Canadian Govt buys 18 Super Hornets

[Rockie]

Putting all the technical aspects aside (which I know nothing about), let’s call a spade a spade. This whole issue on the SH is nothing short of crass politics. PMJT doesn’t want the F-35, period and full stop, he said so in his campaign last year leading up to his victory October 2015. If he starts the open completion for complete replacement now the F-35 just may indeed win and what a pickle he would be in leading up to 3 yrs. time for another mandate. That’s why the 5-year process, put this issue off until next mandate (should he get that and judging by current slate of CPC warmed over has-beens, that shouldn’t be a problem). The planned purchase of 18 Super Hornets as an interim measure is telling his critics aka CPC at least I am doing something, you guys did eff all during your 10 years in power other that create a huge mess with the F-35 and there is a certain element of truth into that. It’s just JT playing for time, that’s it.

Shack.

[tailgunner]

Let's put this into some historical context. This decision is the same as buying Gloster Gladiators when the Hurricane and Spitfire were available. It is like purchasing F4U Corsairs when the Sabre was already flying. Like purchasing Sabre MK6's when the F4 Phantom was already flying. Like purchasing F4 Phantoms when the F14/15/16/18 were already flying......

[Rockie]

Let's put this into some historical context. This decision is the same as buying Gloster Gladiators when the Hurricane and Spitfire were available. It is like purchasing F4U Corsairs when the Sabre was already flying. Like purchasing Sabre MK6's when the F4 Phantom was already flying. Like purchasing F4 Phantoms when the F14/15/16/18 were already flying......

Like buying the Honda CR-V you can afford to run around town, instead of the Porsche Cayenne you can't.

[tailgunner]

Rockie, you have to purchase the equipment with the idea that they are going to be used for combat, and not for show and tell. The British government took a huge decision in the mid thirties to buy expensive new fighters. Those expensive fighters (Spifire/Hurricane) held the line 5 years later.
I would prefer to give our Airforce the latest, not the cheapest. The pilot of the enemy Sukhoi could care less about affordability as he waxes an overwhelmed and outmatched SH

[frosti]

1. The F35's in Alaska will not be straying far from home and will stick mostly within their training area, where there is extensive SAR capability in place. They are also part of the force that could quickly deploy to Asia if necessary. A far cry from Canada.

2. The F35's Canada loses will not be replaced, and we are only getting the bare minimum to do the job as envisioned today.

3. Precautionary shutdowns, including the one I did, are done to prevent the engine from shredding itself and shedding parts. Can't do that in an F35.

4. Bird strikes are not the only reason engines quit. Of the ten I saw in the CADOR's birdstrike was not mentioned.

5. Far from being over-hyped and stupid, the engine issue has not been seriously considered as it was with the CF-18. In fact the dual engine redundancy of the CF-18 was one of the deciding factors given Canada's geography, climate, and inability to replace lost airframes.

Without going into the same arguements again, all I'm going to say is the F-35 will be the sole operator in the Arctic, be it with the USAF or our allies. The SH offers absolutely zero advantage in engine reliability by having two of them. Single engine fighters have been operating in the arctic for decades now and with modern jet engine technologies failures are extremely rare.

[Rockie]

I would prefer to give our Airforce the latest, not the cheapest.

Sure you would, but your preference is not the only criteria here. A Canadian Admiral said a few years ago regarding the Navy that numbers are a force multiplier, the flip side being insufficient numbers are a detriment. The latest fighter can't defend anything unless it's physically there.

The SH offers absolutely zero advantage in engine reliability by having two of them.

You're right of course. What it has is the advantage in survivability.

[frosti]

New patches are out.

[B208]

.......the USAF will operate the F35 in Alaska......

How long have they been operating and how many have they lost?

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
Without rehashing all off our posts, the F35, with all of its abilities , precisely allows it to be in the right space at the right time. It is nowhere near the same level as the SH in information gathering and use. Airspace patrol done by 4 SH's, with their limited(compared to the F35) electronics, can be accomplished by 2 F35's.
It can accomplish this without even using the onboard radar. It can use NORAD's radar feed in real time, or the USN Ageis radar feed....
Countries that buy cheap, have historically lost the fight for airspace.

[Rockie]

Rockie,
Without rehashing all off our posts, the F35, with all of its abilities , precisely allows it to be in the right space at the right time. It is nowhere near the same level as the SH in information gathering and use. Airspace patrol done by 4 SH's, with their limited(compared to the F35) electronics, can be accomplished by 2 F35's.
It can accomplish this without even using the onboard radar. It can use NORAD's radar feed in real time, or the USN Ageis radar feed....
Countries that buy cheap, have historically lost the fight for airspace.

Yes I know all that, but in order to make use of all that information it has to physically be there. Canada is a big place and all they can afford are 65 of them. Minus ones used for training, minus ones in maintenance, minus ones deployed, minus the ones lost through attrition, then split the remainder in half for either end of the country.... Getting spread pretty thinly I'd say.

The most capable piece of gear is useless if it isn't where it needs to be, when it needs to be there.

