F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets are priced at $55 Million each…….

Really? Good luck then operating those jets from St. Louis, MO without any training, support, spares, or weapons. Here’s what you actually might pay: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6619
Thats “approximately AUD$2.9bn with the United States Navy for the acquisition of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets and associated support systems. Additional cases will be established later this year for weapons acquisition and sustainment of the aircraft.” Further: “The total program investment is approximately $6 billion over 10 years, which includes acquisition and all support costs as well as personnel.” I’ll leave it to you to figure out how much that is exactly in USD. Hint: a little bit more than 55 million.

(About twice that amount.)

Fewest kills wouldn’t be no kills at all but one and the only fighter that comes to mind is the F-100, shot down a MiG-17 over Vietnam apparently: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_243.shtml

In Canadas case, no, it aint, the main task there is interception, and with an operational cost higher,
but (intercept) performance lower, it just aint.

How is interception performance lower when an armed F-35 is faster and offers more range?
True the F404-400 equipped F-18 is not the yardstick for modern fighter performance but it is what Canada currently flies and at least the F-35 managed to beat that.

Here’s a quote from an article in Combat Aircraft Nov. 2014, from a Dutch F-35 pilot: “The F-35A turns like a heavyweight F-16, but climbs, descends and accelerates like a clean one.” I would read that as mixed signals…

I don;t get it, your posting KNOWN stats from the OPERATIONAL F-18 E/F, and that is great…BUT remembering that the F18 E/F has no “stealth”, and does carry all it;s ordnance on EXTERNAL pylons…

Yes and the effects are clearly visible. What is there not to get? You said the F-18E at Mach 1.8 beats the F-35 which is not the case when armed.

it being armed with ANY variety of missiles up to and including the new AIM 9X or METEOR ,

Meteor? Actually, the F-35 is supposed to get the Meteor, no plans for the F-18 that I’m aware of.

it sure doesn;t do to baddly….where as you post TOTALLY UNKNOWN stats for the F35…no actual facts to back up your claim at all….

I did not post any stats for the F-35 (the other graph is for the F-18A-D) but the F-35 did demonstrate a top speed of Mach 1.6+, for all I can remember. Meaning in the real world its faster than the Hornet which is all I wanted to point out.
That being said, compared to other jets, the F-35 with 6 AAMs probably has an inferior flight envelope.

the “IF they manage” for the F35 or the “IF they find a way” doesn’t cut the mustard…speculation and “plans” mean nothing..it is not indesputable FACT, it remains speculation..there for, in reality, NOTHING about the F35 is “better” than any existing aircraft, not because it doesn;t have the POTENTIAL, but it cannot be measured on what it has NOT accomplished…therefore anything relating to it is speculated, not fact based. Someday, I am sure that the F35 will be spectacular, will that make it the right choice for every Country?…no, will it be great plane capable of living up to it;s EXPECTED / POTENTIAL capabilities, I am sure it will…but until measurable ability is met, it remains in the realm of estimated / expected potential, not fact.

I’m sorry ,but that is how my mind works, I cannot look at promises and expectations on paper and take that as fact…..it;s like saying a teenager has the POTENTIAL to get high 90’s for marks in all subjects at school, however, in reality his performance is much different, gaining 50’s and 60’s. So he still retains the POTENTIAL, but FACTUAL PERFORMANCE is markedly less. So what is the end result for the student?…..does he graduate on POTENTIAL or Factually graded ability and effort….was the discrepancy between the POTENTIAL and the Factual Ability caused by over assessment of the Potential initially, where all the factors accounted for? or was it that the student simply didn;t try because he found teenage girls more interesting…

I know, a bizzare way of explaining it…….I guess the old adage ” a bird in the hand, is better than two in the Bush”….fact vs. speculation

I get your point but if you only want something proven, the choice is limited pretty much to the F-15, F-16, F-18EF and Rafale. The first two probably are not realistic options (though I’d like to see an Eagle in RCAF markings 🙂 ) which leaves us with either the Super Hornet or the Rafale. Gripen E will not be ready before 2018, Typhoon lacks true multirole capacity.
Chances are though that by the time Canada will phase out the CF-18, all of the above will be ready (minus the F-16 probably, out of production). Even the F-35 because uncle sam relies on it and has to make it work.

for Canada, Super Hornets, Gripens or Rafael’s are all much better choices for Canada…by the way, SAAB offered full production IN country, full upgrades every two years etc…and so did the French with their Rafaels……….the USA, nope…just “some” parts made in Canada….and never ending costs…….

You do realise the Gripen is a single engined jet, right?

By the way, when Canada opted to go with the F18’s, we where offered the F16’s, the F15’s and any number of other airframes…..the F15’s where NOT what we wanted…to big, to expensive and high maintenance….F16’s were discounted SOULY on being single engined!…..so for canada to do a complete reversal for a “single engined” airframe of untried and untested reliabilty, because, lets face it NONE have flown in combat, NONE have enough time on the airframe or powerplant to get realistic information on maintenance etc……

Solely? Better radar, better armament (an interceptor without BVR armament?) and allegedly better offsets might have favoured the Hornet aswell I imagine…

The best choice for a pure interceptor nowadays would be an advanced F-15 model imho. Offers the best range, speed and radar performance. Probably not more expensive to run than an F-18E/F.
For expeditionary stuff, the F-35 sure has its advantages as it eases cooperation. There are 6 CF-18s in the Baltics right now and 6 more are on their way to Kuwait. If you don’t expect similar deployments to disappear for the next 40 years, the F-35 might be the best option.

In that video, looks like it’s carrying a special weapon at the 1 minute mark, and later at 10:25.
Didn’t know about the landing gear mods, but at least the F-5s look reasonable, look at those huge fairings on the A-4 :highly_amused:

And thanks for the report from Brazil. I see the F-5EM doesn’t have the shark nose and the larger LERX. Have those ever been considered? And anyone know what’s the story behind the two different tail fin bases?

Not to mention the old century series interceptors (F-101, F-102, F-106).

Interceptors. Fighters always carried their missiles externally. If bays truly were better, all the engineers designing those fighters up to the F-22 must have been stupid. For stealth designs, the drawbacks of internal carriage have been outweighed.