[saturn_656]

If the US goes under we are going to have much bigger problems than finding parts for our fighter jets...

[ridenrain]

$1:

WASHINGTON, August 6, 2009 – Today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Brazil of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, a host of spare parts and munitions at an estimated value of $7.0 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/ ... _09-35.pdf

[Lemmy]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

If the US goes under we are going to have much bigger problems than finding parts for our fighter jets...

If [when] the US goes down, we'll have bigger worries than where to get plane-parts. You've witnessed the Coriolis effect, right?

[EyeBrock]

At that price we can buy how many? 30? 40?[/quote]


I think we'd be better buying from the US than the UK.[/quote]

Any specific reason why?[/quote]


People rushing to write the US off as 'going down the drain' are being less than realistic. They said the same thing after Vietnam.

On the aircraft. It makes more sense for us to buy combat aircraft from the US on cost and logistical support grounds. When you buy an aircraft, you buy a combat system.
You have to buy everything to support that aircraft's function, from steps to ordinance.

British equipment is vastly different, from voltage to their design culture. US equipment is 'familiar' and it's likely Canada would take a part in production of some sort.
Whether you US bashers like it or not, we are more integrated with the US than any other country, why not use this to our advantage and get a good deal on our next fighter aircraft?

[PENATRATOR]

Well said EB

[SigPig]

$1:

On the aircraft. It makes more sense for us to buy combat aircraft from the US on cost and logistical support grounds. When you buy an aircraft, you buy a combat system.
You have to buy everything to support that aircraft's function, from steps to ordinance.

British equipment is vastly different, from voltage to their design culture. US equipment is 'familiar' and it's likely Canada would take a part in production of some sort.
Whether you US bashers like it or not, we are more integrated with the US than any other country, why not use this to our advantage and get a good deal on our next fighter aircraft?

Although I agree the aircraft will be slightly unfamiliar because of it's new origin, I don't see this as a problem for crews as they have to get used to a new airframe anyways with either fighter. In terms of the support for the aircraft, these days alot of those accesories have been commonized through NATO, so we already all use the same ordnance etc meaning we can still purchase that from the states.

Furthermore, it is not like we are about to go to war with the Brits, but lets say a major conflict breaks out. Getting support for an aircraft from them wouldnt be that difficult as the US has bases in the UK already, and they would be making runs back and forth already in times of conflict allowing us to piggyback any needed supplies etc. Not to mention that alot of parts manufacture which is whats needed to maintain a war would already be done here in Canada.

[bootlegga]

If the JSF was a twin engine plane this would be a no-brainer. Buy the plane we've already invested in and that many of our allies will buy.

However, it is a single engine fighter and that creates a big problem. Despite what some people think about not needing two engines, Canada faces a far different reality than the US or most of our other allies. Our north is much less developed and our air force has far fewer aerial tankers with which to resupply planes on Arctic or coastal patrol. Yes, engines are far more reliable than they were in the 50s when this requirement was first issued, but try telling a pilot whose engine flamed out that he has to glide two or three thousand KMs to the nearest airport.

And while others would like us to buy 250 planes, that's just not realistic without a serious external threat. The USSR convinced a generation of Canadians to spend around 4-5% of GDP on defence for a couple of decades (1947 - 67), but with that threat gone, and no others (at least not a threat that necessitates hundreds of fighter planes), that will never be politically viable, nevermind the fact that the navy and army wouldn't get any major purchases for a decade because of such a purchase. And remember, a large part of the Cf-18 purchase (three squadrons) were intended for deployment in Europe. That's one big reason why the order is much smaller than the CF-18 order was.

I don't know what the solution will be, but I find it hard to believe it will be the JSF.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I agree bootlegga, Canada still needs twin engine fighters. I know I'd feel a lot better about things flying over the arctic tundra with more than one engine.

[ridenrain]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course but I don't think this fact can be waved off so easy. There are big savings to having one big engine instead of 2 smaller ones and from these facts, it looks like it never really mattered anyways.

$1:

Service histories tend to support General Dynamics' thinking on the single vs. double engine issue. Of the twenty-seven losses or ejections from Canadian CF-18's, only one was due to engine failure, and that was in spite of the fact that only one engine failed.[13] There is also a single instance of a single-engine loss allowing the aircraft to return home successfully, although it was already in the process of landing at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighte ... ft_program

In fact, if pilots are still ejecting because one engine failed, what's the point?

[Regina]

I'm a big fan of the F-16 for economy and it's multipurpose usability but if it needs to be a twin engine fighter, I think the Super Hornet fits the bill. It doesn't really have anything in common with the current Hornet other than general shape but it can do all we need it to.

[EyeBrock]

SigPig SigPig:

$1:

On the aircraft. It makes more sense for us to buy combat aircraft from the US on cost and logistical support grounds. When you buy an aircraft, you buy a combat system.
You have to buy everything to support that aircraft's function, from steps to ordinance.

