Canada does not need fighter jets, period - G&M

[mdh]

I've spoken with a couple of my buddies who are fighter pilots and they all say the F35 is hands down the plane we need.  From an operational standpoint it will out perform any competition that it comes up against due to it's advanced computer system which makes it incredibly easy to fly along with the fact that whatever it's going up against will already be dead before it even realizes the F35 is there.

But then you get fighter pilots who say the opposite. It's almost impossible to get a clear picture of this airplane's true capabilities.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/06/f-35-design-problems-make-night-flying-impossible-increase-risk-of-being-shot-down-u-s-pilots-warn/

Link removed because of the author

 

[SupersonicMax]

The first article is useless as the aircraft is still in Operational Testing and night systems will be integrated before FOC.  It is pure anti-JSF BS.

The second article doesn't mention anything new... The F-18 is the same way.  We are a self escort strike but in a high threat environment, we still need Escorts to carry out our mission, same as the F-35, althought the F-35 is a lot more survivable and the definition of High Threat is different....

Having seen it first hand, I can tell you this is what we need for our NORAD mission and for our Deployed Ops.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

and what about your customers? do their opinions matter? For Canada the equation is simple we are replacing like for a newer like. The question to the RCAF from the army is: Exactly how do you intend to support CAS with the reduced size of the fleet and under what combat conditions will you and won't you support us?

For the US the equation is different they are replacing, like, sort of like and nothing at all alike for a apparently all singing and all dancing platform. So the question above becomes even more pertinent. Is the USAF will to have 12.7, 14.5 and 23mm holes in their new shiny toy and if that does happen, will they come back for more? 

Ok but how is the F35 not a significant improvement over early planes?  The HUD gives 360 degree SA and the display operates much like an IPad with all the information being located in a compact design.  Not to mention the computer does all the meanial tasks which frees up the pilot to focus on flying rather than looking at gauges.  This to me only improves their ability to deliver CAS.

Now of course, being rather expensive, maybe CAS is not the best use for these planes but then again when have we ever used our Air Force in modern times to perform CAS?  Our fighter force is used for OCA, Air Supremacy and Strategic Level Bombing.  Think Gulf War 1, the Balkans and Libya. 

At the end of the day, it's all about effects and how you layer them, our fighter force provides the government with certain effects but we also have other assets that can provide similar effects.  I think looking at procuring a packet of AH's would really close the loop on this CAS argument.  Rather then getting PO'ed at fighters for not providing we should look at procuring AH's to fill that capability gap.

 

[Loachman]

The first article is useless as the aircraft is still in Operational Testing and night systems will be integrated before FOC.  It is pure anti-JSF BS.

Yes.

And exactly the same sort of stuff was excreted by the press when the F18 was at the same stage.

Change the dates of the articles and the designation of the aircraft in them and there is very little difference.

 

[Loachman]

I think looking at procuring a packet of AH's would really close the loop on this CAS argument.  Rather then getting PO'ed at fighters for not providing we should look at procuring AH's to fill that capability gap.

I vote you for King.

 

[GR66]

Thanks ER Campbell, I think that's it. Never have my books when I need em!
...If that thing flies...it would be the Shriner Car of the air. nice!

I shy away from matters of appearance, because when that's all there is, you can't back it up, that said; how much worse, really is a well-maintained 4th Generation fighter with a keen pilot than a 5th generation fighter?

I have see so much competing data on the F-35 vs less advanced  aircraft, I don't want to touch it, suffice to say "the issue is in doubt".

Most of the articles I've read (as noted above) say the F-35 is/will be WAY ahead of any 4th Generation fighter in terms of sensors, data integration and processing/display of information.  The 2nd advantage is the stealth of the aircraft.  On the other hand most accounts unfavourably comparing the F-35 to various 4th Generation fighters seem to focus on flight characteristics...speed, ceiling, turning radius, weapons load, etc. 

