CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Kirkhill]

Its not even dual engine, which is the main drum beat by anti-F-35 people.

The Gripen doesn't need the extra engine for its primary mission - defence of Sweden.  The highways are designed as alternate landing fields.

https://youtu.be/5Y-nMTahziY

 

[Altair]

Please tell me how the Grippen, in terms of capabilities, would compare to our current fleet of Hornet.

hey, I'm no sme,  but that said, and in all fairness, why compare the jas Gripen to our cf 18s? The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to its potential competition.

Its not even dual engine, which is the main drum beat by anti-F-35 people.

haven't heard of it having any engine issues.

That and it can land on very short airstrip,  or highways in a pinch should something happen.

 

[SupersonicMax]

hey, I'm no sme,  but that said, and in all fairness, why compare the jas Gripen to our cf 18s? The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to the cf 18.

I was trying to make it easy for you.  But if you insist, how does it compare to the JSF?

 

[tomahawk6]

Here is the article I read on this topic today.I should have included it in my original post.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/canada-looks-to-delay-tricky-f-35-decision-by-buying-super-hornets/

 

[Kirkhill]

hey, I'm no sme,  but that said, and in all fairness, why compare the jas Gripen to our cf 18s? The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to its potential competition.
haven't heard of it having any engine issues.

That and it can land on very short airstrip,  or highways in a pinch should something happen.

Altair:

70% of Canada has no roads - at all -  and that moves vanishingly close to 100% north of latitude 55.

 

[PuckChaser]

The jas Gripen is not in any competition with the cf 18. The cf 18 has to be replaced, it makes more sense to compare the jas Gripen to its potential competition.

Max takeoff weight is less than half a Hornet/Super Hornet = less bombs/missiles. It also has a shorter range, and only a marginal speed increase and the service ceiling is the same. The Super Hornet has a remarkably similar aircraft compared to the Hornet, which means its not an upgrade, its status quo. $9B for status quo is pissing money away.

 

[Altair]

I was trying to make it easy for you.  But if you insist, how does it compare to the JSF?

Thrust to weight, speed, has supercruise,  same amount of hard points, better wing loading, cost, low maintenance, Combat radius and ferry range. Admittedly about everything else about the F35 is better but is it worth the cost?

Effectively, canada could buy two Gripens for every f35 or the same amount as the f35 and use that extra savings for other things. Maybe uavs?!

 

[SupersonicMax]

Thrust to weight, speed, has supercruise,  same amount of hard points, better wing loading, cost, low maintenance, Combat radius and ferry range. Admittedly about everything else about the F35 is better but is it worth the cost?

Effectively, canada could buy two Gripens for every f35 or the same amount as the f35 and use that extra savings for other things. Maybe uavs?!

Sources?

Also, before making conclusions, you have to compare it to a given mission and mission representitative loadouts.  The Grippen numbers you quoted are optimistic for a clean aircraft.  You want weapons?  You need to strap them outside the aircraft. 

The JSF carries internally as much as we carry now with our Hornets.

Edit:  I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, you absolutely are. But if you are going to bring it in this discussion, make sure you substantiate it with credible data!

 

[childs56]

To buy anything off shore right now would be a logistics nightmare. Look at the Cormoronts. Parts issues here and even in Europe where they are made.
The Super Hornet is a viable option to increase our force projection until such time that a next generation fighter is available and operational. We already have L3/ Boeing here in Canada set up with full support and skills to move forward with a minimal delay implementation of the Super Hornet. Which is what Canada needs if we want to deploy Jets to far off lands.

I think we need to stay in the running for the F35, simply we have invested heavily in the technology up to this point, we need to be on the leading edge of defence research and sustainability for the future.
What we do not need right now is a another bunch of confusion as to what fighter we possibly need to fight some imaginary war in a far off place  10 to 20 years from now. We already did that and choose the F35. But due to delays in R&D, that air platform is a ways off if it even does make it off the ground and reach its full potential.  We need a viable solution for our force today to support our operations we may become involved in.

Buying off shore provides many parts supply and infrastructure issues. The purpose is to get a quick, reliable platform to full fill our needs until such time as the next Gen fighter gets air worthy and hits the mass production line. Until then we need to keep costs down and infrastructure change low.
We need a interm solution that is quick and easy to get and train on. Then get in the air. to me that's the Super Hornet.

 

[FSTO]

FSTO: Rick Anderson very off-base: only two JSF competitors (Boeing X-32 the loser) and only US and UK involved in deciding the competion:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

Sad how otherwise bright Canadians know so little about defence and care so little, politics aside.

Rant off.

Mark
Ottawa

Thanks for the correction.

I watched the MP's talk and it was truly disheartening to listen to them trying to defend their positions with so much ignorance.

 

[Altair]

Sources?

