Andre3K wrote:

Considering their greedy asses are building F-35 parts they better be buying them.

The Trudeau government has finally and officially announced its "interim" solution to replace the air force's CF-18 fighter jets. It will go to Happy Harry's Used Fighter Jets Lot in Australia to buy some more aging F-18s. Liberal penury — as far as defence is concerned — strikes again.
As with much of this Liberal government, the decision is so anticlimactic, so pathetically inadequate that it has produced not a military bang but a bureaucratic whimper.

Everything about this whole sorry mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics — or in other words, procurement as usual. The “capability gap” suffers from a pronounced credibility gap: virtually no independent expert agrees it exists, defined as it is by a standard of military readiness — the ability to meet both our NORAD and our NATO commitments, simultaneously, in full — that has never been asked of us and is unlikely ever to be.

zeke wrote:

I see Canada has purchased 18 Australian F/A-18 A/B plus spares to be delivered next year.

Andre3K wrote:

Considering their greedy asses are building F-35 parts they better be buying them.

BawliBooch wrote:

The refurbished F18's coming from New Zealand (??)

BawliBooch wrote:

Canada needs to invest in its own Military aircraft industry.

The refurbished F18's coming from New Zealand (??) should hold the fort for now. Use the time to develop a competitive local design and take it to market.

kanban wrote:

Look the manufacturing role was only bait fish to get them to consider the F-35.

kanban wrote:

Canada has many other projects to replace the manufacturing with things they need.. Assuming they are being paid on parts delivery, there should be no problem other than Lockheed finding another supplier.

BawliBooch wrote:

Canada needs to invest in its own Military aircraft industry.

The refurbished F18's coming from New Zealand (??) should hold the fort for now. Use the time to develop a competitive local design and take it to market.

The Harper government is publicly rejecting a pitch from a former senior soldier to adopt the legendary Avro Arrow as Canada's next war plane, saying that, emotional attachment notwithstanding, the design of the much-loved fighter would prove too expensive and time-consuming to upgrade.
The Prime Minister's Office was prompted to respond after retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie unveiled a proposal he'd been quietly shopping around Ottawa to revive the made-in-Canada Avro interceptor, a plane that was scrapped half a century ago despite capturing the imagination of the nation.
"While we appreciate the sentimental value of the Avro Arrow, which was cancelled 53 years ago, analysts looked at the proposal and determined that this is not a realistic option," Andrew MacDougall, director of communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Monday.
"The proposal to develop, test and manufacture what would effectively be a brand-new aircraft is risky and would take too long and cost too much to meet Canada's needs."
Separately, Julian Fantino, the former associate minister of defence, wrote Mr. MacKenzie a letter this summer shooting down the Avro on the grounds that required add-ons would jack up its price.

CX747 wrote:

The Super Hornet buy as an interim replacement made the most sense. BBD issues aside, the country as a whole is now buying aged F/A-18A/Bs at the end of their life to replace F/A-18s at the.....end of their life. MAYBE less wear and tear (100,000 miles compared to 110,000 miles) but in the end the same vintage aircraft. Unfortunately, the government cut off its nose to spite its face.

CX747 wrote:

The F/A-18A purchase puts Canada at a distinct disadvantage. Old technology that is on the way OUT the door elsewhere. Embarrassing to say the least.

keesje wrote:

Maybe discuss with the US Marine Corps who have a track record of getting the best out of aging designs.

Ozair wrote:

Actually I think the short term buy of classic Hornets is a much better idea. At approx US$400 million it is a bargain compared to the nearly US$6 billion Boeing was asking for the same number of SH. This way Canada takes a single fleet of classic Hornets forward and replaces the whole fleet with one single jet in the 2023-2027 timeframe.
The plan is just to squeeze a few more years out of the classic hornets. Given the USMC will operate classic Hornets until 2030 there are enough other players flying classics beyond Canada to mean this plan is at least sensible and fiscally makes far more sense.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Furthermore, as we'll probably buy the F35, most bugs should have been fixed by then, combined with a lower unit cost. A real win - win here (plus a Boeing loss... ).

Oroka wrote:

Still a waste of money. Liberals say we cant afford the F-35 but we can afford to buy disposable F/A-18s? How many F-35 can we get for the $388M that will be spent on what is essentially an attempt to save face with an election promise? Hard to say, atleast 3, but the RCAF would get WAY more airframe hours from those 3 F-35 than 18 not quite worn out F/A-18.

