Canada seeking to replace CF-18 fighter fleet

[dammage79]

I feel as though Canada should be looking to the Eurofighter or Gripen. Proven designs and both are capable of meeting Canadas fighter jet needs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Eurojet (I hope I'm right this time) can't use the weapons that Canada has standardized out. We would be dependent on their supply chain.

The Gripen is a multi-role fighter that doesn't do any of the roles particularly well.

The reviews of the plane including its sensor suite and performance are sub par.

I'm disappointed with the F-35. If it was producing as advertised there's no question that its the best possible choice. Lockheed Martin is in big trouble with this jet.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Eurojet (I hope I'm right this time) can't use the weapons that Canada has standardized out. We would be dependent on their supply chain.

The Gripen is a multi-role fighter that doesn't do any of the roles particularly well.

The reviews of the plane including its sensor suite and performance are sub par.

I'm disappointed with the F-35. If it was producing as advertised there's no question that its the best possible choice. Lockheed Martin is in big trouble with this jet.

The French Rafale is the one that does not load Nato weapons. Eurofighter can carry Nato payloads.

Either way, should be interesting to see how this all plays out on all sorts of political levels here in Canada and especially in the U.S.

The U.S defense budget is getting some major cuts made to it so the F-35 may not even see the light of day. Lockheed maybe in some deep doo doo very soon.

[Hatter]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons for purchasing only 65 F-35's was due to the perception of higher survivability due to stealth technology. If Canada decides to abandon the F-35 procurement, do any of you think we'll see a larger purchase of jets?

If the F-18SH is half the price of the F-35A, would there be a logical reason to expand the purchase to say, 90 jets? Or if they went with the Eurofighter, would they buy ~75?

Obviously the maintenance and flight hour costs would be higher with a larger fleet, and we'd need the extra pilots, but it's interesting to consider.

[CaptainCrunch]

That was the idea, a smaller airforce of more efficient, deadlier planes with a high survivability rate and a higher kill ratio.

If you go by that theory, then your probably looking at a similar size purchase to the CF-18's if we go with the super hornets or other jets.

[oilyfan]

The Eurofighter is a very capable fighter, essentially 4.5 generation, highly maneuverable and has stealth characteristics. Came in second (really only in price) to the Rafale in the Indian MRCA competition.

It has been produced in high numbers and should be a good aircraft for the Canadian Forces. If they want a heavier aircraft get the Super Hornet, which is essentially a new airframe, but with enough commonality with the esiting CF-18's so as to make the transition easier.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Hatter

If I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons for purchasing only 65 F-35's was due to the perception of higher survivability due to stealth technology. If Canada decides to abandon the F-35 procurement, do any of you think we'll see a larger purchase of jets?

If the F-18SH is half the price of the F-35A, would there be a logical reason to expand the purchase to say, 90 jets? Or if they went with the Eurofighter, would they buy ~75?

Obviously the maintenance and flight hour costs would be higher with a larger fleet, and we'd need the extra pilots, but it's interesting to consider.

Flight hour costs wouldn't be higher necessarily for more planes of a different make. Off the top of my head Lockheed projected that flight hour cost for the F-35 was twice that of the super hornet. I don't have the math in front of me but I think we could get something like 160 Gripens, 130 super hornets, 90 Eurofighter or Rafales for the price we were going to spend on the F-35. CC is right, if this plane was performing as advertised there would be no question it would be the plane to beat.

I think Lockheed has enough money and contracts to survive this but it's sure gonna hurt if the US govt scraps their plane.

[You Need a Thneed]

If pilots can't see behind them, install rear view mirrors.

[speede5]

There are no ejection seat equipped aircraft with good rear visibility. There are always mirrors installed around the windscreen. You are strapped in so tight and the head rest (actually called a headbox) is essential for safe ejection, plus it is the box in which the parachute is stored.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by speede5

There are no ejection seat equipped aircraft with good rear visibility. There are always mirrors installed around the windscreen. You are strapped in so tight and the head rest (actually called a headbox) is essential for safe ejection, plus it is the box in which the parachute is stored.

The F-16 has a bubble canopy, is ejection seat equipped (like all aircraft in the last 60 years) and has excellent all around visibility. The rear visibility problem was brought to light a long time ago by test pilots of the F-35 and nothing was done.

