Canadian F/A-18s

[TaiidanTomcat]

Proof of what exactly? That 5th gen fighters can operate next to advanced air defense networks when not actively trying to engage aircraft? By that math so can F-18s, F-16s, B-1s etc. .

Umm no. F-22s were basically helping to QB. 5th generation is as much about ISR/situational awareness/EW and sharing and QBing other assets as well as it is about stealth. Missions that were typically designated for the other specialized aircraft were able to flown by F-22s alone, and more importantly, the F-22s could still attack too and something like a JSTARs didn't have to be put at risk to gather the info. F-22 also has snazzy things like systems that can triangulate from a single point with accuracy enough to bomb it. systems that can suss out what enemy systems are seeing too. Its all one package basically. No need for escorts, Jammers, ISR assets, etc.

It's not like an F-117. And a lot of what F-22s did Is still classified. Maybe someone else can weigh in and explain it better, but for the people who were there or in the know the difference was pretty noticeable, and they made sure to have F-22s flying in every wave.

Edited June 7, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Gordon Shumway]

I am going off of what canadian government has been saying for years now when the subject of mixed types comes up. They want a single type which is why it's just CF-18s now. Because the subject of a mixed fleet comes up pretty often and everytime they say "that gets expensive and we don't want it "

Just curious as to why it would be more expensive? What part of having a mixed fleet would be more expensive? I guess by having two smaller orders from two different manufacturers of two different air frames will have a slight increase in purchase price per plane, but negotiated will be the service contract with both. The training of at base techs will cost the basically same whether a tech is trained to work on an F-35 or an F-18E/F. Pilots will be trained on one of both platforms so their costs should not be any more. I only see and correct me if I'm wrong a possible higher per air frame purchase cost if as a result of buying two different air frames at two different times, BTW in a smaller batch for each.

An example for discussion:

Canada proceeds to buy in a short time run say 24-30 F-18E/F (and begin to further withdraw our most tired legacy Hornets) and buys them mostly off the shelf between say 2017-2018. Maybe even add a mix of say 6-10 G models (just spit ballin here for discussion). These aircraft will have a service contract added and our ground crews suitably trained and pilots too to operate them to their full ability.

Canada can then proceed to evaluate the further purchase of our next combat aircraft, be the choices F-35, F-18E/F (G), and others though IMO doubtful, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen NG. From such Canada can see which one to go with and to in near time supplement our newly added fleet of F-18E/F.

Say Canada then chooses to oh say add 40-50 F-35's and to begin deliveries say effective 2019. The service contract will be negotiated and as the F-35s' come to force our ground techs will be trained on them and our F-35 pilots will be trained on such as well.

I'm not saying that this will not cost more, I don't know hence why I asked my question above. But Canada can negotiate from a more aggressive POV first with Boeing to give Boeing a guaranteed initial and quick sale for a small up front interim replacement of some of our most tired legacy Hornets, an F-18E/F order. And later to either give Boeing further F-18E/F (G) order if Canada decides to just go with that air frame or to then go to Lockheed and be more aggressive to get an order of F-35's as Canada is not pressured into buying quickly as our legacy F-18's were/are being drawn down by a certain percentage with adding a batch of F-18E/F as replacement. In a way it kind of forces Boeing and Lockheed/Martin to be more competitive and also as such this initial F-18E/F buy is a pressure relief valve so to speak.

Again, I'm not advocating one firm way or another, but first asking why a two air frame mixed fleet bought at two slightly different times will be much more expensive to keep and operate? By enforcing more competition should give in our case Canada a better deal over time, but again I'm not stating this as truly for real as I'm not a part of any purchase of Canada next combat plane except some of my tax dollars going towards it.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Gordon Shumway

[falcon20driver]

You multiply parts supplies, training needs, maintenance people, etc... I see this daily in my company, and we fly almost exclusively Falcon products. Different types all need their own support structure.

[Gordon Shumway]

You multiply parts supplies, training needs, maintenance people, etc... I see this daily in my company, and we fly almost exclusively Falcon products. Different types all need their own support structure.

I can see parts supplies being a nominally added cost, but why would you need more trained people? Whether you have say 65 air frames of one thing or 30+35 air frames of two things you should only need the same number of trained maintainers in either case.

