Canada plans to buy NEW Fighter Jets - F-35 reported chosen

[Shazam]

Pfft, they're gong to lose 30% of their value once they fly off the lot.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

If the Aussie's are buying 100 for their country, I think it makes sense for a landmass as large as ours to have at least that amount. Yet we are only gunning for around 65.

They're a little alone down there.

Our nearest neighbour is going to have hundreds and they have a - mostly - vested interest in keeping us safe and happy.

Again, it just depends whom you think your enemy is going to be and where.

If the USA is our enemy in the Artic then we're screwed anyway.

Cowperson

[0reo]

Originally Posted by photon

I think that was the original #, but with crashes and cannibalizing I think the # of operational planes is far lower if I recall.

The Capt'n will probably be around soon to give better info on the #.

Yes you're right. Good call.

Even with 72 CF-18's, I'm sure that's still a lot of money to maintain those beasts.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

In related news, I'm still pissed about the Avro Arrow.

You can get over it now. The overall design for the Arrow, and every aircraft like it from that generation was quickly outmodded. The need for straight-and-fast interceptors was greatly overblown.

It’s a nice story, but the Arrow would never have lived up to the mystique that now surrounds it.

[Shazam]

What if was called the Eh-row?

[Thor]

Just have to say having an older brother who's a pilot and aficionado of planes, I've long had a crush on the f-18, especially when I saw it at an airshow in cold lake when I was 14, when the announcer said it was the only plane that could go straight up and gain speed. Well something like that, as a kid I just remember it being so cool.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Thor

Just have to say having an older brother who's a pilot and aficionado of planes, I've long had a crush on the f-18, especially when I saw it at an airshow in cold lake when I was 14, when the announcer said it was the only plane that could go straight up and gain speed. Well something like that, as a kid I just remember it being so cool.

Yeah, that's not right, there are some planes that can do that, and the CF-18 isn't one of them.

The CF-18 only has a Thurst to weight ratio of ~0.9 (checked wikipedia for that one) so it can't accelerate straight up.

[0reo]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

You can get over it now. The overall design for the Arrow, and every aircraft like it from that generation was quickly outmodded. The need for straight-and-fast interceptors was greatly overblown.

It’s a nice story, but the Arrow would never have lived up to the mystique that now surrounds it.

The program had a lot of potential though, you gotta admit.

Who knows how Canada's aero-reputation would be like today if it were never discontinued.

[0reo]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, that's not right, there are some planes that can do that, and the CF-18 isn't one of them.

The CF-18 only has a Thurst to weight ratio of ~0.9 (checked wikipedia for that one) so it can't accelerate straight up.

Hm that's ironic. I thought for sure it'd have no problem doing that with two engines.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Are our CF-18s really SO outdated for the military that we need to order upwards of 65 JSFs? Aren't there aspects of the military that could use that money a lot more?

The remaining jets just completed a major update and in systems and weapons terms are in really good shape. The helmet mounted cueing system in particular is a huge leap forward. The Norad commander recently commented that the Canadian jets are some of the most advanced he has in inventory other than the F-22's.

However in terms of airframe life, these are getting to be very tired jets. We performed a centre barrel replacement in some of our jets at great time and expense which gives them a little more life, but with the airframe stresses that a combat jet is subjected to they have definite service lives which is fast approaching.

As for the JSF, I am not sold at all. These are very much "paper" jets still.

There are enormous cost overruns and the test program is far, far behind. The performance numbers we've seen so far are not impressive. It is overweight. The software code to fly the jet is still in its infancy, let alone the coding for the sensors and weapons systems. It is somewhat stealthy from the front aspect only, no where close to an F-22 overall. All of the other international partners are putting on the brakes for these reasons (the spiraling cost one of the biggest factors).

A competition is by far the preferable route to replace the 18's in my humble opinion. The Eurofighter, the Gripen NG and the Super Hornets with the coming uprated engines look like they might be quite competitive.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Akai-Sesui

It's too bad that we won't be picking up any of the STOVL versions.

Well, it's not like Canada really needs STOVL. I don't see vertical landing as being used very often.

Thrust vectoring was deleted off these too wasn't it?

[csnarpy]

Originally Posted by 0reo

Hm that's ironic. I thought for sure it'd have no problem doing that with two engines.

