[driveway]

I recently read this article from Foxtrot Alpha about the Super Hornet and it made a hell of a lot of good points about why we should choose the F/A-18 E/F over the F-35.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...t-t-1587492909

It's a looong article, but here are some excerpts.

There are about 80 CF-18s in RCAF inventory today, which is interesting as the Ottawa seeks to replace its proven Hornets with only 65 much more complicated F-35s. This leads to the following questions:

-Are 65 tactical aircraft really a relevant sized force for a nation the size of the US?

-How can such a small force adequately provide air sovereignty while also training for a multitude of missions, yet alone deploying in relevant numbers for actual combat operations?

-Will Canada be able to provide independent training for aircrews as it does today with such a tiny F-35 force structure?

All these questions can basically be rolled into one larger question: Is there more value in numbers than extreme capabilities considering that such a large nation will have roughly the same amount of tactical aircraft as a single Carrier Air Wing at surge capacity? In fact, Oregon alone will have almost as many tactical fighters as all of Canada!

...

The Super Hornet, with its low acquisition cost (less than half the cost of a single F-35) and much lower operating costs could allow for Canada to maintain its organic crew training program based out of CFB Cold Lake, Alberta. For decades the 410th Tactical Fighter Operational Training Squadron has become notorious for training some of the best fighter pilots in the world under Canada's own terms. The loss of such a capability would give up a fair portion of Canada's sovereignty over their pilot corps and their unique air power doctrine.

...

The Super Hornet was designed to operate in horrible conditions, and the fact that it packs a pair of the most reliable fighter-jet engines around, the GE-F414, means that it retains the same hardy qualities that made Canada pick the Hornet originally. RCAF officials knew the New Fighter Aircraft would be operating out of austere and freezing airfields and flying over extremely remote areas where two engines could mean the difference between life and death.
...
It all comes down to what a nation is willing to pay for what level of "solution" they actually need. For instance, if the Super Hornet Advanced is an 80% solution to the F-35's 100% solution, but costs half that of the F-35, is that extra 20% of capability worth double the acquisition and operating costs?
...
Then there is the whole numbers issue, wouldn't Canada be better served by 130 Advanced Super Hornets (approx $60M per copy) than 65 F-35s (approx $120M per copy)?
...
Other alternative force structures on Canada's same budget are even more enticing, such as immediately procuring 80 Advanced Super Hornets to replace the RCAF's geriatric CF-18s at $65M per copy, and retain $3.8B for eventually procuring a top-of-the-line stealthy semi-autonomous UCAV for deep-penetrating strike and reconnaissance missions. For 36 UCAVs at $75M a pop (including shared ground control stations), that would equal $2.7B. This leaves over $1B for a squadron of EA-18G Growlers to provide outstanding jamming, electronic attack and suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) for the entire fleet.
...
Although the F-35 may be the most expensive fighter option available to Canada today it is far from the most suitable for their unique needs and budgetary constraints. [The F/A-18 EF Super Hornet] A cocktail of proven and highly advanced systems, which are fall well within Canada's budgetary restrictions, is the right solution to their 21st century air combat needs.