As has been discussed in the CAS thread it would seem (in many/most circumstances anyway) that the munition carried by a weapons platform is often more important than the platform itself.  I would suggest that the two strengths of the F-35 are really enablers/enhancers of the weapons that the platform carries.  The vastly improved ability of the F-35 to detect, identify and classify enemy targets at range, along with the stealth ability to get into effective munitions range of that target are what make the F-35 the preferred platform.  By comparison a 4th Generation aircraft with  the ability to move faster, higher, with more agility or carrying more munitions is still much more vulnerable if they can't detect and engage the F-35 first.  I certainly claim no expertise in air combat but I'd guess that most pilots would rather have the combat advantage at long/medium distance missile range over dog fighting range if given the choice.  The experts can certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

Where I see the problem with the F-35 program is that they have maybe tried to do too much at once, opting for a revolutionary improvement instead of an evolutionary improvement over existing aircraft.  By choosing to give the F-35 both the advance sensor systems AND a brand new stealth platform (AND commonality between the conventional/VSTOL/carrier versions AND a new plug and play architecture) they have created a project that will of course be extremely expensive.  It also increases the project risk because failure of any one of the elements (sensors, stealth, airframe, etc.) might significantly reduce the advantage of the F-35 over enemy aircraft.

A safer (and much cheaper) approach might have been to work on just one element at a time.  Say develop an existing airframe with the sensors planned for the F-35.  Or maybe develop a new Stealthy common airframe using existing sensor technology.  Once either of those projects are completed you could then work on the next version which adds the next portion of the development.  Either of these evolutionary steps would likely be cheaper and less risky than the F-35, but they would also offer less potential advantage over the competition.  They could do the same thing and evolve their aircraft to match your upgrades.  With the F-35 doing everything at once however you have the potential of leaping ahead of the competition and having the dominant platform for a much longer period of time while the enemy tries to catch up.  In the meantime you would be working on the next revolutionary leap ahead to maintain your dominance.

The problem for Canada is that while the evolutionary approach probably makes more sense in our fiscally constrained small military world, the revolutionary approach is quite possibly the smarter approach for the US and the "West" writ large.  We could certainly look at evolutionary options from other aircraft manufacturers and (hopefully) stretch our defense dollars further, but we'd have to accept that our aircraft would be inferior to the F-35 and would be much more vulnerable to our potential enemies. 

I "get" the F-35 concept.  I "get" why proponents are so keen on the aircraft.  I'm however less certain of what the best choice for Canada is.  Would the cost savings of an evolved 4th Generation fighter be enough to offset the increased vulnerability in combat?  Much smarter people than me will have to make that decision.

 

[Loachman]

Would the cost savings of an evolved 4th Generation fighter be enough to offset the increased vulnerability in combat?

What cost savings?

By buying older technology, we'd just have to replace it sooner, or end up with aging orphan fleets that we cannot economically support because nobody has made parts for years.

I will swim against the current and predict that F35 will end up both the cheapest and most effective solution.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin P,

CAS is ONE of the many roles we have (and it is not our primary one).  While you are right, planes don't hold ground, a government may not need traditionnal ground forces altogether to achieve political objectives in certain theaters. 

On the question getting more of a cheaper airplane I ask you:  Which one is cheaper than what the JSF is going to cost?

Considering the way the role will be handled in the future, I think "Close Air support" as a term is outdated. It implies you will be flying in low attacking targets directly with gun, missiles, rockets and bombs. It is would be better to use a term like "Air Support Bombing" because that is likely what you will do 97%. I just don't see the RCAF or USAF willing to risk a F35 getting taken out by a lucky burst from a quad 23mm while doing a gun run.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Colin P,

CAS is ONE of the many roles we have (and it is not our primary one).  While you are right, planes don't hold ground, a government may not need traditionnal ground forces altogether to achieve political objectives in certain theaters.

On the question getting more of a cheaper airplane I ask you:  Which one is cheaper than what the JSF is going to cost?

Bingo!  Think strategically, folks.

 

[FSTO]

Maybe a little off topic but this should worry many pilots who will be relying on this "stealth" technology to get them safely back from a mission.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2014/07/pivoting-with-your-shoes-untied.html

There is one area that we have competitive advantage against, well, the entire world.

Our advantage is the battle tested, mature and highly effective land attack cruise missile. There is no other similar weapon with the bonafides of the Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (TLAM). Some claim, but non can prove.

