Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2993
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 09:27

Thanks optimist! It might well be that the required training and costs of operating from carriers is just too much compared to benefits. French Rafale-Ms have operated from US carriers in some instances, but those are naturally already trained and conditioned to carrier operations.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 10:24

I don't know how we got here (must be a novel coronavirus infection in me brain) but why on earth are Canadians operating from USN carriers? Yes there are CROSSdeckers (no not crossdressers NOR angrydekkers) every now and then with the only possible CANdidDATES - frogs. So what now? A long time ago in a galaxy no longer in existence a sprog from Oz ex-A4G pilot CDF did some FCLP and deck landings in a HORNET but that was stopped quick smart by the crabs (not required they said) and we have seen a NORSKlander dodid decklanderlingens a few years ago. Good on HIM so goodnight.

Oh me forgetful: the RN fixedwingers did keep up some DL experience by exchange their angrydressers with them in all the USN aircrafts able to dodat. But hey they either left the RN or went on to F-35Bs where that was all B/s experience. What was important for them was operating in a fast jet fixed wing naval environment with arrested DLs a sideshow.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 10:59

Probably because like you, most of us think it is a foregone conclusion that CA will get the F-35. Even when there was talk of excluding it from the comp, just political waffle.
The rest is just dribble and somewhere for gripen fanboys to hang out. So crossdecking the Rafale on boats, is as good as anything else. :mrgreen:
Aussie fanboy
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 13:34

hornetfinn wrote:I could see some benefits of Canada going with F-35C. They have the longest range/endurance and they could be used from US Navy carriers which could be useful in many situations. I doubt Canada will ever fight anywhere without US armed forces being involved. This would give Canadian forces better global reach and would also augment US Navy fighting capability. Only problem is higher costs and quite a bit more training to cover carrier operations.

Does anybody know if CF-18s have ever operated from US carriers? Could not find anything about that.

F-35A will provide a much longer range and endurance than the Hornets they are flying today. F-35C is significantly more expensive than A, so I would not be surprised if it would mean fewer units, all defence budgets are somewhat limited these days. A seems to be the best choice.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2993
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 13:45

loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I could see some benefits of Canada going with F-35C. They have the longest range/endurance and they could be used from US Navy carriers which could be useful in many situations. I doubt Canada will ever fight anywhere without US armed forces being involved. This would give Canadian forces better global reach and would also augment US Navy fighting capability. Only problem is higher costs and quite a bit more training to cover carrier operations.

Does anybody know if CF-18s have ever operated from US carriers? Could not find anything about that.

F-35A will provide a much longer range and endurance than the Hornets they are flying today. F-35C is significantly more expensive than A, so I would not be surprised if it would mean fewer units, all defence budgets are somewhat limited these days. A seems to be the best choice.


Agree with all that. Just wanted to bring some new ideas... :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 13:57

At least somewhere else on this forum this 'new' idea has been broached so I dredge it up again with a 10 page OLD PDF.
SATS: Marine Corps Expeditionary Airfields [Just ADD SNOW and the RCAF with F-35C no less]
22 May 2012 RM

“In 1942, at Camp Kearny in California, the Marine Corps demonstrated the use of a Navy-provided, shore-based catapult to launch an F4F Wildcat. During WWII the “Cactus Air Force” operating from Guadalcanal gave Marine Corps infantry reliable close air support in that pivotal battle. The idea of putting a shore-based catapult and arresting gear together with the “Marston Matting” which had allowed the Marines to rapidly operate from unimproved surfaces in Korea, led the Commandant to approve the expeditionary airfield doctrine, designated Short Airfield for Tactical Support (SATS), in May 1958.

The SATS concept and tactics were tested for several years using aluminum panels connected together to form a hard runway surface and equipped with a catapult and arresting gear system. This allowed Marine fixed-wing aircraft to operate from an airfield much smaller than the typical air base and allowed them to be quickly positioned much closer to Marines in the fight. On 1 June 1965 the first deployed SATS system became operational at Chu Lai, Vietnam, with the arrival of eight A-4 Skyhawks from VMA-223 and VMA-311. The first combat mission from a SATS airfield was flown the same day. During the course of the war, Marine Corps A-4s, the A-6 Intruder, F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom II were all operated from Chu Lai.

Shortly afterward, the task of maintaining SATS equipment and certifying installations was assigned to Naval Air Test Center Lakehurst, where an Expeditionary Airfield (EAF) Branch was established. After Vietnam, SATS tactics were refined at training sites in the United States. The next major operational use came following the September 11 attacks when airfields were needed quickly to support troops being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. Today expeditionary airfields remain in daily use in those active combat areas. NAWCAD Lakehurst team members continue to support the current generation of Marine Corps EAFs around the world. The modern version of Chu Lai is delivered with AM-2 matting, night-vision compatible lighting, visual landing aids, M31 arresting gear and the necessary support equipment...."

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... post_id=83
Attachments
USMC SATS Morest 20mar2020 PRN pp10.pdf
(849.52 KiB) Downloaded 24 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 17:30

optimist wrote:I don't even think there are FA-18 exchange pilots or WSO from those nations on the boats.


There are, or rather, there were, since the USN is largely out of the legacy Hornet business.
Here's a report about a Swiss exchange pilot (video is in German).
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 18:45

eagle3000 wrote:
optimist wrote:I don't even think there are FA-18 exchange pilots or WSO from those nations on the boats.


