Close sidebar

Canada announces interim Super Hornet buy

written by australianaviation.com.au | November 23, 2016
is01-2015-0002-043
A Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150T Polaris tanker refuels a Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18F Super Hornet above Kuwait on February 2 2015 during coalition anti-Islamic State operations. (Canadian Forces Combat Camera, DND)

The Canadian Government has cited a looming capability gap behind its decision to “explore” the acquisition of 18 new Boeing Super Hornets for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

“Canada will immediately explore the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement arrives,” a Canadian Government statement reads.

“Canada’s current fleet is now more than 30 years old and is down from 138 aircraft to 77. As a result, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) faces a capability gap.”

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Super Hornet acquisition will come ahead of a planned “wide open and transparent” competition to find a definitive replacement for the RCAF’s ‘classic’ CF-18 Hornets.

“We have a capability gap. We have selected the minimum number of aircraft to meet this capability gap here. At the same time, we are launching a full competition and making sure that we take the appropriate time, without cutting corners to get the right airplane,” Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said on Tuesday.

“The competition for a permanent fleet will be informed by the outcomes of the defence policy review next year,” Sajjan said.

The acquisition mirrors Australia’s own acquisition of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets as a ‘Bridging Air Combat Capability’ to replace the RAAF’s ageing F-111s while awaiting its acquisition of F-35A Joint Strike Fighters.

PROMOTED CONTENT

The price of the 18 Super Hornets for Canada, their model type (single-seat F/A-18Es or dual-seat F/A-18Fs) and their delivery timetable has yet to be anounced.

Canada had planned to acquire 65 F-35As to replace its classic Hornets. In 2012 its then Conservative government deferred an F-35 acquisition, while the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned ahead of its 2015 election that it would not go ahead with the acquisition of the F-35.

With the acquisition of interim Super Hornets, the further deferment of a decision on a definitive replacement for the CF-18 means the new fighter fleet won’t “be fully operational in the late 2020s,” said Saijan.

Canada’s announcement that it would negotiate to acquire Super Hornets comes just days after the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced the US State Department had approved Kuwait’s acquisition of 40 Super Hornets (32 F/A-18Es and eight F/A-18Fs) under a US$10.1 billion Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal.

The Kuwaiti and Canadian deals should extend Super Hornet production into the early 2020s. In further good news for Boeing’s fighter production lines, the US has also approved Qatar’s acquisition of 72 F-15QA Eagles under a US$21.1 billion FMS deal, which will keep the F-15 line open into the early 2020s as well.

Canada’s interest in an interim Super Hornet acquisition was first flagged in June.

 

 

.

 

 

Sign up to our digital magazine before 30 June and receive a FREE print edition. Starting at just $99.95 a year, you will get the latest news and insights direct to you, including Australia’s most popular print magazine since 1977. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

40 Comments

  • Tom

    says:

    Can hear the Champaign corks popping at Boeing already……..good for them……………good for Canada too

  • Scotty

    says:

    hope they get the advanced addons with cfts and uprated engines

  • Mick181

    says:

    Scotty they will be clones of current production USN aircraft bought through FMS.

  • Mick181

    says:

    Boeing is having some month 40 Super Hornets for Kuwait, possibly 18 for Canada and 72 Eagles for Qatar.

  • Keith

    says:

    Maybe it’s time to pull the plug on the over priced, under performing JSF and simply buy more of these.

  • Adzza

    says:

    Surely getting F’s with the extra wiring to make them Growlers down the track would be the go for Canada.

  • paul

    says:

    Great jet with alot of upgrades on the way.This should of happened 3 years ago.Will probably go the way the RAAF operate.

  • Craigy

    says:

    Selling Growlers to Canada would interesting from a policy perspective for the US. It hasn’t been that keen to export the Growler technology with Australia being an exception. Although selling to Australia is a precedent and Canada is a member of the Five eyes agreement.

