party with a majority mandate. No matter what fighter, there will be counter arguments for and against by all associated, buy the effing SH if you don't want the F-35 and be done with it.

[Rockie]

I believe JT is being disingenuous about this whole issue. He made an election promise not to buy the F-35 in the public forum aka election campaign. Well then, get on with it as you are now the governing party with a majority mandate. No matter what fighter, there will be counter arguments for and against by all associated, buy the effing SH if you don't want the F-35 and be done with it.

Once again you nailed it.

While I applaud the purchase of 18 SH's because it will give the RCAF some much needed capability, kicking the can another 5 years down the road for a competition insults the intelligence of Canadians. A real competition - one that incorporates all factors without bias including the number of engines - is not that hard to do. Just get on with it and buy whichever jet is the best one for this particular country. Even if it's the F-35.

[Mick G]

Rockie,
The only fighters that meets your requirements (Rockies) are the French Rafaels and the Eurofighter

Along with the Rafael and EF, don't forget about the Gripen.

[AuxBatOn]

The single-engined Grippen that has the same motor as our current Hornet?

[Old fella]

I believe JT is being disingenuous about this whole issue. He made an election promise not to buy the F-35 in the public forum aka election campaign. Well then, get on with it as you are now the governing party with a majority mandate. No matter what fighter, there will be counter arguments for and against by all associated, buy the effing SH if you don't want the F-35 and be done with it.

Once again you nailed it.

While I applaud the purchase of 18 SH's because it will give the RCAF some much needed capability, kicking the can another 5 years down the road for a competition insults the intelligence of Canadians. A real competition - one that incorporates all factors without bias including the number of engines - is not that hard to do. Just get on with it and buy whichever jet is the best one for this particular country. Even if it's the F-35.

Being non -partisan I find politics to be abstract to say the least. Start the competition now, weigh in with all experts from all disciplines, select your winner. If it determined the F-35 is best option then buy it. Tell the public after this rigorous selection process this is what we are gonna do and do it. Governments are not lost because of military procurement issues aka Jean Cretien and the chopper issue.