Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

This is a discussion on Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by ngatimozart But that would have been taken into account during the assessment phase of the project by ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 23rd, 2015   #16
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
But that would have been taken into account during the assessment phase of the project by the Au DoD. Whilst I acknowledge the advantage of twin engines, they are not then be all to end all.

Regarding the Typhoon, it's not that much of a dog when Luftwaffe Typhoons are able to catch and "shoot down" F22s in air combat exercises. So it does have its advantages. I believe that it has a very high thrust to weight ratio. It's just the price tag that is coronary inducing.
I'm sympathetic to the first half - not so inclined to use the last half as an indicator as it gets back to the age old issue of DACT and the taskings for those assets on the day.

F117's were called dogs because they were able to be tracked by Rapier2's over Farnborough - and for all the experienced participants on the forum they would immediately be saying "whats wrong with that picture" - especially if they've read "Bandits over Bagdhad" or read some of the DSTO and DARPA pubs on LO management ......
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #17
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aus
Posts: 261
Threads:
Considering Canada's position it could be argued that a Super Hornet fleet would be "good enough" for their requirements.

They are in a far more secure position than Australia so a decent fleet of general purpose strike aircraft able to rapidly integrate into NATO air campaigns would be the most logical option. A mixed fleet of F-18E/F (possibly even G?) should be cheaper than an equivalent F-35 fleet and be of sufficient quality to last for a few decades.

Of course they could become America's New Zealand and scrap their combat aircraft altogether.
Goknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #18
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goknub View Post
Considering Canada's position it could be argued that a Super Hornet fleet would be "good enough" for their requirements.

They are in a far more secure position than Australia so a decent fleet of general purpose strike aircraft able to rapidly integrate into NATO air campaigns would be the most logical option. A mixed fleet of F-18E/F (possibly even G?) should be cheaper than an equivalent F-35 fleet and be of sufficient quality to last for a few decades.

Of course they could become America's New Zealand and scrap their combat aircraft altogether.
canada is a good example of what happens when you keep on deferring purchases as way tp manage domestic budgets - and the realise far too late that the threat that was not forseeable (and thus rge excuse to delay acquisitions) has jus come back to bite you on the bum

"all of a sudden" they've now realised that russias continental shelf claims are now a latent territorial threat - and they have a neutered navy and an aging airforce which in real terms is not up to the new threat.

there's a lesson there for everyone - and for canada it means that to mitigate the problems and emergent risks that they really have to stay in lockstep with the US on the broader platform acquisition issues

to paraphrase....there but for the grace of god.......
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #19
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatshield View Post
I could be wrong but the captain of Hmas Canberra is an ex Canadian? Saddler I think his name is......
That is correct.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #20
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
canada is a good example of what happens when you keep on deferring purchases as way tp manage domestic budgets - and the realise far too late that the threat that was not forseeable (and thus rge excuse to delay acquisitions) has jus come back to bite you on the bum

"all of a sudden" they've now realised that russias continental shelf claims are now a latent territorial threat - and they have a neutered navy and an aging airforce which in real terms is not up to the new threat.

there's a lesson there for everyone - and for canada it means that to mitigate the problems and emergent risks that they really have to stay in lockstep with the US on the broader platform acquisition issues




to paraphrase....there but for the grace of god.......
GF, you have hit the nail on the head. The numerous deferrals on military procurement are what have got us in this deep hole. Add in the weak economy and our collapsing dollar and we now have colossal a fluster cuck.

The F-35 haters here are so full of it. One moment they are critizing the F-35's single engine and in the next moment they are praising the cost advantages of the single engine Grippen. They BS about the seamless next to free transition from legacy Hornets to Superhornets (the likely choice for NDP/Liberals). There is zero understanding about the numerous technological advances the F-35 brings to the table. The only feature talked about is stealth and even that is distorted to complete BS.

If I was LM, I would be talking about the 700 million dollars in contract work to date that Canadian companies have received and how that will disappear for the future 2500-3000+ jets that will follow should Canada decide against the F-35.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #21
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goknub View Post
Considering Canada's position it could be argued that a Super Hornet fleet would be "good enough" for their requirements.