Also, before making conclusions, you have to compare it to a given mission and mission representitative loadouts.  The Grippen numbers you quoted are optimistic for a clean aircraft.  You want weapons?  You need to strap them outside the aircraft. 

The JSF carries internally as much as we carry now with our Hornets.

Edit:  I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, you absolutely are. But if you are going to bring it in this discussion, make sure you substantiate it with credible data!

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/p/lockheed-martin-f-35a-lightning-ii-saab.html?m=1

You might know better than this guy, I've seen small variations on some points but this seems correct to me. Unless you know something different?

 

[YZT580]

If the SH is an interim a/c how many are they going to buy?  6, 12, 18? Although it will fit in the same hangar as our current fleet, that is really about all the two a/c will have in common. A full range of parts will be required.  Maintenance crew training to support two types of aircraft doubles the cost and complexity of training.  Do you position one squadron at each base or convert one base to the SH?  Staging overseas would become a logistical nightmare.  Which set of spares do you dispatch?  If you only have 12 aircraft you are very limited when it comes to rotation.  If you have more than you are tentatively reducing the number of eventual replacement aircraft when the tender is finally put forward.  That increases individual costs and ensures that the costs of maintaining a duplicate fleet are continued into the next several decades. 

In short, if you want to buy SH, pay the penalty and buy at least 100 of them because Boeing will likely not be sustaining the production line into the 30's and you are going to need spares.  Buying an interim fleet is as much a waste of money as relying on solar power to sustain Alert through the winter months would be.  Otherwise, run a competition and let the best plane win.  With the re-build on the current F18's we have sufficient time to run it properly and procure whatever airframe is chosen. 

 

[jmt18325]

Max takeoff weight is less than half a Hornet/Super Hornet = less bombs/missiles. It also has a shorter range, and only a marginal speed increase and the service ceiling is the same. The Super Hornet has a remarkably similar aircraft compared to the Hornet, which means its not an upgrade, its status quo. $9B for status quo is pissing money away.

Except for range and radar.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yeah, weren't we supposed to buy the F-35 5 - 6 years ago?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-officially-scraps-f-35-purchase-as-audit-pegs-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Completely did not happen, not even close.

That all said, the previous goverment had 10 years, 4 of which were a majority so it's hard to pin all of this charlie foxtrot on the current goverment. Had the last one made any fighter jet a fait accompli we wouldn't be talking about this today.

See link in my above post. 

 

[MilEME09]

If the SH is an interim a/c how many are they going to buy?  6, 12, 18? Although it will fit in the same hangar as our current fleet, that is really about all the two a/c will have in common. A full range of parts will be required.  Maintenance crew training to support two types of aircraft doubles the cost and complexity of training.  Do you position one squadron at each base or convert one base to the SH?  Staging overseas would become a logistical nightmare.  Which set of spares do you dispatch?  If you only have 12 aircraft you are very limited when it comes to rotation.  If you have more than you are tentatively reducing the number of eventual replacement aircraft when the tender is finally put forward.  That increases individual costs and ensures that the costs of maintaining a duplicate fleet are continued into the next several decades. 

In short, if you want to buy SH, pay the penalty and buy at least 100 of them because Boeing will likely not be sustaining the production line into the 30's and you are going to need spares.  Buying an interim fleet is as much a waste of money as relying on solar power to sustain Alert through the winter months would be.  Otherwise, run a competition and let the best plane win.  With the re-build on the current F18's we have sufficient time to run it properly and procure whatever airframe is chosen.

I would take a guess of two squadrons worth plus some spares

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Except for range and radar.

For the Super Hornet supporters, from my, albeit very limited, experience flying the Super Hornet, it's no better than our Hornets in terms of systems: Same radar, worse targeting pod, same-ish EW, same weapons.  They have slightly better performance (slightly better acceleration, same turn performance, slightly better range/endurance) and can carry more weapons but I don't believe they would add anything to what we can currently do with our Hornets.  Buying Super Hornets would basically mean status quo in terms of capabilities...  Then again, maybe this is what our government is aiming for, but this hasn't really been defined yet.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I would take a guess of two squadrons worth plus some spares

Based on?

 

[MilEME09]

Based on?

Well if they were smart, 1 squadron to cover NORAD missions, and 1 for any NATO/expeditionary operations but thats my 2 cents of what I would do

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well if they were smart, 1 squadron to cover NORAD missions, and 1 for any NATO/expeditionary operations but thats my 2 cents of what I would do

Maybe you can put forth some suggestions to the other RCAF fleets/communities as well, on how to do air ops  'if they were smart'.  I'm sure it's covered extensively in Res Svc Bn's.

Going to be a little challenging to get folks qual'd at the OTU if you put all your airframes into 2 line sqn's.