F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

[kEiThZ]

But the capability needs to be there.

Depends entirely on what you want to do and how you want to use them. Hindsight is easy. But there was skepticism during the Afghan era that drones were useful for more than surveillance and a few strategic strikes. After all, nothing like being able to talk to the pilot overhead and walk his/her strike onto the enemy you see in front of you. And lest anyone think it's just our military, consider how unwilling the Americans are to give up their A-10s. We've gotten around to understanding how to incorporate drones better. That's the change. Part of that is the improvement in drones themselves. Better sensors. Better and more flexible weapons loadouts. Better airframes. Etc.

I believe the IAI Heron that we leased in Afghanistan were unarmed and incapable of such.

Because we didn't need armed drones for overwatch.

I think many don't realize the Cyclone and Aurora are both capable of air-launching torpedoes.

I doubt that would be controversial. How do you hunt subs without dropping torpedos?

 

[lenaitch]

I doubt that would be controversial. How do you hunt subs without dropping torpedos?

But that's part of the problem with the perception and understanding of our military by a significant part of the Canadian public - that they need to capacity to potentially do 'that', and 'that' costs money. To a degree, that allows the government licence to under-equip and under-resource it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Fighter Jet That’s Too Pricey to Fail​

The F-35 is a boondoggle. Yet we’re stuck with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/opinion/f-35-fighter-jet-cost.html?referringSource=articleShare

 

[kEiThZ]

Ugh. These articles are so misinformed. And then people take headlines that apply substantially to the US, with their massive force and try and translate them to Canada.

Listen to an actual F-35 pilot on what the USAF commander said:

And then you can hear him explain why most folks really don't understand the value of the machine he flies:

 

[lenaitch]

It might be the greatest thing since collar stays, but not much use if you can't afford to buy or fly it.

It seems even the UK is hedging:

British F-35 buy is still a moving target, defense ministry tells lawmakers

The number and profile of a future order will in part be decided by the outcome of assessment work the British are doing on their future combat air strategy.

www.defensenews.com

Even the USAF still feels fleet diversity has merit with an order for the F-15EX:

The Air Force has its first F-15EX

The newest Eagle has landed.

www.defensenews.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Fleet diversity has merit if you can afford it. We can't. It's why we got rid of the F-5s.

It's not just the cost of the airplane. Every fleet has a whole technical and logistics fleet behind it and training pipeline associated with it. We don't have the personnel, infrastructure or funding to operate two fighter fleets.

For those that do, trade offs become options that get considered in a broad strategic context. The US needs capabilities to match China at the high end. And cheap air power for lots of simmering conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. The UK is buying F-35s solely to operate off their carriers and the Typhoon is the main fighter fleet. Both countries also have sixth generation development programs they need to fund (NGAD in the US, Tempest in the UK). None of this context really applies to Canada. Our entire motivation is to field the absolute minimum defence capability that gets us a seat at the table and not laughed out of the room, or kicked out of the Five Eyes. We don't have much strategic doctrine beyond that.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Fleet diversity has merit if you can afford it. We can't.

Especially when the RCAF will be operating at best four dozen front line aircraft plus perhaps another two dozen or so for training, extended maintenance and spares. There’s insufficient volume to diversify.

But that doesn’t mean we need to buy the F-35. With our withdrawal of fighters from Europe, we need such aircraft to pound despots in the developing world as part of UN missions, and to meet our NORAD obligations. We can achieve these goals with lesser, yet still 2020s-era aircraft.

That said, the F-35 is the best for these two jobs. However IMO as long as Trudeau is PM we won’t get them - and IMO Trudeau will win a majority in 2021 and likely serve as PM until 2030. Can the CF-18s carry on into the mid 2030s? Something else is going to be chosen before then. And if it is, we can forget about the F-35; it’ll be CF-18s to 2nd hand Hornets and Super Bugs into the 2040s to drones.

Our Voodoos were second hand, our Leopard 2s were second hand, now our modern fighters are likely to be as well.

 

[kEiThZ]

We can achieve these goals with lesser, yet still 2020s-era aircraft.

