Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
How about a cynical analysis. Both the Federal and Quebec governments have provided questionable funding to Bombardier's C-Series. In order to pacify Boeing from launching a protest, an order is placed for Superhornets. Thus, to keep Airbus from protesting, order some C-295s. Of course the only protest so far is coming from Embraer so maybe junior should order some KC-390s.

On a serious note, I favour the C-27J. SAR is time sensitive so the C-27J's superior speed is an advantage. It has better range and cargo capacity. It's commonality with the C-130J engines, glass cockpit, and pallets are additional advantages. Altogether these justify the higher price. That being said, junior will pick the cheapest plane, the C-295 even though the RCAF favours the C-27J. The RCAF brass could hardly be more pissed off with junior than they are already are.
Click to expand...
I am becoming a KC-390 fan ... but it seems to be in a different category to the other 2 contenders. It's also the most expensive option and would be overkill for SAR role.

C27J with its commonality with the C-130J is the obvious choice ... but then again the F-35 was the obvious choice to replace the Hornet.
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
Transit speed for FWSAR like every emergency response is relative. FWSAR is the search component covering vast stretches of open ocean or northern forest and or tundra looking for that which is lost. Loiter time on station and its ability to be refuelled are advantages that C27J doesn't have. If viable to do so SAR Techs and equipment can be dropped to assist. The helicopters or local surface resources actually perform the recovery.

The C27J lacks Canadian content and that will be the deciding factor in favour of C295. The cross section of the body would be an issue if this aircraft was being utilized as a transport but they will not be except maybe those based in the North. That's why we have C130J-30 and C17. A look at the mission fit out will show that the inside cargo area is "missionized" with racks and lockers and other essential features for their primary purpose of aerial SAR.

I agree with John that this order is for Airbus because Boeing and Lockheed have gotten their orders in the recent past. In addition the upfront costs and thru life costs being lower will push it over the top.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #305
Novascotiaboy said:
Transit speed for FWSAR like every emergency response is relative. FWSAR is the search component covering vast stretches of open ocean or northern forest and or tundra looking for that which is lost. Loiter time on station and its ability to be refuelled are advantages that C27J doesn't have. If viable to do so SAR Techs and equipment can be dropped to assist. The helicopters or local surface resources actually perform the recovery.
Click to expand...
AAR is an available option for the C-27J.

The C27J lacks Canadian content and that will be the deciding factor in favour of C295.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is likely true. I am not aware about the relative Canadian content between the two leading contenders but how much Canadian content is really in a US branch plant (PWC) located in Quebec? A Canadian owned aerospace company operating anywhere but Quebec should count for more lMHO. Thanks to junior, there will be fewer of them due to his SH procurement.
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #306
40 deg south said:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/trudeaus-folly-canadas-new-interim-fighters/

FYI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have weighed in with comments on the Super Hornet purchase. Nothing that hasn't already been concluded here.
Click to expand...
The article is pretty much on the money regarding the lead up to this folly but doesn't factor how our F-35 number will be reduced by 18 due to the Superhornet buy assuming the final batch is for F-35s. That is by no means likely if junior should win the next election.:(
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
I realize that Wiki is a poor source of information but I note that there is now a figure associated with the Leonardo bid, 32 aircraft!!!

The very original buy was supposed to be 17 aircraft to replace basically one for one. The current tender is open ended allowing bidders to say how many aircraft they feel is acceptable to cover the Canadian SAR areas of responsibility and where they should be based.

The C130's based at 435 Sqn at Winnipeg are used for SAR as well as aerial refueling and tactical transport. When replaced in their SAR role will these aircraft remain in service specifically as tanker / transports? To my knowledge these units, eight in total of which 6 are tankers and two are stretched models, are later "H" models. According to DND website a total of twelve "H" aircraft are still in service so I am assuming four are based at 14 Wing Greenwood. So that would mean that the new C130J-30 is used at Trenton to support SAR operations in the Central SAR region.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #308
Perhaps a typo? Even the most optimistic SAR staff wouldn't think 32 is anywhere near possible. Too bad the FWSAR requirement is so urgent. The new V-280 tilt rotor looks interesting and should be superior to the V-22, as the turbine itself does not rotate and it is to cost less (big "ifs"). I guess the outcome for the FWSAR should be known by the end of the year or early 2017.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #310
Hopefully the pollies don't use this tragedy as a debating point until the facts are known.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
Hopefully the pollies don't use this tragedy as a debating point until the facts are known.
Click to expand...
If it is to be used as a debating point then it should be used in a valuable manner, Specifically to get the pollies off of there collective ar**s and have a replacement aircraft chosen and implemented ASAP so that no other pilot's lives are put at risk.
 