Oroka wrote:

As for bugs... remember when we bought Hornets that had aerodynamic problems that were causing excess stress on the vert stabs and they had to add LEX fences and reinforcements to the vert stab roots to keep the stabs from prematurely ripping off? Yeah, making fighter jets are hard and bugs are normal.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

$388M is providing some more years (what, 5 more?) of the current operational capacity. How does it compare to the total life cycle cost of the F35, on a yearly basis? Not sure it's such a waste.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Could we have stretched our CF18s (by flying strictly minimal NORAD/home defense duties and no NATO deployments) for a few more years, enough to allow an effective new fighter procurement? Not sure if that would be still possible now.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

That convinces me even more that there is nothing wrong with letting the F35 maturing / eliminate bugs a little longer... (Plus the unit cost savings along the production ramp up)

Oroka wrote:

F/A-18A/B without airframe life extension, 6000 hours, 8000 with life extension upgrades.
F-35A anticipated airframe hours, 26000 hours.

Oroka wrote:

If the RCAF parks them now they can have infinite years. We have minimum obligations, and a minimum hours needed to train and keep pilots proficient.

Oroka wrote:

Problem is that the delay is just a Liberal pissing match. The Conservatives wanted the F-35, and the Liberals have a history of shafting our military for new hardware. The RCN is flying 55 year old SeaKings because the Liberals couldn't just go with what the Conservatives ordered in 1987 (EH-101)! 30 years later, they are still flying them! If the Liberals just swallowed their pride, admitted the Conservatives were right, and ordered the F-35, we would start receiving them before we could get the used Australian F/A-18s flying. Lockheed is about the ramp up production... they will start churning them out soon.

Oroka wrote:

So assuming those Australian hornets have 20% life left (most likely not even close), that is 1600 hours per frame, times 18 airframes, that is 28800 hours.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Oroka wrote:

F/A-18A/B without airframe life extension, 6000 hours, 8000 with life extension upgrades.
F-35A anticipated airframe hours, 26000 hours.

Somehow, I never realised the F35 airframes could last so many hours before structure overhaul. The land based version must incorporate some characteristics of the sturdier carrier version.

Oroka wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-service-life-extended-to-2070-423536/

Flight hours are divided into two main categories: Operational flying hours, flown by 155 jets delivered to six different nations, and System Development and Demonstration (SDD) flight test hours, flown by 18 aircraft assigned to the Integrated Test Forces at Edwards AFB, and NAS Pax River. Of the 50,000 hours, operational jets flew approximately 37,950 hours while SDD aircraft flew 12,050 hours. More than one third of the program's flight hours were flown in 2015 alone. Among the three variants, approximately 26,000 hours were flown by the F-35A, 18,000 hours by the F-35B and 6,000 by the F-35C.

angad84 wrote:

What's the highest time F-35 airframe (any variant)?

angad84 wrote:

Yeah, what's the highest hours on a single airframe. Sorry for the sloppy wording.

Oroka wrote:

lol derp, yeah that article is about as clear as mud. After reading around I could only find 1 place that gave a number for the F-35A, and that was 8000 hours.

Oroka wrote:

Several articles have stated that the airframe hours has been extended adding 6 years to the fleets expected life.

Oroka wrote:

From what I have been reading, the RAAF hornets never went though a airframe life extension and are still on their original 6000 hours.

The aircraft maintain­ers of Marine Fighter At­tack Squadron 115 wait patiently on the flightline for the return of the cul­mination of all of their ef­fort.

Silver Eagle 206, a grey sky colored F/A-18 is completing its 9,000th hour of flight in the skies above the Lowcountry be­fore landing back aboard Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, Nov. 13.

“Many of these air­craft rolled off the line in 1985,” said Lt. Col. Mat­thew Phares, command­ing officer of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 115. “Many of the main­tainers that work on them were not even born yet.

“They are still flying and are more lethal than the day they rolled off the line with advanced munitions and systems,” continued Phares, a na­tive of Cirlceville, W.Va. “The aircraft is still going strong and we expect it to see 10,000 hours.”

For every one hour that Silver Eagles 206 flew, 10 hours of meticulous main­tenance was performed. This includes numerous upgrades and overhauls to ensure the aircraft was capable of flying to inter­cept and destroy enemy aircraft and attack and destroy surface targets.

Boeing has yet to decide whether to compete for a contract worth $12-14.5 billion to replace Canada’s tactical fighter fleet. The airframer once had the deal in its pocket before Ottawa terminated plans to buy the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet after Boeing filed a trade complaint against Bombardier last May.

In a possible sign that the company could forego submitting a bid, Boeing chose to skip a one-day information session for potential bidders on 22 January that was hosted by Canadian agency managing the Future Fighter Capability acquisition programme.

Boeing confirmed the absence and says it remains convinced that the Super Hornet is the best option for the Royal Canadian Air Force, although the airframer has not decided whether to offer the aircraft yet.

