Funny how the issue is just now appearing in the media.
Slow.
As I have mentioned before, the F-35 is disqualified as a CF-18 replacement for any number of reasons but also, time.
It will be the 2020s before any intelligent purchaser of military equipment can evaluate the F-35 for their air arm. That is, if the program lasts that long.
There is also significant confusion on refurbishment (or what defines refurbishment) for a CF-18.
The CF-18 and the F-16 were designed as part of a light-weight fighter design. The goal was to build up affordable fighter aircraft in-number to face the Soviet threat.
The CF-18 and F-16 are not "depot-jets" like the F-15. In other words, the F-15 was designed to fly x amount of hours and then go into deep maintenance every 5-7 years, then put back into the field. I have seen the F-15 depot process first hand.
The CF-18 and F-16 were meant to be flown x amount of hours and then thrown into the trash. Of the two, the F-16 is easier to extend life on. Wing flex, forward bulkhead corrosion and various fittings have to be replaced.
The CF-18 (or all classic Hornets) require many things in refurbishment. There is the center-barrel replacement. This is the area of the fuselage where the wings and landing-gear are located. This part of the jet is disassembled and then you look to see how bad things are. Each barrel replacement is a custom job as each jet has different levels of corrosion and wear.
Barrel replacement started out as a one-off fluke. Years ago a new F-18C was wrecked. Someone decided if they changed the barrel and some other things, they could put the aircraft back into action.
Today that process has turned into a small production line. Depending on who does it (places like Jacksonville, Florida) or up in Canada, it can take up to a year to perform.
And this doesn't count for all the other areas that need to be refurbished that don't include the barrel; wing corrosion fixes being one.
And as one can see in this 2007 Australian example: ministers and politicians can get a might confused over the process.
"Dr Nelson said modified aircraft would regain 100 per cent of their fatigue life, giving up to nine years' additional service life."
Well, there you go.
Refurbishing CF-18s (again) to make them last past 2020 is a fool's errand. But try telling these people such a thing.
"Defence experts have been pushing the government since last fall to consider a further upgrade to the CF-18s.
Retired air force lieutenant-colonel Dean Black has said it's something that should be considered rather than going down the road of Australia buying new Super Hornets, the beefed up version of the F-18."
Sorry, I am not seeing him as a "defence expert" on this topic. Think flight envelope restriction (by airframe) and an operational scheduling mess (only airframes xs to xy can carry this amount of weight or push x amount of g's).
End the stupidity.
The only solution is for Canada to stop and begin a tender process for the CF-18 replacement.
Any other solution is irresponsible.
4 comments:
Hello Eric
I strongly agree about refurbishing the CF-18A/B Hornet fleet is a poor idea. We (Australian's)are in a similar position as the Canadians are doing with a costly upgrade to replace fuselage centre barrels which has initiated to stretch the life of these aircraft. APG-73 radar, electronic warfare, guided weapon and missile upgrades are now in progress and almost completed.
The Classic Hornet has been a most capable fighter in the region when the aircraft was acquired by the RAAF as an air superiority asset to replace the Mirage IIIO/IIID fighters and now has been in service for 27 years which is indeed showing its age.
Now with the acquisition of Sukhoi Su-27/30 Flanker family of fighters by most nations is prolifirating in the region shows an environment where the F/A-18A/B is outclassed in all key performance parameters by widely available fighters, with the 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets as a Bridging Air Combat Capability (BACC)or band-aid fix will never become a viable combat aircraft to compete with the Flanker.
To replace the CF-18 fleet the best aircraft to fullfil the Canadian's requirements is the Advanced F-15E Strike Eagle or Silent Eagle. Is that a viable alternative?
I was thinking for a while about the F-15AU and F-22AU concepts as a perfect replacement for the 71 F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet. Which will hopefully provide a potent combination of flexibility and capability to suit Australia's and Canadian's "long range" requirements.
Cheers Peter
Excellent blog entry really. This will likely be an imminent debate point to be held at the highest official levels within Canada.
Unfortunately though, it probably won't be realized until 3-4 years by politicians concluding only too late that, dang it all... there will indeed be a substantial capability gap after all which will need to be filled, as the current state of RCAF's Hornets will be insufficient to sustain a credible and competitive air power contingency force!
A fair question to ask therefore; is where exactly will the interim budget come from within RCAF to make the needed extensive SLEP updates as well as further avionics and weapon system upgrades over the next 10 years to enable a credible and viable CF-18 force structure well into the 2020s? Perhaps it will come from say, other Tacair recapitalization budgets?
And if RCAF is indeed going the route of 'refurbishment' as an effective mid-term capability stopgap instead of an interim Plan B procurement, then why the rush to commit to the still immature and highly uncertain F-35 Programme? Why not hold a tender and push things back a couple years anyway and make sure such a critical, costly and strategic decision is done prudently?
Regardless, the currently configured CF-18s (without additional SLEP or upgrades) will be obsolete by the end of this decade (if not by the middle of the decade). Moreover, the fleet will see reduced overall readiness before an outright hole in capability exists while awaiting for the final F-35 squadron to achieve IOC. (in a best case scenario with no margin for further error)
Of course, neither outlook is sustainable and something in the plan will unfortunately break very soon.
It's good money put into a bad idea by the RCAF. The reality is Canada is lazy about it's national defence. Unlike Australia and other countries we are incubated by American airpower in North America. This causes us to behave in an apathetic way, to protect our own sovereignty. None of our politic parties are really in tune with our nation's needs to defend itself and defence budgets are often a political football to be used in the House of Commons. We do not have an "enemy at the gate". Yes, the Conservative government appears on the surface as the party that best supports the military. But I would argue that their approach to the fighter program, demonstrates that even they are not really serious in providing for Canada's air force. Taking an accounting attitude that I have this much to spend makes no sense when you have not done a needs analysis or a strategic plan on airpower. The government's behaviour over the last year in insisting how good the F35 is, has been a complete disaster. It has been wide spread public knowledge that the F35 program has a long list of engineering problems, and cost over runs and may not even be combat operational before the end of this decade.
I for one am not against the government spending $16B or even $29B on fighter jets, but a real needs analysis, and competitive process needs to take place and take into account the evolution of other fighter aircraft development that exists. We have heard the "too big to fail" motto to many times, and sadly all it has brought us is more failure.
Hi you are doing a great job. I was looking for this information. I found it on your page its really amazing.I am sure that these are your own views. I hear exactly what you’re saying and I’m so happy that I came across your blog. You really know what you’re talking about, and you made me feel like I should learn more about this. Thanks for sharing useful information; I’m officially a huge fan of your blog.
Post a Comment