- Reaction score
- 2,090
- Points
- 1,160
How about a 220% offset increase in hydro rates for juice sold from Quebec to NY. Oh, wait, no. Ontario buys electricity back from the US. :
The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,166
- Points
- 1,120
Jobs....moving back to Ontario....?
Hah!
Hah!
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Meanwhile the Luftwaffe is looking for a new fighter too and faster than we are, it seems:
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 4,271
- Points
- 1,260
Aaaaand, on a lighter note, via Duffle Blog: "F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed" ;D
- Reaction score
- 1,409
- Points
- 1,160
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/im-a-retired-u-s-naval-aviator-im-concerned-about-governments-delay-in-ensuring-rcaf-capability
Special to National Post - October 5, 2017
I'm a retired U.S. Naval Aviator. I'm concerned about government's delay in ensuring RCAF capability
Admiral Gortney: Some have called for the purchase of used legacy Hornets to address the RCAF's capability gap. This could pose problems down the road
When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reopened the competition to select a fighter to replace the CF-18, two questions were raised from that decision, one with long-term implications, and one with immediate consequences. The first: when will the modernization of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fighter force be complete? The second: what will the RCAF do to mitigate the so-called capability gap (Canada’s current fleet is more than 30 years old, and down from 138 to 77 aircraft) to have a certain number of the most capable fighter jets mission-ready at all times and to ensure the capacity to address all the missions asked of it between now and complete modernization? I would like to address the second question.
I’m a retired U.S. Naval Aviator with almost 40 years of service. I commanded at every level in the U.S. Navy: Strike Fighter Squadrons, Air Wings, Carrier Strike Groups, and Fleets. I started flying the F-18A in 1983, and stopped flying the F/A-18E/F just before I made my third star off the flight decks of the USS Harry S Truman in the Arabian Gulf. After flying F/A-18’s for 25 years and continuing to command them for another eight years, I’ve been called a Hornet Admiral. I know Hornets and Super Hornets and have relied on them for decades. Today, I consult for industry, including Boeing. I do so because I believe in the importance of competition in the defense industrial base. Competition balances industry’s need to provide profit to their shareholders, while delivering both the best capability to the warfighter and value to the taxpayer.
My largest concern is the delay in capability of the RCAF
As the debate unfolds in Canada over the modernization of its fighter jet fleet, my largest concern is the continued delay in both capacity and capability of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I am also appalled at the vast amount of misinformation in the media over the issue. As just one example, some “experts” have suggested the Super Hornet can’t perform the Defence of Canada/North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) mission in the harsh Canadian climate, against the rapidly evolving Russian bomber/long range cruise missile threat. Let me assure you that that is not true.
Today’s Super Hornet — which the U.S. Navy is flying — is not yesterday’s Hornet, which the RCAF is currently flying. The Super Hornet is not a “big” Hornet. It is a completely different fighter, with completely different sensors and sensor fusion, with much smaller signatures, with much better active defensive measures. It carries more fuel and has more weapon stations. It just happens to look a little like a legacy Hornet and has “hornet” in its name.
Is the Super Hornet an F-35? No, and it is not meant to be. It is built and modernized to complement the rest of the U.S. Navy’s weapons system, which the F-35C will be a part of too. The Super Hornet is interoperable with all variants of the F-35 and will fly alongside them for years to come. Furthermore, the U.S. Navy will continue to modernize both the Super Hornet and F-35C for the next 30 plus years, keeping both aircraft modern and lethal.
The Super Hornet is a completely different fighter from the Hornet
Why am I talking about U.S. Naval aviation while discussing the RCAF? The answer is simple. Both forces have the same missions, and operate in very similar threat environments. Both are required to surveil and defend a vast amount of battle space, and engage hostile fighters, bombers, and small radar cross-section cruise missiles in extremely harsh conditions.
In other words, the NORAD mission requires fighters with the ability to fly great distances and stay on station for a long time, with the right amount of signature reduction, integrated active defensive measures, Active Electronically Scanned Array radars, long-range infrared systems, and weapons.
