F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

[B208]

Yes, it did follow the model, (absolute, micromanaged political control of procurement by bureaucrats and elected officials), you are on here defending.

The EH-101 was selected using the process and would have been in service a long time ago, but it ran into political trouble

Bingo! You just made my argument for me. Bureaucratic and political micromanagement, (the thing you say is essential to democracy) sank the project.

As Gilles already pointed out there was charter, Spartan, etc.... If the government had wanted to have a competition they could have found many viable competitors.

As I previously stated militaries have military tasking that cannot be done by civilian charters. I don't blame you for not knowing that but you'll just have to take my word for it. As for the Spartan you should perhaps look at a picture of it, that alone will tell you without doing anything else why it could not do the taskings required of the Herc or the C17. As a Herc replacement they could have looked at the A400M I suppose, but when all you're looking for is something to replace old worn out Hercs just replace them with new Hercs. They do the job they've always needed to do, no training required, no different supply train needed and there was just no need to look for something different. The military and political interests all agreed. I'll bet they were way cheaper than the A400M as well.

Again, you make my point for me. For the Herc and C17 purchase, the civilian authority made mission accomplishment the primary priority, (i.e. they followed the model I advocate), unlike the FW SAR and fighter programs (where secondary priorities, like regional economic development, are impairing the ability to reach the primary goal; That of getting effective equipment).

Given your approval of the Herc replacement you should be in favour of the Super Hornet since it's simply replacing an old airplane with a newer one of the same type.

I don't really care what aircraft they choose to replace the Hornets with; Not my area of expertise and not my ass strapped into the things. I will, however, get all the mileage I can out of the Liberal's utter hypocrisy at doing the exact same thing, (sole sourcing), for which they torched Harper.

Well, there's nothing new about the roles of SAR, Fighter or MH. They are all decades old, so that part of your argument holds no water.

You know less than nothing about fighter operations so don't bother trying to sound like you do. There are multiple options that have to be measured against Canada's requirements now and into the future. I've mentioned a few of them here not least of which is the huge cost, which by itself demands a careful review and selection.

You're stretching there dude. We're talking about roles, (at your initiation I might add), not tactics. The fighter role is basically the same as it was when we got the Hornets. It wasn't changed any more than that of the Hercs or StratLift community, (whose roles you are wholly ignorant of).

[Rockie]

Bingo! You just made my argument for me. Bureaucratic and political micromanagement, (the thing you say is essential to democracy) sank the project.

To repeat, there was a proper selection process that resulted in the EH-101 being chosen and that's what we're talking about here. What happened after had nothing to do with the selection process. Chrétien didn't micromanage the selection process because he wasn't involved in it to begin with, he nuked it afterward with a stroke of a pen. In other words he did what you are advocating and made a unilateral decision circumventing the proper capital acquisition process - just like Harper did selecting the F-35. Get it now B208? Do you see the difference between micromanaging a process while it's ongoing and nuking the end result of a process afterward?

You're stretching there dude. We're talking about roles, (at your initiation I might add), not tactics. The fighter role is basically the same as it was when we got the Hornets. It wasn't changed any more than that of the Hercs or StratLift community, (whose roles you are wholly ignorant of).

You know nothing about the fighter role, less about tactics, and even less about how it has changed over the years. That also applies to any military aviation including Hercs and stratlift (stratlift? Did you learn that playing Call of Duty 4?).

Give it up Dude and stick to playing video games in your Mom's basement.

[teacher]

To repeat, there was a proper selection process that resulted in the EH-101 being chosen and that's what we're talking about here. What happened after had nothing to do with the selection process. Chrétien didn't micromanage the selection process because he wasn't involved in it to begin with, he nuked it afterward with a stroke of a pen. In other words he did what you are advocating and made a unilateral decision circumventing the proper capital acquisition process - just like Harper did selecting the F-35. Get it now B208? Do you see the difference between micromanaging a process while it's ongoing and nuking the end result of a process afterward?

