deathfromafar
Charter Member
As the performance data above indicates, Canada could easily suffice with the Super Hornets. The 18E/F's do have some Low Observable features to reduce RCS and they are certainly cheaper. As I mentioned before, from my discussions with reps who are in the project, there are components (such as what began this thread) which could be fitted to the Super Hornet. That coupled with other Standoff technologies & weapons could easily fulfill Canada's requirements in my opinion for a lower fly-away and long term cost. Added to that, you can be assured you're getting a rugged airframe as the Superhornet was designed from the ground up for the rigors of Sea & Carrier Ops. But my guess is that planners in Ottawa are looking further down the road and have concerns about which aircraft is best to deal with future scenarios. I would further submit that the criteria they are going on isn't as simple or short sited as it may appear.
Yes, Canada's airspace is much larger than the locations where F-16's and Gripens patrol but current CF-18 patrol routes are most likely restricted to much smaller airspace segments and bordering areas not that bigger than where the F-16's and J-39's patrol. It's a matter of what you can patrol from a practical. Current CF-18's are very short legged and trust me, if you lose an F404 engine at weight, you're going to play hell making an airfield if you're way up in remote areas hours away from a base. I wouldn't want to eject deep into the frozen tundra of the Great White North! My time in Arctic Survival Training in Alaska and Norway taught me a lot but that environment is deadly for a lightly dressed pilot even if he or she is only a short distance from civilization. I have a stack of old AFM issues which always had accident/loss reports in the back. Seeing F/A-18 losses due to powerplant failure was just as common as F-16 losses. Having two engines that close together and suffering a fire or thrown blade will bring the show to a screeching halt.
Yes, Canada's airspace is much larger than the locations where F-16's and Gripens patrol but current CF-18 patrol routes are most likely restricted to much smaller airspace segments and bordering areas not that bigger than where the F-16's and J-39's patrol. It's a matter of what you can patrol from a practical. Current CF-18's are very short legged and trust me, if you lose an F404 engine at weight, you're going to play hell making an airfield if you're way up in remote areas hours away from a base. I wouldn't want to eject deep into the frozen tundra of the Great White North! My time in Arctic Survival Training in Alaska and Norway taught me a lot but that environment is deadly for a lightly dressed pilot even if he or she is only a short distance from civilization. I have a stack of old AFM issues which always had accident/loss reports in the back. Seeing F/A-18 losses due to powerplant failure was just as common as F-16 losses. Having two engines that close together and suffering a fire or thrown blade will bring the show to a screeching halt.
