Close sidebar

Canada to bridge fighter gap with interim Super Hornet acquisition?

written by australianaviation.com.au | June 14, 2016
CK2007-0055-03 09 Feb 07 Cold Lake, Alberta A CF-18 Hornet, from 410 Tactical Fighter (Operational Training) Squadron, over Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR). The aircraft was flown by Captain Corey Liddle, student at 410 Squadron during his last training flight of Fighter Pilot course serial 40 (FPC-40). Photos by Cpl Jean-Francois Lauzé, 4 Wing imaging Le 09 février 07 Cold Lake, Alberta Un Hornet CF-18 du 410e Escadron d’entraînement opérationnel à l’appui tactique au-dessus du polygone de tir aérien de Cold Lake. L’aéronef est piloté par le Capitaine Corey Liddle, étudiant du 410e Escadron pendant son dernier vol d’entraînement du cours de pilote de chasse série 40 (CPC-40). Photo par le Caporal Jean-François Lauzé, 4e Escadre, Imagerie
Could Canada partially replace its CF-18s with Super Hornets?

Canada is studying acquiring Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as an interim partial replacement for the country’s ageing CF-18A/B ‘classic’ Hornets.

The Ottawa Citizen newspaper reported in early June that the new Canadian government is considering acquiring Super Hornets to cover a looming capability gap to partially replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s 77 CF-18s and then defer any acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by a decade.

Canada’s new Liberal government promised ahead of its election in 2015 that it would not go ahead with the acquisition of the F-35, so deferring, rather than cancelling the purchase of F-35s and buying a smaller number of Super Hornets as a partial replacement for the CF-18 is reported as a way of meeting that election promise while minimising the loss of industrial work and avoiding potential legal action that could come from withdrawing outright from the JSF program.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“We are looking at a gap — that’s [what] we have to deal with. And these jets should have been replaced a long time ago,” Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told media on June 7.

“We’re in options analysis, looking at the capabilities required. We’re actively looking at replacing the F-18.”

So far Canada’s aerospace industry has won F-35 work contracts worth C$750 million.

But F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin’s vice-president of F-35 business development, Jack Crisler, told the Ottawa Citizen last week that: “There’s not an entitlement to future contracts unless you’re buying aircraft.”

PROMOTED CONTENT

In a separate interview with The Canadian Press news agency, Crisler noted, “Right now, all we want to do is to be able to compete.

“So if we get told that we’re not allowed to compete, then we’ll go and evaluate all of our alternatives at that point. But right now all we’re asking to do is be able to compete in a fair, open, transparent and requirements-based competition for the replacement of the CF-18s.”

Australia, of course, acquired 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets late last decade to bridge a capability gap between the retirement of the RAAF’s F-111s and the arrival of the F-35.

But unlike in Australia, where the acquisition of the F-35 to replace the RAAF’s classic Hornets has bipartisan political support, in Canada the aircraft’s acquisition is highly contentious.

“Canadians know full well that for 10 years, the Conservatives completely missed the boat when it came to delivering to Canadians and their armed forces the equipment they needed,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told his country’s parliament on June 7.

“They clung to an aircraft [the F-35] that does not work and is far from working.”

Canada’s equivalent of the shadow minister for Defence, Conservative defence critic James Bezan has accused the Liberal government of breaking a promise to run a competition for the RCAF’s next fighter.

“The Liberals have broken their promise for a fair and transparent competition to replace our CF-18s and are sole-sourcing the Boeing Super Hornet instead,” Bezan said last week. “Maybe we should not be surprised. Boeing officials have met 10 times since February with senior political staff.”

Under then Prime Minister Stephen Harper Canada’s former Conservative government had committed to acquire 65 F-35As to replace the RCAF’s CF-18s.

In December 2014 a Conservative government-appointed expert panel found that “there was no need to pursue a bridging option,” as “it is possible, with certain investments, to fly the CF-18 to 2025 and even beyond.”

Steer your own in-flight experience – available on print and digital Whether our classic glossy magazine in your letterbox, daily news updates in your inbox, peeling back a few layers in the podcast or our monthly current affair reports, you can count on us to keep you up to date. Sign up today for just $99.95 for more exclusive offers here. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

20 Comments

  • Fabian

    says:

    The super hornets are a great choice. Australia really enjoyed them and are purchasing more ( growler versions ) and even considering to buy more strike role super hornets. I would like to see a European fighter in Canada’s Air Force mixed with the super hornets. The f-35s are great but it’s going to take a long time till they come around the corner.