Cretin rigged the process that selected the MH-90 after a stripped down version of the EH101 was selected for the SAR role. There is a big difference on the end result between rigging a process in order to get the best equipment that will fill your needs and rigging requirements in order to select an inferior machine in order to play politics, the MH-90 although better than the sea kings they are replacing cost more and are a decade later than what the EH101s would have provided. Everyone with 1/2 a brain new that this would happen.

[tailgunner]

Rockie, you accuse others of knowing little of fighter tactics, etc, and THE WAY IT HAS CHANGED..My question to you is, are you still current on the CF18? I would venture to guess that you are not. So essentially you are out of currency as those you accuse of ignorance. Kind of ironic huh? You can be sure that you probably know nothing about evolving fighter operations since you left for AC.
Cheers.

[tailgunner]

To further my point, when was the last time you flew a CF18 with the new cueing helmet, or used Link16. You probably retired before the AMRAAM's were in service and definitely before the new AIM-9's. The tactics you used have most definitely been superseded and have evolved. Yet you like to come across as a subject expert. The only link you may now have to modern operations was/ is the colour of the paint on the outside...
NORAD has been radically modernized, detection ranges of radars, capabilities of and integration of information has never been stronger, the USAF has a super fighter in the F22 that is unmatched....these all influence the operations of the RCAF......
Cheers.

[B208]

Bingo! You just made my argument for me. Bureaucratic and political micromanagement, (the thing you say is essential to democracy) sank the project.

Chrétien didn't micromanage the selection process because he wasn't involved in it to begin with, he nuked it afterward with a stroke of a pen.

In other words, he followed the model you say is so vital to democracy. He made military procurement absolutely subject to political whim. Just like the current fighter and FW SAR replacement programs.

You're stretching there dude. We're talking about roles, (at your initiation I might add), not tactics. The fighter role is basically the same as it was when we got the Hornets. It wasn't changed any more than that of the Hercs or StratLift community, (whose roles you are wholly ignorant of).

You know nothing about the fighter role, less about tactics, and even less about how it has changed over the years. That also applies to any military aviation including Hercs and stratlift (stratlift? Did you learn that playing Call of Duty 4?).

Well, why don't you enlighten us? Exactly how has the role of the fighter changed from 1990 to present. While you're at it, tell us how the role of StratLift and TAL has remained static.

[Old fella]

JT will punt the F-35 to the mandate beyond 2019, that's what this whole issue with SH is all about and the average Joe Citizen will care less...........

[Darkwing Duck]

It was mentioned earlier, I think we should get about 40-50 SHs and about 40 F35s. Also include in the SHs purchase the Growlers. While the CF18 is/was a versatile jack of all trades, master of none aircraft, I cannot see the SH being much different. What we really need is a specialized ground attack platform for CAS and then a specialized interceptor. Perhaps some Apaches/Tigers attack helis?

[Rockie]

Yet you like to come across as a subject expert.

I didn't consider myself an expert even when I was currently flying CF-18's and certainly don't now. I do however know when someone isn't. That would include B208 - who learned everything he knows about history from reading Metapedia - and doesn't know a thing about military aviation. You also don't have to be "current" in an airplane to keep somewhat up on things. It certainly changed enough from the time I started training to when I left, and only an idiot would assume it stopped evolving then, right tailgunner?

Having never flown "stratlift" ( ) I'm certainly no expert there either, so let's take our cues from people who are shall we? Both the military and civilian authorities obviously agreed on replacing battered old Hercs with the latest "J" model. If you and the dude think the role of the transport community has changed sufficiently that the C130's are no longer suitable, you should probably share this revelation with the Generals and other people who mistakenly wanted them. I'm sure your expert advice will be warmly received.

Well, why don't you enlighten us? Exactly how has the role of the fighter changed from 1990 to present.

For the purposes of this discussion it's enough for me to know it has changed. You don't know squat.

In other words, he followed the model you say is so vital to democracy. He made military procurement absolutely subject to political whim. Just like the current fighter and FW SAR replacement programs.