Sure, like the Harpoon it is old and slow - but it works and is good and better than something PPT thick.

The exceptionally reliable fire-and-forget drone would, on the surface, seem to be the one capability we would want to keep. Relative long range, unmanned, precise, and with the right warhead choice - exceptionally flexible across a wide range of targeting requirements.

As we move/pivot towards a dangerous world, as outlined by our friend Seth Cropsey over at DefenseNews;

... the Defense Department demurred when the Navy asked for an additional 980 TLAMs to increase its inventory of the most up-to-date model. Not only was the request denied, the decision was taken to end production of the Tomahawk in fiscal 2016. No more orders for the missile would be placed after the autumn of 2015.

The termination followed a December DoD decision to cut the number of TLAMs to be ordered from 4,900 to 3,700. No strategic justification was offered to account for the reduction.

Where does this leave the US? The opening salvo of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in 2003, expended well over 800 TLAMs. Twelve years earlier, 250 missiles were fired during Operation Desert Storm. Including operations in Kosovo and the 1998 strike against Iraqi sites suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, the average use of the weapon rounds out at something between 100 and 200 per year.
He forgot my baby, DESERT FOX at over 325, but let's continue;

The current Block 4 model, which features improved navigation, anti-jamming and retarget­ing systems, began to be delivered 10 years ago. It should be capable of performing combat missions for 30 years if properly maintained, including a recertification at the midpoint of its service life. The midpoint for the first Block 4 Tomahawks will occur in 2019.

But if, as the Defense Department now plans, no more missiles will be ordered after fiscal 2015, the technicians, engineers and contractors who must recertify the missiles will have long since vacated to find other work.
Is this a smart risk to take? Not if you want to avoid having to put pilots across the beach to take our static targets and want a hedge against the next generation of armed drones - or as I like to call them, reusable TLAM.

FSTO EDIT Love this quote from Gates
President Obama’s first secretary of defense, Robert Gates, noted in an April 2014 interview in the US military’s Stars and Stripes, “when it comes to predicting where and how we’re going to use military force next over the last 40 years since Vietnam, we have a perfect record: We haven’t gotten it right once.”

Gates added, “you can’t just predict these things [i.e. the use of force], and we need to recognize our inability to predict them.”

 

[CombatMacguyver]

Most people are not interested in sovereignty. Many cannot even spell it.

Most just want "free stuff" from governments, but are not motivated enough to even go after that if they can't get an app to do it on their I-phones. Those with a clue are trying to protect their hard-earned money from being gouged by governments in order to pay for "free stuff" that will buy them votes.

People should have to earn the right to vote, like in Starshp Troopers.

Having just re-read Heinlen's Starship Troopers, I completely agree.  Hell, pretty much everything from that book should be actioned.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Considering the way the role will be handled in the future, I think "Close Air support" as a term is outdated. It implies you will be flying in low attacking targets directly with gun, missiles, rockets and bombs. It is would be better to use a term like "Air Support Bombing" because that is likely what you will do 97%. I just don't see the RCAF or USAF willing to risk a F35 getting taken out by a lucky burst from a quad 23mm while doing a gun run.

A good example of some recent combined arms activity which seems to be supported through some 'close support precision bombing'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695422/Hamas-Israel-resume-attacks-brief-truce.html

 

[Shrek1985]

Having just re-read Heinlen's Starship Troopers, I completely agree.  Hell, pretty much everything from that book should be actioned.

I am seeing more and more support for RAH's ideas all over.

I agree with the attack helicopter comment above as well. A damn shame the AH-56 was cancelled, something like that would really close the CAS gap.

As for the F-35...modern equipment in general, I have noticed a trend, as a weapons geek over the last 12-15 years that it has become hard and harder exponentially to get accurate, reliable information. The F-35 is pinacle of the problem. What is real? what is disinformation? what is MFG hype? Impossible to tell anymore. My gut and experience tell me it's probably a lemon, but may not be. That point matters a lot.