Approximately 200 representatives from 180 companies–Canadian and international–and foreign governments gathered in Ottawa on Jan. 22 to hear the government’s roadmap for replacing the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of CF-188 Hornets.


The industry day was the first engagement with defence and aerospace companies since the Liberal government officially launched the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) in December, and included briefings on the scope, general requirements, sustainability approach and industrial and technological benefits objectives of the $15 to $19 billion program.

According to PowerPoint slides presented at the event, the government remains committed to acquiring 88 advanced fighter aircraft, initial weapons and stores, supporting infrastructure, and thorough life sustainment, which will include initial spares, software and mission data support, mission planning and debriefing capability, materiel management, technical data and associated intellectual property rights, and training for both pilots and maintainers.

The overall acquisition budget and the length of and costs of the initial sustainment services contracts will be determined through engagement with suppliers, officials said. But the full lifecycle cost of the aircraft will be a key factor in the evaluation.

The briefing also provided an assessment of the global threat picture in which the new jet is expected to operate. Defence officials described an operational environment that will be more lethal and complex, complicated by an evolving cyber threat and contested control of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Adversaries are expected to deliver more advanced fighters and anti-access area denial (A2AD) surface-to-air missile systems, as well as other increasingly technologically advanced equipment.

“Our missions and roles and commitments have not changed,” one slide deck noted, emphasizing the importance of continuing to fulfil current NORAD and NATO requirements.

Among the critical criteria for the next jet will be seamless interoperability with key allies; the ability to upgrade to maintain an operational advantage over current and future threats; the range, endurance and speeds required in NORAD and NATO mission configurations; the ability to gather intelligence, detect, track, identify, assess in permissive and contested environments; and the survivability and lethality to be effective in those environments.

In particular, the RCAF emphasized interoperability and information processing, exploitation and dissemination with 5 Eyes and 2 Eyes allies. Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand comprise the first group, while Canada and the U.S. make up the second.

While that might seem to exclude non-U.S. aircraft from the competition, the requirement is common to many military procurements. Maj Gen Alain Pelletier, chief of fighter capability for the RCAF, said the government had been working with European and North American original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for the past nine months to answer questions and refine the “path” for potential suppliers.

“They are going to be able to meet the requirements from a 5 Eyes/2 Eyes [interoperability] perspective,” he said.

The briefing also highlighted the need for a “growth path” to 2060 and beyond. That might have favoured the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II when the previous Conservative government committed to the Joint Strike Fighter, but other manufacturers have invested significantly in major modernization proposals in recent years that will see their jets operating well beyond the 2040s.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Apparently, Canada plans to keep flying its legacy Hornet until 2032; 15 more years! (From the TVA news outlets, which found the info in the bidding paperwork)

Canada plans to keep flying its fleet of F/A-18A Hornet fighters into the early 2030s, by which time the oldest of these planes will be more than a half-century old by retirement, which would make them some of the oldest fighters in the industrialized world. Known as CF-18s in Canadian service, the jets were delivered in the early 1980s and are Ottawa’s only fighter jets.

According to the National Post, Canada will select a new fighter in 2022 to enter service in 2032. The current government in Ottawa is dead-set against buying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but because of their own decision to kick the can down the road, they may be forced to choose it. Although aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15 Eagle may still be production, by the early 2020s the only fighter truly “future proofed” will be the F-35.

Canada purchased 138 Hornets in the early 1980s to patrol the country’s vast airspace and fulfill NATO obligations. Although the planes never saw combat against the Soviet Union, they have participated in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, combat operations in the Balkans in the 1990s, the 2011 Libya intervention, and the war against the Islamic State. It’s safe to say that Canada got its money’s worth from the fighter jets.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

If $388M is sufficient to extend legacy Hornets flying until 2032, that seems now to be a bargain... Combine that with eventually procuring fully mature F35, which unit's cost keeps decreasing as production ramps up... What I'm I missing here?

