except that their major use is at home defence.. no need for “lowest rcs”… Canada is not USA… they don’t (and never won’t) spend their time going around the planet bombing various countries that most of their cutizens have no clue where they are.

It might be worth educating yourself on how Canadian Hornets have been used operationally for the last 30 years, a hint is that most of it starts with “bomb” and ends in “ing”…

The operational history section on the wiki page should be a good first start. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

even for a nation: you need to plan beyond your next election. That’s the main advantage of the Rafale program over the Typhoon one: the french keep fundings (albeit low and slow) so that new capabilities keep being added and developed continuously regardless if it was for this mandate, or the next, or the one beyond…

Of course, funding development while removed capabilities from new production aircraft such as a dedicated IRST…

It would be quite funny if Australia took the opportunity to be an all F-35 force now that the F-35 is near Block 3F and the prices have stabilized.

The most recent whitepaper was clear that the SH will stay in RAAF service until the late 20s, at which time a decision will be made to replace with another squadron of F-35. Growler will be around for longer but I see little incentive to keep SH past that date. The airframe will be due a mid life upgrade and it will be significantly cheaper in the long run to acquire additional F-35, especially given expected capability/engine upgrades.

Canadian companies are already benefiting from the F35 program investment. The Gripen is still very much in play. The Typhoon and Rafale are out.

Ginner it is really simple. For Canada to stay in the JSF partnership they have to order the jet. Canadian companies will not be allowed to bid on contracts if they purchase another aircraft. This short term purchase, lease, acquisition whatever gives them the ability, as with the RAAF, to extend the replacement schedule.

If in 2020 Canada chooses a different fighter to the F-35, Canadian companies will not receive any future work. Given that would exclude them from the manufacture and sustainment of at least an additional 1500 airframes against perhaps 40-60 Gripen, economically it is not the best option for Canadian Industry.

Looks like Canada is going to purchase 18 Super Hornets and push the start of the classic Hornet replacement back at least another 3-4 years…

The Liberal government says it will begin the process of buying 18 Boeing Super Hornet jet fighters to meet what it deems to be the urgent needs of the air force, but was unable to say Tuesday when the aircraft will be purchased and how much they will cost.

In addition, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced the Trudeau government will launch a full-fledged replacement program for the entire existing fleet of CF-18s before the end of the end of its term in three or four years.

He promised an “open and transparent competition” to replace the aging fighters — purchased in the 1980s — and said the decision must be guided by the country’s defence needs, which are still being formulated.

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

Significantly, he added that the competition will produce “a new fleet that will be fully operational in the late 2020s,” which pushes the transition to new jets further into the future than the former Conservative government had planned. The previous government had planned to stop flying the current fleet by 2025.

“That means we must continue to fly the legacy CF-18s throughout the 2020s, no matter what,” said Sajjan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210

What does this mean for Canadian international deployments? IMO Canada will acquire those 18 SH, would bet my house they will be F models, for the sole purpose of deploying overseas on operations and keep the classic Hornets for NORAD duties, managing the fleet to get remaining flight hours. I also expect the Canadians to use either US Navy or RAAF flight training and conduct no training themselves.

Well if you look at the figures, all 3 Eurocanards are export flops and the worst flops is the Typhoon.

Your numbers ignore the economic investment required to get to the point of export. Each of the Eurofighter nations input around 5 billion or less in total funding for development. Sweden didn’t develop even half the jet or its systems and a decent proportion of those manufactured jets are no longer in service compared to Rafale and Eurofighter. Comparatively, France had to outlay the entire development cost of the jet and the engine, somewhere around US$20 billion.

I would like to see your analysis take those figures into consideration.

We know the French and Brits clashed over the design of the Eurofighter and France went their own way. Now in hindsight, both fighters are more or less the same, with Rafale being slightly better in A2G and carrier capable, and EF being slightly better in A2A and not carrier capable.
I would also have to agree, I don’t think Spain, Italy or Germany would’ve cared if it was Typhoon or Rafale in the end.

They argument for the Eurofighter over Rafale was always about economic considerations and little about capability. Economic considerations aside, the primary French arguments was the weight of the aircraft and the type of engine. France wanted a smaller lighter aircraft but the result was both airframes being 10-15% heavier than proposed and within 2000 lbs of each other. France also recognised how important the engine program was and that losing prime on that contract would have resulted in essentially being shut out of modern fighter engine design.

read the first 30 pages of this link to get an idea of the original contest and arguments, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/2006/RGSD106.pdf

What Spain, Germany and Italy did get was reduced development costs from the Eurofighter consortium. It is France who has paid the penalty for leaving, paying for the whole development of the aircraft and engine by itself and being unable to capture anywhere near the expected export market.

I also don’t think the French needed a carrier capable aircraft, they could have and almost did buy F/A-18s (see above link). They already operate a multi fighter fleet, it would have mattered little to introduce the F/A-18 into the mix, especially given the capability the Hornet would have provided from day one.