[saturn_656]

uwish wrote:

well if there are just shy of 80 operational CF-18's you could make the argument that this airframe's capability makes up for the -15 jets in numbers. I think the actual operational current strength is 76, so really 10 jets shy.

You also have to look at the inevitable attrition we will experience over the service life of the plane and (god forbid) any combat losses.

Over the service life of the CF-18 for example, we've lost 18 aircraft. That's three quarters of a RCAF squadron worth of planes.

We started with 138 CF-18's, now have less than 80 operational. What is our CF-35 fleet going to look like 25 or 30 years down the road?

I read somewhere, a statement (from an air force officer) that indicated 65 fighters is the bare minimum the RCAF requires.

[uwish]

I agree with you. There will be attrition for various reasons, accidents or losses will occur. I think your pointing out what many people have also agreed with, there is no contingency for any losses here at all.

[uwish]

PS just as an aside, I got confirmation today from a senior former colleague at air command HQ in Winnipeg that there are only 77 operations Cf-18's. Only 80 were 'modernized' and we have had 3 loses since the modernization. He seems to personally think that a force less than 75 is not really operational but that was his personal opinion and not one of the RCAF.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

I still say SuperHornets. It's a no-brainer.



-J.