Is the Super Hornet the best fighter for the Canadian Forces

roguesquad

New Member
Is the Super Hornet the best fighter for the Canadian Forces. Because of its extra fuel load outs and 2 engines increasing its range.?
Should they go for the 5th gen fighters instead? Do they shoot down targets faster at longer ranges? Is it essential to have 5th gen or will 4th gen handle whatever russia has?
I think it was wise to pull out of the f 35. There doesnt seem to be any garantees about its stealth which is expensive to maintain.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
not like why or what would be a better fighter to replace the cf18's that we whip out.
Welcome to the Forum. A couple if things. First a must read: Air Power 101 For New Members and read the rules. One liners are not acceptable and they can irritate the moderators.

It's all about systems and what platform offers the best systems for your CONOPS (Concepts of Operations) and budget. Hence, for example, Canada isn't needing 200 F22s or F15s. The F35, whilst having an overly long, complicated and sometimes painful gestation, is an aircraft that has the ability to offer quite a bit to Canada. However there has been a significant amount of misinformation published on the net and in the media by its detractors, most of whom know very little, if anything, about the actual technical details and specifications of the aircraft, because most of those details are not in the public domain. So what they don't know, they make up. A classic example is Air Power Australia who are vociferous critics of the aircraft, however they have based their whole criticism on fictions.

In a way stealth is a misnomer. This explains it quite well and a must read when discussing the F35. The person who provided the content knows his material. Another thing to note is that a "this Vs that" platform discussion is generally unproductive.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
A few other key points to consider when discussing any planned/new acquisitions for major defence kit.

The first is just how well the platform will into the overall battlesystem. One must remember that at this point in time, combat does not revolve just around individual platforms attempting to 'duke it out' amongst themselves.

The second is that major acquisitions tend to have (or at least be planned for) long service lives. A fighter purchase now, would be reasonably expected to serve until 2040 or so. A Superhornet entering service now should be up to the tasks Canada needs fighters to perform at present. Given how other air forces are modernizing their respective platforms and overall capabilities, it would be unreasonable to assume that a Superhornet would have a similar level of capability in 2030 or 2040.

Also, the Mods really do not like vs. threads, which happen to be against the rules.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Is the Super Hornet the best fighter for the Canadian Forces. Because of its extra fuel load outs and 2 engines increasing its range.?
Should they go for the 5th gen fighters instead? Do they shoot down targets faster at longer ranges? Is it essential to have 5th gen or will 4th gen handle whatever russia has?
I think it was wise to pull out of the f 35. There doesnt seem to be any garantees about its stealth which is expensive to maintain.
The question is IF Canada pulled out of the F35 program, which aircraft would suit there needs the most considering their obligations to NATO and the North American air defence zone
 

roguesquad

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
The question is IF Canada pulled out of the F35 program, which aircraft would suit there needs the most considering their obligations to NATO and the North American air defence zone
Yes this would be my question actually. There's a concern with single engine fighters going down in our north. I don't want a 1 vs 1 comparison on aircraft just to know what is in your opinion the best single fighter/canadian option to patrol our arctic. I get that you need a mixed fleet for offensive operations. I believe the Canadian fighter to be mostly a russian deterrent so would you want an air superiority fighter or a mixed capability fighter for nato missions to.
thankyou.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yes this would be my question actually. There's a concern with single engine fighters going down in our north. I don't want a 1 vs 1 comparison on aircraft just to know what is in your opinion the best single fighter/canadian option to patrol our arctic. I get that you need a mixed fleet for offensive operations. I believe the Canadian fighter to be mostly a russian deterrent so would you want an air superiority fighter or a mixed capability fighter for nato missions to.
thankyou.
A few things which have been covered before, repeatedly. The reliability of fighter jet engines has increased to the point that the advantages of two engines in place of one are largely nil. Consider the service provided by the F-16...

Also the RCAF fighter fleet is not just a Russian deterrent, having served on overseas deployments for a number of operations.

One of the other realities is that multi-role fighters are largely the way things have been going for some time. An air superiority fighter has much less use or relevance once air superiority has been established, and virtually none if air supremacy has been established.

