F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

[kEiThZ]

Was there not a competition of some sorts when the entire F-35 project was started a decade ago?

There was. In the US. And we had Canadians in there as part of the program. But for some reason, people think we should have our own competition. I'm fine with that that. The F-35 has won every single competition it's been in, on technical merits alone.

 

[steveintoronto]

Op-Ed: Israel's F-35s may not be able to beat Iran
The lowdown on why the spanking-new US 'stealth' fighter may be a more dangerous proposition than old-fashioned F-15s.

Chana Roberts, 08/06/17 23:02

Israel has already acquired several F-35 stealth fighters from the US, and we're set to acquire about fifty more, if the rumors are true.

But are F-35s in Israel's best interest?

Assuming we don't need F-35s to fight Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, or "lone-wolf" terrorists, the main enemy our pilots will fight is Iran.

The problem is that the F-35 may not be able to eliminate Iran' stockpile of nukes.

What's so special about the F-35, and why does Israel want it?

The F-35 is a spanking-new stealth fighter, incredibly difficult to track via radar. Its stealth capabilities help pilots evade sophisticated missile systems, and the plane itself can carry a relatively wide array of weapons.

The F-35 travels at a supersonic speed of about 1,200 miles (1,900 kilometers) per hour (a speed of March 1.6).

Though the seat's headrest partially blocks the pilot's view, cameras mounted on the plane provide 360-degree vision. Plus, the stealth fighter has both night vision and thermal vision.

The pilot's helmet includes an operating system, and the data appearing on its visor is also shared elsewhere.

In short, the F-35 is a plane with lots of advanced capabilities.

The dangerous catch? Easily spotted = easily reported.

While the F-35 is considered to be the best fighter in the world, in reality, it has a few serious flaws. First and foremost, it's easily reportable. All Iran needs in order to know we're there is an alert civilian living on the border.

Why? Because that plane makes a racket.

No, seriously. If you don't live near enough to an army base for training to be going on over your head (I do), you don't know. The F-35 may be flying a few kilometers above you, but you won't be able to hear anything other than its noise until the plane has passed far enough away. Let's say...for about 45 seconds.

Worse, its sound is different than any other plane's. So different, in fact, that once you hear an F-35 a few times, you can't mix it up with anything else.

Let's say there's an Iranian citizen living on the country's border. He knows what the planes flying over his head sound like, because he hears them every day. They're part of the background music.

Suddenly, he hears something much, much louder. By the time he looks out the window, he can't see anything. But he sure can hear it - and he knows it's a plane.

Our civilian goes over to the phone, calls the authorities, and says, "Are we at war? Did you get new planes? A massively loud plane just flew over my head, and it sure doesn't belong to us!"

And not all of the Negev's citizens are faithful to Israel. I'm sure some of my Bedouin neighbors have learned to recognize the F-35 - and I'm also sure that some of those neighbors are more faithful to Iran and terror groups than they are to the State which provides them with free health care, good education, and a Western lifestyle. Proof: They steal weapons from the IDF, right, left, and center.

Iran may not even need an alert citizen on the border, if they have intelligence from a Bedouin that our F-35s are heading their way.

Or maybe, our nice Bedouin will call his Iranian friend.

"Hey, Mahmoud! A bunch of F-35s just flew over my head. They seem to be going your way - keep your eyes peeled. If I'm right, they'll reach you in about an hour and a half."

Israel may be able to take out Iran's nukes before that alert goes out to the Iranian Air Force. And it may not.

Either way, there's a high chance our pilots will have to dogfight before coming home.

And that's the other problem: If an F-35 pilot is forced to dogfight because a squadron of Iranian fighter planes has been called up to meet our squadron...

The F-35 pilot will lose. Can he outspeed his opponent? Possibly - that depends on what he's facing. He may not be able to outrun an F-14, F-15, or F-22. And either way, we need to take out Iran's nukes. Just because they found us out, doesn't mean we can back down.

