Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 89

Thread: F-35 v F/A-18 Shornet-play ground style

  1. #16
    Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Oct 06
    Posts
    651
    It's a significant problem for Canada where some of the patrol routes mean an engine failure may find you in places where there's no runway to glide to. No runway, to GA runway, no road, highway, or plain. And at the same time, all that makes rescue really hard to come get you, while the weather will definitely be out to get you.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    How problematic has the lack of a 2nd engine been for the F-16? I tend to think of the F-35 fulfilling a similar role. Presumably, the more modern F-135 engine will enjoy better reliability than the F-110 that powers the F-16.

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by GGTharos View Post
    It's a significant problem for Canada where some of the patrol routes mean an engine failure may find you in places where there's no runway to glide to. No runway, to GA runway, no road, highway, or plain. And at the same time, all that makes rescue really hard to come get you, while the weather will definitely be out to get you.
    Although the MTBF on gas turbines has gone way down since the earlier third-gen engines (F-100/F-110/etc.), you still don't want to lose a brand-new, multi-million aircraft (and pilot) out in the middle of nowhere due to an engine failure.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    You are quite right JA Boomer, I missed that the commercial was made by a Canadian company. When I saw Super Hornets I immediately assumed it must be aimed at the USN or USMC.

    Any idea on which way the wind is blowing in Canada at the moment as far as a sticking with the F-35 buy or having a full blown fighter competition? I could see a competition between the Adv. Super Hornet, F-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafael, and Gripen potentially taking place.
    New update: French fighter-jet maker pushes Ottawa for decision on fleet - The Globe and Mail

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080

    Canada will not exclude F-35 from competition to replace CF-18

    Not to revive a two-year dead thread, but . . .

    Canada will not exclude F-35 from competition to replace CF-18
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    Not to revive a two-year dead thread, but . . .

    Canada will not exclude F-35 from competition to replace CF-18
    So when they re-select the F-35A, will they make the costs for:

    -cancellation of our original 65 jets
    -Hornet life extension required because we lost our production slots
    -new procurement costs to prepare an RFP and evaluate the proposals

    known to the public? So we can see what value we're getting for our tax dollars.

    Or will we have an exact duplicate of the CH-148 situation? Where the Liberal government, after cancelling what they later realize was decent equipment for a decent price, can't stomach re-ordering the same kit after making it an election issue, and wind up spending more dollars on something that makes less sense for the RCAF. Can't wait.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    So when they re-select the F-35A, will they make the costs for:

    -cancellation of our original 65 jets
    -Hornet life extension required because we lost our production slots
    -new procurement costs to prepare an RFP and evaluate the proposals

    known to the public? So we can see what value we're getting for our tax dollars.

    Or will we have an exact duplicate of the CH-148 situation? Where the Liberal government, after cancelling what they later realize was decent equipment for a decent price, can't stomach re-ordering the same kit after making it an election issue, and wind up spending more dollars on something that makes less sense for the RCAF. Can't wait.
    So, wait, let me get this straight: your government cancelled your initial order for F-35's (Level 3, I believe?) because it was "too expensive", lost your spot in the production run, finally figured out that the F-35 might actually be the best option (after already spending $309 million on development), but will now be at the tail end of the production run (which means you'll be LUCKY to see your F-35's by 2025!)?

    Sounds like it might be time to take a serious look at the F-18E/F/G?

    P.S. I'm actually going to go see your Calgary Flames "farm" team in Stockton next month, the Stockton Heat.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    So when they re-select the F-35A, will they make the costs for:

    -cancellation of our original 65 jets
    -Hornet life extension required because we lost our production slots
    -new procurement costs to prepare an RFP and evaluate the proposals

    known to the public? So we can see what value we're getting for our tax dollars.