Logistics officers surely can with modern computers and filing keeps track of parts/inventory be it one air frame type or two. I mean Canada and any nation will operate multiple air frames for all the various aircraft needs we/they already have. I'm not arguing here, but just making a conversation. Really with an already mixed air frame air force that the RCAF has, why would two combat jet types be so much more costly in the big picture for the RCAF?

Lets look at another thing as an example. Canada decided to not buy the EH-101 (no politics ok, but only a point) in the mid 90's. The government at the time later had to buy CH-149 Cormorant's (non-combat version of EH-101) for SAR role. The last government proceeded to not just buy EH-101's as they would supplement the CH-149's in most ways including cost and maintenance for our Seaking replacement. But chose to go with CH-148 Cyclone's which will be coming soon. So it is not unprecedented to do such.

I quickly counted from our RCAF website that the RCAF operates 18 different aircraft types. It is able to do so, this is why I find it curious as to why many feel the RCAF can't operate two different combat jets for a similar overall cost of ownership/service over the next few decades.

Hmm???

[Don]

Each aircraft is different and facilities/means to train personnel will cost twice the price of one facility for one aircraft. Operating multiple types of fighter aircraft is far more expensive then operating just one type. Multiple types of aircraft means multiple types of pilots need to be trained, multiple types of servicing personnel need to be trained to service the different fighters, multiple types of engines and associated spares need to be purchased, etc etc etc...the list is extensive and essentially it's double the cost. Can Canada afford that and will the Canadian tax payers want to pay for that if the cost breakdown is truthfully (key word there) explained to them? Yes Canada has operated multiple types of front line fighters in the past but part of the reason Canada selected the Hornet way back when was that it could perform all of the roles of the various fighter aircraft it was replacing and at a cheaper cost. Also, and I may be wrong here, but didn't the Cf-5 get retired earlier then it needed to in order to save money by going to one primary fast mover rather then operating two?

Honestly, if Canada chooses to purchase the SH it won't be a "temporary" thing. I may be wrong but I don't see a fair new fighter competition or research panel being held anytime in the foreseeable future as has been touted by the Government since the election. Bottom line, the SH will get purchased to take the heat off of the PM. Canada will become a SH operator having never actually gone through the process to determine if it is indeed the right AC for Canada's defense needs (is that a good thing the Canadian tax payer would agree with?). This will make the F-35 hater crowd happy though. Meanwhile any business Canada may have gotten out of the F-35 will slowly move South or to Countries who have selected it as their new fighter and Canadian workers/businesses will lose out. Hey, hold the fair and balanced fighter competition before committing to buying SH's. What's stopping them? If the SH wins and a panel of Canadian defense experts or whomever determines that the SH will meet Canada's defense needs well into the 2040's (plus)...then so be it. But this all seems like a band-aid can kicking ploy to me.

My two cents.

EDIT: Assuming of course the rumors are true ;)

Edited June 7, 2016 by Don

[Don]

...I quickly counted from our RCAF website that the RCAF operates 18 different aircraft types. It is able to do so, this is why I find it curious as to why many feel the RCAF can't operate two different combat jets for a similar overall cost of ownership/service over the next few decades.

Hmm???

But those 18 different aircraft don't all carry out the same role. The Griffon has a completely different role from the Chinook, the Hercs have a different role then the CC-177, the aging Sea King's operate differently from the Cormorant, the Tutor is no Hornet etc etc down the line. Each aircraft has its assigned role and I am sure if there were overlap where one AC could be retired to save money it would. Operating two different fighters doing the same thing goes against Canadian fighter defense doctrine for the last 2 to 3 decades (plus?). Bottom line its expensive.

[Gordon Shumway]

Each aircraft is different and facilities/means to train personnel will cost twice the price of one facility for one aircraft. Operating multiple types of fighter aircraft is far more expensive then operating just one type. Multiple types of aircraft means multiple types of pilots need to be trained, multiple types of servicing personnel need to be trained to service the different fighters, multiple types of engines and associated spares need to be purchased, etc etc etc...the list is extensive and essentially it's double the cost. Can Canada afford that and will the Canadian tax payers want to pay for that if the cost breakdown is truthfully (key word there) explained to them? Yes Canada has operated multiple types of front line fighters in the past but part of the reason Canada selected the Hornet way back when was that it could perform all of the roles of the various fighter aircraft it was replacing and at a cheaper cost. Also, and I may be wrong here, but didn't the Cf-5 get retired earlier then it needed to in order to save money by going to one primary fast mover rather then operating two?

