- Reaction score
- 1,718
- Points
- 1,140
There are plenty or arguments against the Super Hornet, maintenance is not one of them.
The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
Dimsum said:
As perhaps the most unqualified to comment person on this forum, perhaps this sends a signal that the salvation of the air force aircraft are being distributed across the fleet to enhance overall operational effectiveness. Or maybe not.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,608
- Points
- 1,260
NavyShooter said:
Warranty voids on wheels up.
Dimsum said:
I don't think setting up a training squadron just for the SH in house would be needed. Send the techs to the US to get their courses, much like the rest of the modern fleet (J model Herc, C17 etc) of maintainers are doing. Pilots would do their sim time and flights with the Navy. The transition would be relatively simple.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
SeaKingTacco said:
I would have thought this fighter stuff would be something you'd welcome with open arms. Takes the spotlight off the 110% cluster fuck your Cyclone project has been for....how long now? I don't see any fighter drivers on here saying they think this is the solution, they also probably realize at the end of the day, their opinion as SMEs on fighter stuff doesn't matter to the government.
- Reaction score
- 16,910
- Points
- 1,010
It does not amuse me when any military procurement program goes off the rails. For the record, the long delayed Cyclone program actually looks to be (more or less) on the rails, currently.
- Reaction score
- 16,910
- Points
- 1,010
FSTO said:
12 to 18 months from now is realistic, I think.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
SeaKingTacco said:
And I don't suspect any of use who are the 'users of the kit' are amused. I am sure the MH community isn't. Just like some of the 'things' the LRP community knows/lives with on the inside aren't amusing. I suspect SSM and the Fighter community is no different.
I don't see SSM advocating for the SH at all, just pointing out some facts/informed opinion on issues like Maint, etc.
Military aviation procurement is, normally, a gong show to those of us who know what we have, what else is out there, what system would be better for XYZ reasons. This, and other, governments, have also made it clear they don't particularly care about SME opinions. The LRP community was all but dead not long ago. The MH project, FWSAR, JUSTAS, fighter replacement - all indicative of a "we don't REALLY care" attitude that is based more around politics, "regional benefits" and all that stuff that, as a flyer, I could give 2 shits less about.
I don't suspect any of the operators in the RCAF feel all that differently, really. Lots of other countries are scooping up P-8s, F-35s, developing and already flying things like the NFH while we continue to 'make it work' and watch success governments kick cans down the street and point the finger at the other guys for kicking the can before they did...
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,788
- Points
- 1,210
just watched the West block and laughed as John McKay was a deer in the head lights and having to stick to the government line after he called the current situation in the airforce an emergency. He had no real answer when asked "So if it's an emergency why are you taking 5 years to replace them?"
Anyway, now we know more:
“The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and NATO commitments,” Hood told senators.
“I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren’t enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously,” he said.
----
“I’ve been told I will be given all the resources I need to increase the numbers available. I’m happy the government is investing in the Royal Canadian Air Force,” he said.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/28/more-fighters-eyed-for-canadas-air-force.html
Leaving aside the Super Hornet, I think that's a good policy change.
“The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and NATO commitments,” Hood told senators.
“I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren’t enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously,” he said.
----
“I’ve been told I will be given all the resources I need to increase the numbers available. I’m happy the government is investing in the Royal Canadian Air Force,” he said.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/28/more-fighters-eyed-for-canadas-air-force.html
Leaving aside the Super Hornet, I think that's a good policy change.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,788
- Points
- 1,210
So not 65 fighters any more, well 76+18= 94, so maybe that is going to be the new number floated? either way it's all good for Hood to be told the resources will be there, its another to back it up with funding. The next federal budget will be interesting.
- Reaction score
- 4,663
- Points
- 1,160
jmt18325 said:
Good change, except with the political promises stated, the Liberals cooked the books to create a capability gap. If only the rest of the CAF would be so lucky for them to double the rapid reaction requirements so we could get new kit, but I strongly doubt that'll happen as there was no promise of logistic vehicles for the Army last election.
- Reaction score
- 18,409
- Points
- 1,280
jmt18325 said:
"Larger" and "more capable" aren't necessarily the same thing. As mentioned in the NP article, if the countries using F-35s don't let the Super Hornets anywhere near them as they aren't stealthy (not to mention the lack of sensor fusion) and can blow their cover, then what's the point of having them in a coalition environment?
So - if there is to be an actual increase in the number of fighters, will there also be an increase in aircrew and groundcrew positions? Will that mean an increase in the size of the CF, or will these positions be taken from somewhere else? Additional equipment is meaningless without additional people, unless there is a pool of under-employed fighter pilots and techs somewhere. Has a Liberal government ever improved any aspect of the CF without significant outside pressure to do so before this? Why now, suddenly, with no explanation? Is there a hidden Liberal plan to require invoking full NORAD and NATO commitments that no previous government has ever considered? What is it?
We had fifty-four CF18s based in Germany during the last few years of the Cold War. Subtract that number from the number purchased, and it is remarkably close to the number of survivors, which has been considered adequate up until this panic that erupted just a few weeks ago.
Normally, I would welcome an equipment purchase. Normally, I would welcome an overseas mission that would make some people's lives better. This government, however, just makes me more and more baffled and suspicious.
I'd likely feel more comfortable if they announced a fifty-percent reduction to the whole CF - that would at least be more "normal".
We had fifty-four CF18s based in Germany during the last few years of the Cold War. Subtract that number from the number purchased, and it is remarkably close to the number of survivors, which has been considered adequate up until this panic that erupted just a few weeks ago.
Normally, I would welcome an equipment purchase. Normally, I would welcome an overseas mission that would make some people's lives better. This government, however, just makes me more and more baffled and suspicious.
I'd likely feel more comfortable if they announced a fifty-percent reduction to the whole CF - that would at least be more "normal".