  • Corey

    says:

    What would be nice is to see the RAAF buy 36-48 E models and an additional 12-24 F models in the advanced model with cfts, upgraded engines, new flight deck etc along with upgrading the current fleet of F and EA-18Gs to the Advanced models and convert the 12 Fs to the Growlers for a total fleet of 36-48 E, 24-36 Fs and 12-24 EA-18Gs (72-108) aircraft in all 3 variants. It would boot AUS-US relations especially with Trump, increase our airpower capability for not only here in Australia but also our close neighbors and island allies who don’t have air superiority capability and they would also provide a good pilot training platform to work hand in hand with the 72-100 F-35As. People will say our neighboring countries as a military build up and then an unwanted arms race but realistically it’s a build up to protect Australia and to help assist in protecting its neighboring counties close by working with them as we’re currently doing would stop an unwanted arms race. Also, the Advanced Super Hornets and Growlers will be there to work beside the F-35s and not only fly further unrefueled but also able to be more operationally versatile over the F-35 as they can be refuel by the A400m, KC-30, KC-130s etc which are or will be in service with our allies and neighboring countries. So overall for the next 30 years, the Advanced Super Hornet would be a better option when operating out of F-35 countries.

  • That Ron guy

    says:

    Way to go Canada! I remember the days of “open & transparent” aircraft evaluation. The F/A-18 buy was something like that. Strangely, there was no such competition to replace it. We were just handed a glass of F-35 Kool Aid & we drank it. I like it when countries stand up to the military industrial complex & decide to do things their own way.

  • Grumpy

    says:

    If the Canadian announcement is not an endorsement of Australa’s Rhino acquisition decision I don’t know what is. Once again the RAAF has paved the way. Kudos!

  • Fabian

    says:

    18 f-18 F to be interim fighters ?. When the f-35 prove itself in the air forces, Canada will buy them definetly as a replacement for the CF-18s

  • PAUL

    says:

    Amazing to see the F15 still in production! especially with updated capabilities & weapons systems. I thought Qatar was buying the Rafale also which is very capable. The Super Super Hornet is an impressive machine with the EPE F414 engines uprated to 26000lbs of thrust, CFTs to hold fuel or weapons or the weapons pod.

    Boeing need to leverage their platforms with Lockheed Martin supplying F22 & F35 wonder who will win the FXX contract for the new Future US fighter.

    Was impressive reading about the first Gulf war when the USAF had F15’s form the ‘Wall’. which comprised of about 12 F15’s in a line Radar Active flying straight in to Iraq to target Iraqi MIgs.

  • Mick181

    says:

    The problem for Canada going to Fs or Gs compared to Australia is they would have to raise a corps of backseaters to operate with the pilots, where Australia has never lost this capability from the days of the Canberras, F-111s and now the F model Supers. This would add a fair bit to the cost of getting the jets into service, a most likely break down would be 16 Es & 2 Fs(for conversion trg)

  • Keith

    says:

    It’s not impossible for RCAF to recruit some back seaters from the rapidly shrinking RAF as the Tornado is retired. Ironic considering some Canadians went the the other way in the past.

  • John N

    says:

    This decision by the Canadian Government is nothing more than a purely cynical politically motivated exercise, and I’m not surprised either.

    I’ve been following Canadian defence procurement for many years, and for many years I’ve watched how the various political parties in Canada have used the Classic Hornet replacement as a ‘political’ football and points scoring tool, it’s just crazy.

    The previous Government (or Governments), dragged the chain on making a decision, they were all too scared to make a decision, because the other side would bang them over the head, again, all political points scoring.

    The current Government said, before it became the Government, that it wouldn’t select the F-35, too ‘expensive’, then it said it would have an ‘open’ competition completed ASAP (does that mean include the F-35?), then it said it would look at an ‘interim’ solution.

    Now they have made this ‘interim’ decision to procure 18 Super Hornets, but at the same time have deferred the final decision for another FIVE years too!!

    The cynic in me tells me that this decision is a real ‘yes Minister’ decision, on the one hand they have ‘appeared’ to make a decision, but at the same time ‘deferring’ the ultimate decision till later, much later (five years away), the ‘next’ Canadian Government will then be left to sort this mess out.

    On top of that it is also keeping a foot in both the LM and Boeing camps.

    For Boeing it keeps the ‘possibility’ alive that the interim solution will eventually evolve into the final decision, on the LM side it keeps paying its ‘partner’ fee so it can get industrial benefits from the F-35 program and leaving open the question that eventually the F-35 will be selected as the ‘final’ solution.

    Anyway, a very cynical political exercise by the Canadian Government!!