Honestly, if Canada chooses to purchase the SH it won't be a "temporary" thing. I may be wrong but I don't see a fair new fighter competition or research panel being held anytime in the foreseeable future as has been touted by the Government since the election. Bottom line, the SH will get purchased to take the heat off of the PM. Canada will become a SH operator having never actually gone through the process to determine if it is indeed the right AC for Canada's defense needs (is that a good thing the Canadian tax payer would agree with?). This will make the F-35 hater crowd happy though. Meanwhile any business Canada may have gotten out of the F-35 will slowly move South or to Countries who have selected it as their new fighter and Canadian workers/businesses will lose out. Hey, hold the fair and balanced fighter competition before committing to buying SH's. What's stopping them? If the SH wins and a panel of Canadian defense experts or whomever determines that the SH will meet Canada's defense needs well into the 2040's (plus)...then so be it. But this all seems like a band-aid can kicking ploy to me.

My two cents.

Interesting POV.

But fact is Canada can ably operate two different combat jets if it wants to. Then use each in ways that each are useful to the role assigned at the time. Yes we have become jaded of our defence appropriations here. But maybe the mid to long term concept of employing F-18E/F add maybe G and F-35 will allow Canada to be more flexible in when, where and how the RCAF and DnD will use both. I mean intercepting wayward airliners over our barren North/ North Atlantic may not need an F-35 or two. But say due to strained politics and frayed diplomacy we find a need to deter aggression elsewhere that a group of F-35's could be more useful. If God forbid we get in a real conflict where once Anti-air defences are taken out partly by say our F-35's and other allies, cough, cough US F-35/F-22/B-2 then we can redeploy F-18E/F maybe with G's to the theatre for further missions and bring back the F-35 detachment... Again I'm not trying to argue but just spit ballin for a my POV and may even be a little bit off in the conversation. B)

[Don]

"can/able to operate" and "would actually operate" are two completely different animals ;) . I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I just do not see Canada operating two different fighter aircraft for any length of time, especially when a new fighter aircraft is only one of many hands being held out...the Navy needs new ships remember (not cheap) and I am sure the Army has grown to like its new Leopards and F model Chinooks etc etc. Someone's gotta pay or cuts have to come from somewhere to afford it...

[TaiidanTomcat]

Just curious as to why it would be more expensive? What part of having a mixed fleet would be more expensive? I guess by having two smaller orders from two different manufacturers of two different air frames will have a slight increase in purchase price per plane, but negotiated will be the service contract with both. The training of at base techs will cost the basically same whether a tech is trained to work on an F-35 or an F-18E/F. Pilots will be trained on one of both platforms so their costs should not be any more. I only see and correct me if I'm wrong a possible higher per air frame purchase cost if as a result of buying two different air frames at two different times, BTW in a smaller batch for each.

You pay more because training them may cost the same, but you must train twice as many people. = more cost

If you are buying round pegs, round holes, and round peg and hole technicians, along with square pegs, square holes, and square peg and hole technicians you either have to buy double so each base has one of each for operations, or must be willing to transport technicians and peg holders depending on what is needed, and there is zero crossover.

I worked for a helicopter company that had several Bells, and one eurocopter and that thing was a PITA, it needed metric tools so we had to buy whole new tool sets for it that couldn't be used on anything else. And we could take the Bells anywhere and hangers would have tools that worked if we needed to borrow them, not so with the eurocopter. We had to bring the tools ourselves.

Canada proceeds to buy in a short time run say 24-30 F-18E/F (and begin to further withdraw our most tired legacy Hornets) and buys them mostly off the shelf between say 2017-2018. Maybe even add a mix of say 6-10 G models (just spit ballin here for discussion). These aircraft will have a service contract added and our ground crews suitably trained and pilots too to operate them to their full ability.

Canada can then proceed to evaluate the further purchase of our next combat aircraft, be the choices F-35, F-18E/F (G), and others though IMO doubtful, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen NG. From such Canada can see which one to go with and to in near time supplement our newly added fleet of F-18E/F.

Evaluate what? if you are buying 40+ aircraft thats not a trial run. Canada has 9 billion dollars to spend on the CF-18 replacement. You are talking about spending about 7 billion dollars worth and then checking to see whats left.

It doesn't work that way. This is a one shot deal. Canada doesn't have billions to burn "trying on" fighters.

