Home » Aviation » Canada Seeking 88 New Fighters to Replace Aging CF-18s; Will Buy Surplus Australian F-18 Hornets in Interim


Canada Seeking 88 New Fighters to Replace Aging CF-18s; Will Buy Surplus Australian F-18 Hornets in Interim

Capt. Matthew Kutryk, Royal Canadian Air Force pilot, flies a specially painted CF-18 Hornet commemorating Canada’s 150th Anniversary of Confederation during the Wings Over Wayne Air Show, May 21, 2017, at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. US Air Force Photo

The Canadian government will start a new competition to buy 88 fighters to replace the aging fleet of Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets, Ottawa announced on Tuesday.

“Canada will begin by establishing a list of suppliers as a first step in this procurement. The list will be comprised of foreign governments and fighter aircraft manufacturers that have demonstrated their ability to meet Canada’s needs,” read the Tuesday statement.
“Proposals will be rigorously assessed on elements of cost, technical requirements and economic benefits. Our government feels it is important to do business with trusted partners. As such, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders’ impact on Canada’s economic interests.”

The government is set to issue a formal bid in 2019, with a contract award planned for 2022 and delivery of the first aircraft planned for 2025. Ottawa could spend up to $15 billion for the aircraft, according to a report in the Toronto Star.

Australian F-35A.

During the search for a new fighter, the government is set to buy older F-18 Hornets from Australia, according to a release from the Canadian government. The Canadians would buy 18 of the Royal Australian Air Force F-18s for about $388 million.

The new competition follows two politically charged dust-ups between the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and American defense companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

One of Trudeau’s campaign promises during his run for office in 2015 was to pull Canada out of the international partnership to purchase 65 Lockheed Martin-built F-35A Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters. Once elected, Trudeau ended participation in the program, saying the JSF “does not work and is far from working.”

Canada was then set to purchase a number of Boeing F-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters. In mid-September, the State Department notified Congress of a proposed $5.23-billion sale of 18 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters to Canada. However, those plans were scrapped following a complicated U.S.-Canada trade dispute between Boeing’s commercial arm and the Canadian aerospace company Bombardier.

In Tuesday’s announcement, Carla Qualtrough, public works and procurement minister, made a thinly veiled reference to Boeing in a statement, saying “bidders responsible for harming Canada’s economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage.”

  • Paul 2

    Reading between the lines, it looks like Canadian priority one is snub US, priority two is get capable fighter. Yeah, they are going for Eurofighter–just to stick it to the man. Nice neighbors.

    • PolicyWonk

      Its hard to blame the Canucks: Boeing started a urinating contest over Bombardier and subsequently lost an 80-plane F/A-18 deal (in short: they gambled and lost); and LockMart (and the DoD) did a historically lousy job managing the F-35 project (which has been poorly reviewed, recently, by OMB, and DOT&E).

      Our armed forces are stuck and have no choice but to buy from our contractors via the DoD acquisition process, that’s specially designed to ensure the US taxpayers get the lousiest deal for defense dollar spent (sadly).

      The Canadians can buy from whoever they want – and they just told Boeing and LockMart they can either get their act together or watch all the money get spent elsewhere.

      If I were them, I’d do the same (this is the beauty of capitalism and having a competitive marketplace).

      • Rocco

        Maybe you should live there!!

        • El Kabong

          We have enough dumbassery in this country.

          Just look at our PM and defence minister.

          Have you heard about the lies our defence minister told about being the “architect” of Afghanistan operations?

          Look it up.

    • D. Jones

      They could buy the spyware-equipped F35’s from the Norwegians.

      The days of our stuff being the greatest are limited. We should have sold detuned F22’s to our allies, and kept production running.

      Instead we’re stuck with a trillion dollar flying LCS.

      • OMG, that’s a Good one. You can really call the F-35, the Flying LCS

      • PolicyWonk

        Excellent point: I’ve been trying to figure out if the F-35 is the LCS of the skies, or LCS is the F35 of the sea.

        That said: at least there’s some hope for the F-35 (even though it’ll cost the taxpayers dearly). There isn’t much help for what is deceitfully designated the “littoral combat ship”, mainly because it was never “intended to venture into the littorals to engage in combat”, according to Adm. Jonathan Greenert (who was CNO at the time).

        • Duane

          You’re not telling the truth, yet again, consistently misquoting Admiral Greenert.

          Please provide the entire quote – it clearly does not say what you pretend that it says.

          • El Kabong

            You lie, Duaney.

          • Duane

            From an article published on DODbuzz on July 22, 2013, directly quoting Adm. Greenert regarding the survivability of the LCS:

            “The ability of the new Littoral Combat Ships to survive combat was comparable to other surface warships despite criticism that the aluminum-hulled LCS class would be prone to fires from a hit, the chief of Naval Operations said Friday.

            All surface combatants acting independently, as the LCS was designed to operate, were vulnerable, given the increasing range and lethality of modern anti-ship weapons, Adm. Jonathan Greenert said.

            “There isn’t really even an Arleigh Burke (class destroyer) that I would say you just go anywhere — anywhere in the world and you will be able to encounter all kind of threats” without risking survivability, Greenert said.

