RCAF CF-18's Begin Patrolling Iceland's Airspace

The Canadian Press

A pilot positions a CF-18 Hornet at the CFB Cold Lake, in Cold Lake, Alberta on October 21, 2014. Canadian CF-18 fighter jets will begin patrolling Iceland's airspace today as part of Canada's contribution to NATO. The operation is intended to identify and intercept aircraft that approach NATO airspace in Iceland. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

RCAF CF-18 fighter jets will begin patrolling Iceland's airspace today as part of Canada's OP IGNITION, a contribution to NATO.

The operation is intended to identify and intercept aircraft that approach NATO airspace in Iceland.

About 180 members of the Canadian Forces will be involved in the roughly month-long operation that involves six CF-18 fighter jets.

The aircraft will operate out of Keflavik Air Base, near Reykjavik.

The campaign is also part of Operation Reassurance, intended to reinforce the defence of NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

Operation Reassurance is also intended to ease concerns of NATO allies in the face of Russian aggression toward Ukraine.

Iceland is the only NATO country that does not have a standing military.

RCAF CF-18s intercept Russian bombers for first time in 2 years

The Canadian Press 

OTTAWA—Canadian fighter jets have intercepted Russian bombers off Canada’s northern coast for the first time in more than two years, as relations between Moscow and the West continue to worsen.

A Canadian Forces CF-18 makes a highspeed afterburner turn at the Great Lakes International Air Show

Two CF-18s were scrambled on Thursday after North American early-warning air defences spotted two TU-95 Bear bombers approaching Alaskan and Canadian airspace from the west around 7 p.m.

The long-range bombers, which can carry nuclear weapons, were also tracked by U.S. F-22 jets based out of Alaska, said North American Aerospace Defence Command spokeswoman Maj. Jennifer Stadnyk.

Stadnyk said the Russians never entered Canadian or American airspace, and acted “professionally and safely” before returning to their home base.

The incident marked the first time since December 2014 that Canadian fighter jets have been scrambled to intercept Russian military aircraft flying in the Far North.


It was also the fourth time in as many days that Russian aircraft have been spotted approaching North American airspace. Norad also dispatched F-22s on Monday to track Bear bombers that were flying near Alaska.

Two TU-95s were also spotted near Alaskan airspace on Tuesday while two IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft were tracked on Wednesday, though Norad opted not to scramble fighters in either case.

“We haven’t seen this level of activity since July 2015,” Stadnyk said, though she added: “It’s not unprecedented. What they’re doing this week is very similar to what they used to do.”



Such Russian bomber flights over the Far North were a regular occurrence between 2012-14, Stadnyk said, before the TU-95s were grounded over safety concerns.

One of the bombers skidded off a runway on June 8, 2015, and caught fire, killing a crew member and injuring several more.

The resumption of Russian flights over the Arctic this week comes at a key moment for Russia and the West, whose relationship has reached what U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently called “a low point.”

Ties between Moscow and Washington have been particularly strained ever since the U.S. launched a cruise-missile strike against Syria, which it blamed for a chemical attack that killed more than 80 people earlier this month.

Relations between Ottawa and Moscow have not been spared, despite the Liberal government’s initial plan to re-engage Russia.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called out the Kremlin earlier this month for supporting the Syrian government of president Bashar Assad, who is widely seen by the West as being responsible for the attack.

More than 450 Canadian troops are also preparing to head to Latvia in the next few weeks, where they will lead a NATO force intended to check Russian aggression in eastern Europe.

And Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland remains on a list of individuals banned from visiting Russia, after Canada slapped the country with sanctions for annexing Crimea in 2014.

Steve Saideman, a political science professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said the Russians could be trying to send a signal to the Trump administration.

But he noted the Russians have been conducting such military flights throughout Europe and Asia for years, “so if it’s a message to Trump, what’s the message?”

RCAF CF-18s Accidentally Attempt to Land at Old Airport in Florida

By: Maggie Solomon, My Panhandle News 

PANAMA CITY, Fla. - Some Panama City residents got a pretty big shock Tuesday morning. They witnessed a couple of military fighter jets flying abnormally close to the old airport.

"Very loud," said James Robinson, a resident in The Woods Subdivision. "I haven't heard that sound in a long time."

As former military, he knew exactly what kind of aircrafts he saw: CF 18 Hornets. But as to who they were or what they were doing, he couldn't say.

"Wheels down, flaps down is a good indication that somebody's going to put it on the ground," said Robinson.

Robin Gillam-Jenkins was out walking her dog when she saw the two aircrafts - seemingly coming towards them. As a former pilot, she estimated them at about 400 feet.