Say Canada then chooses to oh say add 40-50 F-35's and to begin deliveries say effective 2019.

So after years of dithering on the CF-18 replacement Canada is going to order 40+ Growler/SH and 50 F-35s in the next 3 years?

But Canada can negotiate from a more aggressive POV first with Boeing to give Boeing a guaranteed initial and quick sale for a small up front interim replacement of some of our most tired legacy Hornets, an F-18E/F order.

absolutely not. once you've committed you are committed you can't buy the product and then start "aggressively" negotiating. Besides that these aircraft cost what they cost, and its illegal for a US Company to sell to a foreign nation at a price lower than what the US government pays.

And later to either give Boeing further F-18E/F (G) order if Canada decides to just go with that air frame or to then go to Lockheed and be more aggressive to get an order of F-35's as Canada is not pressured into buying quickly as our legacy F-18's were/are being drawn down by a certain percentage with adding a batch of F-18E/F as replacement. In a way it kind of forces Boeing and Lockheed/Martin to be more competitive and also as such this initial F-18E/F buy is a pressure relief valve so to speak.

Nope. thats like getting married and having 3 kids so you can then relax and start looking for your new wife and new family. The "trial runs" don't exist, you are making irreversible decisions that will affect the future.

Again, I'm not advocating one firm way or another, but first asking why a two air frame mixed fleet bought at two slightly different times will be much more expensive to keep and operate?

I can see parts supplies being a nominally added cost, but why would you need more trained people? Whether you have say 65 air frames of one thing or 30+35 air frames of two things you should only need the same number of trained maintainers in either case.

So the maintainers are trained and qualified to work on both types in this scenario? Because you would need a Group that worked on one, and another group that worked on the other. The same reason you don't see the Helicopter guys and CF-18 guys switching.

Logistics officers surely can with modern computers and filing keeps track of parts/inventory be it one air frame type or two. I mean Canada and any nation will operate multiple air frames for all the various aircraft needs we/they already have. I'm not arguing here, but just making a conversation. Really with an already mixed air frame air force that the RCAF has, why would two combat jet types be so much more costly in the big picture for the RCAF?

Double everything. equals double the cost.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Lets look at another thing as an example. Canada decided to not buy the EH-101 (no politics ok, but only a point) in the mid 90's. The government at the time later had to buy CH-149 Cormorant's (non-combat version of EH-101) for SAR role. The last government proceeded to not just buy EH-101's as they would supplement the CH-149's in most ways including cost and maintenance for our Seaking replacement. But chose to go with CH-148 Cyclone's which will be coming soon. So it is not unprecedented to do such.

This is widely considered a disaster and embarrassment, and should not be used as a guide--- and they are STILL trying to get the Sea king replaced.

I quickly counted from our RCAF website that the RCAF operates 18 different aircraft types. It is able to do so, this is why I find it curious as to why many feel the RCAF can't operate two different combat jets for a similar overall cost of ownership/service over the next few decades.

Hmm???

we are not making this up, Canada has stated it doesn't want a mix fleet due to costs. This is where the "but Australia" argument falls short. Australia is willing to operate mix types and pay for them, they are also 100 percent committed to the JSF program, and always have been, they are also buying 100 F-35s, and have already ordered 72 of them. Contrast this with Canada who just elected a guy who said he would get them out of the 65 F-35 they had committed to, before they got wishy washy. Are we really trying to compare the two?

IF Canada wants to do it like Aus, by all means please do. Buy P-8s, Wedgetails, Growlers, SH, 100 F-35s, new tankers. But Canada isn't going to do that. Saying "but Australia" is like saying your car is just like a truck, its just missing the four wheel drive, truck bed, horsepower, and has some extra seats and happens to look like a car. Canada does not equal Australia, though I wish it was so in this case. Australia is a smoke screen. And speaking of Australia, The ANAO determined that Aus paid more for its Super Hornets than it will for the F-35 when all was said and done:

US$ 13,210,620,000 ! Or just over $13 billion. Of which $12.362 billion is the unit production costs. The other billion being Australia’s project development costs and contributions to the shared cost of establishing the production line, upgrade capability, etc.

