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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Canadian government to immediately explore buying F-18E/F

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The Keystone Kops routine out of the Canadian government continues. Part of the platform of the current government was that they were not buying the F-35. The problem began that they can't eliminate the F-35 from the competition, which means that it has a shot at being selected anyway. So to prevent that from happening, they began looking at buying the F-18 Super Hornet as an "interim" measure, because it was "too risky" to continue flying the CF-18 fleet, because of their age (according to the Canadian Air Force, they're good until at least 2025).

Under the plan announced today, they will immediately begin looking at buying 18 F-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft to fill their capability gap. The fighter replacement competition will begin in 2017, and could take as long as five years, which conveniently puts it past the time that the current government will be in office, and allows them to keep their promise to not buy F-35s.

www.cbc.ca...




posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Might not be a bad idea. The cost of the F-35 might be down by then and certainly a lot of the development issues will be fully addressed, as well. They could end up with both platforms, in the long run.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

18 Canadian SuperHornets to add to the Kuwait order is not a bad thing at all... for Boeing.

I think Canada looked at what was out there and grimaced, perhaps realizing the campaign promise was not terribly wise. Otherwise, they'd just go to bid now rather than this move.

Politicians. Oy.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
But....But I want F-35's



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Actually the Libs never said they were not buying the F35 but that they were going to hold a competition to find the best aircraft for the mission. The F35 was never off the table, it was a case of no bid contracts being unpalatable.

I'm not sure how compatible the Super Hornets logistics will be with the legacy airframes hopefully they are similar enough to streamline training and maintenance but it does fill the original RFP from the 80's specifically the range and twin engines. The F18 is more than capable for any scenario our forces would experience short of a full scale matched force conflict or serious high threat ground defence scenarios.

I was one of those who poo-pood the exorbitant F35 acquisition and the way the Cons jammed it down our throats. Maybe by the time the process is completed the costs/capabilities/compatibilities will be more aligned with our dwindling military budget.

However I still agree with the original RFP regarding a twin engine aircraft. We have a whole lot of nothing up north and a crippled single engine aircraft has a much higher chance of being splashed in inaccessible and inhospitable places than the venerable F18 while on interdiction and border patrol.

Just my less than informed 2c (that and I'm biased towards the CF18 'cause it is one gnarly bit of kit.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
My thoughts on many of these nations buying f-35's is what exactly requires them to need to have stealth interdiction? I mean what is it that the mighty Dutch Air Force going to be doing with this expensive parameter? Stealth bombing Belgium?
I am not a total wet blanket on the F35, it is good at what it does - but does that mean that many of these air forces need that sort of capability?
Super Hornet will suit Canada's needs just fine. If it is good enough to replace the F-14, then surely it is good enough for Canada's defense needs.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

It's far more than stealth. The F-35 has sensor fusion like you wouldn't believe. They're actually running into the problem of not being able to transmit all the data that they pull in, because they don't have an aircraft capable of receiving it fast enough. Everyone hears "stealth" and stops there, but there's so much more to it.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Kukri

Despite being similar airframes, the Rhino and the Bug don't have a huge amount of commonality. The Rhino is much larger, and has newer systems, which means new logistics and training for both the pilots and ground crews.

As for two engines vs one, that debate is way overblown. Single engine aircraft have been flying thousands of hours between refits without problems. They're far more likely to have a problem on takeoff or landing than they are during flight.


it was a case of no bid contracts being unpalatable.


Says the government that just announced a no-bid contract. Oh the hypocrisy.

edit on 11/22/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The Super makes a lot of sense for them IMHO:

Why operate a small costly fleet when the vast majority of NORAD (aka the US) has a fully operational 5th gen force already. The air frame is way to new to really have a true and remotely accurate life cycle cost available.

You can stand up a new squadron in a fraction of the time (I'm assuming they would have later F-35 production slots) and like the RAAF thier fighter pilots could make the transition faster from a CF-18 to an F-18E faster than the F-35

Canada while a participant in military action around the world has zero ability to project force beyond the range of their fixed wing air frames. They may be looking at the RAAF use in planning. (yes I do know they RAAF is getting the F-35) but they also followed this model.

As noted It allows the present government to keep its campaign promises and kicks the can down the road.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Force interconectivity is where they're eventually going to run into issues. The Rhino might be a good fit, but it eventually won't work well with the other forces they're going to work with. And if they're going to have a replacement competition, they're going to be looking at longer than 5 years with the financial situation their military is in. They're going to be stuck with the Rhino for most of its life cycle.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
OK, so even if the sensor fusion is a good deal, which it is, why does Canada need that? And why is it assumed that Boeing isn't working on a similar package? I have read here and there that the USAF has already put aside some of its funding to make the F-15 capable in dealing with the problem of sensor fusion now that the F35's are coming on line. My understanding is that the F-22 is having similar issues.

Back to Canada, I am betting if they do acquire F-35's it would be in limited numbers to accent their Super Hornet fleet.