Alright, I'll explain it for you yet again. The original selection process for the helicopter program worked as it should, as did the CF-18 selection process. You will get no argument from me on what Chretien did afterwards, nor would you get any argument from me about the submarines or the F-35, all of which suffered from political incompetence or crass interference. That's what bad government does - interfere in the proper selection process. What you advocate is the military alone deciding what they get, failing to recognize that will never happen for multiple reasons you are incapable of understanding. You are furthermore incapable of recognizing the instances where the system worked as it should with great success no matter how many times it's placed in front of your face. Do I have to submit it as a Metapedia article before you'll understand it?

[B208]

Having never flown "stratlift"

You do realize that the guys who fly or have recently flown our C17s, (some of whom I currently work with), refer to their role as "Sratlift" in order to differentiate themselves from the TAL guys in Herc Js. The term originated back in the days before we had the C17s when we used to use the C130s for moving things into and out of theater. It was used to differentiate between the two different roles of the Herc. It could be that the term came into use after you got out, or it could be due to the fact that you just never got out of Cold Lake/Baggotville. Either way, it's a term in current use, so learn it.

Still haven't seen you explain how the role of fighters has changed since 1990.

[AuxBatOn]

It was mentioned earlier, I think we should get about 40-50 SHs and about 40 F35s. Also include in the SHs purchase the Growlers. While the CF18 is/was a versatile jack of all trades, master of none aircraft, I cannot see the SH being much different. What we really need is a specialized ground attack platform for CAS and then a specialized interceptor. Perhaps some Apaches/Tigers attack helis?

Why CAS over I don't know, Interdiction? What would a mixed fleet (be specific with the types) would bring to the table that a multi-role aircraft would not bring (think Canada in your answer)? How would the cost of operating 2 fleets compare to operating a single fleet?

[Rockie]

You do realize that the guys who fly or have recently flown our C17s, (some of whom I currently work with), refer to their role as "Sratlift" in order to differentiate themselves from the TAL guys in Herc Js.

They can refer to it however they like, I was laughing at your use of it as if you had any schmeck what you were talking about.

Still haven't seen you explain how the role of fighters has changed since 1990.

Very astute of you. I'll give you a hint though, there is plenty of information out there in the public domain - including this site - to inform you how the fighter business has changed not just since 1990, but continuously. You don't need to be an expert but you do need to know what to look for and have the ability to understand it - which you very clearly don't. I'm not going to teach you.

[William B]

I'm just throwing this out there, would one not begin to suspect this aircraft is fatally flawed. Personally, I think A I should fly the thing and screw the ejection seat and lack of reliability. What the hay, Trudeau hasn't run out of ink for his press.
http://sputniknews.com/military/2016062 ... r-jet.html

[Nark]

Grasping at straws.
The F16 limits its pilot's weight as well.
My Blackhawk has a limit as well.

I knew 3 people (females) that were kicked out of flight school because their seated dimensions didn't meet the requirements.

[frosti]

Thoughts from a retired USAF General with extensive experience both as a fighter pilot, and in a command position with NORAD - what could he know?

Fourth-generation Super Hornets just can’t do the job in the Arctic, retired U.S. Air Force general insists
Matthew Fisher
National Post
04 Jul 2016

A recently retired senior U.S. Air Force general with decades of experience defending the margins of North American air space agrees with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that there will be a “capability gap” in defending the northern approaches to the continent.

But retired Lt.-Gen. Michael Dubie, a deputy commander of NORAD and of the U.S. Northern Command until last year, offered a different explanation for the gap and recommended that Canada find out the best way to defend the continent by holding a competition.

After Postmedia reported last month that the government was close to buying Boeing’s fourth-generation Super Hornets to replace some of its current fleet of CF-18s, the prime minister told the Commons that Lockheed Martin’s stealthy fifth-generation F-35 would not be able to fill the developing capability gap because it “is far from working.”