So that’s a unit weapon system cost of $123.62 million. Which is slightly better than the US$129.1 million Australian paid per unit weapon system cost for the F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Interesting POV.

its not a "point of view" its a verified fact:

... suggested a mixed fleet of Gripen NG and F-35. When we bought the F-18, we looked at the mixed fleet option and discovered that we could buy more of the most expensive aircraft cheaper than we could buy a mixed fleet made up of the two least expensive aircraft. The experts managing our next-generation fighter project did a similar study and came to a similar conclusion.

--Hon. Laurie Hawn:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page

We aren't making this up, its not a opinion. the opinion of whether a one or mixed fleet should be pursued is an opinion, but the fact that mixed fleets cost more is not an opinion its been verified countless times all over the globe, civil and military.

But fact is Canada can ably operate two different combat jets if it wants to.

of course it can, it just doesn't want to pay that price. Just like I can look like Arnold Schwarzenegger but I don't want to spend 6 hours in a gym 6 days a week.

Then use each in ways that each are useful to the role assigned at the time. Yes we have become jaded of our defence appropriations here. But maybe the mid to long term concept of employing F-18E/F add maybe G and F-35 will allow Canada to be more flexible in when, where and how the RCAF and DnD will use both. I mean intercepting wayward airliners over our barren North/ North Atlantic may not need an F-35 or two. But say due to strained politics and frayed diplomacy we find a need to deter aggression elsewhere that a group of F-35's could be more useful. If God forbid we get in a real conflict where once Anti-air defences are taken out partly by say our F-35's and other allies, cough, cough US F-35/F-22/B-2 then we can redeploy F-18E/F maybe with G's to the theatre for further missions and bring back the F-35 detachment... Again I'm not trying to argue but just spit ballin for a my POV and may even be a little bit off in the conversation.

It doesn't save money to spend millions of dollars a year so that one day you can save $10,000. And those other aircraft are less useful because you can't shift forces as easily. Even above you are talking about deploying twice with two seperate forces, and if history is any indication deployments aren't next door.

Super hornets are increasing in cost and the only way this makes any damn sense is if they lease the Super Hornets. Denmark just rejected the Super Hornet and even published exactly why not even a month ago!! Now its a good idea for Canada to buy them? Really?

I hate to sound like a cynic, but boy oh boy does it look like someone is trying to commit you to a second place airplane without any due diligence. And from the government that said they would do it right and respect the processes and the opinion of the RCAF. Its doing the exact opposite, back dooring into inferior aircraft without due process. they have gone over and over the super Hornet vs F-35 for Canada and the F-35 always wins, yes even on cost.

According to the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report, the F/A-18E/F’s per-​unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 USD (FY2012) (see footnote 2). This does not include the foreign military sales and research and development fees levied on a program of this type. Adding these costs should bring its per unit cost to around $90 million. At this cost and with the government’s hard cap of $9.0 billion for the acquisition phase, Canada potential Super Hornet fleet size will be less than 65 aircraft and perhaps as few as 55.

Furthermore Boeing is set to close the line in 2015, after their final delivery to the US Navy. This may be extended by a year by a prospective Australian purchase, but it is unlikely to go past 2016 (see footnote 3). This would force the Canadian government to advance its purchase of the fighter significantly ahead of schedule and in a shorter period of time than previously expected. This could cause operational and budget issues, but would avoid managing obsolescence issues that surround maintaining the CF-​18 fleet until 2020. According to US Navy figures, the F/A-18E’s operational cost is roughly similar to its own F/​A-​18C fleet (see footnote 4). This should roughly translate to our own CF-​18 fleet. The F/​A-​18E will be able to use most of the ordinance currently in Canadian stores. However given the significant gap in development between CF-​18s (which are updated F/​A-​18As) and the Super Hornet, only a limited level of commonality exists between the two aircraft. Thus the RCAF’s ability to reuse its stocks of CF-​18 spares and other equipment will likely be low.

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-i-the-f-a-18e-super-hornet

What is even more slimy is that by bailing on the F-35 (if they end up doing so), they cost canada billions in contracts and lost work over many years, but by "cheating" to get the "interim" super Hornet, they are not getting more contracts or more work from Boeing either. I know people who work on the F-35 that say their Companies have already picked Canadian F-35 Contracts should Canada withdraw. They are going to go after them the second Canada bails. Those Canadian jobs will become Australian, or Israeli, or Japanese, or European jobs.