            “I don’t know of any right now” — other than possibly submarines — “where you can say you can go out there and be very much on your own in all threat environments,” Greenert said. “My point is, we have to be vigilant and smart where we deploy this ship, and that includes understanding its survivability capabilities.”

            And remember, back in 2012 and 2013, the US Navy had not yet adopted “distributed lethality” nor had it adapted OTH ASCMs including the Harpoon and Naval Strike Missile to the LCS – which did not begin until 2014. And it was not until December 2013 that the Navy finally decided to deploy SeaRam, its best close in ASCM defense system, on all LCS.

            So now the Navy actually has equipped the LCS to “slug it out” independently.

          • El Kabong

            Blah, blah blah….

            Quoting a guy who’s job depends on cheerleading the Little Crappy Ship.

            What happened to the Sheffield in the Falklands and it’s aluminum superstructure?

            The Stark?

            So now, what were those weapons the LCS carried?

      • Duane

        The F-35 is vastly superior to any other fighter/attack aircraft on the planet, it’s not even close at all. That is why our allies are buying about 1,500 of of them – which is nearly three times as many as all Euro Fighters ever built.

      • El Kabong

        Since the F-35 had a 15:1 kill ratio at it’s first Red Flag, it sure beats what an LCS can do.

        • Rocco

          Thankyou

        • Duane

          Do you realize that we don’t do surface to surface mock engagements between US and allied warships, and count “kill ratios”? How would you even do one?

          We do routinely perform exercises involving US and allied warships, where practice is gained in sensing, vessel coordination, firing test missiles at targets (but not warships), practicing countermeasures and stuff. But there are no “kill ratios” calculated for any warship vs warships.

          Aerial warfare, both practice and real, is (drum roll) not the same as SuW.

          We do conduct exercises in subs vs surface ships, or at least we used to. My SSN participated in one in which we achieved a mock sinking of every ship in a CVN carrier strike group without a single ASW detection of our boat by any of the escorts. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. But that was 40 years ago and pretty much everything is different in terms of both submarine and ASW capabilities from what it was then

          • El Kabong

            Excuses, excuses…

          • Duane

            Fact, facts.

            Oh so inconvenient, are they?

          • El Kabong

            LMAO!

            Oh, you believe your BS is “facts”…

            Cite a credible source, Duaney.

    • Mike Coleman

      I disagree, we have always brought American plane, but Boeing F**k up, it is that simple.

      • dev4

        Who cares you are a nothing Burger.

      • El Kabong

        What were CF-100’s?
        Twin Otters? Cormorants? Tutors?

        • Samuel Clemens

          Predecessors to the Avro Arrow – the most advanced aircraft of its day. Trashed to buy American junk.

          • El Kabong

            NOTHING to do with CF-105’s.

            What was “advanced”?

            The nonexistent radar and fire control system?

            The failed Astra AAM’s? Useless AIM-4’s?

          • Samuel Clemens

            Most advanced interceptor, airframe and engines of its day. A clear mission profile. 50,000 jobs (equivalent to 500,000 by US scale) killed by political machinations reverberating to this day. Maybe you like the beloved Bomarc better, speaking of US junk. US made Hughes AIM-4D you can blame on the US Air Force’s squandering of money and those Falcons went on the pathetic US made MacD Voodoos. The US made and controlled Genie was so repulsive it drove Canada to be a denuclearized nation. Much of the Arrow talent went South into making the Apollo program successful but cost Canada a lost generation of high tech engineering talent.

          • El Kabong

            LOL!

            How many flight hours did those Iroquois engines have?

            The radar performance?
            The weapons?

            It was a failure with NO proof of it’s operational performance, since it was NOT OPERATIONAL.

            Maybe you should seek help for your delusions.

            “The US made and controlled Genie was so repulsive it drove Canada to be a denuclearized nation.”????

            LMAO!

            Yeah, sure sparky….

            The CF-104’s had “repulsive” nukes.
            The Bomarc ONLY had your “repulsive” nuke for a warhead.
            The Army had “repulsive Honest John rockets with nuke warheads.

            Wa, wa, wa!

            Get over it.

          • Samuel Clemens

            You make the best case against your own argument. Notice, no nukes for a long time.

          • El Kabong

            Wrong as usual, sparky.

            It was a change in NATO policy that resulted in the nukes being removed.

            Do some research before you try sitting at the grown-up’s table.

    • Clearmark

      Not really. Nearly all Canadian Forces equipment is USA sourced. And their very small, but professional military is virtually embedded with U.S. Forces. Canada’s main objection to the F35 from day one was price. Second objection was a single engine….they fly over vast uninhabited areas of the north. If the F35 price keeps coming down, they still may buy it. Boeing has really screwed up its chances for the SuperHornet.

      • Duane

        The objection to the F-35 was not price – the objection was partisan politics. Because the former Conservative government did the deal with the USA and LM to participate in (i.e., build parts of it, and committed to buy the finished aircraft), the Liberals were agin’ it. We see this all the time in American politics too. It’s par for the course.

