Hornet is out as option for Canada's replacement

[schnitzel2k3]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing ... -1.6262851

Boeing has been told that its bid to replace Canada's aging CF-18s with a new fleet of the American company's Super Hornet fighter jets did not meet the federal government's requirements.

Three sources from industry and government say the message was delivered Wednesday as the other two companies competing for the $19 billion contract — U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Swedish firm Saab — were told they met the government's requirements.

The three sources were all granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss these matters publicly.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada, which is managing the competition on behalf of the federal government, did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

Companies had been ordered to show their fighter jet was able to meet the military's requirements for missions at home and abroad, but also that winning the contract would result in substantial economic benefits to Canada.

But while Boeing's failure to meet the requirements would appear to disqualify the Super Hornet from the competition — leaving only Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Saab's Gripen fighter jet in the running — none of the companies have been told whether they are still in or out.

A Boeing spokesperson said the company would reserve comment pending official notification from the government.

News that one of the two U.S. companies competing for the contract failed to meet one or more of the requirements is the latest twist in what has already been a long and often unpredictable road toward replacing Canada's CF-18s.

Many observers had seen the Super Hornet and F-35 as the only real competition because of Canada's close relationship with the United States, which includes using fighter jets together to defend North American aerospace on a daily basis.....

[freakonature]

Could that explain the new lumber tariff?

[schnitzel2k3]

Could that explain the new lumber tariff?

Possibly, that and lack of support of reciprocal auto agreements.

But they still have a horse in the race. So 2 single engine fighters, worlds apart in design.

Interesting.

[Old fella]

I know nothing about fighter jets however I do understand politics. This was certainly a convenient announcement just after Americans slapped double tariffs on our lumber, combined with the shit show recent auto manufacturing on rebates for electric cars. Throw in the “ Buy American” policies of the US of A ,this(Hornet) is a definite shot across the Biden bow politicking from Canada, didn’t JT say in 2015 the F-35 wasn’t an option. Where tis all ends up is beyond me but SAAB is left standing. Could be quite interesting methinks.

[mijbil]

I know nothing about fighter jets however I do understand politics. This was certainly a convenient announcement just after Americans slapped double tariffs on our lumber, combined with the shit show recent auto manufacturing on rebates for electric cars. Throw in the “ Buy American” policies of the US of A ,this(Hornet) is a definite shot across the Biden bow politicking from Canada, didn’t JT say in 2015 the F-35 wasn’t an option. Where tis all ends up is beyond me but SAAB is left standing. Could be quite interesting methinks.

And/or payback for Boeing shutting down USA sales of the CS220, (now the Airbus 220)....but that's another tale.

[schnitzel2k3]

I know nothing about fighter jets however I do understand politics. This was certainly a convenient announcement just after Americans slapped double tariffs on our lumber, combined with the shit show recent auto manufacturing on rebates for electric cars. Throw in the “ Buy American” policies of the US of A ,this(Hornet) is a definite shot across the Biden bow politicking from Canada, didn’t JT say in 2015 the F-35 wasn’t an option. Where tis all ends up is beyond me but SAAB is left standing. Could be quite interesting methinks.

And/or payback for Boeing shutting down USA sales of the CS220, (now the Airbus 220)....but that's another tale.

I remember that being a condition within the bid itself; whether the company has caused any negative economic activity for Canadian businesses (it had a different title altogether, but I'm still waking up)...

When this all started, I thought there was only one option - the Super Hornet, despite it's already 'antique' late 4th gen airframe. Surprised to see it fall at number 3.

Gotta be honest, even though it makes no sense for Canada I'm rooting for Saab (in the sense of tarnishing relations further with U.S). Good chance J.T is going to pass the buck or walk back F35 comments with tears.

[‘Bob’]

I thought we already replaced our Hornets with Hornets.

[schnitzel2k3]

I thought we already replaced our Hornets with Hornets.

Did those Aussie Hornets even make the flight line yet?

