RCAF Hornet replacement.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any event, what is the answer to my ("not entirely correct") question? Specifically:
Will buying another fighter, be it European or American, likely bring new economic benefits to Canada while not effecting Canada's existing F-35 partnership?
Last edited by KenV; 2nd Nov 2018 at 15:42.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on one engine...
Well the Canucks flew F-86's and CF-104's in Canada and Europe for eons...F-16's/Grippens roam around on one donk in many many nations and conditions. The Norwegians operate in the extreme high latitudes and chose the F-35 e.g.
Would we include the F-16 guys flying out of Alaska?
Single engine vs twin engine
I spent 3.5 years at Cold Lake not so long ago. I was flying the Hawk in a training role. I used to hear the twin engine argument trotted out with predictable monotony.
I understand their point. Canada is huge and bloody cold in the winter.
I always felt, however, that the viewpoint was a little outdated. Indeed, I believe it was probably a hang up from an old Mcdonell Douglas advertising campaign from when it was competing with the Lockheed F16 to become Canada’s new fighter back in the late 70’s.
RCAF jets do not routinely (ie on a daily basis) operate way out in the frozen wastelands. They deploy (operationally) to Inuvik and Iqaluit for NORAD taskings.
During normal day to day operations they operate from a base with co located SAR.
Is Inuvik any worse than Syria or Iraq?
Plenty of nations seem happy enough to send their pilots into operational theatres in single engine jets.
Maybe it’s time Canada re-evaluated it’s twin engine obsession. Saab and LM seem happy enough to offer their jets up for the procurement competition so they must be confident their jets single engine must offer the reliability and safety that Canada requires for Arctic operations.
Just my take as a guy who has operated at (albeit usually within 100-150 miles of) Cold Lake through several winters. Also, knowing the dangers, it didn’t stop me flying my Hawk over the Rockies on cross country flights even in the winter.
BV
I understand their point. Canada is huge and bloody cold in the winter.
I always felt, however, that the viewpoint was a little outdated. Indeed, I believe it was probably a hang up from an old Mcdonell Douglas advertising campaign from when it was competing with the Lockheed F16 to become Canada’s new fighter back in the late 70’s.
RCAF jets do not routinely (ie on a daily basis) operate way out in the frozen wastelands. They deploy (operationally) to Inuvik and Iqaluit for NORAD taskings.
During normal day to day operations they operate from a base with co located SAR.
Is Inuvik any worse than Syria or Iraq?
Plenty of nations seem happy enough to send their pilots into operational theatres in single engine jets.
Maybe it’s time Canada re-evaluated it’s twin engine obsession. Saab and LM seem happy enough to offer their jets up for the procurement competition so they must be confident their jets single engine must offer the reliability and safety that Canada requires for Arctic operations.
Just my take as a guy who has operated at (albeit usually within 100-150 miles of) Cold Lake through several winters. Also, knowing the dangers, it didn’t stop me flying my Hawk over the Rockies on cross country flights even in the winter.
BV
Last edited by Bob Viking; 15th Nov 2018 at 06:24.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
One of those unwinnable arguments.
Accepting that engine failures are increasingly rare events, and most of those who eject will be recovered anyway, there will still be increased airframe loses and some aircrew loses over hostile or inhospitable terrain or water.
I remember figures being produced to show that, if one offsets the costs of only buying half the number of engines and account for lifetime fuel consumption and maintenance, then even with the increased number of loses an F-16 fleet would be cheaper over its life than an F-18 fleet. I presume the replacement aircrew recruitment and training costs were included in the calculations.
Whilst an emotive argument, I don’t believe it will be a significant factor in the privy rent d3cision - but perhaps in defending it.
Accepting that engine failures are increasingly rare events, and most of those who eject will be recovered anyway, there will still be increased airframe loses and some aircrew loses over hostile or inhospitable terrain or water.
I remember figures being produced to show that, if one offsets the costs of only buying half the number of engines and account for lifetime fuel consumption and maintenance, then even with the increased number of loses an F-16 fleet would be cheaper over its life than an F-18 fleet. I presume the replacement aircrew recruitment and training costs were included in the calculations.
Whilst an emotive argument, I don’t believe it will be a significant factor in the privy rent d3cision - but perhaps in defending it.
RAAF Hawk 127 fleet of 33 aircraft after 17 years in service, ~200,000 fleet flight hours, used for LIF/fleet support, advanced training and other missions is still 33 aircraft - single engine....
The elephant in the room is the F35 sustainment costs. Buying it is the cheap part it is owning it that is the killer. USAF leadership are already on record that they won’t be able to operate the aircraft they are going to get without cutting capability elsewhere. If the USAF can’t afford it then I don’t see how Canada can.
Finally the F35 is a first strike weapon optimized to achieve airspace battlefield supremacy as part of a elaborate and comprehensive networked system to deliver air effects in the mostly highly contested areas. Canada’s foreign policy states will not do first strike operations and Canada does not have any of the network enablers that make the F35 special.
Before Canada buys a new fighter it is time to answer some fundamental questions, like why do we have an airforce and what does the government intend to do with it. Define the tactical air effects desired and then buy the airframe best suited.
Finally the F35 is a first strike weapon optimized to achieve airspace battlefield supremacy as part of a elaborate and comprehensive networked system to deliver air effects in the mostly highly contested areas. Canada’s foreign policy states will not do first strike operations and Canada does not have any of the network enablers that make the F35 special.
Before Canada buys a new fighter it is time to answer some fundamental questions, like why do we have an airforce and what does the government intend to do with it. Define the tactical air effects desired and then buy the airframe best suited.