The F-35 is designed to be multi-role. Looking at the other Western fighters that are still undergoing production, they are either multi-role, or being modified to provide multi-role capabilities.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger has hit the nail on the head to my mind - the Super Hornet would suit Canada just fine in the short term. Problem is, with a planned service life of 30 odd years, it's not going to be terribly "future proof". The F35, being a much newer design, is likely to have a much more substantial upgrade path ahead of it, and be a much more capable aircraft by the end of its service life.

EDIT: I'd also like to echo ngatimozart's suggestion that you read this:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/brief-history-lo-10856/

"Stealth" is not a technology per se - it is an outcome that can be achieved via a wide variety of means. It is important to understand this and how it impacts things like CONOPS if you want a decent understanding of the subject matter you're asking about.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Todjaeger has hit the nail on the head to my mind - the Super Hornet would suit Canada just fine in the short term. Problem is, with a planned service life of 30 odd years, it's not going to be terribly "future proof". The F35, being a much newer design, is likely to have a much more substantial upgrade path ahead of it, and be a much more capable aircraft by the end of its service life.
And a good example of that is the plans the RAAF has for it's Super Hornet fleet.

Whilst they will no doubt probably still have around a 3rd of their useful airframe life left in them, the plan is to replace them by 2030 (eg, after 20 years of service and not 30+ years).

And probably the front runner (at this stage), is a 4th operational squadron of F-35A's.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The criterion for a new fighter is as follows; minimal price (not applicable to Bombardier assembled Euro jets) and non stealth so RCAF pilots will be at greater risk.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Is the Super Hornet the best fighter for the Canadian Forces. Because of its extra fuel load outs and 2 engines increasing its range.?
Should they go for the 5th gen fighters instead? Do they shoot down targets faster at longer ranges? Is it essential to have 5th gen or will 4th gen handle whatever russia has?
I think it was wise to pull out of the f 35. There doesnt seem to be any garantees about its stealth which is expensive to maintain.
Quick question - what's the difference in range between the F35A and the Super Hornet? Which one has a greater combat radius on internal fuel?

On single engine reliability, what Northern hemisphere country makes it's own jets and how many engines do they have? Has that country ever made a twin engine jet and if so, when did they stop using twin engine jets?

Which fighter does the US use to patrol the Arctic and how many engines does it have?

Finally, what's the difference in loss rates between the F-16 and the F15, when comparing aircraft fitted with the same engine?

Finally, of the major possible adversaries which Canada may face, which is *not* developing it's own LO technologies?

The answers to those questions may guide you to answers to your own questions.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes this would be my question actually. There's a concern with single engine fighters going down in our north. I don't want a 1 vs 1 comparison on aircraft just to know what is in your opinion the best single fighter/canadian option to patrol our arctic. I get that you need a mixed fleet for offensive operations. I believe the Canadian fighter to be mostly a russian deterrent so would you want an air superiority fighter or a mixed capability fighter for nato missions to.
thankyou.
Most points have been addressed already, but I noted a couple of 'outliers'.

1. Why would you be under the impression that '2 engines equals greater range?'

Have you bothered to research the stats? The 2x GE F414 engines in the Super Hornet only roughly approximates the thrust that the single F135 engine generates for the F-35. They don't greatly exceed it (and in some reports are significantly inferior). Whilst they are smaller engines, the weight and fuel consumption of 2 high thrust engines, are unlikely to be more efficient than a single engine... So why would you automatically assume they provide greater range? Unless a bias is at work...

2. A single engine jet may crash far in the North of the North American continent. Indeed they may. They may also crash in the South, East or West too. So too may twin engined fighters as we have seen with RCAF Hornet aircraft in recent years... Is your point then that single engined fighhters are less reliable than twins and therefore more prone to crashing? Or that single engined fighters are more prone to crashing in remote areas?

Because several facts seem to contradict your argument. First is the 354th Fighter Wing that has successfully operated F-16's from Eilson Air Force base in Northern Alaska for decades, which is the most Northerly base in North America, as I understand it... That seems to contradict two of your points regarding the dangers of operating single engined fighters in that part of the world.

The other point again relates to the F-16. The world's biggest user of the F-16 is the USAF. It is also the most numerous fighter within the USAF. So if the argument that single engined fighters were more prone to crashes was actually true, you'd expect the F-16 would have a correspondingly large amount of crashes? Logical right?