  • B. Harrison

    says:

    The Canadians have a far inferior defence force than Australia while being around 50% larger in population. It sits under the American umbrella knowing full well that any threat to Canada will mean a response from the U.S. The Canadians still are not sure on what aircraft to purchase even after committing to the JSF and now have fighter aircraft well past their use by date. If their submarine acquisition is anything to go by (what junk those ex- Pommie subs they purchased turned out to be), the purchase of new fighters for the Canadian Air Force will be probably be around the 12th of never. The Canadian psyche is not too dissimilar to the of New Zealand’s. If you have a big powerful ally covering your back, then why do you need to spend lots on defence?

  • Ben

    says:

    What a waste of precious defense dollars to cover political ineptitude. JT end this foolish game of Russian roulette and just admit you were wrong. Get the dam F-35 and move on.

  • G4george

    says:

    Typical socialist outlook on defence, the Canadian govt. will cut defence spending to the bone and up social welfare while expecting allies to look after defence needs.

  • mick181

    says:

    The Canadians have a responsibility to contribute a modern Fighter force under the NORAD alliance so if they don’t make a decision soon they are going to cop a please explain from the White House.

  • Jeff Atkinson

    says:

    Why buy the equivalent of a collins submarine. That’s what the jcf will turn out to be.

  • David Jones

    says:

    Jeff Atkinson, although completely misguided, your comment is actually true. The Collins class is an excellent Submarine, some say the best oil burner in the world. The JSF will be an excellent airframe for Australia and will serve for many years to come.

  • Don Clark

    says:

    Its the same kick the can down the road policy Canada has had for decades concerning new defence kit procurement. They need 65 new fighters to replace their old ones, appears they may buy 24 interim new fighters when they should buy at least 65…. Canada is large with three coasts; a Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic…

  • Ben

    says:

    F22B anyone? If they could make the 22 move mud effectively (like the F15E Strike Eagle out of the earlier F15’s before it) then I’m sure that Canada, Australia and other F35 nations would dump the JSF as fast as possible. This is probably why they closed it down and refused to open it to FMS. It would have killed the F35.

    The F35 in time MAY become a great jet. But like the Collins will require millions to be wasted in remediation work to get it to do what it should have in the first place. By developing a jet for every air arm in the world the aircraft is full of compromises. Australia and Canada have no need for a jet that has VTOL ability. We therefore should have no need for a jet that has been compromised to have VTOL ability in another variant. We need a SF without the compromises the J brings, for a jack of all trades is master of none. It’s McNamara’s Folly mk2 and sure the Pig was a great jet in time. But do we want to spend all that money to get it to where it should have been out of the box yet again?

  • Craigy

    says:

    For some reason I thought the RCAF had larger numbers of aircraft but after a quick comparison between Aus and Canada.

    Rotary – 165 (C) 146 (A)
    Fighter – 89 (C) 175 (A)
    Maritime – 15 ea
    AEWC – 0 (C) 6 (A)
    Trans – 50 ea

    Simple comparison of numbers not how the aircraft are used.

  • Craigy

    says:

    Correction

    Numbers are as currently listed by Wikipedia for Australia

    Fighter – 130
    Transport – 48
    Trainers – 65 (PC-9)
    Maritime – 19 (I don’t think this is right)
    AEWC – 6

  • Jason

    says:

    Fabian – Australia is “considering to buy more strike role super hornets”??? Wow, tell us more, scoop!

  • Harry

    says:

    We would be better to buy actual air-air superiority fighters like the F-15 which can also low level strike and long range strike than the F-18 super hornets which aren’t actually all that great compared to other legacy aircraft and increasingly modern aircraft.