[Darkwing Duck]

I believe that should we acquire the F-35 we will be getting the most advanced aircraft out there. However getting a model like the SH or Raphael, or Eurofighter is like buying a last year model car. It is still nice, can do the job but does it have all the bells and whistles you really want, or more important, need, in the newer model? And is the F35 the best platform? I personally cannot answer that. I was a big advocate for the F35 but after some research I am now undecided. Well we all have our opinions. I do believe that we need a tool that will be the best for our Air Force. It is like a carpenter using only one saw when in fact he will need several types to build a house. He can probably do the job but how much time, accuracy and quality is put into the job with just that one type of saw.

Another argument is can we buy more SHs (for example) vs the F35 for the same coin to get the job done? Perhaps we need to go back to what happened in WWII and look at the Panzer tanks used by the Germans vs the Sherman tanks used by the Allies. We all know the Panzers were far superior in quality and stamina than the Shermans. Yet because of the ability to assemble and produce a Sherman faster and in greater quantity, because they were not as complex or as well built, the Allies were able to overcome the German might and win the war with quantity vs quality. Is this something we have to look at as well? I sure hope not but maybe something to consider.

[frosti]

.......the USAF will operate the F35 in Alaska......

How long have they been operating and how many have they lost?

Denmark, USA, Sweden and Norway are all operators of single engine fighters in the Arctic and have been for decades. They aren't concerned and our situation isn't that special. We don't spend enough time up north to justify a two-engine platform. The majority of the time our CF18s never go further north than Cold Lake anyway. Flying up north is expensive and unnecessary.

[AirFrame]

No, seriously... Why is a SH called a "growler"?

[Nark]

No, seriously... Why is a SH called a "growler"?

It's not. It's a different model performing a different mission:electronic warfare.


http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/135 ... per-Hornet

[MrWings]

Let's put this into some historical context.

OK.

In the last 50 years, how many times has the Canadian Air Force been in an actual dogfight?

[tailgunner]

Darkwing,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but using the Sherman vs. Panther is a very poor choice. Research has shown that on average it took 5 Sherman's to kill a Tiger/Panther. 4 of those being totally destroyed with the majority of the crews lost. The Germans even nicknamed the Sherman the "tommy cooker".....I would rather be fighting a Tiger/Panther with at least another Tiger/Panther, but even better it ha Leopard..

[AuxBatOn]

No, seriously... Why is a SH called a "growler"?

The Super Hornet is called the "Rhino" on carriers and the "Growler" is called "Grizzly"

The Growler is an upgraded F/A-18F for Electronic Warfare. The Aussies bought their F/A-18F with the option of converting them to the F/A/18G (Growler). This will provide them with organic airborne electronic support/attack capabilities..

[AuxBatOn]

Let's put this into some historical context.

OK.

In the last 50 years, how many times has the Canadian Air Force been in an actual dogfight?

This isn't about dogfight. This is about the threat we will likely face (like it was the case in the 40s).

Today's most potent threats are SAMs. The only capable aircraft that I know of that can even consider operating in today's SAM threats are the F-22s and the F-35s. Even what we consider third world countries have very capable surface-to-air threat (S-300/400) that I would never want to be faced again in my F-18.

[AirFrame]

The Growler is an upgraded F/A-18F for Electronic Warfare. The Aussies bought their F/A-18F with the option of converting them to the F/A/18G (Growler). This will provide them with organic airborne electronic support/attack capabilities..

Ah, okay. Thanks muchly! (and to Nark too for answering). I hadn't heard the Growler name before.

[Darkwing Duck]

Darkwing,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but using the Sherman vs. Panther is a very poor choice. Research has shown that on average it took 5 Sherman's to kill a Tiger/Panther. 4 of those being totally destroyed with the majority of the crews lost. The Germans even nicknamed the Sherman the "tommy cooker".....I would rather be fighting a Tiger/Panther with at least another Tiger/Panther, but even better it ha Leopard..

I know fully well the comparability of the Panzer to the Sherman. Perhaps my explanation of the comparison was wrong. I was trying to allude to the fact of quality (Panzer) over quantity (Sherman). Even though it took several Shermans to eventually knock out a Panzer, superior numbers eventually turned the tide, but at a significant cost. Do not forget the Panzer was so well engineered that if and when repairs in the field had to be made the average mechanic did not have the skills to repair it in a quick and competent manner. Where as the opposite was true for the Sherman. Years ago I read an article as to the argument as to who had the right approach in this philosophy, the superior engineering and design of the Germans or the thousands of pop out tin cans.

That being said, would less F35s be a better option, a better more sophisticated, up to date airframe, or several more F18 SHs in the hangar? What will be the maintenance hours / flight hour? Not saying the SH is a Sherman but maybe we have to step back and re-evaluate our priorities.

And to Airframe - The Growler is the electronic warfare version of the F18 SH. There was a similar conversion of the A-6 Intruder converted to a 4 man cockpit version the EA-6B Prowler back in the day (Late 60s to approx mid 90s)