Can we? The problem is that we keep aircraft for so long that we tend to face massive sustainment costs on the back end. This is why it's important to buy a current generation aircraft.

Can the CF-18s carry on into the mid 2030s?

Yes. They're going through life extensions and upgrades that should get them through to 2035. There's also the Australian Hornets we bought to extend the fleet.

However IMO as long as Trudeau is PM we won’t get them - and IMO Trudeau will win a majority in 2021 and likely serve as PM until 2030.

I don't get the pessimism. We're in bid eval right now. The bid process has been open and transparent. And the government has committed to buying whichever platform wins. No guarantee that it will be the F-35, but that platform certainly has an advantage.

Here's the thing, delaying the original buy has been a stroke of luck for Canada. Prices have dropped substantially. And the F-35 and Super Hornet are now neck and neck on systems cost (when you include sensors, weapons, servicing kit, etc). Especially over a 40 yr life where the Super Hornet faces substantial obsolescence over half its life.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't get the pessimism. We're in bid eval right now.

I thought we went through that already. What was McKay doing in that F-35 otherwise?

 

[kEiThZ]

I thought we went through that already. What was McKay doing in that F-35 otherwise?

Mackay was going to sole source. That is what the Liberals campaigned against. They rebooted the program as a competition. The bids are in and are being evaluated. A winner should be announced in the Fall.

Future fighter capability project - Canada.ca

Canada has launched an open and fair competition to acquire a future fighter fleet of aircraft.

www.canada.ca

 

[afransen]

Here's the thing, delaying the original buy has been a stroke of luck for Canada. Prices have dropped substantially. And the F-35 and Super Hornet are now neck and neck on systems cost (when you include sensors, weapons, servicing kit, etc). Especially over a 40 yr life where the Super Hornet faces substantial obsolescence over half its life.

Is it luck? Wouldn't we expect a program that has reached volume production to see declining costs and be more competitive?

 

[kEiThZ]

Is it luck? Wouldn't we expect a program that has reached volume production to see declining costs and be more competitive?

True. But at the time, nobody really thought costs would go down. The Liberals even tried to sole source buy the Super Hornet, until that blew up in their faces with the Trump sanctions on the Bombardier CSeries. At the time they were arguing that the Super Hornet was going to be cheaper.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I’m interested to see what the Brits do. With the exception of the Royal Navy’s cast-off Phantoms, the RAF has never depended on a foreign sourced aircraft for domestic air defence. The Tornado and Typhoon being British-Euro partnerships.

Had Canada bought Tornado F3s for NORAD we’d be the sole operator now. Orphans.

 

[kEiThZ]

I’m interested to see what the Brits do. With the exception of the Royal Navy’s cast-off Phantoms, the RAF has never depended on a foreign sourced aircraft for domestic air defence.

Like I said earlier, the F-35 is being purchased as a fleet defence and strike fighter for the UK. That is why they are exclusively buying the VTOL B model. It's a different context from us. We're only considering the A model. The differences in range, payload and kinematic performance are notable.

The Tornado and Typhoon being British-Euro partnerships.

Just as the 6th Gen. Tempest is likely to end up being.

Had Canada bought Tornado F3s for NORAD we’d be the sole operator now. Orphans.

And this is exactly what we worry about when buying from a less common fleet. Of the three contenders in the context, the F-35 has the largest user base by far. This makes non-recurrent engineering (NRE) costs much lower for upgrades and sustainability programs in the future.

Not to mention capabilities. There's F-35 users reporting that the sensor fusion is so good that they can work without an AWACS. If true, this would be like getting AWACS capabilities for free with the fleet.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wonder how Brazil is doing with their new SAABs, https://www.saab.com/markets/brazil/gripen-for-brazil/the-brazilian-gripen

A successful Gripen program in the Americas would give the SAAB proposal for the RCAF some cred.

Gripen for Canada | Saab

Canada is choosing a new fighter. A decision that will see a new fighter defend Canada, deter her opponents and meet her international commitments. The decision on which a fighter Canada choses is a once in a lifetime opportunity. One of those choices is Gripen from Saab.

www.saab.com