    Or will we have an exact duplicate of the CH-148 situation? Where the Liberal government, after cancelling what they later realize was decent equipment for a decent price, can't stomach re-ordering the same kit after making it an election issue, and wind up spending more dollars on something that makes less sense for the RCAF. Can't wait.
    Hopefully the RCAF managed to work something out to keep Canada in the program at more or less the original position unless the F-35 actually loses the competition. At that point the only thing that would have really gotten delayed would be delivery of early training jets to start building a group of pilots and maintainers familiar with the aircraft.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    So, wait, let me get this straight: your government cancelled your initial order for F-35's (Level 3, I believe?) because it was "too expensive", lost your spot in the production run, finally figured out that the F-35 might actually be the best option (after already spending $309 million on development), but will now be at the tail end of the production run (which means you'll be LUCKY to see your F-35's by 2025!)?
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Hopefully the RCAF managed to work something out to keep Canada in the program at more or less the original position unless the F-35 actually loses the competition. At that point the only thing that would have really gotten delayed would be delivery of early training jets to start building a group of pilots and maintainers familiar with the aircraft.
    To be fair, I don't know the specific details of the arrangement the Government of Canada had with Lockheed Martin. As in what exactly the consequences of cancelling our plans is. At the very least we're losing our first production slots, as I've read we had some early block slots in the production line. It might turn out for the better, if they select the F-35A again, we might be getting cheaper and more mature aircraft. But we're also forcing the CF-18 to soldier on .. and on, will it be relevant when the first CF-35A squadrons stands up for operation?

    What gets me is the government waste. For those not familiar with the CH-148 Cyclone fiasco is goes like this:

    -Conservative government orders a AW101 derivative to replace the CH-124 Sea King in the maritime helicopter role supporting the RCN.
    -Liberals campaign to cancel the deal, get elected, and cancel the deal .. which resulted in financial penalties to Canada.
    -Liberals wait a few years and have another competition, where the AW101 again seems like the clear choice. Both because the AW101 is being developed for the maritime role already, and other countries have ordered it. Also it provides fleet commonality with Canada's new CH-149 Cormorant SAR helos which are also AW101 variants.
    -Liberals select the paper design CH-148 Cyclone from Sikorsky. It's a not a stretch to imagine they couldn't stomach ordering the same helicopter they cancelled and picked another model regardless of what was best for the RCAF.
    -Years and years of cost overruns and delivery delays the CH-148 is just starting to come in service. Will it be successful, sure. Was it the best option, probably not.

    Seems we might be heading down this path again with the F-35.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    Sounds like it might be time to take a serious look at the F-18E/F/G?
    I have no issue with the performance of the Super Hornet, I just don't want to see Canada holding the bag when the USN and RAAF have retire their birds and ours become increasingly difficult to maintain and upgrade to keep relevant with the modern battlefield and able to integrate with our NATO and coalition partners. The CF-101, CF-104, and CF-5 were in service for between 25 and 30 years. The CF-18 will likely see over 40 years of service. How long will our next fighter have to be on the front line? We got involved pretty early in the F/A-18 program, and they're becoming increasingly difficult to support. The problems would be even worse with the Super Hornet because there are less users world-wide and we'd be getting some of the last production models (meaning manufacture support is thinning out sooner).

    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    P.S. I'm actually going to go see your Calgary Flames "farm" team in Stockton next month, the Stockton Heat.
    Enjoy the game!

    Looks like they'll miss the playoffs this year, but that's not necessarily the point of the farm club.

    Up front, keep your eyes open for Kenny Agostino and our newly acquired sniper Hunter Shinkaruk. As well as Derek Grant if he's back from injury, he's been our best player all year. On the back end look for Brett Kulak and Kenney Morrison. AHL is decent hockey. I like to attend the Heat games on the rare occasions when they get to play in Calgary.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    985
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...5s-sources-say

    "The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”

    Rather than a full replacement of the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet, it’s believed the purchase will be labelled an interim measure to fill what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has warned is a pending “gap” in Canada’s military capabilities.

    The Liberals promised during the election campaign not to buy the F-35 to replace the CF-18s. But the government has been struggling with how to fulfil that promise for fear any attempt to exclude the stealth fighter from a competition will result in a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit, according to one senior Defence Department official.
    "
    This is disastrous. Our government is disregarding what the RCAF tells them it requires. We all know these interim aircraft will be in use for over 30 years. At which time we won't be able to afford a 6th gen fighter and the F-35 will be on the way out. All this is, is an attempt by a government who promised not to buy the F-35 to make that happen, damned if it's the right thing for the RCAF or the country. It actually makes zero sense, could you not hold a complete fighter RFP cycle in a years time?

