Oh such media can already be found online. And it looks every bit as fantastic as it should.
This has already been achieved without EODAS...the anti-JSFs should just let that sink in.
Is the Super Hornet the best fighter for the Canadian Forces
- Thread starter roguesquad
- Start date
This has already been achieved without EODAS...the anti-JSFs should just let that sink in.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yeah I remember when that footage first came out. Took me a while to get my jaw off my desk. Getting a bit dated now though... I'm talking a full on "he's on my six Goose... wait... Fox 2... splash... ok he's gone" over the shoulder shot... all in "stunning HD."
:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think everything that has to be said why the Super Hornet is not the best fighter for Canada, has been said (and obviously why the F-35 is the best option too), pointless me making any further comment about the pros and cons.
But there is one particular issue that hasn't had that much mention, and that is the ability to sustain, maintain and upgrade whatever aircraft is selected for 30+ years, at least somewhere into the 2050's.
The F-35 of course is an aircraft program that is going to see, at this stage, approx. 3,000 airframes manufactured into the early to mid 2030's and see those aircraft still in operations well into the 2050's.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that being a user in such a large pool of aircraft is going to see a massive industrial effort support those many thousands of airframes for a long long time, and it's not just support to keep them in the air, it's also the ongoing development and upgrade of the various sensors and weapons systems for many decades to come and to keep them relevant for emerging threats well into the future too.
The Super Hornet on the other hand, whilst yes as at today and probably for up to the next 20 years will have similar support, but what happens by the mid 2030's when the RAAF will have retired it's fleet and the USN will no doubt be in the process of retiring airframes? (some of which have been currently been in service for 15 years as at today).
The Super Hornet production line is still open, but it is on life support, currently being drip fed enough for another years worth of production every year.
But sooner or later that drip feed from the USG will cease and if there are no other foreign orders, well that will be the end of the line, the question would be, 'if' the Canadian Government did order Super Hornets (a mistake, but still...), when would an order have to me made by? Certainly a decision would have to be made in the next couple of years at the very latest.
If I remember properly the previous Canadian Government, (whilst it sat there undecided about ordering the F-35A in it's dying days), made an announcement that money would be spent on 'extending' the life of the current Classic Fleet for a few more years (another attempt to not having to make a decision and leave that decision for the future).
Roll forward to today, the current recently elected Canadian Government is probably still a couple of years away from making a decision, 2018? 2019? Beyond? Who knows!
Again, 'if' they did select the Super Hornet, more than likely they will be the last airframes off the Boeing production line, possibly somewhere from the early 2020's to the mid 2020's, if that was the case, you would expect those airframes to be in service for 30 something years, mid 2050's and beyond, maybe into the early 2060's too.
So what happens around the 2040 time period when all other users (currently RAAF and USN), have retired all of their airframes or are in the process of winding down operations and they are heading toward retirement?
It leaves Canada as the 'sole' or 'primary' user of that aircraft and in relatively small numbers too, sounds pretty risky to me.
If you look at the RAAF for example with the F-111C's, by 1996 the 'F' had been retired and the last ones, the 'EF' were gone by 1998, it became the sole operator of that aircraft, and we had planned to operate them till 2020, but of course that was changed to 2010, still if we had of operated them till 2020, we would have been the sole operator of a small fleet for 20 years!
Not suggesting that it's impossible to be the sole operator of a military aircraft, but when you are, it can become a rather expensive exercise to do so, and going it alone on future developments to keep that aircraft flying and more importantly 'relevant' too, can also be an expensive and risky exercise too, the risk is all yours and not being shared by many of the other operators too.
Super Hornets for Canada? Big mistake!
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
Cheers,
But there is one particular issue that hasn't had that much mention, and that is the ability to sustain, maintain and upgrade whatever aircraft is selected for 30+ years, at least somewhere into the 2050's.
The F-35 of course is an aircraft program that is going to see, at this stage, approx. 3,000 airframes manufactured into the early to mid 2030's and see those aircraft still in operations well into the 2050's.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that being a user in such a large pool of aircraft is going to see a massive industrial effort support those many thousands of airframes for a long long time, and it's not just support to keep them in the air, it's also the ongoing development and upgrade of the various sensors and weapons systems for many decades to come and to keep them relevant for emerging threats well into the future too.
