AC340 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 337 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
...for their aging CF18 aircraft? These are the first generation 'A' model, if I am not mistaken, which arent' equiped for complex message encrytion or the use of laser guided bombs. My question is, will Canada order a replace for these aircraft in the near future, say the next 5-10 years? Anyone with any insight?
Lt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3110 times:
well I was just up at Cold Lake for Maple Flag and controlled and spoke with many of hte CF-18 guys (and I fly with Canadians here as well) most of them said the replacement is not coming anytime soon- but they are hoping for the Joint Strike Fighter.
They might try to buy some J-TIDS kits for the aircraft now and maybe up grade some radar. Other than that they told me status quo for now. The Newer Hawk trainers are coming into service now. While the T-33s (T-133s Stars) just retired and that part of training has been contracted out.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3073 times:
I think some limited upgrades have been carried out on CF-18's, though not to the extend that the Australians have done and are doing to their aircraft.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3080 times:
I had a pretty in depth conversation with a CF-18 pilot about this once. The summary of it was that he (and most of his coworkers), although not positive, believed the CF-18 will be the last fighter aircraft the Canadian military ever purchases.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3006 times:
You mean the Canadian AF thinks the politicos will go ahead with the dismantling of the military?
I've seen that coming for a while now, but if the troops themselves are openly saying so it must be serious.
Another nation falling for the 'there is no enemy so we need no defense' way of thinking which costed Europe so dearly in 1940.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2979 times:
One of the things he mentioned that I remember cleary was stating that they had the US to do their dogfighting for them (or something along those lines). Don't know if he was joking or serious though...
J-bird From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2961 times:
Joint Strike Fighter? I think you must be dreaming... the way Canada funds the military, we would be able to buy a total of 8-10, and that spread over 5 years!
I agree with the poster who said that the CF-18 is probably the last fighter aircraft the CAF will ever operate. Have also heard the same comment from people who are in.
Sad but true. Canadian politicos just have never learned that it's a "pay to play" world, and without a meaningful contribution to shared security, the Canadian voice will continue to get smaller and smaller. Looking at it the other way though, defence has never been a priority to the Canadian people and as such, the loss of political/economic influence that comes with having a seat at the decision-making table is what we all deserve. Again, sad but true.
VonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4621 posts, RR: 40 Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2924 times:
I think it depends on if the Liberals stay in power. They'd rather spend money on shitty paintings or pay 3 times for the same thing to help their little french buddies.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2920 times:
Isn't this situation the reason armed trainers are becoming popular in so many countries?
"Negotiations with Canada were completed in May 1997. MOU was signed in December 1997. Canadians entered the program as Informed Partners [1] in January 1998."
[1] Informed Partner -- Allowed access to JSF project information in order to better understand and evaluate the utility of the JSF family of aircraft for their use. Unable to influence requirements.
next up: YYC, SFO, SYD, AKL, WLG, CMB, BKK, SIN, FRA, VCE, JFK
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29349 posts, RR: 62 Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2919 times:
If Canada is made a partner the following will happen.
They will contribute a large sum of tax payer money to help develop the aircraft. In return a portion of the work may be farmed out to build Canadian variants of the aircraft.
The parliament will start screaming that it is taking too much money away from their traumatized health care system and will force the PM to cancel it.
Because of the cancellation of their participation there will be no Canadian built versions and therefore no jobs will come from it, Massive layoffs result in more money going out for unemployment and other aid.
Meanwhile the heavily utilized CF-18 fleet will be getting older and older and less and less reliable.
After several years and deaths because of that fact, the government will eventually purchase a small number of foreign built JSF aircraft. This will be in spite of trying to rig the bidding process so that the aircraft that they cancelled will not win and put a large amount of egg on the faces of the politicians who canceled it in the first place.
The small purchase will cost much more then it would have been if they had stuck with the original plan and there will be no work brought to Canadian aviation workers for building Canadian variants.
off course this is just a fairy tale and never could happen in real life
*Cough!*EH-101*Cough!*EH-101*Cough!*
Excuse me, Don't know what got into me there
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2836 times:
Or, recall the CF-101 non-program, which essentially saw the Canadians getting overly-mature ex-USAF fighters as a result of a scenario somewhat like that described by L-188. Consider that if there is a quantity USN/USMC purchase of F-18Es, then many tired, old F-18As will become available for the CAF to use as attrition replacements for their original issue Hornets.
This way we free up some acreage at Davis-Monthan and keep the CAF stick-shakers (pilots) in the air a decade longer. Why its a win-win plan for everybody. Except the guy in the cockpit.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2581 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2853 times:
My father was one of the systems engineers on the Avro Arrow. If he were still alive, he'd have a good laugh at all the failed attempts, since 1959, to give the RCAF the kind of fighter it needs to carry out its mission, starting with the CF-101. Even the CF-18, as good as it is, couldn't perform the way the Arrow 1 was capable of performing.
L-188 painted a very sad, but very true picture of the last 40 years of military procurement in this country. It goes well beyond the Air Force and impacts both the army and the navy. I'm always amazed that young Canadians are still prepared to put their lives on the line in antiquated and in some cases crumbling equipment, while the politicians who send them off to war blow money on new Challengers they don't need.
But I guess we keep electing them, so we get what we deserve.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2832 times:
The Mig-31 is said to be one of the hottest jets around. I can't help but notice there are more than a few similarities between its predecessor, the Mig-25, and the CF-105 Arrow. But then, form fits function.
The zenith of Canadian Aerospace efforts was 25 March 1958, when the Arrow lifted off at Malton for the first time. It was a long, long, way from being an operational fighter, but what a beautiful ship. It had the greatest potential of any design of its day.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2810 times:
Pretty soon they should be able to get some of our "OLD"(?) C/D version.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2581 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
I have a large, framed original picture of the Arrow's first flight hanging on my office wall. The plane is about to land, with speed brakes extended. As a child, I watched it fly many times.
Amazing how we destroy our own accomplishments.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
AC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
Unfortunately L-188's thoughts also came to my mind...
...and of course also the Arrow. Sure, the Arrow was big, ambitious, and expensive. But getting it to the verge of production and cancelling - and then messing around with CF101's, CF5's, CF104's, stretching CF100 ops - that was more expensive than it would have been to just build the CF105. The moral here - have a plan and stick with it.
...whether those messes happen (again) is anyones guess. I personally think we'll end up buying replacements eventually. But I think it would only be a token handful, and would be years (maybe decades) away. Bottom line is that replacing the Herks is a higher priority in the military right now (and probably should be), and even that doesn't appear likely to happen until around 2008-2012. So don't expect the government to be looking for fighters until at least 2015, maybe 2025.
IMO the way partisan politics turns out is less than ideal. Nobody is interested in making good decisions, just in opposing and attacking any decisions that are made. I have to say I'm irritated by the way the Victoria class (nee Upholder) subs are being grilled out by parliament and the media. There's no consideration of whether it's the right choice, or needed, it's just like "oh, a little problem, lookey here it must be a scandal or lets make it a scandal." Sure, fine, we should be informed of the problems, but I don't think there's anything of a fair analysis of what constitutes a problem, just stirring up a mess for political appearances.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 337 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