The problem is numbers and training. 56-65 is not enough. I know our pilots want the best. We can't afford enough of the best to matter. Sorry, go join the USAF if you want to fly the best and newest, this is canada, we can't afford it. Not in numbers to keep away from quantitative incompetence.

The training thing really worries me as well and it's been a common theme, which is hard to refute; with 65 airframes of the F-35 type, will we be able to get our pilots enough training time to keep them sharp? even if you can refute it, I return to the issue of numbers, which feeds back into training and maintainance. We're going to need to fly the wings off 65 planes to even keep of the barest of appearances for civies.

 

[eliminator]

The training thing really worries me as well and it's been a common theme, which is hard to refute; with 65 airframes of the F-35 type, will we be able to get our pilots enough training time to keep them sharp? even if you can refute it, I return to the issue of numbers, which feeds back into training and maintainance. We're going to need to fly the wings off 65 planes to even keep of the barest of appearances for civies.

With the training bit, from what I've been hearing is that the F35 will rely heavily on simulator-based training like never before. To the extent that "training squadrons" will cease to exist. That fact alone (in the minds of the politicians) significantly reduces the aircraft order. Oh and the magically high serviceability rate that the program is touting.  The "65" number is a result of some interesting assumptions.

 

[FSTO]

With the training bit, from what I've been hearing is that the F35 will rely heavily on simulator-based training like never before. To the extent that "training squadrons" will cease to exist. That fact alone (in the minds of the politicians) significantly reduces the aircraft order. Oh and the magically high serviceability rate that the program is touting.  The "65" number is a result of some interesting assumptions.

And we all know the sayings about assuming.

The RCN tried to go all simulator with it's MARS training after the retirement of the training squadron. The results were less than what was hoped. There is now a combination of Simulator, PCT's and MCDV's prior to the officers getting into the fleet.

I have a feeling that the F35 is being oversold and will underdeliver. Nothing to back it up. Just a gut feeling.

 

[Loachman]

I have a feeling that the F35 is being oversold and will underdeliver. Nothing to back it up. Just a gut feeling.

Everybody knew that about the F18 in the late seventies and first year or two of the eighties, too.

 

[Navy_Pete]

And we all know the sayings about assuming.

The RCN tried to go all simulator with it's MARS training after the retirement of the training squadron. The results were less than what was hoped. There is now a combination of Simulator, PCT's and MCDV's prior to the officers getting into the fleet.

I have a feeling that the F35 is being oversold and will underdeliver. Nothing to back it up. Just a gut feeling.

Recently the RAN started awarding BWK simulators to their MARS officers based solely on simulator training in a pilot program.  Wasn't able to find out how that turned out yet, but they seemed to be pretty keen on it.

Based on the abuse the ORCAs take and some of the things I've seen BWKs do, a bit more simulator time might not be a bad thing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I see a lot of stuff crossing my desk done on the big ship simulators to see how ideas work when designing terminals for large ships. Simulators are great and a useful tool, but when you depend to heavily on them you are doing a disservice.

 

[YZT580]

The airlines started relying heavily on simulator training at least two decades ago.  The result is a whole bunch of real good pilots until something happens that they haven't simulated very much.  Then they are not so good.  Air France for example.  Your basic pilot would have stuffed the nose and built up airspeed but that wasn't the procedure that they did in the simulator.  Several other accidents have been preventable with a little bit of basic airmanship common sense.  So what happens in combat to an F35 driver who hasn't flown that particular exercise in a while and is up against a good pilot with lots of stick time in a more maneuverable, faster airframe that isn't linked to an overhead C & C flight?  If the initial missile shots have either missed or been jammed he will get his ass waxed because his advantage is now gone and he is in an inferior airplane.  The advantage of the F35 is the computers: take away or defeat the linkage and it is 65 million dollars worth of a basically crummy airframe and you can bet that all the potential opponents are busy right now figuring out ways to get inside the computers.

 

[FSTO]

Everybody knew that about the F18 in the late seventies and first year or two of the eighties, too.

I had better feelings about the Hornet, which was a purpose built Navy F/B with a couple of engines and that it had real competition with the Eagle, Falcon and (I think) the Mirage.
F35 is..... something and my biggest issue is the single engine.