The Super Hornet on the other hand, whilst yes as at today and probably for up to the next 20 years will have similar support, but what happens by the mid 2030's when the RAAF will have retired it's fleet and the USN will no doubt be in the process of retiring airframes? (some of which have been currently been in service for 15 years as at today).
The Super Hornet production line is still open, but it is on life support, currently being drip fed enough for another years worth of production every year.
But sooner or later that drip feed from the USG will cease and if there are no other foreign orders, well that will be the end of the line, the question would be, 'if' the Canadian Government did order Super Hornets (a mistake, but still...), when would an order have to me made by? Certainly a decision would have to be made in the next couple of years at the very latest.
If I remember properly the previous Canadian Government, (whilst it sat there undecided about ordering the F-35A in it's dying days), made an announcement that money would be spent on 'extending' the life of the current Classic Fleet for a few more years (another attempt to not having to make a decision and leave that decision for the future).
Roll forward to today, the current recently elected Canadian Government is probably still a couple of years away from making a decision, 2018? 2019? Beyond? Who knows!
Again, 'if' they did select the Super Hornet, more than likely they will be the last airframes off the Boeing production line, possibly somewhere from the early 2020's to the mid 2020's, if that was the case, you would expect those airframes to be in service for 30 something years, mid 2050's and beyond, maybe into the early 2060's too.
So what happens around the 2040 time period when all other users (currently RAAF and USN), have retired all of their airframes or are in the process of winding down operations and they are heading toward retirement?
It leaves Canada as the 'sole' or 'primary' user of that aircraft and in relatively small numbers too, sounds pretty risky to me.
If you look at the RAAF for example with the F-111C's, by 1996 the 'F' had been retired and the last ones, the 'EF' were gone by 1998, it became the sole operator of that aircraft, and we had planned to operate them till 2020, but of course that was changed to 2010, still if we had of operated them till 2020, we would have been the sole operator of a small fleet for 20 years!
Not suggesting that it's impossible to be the sole operator of a military aircraft, but when you are, it can become a rather expensive exercise to do so, and going it alone on future developments to keep that aircraft flying and more importantly 'relevant' too, can also be an expensive and risky exercise too, the risk is all yours and not being shared by many of the other operators too.
Super Hornets for Canada? Big mistake!
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
Cheers,
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Future proofing has got to be the main concern here. Fast forward twenty years to F35s that are potentially getting around with variable bypass engines, upgraded sensors, EODAS cued DIRCM, NGJ etc. and the Super Bug will likely be showing its age...
I would counter that the Super Hornet is a perfectly adequate multi-role aircraft for Canada. The USN will be operating them for decades and quite likely for much longer than currently anticipated given how long current aircraft are operated for. Sourcing spare parts and logistical support shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Given that Canada can generally pick and choose it's operational engagements there is less need for a day one force. The SH will be able to perform day two+ strike roles inside multinational air campaigns. That would be enough for a geographically safe mid sized country like Canada.
Given that Canada can generally pick and choose it's operational engagements there is less need for a day one force. The SH will be able to perform day two+ strike roles inside multinational air campaigns. That would be enough for a geographically safe mid sized country like Canada.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Super Hornet 'adequate' for Canada? Well I suppose that all depends on where Canada sees where itself is fitting into the big picture over the next 30 years or so.
Why did it become a partner in the F-35 program in the first place (like all the other partner nations, including Australia)? Did it enter the program just for the fun of it? Just to invest money and not get both the national security and industrial returns that the F-35 program offers for all partners?
I would have thought that Canada (and again all the partner nations), joined the F-35 program because it wanted the best of the best for it's air force and national security, why else join? Why?
Sure the Super Hornet will be 'adequate' for some situations into the future, but for how long? Short term? Mid term? Long term? Time will tell.
Never suggested that "sourcing spare parts and logistical support shouldn't be too much of a problem", but as time goes by and the role of the Super Hornet in USN services moves down the line, down the line from being 'front line' and heading towards retirement, how much effort (or investment) will the USN put into ensuring the Super Hornet is capable of operating effectively at the real pointy end?
Possibly by the 2040's the USN won't consider the Super Hornet capable of front line operations and possibly be seen more capable of secondary roles (whatever they may be).