For other missions, both the RCAF and U.S. Navy operate with international air forces to support combined and coalition joint operations. No air force fights alone—not the U.S. Navy, not the U.S. Air Force, and certainly not the RCAF. No one air force owns the compilation of capabilities required to succeed in today’s—and tomorrow’s—threat environments. In the U.S. Armed Forces, that capability resides in the air arm of all four services—the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy. They fight as a team. The RCAF is also a critical part of that team.
Purchasing legacy Hornets could pose many problems down the road
Some people—including representatives of the Canadian government and other public and private citizens—have called for the potential purchase of used legacy Hornets to address these needs. This could pose many problems down the road. First, it is increasingly hard to find spare parts for F/A-18A/B/C/D models around the world, and the cost to keep them flying continues to grow. Already military maintainers have been forced to cannibalize some jets to keep others in the air. And there are only so many times the lives of the current aircraft can be extended before putting the safety of pilots at risk. Second, these used legacy Hornets will still not provide the modernized fighter capability that the RCAF desperately needs to complete its mission. More fundamentally, legacy Hornets are rapidly losing their ability to counter the rapidly evolving Russian threat. For these reasons, the U.S. Navy is accelerating the retirement of its legacy Hornets, and replacing them with new and even more advanced Super Hornets.
Finding the right balance of survivability, blended stealth capabilities, self-protection, weapons capacity, and range at an affordable cost is the key to fighter aviation in any country. Additionally, as every commander will tell you, it is not the aircraft but the aviator that is the critical component of a fighter, and Canadian fighter pilots are the best I have commanded and flown with. But complex fighter jets are not heirlooms to be handed down from father to grandson. High-speed flight and repeated takeoffs and landings take a heavy toll, and technology marches forward bringing new and necessary capabilities to outpace and defeat current and future threats.
The modernization of Canadian Air Force Fighters must not be further delayed. Canadian aviators desperately need more capable fighters, today—not in the next decade. One solution to help alleviate this urgent need is to expedite the implementation of the Interim Fighter Capability Project, and integrate 18 new Super Hornet aircraft into the RCAF fighter fleet until the long-term solution is implemented.
National Post
Admiral Bill Gortney culminated his 39 years of commissioned service as Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and Commander, United States Northern Command.
Special to National Post - October 5, 2017
I'm a retired U.S. Naval Aviator. I'm concerned about government's delay in ensuring RCAF capability
Admiral Gortney: Some have called for the purchase of used legacy Hornets to address the RCAF's capability gap. This could pose problems down the road
When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reopened the competition to select a fighter to replace the CF-18, two questions were raised from that decision, one with long-term implications, and one with immediate consequences. The first: when will the modernization of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fighter force be complete? The second: what will the RCAF do to mitigate the so-called capability gap (Canada’s current fleet is more than 30 years old, and down from 138 to 77 aircraft) to have a certain number of the most capable fighter jets mission-ready at all times and to ensure the capacity to address all the missions asked of it between now and complete modernization? I would like to address the second question.
I’m a retired U.S. Naval Aviator with almost 40 years of service. I commanded at every level in the U.S. Navy: Strike Fighter Squadrons, Air Wings, Carrier Strike Groups, and Fleets. I started flying the F-18A in 1983, and stopped flying the F/A-18E/F just before I made my third star off the flight decks of the USS Harry S Truman in the Arabian Gulf. After flying F/A-18’s for 25 years and continuing to command them for another eight years, I’ve been called a Hornet Admiral. I know Hornets and Super Hornets and have relied on them for decades. Today, I consult for industry, including Boeing. I do so because I believe in the importance of competition in the defense industrial base. Competition balances industry’s need to provide profit to their shareholders, while delivering both the best capability to the warfighter and value to the taxpayer.
My largest concern is the delay in capability of the RCAF
As the debate unfolds in Canada over the modernization of its fighter jet fleet, my largest concern is the continued delay in both capacity and capability of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I am also appalled at the vast amount of misinformation in the media over the issue. As just one example, some “experts” have suggested the Super Hornet can’t perform the Defence of Canada/North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) mission in the harsh Canadian climate, against the rapidly evolving Russian bomber/long range cruise missile threat. Let me assure you that that is not true.