        After Boeing launched their dumb trade attack on Canada’s Bombardier, they killed their Super Hornet sale. And now, between that and the many good reasons to buy the F-35 that were always true – cost included, as it’s now cheaper than what Canada would have paid for the Super Hornets – Boeing’s debacle gave Trudeau the excuse he needed to change his mind.

        Remember that Trump just a year ago ran on killing the F-35 … then within a month after the election, LM graciously gave The Donald full credit for the cost savings in the LRIP-10 contract that had been negotiated months earlier … and voia! Trump not only took full credit for saving money on the F-35, but all of a sudden he was singing its praises, and continues to do so today.

        Who’da thunk it? Politicians practicing politics!

        • El Kabong

          Wrong, Duaney.

          Go read up on the libtwit anti-F35 comments they’ve made publicly.

          • Duane

            Trudeau specifically stated that the F-35 “does not work, and never will work”. That is not a price argument .. he said effectively that the F-35 was a fraud. That was obviously not true at the time (in 2015) and remains not true today.

          • El Kabong

            So you finally admit Zoolander is an idiot?

          • Duane

            I never wrote that Trudeau was or was not an idiot .. I don’t have a dog in that fight, not a Canadian, as apparently you are. What is clear is that Trudeau practice politics during an election, surprise surprise surprise! Just as all candidates do. Eventually reality intrudes on politics, as all politicians eventually discover.

          • El Kabong

            You’re as clueless about politics, Canadians and the liberals as you are modern naval warfare.

            Seriously, your obsession with Little Crappy Ships is disturbing.

            Have you sought help?

      • El Kabong

        Nope.

        Leopard 2’s, LAV’s, EH101’s, Griffons, C7/C8 rifles, trucks, Challenger jets, Twin Otters, subs, frigates, etc…

        All Canadian or European made.

    • El Kabong

      No, PM-tater-tot is happy to screw the RCAF and leave them with 30 year old Hornets.

      • PolicyWonk

        Boeing tried to play hardball over Bombardier and lost an 80-plane order because of it; and LockMart’s lousy management of the F-35 project was rotten (to be generous) with its ever-decreasing mission profiles, years of delays, monstrous cost increases, and multitude of design problems.

        Neither of these companies have done themselves any favors.

        The Canadians have a number of solid options for their purchase of 88 new aircraft, with the EuroFighter, Grippen, and Rafale all being very strong and capable aircraft.

        Bad/ill-considered business practices on the part of US companies in a highly competitive market means the business can go elsewhere.

        And that may very be what happens.

        • El Kabong

          ???

          Not even remotely close.

          PM-selfie was only looking for around 12 Sub-Par Hornets.

          Notice, before Zoolander was elected, there was NO “fighter shortage” and the left wing idiots were OPPOSING the F-35 buy.

          Failing to remember it was a previous libtwit government that signed us up as a Tier 3 partner….

          You might want to go read up on those Canadian companies making F-35 parts.

          Magellan, Avcorp, etc…

          “The Canadians have a number of solid options…”?

          That’s what amateur fan-boys say.

          The F-35 is the only credible choice.

          What are our allies buying?
          What fighter has won every competition it’s been in?

          • PolicyWonk

            The Canadians just opened up for proposals for an 88 fighter aircraft acquisition purchase. But since its supposed to take them years and they have problems now, they’re taking a pragmatic approach and are buying the Aussies F-18’s for parts or refurbishment in the meantime.

            Note, we’re talking about Canada: they do things their own way, and the way they see it their requirements are different from ours. And while I respect your opinion w/r/t the F-35, they don’t agree for several reasons:

            1. The appallingly high cost
            2. Single engine = BAD: they like two engines for reliability given their geographical circumstances and the amount of land they have to patrol
            3. They don’t believe stealth is a requirement (so why pay a premium for it?)

            The Canadian government was initially interested in the F-35, but their tolerance level for incompetent management, numerous engineering problems, monstrous cost increases, and over a decade of delays is far lower than ours. This was the case well before Trudeau was elected.

            Arguably, its smart of them to hold defense contractors to a justifiably higher standard than Americans do. After all, we’re accustomed to getting charged the maximum amount for lousiest ROI on the planet for defense dollar spent. It seems rather “sour grapes” of you to disparage our neighbors to the north for expecting a better deal for the money.

            😉

          • DaSaint

            With all due respect, Canadian procurement processes have regularly been worse than ours. Whether it’s shipbuilding, aircraft, helicopters or submarines. It’s often much longer, more expensive per unit, and fraught with course and decision changes.

            The saga that leads to the inevitable F-35 purchase will be no different.

          • Rocco

            What due respect!!

          • El Kabong

            The “proposal” was opened over a decade ago.

            The Chretien liberals signed up as Tier III partners for the F-35 in the 90’s.

            The Harper government was well on their way to buying them, until the liberals and other lefties opposed it.
            Remember, the CPC was a minority government for quite a few years.

            “..they have problems now, they’re taking a pragmatic approach and are buying the Aussies F-18’s for parts or refurbishment in the meantime.”?

            Pragmatic?
            It’s idiotic.

