CF-188 Hornet, Canada's jet fighter

[jmt18325]

We are in 2016 (because, last year according to our PM, we were in 2015). 2022 is in only six years. To those of us with a bit of living under our belt, it's a blink of an eye. (don't think so? My sons were just born yesterday, or so it seems, and now they are off to university !!!).

If Canada was to permanently forward deploy an air group of some description in support of Eastern Europe NATO countries, just planning the required installation , making them available, moving every thing over and making the facility operational would likely take two to four years. That means within two or three years of the facility being operational, the F-35 would be available.

In the meantime, the current CF-18's would be up to the job. The SH, however, would not be capable of facing the threat likely to exist 15 or 20 years from now - but the F-35 would.

As the USN will still be flying the Super Hornet in 2040, I sincerely doubt they'll let them become obsolete in that timeframe.

Either aircraft will serve us well.  That has always been my position.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I new someone was going to bring up how current F35 pilots are flying by themselves, and also that simulation is available. Those currently flying the F35 are high hour fully trained pilots on other fighters who also used the F35 simulator to practice before flying the jet. These are NOT brand new entry level just out of basic fighter pilot training. If I am wrong please provide information other wise.

The question of whether the F35 should have dual Cockpit for student training purpose was objected to by the manufacturer. They insisted that simulation would cover the skills needed to fly the F35. Quietly mentioned that other fighter experience would supplement the training process.


Actually it was objected to by the Air Force,

Its funny because the US will never be a one model Jet only force. they will always have a couple of different front line platforms, along with a few models of lead in prop and jet trainers for their pilots. One nice thing about their Talon training aircraft is they have been able to modify their flight system to simulate flying other aircraft. Which helps with training and cuts down on cost of flying front line aircraft.

Unless Canada is going to soley rely on simulation to flight qualify our New Jet Pilots, I think we also need to maintain a small fleet of twin seat advanced Jets.

No one is expecting a Brand new Pilot to fly a F35 straight out of Pilot training school, nor are they expecting a junior pilot to be able to fly and utilize the F35 and its capabilities. The F35 is a advanced jet. Such requires more then entry level Pilots to effectively fly and operate it.

One big question for many smaller countries who maintain small fleets and want a sole platform to supply their fighter needs, is training. Cost of training new pilots on a expensive platform.
Be as it will, times are changing and simulators are being used to train every pilot, but the gaps for simulation and real life are noticeable but not talked about. The consequences of real verses simulation are even more so.

The question is, if we go to the F35 as a sole replacement for the CF18, will training on the HAWK be sufficent with F35 simulator training to provide the skill level to fly the F35 with out instructor pilot help in the back seat.
Or will we be scrambling at the last minute to buy a fleet of two seat model advanced jets to provide a lead in training fleet after there is no money. Or will we have to rely on the US for entry level advanced fighter jet training, or will we have a high loss of aircraft due to pilot error due to lack of training.

There are few pilots currently in the pipeline who are "new pilots." A significant proportion of USAF F-22 pilots have only flown that specific type as well.  (edit I see mick has made a comment on that).

The false premise your argument rests on is that a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. That's just not true anymore. With the advent of fly by wire in the 70s and 80s, then full digital control systems being fitted in the 1990s autopilot systems basically decrease the pilot's workload and skill requirements. Back with the F-4, 104 or CF-5: you would need to spend 90% of your focus on flying, and 10% on operational "stuff", like looking at the radar, manipulating sensors ect. With 4th gen aircraft its probably reversed: 90% of the time on operational stuff and 10% on flying the aircraft.

A couple of years ago I sat in a Eurofighter simulator (a full one, not a sales one): I'm not a military pilot, but flying it and landing it was very easy. Super Hornets now have JPALS which basically can take over from the pilot on the most difficult part of their job: carrier landings. So the "aviating" (pilot skills) part of the work is becoming easier... but that's really only part of the story.

The real advantage of aircraft like F-35 and F-22s over the previous generations is the sensor fusions system, and that is radically changing pilots' interaction with their aircraft, and the training required. Good2Golf has put some great posts up in the JSF thread, and I've discussed it a little bit.