Edited June 7, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[sweier]

As far as I know Australia bought F-18E and F and now has Growlers as an interim measure before they receive their F-35s. I think it would be cool now that I can actually build an F-18E in RCAF markings in 2016. Cool beans.

Not quite. We bought 24 F-18F to replace our F-111 as a stopgap until F-35 gets here, with the second twelve aircraft prewired for conversion to F-18G after the F-35s start to arrive.

At a later date we ordered 12 F-18G, which will start to be delivered this (?) year for IOC in 2017

Shane

[Gordon Shumway]

"can/able to operate" and "would actually operate" are two completely different animals ;)/> . I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I just do not see Canada operating two different fighter aircraft for any length of time, especially when a new fighter aircraft is only one of many hands being held out...the Navy needs new ships remember (not cheap) and I am sure the Army has grown to like its new Leopards and F model Chinooks etc etc. Someone's gotta pay or cuts have to come from somewhere to afford it...

:cheers:/>

It's not my attempt to argue or even disagree with you. I just toss around some points as to how it may not be a bad thing to operate two combat jet platforms. Many anti-F-35 guys do not like it being a 1 engine aircraft with our vast wilderness and possible harsh climate to bail out of a distressed jet from, with few suitable air fields to land at in case of an emergency. Super Hornets do have the fact of having two engines and that may reassure some.

As to total life costs of both, we really do not know what it may come down to for the RCAF and our DnD budget. Maybe it would be a more versatile plan to operate two combat jets for two different general needs. and maybe greater value for the price. I'm not saying 100% that will be so, I don't know. Thus why I am tossing this out for discussion.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Many anti-F-35 guys do not like it being a 1 engine aircraft with our vast wilderness and possible harsh climate to bail out of a distressed jet from, with few suitable air fields to land at in case of an emergency. Super Hornets do have the fact of having two engines and that may reassure some.

Again something that has been looked into. I'm amazed, simply amazed that people think the RCAF hasn't actually looked into this already.

As to total life costs of both, we really do not know what it may come down to for the RCAF and our DnD budget. Maybe it would be a more versatile plan to operate two combat jets for two different general needs. and maybe greater value for the price. I'm not saying 100% that will be so, I don't know. Thus why I am tossing this out for discussion.

No gordon, we do know. We know because they specifically checked. It's not a mystery.

And I'm saying canada looked into exactly that and said themselves it would cost more money that they would not be willing to pay. I even linked to the study.

I can't emphasize that enough. Saying "we really don't know" is like me saying we really don't know if a person can survive without a suit in space. We know, even without actually trying it. I know when I hit my thumb with a hammer it hurts, I have yet to have a different experience with that, and I have no reason to think it will feel good the next time I do it

We know mixed fleets cost more. We know KPMG did an audit to determine the lifetime of F-35 cost for canada for 42 years.

Edited June 8, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Gordon Shumway]

Some other good follow up points by you guys here.

Again we are up in Canuckville aware of the politics over our new combat jet choices, by both major parties. The narrative may be to buy one platform, but with our past few governments politicking and foot dragging has maybe begun to force our hand.

If the current government is looking at as they say "a stop gap" of buying a certain number F-18E/F as they may feel our legacy Hornets may fall short of capability and availability will require such. Maybe it's a back door way of Canada just going with F-18E/F, I'm not sure as none of us are and as we are not privy to the info from Cabinet. Maybe it is a way of redefining our RCAF future needs by adding a certain number F-18E/F while seeing where our government may go with F-35. I noted that Canada could probably get a certain number of F-18E/F quickly and in force operation say by 2017-2018. Then DnD can evaluate F-35 and roll with a number of those beginning at a later date say for discussion 2019 or later. We really don't know, but can all toss around POV's

Our nation has often politicized and bureaucratized military procurement badly over the years. Narratives once set in political stone have changed at times in our past. Ironically some of the smoothest procurements in recent era say over the last 35-40 years was Pierre Trudeau's government selecting F-18A/B. That "NFA" process was very clear and above board during the mid/late 1970's as the government and DnD studied the contenders, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F/A-18L and Tornado. His also gave our Navy our then new frigates as well and that went pretty smooth. Our basket case of politicizing and bureaucratizing military procurement became rather silly and almost politically toxic from the 90's and up to today.

[Gordon Shumway]

Again something that has been looked into. I'm amazed, simply amazed that people think the RCAF hasn't actually looked into this already.

No gordon, we do know. We know because they specifically checked. It's not a mystery.