S

south

Well-Known Member
vonnoobie said:
If it is to be used as a debating point then it should be used in a valuable manner, Specifically to get the pollies off of there collective ar**s and have a replacement aircraft chosen and implemented ASAP so that no other pilot's lives are put at risk.
Click to expand...
At present there is no information to imply the aircraft was to blame (or the pilot for that matter). Best to let this stuff lie until we know what the cause of the accident was.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
This is a good one:

Liberal’s policy change created CF-18 “gap†– RCAF commander in the dark on decision | Ottawa Citizen

The 'so called' capability gap has actually been caused, not by a real capability gap, but by the current Government making a 'policy change':

So how did this mysterious capability gap develop in just a few months?

On Monday Hood explained the situation to senators.

It was the Liberal government that brought in a “policy change” which required the RCAF to meet both its NATO and North American air defence commitments at the same time.

“That demands a certain number of aircraft that our present CF-18 fleet is unable to meet on its day-to-day serviceability rate,” Hood told the senators.

Thus, with the stroke of a pen, the Liberals created the CF-18 “capability gap” paving the way for the purchase of 18 Super Hornets and pushing off for years an open competition that could have proved terribly embarrassing to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if the Lockheed Martin F-35 was selected.
Click to expand...
Now that really is a 'Yes Minister' moment!

It would be funny if it wasn't real, oh dear!!
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
But fear not .... You Tube has identified a solution.

https://youtu.be/hUSzKoQCr8k

Mind you this means the 5th gen Grippen replacement will need to be in service within 8 to 9 years to meet the commentators dead line for the Grippen C/D replacement.

Grippen started development in the late 70's.... first flew in the late 80's and entered service in 1997. I have a lot of time for the Grippen but the comentator on this one is pretty optimistic ...... mind you 9 years for development and in service sounds positive conservative compated to ...... lets restart the arrow programme :jump :hul
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #315
The fighter gong show has gone on far too long and seems to be getting worse. At this point we might be better off throwing what ever fighter money is left over after this BS SH buy and give it to the RCN. It would result in Canada being out of the fast jet business in 10-15 years but might help save the Navy. The path being taken now could well ruin both services.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
With the loss of the Classic Hornet the other day, the RCAF has now lost 19 airframes and most unfortunately 11 aircrew too.

CF-18 crashes have claimed the lives of 11 Canadian military personnel | Ottawa Citizen

I hadn't realised that Canada had that level of attrition with it's Classic Hornet fleet.

Reportedly prior to this latest loss, the RCAF had 77 Classic Hornets currently in service (now 76).

So doing a little 'maths', the RCAF originally had 138 Classic Hornets, have lost 19, leaves 119, reportedly now 76 operational, so what is the status of the other 43 airframes??

It appears, from what I've just read, in the early 2000's when they received an upgrade (similar to the RAAF's Classic HUG upgrade?), they only upgraded a total of 80 airframes.

So what is the 'status' of those 40ish airframes that weren't upgraded?

Have they been scrapped, stripped, mothballed or left out to rot?

Just wondering if they were stored properly if there is any scope to bring some of those 40ish airframes back into service, instead of spending all of those $'s on 18 new Super Hornets??
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #318
The only reference regarding the non-upgraded Hornets is "retired" which could mean almost anything. These units would be as ordered back in the 1980s so they would require massive upgrading, even if store properly. Likely their only value now is for spares.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
The only reference regarding the non-upgraded Hornets is "retired" which could mean almost anything. These units would be as ordered back in the 1980s so they would require massive upgrading, even if store properly. Likely their only value now is for spares.
Click to expand...
So does that mean you really have a need for in excess of a 100 airframes and the 65 is just skeleton running?
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #320
The required number has been a debating point used by the anti-JSF crowd here. They claimed 65 fighters was to few and that if SHs were the choice, more fighters could be purchased. Now that the price difference is minimal, this advantage is not talked about anymore. As you know we have gone from 138 to under 80 and have been at this point for 10 years or so. The main reason is a lack of will to replace losses but PGMs does allow for a smaller number. That being said I feel a number closer to 80 is about right, especially now that government has their new policy of meeting all NORAD and NATO commitments at the same time. This is the same policy that requires an immediate SH purchase, LMFAO.:eek:nfloorl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top