Aircraft of the CF-18 and the F/A-18E ilk require a specific set of skills to operate effectively.  Perhaps the best way to describe it is that their pilots are sensor managers: they need time and  to manipulate the window out into the world to get the information they need and develop situational awareness. This takes years to develop: an F-22 pilot I was recently discussing suggested it took him nine years to become truly proficient in his role on the F-15/16. With the F-35 all of that is gone. the aircraft does a lot of that sensor manipulation and underlying analysis for you. This is mundane stuff, but because the aircraft is generating so much data (perhaps upwards of a terabyte every 5 minutes) its overwhelming for a pilot to do. So the Avionics does that for you. That same F-22 pilot suggests it takes six months on an aircraft like the F-35 for a pilot to become truly proficient. Rather than having to develop the ability to gain situational awareness, you go straight to learning how to use it and apply it effectively.

He and others have said that coming from a 4th gen aircraft to a 5th gen is more difficult than having a clean sheet experience. Those old habits you gain from being a sensor manipulator does you a disservice when the avionics does that job for you. Watch this video on it to see an actual operator's experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

A lot of that training can be done in a synthetic training environment, which does not require an aircraft to do. It may also be operationally prudent: with the F-35 you might not want to be training with these systems as their capabilities are revealed in public.


To directly answer your question, yes we will need an advanced trainer to provide fighter lead in training, and no, it probably shouldn't be the hawk. You should note that we will need to replace the hawks in  the next decade, and a number of aircraft are positioned to fit into this role. You have configurable cockpits that can made to resemble the fighter they are replacing. In the case of the F-35 vs F/A-18E, they can take a significant portion of the flight hours away from the F-35, and replace the need for a twin seater completely. Oh as a correction: it was the USAF that killed the need for a twin seater F-22, which was seen as redundant and replacable with a different aircraft lead in. They decided to go down that path with the F-35 as well, and use T-X to be the lead-in training aircraft.


If you're really interested in this topic there are two articles in the Canadian Military Journal that goes over it well. The first is by David Wheeler who discusses the proposed next gen fighter training program (just insert F-35 into any references to next gen aircraft.) I think that answers your question about how a training process without a twin seater will look like.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol13/no2/doc/ViewsAndOpinions-Wheeler-Pages6873-eng.pdf

The second one is by Richard Shimooka who looks at the problems with the original CF-18 procurement that relate to training and flight safety, and how they should be avoided for future programs

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no4/page30-eng.asp

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As the USN will still be flying the Super Hornet in 2040, I sincerely doubt they'll let them become obsolete in that timeframe.

Either aircraft will serve us well.  That has always been my position.

Don't know where you get your information jmt18325, nor from your profile do I get any sense of any experience or knowledge base from which you draw on to comment.

The USN has begin a SLEP program for the Rhinos so they can remain in service up to 2035 (ref: Janes International Defence: http://www.janes.com/article/57646/us-navy-plans-slep-for-super-hornet-fleet )That does not mean they will operate every single one of their Rhinos until then - that means that by 2035, the last of the Rhinos will finally be  entirely replaced by ... well likely the F-35C.

Basically, it means that they will start replacing their rhinos with F-35C after IOC is completed in two years from now, and complete the gradual replacement 17 years later. That, BTW, is normal procedure for the USN. By the time the last Crusaders were retired, they were well past their best before date; same for the Tomcats. 

 

[jmt18325]

It's not really about what I have experience in, but from quotes directly from senior people in the USN:

[link removed as it is in contravention to site policy  dealing with that journalist.]

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin-only/us-navy-could-fly-super-hornets-beyond-2040-rear-admiral-says

Unless you're saying you know more?

 

[HB_Pencil]

As the USN will still be flying the Super Hornet in 2040, I sincerely doubt they'll let them become obsolete in that timeframe.

Either aircraft will serve us well.  That has always been my position.

Unfortunately this is incorrect. Its not a question of "obsolete" as in the F/A-18E is now starting the process to become being increasingly relegated to secondary roles. DOD has already stated the aircraft is vulnerable in a range of scenarios. The future CONOPS that is being developed under the cooperative engagement capability has the F/A-18E will basically  as a spear carrier, for aircraft like the F-35.


