Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Replacement For CF-18  
User currently offlineJamincan From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 776 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8111 times:

Sorry if this has been covered, I did a search, but didn't really find anything on the subject.

I'm curious if the Canadian Forces has plans to replace the CF-18 in the future. I know that Canada has invested some money in the F-35 program; however, it seems that there isn't a commitment in place yet. Are they likely to proceed with the F-35, and is it most suitable for their needs, or is there a better platform?

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8065 times:



Quoting Jamincan (Thread starter):
or is there a better platform?

Yeah, the F-22, but we aren't selling right now. I see CA's participation in F-35 going ahead.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

The topic has not come up for a few years now:

To start, Canada has invested in the F-35 program because it will indeed be their next tactical fighter. I would love to think Eurofighters, or something of the sort but it is unlikely. I understand Canada has always been fond of duel powerplant fighters(minus the F-104, Sabre, etc), especially in present days when we are not aggressors. That second GE has saved MANY CF-18s from being written off therefore I think the Eurofighter given it's unparalleled capabilities would be the best replacement for the CF. In today's world of politics, who knows what Canada will have in their fleet 12 years from now. Keep in mind the F-15 modernization projects as well... etc etc. But as it stands right now in 2008, the F-35 is the aircraft of choice.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 1):
Yeah, the F-22, but we aren't selling right now. I see CA's participation in F-35 going ahead.

I think most Canadian AF enthusiasts/pilots would love to see F-22s with the CF markings, however this is unrealistic and NEVER going to happen. Way to much money and the aircraft itself has no use for the Canadian mission. If perhaps Canada and the United States became involved with a full scale war , then yes , I would say its possible, however this is highly unlikely.

Canada plans to keep the CF-18s in service until at least 2020. The 2.1 Billion dollar CF-18 modernization project is nearly complete, I believe there are still a few more fighters in their final stages. Read the following links for details on the upgrades.

http://www.dnd.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1602

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-cf18-3-1.htm

[Edited 2008-01-31 13:38:46]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 876 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7982 times:



Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
Canada plans to keep the CF-18s in service until at least 2020. The 2.1 Billion dollar CF-18 modernization project is nearly complete, I believe there are still a few more fighters in their final stages. Read the following links for details on the upgrades.

I was thinking about the Aussie F-18s the other day and I guess the Canadian ones fall into the same basket. Considering the respective aircraft were built for carrier ops, eg: stronger structures, do you think the respective upgrades each service is undertaking will take them out to the timeline wanted?

I know there are some people in defence in Oz that have issues with centre barrel replacement. Seems with the recent F-15 groundings structural upgrades may not be the correct course of action.


User currently offlineYSJguy From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7978 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've just been thinking about is myself for a couple days myself. I think a twin engine would be better for the CAF. The EF-2000 was first on my mind but what about the Rafale? I don't hear a whole lot about them. Are they any good?

User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7954 times:



Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
do you think the respective upgrades each service is undertaking will take them out to the timeline wanted?

To my knowledge lots of of the CF-18s are pushing their limits when it comes to their structures and G-Limits. But until the wings begin snapping we will not see any major changes in the coming years.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7943 times:



Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
That second GE has saved MANY CF-18s from being written off therefore I think the Eurofighter given it's unparalleled capabilities would be the best replacement for the CF. In today's world of politics, who knows what Canada will have in their fleet 12 years from now

I agree re two engines, especially for longer overwater or Arctic patrol flights. Tranche 3 Eurofighters would include a full air-to-ground capability IIRC, a top-notch dogfighter for knife fights, and very good BVR capabilities.

Against the Eurofighter would be it's cost -- although with exchange rates and so forth, who really knows? But to my knowledge it is currently in the same ballpark as the F-35.

For the Eurofighter is the fact that it is a _known_ quantity as it is in service, whilst the F-35 is still rather an _unknown_ quantity.

There is also the mooted Super Super Hornet.

FWIW, I'd go Euro ...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineJutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7900 times:

The more I think about it, the better choice the EuroFighter would be for Canada. I believe the price between the Eurofighter and F-35 are pretty much the same except the EF has already proven itself. Being twin-engined also helps for the large distances between airfields in Canada. The only thing I can see a problem with the EF is the part supply chain and how it would work. I don't think that waiting 2 weeks for a avionics box or something is acceptable.