What it means is that some of our pilots will have to fight so the bombers can do their job. And if our pilots have to fight, some will die.

Why not borrow F-14s or use F-15s, disguise them as Iranian, and do the deed undercover?

No, seriously.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230769

 

[kEiThZ]

I guess we should make major procurement decisions based on which way Op-Eds blow.....

And what a joke of an op-ed. The Iranians can defeat the F-35 letting someone hear them take off? LOL. The Israelis should just keep doing touch and gos and exhaust the Iranians by keeping them on alrert forever. Is this what passes for credible reporting on defence issues. It's like the reporter took a facetious joke we actually make in the Air Force and reported it as breaking news.

I mean, it's not like the Israelis love their F-35s or something:

http://www.defensenews.com/articles...s-praises-but-warns-of-growing-missile-threat

In an address devoted to the singular attributes of airpower, Eshel said the F-35 embodied flexibility, speed, agility and survivability that has become a central element of Israeli force strength. “It’s a revolution; far better than anything we have and anything that is flying in this region,” he said.

It's certainly not like they love them so much that they taking them early in the delivery cycle and modifying them:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10665/israel-is-getting-a-single-f-35-test-jet-unlike-any-other

And it's certainly not like they've not tested them in battle against a near-peer adversary (and I mean the Russians in the region, not the Syrians):

http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-f-35s-seen-combat/

But hey, let's listen to unsubstantiated op-eds and disregard all actual analysis, or reports from users. We should make all sorts of other government decisions this way. How about we design education and health care delivery that way as well? Just go of nonsense op-eds. Great strategy for brilliant governance.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And here's some interesting reading if anybody is interested. Former generals. All fighter pilots. Even the one who used to work for Boeing says that Canada should get the F-35

With the F-35 a non-go for Justin and Boeing making the Super Hornet unpalatable due to Boeing's now failed attempt to cripple Bombardier with anti-dumping tariffs like they regret not doing to Airbus two decades ago, I wonder if the Airbus-Bombardier deal will make Airbus-affiliated alternatives to the F-35 more attractive.

For example, SAAB, the maker of the Gripen also builds sections for Airbus aircraft, while Airbus is a consortium member on the Eurofighter Typhoon. Meanwhile Airbus is part owner of Dassault Aviation, maker of the Rafale.

Now the Rafale, with its lack of cold weather certifications and non-compatibility with the RCAF's inventory of US-origin ordnance would seen a dead-end, but those challenges could be overcome by modifying the aircraft and assembling it in Canada.

. If we define the mission as the ability to shoot down hijacked airliners and Russian bombers over our own airspace, perhaps we can buy something less ruinously expensive. Maybe even something not manufactured by a US company for once.

If any non-USA fighter is chosen, my votes on an Airbus-Canada assembled Typhoon.

Arrow prototypes aside, has Canada ever operated a delta configuration fighter?

 

[BurlOak]

How many things have we heard in the past 2 years from this government.
There was continuity between the Chretien Liberals to Martin Liberals to Harper Torries from 1997 to 2015.
Since then, we have heard about not having a short term capability need, to having one.
We have thought about buying Super Hornets from Boeing, then used jets from Kuwait, then used from Australia. (There's probably something I missed here as well).
This is reminiscent of the used subs that were purchased in the 1990's.
It appears like a teenager buying a used car changing their minds every week when a new idea pops in their heads.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How many things have we heard in the past 2 years from this government.

Out of the gate they said no to the F-35. I'd say this government has been pretty consistent on this file.

We have thought about buying Super Hornets from Boeing, then used jets from Kuwait, then used from Australia.

IMO our days of buying anything from Boeing are over, at least for this government's term, unless Airbus or Lockheed-Martin do not offer alternatives, such as with the C-17.

This is reminiscent of the used subs that were purchased in the 1990's.

The subs have accomplished exactly what they were bought for, that of maintaining our subsurface capability. They'll serve the RCN until they get new subs in the 2030s.

