Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I see they were conducting studies to see whether or not a hi-lo mix would be a better option.

Rather confirmed my theory that the Super Hornet was never really intended as an interim replacement but rather the low end of a hi - lo mix.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #369
The interim purchase is all about junior rejecting the F-35 for political face-saving. It is also a slow kill for the F-35 as there is no way two fast jet types will be considered as long as the Liberals remain in power which is unfortunately likely for a long time. His deficit spending could very well make a follow-order impossible.
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
From my limited perspective I am thinking that maybe the SH purchase is the right decision. Canada has never been a first day participant in any allied operations and will not undertake aerial strike on its own against another sovereign state. So in support of our commitments to Canada, where there is no likelihood of fighter on fighter operations above North America, the SH in any variation is more than a match for anything that will be of interest requiring an armed response. I have said it before I believe we need a low end prop type to support a variety of tasks and now the USAF is starting to look seriously at that same fact.

So if I may offer a suggestion maybe we will end up with a fleet of SH and Growlers to support a niche role within allied operations and for home protection along with a fleet of armed UCAVs and prop types for the low end of the spectrum.

We will never face a RED DAWN type of invasion nor is there a chance of invasion over the top via the Arctic. We need to be realistic here. Canada is too distant from any potential battlefield for us to get our assets into place for the first day. We have to realize this.

SH will work for us. The USN will likely purchase more as will others thereby ensuring that the type will be fully supported for decades to come. As nice as it would be to have all the fancy top of the technology line equipment we can not justify the purchase of the likes of F35.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Novascotiaboy said:
SH will work for us. The USN will likely purchase more as will others thereby ensuring that the type will be fully supported for decades to come. As nice as it would be to have all the fancy top of the technology line equipment we can not justify the purchase of the likes of F35.
Click to expand...
Can't justify the purchase of the likes of the F-35?

This whole argument of 'cost' of the F-35 is becoming obsolete, I really don't think that is a valid argument anymore.

The pricing info on LRIP 10 has just been released:

Pentagon, Lockheed reach agreement on F-35 contract for 90 jets

An F-35A is now $94.6m (7.3% reduction from LRIP 9), and is also more than 60% less than the cost of an F-35A from LRIP 1.

And by all reports, as production ramps up, it is expected that by 2019, the cost of an F-35A will be around $85m, and whose to say the cost might also go lower during the larger production runs of the early 2020's?

My opinion, the Canadian Government should stop the waste of expenditure on the 'interim' 18 Super Hornets, don't waste any more money on extending the service lives of the Classic Hornets and put its order in for F-35A's for delivery from the early 2020's.

Will that happen? Probably not, still think it would be the smart thing to do!
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Novascotiaboy said:
From my limited perspective I am thinking that maybe the SH purchase is the right decision. Canada has never been a first day participant in any allied operations and will not undertake aerial strike on its own against another sovereign state. So in support of our commitments to Canada, where there is no likelihood of fighter on fighter operations above North America, the SH in any variation is more than a match for anything that will be of interest requiring an armed response. I have said it before I believe we need a low end prop type to support a variety of tasks and now the USAF is starting to look seriously at that same fact.

So if I may offer a suggestion maybe we will end up with a fleet of SH and Growlers to support a niche role within allied operations and for home protection along with a fleet of armed UCAVs and prop types for the low end of the spectrum.

We will never face a RED DAWN type of invasion nor is there a chance of invasion over the top via the Arctic. We need to be realistic here. Canada is too distant from any potential battlefield for us to get our assets into place for the first day. We have to realize this.

SH will work for us. The USN will likely purchase more as will others thereby ensuring that the type will be fully supported for decades to come. As nice as it would be to have all the fancy top of the technology line equipment we can not justify the purchase of the likes of F35.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Canada's requirements differ from what you have said here. The requirements you have outlined here could be met by an F/A-50 so where is the cost comparison between F/A-50 and Super Hornet if we are going to be honest and fair?

As for Canada 'never' being a 'first day of war' airforce, I think the RCAF would fall about the place with laughter over this. I suspect you are a bit young to remember the NATO operations over Kosovo, but Canada participated with Hornets from day one, right in line with it's NATO commitments...

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no1/doc/55-61-eng.pdf

Canada also deployed tactical fighters to GW1 and operated as close to 'day one' of the war as any of the Coalition...

2011 Canada deployed tactical fighters to Operation Mobile over Libya and were among the first to be flying combat operations over Libya. The list goes on and on but shows the ridiculous argument that RCAF isn't a 'first day of war' airforce and can't deploy because they are 'too' far away (though of course the same distance as the USA...)

As for the 'won't ever conduct strikes against a sovereign state' they did in fact do so. Yugoslavia was a sovereign state. How can you categorically say they will never again do so? That is the point of buying defence capability. You buy it because you DON'T know what the future holds.

If Canada buys Super Hornet due to political reasons, it is locking itself in to an earlier generation of combat capability that has limited long term growth options. Canada will be flying these in 2050.

Think about that reality for a bit...

I am a fan of the Super Hornet, but do I want the RAAF flying it in 2050? About as much as I would want RAAF flying Mirages today...
 
R

rjtjrt

Member
John Newman said:
................

The pricing info on LRIP 10 has just been released:

Pentagon, Lockheed reach agreement on F-35 contract for 90 jets

An F-35A is now $94.6m (7.3% reduction from LRIP 9), and is also more than 60% less than the cost of an F-35A from LRIP 1.