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Canada had to act now to close the gap in order to be able to fulfil its responsibilities in NORAD and NATO.

Dubie dismissed the idea that the F-35 was still somehow an experimental aircraft.

After noting that “every new airplane ever designed takes a whole lot of time to operationalize,” the former test and evaluation pilot said the U.S. Marine Corps had already declared IOC (initial operational capability) on its variant of the F-35 and that the USAF planned to do the same by the end of the year with the model that the Harper government had been considering buying.

“The milestones are being met. They are on track,” the former three-star general said of the F-35. “Sure, there are problems, but this airplane is going forward and it is going to be in the fleets of many countries for many decades to come. They already have 50,000 or 60,000 hours and it is just getting better as the bugs are ironed out.”

The capability gap was not because the F-35 was not ready, he said, but would occur if Canada and other countries did not purchase the right aircraft to confront a rapidly evolving threat.

“The threat — and let’s be candid here — is that the Russian threat is evolving and it will become harder to combat in the future without fifth-generation aircraft,” Dubie said.

“NORAD has to continually evolve with technology and with capability because the threat against North America is going to evolve, too. The F-35 is designed for the threats of the 21st century and those threats will require a much more sophisticated platform than we have in fourth-generation aircraft.”

This was because the F-35 had “a suite of advanced avionics that provide a superior 360 degrees of situational awareness that can target, track and, if needed, engage a variety of threats to North America whether it be small bots (swarms of tiny weapons), UAVs, advanced long-range cruise missiles, all the way to commercial airliners.

“The threat is going to become more complex. Information dominance across all spectrums will be essential. That is the F-35’s strength.”

Dubie, whose father was from Trois Rivieres, Que., emphasized that he did not wish his remarks to be construed as a criticism of the Canadian government.

“I am not trying to be disrespectful to your prime minister or your minister of defence. I am not being cavalier,” he said. “I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying the threat is going to demand fifth-generation aircraft.”

A command pilot with 1,500 hours on the F-16s and hundreds of hours on other jets, Dubie said he had reached this conclusion based on what he had learned from flying NORAD missions charged with intercepting Russian aircraft.

“Around Alaska, they have become incredulous about the aggressiveness of the Russians,” he said. “They are launching complex package of airplanes — bombers, Mi-G-31s (fighters) and tankers — with navy ships below. When we send out AWACS (reconnaissance planes), F-22s and tankers, they are sucking up all our data. It is an orchestrated, sophisticated air campaign the likes of which we have never seen before. They are getting better and more aggressive.”

Dubie’s opinion is significant because of the key jobs he has held helping to oversee the defence of North America and because he does not work for either Lockheed or Boeing.

Since last November he has been the president of Revision Military Technologies, a Vermont-based subsidiary of Montreal’s Revision Military Inc., which makes military eyewear and tactical gear.

While not closely informed on the manufacturing schedules of the F-35 or the Super Hornet, which first flew 21 years ago, he said that “what I do know about the Super Hornet is that it is near the end of the line. As I understand the timeline, the F-35 would be available to cover any capability gap on the NORAD mission.”

Dubie rejected the reasoning of F-35 critics who have said that because it has a single engine and the Super Hornet has twin engines, the latter aircraft was a superior choice for operations across the vastness of the north. He noted that the USAF had operated single-engine F-16s for years from a base in northern Alaska, and intended to soon replace those jets with F-35s that had “even more reliable” engines.

The Danes and Norwegians intended to defend the High Arctic with F-35s, too, he said.

“I am not against the Super Hornet,” Dubie said. “What I am saying is that the F-35 will have greater inter-operability with the U.S. fleet and other NATO partners.”

Asked what was the most prudent way for Canada to make the crucial, multi-billion dollar decision about which aircraft was best to defend the country for the next 40 years, Dubie replied “the ultimate question is why would you not have an open competition in Canada? If you have a competition, the strengths and weaknesses of the air frames will come out.