There are, or rather, there were, since the USN is largely out of the legacy Hornet business.
Here's a report about a Swiss exchange pilot (video is in German).


Two years ago one Finnish pilot completed carrier qualification during an exchange with USMC. One of their flight instructors spent two years at the same time at a Finnish air base.

These landings seem more like benefits on a personal level (to cap the completion of a course) rather than the more substantial ones between France and USN, where Super Hornet and Rafale have landed on foreign carriers.

Technically the Fin/Swiss jets probably could be used, since most of the stuff is there due to being more expensive to take out than keep in. For example the catapult attach point in the front tire.

https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=104763
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2540
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 19:29

loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I could see some benefits of Canada going with F-35C. They have the longest range/endurance and they could be used from US Navy carriers which could be useful in many situations. I doubt Canada will ever fight anywhere without US armed forces being involved. This would give Canadian forces better global reach and would also augment US Navy fighting capability. Only problem is higher costs and quite a bit more training to cover carrier operations.

Does anybody know if CF-18s have ever operated from US carriers? Could not find anything about that.

F-35A will provide a much longer range and endurance than the Hornets they are flying today. F-35C is significantly more expensive than A, so I would not be surprised if it would mean fewer units, all defence budgets are somewhat limited these days. A seems to be the best choice.



Actually there was some real discussion about Canada getting the F-35C, this a decade or so ago but the reason was not because of interchangeability with the US Navy and its carriers.
The reason was because the F-35C uses the probe-and-drogue system for aerial refueling and the current Canadian Aerial Tankers also use this system (they don't use the Flying boom system) but then again this idea was discarded due to the higher cost of the F-35C and also because the current Canadian Tanker fleet will (or should) be replaced somewhere during the 2020's which means that the new tanker will most likely have Flying boom system which by its turn means that this won't be an issue with a future F-35A fleet/purchase.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 19:35

magitsu wrote:
eagle3000 wrote:
optimist wrote:I don't even think there are FA-18 exchange pilots or WSO from those nations on the boats.


There are, or rather, there were, since the USN is largely out of the legacy Hornet business.
Here's a report about a Swiss exchange pilot (video is in German).


Two years ago one Finnish pilot completed carrier qualification during an exchange with USMC. One of their flight instructors spent two years at the same time at a Finnish air base.

These landings seem more like benefits on a personal level (to cap the completion of a course) rather than the more substantial ones between France and USN, where Super Hornet and Rafale have landed on foreign carriers.

Technically the Fin/Swiss jets probably could be used, since most of the stuff is there due to being more expensive to take out than keep in. For example the catapult attach point in the front tire. [NLG Nose Landing Gear]

https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=104763

This quote is from the URL above
"..."We put him through the same repetitions of fuel[sic] carrier landing practice events that all students go through," said Maj. Shane Bursae, an instructor for VMFAT 101. "The purpose of this is so that when he does move on to teach students in the Finnish Air Force, he has knowledge and first-hand experience of what he is teaching."...

...Jrvinen is a part of the first pilot exchange between the United States Marine Corps and the Finnish Air force. He was hand-selected for the program by his superiors for his work ethic. Flying in the Finnish Air Force for 15 years and instructing for the last five, he has earned every qualification available as a Finnish pilot...." [which won't be FCLP nor how to deck land on the non-existent FinlanderCarrier but hey what do I know]
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2540
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 22:43

jessmo112 wrote:Has anyone ever discussed Canada buying the Bee?


I can't remember if someone already discussed this.

But and IMO, it would be at least something to consider because:
1- They could be used onboard any LHA or similar ships. Not so long ago, Canada expressed strong interest in purchasing two (2) French Mistral Class Amphibious Assault Ships which were intended for Russia but their delivery was cancelled due to the embargo on Russia (because of its intervention in Ukraine). However these ships had Russian built components and as such it seems that the Russians barred this deal and as such these ships ended up being sold to Egypt instead.
This is far from being the only example that shows a considerable interest by Canada in such ships. As such purchasing a few F35Bs (lets say purchase 70 x F-35As and 18 x F-35Bs) would be interesting to equip future Canadian LHA ships (in case they will even be purchased/build).
2- IMO, the F-35B would be useful for Canada in order to operate from remote and inhospitable places such as CFS Alert. I can easily imagine the huge value for intelligence gathering by having "a couple" of F-35Bs operating from Alert or other similar places even if only temporarily.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 22:51

Icy arctic runway? meet 1,000 deg jet plume. Don't need a parachute if you are never faster than 50kt at touchdown.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24086
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 02:05

Perhaps one way to wonder/search if this thread has discussed STOVL for CANADA then there are TWO hit pages of 17.

I do not recall any Canadians of any political weight being interested in Mistrals. Can anyone imagine Canada going thus? No mention of 'Mistral' in this thread. Five years or so ago it was a SUGGESTION in another thread by a NonCanadian: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=297902&hilit=Mistral+Canada#p297902 YEAH RIGHT
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 04:20

Google "amphibious assault ship program canada". Canned.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 04:29

Just browsed the Canadian national shipbuilding program. 0% interest in a LHA.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... x-eng.html
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests