F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[The Bread Guy]

The Auditor Generals report on the F-35 buy is due in a few weeks.

That makes me wonder more about a possible :foilhat: reason for the change of messaging....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Only the F-35 extends the capabilities envelope.

By that logic, "only" MLRS, nuclear submarines, attack helicopters etc would be acceptable.  The reason we don't have those ca[pabilities is that we cannot afford them.  What makes fighters any different?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Since the ISR & EW capabilities  on the F-35 are a closely guarded secret, we don't know for sure.

One thing we do know is there is a better chance of the Buds winning back to back Cups happening before Canada will acquire any dedicated ISR and or EW aircraft. Not going to happen

If we acquire other aircraft  we get a repeat of CF-18 capabilities.  Only the F-35 extends the capabilities envelope.

Makes know sense for Canada to acquire lesser capability aircraft that will be obsolete in a few years - especially if they already cost more.

Other than the Stealth, what makes the F-35 important is the sensors and if I recall correctly there is an effort to fit the same level of sensors into the Super Hornet, plus over the life of the Aircraft that we choose, the ability of sensors to collect information will expand and likely with a weight loss benefit. So if we were to buy a non-F35 airframe , there is nothing to say that a mid life may give it advantages that out strips the current abilities of the F-35. In fact I suspect that someone right now could even plot the likely benefit curve even without a radical invention being thrown into the mix.

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't think Boeing is going to be able to release a "mid-life upgrade" kit that gives the Super Hornet stealth capabilities. What are they going to make, bolt on panels?

 

[Journeyman]

OK...again....talk us (me) through an adversary's capability and credible threat (or even risk) scenario, that Canada must have a Gen 5 fighter to lead in a 'stealth' environment, where the USAF would not have already cleared the path.

In a similar high-risk environment (and I'm thinking, at the time, Kosovo and/or Gulf War 1 AND 2), did the US not take the lions' share of the burden? Would any imaginative scenario you come up with be different?



Edit: big words got away from me

 

[PuckChaser]

Well, if we're going to just let the US handle everything we should sell off the Globemasters and get rid of the armed Griffons because we can just let them do our heavy lift and armed escorts for us. If we cheap out and get a Gen 4 fighter when a Gen 5 was just as affordable and met our operational requirements, and that Gen 4 is shot down because it was detected before our pilot got a shot off, do you want to be the guy that goes with the Padre to that pilot's spouse and say "Sorry, we thought we'd save some cash by buying old design fighters".

 

[aesop081]

I don't think Boeing is going to be able to release a "mid-life upgrade" kit that gives the Super Hornet stealth capabilities. What are they going to make, bolt on panels?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/farnborough/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3Aaf81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2Post%3Afeb0685f-4b71-457a-8b95-db6887068567

 

[The Bread Guy]

From Question Period yesterday, this time from the PM:

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, on the subject of electoral fraud, the Prime Minister, on April 8, 2011, in the middle of the election campaign, talked about the F-35 contract. He said, “the contract we've signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs. We're very confident of our cost estimates”. His ministers are telling us now that there is no contract, that there is no assurance with respect to cost and, in fact, that signing a contract is a matter of if and when.

    Was the Prime Minister telling the truth when he spoke to the people of Canada on April 8, 2011, about a so-called contract, yes or no?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of public record. At the time, I was referring to a memorandum of understanding. It has not been a secret that the government has not signed a contract. The fact is our country does not pay any increase on the development cost. That is the arrangement. It is also a fact that we have provisioned in our budget funds for future aircraft and we are prepared to live within that budget.

And what Associate Minister Fantino had to say:

The Royal Canadian Air Force plays a vital role in protecting our sovereignty and defending our interests at home and abroad. Canada's CF-18s are nearing the end of their usable lives. Canada is one of nine partner nations in the F-35 program, and has been so for 15 years.

    However, a contract has not been signed for replacement aircraft. We have set a budget for replacement aircraft. We have been clear that we will operate within that budget.

    We will continue to ensure our men and women receive the tools they need to carry out the jobs we ask of them.

(….)

    Mr. Speaker, there was a time when a whole lot of noise was coming from the member opposite about there not being any other plan. Now that we have one, we are being criticized. That is the no defence party attitude.

    Our position has not changed. We remain committed to the joint strike fighter program, as have the other partners. A budget has been allocated. We have not as yet signed an order for any aircraft.

(….)

    Mr. Speaker, I have been clear in the past and I will repeat. When the current aircraft come to the end of their useful lives, we will ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best equipment necessary to do the important job we ask of them.

    However, a contract for replacement aircraft has not as yet been signed.

(….)

    Mr. Speaker, stating comments by the member opposite does not make them true. The member opposite criticizes but demonstrates very little knowledge about the intricacies of this particular program. Yesterday he expressed surprise that we had not signed a contract, saying it was astounding.

    Canada has been involved in this project since 1997. We are not backing out. We are being careful about spending taxpayers' money, making sure we do the absolute right thing for our men and women in the military, as well as for all Canadians.

And a bit more from the Associate Minister:

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, for 18 months now, the Liberals have been telling the Minister of National Defence that there must be a tendering process to replace the CF-18. But the minister insists that the F-35 is the only aircraft capable of doing the job. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars here.

    The minister likes to spring to his feet 10 seconds before the end of the question in order to give the impression that he knows his files. I am asking him to spring to his feet today and tell us that the F-35 is the only aircraft capable of replacing the CF-18.

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Liberals initiated Canada's involvement in the joint strike fighter program in 1997, and in so doing committed over $100 million to get things started. Now they are turning their backs on the program. They have cold feet and they are flip-flopping. We are not. We remain committed to making sure our men and women in the military have the absolutely right tools to do their jobs and do so for the good of Canadians.

 

[WingsofFury]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/farnborough/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3Aaf81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2Post%3Afeb0685f-4b71-457a-8b95-db6887068567

From Boeing...

The company wants a customer to fund more development and integration and test the improvements.

Do we really want to be the guinea pig, and even moreso, can we afford to be?

 

[PuckChaser]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/farnborough/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3Aaf81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2Post%3Afeb0685f-4b71-457a-8b95-db6887068567

So we bail on an aircraft because we think the testing program that's already underway is going to put things behind schedule and make it more expensive to buy onto an aircraft that may or may not be able to develop stealth capabilities and will only start when they start having money pumped into it by the partner nation?

 

[observor 69]

OK...again....talk us (me) through an adversary's capability and credible threat (or even risk) scenario, that Canada must have a Gen 5 fighter to lead in a 'stealth' environment, where the USAF would not have already cleared the path.

In a similar high-risk environment (and I'm thinking, at the time, Kosovo and/or Gulf War 1 AND 2), did the US not take the lions' share of the burden? Would any imaginative scenario you come up with be different?



Edit: big words got away from me

I challenge anyone to respond to Journeyman's points with an equally intelligent  comment defending a "it's F-35 and nothing else" argument.

 

[aesop081]

So we bail on an aircraft because we think the testing program that's already underway is going to put things behind schedule and make it more expensive to buy onto an aircraft that may or may not be able to develop stealth capabilities and will only start when they start having money pumped into it by the partner nation?

Just responding to your "What's Boeing gonna do" comment. Nothing else.

 

[WingsofFury]

I cannot profess expertise, so recognize my words as those of a layman and as a concerned taxpayer. And I'm not saying that capabilities are completely unneeded, but that the desirability of some capabilities is outweighed by the dual concerns of other capabilities of higher importance, and the detrimental effect on the total fleet of buying a smaller number of highly technological planes that are likely overkill for much of what we do.

Don't worry, I'm not professing expertise either.  I'm just looking at things from a different point of view than you are. 

The first and foremost one is that I don't see the need for what is, in effect, a 'first strike' aircraft designed to penetrate air defense. Nice capability to have? crap yet. But it's coming at the cost of more airframes that would in any realistic context likely be just as effective at the more realistic tasks our jets will face- defending our airspace as part of NORAD in combination with ground based radar and AWACS, and providing support to either coalition tactical bombing operations or close air support of our own troops in permissive airspace that the Americans have already swept clean.

You're not the first to believe that this plane is a first strike aircraft.  Might I stipulate that, based on what we've all seen recently in Libya, that the first strike role will always be handled by either B-2's or Tomahawk cruise missiles, and get your reaction to that?  As well, I would put forth to you that it isn’t the “stealth” properties of the aircraft which are resulting in the cost overruns.  Finally, the decision to be a first strike nation entirely depends on a political decision to be involved.  Just because we have hardware that could be used in a certain way doesn’t mean that we’ll ever have the political will to use it.

When it comes to defending our airspace, we shouldn’t even be talking about the planes stealth capabilities as they won’t be used for such a purpose.  As we know, the USAF is using their F-22’s for Combat Air Patrols (CAP) and they outfit them with external tanks and AMRAAM’s, thus nullifying their stealth capabilities.

With regards to coalition bombing ops or CAS of our own troops, I would put forth that new, mobile SAM technologies will always remain a threat to any aircraft in theatre.  Giving the pilot a low observable (LO) aircraft would ensure that he/she is properly protected against such a threat, something which current airframes cannot provide.

…not be worth fewer aircraft that don't really excel in any one thing in particular.

I think that the reality is such that we will never buy an aircraft that excels at one thing in particular, but rather, we buy a multirole plane that allows us to defend our airspace and that also allows us to support NATO or UN missions which we find ourselves part of.  That’s why planes like the Raptor, Eurofighter, and Tornado, aren’t part of the conversation – along with other factors such as cost (Eurofighter is more expensive than the F-35A), unattainability (US won’t sell any Raptors), and age (Tornado is on its last legs).

The acquisition of F-35 touts interoperability with other air forces, and in that signs its own condemnation- we will realistically not be working without the Americans in any operation where the need to suppress air defense and win an air war is there, and so why pretend we'll ever be in a position to do it as well as they can?

I’m sorry, but I adamantly disagree with you.  Suppression of enemy air defences, or SEAD, will always play a part in any situation we find ourselves in.  As well, the notion that we “can’t do it as well as they can” is misplaced.  I think we can do it just as well as they can, and our pilots demonstrate that ability every time they enter a conflict zone.

Better that we can provide our own very credible contribution to other tasks- the opportunity cost of a cutting adge aircraft is damned high, and only getting higher. There are other airframes out there that have what it is we're looking for, and the electronic guts can be developed to bring them up to snuff in areas where the F-35 has them beat currently.

A few points…

You’re right – the cost is high.  But at least with the F-35 we’re not picking up the development tab – something that we would be doing with both the Super Hornet International Roadmap and the F-15 Silent Eagle.  That would be costing us more money…so how would that be better?

With regards to the “electronic guts” being developed to bring them up to snuff to compete with the F-35, I think that would be a long way off.  Lockheed Martin has the Distributed Aperture System working well, and a couple of us believe that is what truly sets the F-35 apart from everything else flying.  In my opinion, I don’t think Lockheed Martin would ever sell that type of technology independently, as a standalone item.  I might be wrong, and may be proven wrong by Lockheed, but I’ll wait until that day happens to say that I was wrong.

Thanks for sharing your points of view, hope you enjoy mine!

 

[WingsofFury]

OK...again....talk us (me) through an adversary's capability and credible threat (or even risk) scenario, that Canada must have a Gen 5 fighter to lead in a 'stealth' environment, where the USAF would not have already cleared the path.

In a similar high-risk environment (and I'm thinking, at the time, Kosovo and/or Gulf War 1 AND 2), did the US not take the lions' share of the burden? Would any imaginative scenario you come up with be different?

In Gulf War 1, the Coalition lost 52 fixed-wing aircraft and 23 helicopters during Desert Storm, with 39 fixed-wing aircraft and 5 helicopters lost in combat. One coalition fighter may have been lost in air-air combat, a U.S. Navy F/A-18 piloted by Scott Speicher. Other claims include an RAF Tornado GR.1A piloted by Gary Lennox and Adrian Weeks however the Tornado in question crashed to the ground due to pilot error on a different date than the supposed air-to-air kill is claimed to have taken place. One B-52G was lost while returning to its operating base on Diego Garcia, when it suffered a catastrophic electrical failure and crashed into the Indian Ocean killing 3 of the 6 crew members on board. The rest of the Coalition losses came from anti-aircraft fire. The Americans lost 28 fixed-wing aircraft and 5 helicopters; the British lost 7 fixed-wing aircraft; the Saudi Arabians lost 2; the Italians lost 1; and the Kuwaitis lost 1.

With regards to Kosovo, a USAF F-117 and F-16 were shot down by forces using mobile SAM sites.  There was also a second F-117 which took enough damage that rendered it unflyable after it returned to base.  All of this happened after the US had "cleared the path".

Would suggest you read the link posted below, and then ask yourself what the results would be like if the coalition were to go into countries with even more advanced SAM weaponry.

Enemy Methods

The Iraqis and Serbs both used Soviet-designed and supplied antiaircraft missilesand artillery. Both missile types that shot down USAF airplanes over the former Yugoslavia had also destroyed USAF airplanes over Iraq. Although the hardware was basically the same, the Iraqis and Serbs used different methods.

Link -> http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070912-043.pdf

 

[Journeyman]

SAMs will always be a threat, and technology is always move/counter-move/counter-counter-move.