            You have 30 year old fighters that are getting harder to service, so buying fighters AS OLD and with the SAME ISSUES, helps how, exactly?

            Do you know what exactly the RCAF requirements are?

            Let’s start your education:

            1.) “The appallingly high cost”?

            $94.3 million and lowering.

            2.) ” Single engine = BAD: they like two engines for reliability given their geographical circumstances and the amount of land they have to patrol”?

            Hilarious!
            GO read the USAF flight safety statistics on single vs twin engine fighters.
            As for geography. the USAF is basing F-35’s in Alaska. Replacing single engine F-16’s.
            Norway and Denmark are buying F-35A’s. Replacing single engine F-16’s. Which had replaced single engined F-104’s.
            The USMC and USN will be flying them over open oceans.
            ALL of Sweden’s fighters have been single engined.

            3. They don’t believe stealth is a requirement (so why pay a premium for it?)

            LOL!!!
            Let’s see THAT statement from the RCAF.

            AGAIN, Canada is STILL a Tier III partner and the libtwit government paid MILLIONS into it. $30 MILLION in May.

            You didn’t answer my questions.

          • PolicyWonk

            I’m giving you CANADA’s perspective, and they don’t agree with your opinion(s).

            Where did you get the idea that the Canadians give a rat’s patootie about who’s buying the F-35 (‘taint their problem! – ‘taint their money!)? And in the grand scheme of things, the $30M they’ve invested in the F-35 doesn’t even rate being called petty cash when compared to the $15B they’ve budgeted to purchase their fighters.

            They care about general interoperability with their allies aircraft – which is fundamentally guaranteed because even the USA isn’t going to rid itself of every 4th generation platform (neither are the Europeans, etc.).

            They aren’t going to kow-tow to LockMart OR Boeing, neither of whom have done themselves any favors throughout all this – yet all you can do is claim that they should ignore Boeing’s mindless gamble and/or LockMarts project management, cost control incompetence, the huge number of outstanding problems, and ever decreasing mission profile?

            Any other project this badly managed would’ve (and should have) been KILLED and deservedly so. But the USA was deeply stupid and bet the entire farm on the F-35 (a decision we’ve since lived to regret many times over).

            Just because the Chair Force and USMC are desperate to field a weapon long before its ready for battle (according to OMB and DOT&E) so they can pretend its viable (the USMC has a larger problem, in that their Harriers are elderly) doesn’t mean the Canadians need to subscribe to that level of poor judgement.

            Again – I’m not the one you have to convince. If you want to consider our neighbors to the north idiots that’s your privilege.

            Cheers.

          • El Kabong

            LMAO!!!

            “I’m giving you CANADA’s perspective, and they don’t agree with your opinion(s).”?

            Nice assumption on my nationality, fool.

            As a Tier III partner, Canadian aerospace businesses are facing a LOSS of around $10 BILLION in revenue thanks to PM-selfie.

          • Rocco

            Wrong on the sweds! F-18’S & F-5’S!!!

          • El Kabong

            WTF?

            Learn some facts.

            The SWISS and FINNISH AIR FORCES fly Hornets.

            SWITZERLAND flies F-5E’s.

            Thanks for playing.

          • Rocco

            I don’t play sorry I F…Ed up!! Was early in the morning lol mixed up Swiss & sweds. I’m on your side

          • El Kabong

            No worries, sir.

            Merry Christmas!

  • Duane

    The key words are there for the reading:

    “Proposals will be rigorously assessed on elements of cost, technical requirements and economic benefits. Our government feels it is important to do business with trusted partners. As such, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders’ impact on Canada’s economic interests.”

    Gee, besides the F-35, what other current fighter/attack aircraft are partially sourced with a significant volume of Canadian components? As in at least several billions worth, with contracts awarded to over 1,400 Canadian firms as of today?

    Obviously what Trudeau stated in 2015 about the F-35 “not working” is false – he knows it, everybody but the dedicated F-35 haters know it. The B model has been operational since 2015, the A model since 2016, and the full warfighting capability of Block 3F started delivering four months ago. The aircraft works great, it is transforming 21st century warfare, it is virtually un-defeatable by fourth gens.
    Most of the major NATO and Pacific allies are buying it (UK, Italy, Norway, Australia, South Korea, Japan, etc. … and Germany is in talks now to buy the F-35). Boeing’s attempted assassination of the Bombardier C series program in the USA completely backfired, resulting in Canada cancelling the Super Hornet buy and now Airbus owns the C series and will manufacture it in their Alabama plant, neutering the trade sanctions).

    • Secundius

      Saab JAS.39E/F Gripen! Virtually Every Part including the Engines are also Available in Canada…

      • El Kabong

        Wrong!

        How many Gripen-E’s are in service?

        Currently flying?

      • Duane

        What does “available in Canada” mean, exactly?

        You can buy used Russian fighters in Canada too .as in the US as well.

        • Secundius

          I would this that was obvious! Notice how the JAS.39 Gripen is a Virtual “Dead Ringer” for the F-20 Tigershark. You can Buy used Russian Aircraft’s in the US too. “Airtonics” even Produce’s Near Copies of Soviet/RuFed Military Equipment…

          • El Kabong

            Notice you’re not answering my questions?

