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

Let's hope the CFT issue with the Super Hornet can be resolved. As in the case of the USN Fleet. They need all of the range that they can get!

Let's hope the CFT issue with the Super Hornet can be resolved. As in the case of the USN Fleet. They need all of the range that they can get!

Lol at a centerline tank and 2 confirmals to finally match the CR of a clean F-35C on internal fuel. The answer is in front of the Navys face. Dump the Bug and ramp up production of the Lightening. The cost is only high because your buying just a handful a year.
I know that techically the F-35 is replacing the F-18C model. But the Navys next gen fighter is a loong way away. They willl need a fleet SH replacement.

1. Certify the F-35C for external tanks.

2. Retire older SHs and fill the slot with F-35C

3. Ramp up Lightening production

4. Keep some newer hornets and growlers for tanker dutt and strike.

So yes basically I think the carrier numbers should be flipped. Instead of having 1 F-35C squadren on board and several SHs squadrens. I think you need 1 SH squadren on board some growlers and 3 or 4 F-35c squadrens.
This is of course not ignoring every thing else on the ship like COD/CV-22s E-2 hawkeyes ect ect. Hornets should do the nundane day to day stuff like acting as tankers.
Or being flying missile batteries for stealthy F-35s.

As illustrated in a PowerPoint slide, the future wing would still include 44 strike fighters as it does now, but the mix of Block 4 F-35C Lightning II fighters and Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters changes from 10 and 34, respectively, to 16 and 28. The strike fighters would equip one 16-aircraft F-35C squadron and three F/A-18E/F squadrons totalling 28 Super Hornets.

The other aircraft in the wing would include five-to-seven EA-18G Growler electronic combat aircraft, five E-2D Advanced Hawkeye command-and-control aircraft, six-to-ten MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, three CMV-22B Osprey carrier-onboard delivery aircraft, and five-to-nine MQ-25 Stingray aerial tanker unmanned aircraft.

Next year, USS Carl Vinson will deploy, taking a 10-aircraft F-35C squadron (Strike Fighter Squadron 147) on the aircraft’s first carrier deployment. The ship also will carry two 10-aircraft F/A-18E squadrons and one 14-aircraft F/A-18F squadron, according to a source.

https://seapowermagazine.org/navys-futu ... nto-focus/


See totally backwards IMO. Where will they get the money? They already talked about raiding other services piggy banks for the navy. These poor hornet guys will be facing down China on the 1st day. Lets do it.

According to the GE official blog...
https://blog.geaviation.com/technology/ ... -delivers/

GE’s F414 Delivers
Jun 5 2020 | by GE Aviation News Staff

Block III Super Hornet takes first flight, powered by F414
The next generation of Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet is here. On June 4, the first Block III test jet took its first flight, powered by GE’s F414-GE-400. The F414’s first application was the original Super Hornet, which went into service in 1998. The engine continues to deliver for Navy pilots stationed around the globe.

The engine installed for the Latest F/A-18EF block III seems to be remains the conventional F414-GE-400.
Where did F414 Enhanced Engine the [F414-EPE] go !?

The engine installed for the Latest F/A-18EF block III seems to be remains the conventional F414-GE-400.
Where did F414 Enhanced Engine the [F414-EPE] go !?

It was considered when the earlier Advanced Super Hornet concept was being floated around. EPE engine was left behind with also proposed Enclosed Weapons Pod when USN chose to fund only the essentials like CFTs, IRST pod, new screen, new satcom link and data processing tech for Block III.
Basically they were too expensive and risky. It doesn't seem very common to change engines during the life cycle these days. For example Eurofighter Typhoon's EJ engine is often talked about being too good to consider any costly modification to be worthwhile. Good enough seems to work and durability/economy is often preferred to extra performance.

F-35's numbers should allow considerable further engine development. But even for that we've already seen the engine options limited from two to one.

According to the GE official blog...
https://blog.geaviation.com/technology/ ... -delivers/

GE’s F414 Delivers
Jun 5 2020 | by GE Aviation News Staff

Block III Super Hornet takes first flight, powered by F414
The next generation of Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet is here. On June 4, the first Block III test jet took its first flight, powered by GE’s F414-GE-400. The F414’s first application was the original Super Hornet, which went into service in 1998. The engine continues to deliver for Navy pilots stationed around the globe.

The engine installed for the Latest F/A-18EF block III seems to be remains the conventional F414-GE-400.
Where did F414 Enhanced Engine the [F414-EPE] go !?

Saab will surely fund it for the Gripen!

once again you'll notice everyone wants the other guy to risk/spend money on it first, it it works out maybe they'll jump aboard.

Saab will surely fund it for the Gripen!

No it won't, because we all know that Saab's next engine for the Gripen will be the Hyperdrive!

Saab will surely fund it for the Gripen!

No it won't, because we all know that Saab's next engine for the Gripen will be the Hyperdrive!

They're already claiming to have a magic F414 that is more efficient than any 414 in history...who needs a hyperdrive when you've got magic.

"Gripen E Mach 2 plane"... and Eurofighter Typhoon is also Mach 2.

(just don't make any kind of real world comparison - luckily Gripen E isn't anywhere near operational )

I'm having trouble finding it, and maybe someone can help me...I believe that the RFP states that the airplane has to remain in the configuration required to meet the range requirement for the performance measurements (ie: can't claim that it can go mach 2 and super cruise (not naming any names *cough* Gripen *cough*) if it can't do it in the configuration required to meet the range metric), but I can't find the exact wording anywhere...anyone able to help with that?

Let's hope the CFT issue with the Super Hornet can be resolved. As in the case of the USN Fleet. They need all of the range that they can get!