[North Shore]

^ Yes, but they keep wanting to fly inverted, so they're a little bit of a handful...

[frosti]

There goes the "we need two engines for Canadas vastness" non sense out the window. SAAB doesn't meet key security requirements so the F35 being picked is just a matter of time. It was always by far the top choice and this stupid competition was 100% politics.

[Big Pistons Forever]

First flight of the F 35 was 2006. 15 years later it is still not fully mission capable with over 100 significant defects, has an average serviceability rate of less than 60 % and cost USD 45,000/hr to fly, almost 3 times the cost of an F18. Sounds prefect for the RCAF

[schnitzel2k3]

^ Yes, but they keep wanting to fly inverted, so they're a little bit of a handful...

I see what you did there...

[schnitzel2k3]

There goes the "we need two engines for Canadas vastness" non sense out the window. SAAB doesn't meet key security requirements so the F35 being picked is just a matter of time. It was always by far the top choice and this stupid competition was 100% politics.

I'm honestly not sure. What key mission requirements does the Saab miss vs the F-35? I'd be surprised if it had glaring short comings to it's security capability. If it did, it would've been tossed out early on in the process like the Eurofighter and Rafale.

[co-joe]

There goes the "we need two engines for Canadas vastness" non sense out the window. SAAB doesn't meet key security requirements so the F35 being picked is just a matter of time. It was always by far the top choice and this stupid competition was 100% politics.

Exactly why we should just buy 100 Vipers and be done with it. Keep a few FA 18's around for those Arctic patrols that supposedly need 2 engines.

[SpyPilot]

Been nearly a year since AuxBatOn posted. I always enjoyed his input, especially on this topic.

[frosti]

Been nearly a year since AuxBatOn posted. I always enjoyed his input, especially on this topic.

Probably got tired of all the "experts" on this forum and their drivel on two-engines, multi-fleets and cost savings. Just look at the uneducated garbage in this thread! People think with emotions not logic and facts.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Been nearly a year since AuxBatOn posted. I always enjoyed his input, especially on this topic.

Probably got tired of all the "experts" on this forum and their drivel on two-engines, multi-fleets and cost savings. Just look at the uneducated garbage in this thread! People think with emotions not logic and facts.

First flight of the F 35 was 2006. 15 years later it is still not fully mission capable with over 100 significant defects, has an average serviceability rate of less than 60 % and cost USD 45,000/hr to fly, almost 3 times the cost of an F18

What facts did I get wrong ?

[schnitzel2k3]

Been nearly a year since AuxBatOn posted. I always enjoyed his input, especially on this topic.

Probably got tired of all the "experts" on this forum and their drivel on two-engines, multi-fleets and cost savings. Just look at the uneducated garbage in this thread! People think with emotions not logic and facts.

So why don't you educate instead of criticize people's views.

[‘Bob’]

Been nearly a year since AuxBatOn posted. I always enjoyed his input, especially on this topic.

Probably got tired of all the "experts" on this forum and their drivel on two-engines, multi-fleets and cost savings. Just look at the uneducated garbage in this thread! People think with emotions not logic and facts.

Aren’t you like, just a tech or something?

There were Hornet drivers who didn’t agree with Aux Bat.

He also wasn’t exactly impartial in his analysis. Credential waving only takes you so far.

[Old fella]

Canada has danced outside the US of A on military procurement aka Airbus C-295 and CH-149 Cormorant and maybe they will go same route on fighter acquisition subject to of course what the technical experts doing the evaluations say and recommend. Probably isn’t an overriding issue amongst the general electorate unless scandal happens because of palms greased and pockets lined.

[Bug_Stomper_01]

So single engine is back in? Well now hopefully Trudy will consider the more costs effective environmentally friendly sopwith camel!

