It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada delays fighter purchase

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The Canadian government has announced that it will be delaying the purchase of new fighters to replace their F-18A/B fleet, by delaying the retirement of the Hornets until 2025. Interestingly there are no support contracts that extend beyond 2020 for the Hornets. The NGFC will depend on the election next year. The result will decide whether Canada gets F-35s, or a competition for the replacement.

There are 77 Hornets that have completed upgrades in February, including Sniper pod with Rover compatibility, as well as Iridium based DRS Communications Fighter Aircraft Command and Control Enhancement II pods for beyond line of sight communications.

Almost half the fleet has undergone center barrel replacement, and Kapton wiring replacement.


Canada’s conservative government, which has spent four years pushing for a noncompetitive purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, announced at the end of September it would delay retirement of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s Boeing CF-18A/B Hornets for up to five years, until 2025. Canada will, however, continue to support JSF.

With an election due next year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have passed the Next-Generation Fighter Capability (NGFC) decision to the next administration, after reports in June that the announcement of a JSF buy was imminent. “Harper was poised to pull the trigger,” one industry source suggests, “but he backed away” following negative public and media reaction. An F-35 buy could have been portrayed as an attempt to foreclose options before the election, and a decision to conduct a competition would be seen as a capitulation, the source suggests. The latest announcement indicates intent to maintain RCAF strength without rushing the NGFC choice.

The move is not a complete surprise. Lockheed Martin says it is “not news” and that planned Canadian JSF deliveries extend through 2025. (The schedule spanned 2017-22, based on late-2011 plans.) However, there are no programs under contract that support Hornet operations beyond 2020: L-3’s Military Aircraft Systems unit, which supports the Hornet airframe and systems for Canada, had no comment, and Canada’s Department of National Defense (DND) also declined to respond.

aviationweek.com...




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank God.

We DO NOT need these at all.

Even our generals said we didn't need them.

damn shame.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

They also don't need to be pushing the Hornet until 2025. There are very few aircraft that fit the Canadian requirements, which IMO are outdated to begin with.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tothetenthpower

They also don't need to be pushing the Hornet until 2025. There are very few aircraft that fit the Canadian requirements, which IMO are outdated to begin with.


Should have kept the Sea Kings IMO.



Just kidding obviously.

I'm so upset with Canada and it's military in general I want to puke most days.

But I'm glad about this decision, hopefully they'll forgo a purchase all together.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

They can't afford to. The odds of requiring them are slim, but they're the first line of defense for NORAD and North America. Even if they don't ever leave Canadian airspace, having them there is too important to not buy something to replace the Hornets.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tothetenthpower

They can't afford to. The odds of requiring them are slim, but they're the first line of defense for NORAD and North America. Even if they don't ever leave Canadian airspace, having them there is too important to not buy something to replace the Hornets.


Than somebody else should pay for them.

I'm just tired of needless military spending, based on cold war fears that will probably NEVER come to pass. I get being prepared and all, but I'm not worried of our closest neighbors like Russia, crossing the artic to invade.

ETA: Obviously you know more than I do though on the subject. I'm probably totally wrong lol

~Tenth
edit on 10/8/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Even if they're never used, until we stop fighting for resources, including the arctic, there will always be a need for military spending. It can be cut back, but it won't ever go away. I'd love to be able to stop spending billions on a military, but contrary to some opinions (not saying yours), getting rid of the military won't suddenly make everyone get along.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'd be surprised, even with the centre barrel replacement, that the current CF-18 FLEI would allow for our remaining fleet to serve until 2025 without additional restrictions on their employment.

They already weren't to use a centreline tank unless specifically authorized due to the additional reduction in FLEI it caused.

It is rather odd that one of the reasons the CF-18 was chosen over the F-16, that its two engines provided a greater margin of safety for operations in the Arctic, has had no bearing on the choice of the JSF.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Yep but think of the fact that we are blowing away the worlds resources by fighting over them,,,,,
Its a no win situation.....the winner will get damn little left overs....
Meanwhile the JSF still seems to me a multirole failure in most departments.....well have to await their deployment to get a real pictues of their comparative capabilities.....
We should have kept the Avro ARROW AND TOLD THE usa TO KISS OFF WITH THEIR OVERBEARING INTERFERANCE IN OUR AFFAIRS....(WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING MORE OF....)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: erwalker

That's one of the requirements that IMO is outdated. Engines have become so good at this point that a single engine aircraft is just as reliable as a two engine aircraft. In the last few years very very few single engine aircraft have been lost due to engine failure, including extended overwater operations.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I bet they're saving up for Iran's Stealth Fighter, the Qaher-313 ('Conqueror').

Iran’s cutting-edge Fighter a hoax, critics claim
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I still don't think I would want to be the pilot flying the aircraft that has an engine at the bottom end of the mean time between failures.

My only real objection to the JSF purchase is the lack of any real competition in the procurement process. If it is the best choice, it would win such a competition.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: erwalker

I agree that there should be a competition, but they shouldn't automatically rule out single engine aircraft. A number of countries operate them in bad areas, with no problems at all.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
It shouldn't rule a plane out but it should be considered.

I do know that we were making plans for the training of techs on JSF systems, including the divvying up of those systems between the trades, back in 2010-2011. Two of the guys I worked with were tasked with that very job.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
It's a political move. The Conservatives want these jets, Canadians don't. They'll put this off until the election next year. It's not looking too good for the Conservatives to win the next election though and this could permanently be in the pan.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: erwalker

Of course it should be considered, but it's like the argument about four engines or two on a commercial plane. I know people that still refuse to fly on a twin commercial flight, because they say it's not as safe as a four engine plane. Engine technology has advanced to the point where even single engine commercial aircraft would theoretically be possible. I understand the logic behind it, but the reality of it is completely different.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

It's pure politics. It's disgusting how political any sort of military procurement has become. The conservatives will lose, and they'll end up having a competition, and they'll end up with either Super Hornets, or Typhoons. Although my money is on the SH, as they're similar to the Hornets they currently operate.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Maybe an interim airplane could fill the bill...like the Scorpion until a suitable fighter can be had.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
considering the entire population of Canada is millions less than the state of California, I don't see a problem with this.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
considering the entire population of Canada is millions less than the state of California, I don't see a problem with this.


And 26% of it is around Toronto. We've got LOTS of open space.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join