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 4th Dec 2021, 16:23
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 72
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by Davef68 View Post
They might deny it publicly, but I think Boeing is still a dirty word in the Canadian Govt after the A220 farago
Not just in Canada.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2021, 19:48
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montréal
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by rattman View Post
Maybe its only buy a small amount like 20 or so and allow themselves to kick the can down the street again for another couple of years
Can already kicked. Canada is buying second-hand Hornets from Australia "for parts".
Petit-Lion is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2021, 20:02
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by henra View Post
Very good point!
Typhoon is an excellent Airframe (especially A2A). It's supremely fast, powerful and agile. With AESA, Meteor and IRIS/ASRAAM a mighty Air Superiority platform that can sweep the airspace. On the other hand the Product Support and continued development is rather lackluster compared to F-35 or even Rafale. A2G Typhoon is still behind Tornado in many cpabilities and it is not VLO to compensate for this. There are no 'cool' additions exactly as you mentioned with Loyal wingman&Company. At the same time Typhoon and Rafale are amongst the very most expensive Fighter aircraft on the current market. Honestly, I also don't see big chances in any of the remaining competitions, being it Canada or Finland. And I can't even really blame them.
I’m intrigued to know how Typhoon is still behind Tornado in air to surface capabilities?
Foghorn Leghorn is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2021, 20:31
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn View Post
I’m intrigued to know how Typhoon is still behind Tornado in air to surface capabilities?
No back seat!
Timelord is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2021, 21:08
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by Petit-Lion View Post
Can already kicked. Canada is buying second-hand Hornets from Australia "for parts".

Yes but 20-30 gripens would allow the can to be kicked even further down the road. The 25 ex RAAF hornets of which 7 are for parts gets you down <10 years, 20ish gripens might get you down the road for 10 + years and still be usable after they eventually select the F-35 which we all know they will have to at some stage
rattman is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 01:42
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,091
Rattman

Buying 20 Gripens is not a case of kicking the can down the road. It would effectively be stomping on the can and throwing it on the bin.

Firstly an interim bit of new aircraft would take up all the money that might otherwise be available to buy F35.

Secondly (and it’s the aspect that politicians never seem to appreciate fully) the RCAF simply couldn’t provide the manning to do it.

If you are suggesting that Gripen work alongside the remaining Hornets (which I guess you are because 20 jets could not meet the RCAF taskings) then you would need two fleets of pilots/engineers etc. Unless something has drastically changed in Canada, that just isn’t going to happen.

The purchase of the RAAF jets was to recognise the fact that they could augment the knackered fleet of RCAF jets without making two fleets. Even an interim Super Hornet purchase would have created two fleets.

Anyway, I may be wrong but with the competitors left in the process F35 is the inevitable choice. I just cannot wait to see the kicking that Justin will get in the press and maybe the polls.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 02:02
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post
Buying 20 Gripens is not a case of kicking the can down the road. It would effectively be stomping on the can and throwing it on the bin.
Never said it was good plan, its a political plan, you can get the headlines "Canada to by new non american fighter" most of the public wont even bother to read any further, even less will look at the details on what makes it a good or bad plans.

He will get his headlines and photo ops when the first plane is delivered, meanwhile the RCAF get more screwed
rattman is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 06:51
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,091
rattman

I love your blue-sky thinking but I think we’ll agree to disagree on its’ likelihood.

Even Justin would struggle to put a positive spin on that plan.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 07:05
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 547
So plus points about the Gripen:

Gripen serviceability will be better – two conscripts and a screwdriver keep it flying – F-35 not so much.
Its a Saab aircraft so designed to fly from austere places – F-35 I imgine is more limited in places you would want to deploy to.
Gripen will be cheap to own, fly and upgrade – F-35 will be on the other end of the spectrum
Canada’s tankers have hose and drogue – surely no air force would be stupid enough to buy airplanes their tankers can’t refuel?? Oh
US units will be queuing up to do DACT with Canadian Gripens - - not so with F-35.
As most of the western world will fly F-35 – if Canada buys Gripen it will bring something different to the mix when they deploy.
Gripen is not American - which my be a big plus for some politicians.

On the flip side – LM use lots of $’s to be persuasive with the right people - Saab dont
typerated is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 07:32
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 465
TR The chosen RCAF tanker (MRTT) has boom and wing pods-pity we didn’t think ahead!
vascodegama is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 07:42
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 547
Thanks - Didn't know the tankers were due to be replaced too.

typerated is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 14:31
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nihon
Posts: 9
The perfect plane for Canada is the Rafale F4, all others than the Rafale is just a wast of money.
kimono1950 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 15:58
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,091
Kimono

Might we infer from your sales pitch that you are French per chance?

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 16:14
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by kimono1950 View Post
The perfect plane for Canada is the Rafale F4, all others than the Rafale is just a wast of money.
It turns out the Rafale isn’t in the running, otherwise I’m sure it would have been a huge success.
Foghorn Leghorn is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 16:19
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 1,444
Originally Posted by kimono1950 View Post
The perfect plane for Canada is the Rafale F4, all others than the Rafale is just a wast of money.
So perfect in fact, that Dassault chose to withdraw from the competition at the end of 2018....
GeeRam is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 21:19
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,020
Originally Posted by typerated View Post

On the flip side – LM use lots of $’s to be persuasive with the right people - Saab dont
You mean Saab don´t until they are caught in the act, like the South Africa and Brazil deals? 😬

……yes I know, BAE had som part in that mess……
M609 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2021, 22:53
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,510
It will all come down to politicians trying to make it look like they are making a reasoned decision to buy the aircraft that was previously cancelled.
Davef68 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2021, 07:39
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn View Post
I’m intrigued to know how Typhoon is still behind Tornado in air to surface capabilities?
No HARM/ALARM, no Kormoran/Sea Eagle. Currently the JDAM (GBU-38/54) is not yet fully implemented.
henra is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2021, 15:51
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by henra View Post
No HARM/ALARM, no Kormoran/Sea Eagle. Currently the JDAM (GBU-38/54) is not yet fully implemented.
I think we are talking nation specific here. ALARM had all but gone from GR4’s inventory towards the end. Sea Eagle had not been in the inventory for over a decade by the end and GR4 never used JDAM. At the moment, I’m still struggling to see how the UK Typhoon is behind Tornado GR4 (noting GR4 is no longer in service).
Foghorn Leghorn is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2021, 17:20
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 991
I suppose you could argue it has no PW3 or raptor pod?

About the only difference I can think of.
downsizer is offline  

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.