Except the opposite is ACTUALLY true. The F-16 is statistically the safest fighter aircraft in the USAF and has the lowest rate of crashing of any modern USAF fighter, even allowing for it being the overwhelmingly dominant fighter in terms of numbers.

Seems incongruous doesn't it? It's only got one engine so therefore if that engine shuts down that aircraft should crash right? Of course. Except that the overwhelming majority of modern jet crashes are not engine related. That one engine flaming out is not the cause of the majority of aircraft crashes...

So if the engine really isn't the problem as the factual record appears to actually show, why would the F-35 be more likely to crash than any other aircraft? I must admit this question has me stumped. Since you've made the claim, albeit informed seemingly by incorrect information relating to the likelyhood of modern single engine jet fighter crashes, perhaps you could expand on this point?

The simple facts are -

1. The F-35's predecessor is the safest fighter aircraft the USAF operates and is an aircraft that has been successfully operated in the far northern reaches of North America for decades.

So why is the F-35 so much more at risk than the F-16? The other relevant statistic about F-35 is that at present we have NO air-crash data whatsoever. Quite simply because no F-35 has crashed, at all...
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The Norwegians have been operating the F-16 for 3 and 1/2 decades as well without loosing too many to crashes.
 
Last edited:

Toblerone

Banned Member
Canada is engaged only in cooperation with the USA and faces no threat back home, am I right?

And the best choice for longevity, support and operating with allies in the long run is the F-35. I think it will win the contract and be the backbone of the canadian airforce, no matter what may be going on in some liberal politicians' barren minds.

Also, I wouldn't worry about the safety, you just know any problems that crop up will be solved by the manufacturer. In a project of this scale, export potential and public exposure, they would move mountains if they had to.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Canada is engaged only in cooperation with the USA and faces no threat back home, am I right?

And the best choice for longevity, support and operating with allies in the long run is the F-35. I think it will win the contract and be the backbone of the canadian airforce, no matter what may be going on in some liberal politicians' barren minds.

Also, I wouldn't worry about the safety, you just know any problems that crop up will be solved by the manufacturer. In a project of this scale, export potential and public exposure, they would move mountains if they had to.
Junior and his Liberal minions really have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with regards to the F-35. Public opinion here is very anti F-35 and any reversal by the Liberals would be political suicide. What really needs to happen is some solid progress on software (3 point whatever) and ALIS so that true IOC happens and the jet can start performing as it is meant to. The seemingly endless stream of defects which are hyped up by the media need to cease. Until LM gets their $hit together the public bias against the F-35 will remain a problem. The F-35 is the right choice but I don't see the Liberals making the right choice. :(
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Junior and his Liberal minions really have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with regards to the F-35. Public opinion here is very anti F-35 and any reversal by the Liberals would be political suicide. What really needs to happen is some solid progress on software (3 point whatever) and ALIS so that true IOC happens and the jet can start performing as it is meant to. The seemingly endless stream of defects which are hyped up by the media need to cease. Until LM gets their $hit together the public bias against the F-35 will remain a problem. The F-35 is the right choice but I don't see the Liberals making the right choice. :(
Yeah I've also had the sense that LM have been dragging their heels on the PR front.

Here's an idea: Set up an AIM9X BlkII/EODAS LOAL live fire "test" with a QF-16 (symbolism very much intended) targeted in the rear hemisphere (preferably as close to 6 o'clock as possible) of the F35. Film the whole thing in uber 60fps HD and release for mass consumption. Couldn't hurt public opinion surely?? :cool:
 

Toblerone

Banned Member
Yeah I've also had the sense that LM have been dragging their heels on the PR front.

Here's an idea: Set up an AIM9X BlkII/EODAS LOAL live fire "test" with a QF-16 (symbolism very much intended) targeted in the rear hemisphere (preferably as close to 6 o'clock as possible) of the F35. Film the whole thing in uber 60fps HD and release for mass consumption. Couldn't hurt public opinion surely?? :cool:
Why expose the missile characteristics and reveal the limits of the missile?
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Why expose the missile characteristics and reveal the limits of the missile?
Haha, true. I meant it with tongue somewhat in cheek. Still, I'd love to see the reaction from the general public. Would certainly make for some compelling clickbait!
 
Top