    BTW Jason you never responded to the price for the F-18s I posted:

    “Jason, the cost figures are all over the shop for the Super Hornet from as low as $70 US million to as high as $100 US million plus. Australia seems to have payed around $100 – $110 AU million per unit for them back in 2010. The Danish just did a competition where the Super hornets were valued at $122 million per unit. I definitely agree that they shouldn’t be so much especially considering the fact that the F-15, at $110 US million, is a bigger and better plane… In that competition the F-35 was valued at around $85 US million despite other sources stating in excess of $150 US million. For Australia they might end up being $200 AU million according to one source I read…”

    Anyway. An F-15 which can be a missile truck behind F-35s and do low level long range strike when stealth is mitigated for some reason into the future from advanced ground based radars. Low level strike with heavy laden F-15s not only replaces the role of F-111s but the F-15 are the premier 4th+ gen air-air superiority fighter. Keep the Growlers for sure. But get an actual plane designed for the airforce this time.

  • BJ

    says:

    130 fighters? 71 legacy hornets, 24 super hornets… where are the other 35? the 33 Hawks?

    And yes, the RAAF is looking at another purchase of Super Hornets. they are looking at 14 F/A-18E’s to replace 75 squadrons legacy hornets at tindal, so the fleet can be consolidated at Williamtown and the oldest jets retired.

    Very smart idea really and I hope we spend the extra coin

  • Craigy

    says:

    So Harry, what are your qualifications that support your opinions out of interest?

  • Harry

    says:

    Sorry Craigy, unless your offering to give me a job, my qualifications are none of your business. Nor are they necessary for holding an opinion. But I do have pertinent qualifications. That I can assure you. You should keep in mind that asking about someones qualifications instead of arguing the point can come across as a little patronising and insinuates that I don’t know what I am talking about, when I actually do know. I don’t need qualifications to support opinions; just an interest and a knowledge base. What are yours?

    You should also know that it isn’t just my opinion. I read a lot. And I mean a lot. And there is a lot of talk within the US airforce of using the F-15E, originally designed for low level strike – the exact reason why it has a look down radar – as a “missile-truck” because ever since the 2012 the F-35 “was never meant to be an air-superiority fighter/dog-fighter” and they, the USAF, sure as hell don’t have enough F-22s for the job. So if your interested in the discussion you should just look at the web to see the USAF plans to use “missile-trucks” like the F-15s (or B-1s) in conjunction with F-35s for air-dominance and low level strike (if deemed necessary). Its really not hard to find such articles. Check out warontherocks or breakingdefense for such discussions/news. I would be happy to discuss such advice/ideas/opinions in greater depth if you would just suggest a way to explore them in-depth.

    BTW 33 hawks are not counted as fighters, but fighter trainers – I guess we would use them during an all out war if it came down to the wire… We used to have in excess of 130 frontline fighters… now we have less than 100… and in a few years we will have 72 JSF (2 in the USA) and 36 or so Super-hornets. We need more jets in such an uncertain and increasingly contested age not less. There is a lot more risk and a suitable heavy hitter like the F-15 – widely regarded as the best 4th plus gen fighter in the world – is ideal.

  • BJ

    says:

    You can buy 5 Super Hornets for the price of 3 F-15E’s. Not to mention the added costs of an entire new aircraft, new aircrew training, logistics chains, base infrastructure, spares etc. If the RAAF was facing a total war scenario, and needed to add airframes quickly, they would rather 50 jets quicker than 30 jets in 24 months time.

    We will be lucky just to get the extra 12 F/A-18E’s

  • Harry

    says:

    BJ all that you say is very true; but why are we short changing ourselves in air power?

  • Harry

    says:

    Sorry, BJ, the pricing might not be right. An F-18 E/F super hornet costs according to the recent Dutch competition $122 million dollars each. The F-15SG according to Singapore costs $125 million each. Of course we can get the F-18 cheaper through FMS, and we have. For around $100 AU million in 2010. The Canadians estimate theirs at $90 million US. We can also get the F-15E cheaper through an FMS. The F-15 is leaps and bounds above the F-18 in almost ever way except for AOA. The F-15 has greater speed, payload, range, sensors etc. And it can perform more roles much better. So why are we short changing our airforce?

  • BJ

    says:

    My understanding is under Danish bidding rules, the figure is reflective of airframe, pilot training, new facilities etc etc. The Singapore cost is just for the airframe with weapons systems.

    The decision for Eagles would of had to be made back at the mirage replacement phase, but the competition was too early for the strike eagle and so we went with the proven multirole hornet.