[Edited 2008-01-31 18:16:57]

User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7888 times:

I read an article about a year ago that said industry insiders consider the JSF a lock for Canada.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
That second GE has saved MANY CF-18s from being written

True, but consider also that while a second engine increases safety, it doesn't double it. It also addds a lot to the cost, both in purchase & maintenance. While a single engine airplane may suffer more losses due to engine failure, the reduced purchase & support costs may make it more affordable overall. So long as it doesn't increase pilot losses (our real limiting factor), I don't have anything against a single engined airplane.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
F-22s with the CF markings, however this is unrealistic and NEVER going to happen.

Under normal circumstances this would never happen. Given the several high profile purchases of late (C-17, C-130J), it's really impossible now.

I would like to see a two pronged approach myself. I like the Eurofighter as well, something with those capabilities would be good in the domestic role. The STOVL variant of the F-35 would be great to support our operations overseas, a role the current fighter community has been curiously absent from. On the other hand, when the F-35B goes to the USMC, imagine how cheap those AV-8B's will be!



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7296 times:

Just out of curiosity are there any structural or avionics differences between the CF-18A/Bs and the USN's F/A-18A/Bs? I spot what looks like a fake canopy painted on the bottom but is there anything significant that might disqualify the CF-18 from carrier operations?

User currently offlineCYQL From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 86 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7281 times:



Quoting SP90 (Reply 9):
Just out of curiosity are there any structural or avionics differences between the CF-18A/Bs and the USN's F/A-18A/Bs? I spot what looks like a fake canopy painted on the bottom but is there anything significant that might disqualify the CF-18 from carrier operations?

If I remember correctly, the main difference is the addition of a spotlight on the left side, below the cockpit for nightime intercepts. I don't believe there is any structural reason that would prevent a carrier landing. I am not sure if the electronics fit is the same as the US Navy.


User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7192 times:



Quoting CYQL (Reply 10):
Quoting SP90 (Reply 9):
Just out of curiosity are there any structural or avionics differences between the CF-18A/Bs and the USN's F/A-18A/Bs? I spot what looks like a fake canopy painted on the bottom but is there anything significant that might disqualify the CF-18 from carrier operations?

If I remember correctly, the main difference is the addition of a spotlight on the left side, below the cockpit for nightime intercepts. I don't believe there is any structural reason that would prevent a carrier landing. I am not sure if the electronics fit is the same as the US Navy.

Even if the CF-18 is capable of landing on an American aircraft carrier, the question would be: how do you get it off the carrier, as there is no way you could hook it up to the catapult launch system. You'd have to wait until the carrier hit port and then probably have to lift it off with a crane.



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7060 times:



Quoting HanginOut (Reply 11):
there is no way you could hook it up to the catapult launch system.

Sure there is- there's a launch bar on the nose gear, just like every USN F/A-18.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Christie




Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6954 times:

Other than some minor details (formation lights and spot light), everything is (well, as delivered), the same as the USN Hornets. There was a de-navalized version proposed called the F-18L for export, but all the export customers prefered the beefy naval version.

User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6937 times:



Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 12):
Sure there is- there's a launch bar on the nose gear, just like every USN F/A-18.

I, humbly, stand corrected. Thanks, now I'm going to go mention this to the "Moron" of an Air Force Officer who told me that "there is no way one of our Hornets could take off from a USN carrier".  footinmouth 



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6925 times:



Quoting HanginOut (Reply 14):
I, humbly, stand corrected. Thanks, now I'm going to go mention this to the "Moron" of an Air Force Officer who told me that "there is no way one of our Hornets could take off from a USN carrier".

Maybe he wanted to say that they don't have all the required equipment to safely conduct carrier OPS. While they kept some features designed for aircraft carrier use on their hornets (landing gear, arrest hook, fold-able wings) this doesn't necessarily mean they can fly from carriers, I think they don't have the automatic carrier landing system, and in my knowledge they don't even train their pilots for carrier operations.



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6913 times:



Quoting HanginOut (Reply 14):
I, humbly, stand corrected.

Don't sweat it, I'm not out to step on anybody, just pointing out my observations.  Wink

Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 15):
I think they don't have the automatic carrier landing system,

You are in fact correct, the Navy standard ACLS was replaced with a land-based ILS system.
http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/fighters/hornet/index.php
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_12.html

Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 15):
they don't even train their pilots for carrier operations.

As a rule no, but I know for a fact at least one CF pilot has landed on a US carrier. I haven't been able to find the info I'm looking for on the web, so I'm not sure if it was with one of our planes- more likely he was on an exchange tour with the USMC or USN at the time.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineAF340 From Canada, joined Jul 2007, 2786 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6903 times:

Very wierd, I was just thinking about this today...


I would think due to the involvement with the F-35 program, that is the next one.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
I would love to think Eurofighters, or something of the sort but it is unlikely.

That would be awesome. Never going to happen though....