If I can steal a line from Colin S. Gray, "...although it is sensible to anticipate growth in the lethality if late-model air defences, there are no very good grounds for pessimism over the prospects for US airpower to achieve tolerable survivability by tactical skill and technical excellence."1 Aircraft do get shot down, with the odds increasing as you go against a more technologically competent adversary. For that reason offensive air operations occur as a complete strike package; the USN will launch EA-6B and F-18 together for SEAD, with E-2C for airborne control, and F-18s for the actual strike. They don't pretend to have one all-singing/all-dancing aircraft that will do it all. But yes, even after a SEAD package goes through, aircraft get shot down. It's a reality that I understand. If that is unacceptable, then get out of the "in harm's way" business.



What I'm saying is, in the long run aircraft type is of lesser significance than getting the strategy right -- what do we want our aircraft to accomplish? Sure, I'd love to have the coolest, latest technology, but in the absence of justification -- ok, rational justification (wringing one's hands and saying "do you want to go with the Padre..." doesn't cut it) -- I've still not seen anything to warrant that sort of expenditure.


1. Colin S. Gray, "Understanding Airpower: Bonfire of the Fallacies," Strategic Studies Quarterly, Winter 2008, 74.

 

[Kirkhill]

JM,

True that technology constantly evolves in "tactical bounds" as everyone searches for an open flank, but unlike the "Race to the sea" the search is not defined by a clear limit.

Would you trust to a fleet of "little Willies" or even LAVs to bring you success against an enemy equipped with Javelins held at the Section level?  Or would you want something a bit more robust even though you know that as soon as you field the latest and greatest someone will be fielding a Javelin II with greater range and lethality and at a fraction of the cost?

I don't dispute your emphasis on TTPs but surely even the best TTPs are more successful when founded on the basis of the best available kit? 

2 guid Scots groats. iper:

 

[observor 69]

And we need a few of these too right ?

http://www.vaq132.navy.mil/

Boeing EA-18G Growler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

With regards to Kosovo, a USAF F-117 and F-16 were shot down by forces using mobile SAM sites.  There was also a second F-117 which took enough damage that rendered it unflyable after it returned to base.  All of this happened after the US had "cleared the path".

The F-117's were lost after repeatedly flying down the same path for several nights. I would submit you'd get the same results from F-35's if you did the same thing.

The F-16 was a Wild Weasel. Getting shot down is not exactly unexpected in that job regardless of which platform you're using. Beyond that, there's been one loss (an A-10) to SAM since 1991. That's not very many for all the flight hours logged.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If the draft doesn't change, prepare for the pile-on....

Canada’s new federal spending watchdog is set to deliver a scathing report on the F-35 fighter jet program early next month that will make distinctly unpleasant reading for the Conservative government.

The first draft of the report on replacing Canada’s fighter jets by new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, is said to charge the Department of National Defence with misleading Parliament, according to someone who has read it.

Neither DND nor the Auditor-General’s office would be drawn on the contents of the report ahead of its release on April 3 ....

National Post, 15 Mar 12

CAVEAT:  There can be a HUGE difference between review drafts and final versions (agreed to by all parties) that end up coming out at the end of the government sausage machine.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is extracted from Ivision's story, above:

The department has a similarly long-standing predisposition for bamboozling its political masters. Previous Auditor-General reports in 2006 and 2010 have blasted DND for deliberately low-balling costs, in order to get the kit it wants. Two years ago, Sheila Fraser concluded National Defence knew the Chinook heavy lift helicopter it wanted to buy was not an “off the shelf” model, with a relatively low risk of cost and time overruns. Yet the department did not reveal this to Treasury Board when it sought project approval. As a result, the cost of the 15 Chinooks more than doubled to $4.9-billion and the helicopters still have not been delivered.

A similar story accompanied the purchase of 28 maritime helicopters, according to Ms. Fraser, who lamented the gaps in the fullness of information supplied to MPs. “[DND] under-estimated and under-stated the complexity and developmental nature of the helicopters it intended to buy,” she said.

Fraser fired a pretty stern warning shot across DND's bows; misleading parliament is, just about, the most serious "crime" a senior public servant can commit; if cabinet concludes that it, too, was misled then, I expect to see heads (CAS? ADM (Mat)? even higher up the food chain?) roll. Equally, if cabinet concludes that it was misled it will have a perfect excuse to save a whole piss-pot full of near term money by telling DND to find a way to further life extend the CF-18 (OK, so it's impossible - trust me, cabinet will not listen to that argument) while the government, not just DND or the CF, completely rethinks why we have high performance fighter jets.