Leave a Comment to Fabian Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Canada to bridge fighter gap with interim Super Hornet acquisition?

written by australianaviation.com.au | June 14, 2016
CK2007-0055-03 09 Feb 07 Cold Lake, Alberta A CF-18 Hornet, from 410 Tactical Fighter (Operational Training) Squadron, over Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR). The aircraft was flown by Captain Corey Liddle, student at 410 Squadron during his last training flight of Fighter Pilot course serial 40 (FPC-40). Photos by Cpl Jean-Francois Lauzé, 4 Wing imaging Le 09 février 07 Cold Lake, Alberta Un Hornet CF-18 du 410e Escadron d’entraînement opérationnel à l’appui tactique au-dessus du polygone de tir aérien de Cold Lake. L’aéronef est piloté par le Capitaine Corey Liddle, étudiant du 410e Escadron pendant son dernier vol d’entraînement du cours de pilote de chasse série 40 (CPC-40). Photo par le Caporal Jean-François Lauzé, 4e Escadre, Imagerie
Could Canada partially replace its CF-18s with Super Hornets?

Canada is studying acquiring Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as an interim partial replacement for the country’s ageing CF-18A/B ‘classic’ Hornets.

The Ottawa Citizen newspaper reported in early June that the new Canadian government is considering acquiring Super Hornets to cover a looming capability gap to partially replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s 77 CF-18s and then defer any acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by a decade.

Canada’s new Liberal government promised ahead of its election in 2015 that it would not go ahead with the acquisition of the F-35, so deferring, rather than cancelling the purchase of F-35s and buying a smaller number of Super Hornets as a partial replacement for the CF-18 is reported as a way of meeting that election promise while minimising the loss of industrial work and avoiding potential legal action that could come from withdrawing outright from the JSF program.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“We are looking at a gap — that’s [what] we have to deal with. And these jets should have been replaced a long time ago,” Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told media on June 7.

“We’re in options analysis, looking at the capabilities required. We’re actively looking at replacing the F-18.”

So far Canada’s aerospace industry has won F-35 work contracts worth C$750 million.

But F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin’s vice-president of F-35 business development, Jack Crisler, told the Ottawa Citizen last week that: “There’s not an entitlement to future contracts unless you’re buying aircraft.”

PROMOTED CONTENT

In a separate interview with The Canadian Press news agency, Crisler noted, “Right now, all we want to do is to be able to compete.

“So if we get told that we’re not allowed to compete, then we’ll go and evaluate all of our alternatives at that point. But right now all we’re asking to do is be able to compete in a fair, open, transparent and requirements-based competition for the replacement of the CF-18s.”

Australia, of course, acquired 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets late last decade to bridge a capability gap between the retirement of the RAAF’s F-111s and the arrival of the F-35.

But unlike in Australia, where the acquisition of the F-35 to replace the RAAF’s classic Hornets has bipartisan political support, in Canada the aircraft’s acquisition is highly contentious.

“Canadians know full well that for 10 years, the Conservatives completely missed the boat when it came to delivering to Canadians and their armed forces the equipment they needed,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told his country’s parliament on June 7.

“They clung to an aircraft [the F-35] that does not work and is far from working.”

Canada’s equivalent of the shadow minister for Defence, Conservative defence critic James Bezan has accused the Liberal government of breaking a promise to run a competition for the RCAF’s next fighter.

“The Liberals have broken their promise for a fair and transparent competition to replace our CF-18s and are sole-sourcing the Boeing Super Hornet instead,” Bezan said last week. “Maybe we should not be surprised. Boeing officials have met 10 times since February with senior political staff.”

Under then Prime Minister Stephen Harper Canada’s former Conservative government had committed to acquire 65 F-35As to replace the RCAF’s CF-18s.

In December 2014 a Conservative government-appointed expert panel found that “there was no need to pursue a bridging option,” as “it is possible, with certain investments, to fly the CF-18 to 2025 and even beyond.”

Steer your own in-flight experience – available on print and digital Whether our classic glossy magazine in your letterbox, daily news updates in your inbox, peeling back a few layers in the podcast or our monthly current affair reports, you can count on us to keep you up to date. Sign up today for just $99.95 for more exclusive offers here. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

20 Comments

  • Fabian

    says:

    The super hornets are a great choice. Australia really enjoyed them and are purchasing more ( growler versions ) and even considering to buy more strike role super hornets. I would like to see a European fighter in Canada’s Air Force mixed with the super hornets. The f-35s are great but it’s going to take a long time till they come around the corner.