            How many Gripen-E’s are in service?

            Currently flying?

          • Rocco

            1 I believe maybe 2

          • El Kabong

            Exactly.

            I suspect the Gripen groupie is Alex.

          • Rocco

            No it’s not!!

          • Secundius

            Engine the SAME, Airframe is Nearly Identical. Either Like Mind Thinking the Same, or Something Else. Try asking D|ck Ch___y and the Barking Sands incident of 2007, for Answers. Oh “El K”! Your messages are Being Blocked by US__ News! They’ve determined that you and I are TOO Volatile a Combination and are Blocking ALL Communications between us…

          • Rocco

            If that’s true how come I could still post??

          • Secundius

            Apparently You and I haven’t got into ANY Major Fights (i.e. Verbal [Texted] Exchanges). Unfortunately, the SAME can’t be Said between ME and “El Kabong”…

          • Rocco

            Lol so sorry

  • So basically, Trudeau aka Canada’s version of Obama wants to SNUB America because of Trump and wants to go with used classic Hornets from Australia, all while they look to Europe for Fighters such as the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen. I think Canada is stupid on this one because how long can the Canadian’s fly the F/A-18 A/B’s before the wings fall off over Toronto.

    • Rocco

      Agreed!! Justin Trudeau is a two face!! As well. Why we do business with them is beyond me!!

      • PolicyWonk

        Heh -because they’re next door, and they’re on our side. Boeing and LockMart both share the blame when it comes to losing this deal, because it was America’s deal to lose.

        • Duane

          LM had nothing to do with “losing this deal” – it was 100% on Boeing. LM will end up being the winner, and Boeing gave Trudeau just the excuse he needed to repeal his former stance on the F-35 which was obvious political BS designed to win an election, not make complex procurement selections.

        • El Kabong

          What did L-M do wrong?

          You do know Canada is a Tier 3 partner in the F-35 program right?

          They’ve been making parts for years…

          • PolicyWonk

            Good question. LockMart, in conjunction with miserable DoD acquisition practices, grossly mismanaged the project. From long-standing design problems, to staggering cost increases, many years of delays, and constantly changing mission profiles (i.e. its capabilities requirements have been continuously degraded from inception to this day): none of these problems have helped the case for the purchase of the F-35 (not to mention, the Canadians like two-engine planes for reliability – they patrol vast regions of the arctic).

            The best managed portion of the F-35 program has been the distribution of sub-contracts across the lower 48, thereby ensuring the program would be hard to kill no matter how out of control the project was/is (it was also littered across some of our allies for the same reason).

            But the Canadians have options, which is what capitalism is all about: competition. And if Boeing and LockMart wanted Canada’s business, they really had to act like it. The Canadian are not beholden to the USA’s MIC – and our military and HoR’s are.

            Hence they can take their business elsewhere if they so choose.

          • El Kabong

            Cite sources to back up your claim.

            “Hence they can take their business elsewhere if they so choose.”?

            Truly ignorant.

            L-M and the partner nations will be happy to remove ALL the F-35 work Canadian companies COULD have done.

            Over $9 BILLION in revenue.

        • Rocco

          Stupid response!

      • Which is why I suspect they want to Snub America and go to Europe for Fighters, all because they hate Trump

        • Rocco

          No this has nothing to do with him!!! Started before him

        • PolicyWonk

          The troubles between Canada, LockMart, and Boeing were simmering long before Mr. Trump was elected.

          It is however, fair to say that Mr. Trump has done little (if anything) to improve the USA’s position w/r/t our northern neighbors opinions. Since diplomacy isn’t in his wheelhouse, he has proven less than helpful with the Canadians (or any of our other long-standing allies).

          • El Kabong

            The ONLY issue with L-M is Canada having a muppet for a PM who opposed the F-35 deal before being elected, despite the FACT his predecessor Chretien signed Canada up to the F-35 program as a Tier 3 partner!

            The ONLY reason Zoolander is bungling the CF-18 replacement is due to the liberal’s blind hatred of anything the Conservatives do.

            Just look at the Sea King/Labrador replacement with the EH101.

          • Rocco

            Kudos

          • PolicyWonk

            The ONLY reason Zoolander is bungling the CF-18 replacement is due to the liberal’s blind hatred of anything the Conservatives do.
            ===============================================
            No one likes it when conservatives do stupid things: good conservatives aren’t tolerant of incompetence in their party (or anyone else’s). And the Canadians were less than impressed with their conservative leadership – which is why they were voted out of office.

            And so what if Trudeau backed out of his predecessors agreement: Mr Trump has done the SAME THING here in the USA (thereby carefully implementing his Communist Appeasement Policy).

          • El Kabong

            Silly lefty.

            Who bought the C-130J’s?
            C-17’s?
            Leopard 2’s?
            MRAP’s?
            C6’s?
            CH-47F’s?
            CHAP’s?

            “And the Canadians were less than impressed with their conservative leadership – which is why they were voted out of office.”?

            Wrong as usual.