Liam spin 


User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6830 times:



Quoting AF340 (Reply 17):
Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
I would love to think Eurofighters, or something of the sort but it is unlikely.

That would be awesome. Never going to happen though....

I agree, the Eurofighter would probably be better for us, but (and I'm going to sound like a broken record here) it's never going to happen. But we can dream can't we.  pray 



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
User currently offlineAF340 From Canada, joined Jul 2007, 2786 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6778 times:



Quoting HanginOut (Reply 18):
But we can dream can't we.

Yes. Yes we can.  Smile




Liam spin 


User currently offlineCYQL From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 86 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6710 times:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgiip/jsf_e.asp

"The CF is currently interested in either the CTOL or CV version."

I was surprised by the CF interest in the carrier version of the F-35. But after doing some reading on the subject, it makes a lot of sense with the larger wing and increased fuel capacity, which means greater range.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6705 times:



Quoting CYQL (Reply 20):
it makes a lot of sense with the larger wing and increased fuel capacity, which means greater range.

Also for the beefed up airframe and landing gear. We generally operate our fighters out of some rugged areas, a tougher aircraft would be a must. Cold Lake in the Winter (even the summer) can get quite nasty. Then there are those extreem northern soverignity deployments. Not the nicest places.


User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6680 times:



Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
Eurofighter given it's unparalleled capabilities would be the best replacement for the CF. In today's world of politics, who knows what Canada will have in their fleet 12 years from now. Keep in mind the F-15 modernization projects as well... etc etc. But as it stands right now in 2008, the F-35 is the aircraft of choice.

Ummmm what Unparalleled capabilities does the euro-fighter have? Its not stealth, it doesn't supercruise with weapons, and has a limited air to ground capability..So whats so unparalleled about it?


User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6647 times:



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 22):
So whats so unparalleled about it?

The level of hype and marketing propaganda BAE, EADS and other in Europe are spewing about it.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Replacement For CF-18
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Replacement For The Superhornet posted Fri Sep 29 2006 17:50:02 by 747400sp
Was There Replacement For The F-8u posted Sat Apr 22 2006 19:27:24 by 747400sp
Replacement For Air Force 1? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 23:37:02 by Futurestar68
CF-18 Drops Missle On Cyzf Golf Course! posted Sat Jun 19 2004 03:07:28 by CanadianPilot
Wedgetail Replacement For The E-2C? posted Thu Jun 10 2004 23:34:16 by RaginMav
CF-18 Crashes Near Cold Lake! posted Tue May 27 2003 01:14:05 by VonRichtofen
Replacement For The C-5? posted Thu Apr 3 2003 07:24:39 by AA61hvy
CF-18 CAP Over Toronto & SW Ontario posted Fri Oct 12 2001 04:16:07 by Sharpnfuzzy
Norway Requests Gripen Offer For F-16 Replacement posted Fri Jan 18 2008 03:06:39 by Art
F/A-18 Hornet For Mexico...? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 04:05:06 by Cun757
Was There Replacement For The F-8u posted Sat Apr 22 2006 19:27:24 by 747400sp
Replacement For Air Force 1? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 23:37:02 by Futurestar68
CF-18 Drops Missle On Cyzf Golf Course! posted Sat Jun 19 2004 03:07:28 by CanadianPilot
Wedgetail Replacement For The E-2C? posted Thu Jun 10 2004 23:34:16 by RaginMav
CF-18 Crashes Near Cold Lake! posted Tue May 27 2003 01:14:05 by VonRichtofen
Replacement For The C-5? posted Thu Apr 3 2003 07:24:39 by AA61hvy
CF-18 CAP Over Toronto & SW Ontario posted Fri Oct 12 2001 04:16:07 by Sharpnfuzzy
Norway Requests Gripen Offer For F-16 Replacement posted Fri Jan 18 2008 03:06:39 by Art
Replacement For Air Force 1? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 23:37:02 by Futurestar68
CF-18 Drops Missle On Cyzf Golf Course! posted Sat Jun 19 2004 03:07:28 by CanadianPilot
Wedgetail Replacement For The E-2C? posted Thu Jun 10 2004 23:34:16 by RaginMav
CF-18 Crashes Near Cold Lake! posted Tue May 27 2003 01:14:05 by VonRichtofen
Replacement For The C-5? posted Thu Apr 3 2003 07:24:39 by AA61hvy
CF-18 CAP Over Toronto & SW Ontario posted Fri Oct 12 2001 04:16:07 by Sharpnfuzzy
Norway Requests Gripen Offer For F-16 Replacement posted Fri Jan 18 2008 03:06:39 by Art

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format