Final CF-18 HugBugs delivered

**highsea** · 31 Mar 10,, 20:48

Boeing Press release:

Boeing Completes CF-18 Hornet Modernization Project for Canada

ST. LOUIS, March 25, 2010 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today delivered the 79th -- and final -- upgraded CF-18 Hornet aircraft to the Canadian Department of National Defence during a ceremony in Mirabel, Quebec, hosted by industry partner L-3 Communications MAS, who performed final upgrade installations. The delivery brings the nine-year, two-phased CF-18 Modernization Project to a close.

Phase 1 of the project, completed in 2006, upgraded the Canadian Hornet fleet’s avionics, radar, radio and weapons capabilities. Phase 2 provided the following improvements:

*a data link system to ensure Canadian forces are interoperable with aircraft from the United States and other allied nations

*the Boeing Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System to improve weapons targeting

*new color cockpit displays to increase situational awareness

*an upgraded, chaff-and-flare dispensing electronic warfare system to improve survivability.

Phase 1 was valued at US$436 million and Phase 2 at $150 million. Boeing designed the upgrades and completed two prototype aircraft. L-3 Electronic Systems, with locations in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Toronto, developed and produced the upgraded crew station displays. L-3 Communications MAS installed the upgrades on the program’s remaining 77 aircraft.

"Boeing’s upgrades to Canada’s CF-18 fleet will ensure that this fighter force will remain effective and operationally credible for many years to come," said Jim O’Neill, vice president and general manager, Boeing Integrated Logistics. "Nearly 30 years after the delivery of the first CF-18 Hornet, Canada’s defense forces are better equipped than ever, with more capability and a fully modernized fleet, due to the innovative upgrades designed and installed by Boeing and our partner, L-3 Communications MAS."

"Across all four regions of Canada, Boeing worked with more than 25 Canadian suppliers and organizations through direct and indirect work packages that were an integral part of Boeing’s Industrial and Regional Benefits program for CF-18 modernization," said Pete Peterson, country director and vice president in Canada for Boeing Defense, Space & Security. "All technical program milestones were completed on schedule and within budget, and we completed industrial and regional benefits commitments early, making this a truly successful program."

Boeing: Boeing Completes CF-18 Hornet Modernization Project for Canada

**Repatriated Canuck** · 07 Apr 10,, 05:11

How capable are these aircraft when compared to aircraft of similar types and vintage? What about up against newer Migs?

Was this a waste of time and money?

**Chogy** · 07 Apr 10,, 14:05

Originally Posted by Expat Canuck

Was this a waste of time and money?

I don't believe so. The Hornet, even from day 1, was competitive and a real threat. These upgrades will ensure that it will remain so.

**cr9527** · 07 Apr 10,, 15:51

No radar upgrade? I thought the an/apg-73 were fairly out of date

**Stitch** · 07 Apr 10,, 17:05

Originally Posted by cr9527

No radar upgrade? I thought the an/apg-73 were fairly out of date

The AN/APG-73 is the most advanced radar that will fit in the C/D airframe; I believe the CF's were originally delivered with the older AN/APG-65, so this is a substantial upgrade.

**cr9527** · 07 Apr 10,, 17:13

Originally Posted by Stitch

The AN/APG-73 is the most advanced radar that will fit in the C/D airframe; I believe the CF's were originally delivered with the older AN/APG-65, so this is a substantial upgrade.

Awww, I was hoping for the AN/APG-79 :(

Can you answer a question though?

Why did we get the Hornet? We have no super carriers to launch them from, and F-16s or F-15s would be far more optimized for anything we do.

**TopHatter** · 07 Apr 10,, 17:27

Originally Posted by cr9527

Awww, I was hoping for the AN/APG-79 :(

Can you answer a question though?

Why did we get the Hornet? We have no super carriers to launch them from, and F-16s or F-15s would be far more optimized for anything we do.

Carriers or not, the Hornet is a highly capable machine. Having carriers is irrelevent in that regard.

The F-15 and F-16 are obviously both superb aircraft, but for whatever reason they weren't suited to Canada's needs and/or budget at the time.