[FlightInstructionGTA]

First flight of the F 35 was 2006. 15 years later it is still not fully mission capable with over 100 significant defects, has an average serviceability rate of less than 60 % and cost USD 45,000/hr to fly, almost 3 times the cost of an F18. Sounds prefect for the RCAF

About those 100 significant defects. There are plenty of other defects, close to 870 issue if you look at this article.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 69.article

Too bad for the super hornet, It would have make sense, everybody is trained on it, it is cheaper to operate, it work, and it is not ugly compared to the F35 :p but that is personnal opinion.

I missed why Canada did not get the Eurofighter or Rafale? I am not a fighter pilot but it seemed also 2 legit contenders. if anybody knows?

[2R]

The Super Hornet is only out until it is back in . The next version is Super Duper and cheaper . Did I mention it is cheaper and could possibly be built in Canada .

The Indian Government worked out a great deal for their procurement of fighters , they actually can build and sell fighters under licence . Might be a great opportunity for a similar agreement to build under licence . Kinda like the original sales jargon used by McDonnell Douglas at the introduction of the CF18 at the old Avro plant in Malton in 1980 . Great speeches , burgers , hot dogs and free hats and CF18 tie pins . They even flew a brand new F18 up from St.Louis and parked in front of the Avro Hanger for a great photo op.
They left the hanger doors shut as that part of the hanger was being used as a storage shed for materials that they could no longer use in California due to Cancer risks and it might have been embarrassing for some of the politicians to see all that foreign Aluminium stocked up and very little from Canada .

Just seems like yesterday when I first heard this Hornet debate , they will probably still be having it in another 42 years

[oldncold]

Well do both, pure aerial dog fighter j39e Grippen. higher sortie rates, lower operating costs , gravel road capable. In peace time over home soil stealth not such a priority . Just deny the airspace access to the enemy. In a wartime footing ,stealth and the sensor suite much more important. so buy both. platforms! 36- 50 f35 stealth for low sortie rates and international hostile territory ops. and the J39 88 of those for high ratio training and domestic. intercept. ops .

Politically govt wins by gaining leverage in trade with Europe and recoups the several hundred millions invested in the F35 and this is most important Canada might actually be able to defend over its own airspace vs the up n coming Russian and chin fighters.BUT without BOTH platforms. 9million square km. are open for the taking. as the f35 cannot win in a pure dog fight and the J39 e has not the stealth even though it has a low radar signature. to do search n destroy in a hostile territory stealth battle-space.

USA air-force is reevaluating the one platform F-35. Canada does have an opportunity to apply the lessons of others in the F-35 program. Weather the govt can apply them is yet to be determined. Value for the buck is the j39e . Best strategic is the f35, best defense of Canadian airspace and fulfill our obligations both domestically and abroad are both platforms. takes 7 years to build a combat ready air force. from scratch. lets get on with it

[schnitzel2k3]

Well do both, pure aerial dog fighter j39e Grippen. higher sortie rates, lower operating costs , gravel road capable. In peace time over home soil stealth not such a priority . Just deny the airspace access to the enemy. In a wartime footing ,stealth and the sensor suite much more important. so buy both. platforms! 36- 50 f35 stealth for low sortie rates and international hostile territory ops. and the J39 88 of those for high ratio training and domestic. intercept. ops .

Politically govt wins by gaining leverage in trade with Europe and recoups the several hundred millions invested in the F35 and this is most important Canada might actually be able to defend over its own airspace vs the up n coming Russian and chin fighters.BUT without BOTH platforms. 9million square km. are open for the taking. as the f35 cannot win in a pure dog fight and the J39 e has not the stealth even though it has a low radar signature. to do search n destroy in a hostile territory stealth battle-space.

USA air-force is reevaluating the one platform F-35. Canada does have an opportunity to apply the lessons of others in the F-35 program. Weather the govt can apply them is yet to be determined. Value for the buck is the j39e . Best strategic is the f35, best defense of Canadian airspace and fulfill our obligations both domestically and abroad are both platforms. takes 7 years to build a combat ready air force. from scratch. lets get on with it

Never thought about running both platforms.