The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[dapaterson]

In certain instances, the US military has been ordered by Congress to take equipment they neither want nor need.  There can be situations where it is beneficial to push off deliveries for a number of years.  As you (and I) know nothing of Boeing's production line, nothing of the USN capacity to induct new aircraft, nothing of who in Canada and who in the US have had discussions, it's premature to announce that nothing will happen.

 

[PuckChaser]

In certain instances, the US military has been ordered by Congress to take equipment they neither want nor need.  There can be situations where it is beneficial to push off deliveries for a number of years. 

Do you see this happening with the USN consistently getting less SH aircraft than they want each year due to budget cuts? They want more, and aren't getting it. If the money goes up, they'll get more airframes, especially with Trump wanting to negotiate with LockMart to get a better deal. What a great way to get a better price on the F-35 with Boeing getting more SH orders from USN/USMC?

 

[MarkOttawa]

PuckChaser: USMC has no Super Hornet acquisition intent--in any event those planes cannot fly off their own carriers:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400

As for leasing, how might Boeing be involved (though one can imagine terribly convoluted ways)--gov't Nov. 22, note "new":

...Canada will immediately explore the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement arrives. The Government will enter into discussions with the U.S. Government and Boeing regarding use of these jets for an interim period of time...
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do;jsessionid=e2a745269c5aa8dce20d6d28c5228f5bb8235efbfcff1bdd37e342d00fcef1c0.e34Rc3iMbx8Oai0Tbx0SaxuRbh50?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1158669

Mark
Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Leasing doesn't just apply to used things.

 

[dimsum]

Leasing doesn't just apply to used things.

Yep.

http://www.casr.ca/101-af-cu170-heron-uav.htm

 

[childs56]

PuckChaser: USMC has no Super Hornet acquisition intent--in any event those planes cannot fly off their own carriers:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400

As for leasing, how might Boeing be involved (though one can imagine terribly convoluted ways)--gov't Nov. 22, note "new":

Mark
Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa

Marines fly F18s Jets off Navy Carriers.
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f-35c-delays/
the above is interesting.

 

[Good2Golf]

Marines fly F18s Jets off Navy Carriers.
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f-35c-delays/
the above is interesting.

Legacy C/Ds, not the Super.  They are going straight to F-35B 'jump jets' from the Legacy Hornets.

 

[observor 69]

Wow, thanks for the link.
A super video of the Super Hornet, the music, the production quality make for a real experience.  :christmas happy:

 

[dapaterson]

Legacy C/Ds, not the Super.  They are going straight to F-35B 'jump jets' from the Legacy Hornets.

Isn't the USMC still operating some Harriers?

 

[Jarnhamar]

'jump jets'  seem like they would have a lot of tactical advantages.  Does the jump capacity reduce a jets combat efficiency?

 

[dapaterson]

Limited range, limited payload, increased complexity of systems to maintain... it's a significant contributor to the complexity of the F35 program; omit the USMC requirement for the VTOL variant and the program would likely be significantly advanced from where it is today, since there would only be the A and C models.

 

[McG]

'jump jets'  seem like they would have a lot of tactical advantages.  Does the jump capacity reduce a jets combat efficiency?

It is never as simple as your question.  You want to ask about what are the trade-offs.  To gain capability or increase performance, your design engineers will have to trade-off some other capability or performance.  The end state is something that does some things better and and other things worse.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Folks,
I went back and did a 'clean-up' on the last months posts in this thread.
Lets try and keep this more on the subject matter and less on the personalities posting in it.
Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think we could be served well by an air superiority fighter like the Typhoon, but, it's cost prohibitive and lacks stealth.

Why buy something that is already 20+ years old?  Why would we be "well served" by it?

 

[Good2Golf]

Why buy something that is already 20+ years old?  Why would we be "well served" by it?

Yeah...remember when they renamed "EFA-2000" to Eurofighter as 2000 came and went, and Typhoon first flew operationally mid-2003, a third of a decade after its planned date?  :nod:

 

[jmt18325]

Why buy something that is already 20+ years old?  Why would we be "well served" by it?

Because most of our missions are defence of Canada missions, and an air superiority fighter would theoretically be best for that.  If the Raptor was available, and cost were no option, I wouldn't have mentioned the Eurofighter. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Then wouldn't F-15C40's be the best thing to get?

 

[George Wallace]

Because most of our missions are defence of Canada missions, and an air superiority fighter would theoretically be best for that.  If the Raptor was available, and cost were no option, I wouldn't have mentioned the Eurofighter.

That does not answer the question of "why would we want to buy something that is already 20+ years old".

We had a similar question at the end of the 1980's about replacing our Leopard 1 C1 tanks with M 60's.  Yes, we could have had more M 60's to replace the Leopard fleet, but they were more of a mechanical nightmare to maintain than the Leopards, and perhaps not as sophisticated gunnery wise as the Leopards.  In the end, replacing an aging fleet with another aging fleet was not accepted.  So why do you think we should do so with our Air Force?

 

[PuckChaser]

Because most of our missions are defence of Canada missions, and an air superiority fighter would theoretically be best for that.  If the Raptor was available, and cost were no option, I wouldn't have mentioned the Eurofighter.

Except for those pesky airstrike missions on IMPACT and Kosovo...

We're too small for a mixed fleet, we need multirole fighters to do a little bit or everything.

 

[jmt18325]

Then wouldn't F-15C40's be the best thing to get?

I actually forgot the F-15 was still available - yes, it probably would be better.