They are in a far more secure position than Australia so a decent fleet of general purpose strike aircraft able to rapidly integrate into NATO air campaigns would be the most logical option. A mixed fleet of F-18E/F (possibly even G?) should be cheaper than an equivalent F-35 fleet and be of sufficient quality to last for a few decades.

Of course they could become America's New Zealand and scrap their combat aircraft altogether.

Our legacy Hornets are 40 years old and any replacement needs to be viable for the next 30-40 years. A Superhornet 20 years from now will only be viable in uncontested airspace IMO. Frankly Canada might be better off getting out of the fast jet business if only second rate jets are to be considered. Take the fighter budget and buy 6 Virginias and some new air tankers/P-8s and fast track the new surface combatant ships.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #22
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,726
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Our legacy Hornets are 40 years old and any replacement needs to be viable for the next 30-40 years. A Superhornet 20 years from now will only be viable in uncontested airspace IMO. Frankly Canada might be better off getting out of the fast jet business if only second rate jets are to be considered. Take the fighter budget and buy 6 Virginias and some new air tankers/P-8s and fast track the new surface combatant ships.
You don't have the same stratigic circumstance as NZ, don't think a politician could even consider cutting the ACF. Not only have you need the for Artic patrols and NATO, but have they considered the implications and signal it would send to the Americans under NORAD.

Whilst I believe F35 is your best long term bet, but to appease the mind set could an interim buy of 36 Super Hornets and with rationalising the legacy fleet push you out to the mid 2025? Order F35 around 2025 for a 2030 FOC so come 2035 you replace Super Hornet for additional F35 and it also overcomes block obsolesce
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #23
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
SpudmanWP's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Socialist Cities of California
Posts: 667
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Whilst I believe is your best long term bet, but to appease the mind set could an interim buy of 36 Super Hornets and with rationalising the legacy fleet push you out to the mid 2025? Order around 2025 for a 2030 FOC so come 2035 you replace Super Hornet for additional and it also overcomes block obsolesce
You will have the SuperHornets for 40+ years, not 20 (The CF-18 will be 42 in 2025). This means that you are planning to have 2 different fighters going forward. That makes no tactical or economic sense.

btw, Block Obsolesce is a very minor risk as the has been designed from the very beginning for ease of upgrades. For instance, Block 3f is less than 1 mil per plane as it's mostly software. There is already a worldwide upgrade program in place that is well funded with a large production engine driving it. That can never be said of the Super Hornet or ANY other fighter.

For example, the Superhornet got Block2 in 2005 and has yet to get a Block3 but the F-35 is getting new Blcoks every 2-3 years after IOC.
SpudmanWP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #24
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,194
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
You don't have the same stratigic circumstance as NZ, don't think a politician could even consider cutting the ACF. Not only have you need the for Artic patrols and NATO, but have they considered the implications and signal it would send to the Americans under NORAD.

Whilst I believe F35 is your best long term bet, but to appease the mind set could an interim buy of 36 Super Hornets and with rationalising the legacy fleet push you out to the mid 2025? Order F35 around 2025 for a 2030 FOC so come 2035 you replace Super Hornet for additional F35 and it also overcomes block obsolesce
That's to much common sense and to logical for the pollies. Canada and NZ are, IMHO, illustrations of political and treasury ideology along with bureaucracy having detrimental or even deleterious impacts upon the security of a nation. Whilst the NZ case is more centred on ideology, the Canadian case illustrates both. Then there is India. Canada is not that bad yet.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #25
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
You don't have the same stratigic circumstance as NZ, don't think a politician could even consider cutting the ACF. Not only have you need the for Artic patrols and NATO, but have they considered the implications and signal it would send to the Americans under NORAD.

Whilst I believe F35 is your best long term bet, but to appease the mind set could an interim buy of 36 Super Hornets and with rationalising the legacy fleet push you out to the mid 2025? Order F35 around 2025 for a 2030 FOC so come 2035 you replace Super Hornet for additional F35 and it also overcomes block obsolesce
Everything in this GD country boils down to political expediency for our brain dead pollies. Worse still, there is the whining Canadian electorate which are easy prey for our low-life pollies, promise them all sorts of BS, their memories can be measured in nanoseconds anyway (and unfortunately they are right).