British equipment is vastly different, from voltage to their design culture. US equipment is 'familiar' and it's likely Canada would take a part in production of some sort.
Whether you US bashers like it or not, we are more integrated with the US than any other country, why not use this to our advantage and get a good deal on our next fighter aircraft?

Although I agree the aircraft will be slightly unfamiliar because of it's new origin, I don't see this as a problem for crews as they have to get used to a new airframe anyways with either fighter. In terms of the support for the aircraft, these days alot of those accesories have been commonized through NATO, so we already all use the same ordnance etc meaning we can still purchase that from the states.

Furthermore, it is not like we are about to go to war with the Brits, but lets say a major conflict breaks out. Getting support for an aircraft from them wouldnt be that difficult as the US has bases in the UK already, and they would be making runs back and forth already in times of conflict allowing us to piggyback any needed supplies etc. Not to mention that alot of parts manufacture which is whats needed to maintain a war would already be done here in Canada.

Nice in theory but I was heavily involved in the Tornado procurement and operational program. Tornado's are flown by the UK, Germany and Italy.
The equipment is all different. We had big issues at CFB Goose Bay trying to use each others generators, steps, lubricants, ordinance, everything really. Nothing or little that worked on our kites worked as well or at all on the Italian or German aircraft.

The CF is already aligned to US tactics and much of the equipment is a Canadian version of an American product. When you are dealing with very complex weapons systems such as fighter aircraft, you really need to consider the logistical and technical support you need.
The Tornado and the Typhoon may be popular with the aircrews but the ground crews hate them, they are a bastard to work on.

Logistically a Tornado squadron was a total a bitch to deploy as none of their kit was designed with a C130 airframe in mind. Even the C17 has issues with the equipment.

From my time in the RAF and in the world of defence procurement I would advise against buying the British kit unless your Air Force is replacing old British kit with new like the Saudi’s are.
The Saudi’s have being buying British fighters for 50 years and they have the defence infrastructure in place to absorb new UK made aircraft.

I think Canada would regret buying UK fighters over US ones. The whole infrastructure is just very different.
American kit is close by, well made and easy to service.

[sandorski]

During times of Major War there's little problem with where the Tech originates. Mainly because Canada would not just be producing all the Parts, but whole Aircraft as well. You won't need to get parts from the US, Britain, or wherever. So that's pretty much a non-Isue IMO.

Familiarity with the Technology would seem a legitimate concern, but even that seems a little overplayed. That's because Canada doesn't have a diverse Air Force with diverse Fleets of varying Aircraft, similar yet with different designs for different roles. On this subject though, depending on the conflict, you could have situations where Other Air Forces will end up working with the Aircraft(Maintenance/Re-arming/Re-fuelling)and that would likely be the US in Canada's case. Then again that might not happen, but it should be considered.

Overall, we should just choose what works best for us within a certain Budget. I don't care if we bought from China(not that they have anything to offer...yet) even, just as long as it works.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course but I don't think this fact can be waved off so easy. There are big savings to having one big engine instead of 2 smaller ones and from these facts, it looks like it never really mattered anyways.

$1:

Service histories tend to support General Dynamics' thinking on the single vs. double engine issue. Of the twenty-seven losses or ejections from Canadian CF-18's, only one was due to engine failure, and that was in spite of the fact that only one engine failed.[13] There is also a single instance of a single-engine loss allowing the aircraft to return home successfully, although it was already in the process of landing at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighte ... ft_program

In fact, if pilots are still ejecting because one engine failed, what's the point?

I saw your post the first time.

Like I said, it's easy for you to be an armchair general and say one engine planes are fine. After all you're not flying in the High Arctic, thousands of KMs from an airstrip you can land on if there's an emergency. Canada has 514 paved runaways (not all of them capable of landing a CF-18 in an emergency, while the USA has 5,146 (again, not all of them can handle jet fighters). That, coupled with the amount of aerial tankers we have in comparison (Canada - 6, USA - almost 500) is the reason we should have twin engine fighters.

While not all of our patrols operate in the High Arctic, there are still many places without a runway capable of landing them in an emergency. If Harper follows through and does such a great job patrolling the north (at least you've stated he's doing better than the Liberals did), then we'll that the safety mechanism more than ever.

[EyeBrock]

A good point sand.

Inter-operability is a key factor. Flying into US bases with the C130 over the years has shown me that. Any times we had tech problems we could get parts quickly. Not so with the British made VC10 transport.

From the posts I've seen, the Super Hornet makes the most sense.

[SigPig]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

A good point sand.

Inter-operability is a key factor. Flying into US bases with the C130 over the years has shown me that. Any times we had tech problems we could get parts quickly. Not so with the British made VC10 transport.

From the posts I've seen, the Super Hornet makes the most sense.

The Super Hornet does make the most sense in terms of parts and ease of transition and maintenance, but in terms of quality it is a bad aircraft. It is a larger Hornet with engines that didn't keep pace with the increase in weight. IOW it's inferior to what we use now, which makes no sense when we are looking for a 21st century aircraft.