Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RCAF Hornet replacement.

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RCAF Hornet replacement.

Old 2nd Nov 2018, 05:05
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 99
How about something unusual? They need the RCAF to be equipped with the best aircraft that meets their mission requirements!
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2018, 16:32
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 68
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by spannermonkey View Post
Statement - Not entirely correct
Question response - No, not entirely correct
Happy? (question). Some people need to be a little less sensitive (statement).
Goodness, now I'm more confused than ever. Or does that make me too sensitive?

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 16:42.
KenV is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2018, 00:15
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
Originally Posted by F-16GUY View Post
Not to worry BV. Although I thought Denmark postponed the decision for an awful looooong time, Canada will too, when the time is right, chose the F-35. Trust me, its the only aircraft that will do the job, from now and 40+ years onward.
on one engine...
glad rag is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2018, 03:38
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CEH2 (Black Diamond, Alberta)
Posts: 5,663
on one engine...
Good point, glad rag. I have been wondering what the CF-18 drivers at Cold Lake and Bagotville have to say about flying over miles and miles of nothing on one engine.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2018, 05:17
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 99
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.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2018, 07:01
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by India Four Two View Post
Good point, glad rag. I have been wondering what the CF-18 drivers at Cold Lake and Bagotville have to say about flying over miles and miles of nothing on one engine.
Probably the same thing as the RAF, USN and any of the other partners and purchasers.,
Would we include the F-16 guys flying out of Alaska?
golder is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2018, 07:59
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,007
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 Canadaís new fighter back in the late 70ís.

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 itís time Canada re-evaluated itís 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 didnít 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 07:24.
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 4th Nov 2018, 08:16
  #28 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,356
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 donít believe it will be a significant factor in the privy rent d3cision - but perhaps in defending it.
ORAC is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2018, 09:41
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 99
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....
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 01:01
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 4,164
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.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 01:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
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".
LowObservable is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 02:31
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
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".
From the site you ref ( https://www.f35.com/global/participa...-participation ), it seems more than just “opportunities”, but contracted, if that site is correct.

“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 03:54.
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 05:32
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CEH2 (Black Diamond, Alberta)
Posts: 5,663
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.
Bob,

Thanks for your detailed reply. That makes sense to me.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 11:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
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
LowObservable is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 12:20
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,997
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?
BEagle is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 12:28
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,007
BEagle

Iím not sure why anyone who doesnít own a carrier would buy F35C?!

Most RCAF FJ pilots I know expect and want F35 (A model specifically).

Iím not saying itís 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
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 12:50
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
As a matter of interest what missions do you fly Bob and what are the weather limits?
glad rag is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 13:31
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,007
Gladrag

Iím not in Canada any more so I canít 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 doesnít 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 donít 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 hasnít changed, how can the answer be any different this time around? Super Hornet and Gripen NG may claim next gen capabilities but I donít know if they are on a par with F35.

Anyway, just hot air from me really because I donít know the answer and it doesnít 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
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 18:14
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 68
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post
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.
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 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2018, 18:37
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,007
KenV

Where exactly did I say what you have insinuated?

Iím quite aware of each jets characteristics and history. I shanít repeat what I said previously. May I politely suggest you re-read it instead?

BV
Bob Viking is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.