            LESS than 40% of the vote was for Zoolander.

            PM-selfie is going to bungle the estimated $10 BILLION in revenue Canadian aerospace companies were forecast to earn making F-35 parts and assemblies.

          • PolicyWonk

            I realize the facts as far as the Canadians are concerned don’t impress you – but you’ll simply have to get over it because howling at me is a waste of energy.

            It might be less than 40% of the votes went to the man you refer to as Zoolander, but he got MORE votes than his competitors did (unlike President Trump who got MILLIONS less).

            And gee-willikers, if stating reality is what makes me leftie in your little world, then you can go an complain about it to your goose-stepping buddies in the no-fact zone.

            Cheers.

          • El Kabong

            I see you don’t like facts.
            Allergy or merely mental?

        • Secundius

          Slap a 300% Import Tariff on Everything Made In Canada?/! I’d HATE Donald Trump too…

          • Cocidius

            You got that right. And the Gripen is not the only Euro-canard that’s now in the running due to Donald Trump’s stupidity. Both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale are now being looked at in a different light and honestly if this 300% tariff goes forward the US may never sell another fighter to Canada ever again.

        • El Kabong

          The libtwit government under PM-tater-tot hates anything started by the Conservatives.

          Look up the EH101 – Sea King debacle.

      • Samuel Clemens

        Look in the mirror. Bad deals,. Don’t keep agreements. Insulting and demeaning. Selfish and proud of it. Welcome to your own reflection.

    • Duane

      Trudeau is simply responding to the trade sanctions that the Trump administration imposed on the Bombardier C series narrow body airliner, done at the behest of Boeing. Bombardier is Canada’s principal aerospace company, so going after Bombardier is clearly an anti-Canadian action. Also anti-UK, because much of the Bombardier’s content is produced in the UK, and the Brits complained even louder than Canada did about the Bombardier sanctions imposed by Trump at Boeing’s behest.

      This action is not an “anti-American” response, it is a targeted anti-Boeing response. Indeed, by far the most likely successful competitor for the very much larger aircraft buy (84 vs 24) will be the F-35, which as I point out above, contains significant Canadian content.

      • El Kabong

        Wrong, Duaney.

        Stick to your Little Crappy Ship cheerleading.

        Zoolander was babbling on pre-election about cancelling the F-35 buy, because the Conservatives wanted it.

        Now, he’s in a corner, because, SURPRISE! The F-35 is the BEST option for the RCAF.

        Don’t bother mentioning the $10 BILLION in revenue Canadian companies WOULD have made as Tier III partners in the F-35 program.

        We all know, you don’t like facts.

  • DaSaint

    This is somewhat comical. Purchasing the used F-18s is a smart stopgap move, which gives them enough time for them to hope that everyone forgets what Tredeau said about the F-35.

    The F-18 E/F is not a 5th gen aircraft, and had little chamce of winning a 88 aircraft order.

    Typhoon will be virtually out of production.

    Rafale isn’t really an option, despite two engines, due to a completely new logistics and training regimen that would be required. And zero commonality with their closest ally, whom they often share forward bases with.

    At the end of the day, the Lockheed Martin/Lockheed Martin Canada influence will win. Remember LMC is the prime on the Type-26 Frigate submission as well. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

    • El Kabong

      Recall there was no “fighter gap” before the election.

      Canadian companies have been making F-35 parts for yearsm since we’re a Tier 3 partner.

      Who was it that signed us up and spent hundreds of millions on the F-35?

      • DaSaint

        I think there are now issues with the legacy CF-18s, where only 20 something are currently flyable. They needed a quick fix fast.

        • El Kabong

          There are more than that flying, according to my sources.

          The fix we need is a new government.

          • DaSaint

            Noted!

  • Avi

    By the time Canada buys the new aircraft Chinese and Russian fighters will be stealthy so in a serious conflict Canadian aircraft would be sitting ducks. But what it really means is that the government does not see Canada taking part in anything dangerous.

    • Secundius

      And what Exactly are Either the Chinese and/or Russians going to be Fighting With? The Chinese have Less than a Handful of J-31’s Operational and the Russians 9 Working Prototypes. Both are Short-Legged when Armed and Unarmed when Carrying Extended Range Fuel Tanks. Both can Do or the Other, but Not Both…

      • Avi

        We are not talking about now, we are talking about some 10 years into the future.

        • Secundius

          I would “Think” in Ten-Years Time the Canadians will Have Something In Place too, to Counter the Threat…

    • Samuel Clemens

      Stealth – the great Pentagon boondoggle. Those Russian fighters will literally fly rings around the compromised and hyper inefficient F-35s while the Chinese electronics will totally outsmart the F-35s made with either obsolete American source electronics or Chinese componennts. The remaining American manufacturing oligarchs cannot innovate their way out of a wet paper bag except taking decades and trillions of dollars. That’s not the way modern hi-tech works. Welcome the greatest weapons of the 1990 on Earth.

      • El Kabong

        Stealth – What Russia and China are desperately trying to copy.