Today’s Super Hornet — which the U.S. Navy is flying — is not yesterday’s Hornet, which the RCAF is currently flying. The Super Hornet is not a “big” Hornet. It is a completely different fighter, with completely different sensors and sensor fusion, with much smaller signatures, with much better active defensive measures. It carries more fuel and has more weapon stations. It just happens to look a little like a legacy Hornet and has “hornet” in its name.
Is the Super Hornet an F-35? No, and it is not meant to be. It is built and modernized to complement the rest of the U.S. Navy’s weapons system, which the F-35C will be a part of too. The Super Hornet is interoperable with all variants of the F-35 and will fly alongside them for years to come. Furthermore, the U.S. Navy will continue to modernize both the Super Hornet and F-35C for the next 30 plus years, keeping both aircraft modern and lethal.
The Super Hornet is a completely different fighter from the Hornet
Why am I talking about U.S. Naval aviation while discussing the RCAF? The answer is simple. Both forces have the same missions, and operate in very similar threat environments. Both are required to surveil and defend a vast amount of battle space, and engage hostile fighters, bombers, and small radar cross-section cruise missiles in extremely harsh conditions.
In other words, the NORAD mission requires fighters with the ability to fly great distances and stay on station for a long time, with the right amount of signature reduction, integrated active defensive measures, Active Electronically Scanned Array radars, long-range infrared systems, and weapons.
For other missions, both the RCAF and U.S. Navy operate with international air forces to support combined and coalition joint operations. No air force fights alone—not the U.S. Navy, not the U.S. Air Force, and certainly not the RCAF. No one air force owns the compilation of capabilities required to succeed in today’s—and tomorrow’s—threat environments. In the U.S. Armed Forces, that capability resides in the air arm of all four services—the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy. They fight as a team. The RCAF is also a critical part of that team.
Purchasing legacy Hornets could pose many problems down the road
Some people—including representatives of the Canadian government and other public and private citizens—have called for the potential purchase of used legacy Hornets to address these needs. This could pose many problems down the road. First, it is increasingly hard to find spare parts for F/A-18A/B/C/D models around the world, and the cost to keep them flying continues to grow. Already military maintainers have been forced to cannibalize some jets to keep others in the air. And there are only so many times the lives of the current aircraft can be extended before putting the safety of pilots at risk. Second, these used legacy Hornets will still not provide the modernized fighter capability that the RCAF desperately needs to complete its mission. More fundamentally, legacy Hornets are rapidly losing their ability to counter the rapidly evolving Russian threat. For these reasons, the U.S. Navy is accelerating the retirement of its legacy Hornets, and replacing them with new and even more advanced Super Hornets.
Finding the right balance of survivability, blended stealth capabilities, self-protection, weapons capacity, and range at an affordable cost is the key to fighter aviation in any country. Additionally, as every commander will tell you, it is not the aircraft but the aviator that is the critical component of a fighter, and Canadian fighter pilots are the best I have commanded and flown with. But complex fighter jets are not heirlooms to be handed down from father to grandson. High-speed flight and repeated takeoffs and landings take a heavy toll, and technology marches forward bringing new and necessary capabilities to outpace and defeat current and future threats.
The modernization of Canadian Air Force Fighters must not be further delayed. Canadian aviators desperately need more capable fighters, today—not in the next decade. One solution to help alleviate this urgent need is to expedite the implementation of the Interim Fighter Capability Project, and integrate 18 new Super Hornet aircraft into the RCAF fighter fleet until the long-term solution is implemented.