“I cannot envisage any scenario in which the F-35 does not come out better than the Super Hornet or any other aircraft. Fourth-generation jets, they just aren’t as capable.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... al-insists

[Rockie]

The CF-18 has been in service since the very early 80's (33 years or so) and in that time we've gone from 138 to 77, a 44% decrease. This is without any losses due to enemy action and despite having 2 engines. The defense minister says the 77 remaining are not sufficient to meet Canada's commitments.

They want to replace the insufficient 77 CF-18's with 12 fewer F-35's and yet somehow expect that to be sufficient. Then they want to operate this airplane for at least the same amount of time where we can expect the same or higher attrition, which would bring the numbers ironically down to 35 F-35's by the year 2049. There's symmetry for you...




http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan- ... -1.3666625

"However, Sajjan did emphasize the need to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's 77 CF-18s quickly. Only about half the fleet is available for operations at any given time, he said, which is not enough to meet Canada's commitments to NATO and North American defence.

"Today, the number of mission-ready aircraft we can deploy on an average day is actually less than the number of planes we are committed to have ready," he said. "The capability gap will get worse in the years ahead as CF-18s must be taken out of service."

[AuxBatOn]

We retired a bunch if the 138 in the mid-2000s (we didn't lose them as you are insunating). From 125 (I believe to 80 (for the upgrades) and we lost 3 since (2005, 2010x2)

[Rockie]

We retired a bunch if the 138 in the mid-2000s (we didn't lose them as you are insunating). From 125 (I believe to 80 (for the upgrades) and we lost 3 since (2005, 2010x2)

I wasn't insinuating they crashed, we lost them because they are no longer in the fleet for whatever reason. From a numbers perspective gone is gone - 138 to 77. No replacements just like there won't be any for the next fighter.

[Darkwing Duck]

It was mentioned earlier, I think we should get about 40-50 SHs and about 40 F35s. Also include in the SHs purchase the Growlers. While the CF18 is/was a versatile jack of all trades, master of none aircraft, I cannot see the SH being much different. What we really need is a specialized ground attack platform for CAS and then a specialized interceptor. Perhaps some Apaches/Tigers attack helis?

Why CAS over I don't know, Interdiction? What would a mixed fleet (be specific with the types) would bring to the table that a multi-role aircraft would not bring (think Canada in your answer)? How would the cost of operating 2 fleets compare to operating a single fleet?

The only reason I suggested CAS is we have increased our combat ground operations and perhaps an attack heli would be preferential to a fixed wing platform. An A10 would be sweet in the arsenal but we all know this is a pipe dream. Interception is just as important from a Russian assault. I believe they are a very real threat. What would fill this role adequately? The F35 or the SH F18 or any other aircraft, I don't know? I understand the economics of having only one type of aircraft for all scenarios vs multiple platforms for specific roles. Yet I feel you need the right tool for the right job. I use the analogy of a saw. There are various types of saws, they all cut material yet what saw will cut what you need accurately and correctly? Would you use a bow saw or a table saw to cut plywood? How about a jig saw vs. a circular saw to cut a hole in a countertop?

[Darkwing Duck]

It was mentioned earlier, I think we should get about 40-50 SHs and about 40 F35s. Also include in the SHs purchase the Growlers. While the CF18 is/was a versatile jack of all trades, master of none aircraft, I cannot see the SH being much different. What we really need is a specialized ground attack platform for CAS and then a specialized interceptor. Perhaps some Apaches/Tigers attack helis?

Why CAS over I don't know, Interdiction? What would a mixed fleet (be specific with the types) would bring to the table that a multi-role aircraft would not bring (think Canada in your answer)? How would the cost of operating 2 fleets compare to operating a single fleet?