And I'm saying canada looked into exactly that and said themselves it would cost more money that they would not be willing to pay. I even linked to the study.

I can't emphasize that enough. Saying "we really don't know" is like me saying we really don't know if a person can survive without a suit in space. We know, even without actually trying it. I know when I hit my thumb with a hammer it hurts, I have yet to have a different experience with that, and I have no reason to think it will feel good the next time I do it

We know mixed fleets cost more. We know KPMG did an audit to determine the lifetime of F-35 cost for canada for 42 years.

I'm not arguing you. If it is as said, then our government should have just gone with F-35, I mean the past government. Something we do not know is amiss here as to why the last government did not just go with F-35. I fear we are not at liberty to know all issues. The last PM was not cowardice to moving his agenda on many things politically and monetarily for Canada. Things more costly in the long run than an F-35 purchase or not. Boeing was not and looks to be is not going away with F-18E/F for Canada. The other choices are all IMO non-starters. We are not getting all the info here, money, performance of products, life cycle costs, planned future use by RCAF etc etc.

Something more than just politicking has caused foot dragging by the current and the last few governments.

[Don]

The info is out there Gordon if you go looking. Heck TT has linked at least one article in this thread alone plus how many can be found in the F-35 thread or scattered throughout the internet. The last government did want the F-35, they did the research and had they gotten re-elected would more then likely have finally been able to seal the deal. As you know procurement is a slow, and overly political process. But "sunny-ways" has pretty much backed himself into a corner with regards the F-35 by flat out canceling any further progression or movement towards actually procuring it and IIRC saying he wouldn't support buying it and would seek a cheaper alternative. At best he said he would reopen the competition process...again. Now, imagine if he and his government actually held a new fighter competition and it was determined (after how many more millions of Canadian tax payers dollars was spent) that the F-35 was indeed the best choice then how would that make Mr.GQ look? Enter the current SH rumor. So instead of doing what should be done (if he has indeed scrapped the work and money already spent by the previous administration) and hold a fair and balanced new fighter acquisition program (again) and running the risk of having the F-35 selected again thus making him look bad he will use up already limited funds towards a stop gap solution in the SH. And he would then look good for the Canadian SH rollout photo shoot .

But again, this is if the rumors surrounding the SH and the RCAF are indeed true.

EDIT: Remember the RCAF is only one branch of the military in bad need of new and expensive gear. There is only so much money to go around unless the defense budget gets a huge boost at the expense of some other programs...which we know won't happen on his watch.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Don

[Gordon Shumway]

Thanks for the info Don. Yes, the politics of the last election included more of our new combat jet fiasco. But lets be fair. Mr. Harper did approve F-35 but then due the the cost numbers his government said it would be was being politically argued, he backed down. He was not afraid of budget costs on many other issues, why so much on F-35?

This said I'm not impressed with "Sunny ways" on many issues already. Look at my signature for an idea of some of my views. Though of what is IMO a mostly lamo cabinet I do like the Defence Minister as a man who proudly served. But more I read here it looks as if Super Hornet may be "Sunny Ways" way of squirming out of his own backed into hole. Who knows???? I guess if it turns out to be F/A-18E/F (maybe G too) it's going to be better than just flying our well served CF-18's into the retirement pasture of tired air frames.

We will all have to stay tuned at our process of CF-18 replacement.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Gordon Shumway

[Don]

Indeed Gordon, time will tell. Right now its all rumors, speculation, and guess work... with the media fanning the flames as they often do <_<.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Don

[Scooby]

Well I think there have been instances where our forces have had multiple aircraft types..... at one point did we not have the CF-100/CF-101/CF-104/CF-116 and the CF-188 all operational.....although CF-100 was retired before The Hornet came on line. This all happened under T senior. So I can see Junior doing the same. We will have Lightning II the question is when.

Yup, both's T's were/are extremely stupid when it comes to the military.

[Scooby]

The same reason you don't see the Helicopter guys and CF-18 guys switching.

We don't switch? I worked Hercs, Twin Otters, Hueys, Kiowas, Griffons, and Hornets in the CAF. I was trained on all of them. :)

Someone tell my career manager we don't switch.

[Scooby]

Thanks for the info Don. Yes, the politics of the last election included more of our new combat jet fiasco. But lets be fair. Mr. Harper did approve F-35 but then due the the cost numbers his government said it would be was being politically argued, he backed down. He was not afraid of budget costs on many other issues, why so much on F-35?