    Cheers,

  • Craigy

    says:

    In a previous article, a contributor cited the rejuvenation of F18Cs from the boneyard for the marine corp causing an issue on spares for classic fleets thus the push to acquire Super Hornets so that older hornets could be canabalised to support the remaining classics. The APSI has another view seen here https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/trudeaus-folly-canadas-new-interim-fighters/

  • BJ

    says:

    @mick181

    I agree, too hard for the Canadians to stand up a WSO capability on such short notice, however if their CF-18 purchase is anything to go by, I’d figure the split 14 E models and 4 F models.

    @Corey
    Sorry mate, but those sort of numbers are just fantasy. If the RAAF was to accept any more Super Hornets, it would be 18 max, mostly E models. Maybe convert some of the pre-wired jets to the Growler spec in 5-10 years time when the F-35 is approaching FOC. We will be lucky if the fleet gets to 54!

    Where the RAAF would find the funds, base structures, ground personnel and flight crews to operate 18-54 more jets over 100 F-35 and 50 Super Hornets is beyond me, and would take years to implement. Defence has other priorities for that sort of money, i.e another full time combined arms army brigade, or another 4 frigates/destroyers over what is already planned (both would cost the same as another 54 Super Hornets)

    As for operating with allies, the only regional force we would use tankers from is Singapore, and their 6 new tankers will be to MRTT standards with hose units on wings, so that doesn’t matter.

  • Mick181

    says:

    Corey I think you would be looking at least $10b+ to raise just 1 extra Fighter squadron, by the time you buy 16-18 aircraft, raise, train & sustain flight crews, ground crews, all the ancillary support personnel you need. You will need new base facilities, cost for upgrading existing bases for the 72 JSF we are getting now is $1.5b.

    Corey your lists look great on paper but result in having to Raise, train & sustain new squadrons and thats when it gets truly expensive. The only new from scratch capabilities the RAAF has raised in the last 5 decades or so is 2 squadron with the Wedgetails, and the Tanker capability starting with the 707s, everything else is basically replacing old with new using current squadrons.

  • beepa

    says:

    I still wonder how many people talk about the “Advanced Super Hornet.” A concept demonstrator does not make a certified jet. Who will pay for the certification which could cost millions or billions?…Until someone coughs up the money there is no “Advanced Hornet”….Now if adding fuel tanks to a jet make it “advanced” then wow, advanced rcs, advanced drag, advanced weight.

  • Corey

    says:

    It could be fully funded if our government not old kept their promised 2% GDP ADF budget of approx $50 billion but also increased it to 4% or even better 6% like the UK. I get it’s unrealistic but people need to look at the size of airspace we need to control. From approx FIJI to al the way to the Cocos Islands and as far North as East Timor/PNG and also assisting Indonesia. Even if we did get an additional 36 Advanced Super Hornets (24E and 12 F) it would help out because WA has no fighters at all to deploy for any type of reason. It not about an arms race it’s about having a real capable defense capability no matter what.Also what people forget is the more we spend on defense the more jobs we create either in the ADF itself and also civilians. Also, I’m not saying what they should or should do but we need to have a more than capable defense force from the air sea and land but sadly we currently don’t have that capability at all due to successive and current government failing to realize that capability gap. Yes, we have Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) and satellites but what air, sea and land capability do we have? Very little due to only 3 new destroyers being built along with 9 future frigates which will have some capability upgrade but NO increases to the fleet sizes at all. The Hobart Class AWD plan is to have 1 ship in WA (Indian Ocean), 1 ship in the North and 1 ship in the east now to fully secure the air you’d need a minimum 6-9 ships in WA, 3-6 ships in the North and then another 6-9 ship in the east to provide a continues air and sea defence because you have to work on the rule of 3s (1 operationally deployed, 1 training getting ready to deploy and 1 on leave/maintenance), Air (24-48 fighters in WA, 24-48 in NT, along with 48+ in the East (QLD/NSW) plus 12+ tankers in the west, 6+ in the North and 12+ in the east (KC-30s) plus a capable fleet of both C-130J and A400M in cargo, fire fighting, rescue and air refueling capability. I’m not having a go at anyone but it would create the much-needed jobs and provide a real capable defence if we ever needed it. I do know it will never happen unless we get people who are serious a bit like Trump (although I don’t like him ATM) into government who listen and get shit done and speak the truth no matter who it hurts or the aftermath. Sorry if I did get political as I never meant to as I’m just trying to have a fair open discussion and I don’t want to get banned from writing comments.

