CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[Lumber]

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. 

How about 2 sqns, 1 line sqn and 1 OTU?

Better yet, how about 0 sqns, and we just count our losses (and they are only political losses, anyways) and buy the damn Lightings.

 

[SupersonicMax]

In all fairness, I fly SHs with the APG-73 but most SHs have the 79 (AESA) but I doubt we'd buy anything non-AESA.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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. 

Not if you outsource aircrew trg on type to the USN, entirely. I cannot see us affording an SH OTU, for an "interim" capability.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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

That makes zero sense geographically.  You need a minimum of two squadrons for NORAD so you can cover CE and CW.

The Air Force is always operational, unlike the Army.  Right now they have four operational fighter squadrons and one training squadron. 

Two are in Bagotville and Three are in Cold Lake.  Both operational squadrons on each respective base provide assets to the NORAD mission. 

Perhaps a fighter jock can explain why the RCAF decided to reactivate two squadrons?

 

[Altair]

See link in my above post.

Ya,  like I said, they could have just bought the damn things, they played hot potato instead, talked about a reset while seeing if any other jet could meet Canada's needs, didn't talk about the F35 again.

So here we are today, about to commit to the only other north American plane, the Super Hornet. In my opinion,  it's a bipartisan FUp

 

[Cloud Cover]

Are they talking about the E/F model or the Advanced Super Hornet?
If this discussion was about enhancing the RCAF capability on a interim basis, is this not what Australia did? Note the Singh was recently in Australia following which he claimed the mythical forthcoming capability gap.

 

[Quirky]

Perhaps a fighter jock can explain why the RCAF decided to reactivate two squadrons?

More officer positions.  ;D

Are they talking about the E/F model or the Advanced Super Hornet?

Sounds to me like the E/F model. However are they going to bother with a training squadron, if not, why bother with a two-seater? Oh yeah, incentive rides to Peter Mansbridge.  :

This sounds like a completely idiotic idea, you'll have to build up a supply network of parts and equipment, training facilities and mainteneance crews, which we are short on with the current hornet anyway, just for an interm solution.  :facepalm:

 

[MARS]

Ya,  like I said, they could have just bought the damn things, they played hot potato instead, talked about a reset while seeing if any other jet could meet Canada's needs, didn't talk about the F35 again.

So here we are today, about to commit to the only other north American plane, the Super Hornet. In my opinion,  it's a bipartisan FUp

I agree, to a point, but I think the politicians were and are simply responding to the fickle will of the populace.  The constituency that actually cares about a new fighter aircraft is tiny and doesn't affect the outcome of any electoral contest.  Plus, most Canadians despise any and all things American, and the F35 and it's associated costs have become a symbol of anti-American sentiment.  And politicians being politicians are of course highly responsive to their voting base.

I put this Fup solely on the backs of a willfully ignorant citizenry.  We the public will get the aircraft we deserve.

 

[jmt18325]

Our hornets have AESA?

 

[jmt18325]

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

They had a majority government.  They punted in the name of political expedience.

 

[AlexanderM]

Our hornets have AESA?

I could be wrong but I believe the answer is, nope.

 

[Underway]

Article looking at how the Danes came to their fighter purchase decision.  I found it relatively illuminating what can happen when a country gets all party support for something.  Though their decision to make the F-35 cheaper has more to do with less airframes.  Last I checked we needed a specific number.

 

[MilEME09]

That makes zero sense geographically.  You need a minimum of two squadrons for NORAD so you can cover CE and CW.

The Air Force is always operational, unlike the Army.  Right now they have four operational fighter squadrons and one training squadron. 

Two are in Bagotville and Three are in Cold Lake.  Both operational squadrons on each respective base provide assets to the NORAD mission. 

Perhaps a fighter jock can explain why the RCAF decided to reactivate two squadrons?

I am making the assumption however if we bought super hornets, we would not retire all of our CF-188's

 

[jmt18325]

I could be wrong but I believe the answer is, nope.

So then it's likely that the Super Hornet would be a substantial update in that department.  It also has stealth features and a kind of sensor fusion, as well as substantially improved avionics.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This pilot does what appears to be a good job of what the difference is between the SH & F/A-18
https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/

 

[AlexanderM]

This pilot does what appears to be a good job of what the difference is between the SH & F/A-18
https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fighter-pilot-hornet-vs-super-hornet/

I find it puzzling that he makes such an issue of how much more fuel the SH carries over the Hornet, yet some say that the SH only has a slightly greater range and on Wiki they are listed as having an almost identical range. I certainly hope we get the conformal tanks and for that matter the most advanced model available.

 

[GAP]

Good Article...

 

[MilEME09]

I find it puzzling that he makes such an issue of how much more fuel the SH carries over the Hornet, yet some say that the SH only has a slightly greater range and on Wiki they are listed as having an almost identical range. I certainly hope we get the conformal tanks and for that matter the most advanced model available.

Well the most advanced model is the Advanced super Hornet concept that was tested awhile back, some interesting features, and the 50% reduced radar cross section over the SH isn't bad either

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Our hornets have AESA?

No. Under the latest upgrade program our Hornets were fitted with Raytheon's AN/APG-73 multi-mode radar which is an upgrade of the earlier AN/APG-65. Full details on the upgrades can be found here, courtesy of CASR.

 

[PuckChaser]

Well the most advanced model is the Advanced super Hornet concept that was tested awhile back, some interesting features, and the 50% reduced radar cross section over the SH isn't bad either

Has ASH even flown yet? Last I heard it was a collection of features in a PowerPoint that Boeing is trying to pass off as an operational aircraft.