Australian F-18 fighter jets destined for 4 Wing Cold Lake to supplement Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet will require upgrades to their ejection seats and external aircraft lighting before they can take to the skies with the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Additionally the 18 Hornets, which first entered service in Australia in the late 1980s, will undergo “preventive aircraft structure modifications to address known fatigue issues” similar to a program that was implemented to remedy similar issues with the CF-18s.
About $150 million is spent each year on maintenance of the CF-18s, which are due to be phased out starting in the second half of 2020.
Canada’s CF-18 numbers have dropped by more than half to 76 aircraft from a peak of 138 but the Liberal government in June last year announced plans to buy 88 new fighter aircraft in a project that could cost as much as $19 billion.
The Australian jets are required as a stop-gap measure because of the timing between receiving the new planes and retirement of the older planes.
The CF-18s have most recently been used as part of Operation Reassurance in eastern Europe. They were also deployed as part of the Middle East Stabilization Force in Iraq and Syria where they conducted 1,378 sorties and were involved in 251 airstrikes on ISIL targets.
“Individual aircraft will be retired when either their safe structural life has expired or they are no longer required given the delivery of the permanent fleet,” said Department of National Defence spokesperson Jessica Lamirande.
“It is anticipated that the supplemental aircraft will be in service for several years, sufficient to ensure the capability gap is filled until the transition to the permanent CF-18 replacement that commences in the second half of the 2020s is complete.”
Lamirande said Canada invested in the development of additional structural modifications which, after being applied to Canadian aircraft, could also be applied to Australian aircraft that would further extend their service.
Postmedia has previously reported that the CF-18s had been scheduled to be removed from service around 2025 but that timeline has been extended to 2032.
As negotiation between Australian and Canadian governments are ongoing, exact details of the deal and how much it will cost to modify the Hornets have yet to be finalized, she said.
Defence officials are still reviewing infrastructure and personnel requirements required to accommodate additional aircraft to Canada’s busiest fighter base in northern Alberta, Lamirande said.

Here are some more details on the timing/milestones of the Canadian government’s purchase of 88 new fighter jets. This information comes from the federal government:

A draft request for proposals (RFP) is expected by this fall. Suppliers will have up to two months to submit comments and the RFP will be finalized by early 2019. It will be issued in the spring of 2019.

Suppliers will be given around six months to work on their proposals, with submissions by early 2020.

There will be discussions with suppliers about their proposals and revised proposals could be submitted by the fall of 2020.

A winning bidder is expected to be selected in spring 2021. A contract would be signed in late 2021 or early 2022.

The first aircraft would be delivered sometime in 2025.

The first squadron will reach initial operating capability in 2026. Full operational capability – which will include four operational squadrons, plus training – will be reached in 2031.

The last CF-18 will be retired in 2032.

Initial cadre training by the host nation will begin in 2024/2025 time period. Transition training will take place between 2025 and 2031.

meecrob wrote:

Nitpick against Popular Mechanics, its the CF-188 in Canada. We have to change the designations for some reason. Nobody calls it that here though. Hell nobody calls them CF-18's, they are F-18's or Hornets...or pointy nosed jet.

Dutchy wrote:

So the big question is, which fighters will be in production then?

Ozair wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

which fighters will be in production then?

...there will be 1300 F-35s flying by 2025.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Great!

With lowered unit costs (decreasing as production ramps up), small bugs corrected and combined with the increased capability of the later batches;

keesje wrote:

The Canadians will be sitting on a lot of frames, engines, spares, simulators. Review the total inventory and make a 10 year plan, including upgrades where they make sense / are required. Not a bad plan. Maybe discuss with the US Marine Corps who have a track record of getting the best out of aging designs.

BawliBooch wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Canadians will be sitting on a lot of frames, engines, spares, simulators. Review the total inventory and make a 10 year plan, including upgrades where they make sense / are required. Not a bad plan. Maybe discuss with the US Marine Corps who have a track record of getting the best out of aging designs.

That is very much required, but that will be a holding operation.

In the long term, Canada needs to develop its own platform. It will not just serve our defense needs into the future, but also provide a critical boost for the domestic aerospace program.

Out of curiosity: How much will it really cost the Canadian Taxpayer to design and put in production a light weight, 4.5G multi-role fighter like what the South Koreans did with KF-X?

BawliBooch wrote:

In the long term, Canada needs to develop its own platform. It will not just serve our defense needs into the future, but also provide a critical boost for the domestic aerospace program.

BawliBooch wrote:

Out of curiosity: How much will it really cost the Canadian Taxpayer to design and put in production a light weight, 4.5G multi-role fighter like what the South Koreans did with KF-X?

YuriMG2 wrote:

8 billion US dollars in 2015.

Ozair wrote:

If we take that US$20 billion and divide by the 88 aircraft then Canada pays an extra US$220 million for each jet in dev costs… They could of course do it on the cheap and buy an existing radar, engine, EW suite etc but that just translates to Canada system integrating, and taking all the associated risk that brings, while providing little benefit to Canadian Industry.

BawliBooch wrote:

The figure I have heard quoted before is $10-14bn.

Even if we accept your figure of $20bn

BawliBooch wrote:

Potential export orders for the indegenous design could reduce this unit cost?

BawliBooch wrote:

Investment in R&D is an investment in our future.