This future is already evident in Syria, where the F-22, using a very limited version of Sensor Fusion, that can't trasmit information to other aircraft is basically managing the battlespace for them through voicecoms.

https://theaviationist.com/2015/08/15/f-22-kinetic-situational-awareness/

This means that if you're flying a 4th gen fighter, like the Super Hornet, you're increasingly going to be under the control of a 5th gen aircraft with sensor fusion.Why would it be any way else? You have a much more limited information window to base your decisions on; you'd clearly want the aircraft that actually has the superior situational awareness to make the correct decision. 

So this reality is not the far future: its already happening. And even with the limits of the system in the F-22, pilots are witnessing the vast potential in such a capability. That's part of the reason why the USN started accelerating their buys of F-35 this year, adding I believe over a dozen aircraft over the next five years to their current buy: they finally understand the vast potential of this system and are attempting to play catch up with the USAF and Marine Corps.

See, at least the USN has the F-35, so they are fine. Purchasing the F/A-18E will come to the serious detriment of our air force, and its ability to conduct future tasks, like defending our sovereignty in the approaches to our country.

 

[jmt18325]

The missions that the thr F-18 has been tasked with to date would seem to be capably handled by any of the possible purchases we could make.  How many old F-18s have been lost in combat?

 

[jmt18325]

I also can't help but wonder how all of the coalition aircraft over Iraq, including the aircraft flying off of the US carrier offshore, and the aircraft doing reconnaissance, fit into the theory that the F-22 is running things.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

F-22 had SFA to do with ISR taskings.

 

[jmt18325]

F-22 had SFA to do with ISR taskings.

Very vulnerable ISR platforms.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Depends on what you mean by vulnerable.  ;D

 

[PuckChaser]

Until the F-35 is combat ready in 2022 I'd say that isn't the case.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0XA2U7

U.S. Air Force says combat-ready F-35 fighter jets on track for 2016
WASHINGTON | By Andrea Shalal

The U.S. Air Force said on Wednesday said it still expected to declare an initial squadron of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets ready for combat between August and December, despite delays in the jets' computer-based logistics system.

That's like, 6 years earlier than 2022. Denmark IOC will be 2021 for their F-35s, deliveries from 2021-2027 as they aren't against a brick wall for F-16 replacement. We could very likely be on that same timeline, with a frontloaded IOC to reduce strain on the CF-188 (cannibalize for parts).

 

[childs56]

How about we buy 40 present day operational jets to full fill our present day operations. 20 in Cold Lake and 20 in Bagotville.
Then we can use those jets to deploy on any near future missions. Keep our lower hour jets we have now for training and Local commitments.

Then we can buy 100 next generation fighters.bring our total up to 140 good fighters that can serve us well into 2030 even 40. By then a new and better aircraft will be out and we can look at buying it.

After reading a few articles it seems maybe even the US is not fully sold on their stealth fighters. Understanding that stealth is not completely invisable. Also understanding that the F22 and F35 operate as a combined electronic suite, as all aircraft do when working in the group. The F22 and F35 do it well. It is still up for debate if they do it better then other gen 4 platforms. The pilot interface is one of the strongest benefits of the 5th gen jets. Why can they not install a system of integration with the 4th gens?

There are other missions where a 5th gen is not needed, and then a few where they are. Until you can show me the full need for a stealth fighter in to days conflicts I will remain skeptical that we require a large fleet. As we continue to go on, this stealth is 20 or more years old. With everything old is new we may see some simple solutions to identifying the weakness in the stealth and or being able to target and track.

Another issue right now is the time line for a fighter replacement for our current fleet. How soon can we take delivery of a fighter ready to go and be able to gain enough airframes to be a credible force with the new jet?

I think when the Liberals initially signed onto the F35 program it was more as a program to keep the ongoing research and development of next gen capability, as opposed to actually purchasing the jets. Some how it went from the intent to buy, to buying, with the contract singed and done not much that the Conservatives could have done. Only to have the same people who singed the original purchase threaten to cancel it at a huge loss. Sounds like the EH101, deal all over again.

