Canada cleared to buy the AIM-120D but there one small problem

Canada has requested and been granted a purchase of the latest AMRAAM the AIM-120D. The only issue is that their of the missiles legacy F-18 lack the radar range to take advantage of the missiles expanded range. As it stand now, it exceeds the range of its radar. Would have worked lovely on the F-18E's but that seems unlikely nor does it seem likely they would spend the money needed to upgrade the aging F-18's to a AESA radar. I was a bit shocked however that they are still flying with Sparrow missiles........

www.thedrive.com...

Still a much better pk and performance than the Sparrow envelope, even when handicapped by the radar-range. And the inventory can eventually be used by whatever their next-step fighter or interim-interceptor winds up being.

originally posted by: FredT
Canada has requested and been granted a purchase of the latest AMRAAM the AIM-120D. The only issue is that their of the missiles legacy F-18 lack the radar range to take advantage of the missiles expanded range. As it stand now, it exceeds the range of its radar. Would have worked lovely on the F-18E's but that seems unlikely nor does it seem likely they would spend the money needed to upgrade the aging F-18's to a AESA radar. I was a bit shocked however that they are still flying with Sparrow missiles........

www.thedrive.com...

Don't be shocked. IIRC, the F-18's predecessor in Canada was the CF-104 which was never missile capable and had no gun!!

Canada.....making UK defence procurement look like pro's.

Can you wire the missile seeker to the aircraft like a heatseeker missile does? Utilise that when its beyond its own radar range?

a reply to: Forensick

The active radar in the AIM-120D is very short range (in the 10s of KMs range iirc) compared to the radar on the aircraft, even with this less powerful radar.

What they're talking about is that the effective range of the missile in general (the profile of intercept, how long the rocket burns, etc.) is longer than the effective range of the aircraft's radar. That wastes a bit of range and begs the question why to upgrade from the C model.

But they probably want to update it to retain commonality with the US, be ready for their next bout of fighter procurement, and keep electronics on the cutting edge. Besides, the longer endurance of the rocket will lead to later burn-out and better PK

a reply to: Forensick

The AIM-120, like most radar guided missiles is semi active. It uses a datalink from the aircraft to get to within range of the target, then its own seeker takes over once it's within range.

- Just because the interim purchase of aircraft is not going ahead for now, doesn't mean that every aspect of the plan is going to pause.
- Even if a classic hornet cannot take full advantage of a 'D', enhanced kinematics and greater HOBS capability will still help at shorter distances.
- If Canada needs more A2A missiles then there may be little point buying a 'C'. A 'D' my not be much more expensive to procure and sustain than a 'C' anyway.
- Let's not forget that it is 'only' 32 missiles. I don't know the justification for these missiles but that's not a lot.
- I'm fairly sure the Hornet has NCTR (the F-15 with a mechanically scanned array does and was allowed to take BVR shots during the first Gulf War) and other aircraft with more powerful radars can do NCTR and send this data to the Hornet. I find this notion that Canada will likely to be WVR only to be nonsense, after all they already operate the 'C'.
- Can other aircraft provide coordinates for the missile in flight, with the Hornet merely becoming a missile truck? If so then this would reduce the need.

- I think the RAAF uses the AIM-120D on the Hornet, Super Hornet, and Growler, but I'm not sure if this is "can" or "does".

As to the last line of the article.

That's a question the RCAF will now have to answer.

Yeah, the RCAF doesn't answer to Tyler Rogoway.

Has Tyler written about the apparent farce that Canada's fighter procurement has become?

Hi,

Did the AIM120 engine problems get sorted?

RAB

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Don't be shocked. IIRC, the F-18's predecessor in Canada was the CF-104 which was never missile capable and had no gun!!

Ramming Speed though........

originally posted by: FredT
I was a bit shocked however that they are still flying with Sparrow missiles........

I don't know why. Our navy consists of canoes.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Don't be shocked. IIRC, the F-18's predecessor in Canada was the CF-104 which was never missile capable and had no gun!!

Ramming Speed though........

LMAO, yep.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Don't be shocked. IIRC, the F-18's predecessor in Canada was the CF-104 which was never missile capable and had no gun!!

The CF-104 was never intended to be assigned to the air defence role in Canadian service. The Vulcan cannon was later refitted as the type was re-rolled.

By January of 1972, the CF-104s had all been converted from their nuclear and reconnaissance roles to that of conventional ground attack. A 20-mm Vulcan cannon was installed, and the fairing was removed from the cannon port. Twin bomb ejector rack carriers and multi-tube rocket launchers were installed.

canadianstarfighterassociation.org...

CF-104 with Vulcan cannon re-installed.

www.airliners.net...

Intercepting and deterring Bears and other heavies coming over the top end..

a reply to: tommyjo

I believe it was circa '66 when I visited CFB Comox. The nukes were long gone. (There was a separate compound within that base with it's own barbed wired fence with U.S. forces defending the Bomarks (?) assigned to Canada).

So the departure of nuclear capacity was earlier than '66. Yes? Subsequent to that and retrofitting(?) with Vulcans or added to the Canadair CF-104s. (as you say '72) then no capability beyond recon for a number of years. Yes?

Beyond great airshow units a waste of money, typical idiocy that is apparently a tradition that carries on to this day with the F-35 waffling. "The pilots 'loved' the widow-maker? Yeah right.

The f-101s were probably better suited for the combat roles than the 104 ended up assigned.

JMO, though.

a reply to: nwtrucker

CF-104s were deployed to Europe, where they were on standby to be loaded with American nukes.

Still useless compared to our Arrow though.

a reply to: nwtrucker

As already posted the nukes were the dual key ones in Europe.

The B57 was also deployed with Canada's CF-104s in Germany

en.wikipedia.org...

American B28s also equipped six Europe-based Canadian CF-104 squadrons known as the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: nwtrucker

As already posted the nukes were the dual key ones in Europe.

The B57 was also deployed with Canada's CF-104s in Germany

en.wikipedia.org...

American B28s also equipped six Europe-based Canadian CF-104 squadrons known as the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force

en.wikipedia.org...

Hmm. Did the U.S. 'need' CF-104s for European defense? Not in the slightest.

The Nuke compound at CFB Comox was guarded by U.S.A.F. personnel....to keep the Canadians away from them. That's the reality of it.

IIRC, those nukes and the F-104 and the 'right' to build them is was what Canada received in return for the Avro Arrow technology...

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: FredT
I was a bit shocked however that they are still flying with Sparrow missiles........

I don't know why. Our navy consists of canoes.

Pretty sure we have plans to hand launch these. Some kind of large slingshot setup.