They can accelerate straight up with afterburners. they used to be one of 3 planes that could do this. (the Fulcrum and the F-15?). That ratio doesn't take into account of afterburners kicked in. Go to any airshow with an CF-18 that's a part of the routine. You will watch it slowly walk the airstrip and then almost come to a hovering stop as it kicks in its afterburners and climbs the sky vertically. It's a great site to see (and even better when your in the plane)

Two F404-GE-402 afterburning engines, each in the 18,000 pound thrust class, which results in a combat thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1-to-1.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...f-18-specs.htm

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

The remaining jets just completed a major update and in systems and weapons terms are in really good shape. The helmet mounted cueing system in particular is a huge leap forward. The Norad commander recently commented that the Canadian jets are some of the most advanced he has in inventory other than the F-22's.

However in terms of airframe life, these are getting to be very tired jets. We performed a centre barrel replacement in some of our jets at great time and expense which gives them a little more life, but with the airframe stresses that a combat jet is subjected to they have definite service lives which is fast approaching.

As for the JSF, I am not sold at all. These are very much "paper" jets still.

There are enormous cost overruns and the test program is far, far behind. The performance numbers we've seen so far are not impressive. It is overweight. The software code to fly the jet is still in its infancy, let alone the coding for the sensors and weapons systems. It is somewhat stealthy from the front aspect only, no where close to an F-22 overall. All of the other international partners are putting on the brakes for these reasons (the spiraling cost one of the biggest factors).

A competition is by far the preferable route to replace the 18's in my humble opinion. The Eurofighter, the Gripen NG and the Super Hornets with the coming uprated engines look like they might be quite competitive.

Awesome, From what I read the F-18's are starting to develop microfractures in the air frames which is starting to become a fairly serious problems. Electronic wise the CF is still very advanced, but there's only so much more upgrading that they can do.

I do agree with the JSF evaluation here, while its a really neat concept for a multirole jet with some stealth capability, I don't know if it really fits in with what Canada wants to accomplish. My preference would be to go to the Super Hornet which is an excellent plane and will give a long service life. The transitional training for aircrew and pilots will be a lot shorter as well.

I'd love to see a run off for Canada's airforce love. But I'd prefer to stay with one of the American made jets just because of our close ties within Norad.

[Bigtime]

Some great discussion about the pros and cons of the F-35, I'd have no problem seeing us end up with the Super Hornets either. I wonder if the Air Force has a preference to 2 engine models versus 1? I believe that was a factor back when they first decided on the F-18.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 0reo

The program had a lot of potential though, you gotta admit.

Who knows how Canada's aero-reputation would be like today if it were never discontinued.

For the time it was an excellent jet, but it was a single mission interceptor built to take on Soviet bombers at higher altitudes. Canada was smart enough to realize that the day and age of single mission fighters was rapidly approaching he end, and opted to go with multi-mission capable fighters while making some horrible purchasing mistakes with the CF-104 StarFighter and the CF-5 Freedom fighter.

I guess if the Avro program would have continued, they would have been able to transition the technology into other capability fighters, but they were so focused on making the fastest high altitude straight line interceptor that they failed to see the trees.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Am I the only one who thinks it's absolutely ######ed to buy that many stealth fighter jets? Who are they going to fight? Kites over Afghani mountains?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Some great discussion about the pros and cons of the F-35, I'd have no problem seeing us end up with the Super Hornets either. I wonder if the Air Force has a preference to 2 engine models versus 1? I believe that was a factor back when they first decided on the F-18.

They were really specific with the CF-18 program that it had to be rugged, have two engines and the ability to pull and replace an engine in a very short time.

I don't really like the concept of a single engine anything when I'm at 20,000 feet.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Am I the only one who thinks it's absolutely ######ed to buy that many stealth fighter jets? Who are they going to fight? Kites over Afghani mountains?

Roles change as do Nato Mission Requirements.

While its a strong decision to have flexible fighters for home defense, there will probably come a time when it would be nice to be able to deploy ground support for our troops instead of having to depend on our other allies.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

and opted to go with multi-mission capable fighters while making some horrible purchasing mistakes with the CF-104 StarFighter and the CF-5 Freedom fighter.

Oh but the CF-5 sure was a pretty little plane!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Roles change as do Nato Mission Requirements.

While its a strong decision to have flexible fighters for home defense, there will probably come a time when it would be nice to be able to deploy ground support for our troops instead of having to depend on our other allies.

I'm sure they do, but are stealth fighter jets really the way to go? I'm no military expert but I'd say unmanned aircraft (for example) makes more sense as these planes can be used in real situations/current war on terror.

The only way these fighter jets will engage in combat would be against Russian/Chinese jets, and if things go sour that much, we're fataed so badly not even 100 jets will help us.