"We don't have a runway anymore for anyone to land, so there's really no reason for anybody to be flying that low," said Gillam-Jenkins. "Just kind of wondered what was going on."

According to the Royal Canadian Air Force, the planes were attempting to land at the old airport but not on purpose.

"They spotted I guess it's Sweetbay Airport which is now closed and thought it was International," said Capt. Matthew Strong with 4 Wing Cold Lake. "They called the tower and asked for confirmation. When they were doing their approach, the tower informed them no, you're actually at a closed airport."

Strong said the fighter jets were diverted from Tyndall to land at Northwest Beaches International, and when the pilots saw what they thought was the runway, they went in for a landing.

"They'd be coming in, lining up with the runway, getting prepared to land, maybe even lowering their gear," said Strong. "And then at several hundred feet before touchdown, they would just basically just fly over the field."

The aircrafts were diverted because of a minor in-field emergency at Tyndall. Both jets landed at Northwest Beaches International without incident.

DND: Canada’s CF-18s can fly into next decade

By: Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail

The Department of National Defence predicts that its fleet of CF-18s will be able to fly into the next decade, even as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ramps up his calls for an urgent purchase of new fighter jets to ward off an eventual “capability loss.”

“Some aircraft could begin to be retired beginning in 2023,” said a document provided last week to the five aircraft manufacturers in the race to offer new fighter jets.

Over all, the Canadian Armed Forces are working to “extend the fleet to 2025” as part of a series of upgrades, said the document, which was also provided to The Globe and Mail.

As he announced a two-month-long consultation with the defence industry last week, Mr. Sajjan doubled down on talk of a disparity between the current availability of the CF-18 fleet and Canada’s commitments to NORAD and NATO.

“I can’t be any more clear. A capability gap will lead to a capability loss if we do not address it,” Mr. Sajjan told reporters.

He added that the Canadian Forces have adopted a risk-management strategy to deal with the scarcity of available aircraft, and he wants to put an end to the practice. Because of maintenance issues, he said, only about half the fleet of 77 fighter jets is available at any given time.

“The previous government has found it acceptable; I do not,” Mr. Sajjan said.

Still, critics and experts are raising the possibility that the Liberal government is trying to justify a future purchase of Boeing Super Hornets – an aircraft currently flying primarily with the U.S. Navy – instead of the brand-new Lockheed-Martin F-35 that was favoured by the previous Conservative government.

Military analyst David Perry said the government’s talk of a capability gap came “out of the blue,” and seems related to the Liberals’ election promise not to buy F-35s. “It’s pretty hard to divorce the politics of this from the actual operational requirements,” said Mr. Perry, a defence analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Conservative MP James Bezan said the government seems to be looking for a way to fulfill its promise to buy an aircraft other than the F-35. “This is about setting the narrative to go to a sole-source [acquisition of Super Hornets],” he said.

Mr. Bezan said the government could simply launch an open competition and quickly obtain the best product for the Canadian Forces at the best price for taxpayers.

“There’s no question that planes are available,” he said, explaining that both Super Hornets and F-35s are currently in production. “They can go through this very methodically and still come to the right decision, rather than try to rig the process.”

Asked to expand on the capability gap, Mr. Sajjan’s office said the 2023 timeline for the retirement of the first aircraft “doesn’t take into consideration any of the issues that could come up with our fleet,” such as crashes, being used for parts, or other commitments for deployment to NATO or peacekeeping missions that would add flying hours.

The government sent a 38-page questionnaire last week to five aircraft manufacturers that are in the running to replace the CF-18s: Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Saab, Dassault and Eurofighter.

Ottawa is seeking a wide range of information from the firms by the end of July in order to design an acquisition process that will be unveiled as early as September. The questions include acquisition and life-cycle costs, current and planned production numbers, and potential industrial and technological benefits for Canada.

The government is also asking the various manufacturers how their aircraft would perform on a series of missions, such as flying from the fighter base in Cold Lake, Alta., to Inuvik, NWT, about 2,000 kilometres to the north.

The introduction to the questionnaire states that the government has not decided on a future course of action. “All procurement options are being considered,” the document said.

CF-18 Life-Extension Risks; Canada looks to fly fighters past the age of 40.

By: Daniel Maillet, CAF Dispatch author
April 25, 2016

As Canada's Defence Review gets started the debate as to which fighter should replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's aging CF-18 Hornet's continues - despite the fact that much of the budget for their replacement has been postponed until after 2021. Something that could cause major problems for the RCAF.

