I know the RAAF finds the F model beneficial on long strike missions (such as the current missions into Iraq from long distance basing), not to mention the training aspect as you convert across legacy hornet pilots to the Super.
Someone else brought it up a few weeks ago but, RCAF are predominantly single seat versions of leagacy hornets it would mean finding extra body's (WSO)to fill the the F's which the RAAF did not have to find as the F111 were twins
somebody seems to be unaware that both systems have been failing - the classics even though on a different system still suffer from that malaise
I am new to the forum and not Canadian but Canada's procurement does interest me. I find it hard to follow. Is it likely that your Defence Review will bring solution to these problems or will it be a "motherhood statement"? Defence procurement is about politics to a certain degree and bad procurement is bad politics or at least in Australia. What are your thoughts on the proposed Super Hornet procurement? I suspect Canada will get the Boeing quote and get sticker shock but it's a cheap fix that will push back your fighter replacement and the large outlay required into the lap of a future government. Keep posting - I read em!
A solution is unlikely.
It is even more so here which is why Australian procurement is superior. There is political consensus in OZ but rarely in Canada.
Beyond stupid!
Yes, and depending on the difference between this quote and the current F-35 LRIP there is the potential for a huge political backlash for junior as people here slowly begin to see the the huge advantages of 5th Gen fighters.
As junior will likely win a second mandate (Canadian electorate isn't too bright) the problem will be his and it will be bigger and more critical down the road.
Asked and answered. I have read a bit about the defence review process but I can't quite get my head around it. I get the feeling it's more about being seen to be consultative with everyone. I suspect the Canadian Review will be disappointing - similar to a report that a community committee of concerned citizens may produce that governments enjoy for the photo opportunity when it's handed to them but don't really care about.. Any way, I am interested in your thoughts on RCAF future, why all the SAR stuff? Should you give the Army & Navy the helicopters or at the least the one's they use? Gripen? (no, just joking). P3 replacement? What's more important - NATO, NORAD, Artic, Pacific?
Why not maximize the bang for the buck? The F-35 price is rapidly approaching that of the F-18SH. Even if the F-35 costs 5-10 million more than a F-18, the additional features alone make that worthwhile. Then there are the manufacturing benefits of being part of a 3,000 jet build for Canadian companies plus we will have a jet that can serve for 40 years. The Typhoon and Rafale are NOT cost competitive. The Gripen may be but it has less range and would likely have expensive costs for weapons integration with what we currently use.
The US has the resources to fly multiple fast jets (sort of). If the budgetary infighting were to be resolved down there, a fleet of F-35s for all services along with the F-22 for the USAF would be preferred I would think. I can understand the extended deployment of the F-16s for the USAF because they are more numerous and the ones being used out to 2045 should have the legs for it. The case for the SHs is not quite so clear. Many will have to go through a SLEP upgrade and likely new SHs will need to be ordered if the USN is to fly SHs out to 2045. This will cause problems for their planned F-35C fleet. The final outcome of this issue will determine the on-going status of the F-18SH program.
A small token deployment of F-35s will mean more to NATO than twice the number of F-18SHs.
For uncontested airspace where CAS is required, the case for a turboprop fighter might be more viable for Canada than a high low mix of two jet fighters.
Absolutely agree.
Likely the RCAF would fight to protect its turf on SAR. As for civilian SAR, it makes sense in the south and east/west coasts. For the Arctic, the costs involved would scare most commercial vendors away. This probably needs to be either RCAF or CCG. I assume the RCAF looks after CCG aviation requirements.
"Canada's defence priorities revolve around job creation not military capabilities." Is the tail now wagging the dog? I do believe, that like it or not, defence procurement is probably the most political of all government processes. The potential to secure large numbers of votes with the large amounts of money allocated to defence is almost irresistible to politicians. The other side of the argument is that these systems for future security reasons have to be maintained and supported in country and it's difficult to build that expertise without the "seed" capital of an in country build. Australia's future submarines will need to be supported in Australia. Build in France would be cheaper but we also need shipyards and skilled people to support the submarines into the future. It's a difficult balance.
Many issues. Is it possible to cut your losses on the CH148's and quickly move to Romeo's? Australia did it on the Super Seasprite, took the political & financial hit and moved on. It does take some political agreement that there is not too much blame apportioned to any one political party. Usually, there is guilt on both sides, one side buys the pig and the other side endlessly feeds the pig.
Short answer on Romeos, no. The RCN wanted a larger marine helicopter which is one of the reasons the E101 was selected back in 1991. That program was cancelled by the incoming Liberal government. In the interim 15 E101s were purchased for SAR in 1997 (CH-149 Cormorants). When the time came to order new RCN helicopters, the size requirement still remained. The obvious choice for the Martin Liberal government was to order more E101s but this would have been a major embarrassment for former PM Chrétien so a paper design H-92 was selected as it met the size requirement (about the only spec met in 2005).