  • Jason

    says:

    UK is 6%??? Not even close Corey!

  • Gary

    says:

    Ok folks, let’s move on from Corey’s comments. He continually makes outlandish unrealistic and unfunded comments which are way beyond the capability that Australia can fund, now or in the future. Corey, by the way a simple search would indicate that in 2015 the UK spent 1.9% of GDP on Defence and has indicated that it will spend no less than this for the foreseeable future – not, I repeat not 6%.

  • John N

    says:

    Corey,

    Mate, whilst I’m sure the majority of us here greatly admire your passion for the ADF (and RAAF specifically), your comments are just about 100% completely unrealistic and wrong, to say the least, no offence ok?

    Defence Spending
    As others have pointed out, for example the UK does NOT spend 6% GDP on Defence, it’s closer to the NATO benchmark of 2%, and in fact the majority of NATO doesn’t spend 2%, the USA is spending approx. 3.3% of GDP, Canada on the other hand is closer to 1% of GDP.

    In fact most ‘Western’ nations are spending way below 2% of GDP. (Please Google the info and you will see what I mean, ok?).

    Let’s get back to Australia, you mentioned ‘2% and $50B’, sorry but that doesn’t add up (please download the 2016 DWP and read it, please, ok?).

    This financial year, 2016-17, we are spending $32.3B, which is approx. 1.88% of GDP (even if it was 2% that would be approx. $35B (no where near the $50B you quoted).

    Even in 2020-21, the year we are to get to 2% of GDP, the expected dollar expenditure is $42.4B, still a fair way from $50B, ok? (I could go on, but please download the DWP and have a look at page 180 onwards, it has all the projections).

    Bottom line is, yes it would be good to see a ‘greater’ increase in ADF Defence spending, but compared to most of the world, we are doing pretty good in both ‘actual’ $’s and % of GDP. We are not at war, ok?

    Bases
    The RAAF has both ‘manned and unmanned’ bases spread right across the North and North West of Australia, if there was suddenly a ‘need’ for those bases to be manned and equipped, they can, the infrastructure is in place for if and when needed, we don’t have to have ‘operational’ squadrons sitting idle at each and every one, again it is unaffordable and unrealistic, unless we were at ‘war’, which we are not.

    Equipment
    You keep on about this ‘massive’ increase in aircraft (and now ships too), again, if you look at most Western nations, their Air Forces have shrunk dramatically over the last decades, the RAAF on the other hand, has not only ‘maintained’ it’s number of combat and other aircraft, but has increased the number of airframes or has also increased the capability of existing airframes, it has also introduced, or is introducing, ‘new’ capabilities, such at the E-7A, EA-18G, Triton, G550, etc, etc.

    Whilst it always appears that ‘more’ would be good, the RAAF is in a pretty good place (certainly compared to MOST other Air Forces too), and has obtained, or is obtaining, very modern airframes and very sophisticated and capable airframes too.

    Bottom line Corey, the ADF and RAAF is doing pretty well, at the least lets just hope that 2% of GDP is reached and maintained.

    We could be a lot lot worse off, we could be Canada where they only spend 1% of GDP, ok???

    Cheers,

    John N

  • Derrick Aguero

    says:

    @John N
    Love the comeback, also the DWP does have some very interesting reading with future capabilities.

    @Corey
    Mate, please layoff the redbull and red cordial

  • Samual

    says:

    The only reason Australia bought the Rhinos is because the F-111 was almost totally worn out and there were few other options. The Superhornet is already borderline obsolete.

    Funny thing is that the Canadian government talks about being “open & transparent” and yet it selected the Superhornet without competition and is refusing to tell the tax payers how much they are going to cost.

    Canada should have just purchased the F-35 and been done with it.

  • John N

    says:

    Hi Derrick,

    Thanks for the comment, it’s appreciated.

    As you have probably realised I’m not trying to give Corey a ‘kicking’ just for the sake of it, if you’ve seen my replies to him over a long period of time, I’m just trying to give him a bit of a ‘reality check’ is all and yes hopefully there is not too much Red Bull or Red Cordial consumed either too!!!!