To throw something out for just purely discussions, Canada has expressed an intent to deploy Fighters to Africa over the pat couple of years. One of the biggest obstacles to doing this is where to base or Fleet for security. Can it possibly be in the books for us to deploy Jets to Africa using a Aircraft Carrier, can this be one reason for the purchase of the Super Hornet? Just one possible reason for the IOR for the new Fighters.

 

[DonaldMcL]

There are other missions where a 5th gen is not needed, and then a few where they are. Until you can show me the full need for a stealth fighter in to days conflicts I will remain skeptical that we require a large fleet. As we continue to go on, this stealth is 20 or more years old. With everything old is new we may see some simple solutions to identifying the weakness in the stealth and or being able to target and track.

That's the beauty of the F35 though. Stealth is a "freebie", It costs nothing. Why wouldnt you want it?
Yes, there's missions where the a 5th gen isnt required... that's the beauty of the F35. Slap on some hardpoints and carry more weapons. Why wouldn't you want that?

The physics behind stealth have been around since the invention of RADAR, and are bound by the laws of physics themselves. Nothing is going to change on that front, there's not going to be some magic technology that comes out that makes stealth useless.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just sharing this here to allow folks with more background than I do to pick apart (or not) The Canadian Press's assessment ...

... is Sajjan's statement accurate? Is the procurement debacle surrounding the CF-18s on the verge of rendering the Royal Canadian Air Force incapable of fulfilling its mandate?

(...)

This one earns a rating of some baloney — the statement is partly accurate but important details are missing.

( ... )

The Air Force commander himself told the committee there's time.

"I'm confident that if a decision were taken, certainly in the next five years, we'll be in a comfortable position changing that aircraft," Hood said.

For that reason, Sajjan's statement earns a ranking of some baloney: the statement is partly accurate but important details are missing.

Have at 'er ...

 

[Edward Campbell]

How about we buy 40 present day operational jets to full fill our present day operations. 20 in Cold Lake and 20 in Bagotville.
Then we can use those jets to deploy on any near future missions. Keep our lower hour jets we have now for training and Local commitments.

Then we can buy 100 next generation fighters.bring our total up to 140 good fighters that can serve us well into 2030 even 40. By then a new and better aircraft will be out and we can look at buying it.

After reading a few articles it seems maybe even the US is not fully sold on their stealth fighters. Understanding that stealth is not completely invisable. Also understanding that the F22 and F35 operate as a combined electronic suite, as all aircraft do when working in the group. The F22 and F35 do it well. It is still up for debate if they do it better then other gen 4 platforms. The pilot interface is one of the strongest benefits of the 5th gen jets. Why can they not install a system of integration with the 4th gens?

There are other missions where a 5th gen is not needed, and then a few where they are. Until you can show me the full need for a stealth fighter in to days conflicts I will remain skeptical that we require a large fleet. As we continue to go on, this stealth is 20 or more years old. With everything old is new we may see some simple solutions to identifying the weakness in the stealth and or being able to target and track.

Another issue right now is the time line for a fighter replacement for our current fleet. How soon can we take delivery of a fighter ready to go and be able to gain enough airframes to be a credible force with the new jet?

I think when the Liberals initially signed onto the F35 program it was more as a program to keep the ongoing research and development of next gen capability, as opposed to actually purchasing the jets. Some how it went from the intent to buy, to buying, with the contract singed and done not much that the Conservatives could have done. Only to have the same people who singed the original purchase threaten to cancel it at a huge loss. Sounds like the EH101, deal all over again.

To throw something out for just purely discussions, Canada has expressed an intent to deploy Fighters to Africa over the pat couple of years. One of the biggest obstacles to doing this is where to base or Fleet for security. Can it possibly be in the books for us to deploy Jets to Africa using a Aircraft Carrier, can this be one reason for the purchase of the Super Hornet? Just one possible reason for the IOR for the new Fighters.