Now I do remember a very long Australian website that just railed against Australia's Super Hornet purchases due to the main threat they face being much closer and armed with Su-27/30's etc. I need to find that because it did make sense. The odd thing was they found the F-111 type more suitable. Not too sure why. Anyway, it made a good argument against the F-18 in that regard. I am reasonably sure that Australia is still in on the F-35. For them it definitely makes sense due to their concerns. They need something that can tackle the Sukhoi's - something that gives them an advantage.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
We don't need no stinkin aircraft.......to make Boeing more war bucks....
We need to look at becoming an independent entity, and not part of something run by our next door neighbours.....
We need to reinvent our military services top to bottom.....to our own needs....not according to the needs of our southern ally....especially when that ally would happily carve up our country between it and a foreign invader, ala Poland 1939......

If theres one lesson to take from the Trump/ Hillary fiasco it is that the corruption runs right to the bottom., on both sides of the aisle.......and these allies of ours are become cannibals......they have achieved their world position totally by devouring the lives and economies of smaller , weaker nations......

We need Canadians back to work not our "Friends" to the south....who merely want our money and water and oil....not to mention our kids blood for their voracious war machine which maintains the power of the corruption ....
IMHO missile and drone tech superceeds the manned fighters and will replace them very soon.....

We should be concentrating on going there...............independently....


edit on 22-11-2016 by Snippythehorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Snippy, if there is any country on the planet that has the skillset within its population to make some badass airplane, it would be Canada.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Snippythehorse

So, throw away all the treaties, and end up with a defense budget forty or fifty times what it is now, minimum to build all the resources you'd need to go solo is what you want.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The F-18 has the ability to see what's going on around its neighborhood. The F-35 can see what's going on in the entire city, and out into the neighboring areas. That advantage is massive. Canada won't be operating alone, and will need to be able to interface with other forces. Having aircraft that can do that, without reducing their capabilities by adding external sources to do it, would, again, be beyond huge.

Boeing can't put that into a fourth generation aircraft. No one can. The power and cooling requirements for that kind of electronics are more than you can stick into an older aircraft, as is the computer requirement to blend it all together.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Right now, Canada would have a steep learning curve to get back to where they once were. They have a great history, and could be great again, but right now, their aerospace industry has been gutted and would need to relearn many things that have been lost since they were building fighters in the 60s and 70s.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

The F-18 has the ability to see what's going on around its neighborhood. The F-35 can see what's going on in the entire city, and out into the neighboring areas. That advantage is massive. Canada won't be operating alone, and will need to be able to interface with other forces. Having aircraft that can do that, without reducing their capabilities by adding external sources to do it, would, again, be beyond huge.

Boeing can't put that into a fourth generation aircraft. No one can. The power and cooling requirements for that kind of electronics are more than you can stick into an older aircraft, as is the computer requirement to blend it all together.



Can't? My understanding is that the Super Hornet has alot of room in it and it can take on conformal packs which I am not sure if the F-35 can (at this time).

If it is just power generation, then where is the F-18F getting all it's power from with the extra goodies it has in it (different set of goodies of course].



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

Right now, Canada would have a steep learning curve to get back to where they once were. They have a great history, and could be great again, but right now, their aerospace industry has been gutted and would need to relearn many things that have been lost since they were building fighters in the 60s and 70s.


I sort of agree with this, but no need to start a fight with a patriotic Canadian man!

:-)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

No aircraft has a lot of room in it. It's all designed to be tightly fit together. You have some extra room, but not a lot. Conformal tanks won't do anything but give you extra fuel and are added to the outside. The only connection into the aircraft are the fuel lines. They might be able to add extra systems to them, but they're going to be limited in what, due to power and size constraints. You can either have the fuel, or the systems.

But it's not just a matter of room. The F-35 has the most advanced operating system put into an aircraft to be able to blend all the information together into usable form. You would have to strip out the entire computer system on the F-18 and replace it, which would require a redesign. You'd have to add external sensors that it's not currently designed for, which would require a redesign. You'd need a new power generation system, which would require a redesign. You would have to almost completely redesign the F-18 to even get in the ballpark of what the F-35 already does.

Aircraft power generation systems are designed to give the power required, with a little extra. The bigger they are, the heavier they are, and aircraft are designed to be as light as possible. If you look at external payload pods, the ones that require power to operate all have an external power generation system on the front of them to provide the extra power that the aircraft systems can't generate.
edit on 11/22/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Great response. Do you work for Lockheed?

:-)

I still don't think the F-35 makes sense for Canada, or Holland, or Denmark. It just seems that their airforce brass is buying into capabilities they do not need and wasting their tax payers money. Norway is a tad more understandable.

Regardless, it is their money and they decide what to do with it.

I have a question since you are an obvious fan of the F-35, do you see the "copies" that Japan, China, and the UK are making as a threat to future F-35 sales? It is conceivable that Japan and the UK could make a banging electronics suite while also making the plane more maneuverable as we can all agree that the F-35 has a bit of a roadblock in that area. I am not so worried about China as it seems their engine issues are almost insurmountable.
edit on 22-11-2016 by Fools because: ...




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join