    And yes the 2016 Defence White Paper (DWP) and the 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Plan (DIIP) gives people a very clear indication of where things are headed up until around 2030.

    The DWP sets the strategic direction for the ADF and the DIIP lays out the plan for the various capabilities to be introduced, including their individual program cost and their timeframes too.

    If only people could, and would, have a good read of both, then some of the more ‘out there’ comments wouldn’t happen.

    Not going to hold my breath though!!!

    Cheers,

    John N

  • sean

    says:

    Bless you Corey , may the winds support your choice of sail but were not buying more Hornets , but just for you Corey ill let go a secret Abbots F-35B aint dead yet .

  • Paul

    says:

    Samuel,The rhino is very far from borderline obsolete.Corey,Maybe we can spend 50%

  • BJ

    says:

    Corey,

    The RAAF can deploy a squadron to each of our bare bases within 72 hours. No need for 48 fighters in WA.
    And by the way, we are more likely to be in conflict with Indonesia than assisting them. Your numbers would require 8-9% GDP. Never going to happen short of fighting WW3 against China.

    John N,

    Your faith in the White Paper is actually funny. That thing is a guide- not a contract- and became effectively obsolete with a few weeks of its release, able to be overcome by events/political decisions at a whim.

    Going back through the last couple of white papers I didn’t see 4 of our C-17’s planned for, nor the increase in M-88 recovery vehicles for the army, nor the Growler acquisition… so while it is indeed a good guide as to our intentions at the time it is produced, it is not set in stone nor incapable of being changed.

  • John N

    says:

    BJ,

    Where did I actually suggest that the DWP is set in stone? Where?

    Of course it is an evolving document, as each successive DWP has been and the various DCPs, and now the DIIP, that are released and updated in between new DWPs.

    Yes capabilities are added and also deleted too, such as the long running plan to replace the RAN’s LCH, of course it evolves.

    Yes the C-17s were a new capability, paid for both by supplementary funds and also not proceeding with the additional C-130Js and parking a number of the C-130H fleet early.

    But I still believe the ‘core’ of the document, especially in relation to major equipment purchases won’t change dramatically, again, of course capabilities will be added and also some deleted too.

    The thing that won’t change dramatically is the planned levels of Defence expenditure, especially to the levels that Corey would like to see happen, unless the ‘poo’ really hits the fan in our region.

    The Defence expenditure pie is only so big, and yes sometimes the slices get reallocated and yes there is sometimes supplementary funds added.

    Again, never suggested the DWP was set in stone.

    Cheers,

    John N

  • B. Harrison

    says:

    Now that Donald Trump has won the U.S election, many nations, including Canada, Korea, Japan (dare I say Australia?) and most of Western Europe have been put on notice that America is no longer going to bankroll their defence. Canada is a larger version of New Zealand whereby they exploit their larger neighbours ability and willingness to spend per capita, far more than their smaller neighbours.
    If the U.S reverts to an isolationist policy, sorry but 3 AWD’s and a couple of helicopter carriers with the RAAF supplying roughly 100 combat aircraft ain’t going to cut it. Talking about having new subs in 20-25 years time (non nuclear) and lead times for new equipment not in years but decades will be a thing of the past. The military industrial complex of America and other major weapons suppliers will be popping champagne if Trump goes ahead with his threat as nations will be forced to spend more than ever on defence.
    As for Australia, it needs a vastly larger military than we currently have. Being the 12th largest economy in the world, we can afford it. Some military strategists understand this and probably one of the reasons the French submarine was chosen is that we can quickly convert the Barracuda conventional sub orders into nuclear if required. As for aircraft, I would sleep a whole lot better if we had a couple of wings of F22’s rather than F35’s. Japan and Australia were a lot closer in being able to purchase these than many thought. Time will tell, but not as fanciful as some think Corey is.

  • John N

    says:

    B. Harrison,

    Certainly a bunch of interesting comments and observations there!

    Firstly, the F-22, certainly the top of the tree when it comes to air defence, or air dominance fighters, no doubt about that, but ….