        • Samuel Clemens

          Really? At the cost aerodynamic and engine performance? Second rate maneuverability accepted to beat a few sensors that with improvements and sensor fusion that can defeat nearly all of the clever highly expensive mechanical engineering? Because that is all “sealth does” – statically complicate a handful of sensors. It’s not like multi-level neural networks can’t sort that out, eh? Advantage: China. All of this temporary advantage at the cost of cost? US military-industrial inefficiency at its most extreme.Even a few clear thinkers at the Pentagon are seeing there might just be a few bad trades off made. I think the opposition sees much better ways than the very few remaining American non-competitive monopoly manufacturers can match over the long haul. Finally, there is no manned aircraft that can defeat the coming generation of autonomous combat drones individually or in swarms – drones that can carry long range missiles or be long range missiles. So what is the useful life time of the thing – a decade or less for air superiority. The rest is dropping bombs on the homes of people who can’t fight back by which means the US military has killed well over 6 million people over the last 80 years but for which other countries generally don’t prepare. Who does Canada want to kill so blithely? Again drones do it better for those who wish to deliver mass death from the air. The mission profile is less than clear.

          • El Kabong

            Yup.
            Never heard of the PAK-FA/Sukhoi T-50?
            The Chengdu J-20?

            “Even a few clear thinkers at the Pentagon are seeing there might just be a few bad trades off made.”?

            Which ones?

            “Finally, there is no manned aircraft that can defeat the coming generation of autonomous combat drones individually or in swarms – drones that can carry long range missiles or be long range missiles.”?

            LMAO!!!

            What “swarms” of what “UAV’s” will those be?

            You might want to go read up on those UAV’s that have been SHOT DOWN by MANNED FIGHTERS.

            Let’s see that UCAV being developed for ACM.

            “The rest is dropping bombs on the homes of people who can’t fight back by which means the US military has killed well over 6 million people over the last 80 years but for which other countries generally don’t prepare. ”

            Nutbar alert!!!

          • Samuel Clemens

            Let’s start with basic physics and biology. No biological entity can pull up to 100Gs, rocket propulsion can and does. Neurons are slow. No human is going to have sub-millisecond response time. A millisecond is forever in real time systems. No human can track forty objects at once, let alone 400 or 4000. Your cell phone can. No human can do high bandwidth sensor fusion. Avionics systems do it already. No human (not many) wants to ride a kinetic kill weapon to destruction. No human can match the learning ability of interconnected multi-level neural nets. Weapons systems are holonic by nature (not truly “autonomous”). No human can avoid taking up weight and space for life support. Non-biological systems have no such waste. No human can operate or be ready to operate 24×7 365. No human can retrain in a download. Compared to the complexity of driving through a city, flying is a simple task lacking hard objects routinely in the vicinity and difficult scenes to analyze. Small fast autonomous vehicles (ground, air, near space and subsurface) don’t have to cost $1 trillion a pop just to reach first prototype or production. Coordinating strategy for 400 fully automated units cooperating in advance or in real time is doable, that many humans just run into each other. Your sense of history is pathetic. The V-1 was highly ineffective. But bad generalization. It’s lineal descendent the Tomahawk class cruise missile is very effective using 20th century technology. And now wake up, we are on the cusp of a change that makes 20th century technology a death trap and worse, yet an ineffective waste of money. The US Air Force is very unlikely to produced a manned fighter beyond the current generation for good reason.

          • El Kabong

            Answer my questions.

            Lame, FAILED deflection attempt.

          • Duane

            No aircraft on earth has “cost a trilion a pop to develop”. What on earth are you smoking?

            The F-35 program development cost was about $56B. The entire run of nearly, 2,500 American purchased aircraft, including development costs, will be about $400B. Today F-35s are being produced at low rate initial production fly away ($94.6M) cheaper than any fourth gen plus aircraft being manufactured today. Within two years at FRP it will be produced cheaper (under $80M) than any straight, old tech fourth gen still in production today.

            And most of the technologies deployed for the first time on F-35s are already being retrofited to our legacy fleet, including the much improved stealth coating of the F-35 now going on the F-22s, HMDs that will be deployed on F-22s and even our fourth gen plus fighters. The precision carrier landing system for F-35Cs that is already being retrofitted to Super Hornets and to V-22 Ospreys. Sensor fusion systems now being developed for the F-22. Etc. etc.

            The F-35 program is the greatest technology demonstrator/deployment platform of any weapons system in history. It has literally redefined multi-domain battle in the 21st century.

          • NavySubNuke

            “The F-35 program development cost was about $56B”
            Yikes. You really think the F-35 was only $56B?
            Have you ever actually even looked at the budget books?
            You should check out the Navy’s FY17 Budget request for R&D – specifically “Research & Development, Navy (BA 5)”.
            If you do you will see two budget items of interest:
            PE 0604800M Item 2262: Joint Strike Fighter EMD STOVL – cost: $47.7B
            PE 0604800N Item 2261: Joint Strike Fighter EMD – cost: $47.4B

            Note that this cost – over $90B – doesn’t even include the Air Force R&D costs….