 

[kEiThZ]

How many things have we heard in the past 2 years from this government.
There was continuity between the Chretien Liberals to Martin Liberals to Harper Torries from 1997 to 2015.
Since then, we have heard about not having a short term capability need, to having one.
We have thought about buying Super Hornets from Boeing, then used jets from Kuwait, then used from Australia. (There's probably something I missed here as well).
This is reminiscent of the used subs that were purchased in the 1990's.
It appears like a teenager buying a used car changing their minds every week when a new idea pops in their heads.

Actually for anyone who remembers this parallels the EH-101. Chretien labelled it a “Cadillac”. Promised not to buy it. Gets elected. Cancels it. Pays hundreds of millions in cancellation fees.

Air Force writes the specifications needed for a rescue helicopter: EH-101 wins. Chretien is so upset by that, he refuses to allow the Air Force to go ahead with the Sea King replacement until we have something “competitive” (read something that can beat the EH-101). So they sat on the Sea King replacement for almost a decade. Then launch it and allow the S-92 to bid, despite all our other programs usually excluding developmental aircraft. S-92 wins. And it’s taking over a decade and a half to get them operational.

This is what happens when we do procurement based on electoral politics where the ignorant voter decides multi-billion dollar purchases.

By the way, the EH-101 was originally picked because it was the only three engine medium lift helicopter out there. Which was exactly the amount of lift and redundancy needed for Canada’s operting environment. And the Europeans offered to make Canada a partner and build a production line in Canada. So in addition to ditching the choppers, we lost a ton of good quality aerospace jobs. The EH-101s we eventually purchased were assembled in Italy.

The F-35 saga is equally absurd. They don’t want to have the competition because they know the F-35 will win. So now they are doing everything possible to avoid that competition. Including the absurdity about the capability gap where they assume we need to face some unprecented scenario where the RCAF has to fulfill ever air defence tasking simultaneously. Short of nuclear war with Russia, that’s not happening. But that’s what they assumed. No previous government has done that.

I don’t get why politicians find it so hard to say, “we screwed up on that one. We’ll just have a competition. The best plane will win.” What is it with politicians and their stubbornness on defence purchases?

 

[kEiThZ]

Out of the gate they said no to the F-35. I'd say this government has been pretty consistent on this file.IMO our days of buying anything from Boeing are over, at least for this government's term, unless Airbus or Lockheed-Martin do not offer alternatives, such as with the C-17.

The subs have accomplished exactly what they were bought for, that of maintaining our subsurface capability. They'll serve the RCN until they get new subs in the 2030s.

You’re looking at the wrong purchases to penalize Boeing. They would have been a contender for a new tanker fleet. And a replacement for Maritime Patrol. It’s very likely that we’ll see simply change some requirements to make Boeing less competitive now. Just upsize the tanker requirement and Boeing becomes uncompetitive or is forced to give massive discounts to win.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don’t get why politicians find it so hard to say, “we screwed up on that one. We’ll just have a competition. The best plane will win.” What is it with politicians and their stubbornness on defence purchases?

I wish Ottawa would decide these things by multi-party committee, thus both parties agree. Impossible?

 

[kEiThZ]

I wish Ottawa would decide these things by multi-party committee, thus both parties agree. Impossible?

That is exactly what the Aussies do.

 

[BurlOak]

I wish Ottawa would decide these things by multi-party committee, thus both parties agree. Impossible?

Harper continued the Martin policy - does that count as multi-party support.

If a party makes a radical shift to the left, it is hard to maintain multi-party support.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Considering Trudeau is likely to be the PM for the next three election cycles (2019, 2023, 2027-2032), it will definitely be on Trudeau's watch when the CF-18s (and for that matter CP-140 Auroras, and Halifax class) must be replaced.

In fact, by 2032 most of what we have today procured in the 1980-90s will have been either replaced or deleted with its capability/role eliminated.