Canadian industrial participation in the F-35 program has reached $1 billion,
Errm, no, According to the (wholly objective) F-35.com website, that's the total for "opportunities", which reminds me of the (offensive and unrepeatable) joke about the difference between "actually" and "potentially".
Errm, no, According to the (wholly objective) F-35.com website, that's the total for "opportunities", which reminds me of the (offensive and unrepeatable) joke about the difference between "actually" and "potentially".
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian industrial participation in the F-35 program has reached $1 billion,
Errm, no, According to the (wholly objective) F-35.com website, that's the total for "opportunities", which reminds me of the (offensive and unrepeatable) joke about the difference between "actually" and "potentially".
Errm, no, According to the (wholly objective) F-35.com website, that's the total for "opportunities", which reminds me of the (offensive and unrepeatable) joke about the difference between "actually" and "potentially".
“Canadian industry has more than $1 billion in industrial opportunities already contracted for the F-35 Lightning II program - .......”
Last edited by rjtjrt; 5th Nov 2018 at 02:54.
RCAF jets do not routinely (ie on a daily basis) operate way out in the frozen wastelands. They deploy (operationally) to Inuvik for NORAD taskings.
During normal day to day operations they operate from a base with co located SAR.
During normal day to day operations they operate from a base with co located SAR.
Thanks for your detailed reply. That makes sense to me.
rjtjrt - What that literally means is that Canadian companies have been awarded contracts that will be worth $1 billion at some point, depending on the number of airplanes built.
https://www.f35.com/global/participa...-participation
https://www.f35.com/global/participa...-participation
One wonders whether the operational experience of the RCAF working with NATO allies in recent conflicts will have any influence on the ultimate decision, or whether the political and industrial groups will have a bigger say?
If operational experience has any impact, then I would rate the contestants in the order:
Super Hornet
Rafale
Typhoon
F-35C
F-35A
Gripen
Perhaps the French Canadian politicians might look kindly on Rafale if they can secure a good deal from leur amis across the pond?
If operational experience has any impact, then I would rate the contestants in the order:
Super Hornet
Rafale
Typhoon
F-35C
F-35A
Gripen
Perhaps the French Canadian politicians might look kindly on Rafale if they can secure a good deal from leur amis across the pond?
BEagle
I’m not sure why anyone who doesn’t own a carrier would buy F35C?!
Most RCAF FJ pilots I know expect and want F35 (A model specifically).
I’m not saying it’s what they need or indeed should have. Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that Trudeau will not want to backtrack on his stated opposition to F35.
All that being said, it would be a huge departure for Canada to buy something not built in North America.
BV
Most RCAF FJ pilots I know expect and want F35 (A model specifically).
I’m not saying it’s what they need or indeed should have. Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that Trudeau will not want to backtrack on his stated opposition to F35.
All that being said, it would be a huge departure for Canada to buy something not built in North America.
BV
Gladrag
I’m not in Canada any more so I can’t quote them chapter and verse.
It depends on aircraft type and mission. A Hawk on a training mission and a Hornet on a live scramble will have subtly different limits.
I guess what you're after are temperature limits. From what I remember the lower limit is -35C ambient (might be -30C) with a wind chill limit of -40 I think. Basically bloody cold and a CO can authorise lower if required for operational reasons. CRFI or JBI limits are also key but not really relevant to this conversation. Unless you buy F35B I guess then friction doesn’t matter. That is a joke by the way.
What I meant to add to my previous post was a point about requirements.
Several years ago the Canadian government selected F35. You don’t accidentally choose F35 if what you wanted was a conventional fighter. The requirement must have been for 5th gen characteristics otherwise F35 would not have been selected.
So, assuming the requirement hasn’t changed, how can the answer be any different this time around? Super Hornet and Gripen NG may claim next gen capabilities but I don’t know if they are on a par with F35.
Anyway, just hot air from me really because I don’t know the answer and it doesn’t affect me either way. Although as a Canadian citizen I am, of course, outraged by the flawed and protracted procurement process of my (joint) adopted land.
BV
It depends on aircraft type and mission. A Hawk on a training mission and a Hornet on a live scramble will have subtly different limits.
I guess what you're after are temperature limits. From what I remember the lower limit is -35C ambient (might be -30C) with a wind chill limit of -40 I think. Basically bloody cold and a CO can authorise lower if required for operational reasons. CRFI or JBI limits are also key but not really relevant to this conversation. Unless you buy F35B I guess then friction doesn’t matter. That is a joke by the way.
What I meant to add to my previous post was a point about requirements.
Several years ago the Canadian government selected F35. You don’t accidentally choose F35 if what you wanted was a conventional fighter. The requirement must have been for 5th gen characteristics otherwise F35 would not have been selected.
So, assuming the requirement hasn’t changed, how can the answer be any different this time around? Super Hornet and Gripen NG may claim next gen capabilities but I don’t know if they are on a par with F35.
Anyway, just hot air from me really because I don’t know the answer and it doesn’t affect me either way. Although as a Canadian citizen I am, of course, outraged by the flawed and protracted procurement process of my (joint) adopted land.
BV
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummmm, I'm quite confident that SAAB and Lockheed did not design their jets with Canada in mind at all. Indeed the F-35 was mandated by the US government to be single engine totally independent of the needs or the desires of USAF or USN. USMC's STOVL requirement totally drove the single engine decision.
KenV
Where exactly did I say what you have insinuated?
I’m quite aware of each jets characteristics and history. I shan’t repeat what I said previously. May I politely suggest you re-read it instead?
BV
I’m quite aware of each jets characteristics and history. I shan’t repeat what I said previously. May I politely suggest you re-read it instead?
BV