That's all good and well for the USN it's also going to have F-35C's in its inventory and also looking at introducing a 6th Gen capability, where does that leave the Super Hornet in USN scheme of things?
For Canada, and all the partner nations, the F-35 is clearly going to be their number one, and in some or most case the only combat aircraft in their inventory.
Anyway, happy to agree to disagree.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At the same time, there is a potentially less than friendly near neighbour to the north and west of Canada that has been building/rebuilding their Arctic combat capabilities, as well as making land and EEZ claims which could lead to conflict with Canada and their respective claims. If it were to become an issue over sovereignty, then Canada would not have a great deal of choice regarding operational engagements. For something like, Canada would likely need 'first day' capabilities. Also even for non-first day operations, the capabilities of something like the F-35 can increase the survivability when compared to older generation aircraft. The potential prevalence of MANPADS for instance, an F-35 could be harder to target than an F-18E/F.
I hope the PM has been given a full brief on what it happening to their north - because if he has then its going to become apparent pretty quickly that the failure to spend is now biting canada on the bum - and its multiple choice time, become a big version of switzerland and pray - or get on with the job to counter the push that will become shove over the next 20 years
Can the pretty boy PM think? And even if he can, he has a political agenda to push. Who in Canada cares about defence issues (as long as he appeals to women voters and their concerns)? I am really not sure that their country is headed in the right direction, as a middle power.
Their navy has not been able to put together a ship and submarine building plan to remain relevant and the Canadian Air Force with a planned buy of 65 planes is going to be smaller that the Republic of Singapore Air Force - how are they even be considered a middle power in the days ahead?
They have got bigger problems than just the F-35 program, as their hardware is aging rapidly, without a procurement arm that can keep place with block obsolescence of assets.
Edit: Amongst G-20 states (a forum for economic and financial cooperation amongst the big boys), off the top of my head, I can only think of four countries (namely, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa) who have less capable air forces than the Candians. Canada, if they continue to screw things up will be in good company, with the least capable Air Force and Navy amongst the lower ranked G-20 states. In 2016, the Canadians are at the bottom half of the G-20 in terms of military capability. By 2028, with their current funding levels as the baseline for defence budgets going forward and a few more mistakes in procurement, they will sink (from the bottom half) to the bottom quarter of G-20 states in terms of hard power.
I am sure that Korea, Japan or Israel will be happy to gain work share at the expense of Canadian's aerospace / defence industry. If the Candians want to have less work from the F-35 program, please go for Super Hornets. I am hoping they will buy Super Hornets - the least bad alternative. They are a few more procurement mistakes away from becoming less than relevant in the international arena.
Edit: Their seat at the table can be replaced over time by the Koreans, Indonesians or other middle powers on the rise. Might do them some good to reflect on where they are and where they are going, if their ambition is to stand in good company with Argentina by 2028. Their decline is inevitable, the only question is how fast will this decline take place, with the mistakes they are about to make.
Last edited:
you have a knack for being correct, I hope you're wrong on this one.....
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Canadian procurement processes makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about Australian procurement processes, almost appears to be near to perfect here these days.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
OPSSG is indeed correct. The fact that Canadians elected a flake like junior illustrates how screwed up this country is. The Canadian electorate has zero interest in defence and this will allow junior to dick around with future defence procurement needs and instead promote his kumbayah socialist rot. He and his fellow Liberals are now projected to run a federal deficit of 29 billion this year (to go along with the 15 billion run up by the witch DB Liberal premier of Ontario). They are pi$$ing off the Western Canadian provinces once again making their separation from Canada more likely than Quebec's. Meanwhile junior wants Canada back on the UN Security Council. What a frigging moron! Canada will never see a bi-centennial birthday.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Indians can now say they are not the worst at it!
I know that I have somewhat of a dislike of pollies, we got the point a long time ago that you don't like the particular govt. Putting your political bias well aside, what about a clear headed assessment of Canadian defence procurement? What do you think needs to change, e.g., politically, fundamentally and structurally?
Oh, I still believe the F35 is the better option but I do see selecting the SH as a viable alternative. It's not dragging F4 Phantoms out of the Boneyard.
With AWAC and AAR support ala RAAF in Iraq, it would be a potent force. The difficulties the Canadian have with procurement are a much larger problem. They do seem to have borrowed the Indian play book. At this point just getting something approved and in service should be the priority.