My guess would be that the F-15 had no ground-attack capability at that time and the F-16 was a single engine day fighter. The CF may have wanted a twin engine all-weather aircraft.

Edit: This should tell you what you want to know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fig...rcraft_program

**Stitch** · 07 Apr 10,, 17:39

Originally Posted by cr9527

Awww, I was hoping for the AN/APG-79 :(

Can you answer a question though?

Why did we get the Hornet? We have no super carriers to launch them from, and F-16s or F-15s would be far more optimized for anything we do.

Edit: I stand corrected; apparently, the AN/APG-79 CAN be retrofitted to the older C/D airframe, but my best guess is it was too expensive for the Canadians to consider, especially since they're saving up for the F-35. From globalsecurity.org: "Raytheon’s AN/APG-79 radar with its AESA antenna has been developed for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, for new builds, and as a retrofit replacement for the mechanically scanned AN/APG-73" (italics added).

**Officer of Engineers** · 07 Apr 10,, 19:00

Originally Posted by cr9527

Why did we get the Hornet? We have no super carriers to launch them from, and F-16s or F-15s would be far more optimized for anything we do.

But we would have enaged in naval aerial combat over the Arctic and Pacific Oceans against Soviet planes.

**Stitch** · 07 Apr 10,, 21:42

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

But we would have enaged in naval aerial combat over the Arctic and Pacific Oceans against Soviet planes.

The link that TH posted pretty well explained it; at the time the selection took place, the F-14, -15, and Tornado were too expensive, the F-16 only had one engine (Canada wanted two engines), the French got their Mirage 2000 submission in too late, so it was pretty much automatically narrowed down to the F-18A/L. For what the Canadians needed at the time, it was a pretty good fit (except for the range issue).

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Apr 10,, 00:39

I know. I remembered. The twin engine was a requirement simply of the distance involved. A battle over the Arctic means you're going to freeze just a difference in time whether you hit ice or water.

And truthfully, it was a sigh of relief to see those CF-101 VOODOOs and their nuke tipped GENIEs retire. Never mind fire and forget missiles. It was fire and run away.

**Repatriated Canuck** · 08 Apr 10,, 01:48

I've heard that the Voodoo's where pigs.

Where they just old and underpowered? I'm so glad the cold war never got hot, oh god what a mess that would have been. I can just imagine all the nuclear debris strewn all over Canada as the ICBM,s and bombers got shot down on the way to the US.... yuck

**Stitch** · 08 Apr 10,, 05:49

Originally Posted by Expat Canuck

I've heard that the Voodoo's where pigs.

Actually, with two J-57's onboard, they weren't all that bad; they couldn't "turn" with an F-4 (wing loading was too high), but they sure could "burn" with one. Apparently, the RF-101C's were the hot ships; with only a single pilot and no armament, they were pretty fast, especially at low level. The CF-101B's you guys had are another story.

And, yes, the Genie's were pretty scary; they only had a range of a few miles (five, tops), so when they went off you were still pretty close to the blast, even after executing a split "S". SOP was to execute a 180 degree roll immediately upon firing, and haul back on the stick; theoretically, you would be heading AWAY from the detonation at 600 knots+ when the 1.5 kT warhead went off.

**Repatriated Canuck** · 12 Apr 10,, 04:18

I'm sure that was a theory pilots where happy to have never put to test.

scary

**JA Boomer** · 08 Jun 10,, 19:06

Looks like we're firming up our order for 65 F-35 Lightning II's.

Ottawa to spend $9-billion in sole-source deal for U.S. fighter jets - The Globe and Mail

I am vary unhappy with just 65 aircraft being ordered as I doubt there will be any sort of follow up purchase to increase the number of fighters we have on hand. We have already gone from 138 CF-18's down to 80 fighters today. When you take birds out of the combat pool for maintenance, training, and testing; how many F-35's will we actually have to fight with, maybe 50? Further, when you factor in attrition over a 30-40 year operation period, how many will we have available in 2035?

Kind of a joke really for a country of our size. If it was a money issue then I probably would have rather had us buy a larger force of Eurofighters or Super Hornets. On the plus side, great job for locking this up now so we are gauranteed production slots and price.