    Ugh. So frustrating.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,820
    "Interim fighter"... are they thinking of copying the australians? Didn't the RAAF buy the Super Hornet for the same reasons?

    It might have made sense years ago, when the RAAF did it, but now? And wasn't the whole "stop the F-35 in Canada" idea supposed to be based on cost? Won't something like this will increase costs massively?

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    "Interim fighter"... are they thinking of copying the australians? Didn't the RAAF buy the Super Hornet for the same reasons?

    It might have made sense years ago, when the RAAF did it, but now? And wasn't the whole "stop the F-35 in Canada" idea supposed to be based on cost? Won't something like this will increase costs massively?
    Yes, I would think this procurement strategy will cost more in the long run. But like I mentioned, they've made a decision based on an election promise (who knows how well thought out that promise was) and now that are forcing it to work. Make no mistake, if we end up buying interim Super Hornets, they will be in service for 30+ years. There will be nothing interim about it. Even if a new government is elected in 4 years, we won't be able to afford a new fleet to replace the interim Super Hornets. They can call it whatever they want, this will be Canada's fighter jet for a whole generation.

    The only hope for this to work, would be if they can work out some kind of 10 year leasing program with Boeing. Only then would this make any sense. And still I believe it would cost more money than holding an open fighter competition right now. But if you can buy mature F-35 in 10 years vs early blocks that require fairly consistent upgrading in the early on, that may be attractive.

    I'm not the biggest F-35 supporter. But we are where we are. If we want to have relevant air power in 30 years that is capable of inter-operability with our NATO allies. There's only one option: the F-35. That basis is assuming that will will purchase between 65-80 fighters. If it was 80 F-35 vs 140 Super Hornets, I might look at it differently.

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,271
    Didn't the furor over Canada acquiring the F-35 stem from the fact that they were going to sole-source the aircraft on the RCAF's advice rather than holding a competition?

    So in order to look like they are keeping election promises... the solution is to sole-source an aircraft the RCAF didn't ask for instead?

    This plan sounds like it is just asking for some huge lawsuits against the Canadian Gov.

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Didn't the furor over Canada acquiring the F-35 stem from the fact that they were going to sole-source the aircraft on the RCAF's advice rather than holding a competition?

    So in order to look like they are keeping election promises... the solution is to sole-source an aircraft the RCAF didn't ask for instead?

    This plan sounds like it is just asking for some huge lawsuits against the Canadian Gov.
    A brief background:

    -The CONSERVATIVE government announced that they would sole source 65 F-35A as it was the only aircraft that would meet the requirements of the RCAF.
    -The real problem came when the Conservative government cost projections for the F-35 were scrutinized and found to be optimistic by some. This is when calls for an open competition really began.
    -The LIBERALS ran in the last election with a promise to scrap the F-35 order. They won the election and scraped the order.

    What seems to me to have happened next is that when they looked at holding an open fighter competition they realized the F-35 was likely going to win. They knew they couldn't exclude the F-35, and not wanting to be backed into a corner and forced to purchase the fighter they promised not to buy, they're scrambling for a way out. An 'interim' Super Hornet purchase.

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,820
    Am side question, because I'm really not familiar with the start of the choice process: was the F-35 really the choice of the RCAF? Was a reall comparison made with the Typhoon and Rafale (I assume the new F-18 was not available for choice then), or did the RCAF/governement just said "F-35 because"?

  15. #30
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    What seems to me to have happened next is that when they looked at holding an open fighter competition they realized the F-35 was likely going to win. They knew they couldn't exclude the F-35, and not wanting to be backed into a corner and forced to purchase the fighter they promised not to buy, they're scrambling for a way out. An 'interim' Super Hornet purchase.
    We're not going to be that lucky. Trudeau would be looking for some refurbed superbugs. We're gone from buying second best to second-hand.
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Syria on the ground
    By snapper in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 16 Jul 12,, 05:40
  2. Iran Test-fires Advanced Ground-to-ground Missile
    By xinhui in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06 Sep 10,, 23:28
  3. Changes in the high ground?
    By The Chap in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Jun 08,, 03:21
  4. IAF breaks new ground
    By Adux in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02 Dec 07,, 01:54
  5. The Truth On The Ground
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14 Dec 05,, 15:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •