CF-18 Replacement with F-35 or F-18 Superhornet?

I am probably for the F-18 Superhornet! It's sad that they retire old f-18.

I totally agree with Mr. Fuhr.

I remember the day in 1985 when I read in the german aviation magazine "Flug Revue" that the Canadian Squadrons at CFB Baden-Soellingen are getting CF-18s as a replacement for the aging CF-104 fleet. Back then, the CF-18 was the hottest jet in town! ...oh my, how time flies...

I'll say, scrap the F-35 and bring back the YF-23 Black Widow II

Yeah, the F-35 makes me nervous.

The Superhornet is a good choice, but what about the Typhoon? It seems pretty solid.

I'd be interested to know cmatt's opinion.

Cost is the driving factor - the Government of the day said 9 Billion and 65 jets. Two constraints, which are difficult to achieve. The problem with the Euro Fighter is that it is yesterday's technology today. Nothing really outstanding about it, major delays and program difficulties, which I suppose can be said about the F-35. The Super Hornet looks good in theory, except the following: the purchase price does not include things like fuel tanks, pylons, tires, weapons, etc. The Super Hornet production line is due to shut down in the very near term, whereas Canada is not looking to get aircraft until 2017-2019 Who will pay to keep that line open (we will).

Finally, and most importantly, the F-35 gives the Canadian aerospace industry transfer of technology and the ability to bid on 3000 F-35's. Boeing and the Super would give industrial benefits, but not necessarily in the aerospace arena, such as making toilet paper for their factories. Canadian business wants to bid for these F-35 jobs because they are competitive and will win a large portion of contracts - it's the politicians that are afraid to turn down a sure thing and risk our business competing.

Performance-wise, nothing currently touches the F-35 for capability that is exportable. It is a game changer, Super Hornet is good, but limited, Typhoon is marginal and pricy. The only option we truly have is F-35. Strategically, Canada should help its largest ally and trading partner. If countries continue to pull out, the costs will rise and the F-35 will fail. So as a collection of like-minded western nations that operate together, the F-35 is the best option, despite some of the warts. Those that are not in the program don't and can't know why it is the plane of choice.

As for Fuhr, he would barely qualify as an expert opinion.

cmatt wrote:

As for Fuhr, he would barely qualify as an expert opinion.

Ok, c'mon man. You can't fire that shot over his bow and not give us details!

Costs as well as new demands for needs such as Lifting off and stealth and open space for modern updating. Everything is sort of going stealth now. And with the first of it's type (F35) in the turbine exhaust on the F35 to make the jet lift up like the Harrier, making it possible to be an all JSF series that fills the needs of Naval as well as land and airforce requirements it would seem.
Kind of makes me sad.

 

Yes, in fact, I am. Let me know if you have any questions, we have a forum for anything F-18 related. I hear winter has finally hit Quebec, about time...

Phylyp wrote:Yeah right and for sure you're in better place than him...

Tell me, are you a Canadian Fighter Pilot ?

Actually, I believe cmatt is more than qualified.

If you use the "search" button, you'll save yourself from looking like an asshat.

Phylyp wrote:

cmatt wrote:As for Fuhr, he would barely qualify as an expert opinion.

Yeah right and for sure you're in better place than him...

Tell me, are you a Canadian Fighter Pilot ?

That's what I call to shoot yourself in the foot

Asshats aside, cmatt's assessment of a nation's cost/benefit analysis regarding F-35 participation is correct. While the Super would make sense tactically as it's, for lack of a better term "off the shelf" tried and proven, if Canada or any other country is looking for more of the residual "jam" stemming from program participation, they'll probably opt for the F-35 even at the higher price tag. However, everyone has their limit, and if program costs continue to rise year after year, I would not be surprised to find a few partner nations re-think the whole thing and change course. There are always other options out there, and many of those in the industry who don't do enough to limit the ever increasing costs seem to forget that.

As for the whole going stealth thing, for any airplane to be considered as a replacement for the F-18s, AV-8Bs, F-16s, and A-10s, you're going to have to hang ordnance off the wings. The moment you do that, you've lost all that "stealth" you just paid for. This of course then begs the question, why not just re-tool and spit out new upgraded versions of the proven airframes to begin with? We already have the super-toy F-22 for the grand opening night show if and when anything major were to kick-off. In the long-run with hindsight and all, not exporting a "dumbed-down" version of the F-22 and moving away from the F-35 all together will probably come back to bite us in the tookus. It would have extended the F-22's production life and reduced its costs thereby freeing up some funds for more down to Earth useful equipment. Now to justify the expense of all the new toys, the proven equipment will be withdrawn from service and capability will suffer. But, that's just the way it goes. We won't figure it out until the next war when some politician turns to a General and says, "Hey, remember when you used to be able to do this and that? How come you can't do it anymore?"

People tend to compare the F-35 with 4th gen fighters and say that it doesn't have the range or is not as capable, but they seem to forget that the F-35 can carry internally what an F-18 would normally expect to carry on a strike mission (not CAS, you would have to forfeit stealth for that). Libya had the F-18 3 tanked, and 2-4 bombs, if you had a canted VER, plus a few missiles. F-35 can do that without compromising RCS. Stealth increases survivability, as any of the 4.5 gen fighters would be ineffective in a SA-20+ environment. You think NATO would be comfortable operating in Syria if they deployed SA-10/20's there? Not likely, there is no appetite for risk.

So, any nation that wants to operate in the future battlespace with AESA threat radars had better choose an option that can either evade or render ineffective the enemy's detection systems. As well, the US may not always want or afford to be the backbone of the next coalition effort in some middle power that happens to own some double digit SAMS. People cringe in Canada at 45 billion over 40 years, which includes salaries and other guesses at dollar value, yet our current fleet is as expensive and will only get more so.

Canada can't afford a multi-fleet force, so it needs to choose. A lot of other NATO countries are worse of as well. While it would be great to have Super Hornets for domestic operations and F-35 for expeditionary, it is not fiscally possible. Our government has done an astoundingly poor job at handling this file and the military will pay the price in delays to acquisition. So be it, that is the reality.

As an aside, it bears some thought on what the middle powers will do with their F-35's. Are they expecting to go into a symmetrical conflict with Russia or China? Unlikely given the impact on the financial system that would have. So now what do we use the F-35 for? For the US it allows it to be a world dominate force, but countries like Holland and Canada don't aspire to that.

Certainly an interesting case study for sometime in the future; I expect that last fighter procurement for many of the nations were as troubled as this one, but our memory fades.

And there is the crux of the matter right there. What exactly is the mission? I don't think anyone with any sense is going to honestly say we're all planning to face off with the Chinese. So worst case scenario, it's a rogue regime with enough wealth to employ the most modern defense systems available. Ok, then what are the F-22s and EA-18Gs for? I do understand that having an ultra-modern stealth strike capability is desirable (B-2 anyone?), but at the end of the day supporting troops on the ground will eventually become the primary goal of an air campaign. My point is, in the US we're having our own financial difficulties right now. A lot of good viable systems and people are having to be cut in order to pay for F-35 among other things (and it's mostly the "other things"). Factor in the advent of UCAV systems, and I just fail to see what F-35s role will actually be. Sure it can carry a comparable load to that of the current systems, but for the price of one F-35, we could procure a couple of F-16s and still have money left over for some of the other important stuff like maintaining force levels.

No you're right, this is truly one of the great dilemmas we all are facing today. It seems like for every pro there is an equal and opposite con. Much different than we've all been used to for a long time now. Me personally, of course I'd love for our fast-jet guys to have a cool new toy to play with, but when I think about that 19 year old kid with the ruck on his back being asked to do the job of 3 or 4 because we chose to spend the money on something else instead of maintaining force capability, I feel we could probably pass on some of the razzle-dazzle. I guess the way I'm looking at it is when all the modern defensive systems have been suppressed, and the F-22s have gained superiority in the air, what exactly can the F-35 do better in the strike and support role than the current latest block airframes? I mean if someone said, "Hey, it can loiter twice as long as an A-10 and carry twice as much as an F-18...", I'd say rock on. I just don't see the added benefit. Especially when you factor in the UCAV programs that will undoubtedly be the planners' preferred option for first-strike. The whole thing reeks of "TFX 2.0" to me.

Well I would imagine the last generation had its own issues too. Like you said, our memories fade over time. It just feels different for us now I suppose. The smaller NATO nations do face an even harder decision. Which is why I would suspect some will eventually pull away and move in another direction. Twenty years ago, the price-tag/capability combo probably seemed like a good deal, but now not so much.

And the KC-135s go rolling along. (Still waiting on that new tanker Washington)

Smokin wrote:I guess the way I'm looking at it is when all the modern defensive systems have been suppressed, and the F-22s have gained superiority in the air, what exactly can the F-35 do better in the strike and support role than the current latest block airframes?

You've missed the point there. Sure, maybe in the next Libya, but if we're looking at a symmetrical conflict, as cmatt says, the chips aren't going to fall that way. The first part of your sentence is pretty critical.

The world political expertism is fine but what about this pipe dream Seven-G Hornet game that is supposed to exist in time and space in another demension:?:

Salute" Sirs

As far as I can tell, the developer is still working away at his usual methodical pace. Patience!

Thank you sir.
Any pace forward is a good pace.

"Salute" Sir

Merry Christmas to all-God bless

Here are some news about CF-18 replacement (January 4th, 2013).

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/01/20130104-155431.html

Regards.