The CF-18s are going through another life extension to keep the fleet air-worthy until 2025; but that is based on a 5 year acquisition rate of a new fighter; which would mean a contract awarded sometime soon - and not in 2021-2022 as the current budget figures would seem to show. According to senior members of the RCAF; if the current life extension is not complete by 2021, it is not economically viable - as more upgrades will be needed. Just because this extension date is 2025 - does not mean the fleet will be retired in 2025; but the risks get much higher when flying a combat aircraft over 40 years old. If the entire fleet is retired in 2025, the oldest aircraft will be 43 years old.

But according to the RCAF plans are in place for a 2025-2030 life expectancy plan for the ageing CF-18s.



The CF-18 Hornet entered service in 1982 as a multirole fighter/interceptor replacement for the CF-5 Freedom Fighter, the CF-101 Voodoo and the CF-104 Starfighter. The Hornet fleet’s Estimated Life Expectancy (ELE) was initially set to 2003, which represented a service life of 20 years after the declaration of Initial Operational Capability. This value was based upon projected initial usage when calculated against the original equipment manufacturer’s certified design life.

In the case of the CF-18 fleet, early structural lifing concerns led to the implementation of a structural fatigue life management program (FLMP) in 1988, and a collaborative full-scale structural fatigue test program with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) to re-certify the CF-18’s design life based on Canadian and Australian usage. This collaborative effort was known as the International Follow-on Structural Test Program (IFOSTP) and was completed in 2006. Results from this test program formed the basis from which the CF-18 Hornet’s structural Life Extension Program (LEP) was developed. As the aircraft’s structural life is an airworthiness limitation, it is an important factor in calculating a realistic ELE.

The implementation of the FLMP, a LEP tailored to Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) usage requirements, changes to how the CF-18 was flown, and reductions in the planned yearly flying rate (YFR) over the years have all combined to extend the CF-18’s projected physical life.  The CF-18 ELE was extended to 2020 with an assumed three-year overlapping transition window to a new fighter (i.e. 2017-2020) following an extensive study first started in 2004. 

The problem however, is the RCAF has now entered this period; and no replacement has been chosen. Therefore, the CF-18 ELE has once again been examined to determine if it can be viably extended beyond 2020. The analysis for this report assessed the option of extending the CF-18 ELE to 2025 and 2030, using a new five year overlapping transition window to a new fighter.

An ELE of 2020-2025 represents a target beyond which significant structural investments will be required to maintain the fleet’s airworthiness. As such, it represents an ELE extension for modest cost while still resulting in reasonably low to moderate technical and operational risk respectively.

An ELE of 2025-2030 represents a technically feasible albeit risky stretch target. It would require the entire fleet to undergo the Control Point 3 (CP3) Life Extension Program (LEP) along with other significant structural refurbishment investments. This option is a high risk solution, from both a technical and operational perspective.

The operational relevance of the CF-18 Hornet is assured until 2020. Based on the analysis conducted during the Operational Analysis phase of the Next Generation Fighter Capability (NGFC) project, the modernized CF-18 avionics suite remains compliant with the current interoperability requirements of other Canadian services and allies until 2020. However, beyond 2020, some core CF-18 avionics systems will need to be upgraded.

The CF-18 was a leading edge state-of-the-art fighter when it was introduced in the 1980s and it gradually fell behind over time until during the Kosovo conflict it had reached the ‘back edge’ of coalition capability. The capability upgrades over the last 10 years have resulted in the CF-18 again being near the ‘front edge’ during the 2011 Libya operations. This capability has once again  began to erode over the remainder of the Hornet’s service life as technology continues to evolve.

CF-18 fleet size has decreased 44% since the aircraft were purchased due to attrition (operational losses due to accidents) and the management decision to retire older configuration aircraft which would have required significant NRE costs to modernize to the current configuration. Current fleet size is sufficient to meet CFDS commitments; however the flexibility to withdraw significant numbers of aircraft for required upgrades has decreased significantly. Any decision to pursue lengthy and complex upgrades would result in a commitment-capability gap.

With the above information; it would seem that the Canadian Government needs to move forward on a replacement for the CF-18s, or else Canada risks entering a period with a higher attrition rate of older aircraft and a significant capabilities gap in our areal defences.

Sources: 

CF-18 Estimated Life Expectancy 

Rafale Should be Next Fighter for RCAF

I would like to first give credit to Doug Allan of bestfighter4canada for his assessment here for the Dassault Rafale compared to the JSF F-35.