National Post
Admiral Bill Gortney culminated his 39 years of commissioned service as Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and Commander, United States Northern Command.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
I wonder if he showed that to Boeing before its release, I'm sure they were very pleased.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,936
- Points
- 1,160
Well from my reading here, it seems Boeing is doing us no favours cost wise on this potential purchase and as much as I would like to see a mixed fleet of 80 fighters, the purchase price of the SH does not appear to offer any savings now over the F-35.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
$6.4B for 18 fighters, $355M per aircraft, no way that's going to fly. Making a deal like that could cost the Liberals the next election. It would be great if L-M would just submit a quote for the 88 F-35's, even at $95M USD per aircraft it would be a great deal in comparison.Colin P said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
One should provide a source for such a claim.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
I do believe this information had previously been quoted in this thread.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-approves-sale-of-18-super-hornet-jets-to-canada-for-64-billion/article36238437/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-approves-sale-of-18-super-hornet-jets-to-canada-for-64-billion/article36238437/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
As in right here. It was item 3 the Globe and Mail story.MarkOttawa said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
We also have this report of an F-35 sale getting close, to 11 nations, $37B+ for 440 aircraft, that's under $100M each. The question is what else is added to the cost, we need to see the full quotes to know, it can't be based on an opinion.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-paris-f35/exclusive-lockheed-nears-37-billion-plus-deal-to-sell-f-35-jet-to-11-countries-idUSKBN1990S8
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-paris-f35/exclusive-lockheed-nears-37-billion-plus-deal-to-sell-f-35-jet-to-11-countries-idUSKBN1990S8
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Thank you for this. They are making assumptions about the F-35 pricing, but if this does prove to be true we need to know as soon as possible. I don't know that they can simply inflate the pricing to partner nations, as we are supposed to be partners in the program, but they can make the price look attractive and then hit us with substantial additional costs, this is why we need to get a look at a proper quote. If this is going to become policy, with America First simply jacking up the price of all military equipment to Canada, then we are going to have to look at other options. JT is going to Washington next week to discuss trade and economic ties and I have a feeling he is going to be looking for some answers.Spencer100 said:
This is a quote from the above article.
The US government has offered Canada a batch of Super Hornet fighters at a price that is six times higher than the US Navy is paying for the same aircraft, analysis of official US documents reveals.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Here is the source.
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/02/charted-heres-how-cost-each-version-f-35-changing/135451/
Here is the quote.
These figures reflect the flyaway cost of each plane: the price of the airframe, engine, electronics, and other associated costs — basically, the amount it takes to purchase and assemble the parts.
There are other ways to calculate the “true” cost of an F-35. You can include all the design and development work that took the aircraft from idea to production model, or throw in maintenance, planned upgrades, and long-term operating costs.
For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin — would simply tout the cost of the airframe itself, sans engine and other fees that added tens of millions of dollars to the cost of each plane.
For the past four years, the F-35 program office began releasing figures that they say are a more accurate representation of the true cost, a value that includes the airframe, engine and other fees.
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/02/charted-heres-how-cost-each-version-f-35-changing/135451/
Here is the quote.
These figures reflect the flyaway cost of each plane: the price of the airframe, engine, electronics, and other associated costs — basically, the amount it takes to purchase and assemble the parts.
There are other ways to calculate the “true” cost of an F-35. You can include all the design and development work that took the aircraft from idea to production model, or throw in maintenance, planned upgrades, and long-term operating costs.
For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin — would simply tout the cost of the airframe itself, sans engine and other fees that added tens of millions of dollars to the cost of each plane.
For the past four years, the F-35 program office began releasing figures that they say are a more accurate representation of the true cost, a value that includes the airframe, engine and other fees.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
They had a rep from Boeing on the news the other week, he said that Boeing spends $3B a year in Canada, and sure enough that's what they spend and it supports 17k jobs in Canada. He specifically made this point in case Canada decides to kick them out over the dispute.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2016-10-13-Boeing-Provides-More-than-US-3-Billion-Annual-Economic-Benefit-in-Canada
So then I come across this which states that Bombardier spends $2.4B a year in the USA and it supports 22.7k jobs in the USA.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-us-impact/bombardier-spends-2-4-billion-a-year-on-aerospace-in-u-s-document-idUSKBN1CA2N6
Here I thought this would favor Boeing but not really, the Canadian company supports more jobs in the US then they support here. So kicking them out might not be as big a deal as I thought.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2016-10-13-Boeing-Provides-More-than-US-3-Billion-Annual-Economic-Benefit-in-Canada
So then I come across this which states that Bombardier spends $2.4B a year in the USA and it supports 22.7k jobs in the USA.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-bombardier-us-impact/bombardier-spends-2-4-billion-a-year-on-aerospace-in-u-s-document-idUSKBN1CA2N6
Here I thought this would favor Boeing but not really, the Canadian company supports more jobs in the US then they support here. So kicking them out might not be as big a deal as I thought.