I'd be interested to see what Trudeau does with the submarine program. There are some really nice AIP subs coming out of the yards in Europe.

 

[kEiThZ]

Considering Trudeau is likely to be the PM for the next three election cycles (2019, 2023, 2027-2032), it will definitely be on Trudeau's watch when the CF-18s (and for that matter CP-140 Auroras, and Halifax class) must be replaced.

In fact, by 2032 most of what we have today procured in the 1980-90s will have been either replaced or deleted with its capability/role eliminated.

I'd be interested to see what Trudeau does with the submarine program. There are some really nice AIP subs coming out of the yards in Europe.

There's an old saying. "Liberals give us better pay. Conservatives give us better kit." Seems to have held with the last two governments. And seems to be holding with this government despite the rhetoric. Read their defence policy review carefully. They achieved most of their "increase" in spending with a math exercise: re-baseline what is considered defence spending. And what promises they made on actual new money are well into their second term.

There was a lot to dislike about the Conservatives and their military boosterism and "Support the troops" nonsense (which was really cover for blunting criticism about their policies). But they did deliver on lots of big ticket items. The Liberals for example saw strategic airlift as a waste for most of the 90s. $300 million for a transport? Why? That was the Liberal response all through the Chretien and Martin governments. The Conservatives pulled the trigger and got us C-17s. And they've been invaluable. For the first time in our history, we have a sovereign airlift capability that covers the Arctic. They also pulled the trigger on a heavy lift helicopter, which we had canned under Chretien. And they put in place and budgeted for new SAR aircraft that are going to be delivered soon. Out of those 3 projects, I can only ever see one of them being approved under a Liberal government. And it's bizarre to me that past Liberal governments just didn't understand that strategic airlift is needed in Canada, because our country is the size of a continent and if ever there's a major disaster heavy equipment will only be movable with strategic airlifts and heavy helicopters in-theatre. They have seemed to view it as the Air Force just wanting big useless airplanes.

This government doesn't necessarily despise the military like Chretien did. But I think their base instinct is to avoid spending a penny more than is absolutely necessary to save face internationally. Their own re-baselined definition will not meet the 2% NATO goal, ever. So I'm not holding my breadth for anything new. They'll do the fighters because they have to. And I'm not even unconvinced at this point that they won't stick us with an underweight jet like the Gripen.

I am also skeptical that this government will replace the Auroras, the tankers and the Griffons. All up to be replaced in the next decade. They haven't budgeted anything. They haven't talked about it. And they don't seem to understand why these capabilities matter (for example with regards to Arctic sovereignty). So yeah, I wouldn't get too excited.

We won't even get into new capabilities we need. We are massively behind on space and cyber. And I use "massive" because I can't think of an adjective that conveys how far behind we are. The Americans, for example, have better surveillance of our Arctic with their defence meteorological satellites, than we do at any given time. The assign space advisors to every formation larger than a battalion. Space and cyber are integrated operationally throughout their military and defence establishment. We train a handful of guys in each field. And don't have a proper space unit or doctrine. I am taking up optional training on the space side and hope to change some of this when I get back. Never realized how behind we were till my time in the US.

 

[BurlOak]

This government doesn't necessarily despise the military like Chretien did. But I think their base instinct is to avoid spending a penny more than is absolutely necessary to save face internationally. Their own re-baselined definition will not meet the 2% NATO goal, ever. So I'm not holding my breadth for anything new. They'll do the fighters because they have to. And I'm not even unconvinced at this point that they won't stick us with an underweight jet like the Gripen.

You don't think Trudeau support the military? He did promise during the 2015 campaign to greatly increase Canada's peacekeeping worldwide.

 

[kEiThZ]

You don't think Trudeau support the military? He did promise during the 2015 campaign to greatly increase Canada's peacekeeping worldwide.

What does that have to do with supporting the military? More missions without additional resources isn't necessarily great for us. The Army for example has eaten into their capital base so much with Afghanistan, they might not be properly recapitalized till the middle of the next decade.