I actually like your ideas ... I see only two problems:

   

                                        and

             

Politicians on the treasury benches just want this whole fiasco to go away; and

Officials, especially in Finance and the Treasury Board, who are natural conservatives regard all defence spending as wasteful, or, at least, unproductive and they want as little of it as possible.

There's a third, smaller problem: why 140? Given the performance envelopes of the newer fighters can we not, as we have since circa 1940, do more with less?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone done any simulations of the contenders against the likely 2020-2035 threats?

I assume that classified information about the contenders has played a role in recent contests from which it is interesting to note that the F-35 has been the dominant competitor.

Candidly I would be much more comfortable fielding a smaller fleet of F-35's with some type of long endurance armed UAV for low intensity conflict than a larger fleet of F-18e, Gripen or Eurofighters if those are deemed to be "less capable" against Su-30 class, J-20 class, PAK-FA class fighters as well as S-400 class SAM threats.

Has anyone seen any assessments they can share?  Or provide summaries thereof?

Cheers, Matthew.

 

[PuckChaser]

Gen 5 isn't all about stealth. It's about sensor fusion, data sharing, and computer power that can fly the jet while the pilot makes complex decisions about the situation on the ground and air and weapons employment. You can find stealth characteristics on any aircraft. F-35 is the only one that provides sensor fusion at that level.

 

[Kirkhill]

I actually like your ideas ... I see only two problems:

   

                                        and

             

Politicians on the treasury benches just want this whole fiasco to go away; and

Officials, especially in Finance and the Treasury Board, who are natural conservatives regard all defence spending as wasteful, or, at least, unproductive and they want as little of it as possible.

There's a third, smaller problem: why 140? Given the performance envelopes of the newer fighters can we not, as we have since circa 1940, do more with less?

Further to ERC's commentary:

In the fall of 1868 Georges-Étienne Cartier and William MacDougall were delegated to London to negotiate defence matters. They had many requests with a view to improving the status of the military in Canada, at England's expense. But in Great Britain the new Liberal government of William Gladstone had other priorities, and it announced that within two years British troops would be withdrawn from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only the major naval bases would maintain a garrison, which meant that all troops except those stationed at Halifax would be evacuated from Canada.

Caught by surprise, the Canadian delegates did not believe the decision, thinking it a political manoeuvre. Negotiations degenerated to the point where Canada even refused to pay an invoice of $4,000 for the repair of weapons damaged by Canadian volunteers - weapons that had come from British army stores. British taxpayers, over a period of six years, had armed the Canadian volunteers with 40,000 rifled Enfields and 30,000 Snider-Enfields,...

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/page-495-eng.asp

From 1755 to 1871 the country, governed in turn by the French, the British and the Canadians, was under almost constant threat of real or apprehended invasion. But when all the battles, troop deployments and ship movements, and all the construction and military exploration, were over, Canada was considerably larger, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Indeed British Columbia had become a Canadian province on July 20, 1871, which marked a Canadian version of Manifest Destiny. It may have been less turbulent than the Manifest Destiny of its neighbours to the south, but it was not necessarily any less successful.

After all these wars and fears of invasion, all Canadians, no matter where their ancestors may have come from, were tired of armed conflict. Since it had become clear that there would be no war with the United States, the Canadian government no longer showed an interest in military problems. It slashed the army's budget and left its management to a few Anglophile officers....

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/page-508-eng.asp

The Beginning.  The End.

 

[WingsofFury]

Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone done any simulations of the contenders against the likely 2020-2035 threats?

Has anyone seen any assessments they can share?  Or provide summaries thereof?

Cheers, Matthew.

I'm quite sure that classified briefings would have been given to any country who was interested in purchasing any one of the contenders.  One will never know the true technical aspects of an enemies defensive or offensive capabilities unless they were to have it fed to them through counterintelligence means.

There are times when certain air frames have taken part in say EX Red Flags out of Nellis or Alaska and whether there were any 1v1 scenarios done during those time would provide some feedback to Allied forces.  I do recall a time when German Typhoon pilots did some 1v1 scenarios against Raptors...

 

[AlexanderM]

I'm wondering, why can't the wing pylons on the Super Hornet be redesigned, sounds like the drag is just brutal?