[photon]

If we want a small but capable fleet, the Eurofighter is probably the way to go, air to air, supercruise, BVR, it's extremely capable in those roles. The Gripen is probably better as a multi-role (better air to ground than the Eurofighter). But what percentage of usage is going to be what?

If we want to defend our airspace, the Eurofighter seems the better choice (even defeated F-22's apparently).

But I don't think we'd go wrong with twice as many Gripens either.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

If we want a small but capable fleet, the Eurofighter is probably the way to go, air to air, supercruise, BVR, it's extremely capable in those roles. The Gripen is probably better as a multi-role (better air to ground than the Eurofighter). But what percentage of usage is going to be what?

If we want to defend our airspace, the Eurofighter seems the better choice (even defeated F-22's apparently).

But I don't think we'd go wrong with twice as many Gripens either.

I would have to go back and re-read that but it was a test that was heavily stacked against the F-22.

When the American's train with their allies they intentionally cripple their technology because they don't want to give away the true capabilities of their technology and training, it forces their soldiers to be better.

Canada does hold some pretty significant training victories against the American military in training excercises scoring a rare carrier "kill" where a Canadian sub popped up in the middle of a carrier formation.

If I remember right the Canadian airforce tore the American's a new one in a competition a few years back as well.

[photon]

Even if it was stacked against the F-22, is there anything else gen 4 / 4.5 that meets the Eurofighter in AA type roles that we can buy but still has AG capability?

EDIT: Yeah I guess they even pulled that F-22 kills stuff from the Typhoon website.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

Even if it was stacked against the F-22, is there anything else gen 4 / 4.5 that meets the Eurofighter in AA type roles that we can buy but still has AG capability?

EDIT: Yeah I guess they even pulled that F-22 kills stuff from the Typhoon website.

Not from a Western country.

the Gripen was suppossed to be able to fill that role of multi-role, but reviews that I've read kinda state that it doesn't do either role very well.

I would be ok with the Super Hornet if we weren't buying for the next 20 to 30 years. I was a big fan of the hornet. But we have to remember that when we bought that there were some issues with the aircraft that would have effected its deployment here as well and we over came that by truly making the fighter our own.

I just really don't like the idea of European figher purchases when our industry is basically married to American aerospace.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Hatter

If I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons for purchasing only 65 F-35's was due to the perception of higher survivability due to stealth technology. If Canada decides to abandon the F-35 procurement, do any of you think we'll see a larger purchase of jets?

If the F-18SH is half the price of the F-35A, would there be a logical reason to expand the purchase to say, 90 jets? Or if they went with the Eurofighter, would they buy ~75?

Obviously the maintenance and flight hour costs would be higher with a larger fleet, and we'd need the extra pilots, but it's interesting to consider.

Yeah that was the theory - and I also suspect that the RCAF might have been cutting the numbers down to the bone, trying to keep the sticker shock down.

IIRC in the KPMG report the # of airframes was questioned, in that it apparently leaves no room for attrition. Edit: the report estimates 7-11 airframes will be lost to attrition.

One key to the longevity of our current fleet is that we started with 138.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I just really don't like the idea of European fighter purchases when our industry is basically married to American aerospace.

Might be time to get a divorce. Things don't look good down in the old U.S of A.

Buying Eurofighters or Gripens could open up better free trade with Europe and keep our economy stronger?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Might be time to get a divorce. Things don't look good down in the old U.S of A.

Buying Eurofighters or Gripens could open up better free trade with Europe and keep our economy stronger?

Might be a nice bargaining chip in the current EU free trade discussions.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

The F-16 has a bubble canopy, is ejection seat equipped (like all aircraft in the last 60 years) and has excellent all around visibility. The rear visibility problem was brought to light a long time ago by test pilots of the F-35 and nothing was done.

I hear what your saying, but I really think this is a bit of a red herring. The F-16 benefits from an inclined seat, and yes it does have the bubble canopy. the pilot sits very high up in the aircraft. When you strap into most of these machines rear vis is really limited.

[Barnes]

Boeing has also said that they will meet and exceed lockheed's industrial benefits for Canadian companies. Not sure if European manufacturers can say the same.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Might be a nice bargaining chip in the current EU free trade discussions.

I'm hoping we can kill off supply management as our bargaining chip. If we change our fighter program and keep our import taxes on cheese...