OLD info about Shornet Block III from AIR International Jul 2018 magazine 4 page PDF of article attached whence diagram.

I'm having trouble finding it, and maybe someone can help me...I believe that the RFP states that the airplane has to remain in the configuration required to meet the range requirement for the performance measurements (ie: can't claim that it can go mach 2 and super cruise (not naming any names *cough* Gripen *cough*) if it can't do it in the configuration required to meet the range metric), but I can't find the exact wording anywhere...anyone able to help with that?

There are some requirements here:

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/se-fm/201 ... 19-eng.pdf

Requirements for the FFCP aircraft include the following capabilities:
• perform missions from existing Canadian and allied bases;
• interoperable within the context of North American Air Defence (NORAD) and allied
operations;
• deployable, operable, and sustainable worldwide in known threat environments into the
2060s, and able to meet Canada’s airworthiness regulations;
• able to grow and evolve to maintain an operational advantage throughout its service life;
and
• include a comprehensive sustainability program that assures operational readiness and
maintains mission effectiveness of the capability throughout its life.


I'm having a hard time simply finding the official RFP to read on any official Canadian government websites. It must be so fair and transparent, I just can't find it...

I'm having trouble finding it, and maybe someone can help me...I believe that the RFP states that the airplane has to remain in the configuration required to meet the range requirement for the performance measurements (ie: can't claim that it can go mach 2 and super cruise (not naming any names *cough* Gripen *cough*) if it can't do it in the configuration required to meet the range metric), but I can't find the exact wording anywhere...anyone able to help with that?

There are some requirements here:

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/se-fm/201 ... 19-eng.pdf

Requirements for the FFCP aircraft include the following capabilities:
• perform missions from existing Canadian and allied bases;
• interoperable within the context of North American Air Defence (NORAD) and allied
operations;
• deployable, operable, and sustainable worldwide in known threat environments into the
2060s, and able to meet Canada’s airworthiness regulations;
• able to grow and evolve to maintain an operational advantage throughout its service life;
and
• include a comprehensive sustainability program that assures operational readiness and
maintains mission effectiveness of the capability throughout its life.


I'm having a hard time simply finding the official RFP to read on any official Canadian government websites. It must be so fair and transparent, I just can't find it...

Im surprised that No one! In Canada as pointed out that.

1. If you buy Super Hornet your going to need Growlers to be survivable past 2030 let alone 2060.

2. If you dont by Growlers you will need exspensive stand off strike weapons or possibly air breathing AAMs.
I know that we give the SU-57 a hard tine, but it would rip a hornet a new one.

3. Now youll need either twice the planes or exspensive investments to equal 1 F-35.

4 and during all ofcthis drama Canada is still paying the F-35 fee. Why not gave the balls to just drop the program? Im not annoyed with Canada fir not wanting the F-35. Im annoyed that they bid on the program taking away American jobs, while playing politics. You cant have the work share, if your not in the program.

Im surprised that No one! In Canada as pointed out that.

1. If you buy Super Hornet your going to need Growlers to be survivable past 2030 let alone 2060.

2. If you dont by Growlers you will need exspensive stand off strike weapons or possibly air breathing AAMs.
I know that we give the SU-57 a hard tine, but it would rip a hornet a new one.

3. Now youll need either twice the planes or exspensive investments to equal 1 F-35.

I believe there are people who knows and points this out. The problem seems that the most 'vocal' aviation dedicated sites in Canada seems to be so supportive of the Gripen to the point that they simply ignore the opinions that are in favor of the F-35 or against the Gripen. For instance, yesterday I posted a comment on the following page/article:
https://skiesmag.com/features/saab-grip ... et-canada/

And guess what?? My comment isn't showing (most likely wasn't approved) on that page's comment section - And just look at the comments there! My comment addressed mostly point 1- (as well as other topics/subjecs)

BTW, I obviously agree with your 3 points above.

4 and during all ofcthis drama Canada is still paying the F-35 fee. Why not gave the balls to just drop the program? Im not annoyed with Canada fir not wanting the F-35. Im annoyed that they bid on the program taking away American jobs, while playing politics. You cant have the work share, if your not in the program.

Well, I've said this here several times and I will say it again: The F-35 will be the winner in Canada.
The "deployable, operable, and sustainable worldwide in known threat environments into the 2060s" requirement is more than enough to qualify the F-35 as the winner since NO other aircraft (Super Hornet or Gripen) can check this box even using 'fancy' very long range cruise missiles something that no RCAF aircraft currently operates (and I doubt it will operate in the future, at least in significant numbers). On top of this, 60% of the overall score is based on the aircraft's capability (none of other F-35 competitors can win on this category).
So Canada isn't leaving the program because they are committed to the program, period.

All of this "bla, bla, bla" around the Canadian competition is only smokescreen to hide the stupid promise my PM Justin Trudeau to "not buy expensive non-operational stealth fighter bombers" Fast-forwarding to today, the F-35 is operational (something that one of the competitors, the Gripen E still isn't), it's probably the least expensive option (even more because Canada is part of the program and as such get a significant "discount" compared to non-JSF countries) and the F-35 is a "fighter bomber" just like the Super Hornet and Gripen E are "fighter bombers" as well.

Let's hope the CFT issue with the Super Hornet can be resolved. As in the case of the USN Fleet. They need all of the range that they can get!

OLD info about Shornet Block III from AIR International Jul 2018 magazine 4 page PDF of article attached whence diagram.

Might be a silly idea, but. . . . Could a supplemental fuel tank be carried in the weapons bay?

Just for ferry flights etc but without an external tank the drag issue goes away.

Does/could the weapons bay have the required plumbing?