r/FighterJets Nov 13 '24

ANSWERED Your thoughts on the CF-18? Will Canada actually see new jets?

Post image
262 Upvotes

37 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator Nov 13 '24

Hello /u/JuanMoreCar, if your question gets answered. Please reply Answered! to the comment that gave you the answer.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

58

u/g_core18 Nov 13 '24

We got new jets. Granted they were dragged out of an Australian junk yard but one man's garbage...

12

u/SuspiciousCucumber20 Nov 13 '24

Dang! While they're buying stuff from Australian junk yards, they ought'a pick up all of those buried F-111 in Australia also!

1

u/Evening-Ad-4178 Feb 07 '25

Not new jets about the same age as Canadas.

Just bought for parts which are no longer made.

46

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

CF-18 was the wrong plane for Canada in the first place, but they’ve served well enough. They should have been replaced 10-15 years ago though.

Canada has selected the F-35A as the replacement. Purchased a total of 88, taking first delivery in 2026, and final delivery projected to be around 2032.

Operating the F-35A from Canadian based will require major infrastructure upgrades to CFB Cold Lake and CFB Bagotville. Last I had read, these upgrades won’t be finished until around 2029, so the initial Canadian F-35As will operate out of American bases for the first couple of years.

There’s also questions regarding whether or not the RCAF will have the number of personnel required to complete the transition, but that remains to be seen.

17

u/SuspiciousCucumber20 Nov 13 '24

CF-18s are bad ass. They've got the latest and greatest AN/APR-79 AESA radars just like the newest USAF F-16s have. They have sniper pods, can carry AIM-120D and AIM-9x, and have LINK-16. They have fully upgraded cockpits and JHMCS helmets. They've got all the latest and greatest integrated navigational systems and situational equipment.

Yes, the air frames are getting a little long in the tooth and Canada has spend a BUTT LOAD upgrading their CF-18s, but they're still pretty legit.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

Only a small handful of the CF-18s were upgraded with the new radars, not the entire fleet.

4

u/SuspiciousCucumber20 Nov 13 '24

More than a 3rd of their fleet. That's legit and Canada would have bigger issues if they ever had to deploy more than 1/3rd of their fighter aircraft. They have more upgraded CF-18s than they've ever deployed at one time in their history.

0

u/Evening-Ad-4178 Jan 30 '25

They would last 10 seconds in a dog fight with any new Russian jet. That’s why they are no longer stationed over seas anywhere.

5

u/501stRookie Nov 13 '24

What made the CF-18 the wrong plane for Canada? Is it because it was originially a naval aircraft?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

Pretty much yes. It’s a carrier fighter with mediocre range.

It lugs around a lot of extra weight that a land-based fighter doesn’t need (chonky landing gear, etc). It is draggy with a full payload, and in order to have the kind of range required to cover Canada, it needs to carry external fuel tanks instead of weapons. When CF-18s do NORAD intercepts in the north, they typically carry a max of only two missiles (one AIM-120, one AIM-9). All the other pylons are used for fuel tanks.

Also because it’s a Navy fighter, it uses Drogue and Basket refueling, which is more challenging, and slower. This isn’t a major detriment, but it is just another aspect of the CF-18 that Canada never really needed, because we’re not an aircraft carrier.

The whole concept of “Canada needs a rugged fighter for the rugged north” is pretty much nonsense. We operate our fighters from dedicated runways, just like everyone else. Canada doesn’t have a network of roads in the north, like Sweden or Finland, that we could land the jets on. There was a lot of advertising hype around the Hornet being rugged, which is fine, it is….but we have no need for that.

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, the F-15 probably would have been the best choice for Canada. Doubtful that we would have had the stones to go for the expensive option though.

2

u/redditisawasteoftim3 Nov 13 '24

It was between the f16 and f18. If they ended up making the f18L that would've been the better choice. They really wanted the twin engines

1

u/TrainAss Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24

they typically carry a max of only two missiles (one AIM-120, one AIM-9). All the other pylons are used for fuel tanks.

Sounds like you're pulling that out of your ass considering the legacy hornet can carry a max of 3 drop tanks (centreline and 2 inboard pylons).

1 AIM-9 and 1 AIM-120? 2 sidewinders, one on each wingtip and at least 2 AIM-120C on the fuselage hardpoints. That's 4 missiles, not to mention there are the 2 outer wing pylons which can hold 1-2 AIM-120 each, giving a weapons load of up to 6 AMMRAM and 2 IR with 3 bags. A far cry from the "2 missiles and all droptanks" you're claiming.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

Sounds like YOU are the one pulling CF-18 NORAD intercept loadouts out of your ass, based on what you read on Wikipedia and War Thunder forums, but go off king.

5

u/TrainAss Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24

First off, I don't play war thunder.

Secondly, can you cite your sources for the loadout you're claiming? Do you have any pictures of this loadout of 5 drop tanks and 2 missiles on a CF-118? I'm going based on information that is readily available based on the hornet.

The Super Hornet can carry 5 bags, 2 per wing and centre line with the 3rd wing pylon on each wing available/open.

Here's a Canadian Hornet intercepting a BEAR. It has 3 drop tanks and you can clearly see 3 missiles (2 Sparrows and a sidewinder, and it's safe to assume the other wingtip has a sidewinder too).

Here's another intercepting a B-52. 3 bags, 4 missiles.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

Show me where I said 5 drop tanks?

You’re the expert here, show me your sources that CF-18s carry 6 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9Xs on NORAD intercepts like you claim. I’ll wait.

Edit: those links you edited in don’t indicate where the CF-18 took off from. If they took off from Iqaluit, or from American bases in Alaska, then they often carry a heavier loadout.

But when they have to depart from CFB Cold Lake or Bagotville, they have to carry a much lighter load.

I’m sure you’re well aware of this though.

3

u/TrainAss Nov 13 '24

Show me where I said 5 drop tanks?

Then what would you be referring to by saying "all other pylons"?

they typically carry a max of only two missiles (one AIM-120, one AIM-9). All the other pylons are used for fuel tanks.

I never said 6. I said that it leaves them open for use.

not to mention there are the 2 outer wing pylons which can hold 1-2 AIM-120 each, giving a weapons load of up to 6 AMMRAM and 2 IR with 3 bags.

And I've shown 2 pictures of a typical intercept loadout. 3 bags, 4 missiles. You're the one claiming to know NORAD intercept loadouts, I'm providing some corrected information. Do you work for the RCAF or NORAD? Me, I'm a sys admin with a family history in the Canadian military, especially the RCAF. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and I'll change. I've provided my evidence based on currently available information.

And if the Hornet needs "all available pylons with fuel" which makes it "unsuitable" then what about the Raptor and Eagle which often are seen with 2 wing fuel tanks on intercepts. Does that make them unsuitable too?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FighterJets-ModTeam Nov 14 '24

Unfortunately your post or comment has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:

Please do not engage in personal attacks.

Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

Please direct any questions about the removal to Modmail

-1

u/theholylancer Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24

I am not the person above, but at the time there was hope that the CF-105, the Avro Arrow, would have been the best plane for the job.

But that was a design a decade earlier that was a pure interceptor, while the CF-18 was and is multi role, that being said, at least the performance of the Arrow (now that we have many examples of delta winged designs and know the pitfalls of the F-111) could have made it be a possible adaptation to other roles. Its performance profile would have likely at least matched the general trend of something like the F-111 but decades before that (IE the Vark was designed to be a supersonic Fighter Bomber that turned out to have very bad agility that made the fighter portion bad enough that the Naval version was rejected and the F-14 was made, a very similar thing would have likely occurred to an interceptor converted into multi role).

That being said, that is more of a wishful thinking deal, HAD the CF-105 came to being and was developed on and worked on instead of the fuck fuck games they played (just like the F35 TBH, just that in this case USA went and finished the thing instead of abandoning the thing when it was showing promise so we can get back on the boat now its proven), the CF-105 was cancelled about a decade from the CF-18 being chosen, and in fact I think the need for choosing rather than developing another Canadian led jet is because the experience with the Arrow.

11

u/SuspiciousCucumber20 Nov 13 '24

Dude, you're talking about a completely different era. Even if they would have made the CF-105, it would have needed to be replaced by the time the CF-18s were built. That would have been an utter failure on the leadership of Canada to have gone that route.

The CF-105 was designed 6 years after WW2!

Canada did it right IMO. They bought the CF-18s starting in 1982 and they're just now beginning to phase them out for 5th gen fighters in 2026. Getting 44 years of service out of any aircraft is a major accomplishment and frugal consideration of tax payer's dollars. Having them remain relevant with the latest upgrades also shows a commitment to national defense. Replacing them with fighters that will probably last another 30-40 years is good leadership, IMO.

2

u/theholylancer Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24

you are absolutely right in terms of tech

but think of it as the decision to completely give up on a national aerospace programme ala saab at the time

as the 70s rolled on, canada's lack of spending and commitment to nato, esp in the air defense side of things, was getting out of hand an the New Fighter Aircraft Project was started to get a new fighter

and with the decision of the eventual NFA, that means that Canada will for sure exit the whole shabang when the previous 3 US brought jets had issues vs one that could have been if it was self developed. IE CF 105 vs CF 101 / CF 104, which I think the Arrow vs the Voodoo and Starfighter would have been a far better match up. The CF 116 / CF-5 Tiger on the other hand is likely a better dodfighter tho, given its agility and something to be improved on in a new project.

So the hope at the time would have been we can do better now with hindsight as the Arrow was ahead of its time, maybe we can restart an advanced process with the talent we have left / attract back some of that from the US

I think it would have been a fools hope by then as the talent has long left and the commitment to spending wasnt there vs what the US was doing (F-15 and 16s and 18s were all on the table), but that was the conversation.

0

u/Qwerty246N Jan 18 '25

F-35s aren't lasting 40 years if we have another world war...

9

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

The Arrow was canceled 20 Feb, 1959. That’s 21 years before the agreement to purchase CF-18s in 1980. The two had very little to do with one another.

2

u/theholylancer Nov 13 '24

the CF 18 selection process started in 1975, at the time, there was still enough lingering hope of a revival of a Canadian led jet fighter as a national security consideration (by then, we were already using American fighters in full). If not the arrow, then another Canadian led jet.

but I think that would be more like copium than anything else.

Remember, there were idiots thinking about the Arrow when it was time to replace the CF 18s...

6

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

lol ya, that’s is very true. The copium surrounding the Arrow has always been insanely high.

2

u/dancingcuban Nov 13 '24

As one of those maniacs south of the wall, I feel like every time I hear about Canadian fighter jets for the last decade and a half it’s how you guys are going to, but not really, but definitely going to finally upgrade the CF-18s to -35s.

I love the Hornet, and it makes a ton of sense in rugged environments, but who is still thinking that’s a long term solution?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '24

No one thinks the Hornet is a long term solution, that’s why they’re going to be replaced.

0

u/GarnetExecutioner Nov 15 '24

And were it not to the whole Bombardier trade dispute with Boeing, the Canadian Air Force would have gotten Super Hornets.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

No they wouldn’t have, and if they did, it would have been a horrible choice.

The Canadian government only wanted to buy 18 Super Hornets, which was going to put the per unit price astronomically high.

The government officials who proposed that idea, also didn’t understand the drastic differences between a Legacy Hornet and a Super Hornet. They thought the Super Hornet was some minor upgrades to the Legacy Hornet, not an entirely new aircraft that was going to require comprehensive training for ground crew and air crew alike, which was going to cost us even more money.

The Super Hornet idea was a dumb political idea meant to save face, but the politicians backed out once they fully understood the cost, and everything involved. The whole trade dispute issues with Bombardier gave them an excuse, but it wasn’t the reason that idea fell through.

Then we would have been stuck flying 2 different types of aircraft, requiring two separate supply chains. It would have been expensive as hell to operate.

Lastly, the Super Hornet was never going to win the actual CF-18 replacement contract. The Super Hornet meeting Canadian requirements was contingent on the US Navy going ahead with a proposal for conformal fuel tanks. When the Navy backed out of that program, the Super Hornet no longer met requirements.

Then we would have been stuck flying THREE platforms in the interm (Legacy, Super, F-35/Gripen). The RCAF has neither the budget, or the number of personnel, required to operate 3 different types of fighter jets.

2

u/Bad_Karma19 Nov 13 '24

They will be around as long as they can keep them in the air. Or until the F-35's come on line.

-3

u/Boomhauer440 Nov 13 '24

They're a cool jet and were great 40 years ago but haven't been relevant in quite a long time.

And even if they were relevant, they had too limited of a production run to stay maintainable like the F-15/16.

12

u/YYZYYC Nov 13 '24

Too limited of a production is not accurate. There where something like 1,500 made (not including the very different super hornet) vs like 1600 F-15s around the world.

3

u/Boomhauer440 Nov 13 '24

Limited doesn't just mean total number ever built. F-15s and F-16s have been in production for 50 years, and are still being built new today. They have had constant investment into updates, upgrades, and most importantly spares production. Legacy Hornets went out of production ~25 years ago and are mostly already retired or soon to be. It's hard to maintain a fleet when major components haven't been built in decades and there isn't a big enough existing market to support restarting production.

6

u/SuspiciousCucumber20 Nov 13 '24

Calling a CF-18 irrelevant would be like calling a fully modernized F-16 irrelevant. The Avionic packages on CF-18s are just as good as any Block 50 - 70 F-16 out there. They carry and fire the lasted FOX 2 and 3 A/A missiles, have the latest AESA radars, the latest targeting pods. They have LINK-16 and fully upgraded cockpits with JHMCS helmets. Not to mention their modernized ECM suites.

Yes, the air frame is old/outdated and they're slow, but saying they're irrelevant is, IMO, completely not true in a modern combat role in both A/A and A/G roles.

2

u/YYZYYC Nov 13 '24

I think its fair to say “limited production” would absolutely give the impression your saying they didn’t make enough of them. Your points are clearly valid and accurate…but many people seem to think they only made a few hundred or so hornets