This said I'm not impressed with "Sunny ways" on many issues already. Look at my signature for an idea of some of my views. Though of what is IMO a mostly lamo cabinet I do like the Defence Minister as a man who proudly served. But more I read here it looks as if Super Hornet may be "Sunny Ways" way of squirming out of his own backed into hole. Who knows???? I guess if it turns out to be F/A-18E/F (maybe G too) it's going to be better than just flying our well served CF-18's into the retirement pasture of tired air frames.

We will all have to stay tuned at our process of CF-18 replacement.

The current MND is a Liberal, he wasn't a full-time soldier. Just one who visually looked good, he is another "Sunny ways Liberal."

[Gordon Shumway]

Yup, both's T's were/are extremely stupid when it comes to the military.

Yes, one can attack Senior over things like the combing of the services and I'm sure other things military, but he also was the PM who's government did get us the CF-18 Hornet after the "NFA" contract was signed and it was his that also gave us the CP-140 and put the frigates order in place.

Neither major national party have been wise for our armed forces over the years. I'd say going back to after C.D. Howe, who was a real mover and shaker for Canada and our armed forces back then. I don't really know why Canada is like that, but maybe it's because we are joined at the hip with the US and know that it will defend it's interests in Canada if need be.

[Scooby]

The info is out there Gordon if you go looking. Heck TT has linked at least one article in this thread alone plus how many can be found in the F-35 thread or scattered throughout the internet. The last government did want the F-35, they did the research and had they gotten re-elected would more then likely have finally been able to seal the deal. As you know procurement is a slow, and overly political process. But "sunny-ways" has pretty much backed himself into a corner with regards the F-35 by flat out canceling any further progression or movement towards actually procuring it and IIRC saying he wouldn't support buying it and would seek a cheaper alternative. At best he said he would reopen the competition process...again. Now, imagine if he and his government actually held a new fighter competition and it was determined (after how many more millions of Canadian tax payers dollars was spent) that the F-35 was indeed the best choice then how would that make Mr.GQ look? Enter the current SH rumor. So instead of doing what should be done (if he has indeed scrapped the work and money already spent by the previous administration) and hold a fair and balanced new fighter acquisition program (again) and running the risk of having the F-35 selected again thus making him look bad he will use up already limited funds towards a stop gap solution in the SH. And he would then look good for the Canadian SH rollout photo shoot :thumbsup:/>.

But again, this is if the rumors surrounding the SH and the RCAF are indeed true.

EDIT: Remember the RCAF is only one branch of the military in bad need of new and expensive gear. There is only so much money to go around unless the defense budget gets a huge boost at the expense of some other programs...which we know won't happen on his watch.

The ironic thing is a previous Liberal put us into the F-35 program, they even upped us to Level 2 partners before losing power. The Liberals paid to be in the program and to be part of the R&D. It was the only way we could purchase the equipment, was to be a paying member. Now the Liberal's criticize the end result they formulated.

[Gordon Shumway]

The ironic thing is a previous Liberal put us into the F-35 program, they even upped us to Level 2 partners before losing power. The Liberals paid to be in the program and to be part of the R&D. It was the only way we could purchase the equipment, was to be a paying member. Now the Liberal's criticize the end result they formulated.

I know, that is a snap shot as to why this nation is kinda effed up politically and bureaucratically over our past military procurement policies. But to be fair, both major parties have been kind of messed up about this sort of stuff.

[Scooby]

Yes, one can attack Senior over things like the combing of the services and I'm sure other things military, but he also was the PM who's government did get us the CF-18 Hornet after the "NFA" contract was signed and it was his that also gave us the CP-140 and put the frigates order in place.

Neither major national party have been wise for our armed forces over the years. I'd say going back to after C.D. Howe, who was a real mover and shaker for Canada and our armed forces back then. I don't really know why Canada is like that, but maybe it's because we are joined at the hip with the US and know that it will defend it's interests in Canada if need be.

Something I have always struggled with which was taught during my RMC studies is this, "political parties reflect the will and desire of the populace."

I've always felt a political party reflects the will of a targeted populace.

If political parties do reflect the will of the populace, does the Canadian population not want a strong and effective military? If this is not true, why doesn't our populace go berserk when we are neglected by our government?