  • B. Harrison

    says:

    The Canadians have a far inferior defence force than Australia while being around 50% larger in population. It sits under the American umbrella knowing full well that any threat to Canada will mean a response from the U.S. The Canadians still are not sure on what aircraft to purchase even after committing to the JSF and now have fighter aircraft well past their use by date. If their submarine acquisition is anything to go by (what junk those ex- Pommie subs they purchased turned out to be), the purchase of new fighters for the Canadian Air Force will be probably be around the 12th of never. The Canadian psyche is not too dissimilar to the of New Zealand’s. If you have a big powerful ally covering your back, then why do you need to spend lots on defence?

  • Ben

    says:

    What a waste of precious defense dollars to cover political ineptitude. JT end this foolish game of Russian roulette and just admit you were wrong. Get the dam F-35 and move on.

  • G4george

    says:

    Typical socialist outlook on defence, the Canadian govt. will cut defence spending to the bone and up social welfare while expecting allies to look after defence needs.

  • mick181

    says:

    The Canadians have a responsibility to contribute a modern Fighter force under the NORAD alliance so if they don’t make a decision soon they are going to cop a please explain from the White House.

  • Jeff Atkinson

    says:

    Why buy the equivalent of a collins submarine. That’s what the jcf will turn out to be.

  • David Jones

    says:

    Jeff Atkinson, although completely misguided, your comment is actually true. The Collins class is an excellent Submarine, some say the best oil burner in the world. The JSF will be an excellent airframe for Australia and will serve for many years to come.

  • Don Clark

    says:

    Its the same kick the can down the road policy Canada has had for decades concerning new defence kit procurement. They need 65 new fighters to replace their old ones, appears they may buy 24 interim new fighters when they should buy at least 65…. Canada is large with three coasts; a Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic…

  • Ben

    says:

    F22B anyone? If they could make the 22 move mud effectively (like the F15E Strike Eagle out of the earlier F15’s before it) then I’m sure that Canada, Australia and other F35 nations would dump the JSF as fast as possible. This is probably why they closed it down and refused to open it to FMS. It would have killed the F35.

    The F35 in time MAY become a great jet. But like the Collins will require millions to be wasted in remediation work to get it to do what it should have in the first place. By developing a jet for every air arm in the world the aircraft is full of compromises. Australia and Canada have no need for a jet that has VTOL ability. We therefore should have no need for a jet that has been compromised to have VTOL ability in another variant. We need a SF without the compromises the J brings, for a jack of all trades is master of none. It’s McNamara’s Folly mk2 and sure the Pig was a great jet in time. But do we want to spend all that money to get it to where it should have been out of the box yet again?

  • Craigy

    says:

    For some reason I thought the RCAF had larger numbers of aircraft but after a quick comparison between Aus and Canada.

    Rotary – 165 (C) 146 (A)
    Fighter – 89 (C) 175 (A)
    Maritime – 15 ea
    AEWC – 0 (C) 6 (A)
    Trans – 50 ea

    Simple comparison of numbers not how the aircraft are used.

  • Craigy

    says:

    Correction

    Numbers are as currently listed by Wikipedia for Australia

    Fighter – 130
    Transport – 48
    Trainers – 65 (PC-9)
    Maritime – 19 (I don’t think this is right)
    AEWC – 6

  • Jason

    says:

    Fabian – Australia is “considering to buy more strike role super hornets”??? Wow, tell us more, scoop!

  • Harry

    says:

    We would be better to buy actual air-air superiority fighters like the F-15 which can also low level strike and long range strike than the F-18 super hornets which aren’t actually all that great compared to other legacy aircraft and increasingly modern aircraft.