Many people claim that Canada should remain in the F-35 program despite the promise by Justin Trudeau to withdraw from the program. They say that the F-35 is a far better aircraft that any out there. Well that is just not the case. In a direct comparison to the Dassault Rafale, which better meets Canada's needs for a fighter jet - the Rafale clearly has an edge - despite it's lack of stealth.

Not only is the Rafale cheaper than the JSF F-35; it is faster; flies higher; has a larger operational radius than the F-35; and it has dual engines. Just a few reasons why the Rafale should be the RCAF's next fighter.

Oh, and a bonus - Dassault says it will allow the majority of the order to be built in Canada.

Now onto the comparison.


Air-to-ground:


Interdiction/Penetration: The Rafale's SPECTRA suite has gained notoriety for being one of the best EW suites available. Given that benchmarks for these sort of things are classified, and not available to a part-time blogger like myself, I cannot say just how good it is. There is a good chance it is the next best thing to a purpose built stealth aircraft.

The F-35 is a purpose built stealth aircraft, however. There may be some debate over whether it offers sufficient protection against current and future threats, but the truth is that the JSF is currently the stealthiest aircraft available. This may change in the future, but right now the F-35 is the best choice for sneaking past enemy ground radar. Advantage: F-35

Deep strike: Well... This one is easy. Both aircraft have a similar combat radius and ferry range using internal fuel only. So it simply comes down to which one can carry more external fuel.

The Rafale can carry massive amounts of fuel in external drop tanks. It can also be utilized for "buddy" refueling. If that was not enough, every Rafale has the plumbing to mount CFTs, which have been tested but not implemented.

As of now, the F-35 has no external fuel tanks. Some concepts exist, but problems with separation have pushed external tank capability back indefinitely. The JSF will carry the AGM-158 JASSM-ER, but that missile's extra range cannot make up the difference from having no external fuel options. Advantage: Rafale

Payload: The Rafale makes for an impressive bomber, able to carry over 20,000lbs of ordinance on 14 hardpoints. While its not a bomber per se, it certainly comes close.

The F-35 has only 10 hardpoints and carries one ton less than the Rafale. The JSF also has the limitation of its internal weapon bays. While those bays are necessary for stealth, their size limits the type of weapon that can be mounted inside. Anything longer, wider, or heavier than a 2,000lb JDAM will have to step outside.

This one goes to the French. The Rafale offers nearly the same ground-pounding capabilities as the much larger (and more expensive) F-15E Strike Eagle. Advantage: Rafale

Close air support: The F-35 is destined to replace the A-10 its iconic role. Not many are buying that. It is simply too fragile an aircraft and it burns through its fuel too fast to spend any time on station. To its credit, its EOTS acts as a built-in targeting pod and it will be outfitted with MBDA Brimstone missiles. This means it will likely be able to take out a few targets as it zips buy. 25mm cannons will be built into the A model, and available in external pods in the B and C model.

While it currently lacks a low collateral damage weapon like the Brimstone, the Rafale still gets by okay. Its airframe is more durable than the JSF, has twin-engine redundancy, and it does quite well flying low and slow, thanks to its carrier-friendly design. While it has a 30mm cannon like the A-10, it is not the same weapon and it carries far less ammo (125 rounds).

If the Rafale had Brimstone missile (or similar) capability it would get an easy win here. Even still, its ability to loiter more with external tanks give it a slight advantage. A Rafale pilot is also far more likely to fly closer to the battlefield, confident that a stray bullet will not bring the fighter down. Advantage: Rafale

Air-to-ground winner: Rafale. While the F-35 may do a fine job at slipping through enemy defenses, the Rafale does a better job at just about everything else when it comes to ground attack. It flies further, can carry more bombs, and its more likely to mix it up with the troops.

Air-to-air:

First look, first kill: The JSF is being marketed with a massive emphasis on its ability "see" everything around it without being detected itself. With an advanced AESA radar, EOTS, and DAS (which replicates IRST) the F-35 certainly will be able to get a good look at what is around it.

While the Rafale lacks the F-35's stealth, but it has a similarly sized AESA radar and a IRST. Part of its SPECTRA suite puts IR sensors high up on both sides of the tail, giving a similar "god's eye view".

The Rafale is certainly good in this department, but the F-35 is just as good if not better, plus it has its stealthy design. Advantage: F-35

Beyond Visual Range: The F-35 pilot better hope it gets a successful sneak attack in, because after that first shot, all bets are off. The Rafale is not just faster in a straight line dash, but it climbs faster and cruises faster as well. On top of that, it will carry the ramjet powered Meteor BVR missiles, which look to be superior to the F-35's AMRAAMs.