King Wally
Active Member
...well to use the F4 as an example... buying into the Super Hornet NOW would essentially be like buying into the F4 Phantom back in 1981 right at the end of the production run. Passing up the F16 / F18 / F15 options on the table because the F4 was 'adequate'.
Once your into the medium term / long term the reality of the choice would hit home hard I feel.
Once your into the medium term / long term the reality of the choice would hit home hard I feel.
Like John I too have problems seeing the SH as a long term viable alternative for Canada. SH production is likely to shut down in three years or so and support and sustainment for it will end in what, 15 maybe 20 years when the US and Australia retire theirs. Then Canada will be left with an orphan aircraft which will become increasingly expensive to operate and sustain. The F15 production will probably end in two years or so and at present the F16 production line looks like closing towards the end of next year. Note that the F15 and F16 present the same issues as the F18 E/F.
An orphan air combat platform can cripple an air force and it happened to the RNZAF with the A4K Skyhawks. It just got so expensive to maintain and operate them, that Treasury was able to convince a govt who had an ideological reason for not liking them to scrap the ACF. Treasury also put forward an army first argument because that was the cheapest option and that argument also found favour with that particular govt.
Hence IMHO if Canada decides not to go down the road of the F35, it only has three other practical choices. The Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen E.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There have been reports in the media that DND simply lacks the personnel with the skill sets necessary for efficient procurement. This is due to cutbacks but also there seems to be almost zero development of these skills. Projects get stalled and then cancelled (e.g. JSS, CCV). The biggest issue is political parties use defence (and other stuff) as wedges to gain political advantage. For huge expenses like defence, the parties have to agree to be on the same page. Because the Canadian electorate is so apathetic about defence, there is no pressure for them to do so. Until the Americans insist on Canada doing their fair share or Putin decides to increase his Arctic realstate this is unlikely to Change.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I just can't see any of these choices being any more viable than a Superhornet. All will be more expensive (especially if Bombardier assembles them) and their shelf life with only be marginally longer. I think the second best choice to the F-35 would be a fleet of Growlers. Equipped with conformational fuel tanks, they would be acceptable for NORAD operations and for NATO operations, extra jamming capability never hurts. By the time we get our $hit together an evaluation of a 6th Gen fighter may be necessary.
I don't see those having a particularly long or glorious life a head of them.
Typhoon users who are going to order F-35 (or highly likely too). UK, Italy, Spain (I think likely eventually, if they can find the money). Thats more than the owners of half the airframes are going F-35. It has a few key features which will useful for a while, but it won't be making up an entire air force except in a few circumstances.
Rafale and Gripen are <250 airframes. How often will these aircraft get upgraded, or have loads of spares available? How often are the current operators using them in conflicts? Would you seriously take them into contested airspace? Or use them as trainers?
At least with the SH you would probably get a good 10 years of use out of it. 500 aircraft (with a high use user), significant with commonality with the 1500 hornets. If they wanted to significantly delay a F-35 buy, I would probably go with SH, and flog the bejesus out of a squadron (given the options). In 10 years time the F-35 will be a proven, low risk, right in its sweet spot. They won't save any money, but it could be done I guess. Australia showed at least your SH will be operational in a very short amount of time. Gripen and Rafael seem to be slow build lines.
Its looking pretty grim. I don't see them turning it around. I don't see a future program that is going to wrap itself in success either and a lot of skills and personnel are going to find jobs elsewhere. Nations with expanding forces (such as Australia) would most likely welcome transfers from a country like Canada.OPSSG said:
I would say its in a far worse position than India. India has a large number of procurement programs, there are multiple programs for nearly every single asset type. While many are disastrous and lack efficiency, some seem work at some level. They do commission new stuff. So stuff does come down the pipe, they even add some reasonable capability in a haphazard way.
The Canadian problem is at the end, nothing comes down the pipe.Things that are in the pipe are delayed or cancelled, as things age it becomes much harder to keep propping them up. I don't see anything fixing that. Both political sides seem to have problems even with MOTS type of stuff. Unlike the Indians, they don't have another wholly parallel program to deal with this.
After the F-35 debacle who is going to want to partner with Canada, as you can't take them at their agreements. No one is going to want to develop anything, train anything, operate anything. Canada is going to be a pariah.