...........
Click to expand...
Those prices don't include a little matter of the engine, an interesting way of quoting prices compared to other aircraft.
A bit of creative reporting from F-35 office with some input from a PR firm I would suspect.
Nevertheless, prices are coming down for both airframe and presumably engines, although there are reports that some are pushing for an alternative to the F-135 engine again, to put pressure on Pratt to sharpen their pencil more.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
rjtjrt said:
Those prices don't include a little matter of the engine, an interesting way of quoting prices compared to other aircraft.
A bit of creative reporting from F-35 office with some input from a PR firm I would suspect.
Nevertheless, prices are coming down for both airframe and presumably engines, although there are reports that some are pushing for an alternative to the F-135 engine again, to put pressure on Pratt to sharpen their pencil more.
Click to expand...
Most manufacturers have their own way of 'accounting for cost'. Boeing for instance doesn't include the cost of 'GFE' for Super Hornets.

Just little matters of EWSP systems, targetting systems, mil-comms system including Link 16 and so on. Things that hardly matter to combat capability, right?

I've never been one that has been too hung up on costs. Unless you are reading the contracts you don't actually know what is being purchased, in what quanties, how much 'peripherals' are being included, how much of the money is for facilities, training equipment, through life support, whether local build or assembly is being factored in and so on.

So if you can't accurately quantify these things, why would you bother to cast an opinion on relative costs?
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ADMk2 said:
I've never been one that has been too hung up on costs. Unless you are reading the contracts you don't actually know what is being purchased, in what quanties, how much 'peripherals' are being included, how much of the money is for facilities, training equipment, through life support, whether local build or assembly is being factored in and so on.
Click to expand...
I've had first hand experience in negotiating contracts for military capabilities and even though I've been involved directly with the vendors there are so may fiddly bits that get factored in its not funny

again, the issue is that the way that australia and even her closest allies calculate through life and RTS is different

contract numbers are meaningless when it comes to trying to compare what other countries might do by extrapolating another countries numbers

IOW, you are spot on

the americans do regard our process as a proper accounting model, but thats of no help when trying to look at other countries.

as for Shornet - its a false economy to buy that platform instead of JSF, again its the incorrect approach where its a platform centrix analysis without considering the broader force element contribution.

If you were going to get Shornet airframes then the Growler is the better choice as it prepares the force even in its current parlous state for dealing with combat bubbles, ewarfare as an embedded element and organic training in prep of 5th gen (which will end up to be 6th gen by the time Canada gets to tick things off)
 
Last edited:
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
John Newman

My comments were not related to cost. It comes down to do we, as Canadians, need to have 5th generation aircraft based upon our history and position in the world. Canada is the northern hemisphere equivalent of New Zealand. I am not advocating the disbandment of our combat aircraft as New Zealand did but I am advocating a realistic force based upon threats. I have read the responses to the F35 thread by GF and I am in no position to debate the technology of the aircraft that he has most eloquently explained.

When the RCAF goes overseas to support an allied operation we lack the numbers to be more than a token presence. We lack so many resources in our military because of inept political decisions and a beauracracy that is afraid to or incapable of making a decision.

I don't ever expect to see an F35 with a maple leaf affixed but I hope we can provide our forces with a new aircraft and if that aircraft is a SH I am OK with it because it is a very capable platform in its own right.
 
B

beepa

New Member
rjtjrt said:
Those prices don't include a little matter of the engine, an interesting way of quoting prices compared to other aircraft.
A bit of creative reporting from F-35 office with some input from a PR firm I would suspect.
Nevertheless, prices are coming down for both airframe and presumably engines, although there are reports that some are pushing for an alternative to the F-135 engine again, to put pressure on Pratt to sharpen their pencil more.
Click to expand...
According to Breaking Defence (sorry can't post link yet) They seem to imply the cost does actually include an engine.

Either way if the results from Red Flag is any indication Australia has made the right choice in the F35. I am very confident that if APA got it's way and we had Super F111's then the Red Flag results for Australia would be very different.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Novascotiaboy said:
When the RCAF goes overseas to support an allied operation we lack the numbers to be more than a token presence. We lack so many resources in our military because of inept political decisions and a beauracracy that is afraid to or incapable of making a decision.
Click to expand...
I think you're understating canadian contributions by a wide margin - its not necessarily about sheer numbers - its about effective contribution - ie in Oz usually dumbed down to the sound bite statement "punching above your weight"

canada has done that in spades in the past - and to see its overall forces decline and degrade to the levels of recent times is more than just distressing to canadians
 
R

rjtjrt

Member
beepa said:
According to Breaking Defence (sorry can't post link yet) They seem to imply the cost does actually include an engine.

Either way if the results from Red Flag is any indication Australia has made the right choice in the F35. I am very confident that if APA got it's way and we had Super F111's then the Red Flag results for Australia would be very different.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Yep, I got it wrong.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...lises-deal-for-90-f-35s-claims-728m-s-433827/
 
S

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
rjtjrt said:
Those prices don't include a little matter of the engine
Click to expand...
Yes they do.

The Lot 10 contract represents a $728 million reduction in total price when compared to Lot 9. The approximate per variant unit prices, including jet, engine and fee are as follows:

F-35A: $94.6 million (7.3% reduction from Lot 9)

F-35B: $122.8 million (6.7% reduction from Lot 9)

F-35C $121.8 million (7.9% reduction from Lot 9)

...

In addition to procuring the air vehicles, this contract funds manufacturing support equipment and ancillary mission equipment.

Per F35.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top