From the Canadian Military Journal <link...>:

 

Since 1971, Canada has reduced the number of fighter aircraft in support of global security and homeland security, from over 200 units of multiple types, to less than 80 of a single type, the CF-18 Hornet. At first glance, one would think this should not be a problem with 80 fighters. Yet of these 80 fighters, only 60 are available for mission support at any given time. Twenty CF-18s are assigned to training or testing roles for the air force, and they are not mission ready on a regular and routine basis. When originally purchased, the CF-18 had a serviceability rate of 80 percent. Since it has passed its original 20-year life expectancy, there are problems arising that normally would not have been encountered in a projected service life. These problems often require parts that need to have special assembly lines established to produce parts for an obsolete aircraft. In no small measure due to the age of Canada?s Hornet fleet, the current unclassified serviceability rate is a little more than 50 percent.^7... Given this situation, with only 60 fighter aircraft available, Canada does not appear to always be able to meet its NORAD mandate of 36 fighters, let alone the nation?s other commitments.

 

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

This is  a pretty sad state of affairs.  If the Canadian buy of F-35s only comes to 65 planes then we would be hard pressed to contribute even a handful of planes to any foreign deployment.  With a 80% availability rate we would just meet our current NORAD commitment with a few planes to spare assuming 12-15 aircraft set aside for training.

 

 

I'm seeing 500 miles combat radius for the Gripen and 449 for the Super Hornet, so it's not much of a difference.  You're right, though...I didn't realize they were that close.  The Super Hornet has a slight (70 mile) edge in max range over the Gripen, but that's a damn slim margin.  Learn something knew every day!

 

GF-Aust is probably right, though.  Canada is so integrated into the US that it will probably buy American.  Still, it's not impossible...especially given Obama's record for antagonizing our allies.

 

Interestingly enough, the Boeing/GE proposal for India's MMRCA program includes the F414 "EPE" (enhanced performance engines).

 

Given these should address the most common complaint about the Rhino (ie: underwhelming sustained turn performance, acceleration and climb) I think a fleet of Block II+ Supers could become a very viable product for many Countries. Every other part of the Rhino is absolutely world class, with acceptable or even good performance to match, it sounds like JUST the thing...

 

I would not be unhappy with RAAF getting a fleet of same to tied them over until F-35 is ready "down the track" but Australian politics won't allow that to happen...

FYI, here is the update from a person present in the Boeing Press conference in Delhi.

 

Boeing and its F/A-18 industry partners Raytheon, GE and Northrop-Grumman held a press conference in Delhi on Wednesday. Friend and NDTV associate editor VISHNU SOM was there and has been kind enough to send LiveFist this update on what happened:

As far as the transfer of source codes for AESA is concerned, Boeing is still at the "can't discuss in an open forum, lets see how this plays out" mode. At the same time, the fact that India has agreed to the US end user agreement during Hillary Clinton's visit here means that the full-up Super Hornet IN, inclusive of the upgraded GE F414 engine, the APG-79 AESA and other key systems are cleared for transfer. So it's quite possible that the version of the AESA offered will be full-spec. In fact, I am sure, India would not accept anything less than that.

Secondly, February 2010 is the big date for the IAF and the next phase of the Hornet There will be an evaluation of the following: 1. Mission systems flight evaluation 2. AESA 3. FLIR 4. EW 5. Weapon delivery 6. Maintenance evaluation 7. Technical evaluation.

All this will be done at the Naval Air Station Lemoore in California, the same base from where I flew the second of my Super Hornet sorties. Boeing reps repeatedly state that the AESA will be evaluated in conjunction with other systems, ie, the data link, FLIR etc to showcase the full package.

As far as AESA is concerned, the Boeing-Raytheon team seemed to take on their European rivals who are still developing/integrating their product. They explained how it took eight years for the APG-79 to move from low rate initial production to first operational deployment. The dates are as follows: June 2003 Low rate initial production / December 2006 Operational evaluation completed / December 2007 Initial Operational clearance & Full scale production approval and May 2008 First operational deployment.

The APG-79 has 1,000-hours mean time between failures (MTBF), more than 75,000 operational flight hours, it's been approved for sale to India and will be sustained in US service beyond 2035. The proposed GE F414 EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine) for India offers a 20 per cent increase in thrust and a 1 per cent reduction in fuel burn. The F414 is itself in the 22,000-lb thrust class, 170 lb/second airflow. Engine change is done in under 30 minutes, interchangeable left and right engine installation. No need for a functional check flight after engine change. No throttle restrictions while in operation (I have personally witnessed this, it's amazing -- you can pretty much do what you want with the throttle, slam it to burner and take it back as much as you want ... nothing happens).

Boeing says it WILL offer the Indian Air Force an out and out 9G fighter -- this has been a promise made by the Boeing team. I was led to believe this involves changes in the flight control system, though the airframe itself is OK for 9G.

there is a caveat to this - they can sell whatever the buyer wants as long as its not ITARs capped, as long as State approve the same of said components (both in isolation and as a system issue) and that the US Exec sign off on it.

IOW  a standard transaction. :)  (except they'll try and give India local buiild levels etc.... - and thats heavily caveated by different ITARs issues not related to weapons systems onsell.)

Heres an official link on the Super Hornet's unrefuled combat radius. It says 490nm (563 statute miles) for an attack mission 420nm (483 statute miles) for a fighter mission. From what I can find about the Gripen on the web its combat radius isn't much different. Then again, Canada's current F-18A fleet has a shorter combat radius still, so perhaps for a military that sees itself predominantly fighting in overseas wars a shorter range interim type isn't that much of a bother. The F-18E/F's two engines would provide extra assurance for flights over the Canadian wilderness but that has to be offset against the lower price in absolute terms that the Gripen would come at.