Unfortunately for the F-35, it may not even get the chance for that sneak attack. It would likely have to enter into the Rafale's passive sensor range before it gets a clear shot. Its stealth may keep it safer from radar, but not much can be done to shield its big, hot engine.

The Rafale's better high speed performance and better BVR missile make it the easy pick here. Advantage: Rafale

Within Visual Range: By now most have realized my disappointment with the Rafale's current lack of HMD. One has been tested, but it has yet to go operational with one. HMD's really do help a fighter's WVR capability when combined with HOBS missiles. Despite all this, the Rafale is still a very good WVR fighter, with impressive maneuverability, thrust-to-weight, and the ability to fire HOBS missiles with the help of data links and LOAL (lock on after launch capability).
While the F-35 has excellent HOBS potential thanks to its various sensors, it misses the mark somewhat with its disappointing wing loading and thrust to weight numbers. This alone is not enough to delegate it to second-rate WVR status. What does is the fact the F-35 cannot carry an internally mounted WVR weapon. Plans to carry the ASRAAM internally have been shelved. Any F-35 in "stealth" configuration will have to rely strictly on 2 to 4 AMRAAMs.

This is really an "either/or" scenario. If the Rafale had an HMD, it wins. If the F-35 is carrying external WVR missiles, it wins. If we give a "best case scenario" for both aircraft (HMD for the Rafale and WVR missiles for the F-35), then the Rafale wins based on its superior maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio. Advantage: Rafale

Dogfight: Thanks to its close-coupled canard design, the Rafale is just as happy playing it low and slow as it is supercruising. It has plenty of thrust and a big gun. No problems here.

The F-35... Notsomuch. While the F-35 said to match the low speed performance of the F/A-18, there are still concerns about its fragility and its lack of cockpit visibility.

If the JSF pilot finds themselves in a dogfight... They are going to have a bad time. Advantage: Rafale

Air-to-air winner: Rafale. The supercruising, Meteor slinging, tighter turning Rafale gets a clear win here. The F-35 will need to rely on guile and sneak attacks, a tall order given the Rafale's excellent sensors and defensive capabilities.

Versatility/Logistics:

Versatility: Hoo boy... Both of these fighters were designed as "all-in-one" systems capable of fulfilling all of your fighter needs... With a few caveats.

The Rafale has three different flavors available. A single-seat CTOL air force variant, a two-seat CTOL variant, and a single-seat naval variant capable of CATOBAR operations. All versions carry similar weapon loads, with the naval Rafale M sacrificing a weapon pylon.

The Joint Strike Fighter has three versions, the CTOL capable F-35A, the STOVL F-35B, and the CATOBAR F-35C. Sadly, no two-seater versions are available.

So which one is more versatile? If you need a STOVL, then the F-35 is the way to go. Otherwise, a two-seater version may be preferable for both training and high workload tasks. I'm going to give this one to the Rafale since STOVL operations are ratherlimited in real-world usefulness. Advantage: Rafale

Logistics: Long term support is where these two aircraft differ the most. The Rafale is completely single sourced. It is currently in use by a single nation with maybe a second coming soon. Parts and maintenance could be an issue, but Dassault is willing to grant complete access to the Rafale's software and intellectual property. Customer nations have the option of producing any and all spare parts and modifying the software as they see fit.

The F-35 is the polar opposite of this. Parts should be plentiful with JSF squadrons located all over the world. The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin are keeping close tabs on F-35's hardware and software, however. Any modifications to the JSF's hardware or software has to be done through them. This is like taking your laptop back to where you bought it in order to add an external hard drive or to install a new app. Something as simple (yet necessary) as a drag chute might have to wait until Lockheed Martin gets around to it.

Both aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages here. Advantage: Tie

Versatility/Logistics winner: Rafale. It is close, but the availability of a two-seat Rafale gives it a slight edge here.











Final result:


Air-to-ground: F-35 = 1 - Rafale = 3


Air-to-air: F-35 = 1 - Rafale = 3


Versatility/Logistics: F-35 = 1 - Rafale = 2


Final Result: F-35 = 3 - Rafale = 8


Ouch. The F-35 certainly is stealthier than the Rafale, but that is about the only real advantage it has. The makes for a better bomber or air-superiority fighter. The JSF is also hindered by its proprietary maintenance model and its lack of two-seater variant. Sure, it has a STOVL version, but few have need (or the budget) for that capability. Canada was not even considering the STOVL version of the F-35.

The real kicker for the Rafale is how much potential it has. A few simple upgrades and modifications would really put it at the head of the pack. A more "open source" model, with user selected weapons, engines, and avionics would really make it a dream machine for just about any air force in the world.