Quote:
Originally Posted by automaton 3
<snip>...At the end of the day, I suspect we still end up with at least some F-35's. I suspect there will be arguments for a split fleet like the Australians appear to be headed towards. Some Super Hornets first, and F-35s later when the cost comes down and the bugs are worked out.
|
The Aussies have found themselves in a worse boat than we are as far as remaining airframe life is concerned; their F-18A/B purchase was only 72 airframes. This despite the fact that they took delivery of a portion of their fleet after all of Canada's had been delivered (i.e. many of their machines are "younger" than ours).
In my opinion, Canada sh*t the bed when we let our option to purchase an additional 20 airframes (at the initial contract price) expire; we would be in a much better situation (with regards to the airframe fatigue issue) given all that has happened with the delays to the JSF project, if we would have had these additional machines to dillute/distribute the total hours.
Australia has no option...their A/B's are "timed out"; they can't wait any longer. That's why they are going ahead with their F-18E/F purchase (and as a result, will end up with a very expensive maintainance situation in years to come).
We are in a much better place, relatively speaking.
When we "contracted" our fleet following the pullout from Europe, we put a large portion of our "low hour" machines in mothballs at CFB Mountainview. When funding came through for the IMP in 2001, we had a decent number of "low hour" airframes; these are the ones that we are currently flying. These aircraft have been "gutted" from stem to stern (at the cost of Billions of dollars), re-equipped with "gen 4.5" systems/weapons, and are currently among the most capable F-18A's on the planet.
Most people do not realize this.
We (unlike the Aussies) can afford to wait a little longer for the F-35.
All this said, I am a strong advocate for a "split fleet" for Canada moving forward; this for much the same reason as I advocated for the DND to "exercise" our purchase option for additional CF-18's, twenty-odd years ago. To maintain "currency", our guys need to fly.
I'm not advocating a mish-mash of Gen 4.5's and F-35's though.
What I would push for is a reduced purchase of F-35's...pare the number down to ~ 45 aircraft. These would be solely tasked to our NORAD commitment and optomizied for the air-to-air (interceptor) role. With this number of airframes we could have two squadrons (409 at YOD and 425 at YBG) with 16 operational aircraft each, plus 6 per squadron (for a maintenance pool), and one for the guys at AETE (YOD) to play with.
Then take the rest of the money and buy as many T-50 "Golden Eagle's" (~$20M/ea) as we can. Base them at Cold Lake and Bagotville and have
them as the "currency/proficiency" machines; use them as the "lead in" trainers as well. The Korean machine uses a derivative of the F404, so it would allow for retention of AE Tech's (that are currently keeping our CF-18's flying) with a minimum of retraining. The T-50 also would give us a "low cost" alternative for "peacetime" air sovereignty intercepts, operating from the northern FOB's that we have already paid for. These missions would be flown by operational pilots from the two NORAD-tasked squadrons and would be supported by the "QRA" F-35's in Cold Lake and Bagtown if it proved that things
were actually going "pear shaped". It also would provide a low cost alternative for forward deployment (in any future "irregular" conflicts in which we may find ourselves involved) as the T-50 is perfectly capable as a bomb truck; even more so if the avionics from our retiring IMP Hornets are fitted/integrated.
For ~$3B we could aquire about 80 "bare bones" T-50's (including maintenance/support) and "shoehorn" many of the expensive avionics systems (from our timed out CF-18's) into them....for a minimal cost.
Food for thought.
As to the "political controversy"?
Meh. It's politics...