    Simple fact is, it’s not in production, it’s not available for export, and even ‘if’ it went back into production, and was updated with more modern sensors and was also updated/modified to be a more ‘multi-role’ aircraft, the cost would be significant (reportedly if it was restarted the cost would be more than $220+m per airframe). not going to hold my breath on that one!!!

    Don’t disagree that a lot of nations that the US has defence relationships with need to ‘pull their fingers out’ and commit more to defence spending and share the burden, but easier said than done, have to wait and see.

    I think a lot of other nations are due for a ‘kicking’ long before Australia, at least we have a plan to get to 2% of GDP sooner than later, a lot of others are stuck at just around 1%!!

    As to the might of “the military industrial complex of America”, that’s not so black and white, even the US is struggling to meet demands of its own, there are more aircraft, ships and submarines being retired quicker from US service than can be replaced on a 1 for 1 basis.

    Unless WWIII is just around the corner, with plenty of notice and lead time, that is a problem that is going to continue, even if the US pumps many extra $Billions into their system, throwing more $’s is not the simple solution, it take many many years to gear up, both facilities and skilled workers, just doesn’t happen overnight.

    As for should we be spending more on Defence? Sure no problem, what service from Government would you like to give up? What are you prepared to give up for a larger defence budget?

    Lots of interesting questions, not so many easy or simple answers.

    Cheers,

    John N

  • Paul

    says:

    John N,the one department I would cut is Welfare.There u go Corey,ir 99% defence budget is done

  • Jason

    says:

    NO nation deserves a ‘kicking” as some here have suggested!

    At the end of the day, a country’s government will make a risk/reward decision on how and what it spends its treasure on. Obviously the less it spends on defence, the greater the risk of not being able to defend itself, But this also has rewards in being able to spend more on social initiatives and infrastructure etc, and having lower tax rates. It is a government’s responsibility to strike a balance that the majority of its population supports.

    But do you really think the US military presence in and support of some of these countries is purely a benevolent act of goodwill? It’s like saying we owe the US a debt for saving us in WWII. No, the US only did what it did in WWII, and does what it does today because it serves its own strategic, political and economic interests. If those interests were to change, (such as we might soon see with Drumpf), then the US may change its forward deployed posture and levels of support.

  • Paul

    says:

    Jason,as u say no nation deserves a kicking.Please stop kicking the US then.

  • John N

    says:

    Jason,

    It would be far better to receive a ‘diplomatic kicking’ from a friend to remind you to contribute more to ‘collective defence’ than receive a real kicking from someone who wants to hurt you! Then it’s too late!!

    Of course each nation has a sovereign right to decide where its money is spent, no argument there, but there are nations that are more than happy to have their respective ‘big brothers’ carry the can when it comes to defence, both of their collective defence too.

    NATO is a good example, the ‘benchmark’ agreed is supposed to be 2% of GDP, there are 27 NATO members and do you know how many actually meet or exceed the benchmark? Five, only five, the other 22 don’t, and of those 22 that don’t, 19 spend less than 1.5% of GDP on defence.

    See the link below (see page 2, graph 2):

    http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

    Canada for example, approx. 1% of GDP, ranks 23rd out of 27 in percentage terms.

    The USA of course is way out in front, it spends more than 1% MORE than any of its NATO partners, why shouldn’t the US ask other ‘members’ to start contributing a bit more to their ‘collective’ defence??

    I’m not here to stand up for the USA, it’s big and ugly enough to do it for itself, just saying, regardless of their new President, the rest of us should start pulling our own weight, some more than others too.

    Reminds me of many years ago when we would all walk across to the pub on Friday after work, there was this one guy who was more than happy to benefit from the ‘shout’ by the rest of us, but guess what always happened when it was his turn to ‘shout’?

    He would disappear, and guess what too? We made him buy the first round and suddenly he stopped coming! Wonder why??

    Cheers,

    John N

  • TimC69

    says:

    We definitely need another AWD and maybe just maybe 36 F 35 B s for the LHD’ s which have a ski jump for good looks……and don’t start me on the ” it was cheaper than to remove them “‘! A friend of mine was a marine engineer in Williamstown working on them and he just laughed when I brought that up, his response was we don’t want to make China angry yet!

  • Paul

    says:

    You are damn right there John.

  • Paul

    says:

    If Canada get the advanced super hornet and then the silent eagle that would be sensible.

Leave a Comment

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