          • Duane

            $400B total manufactured delivered costs all 2,400+ airframes. Early manufacturing costs (initial production plus LRIP costs) account for upwards of $140 some billion, plus the program development costs … those two categories altogether account for about half of the total program cost, while the manufacturing of the remaining 2,200+ aircraft account for the rest of the total program delivery cost.

          • Duane

            Stealth does not make aerodynamically inefficient designs.- just the opposite.

            You’re thinking of the 40-year old F-117, not anything designed in the last 20 years.

  • Samuel Clemens

    Why buy overpriced, porked up inefficient to purchase, inefficient to operate and buggy foreign aircraft from another country that only puts itself first, when there is a world of better choices at better prices to chose from? Bad deal. Screw NAFTA, nationalists, and the DoD too. Let everyone play by the same rules. How you like it know, y’all?|

  • kye154

    The Canadians are right to do this. The F-35 was such a boondoggle anyway, that the Americans tried to sucker other countries into buying. The F-35 was first designed in 1992, and it took 13 years before the first one ever flew in 2005, and it still can’t meet its advertised military specs even yet, in 2017. In the meanwhile, even the Australians are toying with the idea of replacing their planes with the Russian Sukhoi T-50, or possibly the Chinese Shenyang J-31….. (can you imagine this?), since the F-35 they bought are too expensive, and doesn’t live up to what was promised. As one Australian air force official involved in the F-35 development program reportedly told US media: “The F-35 will, in my opinion, be 10 years behind legacy fighters when it achieves (operation) … it will not have the weapons or sensor capability (for close air support) missions that legacy multi-role fighters had by the mid-2000s.” The Australians have also noted that the F-35 in its current form has less armament, shorter range, less maneuvrability, a slower rate of climb and lower speeds than many of the specialist aircraft it is supposed to replace. On top of that, the F-35 also lacks a key element of the F-22 Raptor, now appearing the most modern Russian jets: Supercruise. This is an advanced technology which vastly improves the fuel economy of jet engines — allowing aircraft to coast at supersonic speeds for long distances without having to dump raw fuel on an afterburner. So, until the Australians make a decision to buy Russian or Chinese planes, they do have the far more proven and dependable F-18’s to sell to Canada, because Canada won’t buy their F-35s.

    • Duane

      No – the F-35 is not a boondoggle – it is the exact opposite of a boondoggle, the most lethal and cost effective attack aircraft on the planet.

      • Cocidius

        Except for the F-22 which is light years ahead of the F-35 in A2A ops. Also on the F-35 I’m not sure that cost effective describes an aircraft that’s been over budget literally since day one of the program.

        • Duane

          No – actually you’re wrong. The F-35 is far superior to the F-22 in air to air ops because it has far superior sensors (the F-22 simply does not have DAS or the elecro-optical targeting system of the F-35, and the F-22 simply does not have sensor fusion which is at the very core of the F-35, the only aircraft in the world that has it … and the F-22 does not have the HMD, which along with sensor fusion provides vastly superior situational awareness to the F-35 pilot that the F-22 does not have. For these reasons, the F-22s are now being paired up with F-35s to greatly increase the survivability of the F-22s in contested airspace. The only advantages of the F-22 are a higher speed (which is immaterial to fighting ability) and somewhat greater maneuverability – which does not matter at all to air to air combat today. Nobody gets in a nose to tail dogfight with an enemy bogey anymore – the last time that happened was over a quarter century ago in Iraq. It’s all done with AAMs now, at medium to long range. The F-22 does carry more AAMs than a F-35 – 6 AIM 120 plus 2 AIM 9X, while the F-35 carries up to 4 AIM 120 (but a future mod, in about 2 years, will increase that to 6) plus 2 AIM-9X. But that’s not a major advantage, and it’s only temporary.

  • F-35A for interceptor is only sought by Norway who probably also made a wild choice.

    • Secundius

      Depends on the Interpretation of the word “Interceptor”? To get there Fast or to Impede. Both the F-102 “Delta Dagger” and F-106 “Delta Dart” were Interceptors. Unfortunately, Not Very Good Ones…

  • El Kabong

    That’s funny!

    Where’s your proof?

    All I see is mere opinion.

  • El Kabong

    Incorrect.

  • El Kabong

    It’s clear there is no hope for you.

  • El Kabong

    Answer the questions, Duaney.

    • Duane

      I answered the question, using direct lengthy, totally in context quote from the Admiral whom the LCS critics routinely misquote out of context.

      There is no other question to answer. it is a quote, it is factual, it is relevent. What do you have to say in contravention of such facts?

      • El Kabong

        “This comment is awaiting moderation.”

        Better luck, next time, Duaney.

        Try using a credible source to back up your claims.

  • El Kabong

    Wa! Wa! Wa!

    Crying to the Mods Duaney, because you’re being ridiculed and called out for your banal blather, isn’t helping your lack of credibility.

  • El Kabong

    Awww….it’s SO adorable to see you defend your spouse, boy.

    Stick to the fan-boy circle jerk blog, Best Fighter 4 Canada, with the rest of the amateurs.

  • El Kabong

    LMAO!!!

    “I produce facts…”?

    Sure Duaney, just like cattle have “facts” coming out from under their tail…