DND has already committed $500m to extend some of our CF-18s out to 2025. There is no way a 36 unit purchase of SHs could happen unless you want to doom the RCAF to a Superhornet fleet for the next 30+ years IMO. This is Turdo Jr.'s plan. As for NORAD and US opinion , the bleeding heart class in this country is more than willing to let the US carry the load. Absolutely disgraceful!
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #26
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
You will have the SuperHornets for 40+ years, not 20 (The CF-18 will be 42 in 2025). This means that you are planning to have 2 different fighters going forward. That makes no tactical or economic sense.

btw, Block Obsolesce is a very minor risk as the has been designed from the very beginning for ease of upgrades. For instance, Block 3f is less than 1 mil per plane as it's mostly software. There is already a worldwide upgrade program in place that is well funded with a large production engine driving it. That can never be said of the Super Hornet or ANY other fighter.

For example, the Superhornet got Block2 in 2005 and has yet to get a Block3 but the F-35 is getting new Blcoks every 2-3 years after IOC.
A 12-24 SH purchase would have made sense 10 years ago and the number of legacy Hornets that needed to be upgraded could have been minimized (centre barrel replacements, and other stuff). Furthermore, the just announced $500 million needed to extend a few of our Hornets lifetimes out to 2025 would not have been necessary. Given the electoral climate, the F-35 likely will be rejected and we will suffer for it.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #27
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
That's to much common sense and to logical for the pollies. Canada and NZ are, IMHO, illustrations of political and treasury ideology along with bureaucracy having detrimental or even deleterious impacts upon the security of a nation. Whilst the NZ case is more centred on ideology, the Canadian case illustrates both. Then there is India. Canada is not that bad yet.
I agree but these pollie morons could not get away with all the BS here in Canada were it not for apathy (and appalling ignorance of defence issues) of the Canadian electorate. As for being as bad as India, we are damn close some days and worse on others IMHO.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2015   #28
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,726
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
You will have the SuperHornets for 40+ years, not 20 (The CF-18 will be 42 in 2025). This means that you are planning to have 2 different fighters going forward. That makes no tactical or economic sense.
.
Agree with what you are saying about 2 seperate log tails,but whatever aircraft is chosen they will have a need for 2 seperate lines till all aircraft are replaced anyway in either the short or long term.

Surely RCAF has put future cost estimates in for a variety of platforms which should show that whilst F35 my cost a little bit more upfront now but should show saving in the long term in regards to capabilty and upgrades or is it a case of stuff the long term it's here and now that they are worring about
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2015   #29
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
SpudmanWP's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Socialist Cities of California
Posts: 667
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
A 12-24 SH purchase would have made sense 10 years ago
No, just no.

Doing that would lead to (based on linked original plan):

15+ years (2005 - 2017) of Hornet & Super Hornet
5 years (2017-2021) of Hornet, Super Hornet, and F-35
23 years (2022-2047) of F-35 and Super Hornet

After 2048 you would have F-35 and whatever replaced the Super Hornets.

From that point on you would always be stuck with at least two fighters as your planes are not aging at the same pace and cannot be replaced at the same time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Agree with what you are saying about 2 seperate log tails,but whatever aircraft is chosen they will have a need for 2 seperate lines till all aircraft are replaced anyway in either the short or long term.
You will always have a slight overlap of fighters in any program, but for Canada it was only 5 years.

http://i.imgur.com/7amfWyv.jpg
SpudmanWP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2015   #30
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
No, just no.

Doing that would lead to (based on linked original plan):

15+ years (2005 - 2017) of Hornet & Super Hornet
5 years (2017-2021) of Hornet, Super Hornet, and F-35
23 years (2022-2047) of F-35 and Super Hornet

After 2048 you would have F-35 and whatever replaced the Super Hornets.
I am not sure about the overall status of our Hornets. AFAIK we have about 80 of our Hornets left from the 138 (I think). Of these, I believe 40-50 had centre fuselage replacments and of course there has been on going weapons/electronics improvements. At present the fleet is good for maybe a couple of more years but no purchase will happen until 2017 at the earliest and deliveries of new jets will not arrive in time hence another 500 million is needed to extend some of legacy Hornets out to 2025. A dozen SH ((maybe configured for Growler conversion) would have bridged the gap. Having a few Growlers around to operate with whatever the frigging government of the day decides it will buy for the RCAF would be manageable until 2030-2035.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 PM.