The only reason I suggested CAS is we have increased our combat ground operations and perhaps an attack heli would be preferential to a fixed wing platform. An A10 would be sweet in the arsenal but we all know this is a pipe dream. Interception is just as important from a Russian assault. I believe they are a very real threat. What would fill this role adequately? The F35 or the SH F18 or any other aircraft, I don't know? I understand the economics of having only one type of aircraft for all scenarios vs multiple platforms for specific roles. Yet I feel you need the right tool for the right job. I use the analogy of a saw. There are various types of saws, they all cut material yet what saw will cut what you need accurately and correctly? Would you use a bow saw or a table saw to cut plywood? How about a jig saw vs. a circular saw to cut a hole in a countertop?

[schnitzel2k3]

Besides the F-35, what options would Canada invite to host a fifth-gen fighter competition?

Reading the earlier article written by the General, he is insistent on Canada procurring a fifth-gen fighter to meet future NATO and global demands, to fight a more well armed and educated enemy.

He lists the F-35 as the best option but it's almost as if there really is nothing else to consider. I think that's where Canada is at, we don't have any options and are relying on one currently available-ish fifth gen, which was designed to replace two aircraft we never operated, the F-16 and the AV-8B. It's had its teething problems, it's expensive, its still behind schedule and unproven (yes normal for a new airframe), and it was a 'Harper Government' my way or the highway deal (which is no different than the Libs buying SHs now). A lot of X's from an educated and interested civilian perspective.

So to reiterate, what are the other reasonable options?

S.

[Gannet167]

Canada could become a world leader in writing strongly worded letters when our sovereignty is threatened. That, and lots of light blue berets.

[Rockie]

Besides the F-35, what options would Canada invite to host a fifth-gen fighter competition?

Reading the earlier article written by the General, he is insistent on Canada procurring a fifth-gen fighter to meet future NATO and global demands, to fight a more well armed and educated enemy.

He lists the F-35 as the best option but it's almost as if there really is nothing else to consider. I think that's where Canada is at, we don't have any options and are relying on one currently available-ish fifth gen, which was designed to replace two aircraft we never operated, the F-16 and the AV-8B. It's had its teething problems, it's expensive, its still behind schedule and unproven (yes normal for a new airframe), and it was a 'Harper Government' my way or the highway deal (which is no different than the Libs buying SHs now). A lot of X's from an educated and interested civilian perspective.

So to reiterate, what are the other reasonable options?

Why 5th generation? You're suggesting it is the only option, which further implies any country arming themselves HAS to do so with the F35 - which is false.

The list of viable alternatives has been mentioned many times. For instance the French (who are not to my knowledge getting F35's) have offered the Rafale complete with at least as much industrial offsets as Lockheed has threatened Canada with losing. What's the best choice? I don't know, but I'm sure a proper competition could determine that.

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
Having a "proper competition" is impossible in Canada. Politics and regional fights rule the day. Even now, the Libs are insisting that the RCAF write, or rewrite their list of needed capabilities. How much do you dare to wager that these capabilities will be watered down until the correct political aircraft is chosen. It is what the same party did with the Sea King replacement. The S-92 Cyclone only became competitive once the hover, range, and load capabilities were reduced from the original specs. It is still not operational. Because they cancelled the EH101, they needed for purely political reasons, any other helicopter but the EH101 for the Ship borne component.

[Rockie]

Rockie,
Having a "proper competition" is impossible in Canada. Politics and regional fights rule the day. Even now, the Libs are insisting that the RCAF write, or rewrite their list of needed capabilities. How much do you dare to wager that these capabilities will be watered down until the correct political aircraft is chosen. It is what the same party did with the Sea King replacement. The S-92 Cyclone only became competitive once the hover, range, and load capabilities were reduced from the original specs. It is still not operational. Because they cancelled the EH101, they needed for purely political reasons, any other helicopter but the EH101 for the Ship borne component.

It is possible because it was done with the CF-18. As a taxpayer we must insist it be done again and not turned into another of the fiasco's you justifiably raise above. It is the only acceptable method and we should accept nothing else - that includes sole-sourcing such a huge expenditure or leaving it up to the military alone to decide. Like it or not their's are only one part of the overall package of consideration that must be addressed.