    BTW Jason you never responded to the price for the F-18s I posted:

    “Jason, the cost figures are all over the shop for the Super Hornet from as low as $70 US million to as high as $100 US million plus. Australia seems to have payed around $100 – $110 AU million per unit for them back in 2010. The Danish just did a competition where the Super hornets were valued at $122 million per unit. I definitely agree that they shouldn’t be so much especially considering the fact that the F-15, at $110 US million, is a bigger and better plane… In that competition the F-35 was valued at around $85 US million despite other sources stating in excess of $150 US million. For Australia they might end up being $200 AU million according to one source I read…”

    Anyway. An F-15 which can be a missile truck behind F-35s and do low level long range strike when stealth is mitigated for some reason into the future from advanced ground based radars. Low level strike with heavy laden F-15s not only replaces the role of F-111s but the F-15 are the premier 4th+ gen air-air superiority fighter. Keep the Growlers for sure. But get an actual plane designed for the airforce this time.

  • BJ

    says:

    130 fighters? 71 legacy hornets, 24 super hornets… where are the other 35? the 33 Hawks?

    And yes, the RAAF is looking at another purchase of Super Hornets. they are looking at 14 F/A-18E’s to replace 75 squadrons legacy hornets at tindal, so the fleet can be consolidated at Williamtown and the oldest jets retired.

    Very smart idea really and I hope we spend the extra coin

  • Craigy

    says:

    So Harry, what are your qualifications that support your opinions out of interest?

  • Harry

    says:

    Sorry Craigy, unless your offering to give me a job, my qualifications are none of your business. Nor are they necessary for holding an opinion. But I do have pertinent qualifications. That I can assure you. You should keep in mind that asking about someones qualifications instead of arguing the point can come across as a little patronising and insinuates that I don’t know what I am talking about, when I actually do know. I don’t need qualifications to support opinions; just an interest and a knowledge base. What are yours?

    You should also know that it isn’t just my opinion. I read a lot. And I mean a lot. And there is a lot of talk within the US airforce of using the F-15E, originally designed for low level strike – the exact reason why it has a look down radar – as a “missile-truck” because ever since the 2012 the F-35 “was never meant to be an air-superiority fighter/dog-fighter” and they, the USAF, sure as hell don’t have enough F-22s for the job. So if your interested in the discussion you should just look at the web to see the USAF plans to use “missile-trucks” like the F-15s (or B-1s) in conjunction with F-35s for air-dominance and low level strike (if deemed necessary). Its really not hard to find such articles. Check out warontherocks or breakingdefense for such discussions/news. I would be happy to discuss such advice/ideas/opinions in greater depth if you would just suggest a way to explore them in-depth.

    BTW 33 hawks are not counted as fighters, but fighter trainers – I guess we would use them during an all out war if it came down to the wire… We used to have in excess of 130 frontline fighters… now we have less than 100… and in a few years we will have 72 JSF (2 in the USA) and 36 or so Super-hornets. We need more jets in such an uncertain and increasingly contested age not less. There is a lot more risk and a suitable heavy hitter like the F-15 – widely regarded as the best 4th plus gen fighter in the world – is ideal.

  • BJ

    says:

    You can buy 5 Super Hornets for the price of 3 F-15E’s. Not to mention the added costs of an entire new aircraft, new aircrew training, logistics chains, base infrastructure, spares etc. If the RAAF was facing a total war scenario, and needed to add airframes quickly, they would rather 50 jets quicker than 30 jets in 24 months time.

    We will be lucky just to get the extra 12 F/A-18E’s

  • Harry

    says:

    BJ all that you say is very true; but why are we short changing ourselves in air power?

  • Harry

    says:

    Sorry, BJ, the pricing might not be right. An F-18 E/F super hornet costs according to the recent Dutch competition $122 million dollars each. The F-15SG according to Singapore costs $125 million each. Of course we can get the F-18 cheaper through FMS, and we have. For around $100 AU million in 2010. The Canadians estimate theirs at $90 million US. We can also get the F-15E cheaper through an FMS. The F-15 is leaps and bounds above the F-18 in almost ever way except for AOA. The F-15 has greater speed, payload, range, sensors etc. And it can perform more roles much better. So why are we short changing our airforce?

  • BJ

    says:

    My understanding is under Danish bidding rules, the figure is reflective of airframe, pilot training, new facilities etc etc. The Singapore cost is just for the airframe with weapons systems.

    The decision for Eagles would of had to be made back at the mirage replacement phase, but the competition was too early for the strike eagle and so we went with the proven multirole hornet.

Leave a Comment to Fabian Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Each day, our subscribers are more informed with the right information.

SIGN UP to the Australian Aviation magazine for high-quality news and features for just $99.95 per year