F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[tomahawk6]

How can the Aussie's afford to upgrade but Canada cant seem to find the money ?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

OGBD,

Yes, but my understanding is that hybridization project for the F-35A was cancelled, unless Canada paid for all the R&D, as we were the only ones who wanted it.  If we bought B or C models, it wouldn't be a problem.  But we are supposed to be buying the A model (if at all). 

There's also the not inconsequential problem of the lack of suitable northern airfields of sufficient length for anything bigger than a Herc - if you are imagining using AAR assets in the region.

Harrigan

I don't believe that is correct Harrigan.

First of all, the plans to get F-35's have been put on hold right now - period. No modification to the original plan, such as acquiring modified type A's, have been made.

Second, we do have suitable northern airfields that were upgraded for forward deployment of fast air (and incidentally, the CF-18's squadron practice such deployments from time to time). I believe they are at three locations: Kuujuuak, Inuvik and Rankin Inlet.

 

[Infanteer]

How can the Aussie's afford to upgrade but Canada cant seem to find the money ?

The Aussies can't get away with skimping on their defence budget, while we have you guys.

 

[Good2Golf]

The Aussies can't get away with skimping on their defence budget, while we have you guys.

:nod:

Aussies are the "Big Man on Campus" in Australasia/Oceana, they have to invest...1.8% GDP vs Canada's 1.0%.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Plus they live in a neighbourhood that has real possible threats whereas for Canada--until Bad Vlad resurged--we effectively had none.  And they remember WW II Japanese air attacks on them, and mini-subs in Sydney Harbour, as part of a dire threat to their country:

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/airraid.html

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/sydharbour.html

Whereas we barely remember the Battle of the St. Lawrence:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/second-world-war/battle-gulf-st-lawrence

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HB_Pencil]

According to Max, it is no big deal if we don't have AAR.  Fine, retire a couple of the modified Hercs and or make them do something more useful.

AFAIK, our tanker fleet is a marginal cost increase over our other aircraft... both tanker types are also used in their original roles (I'm not sure if the 150's cargo hold can be converted back however). Still its some relatively small maintenance (at least for the 130T) and training to keep crews qualified.

However they serve a very useful niche, by providing the RCAF the flexibility to deploy our aircraft abroad without allied support is pretty useful. Tankers are usually at a premium in an initial phase of a deployment, particularly KC-135 with a drogue attachment. It could delay a deployment for a day or even a week. Moreover our contingents are more self sufficient and capable with an accompanying tanker. Both capabilities are used a fair bit.

Its no big deal for CF-18s to use US Gas, because they train for and regularly use them, particularly for NORAD roles. But our tanker fleet is valuable and should be retained.

We bought the C-17, so get rid of the Airbus.  Used the save O&M to get any white tail 17s that are left.

That's not true.... C-17s were bought to supplant Canada's Heavy lift capabilities which were non-existent other than the Antonovs that we hired from Former Soviet Union providers. Having a diverse fleet allows the RCAF the ability to use the appropriate aircraft for each mission. Its quite possible that the C-17 CPFH is at least twice, if not three times as high as the CC-150s (the US Gov's operational CPFH is $30,000 per hour, and I'd guess the CC-150s is in the 10~15,000$ dollar range). So if you're transporting a smaller load or you need to move a lot of soldiers, then the CC-150s is a better choice. If you're deploying a six pack of CF-18s, then the CC-150T is your only choice.

But we run into the argument of needing them to support coalitions.  Hmm, but isn't that why we want the F-35, to be better coalition partners.  Seems to me that is the investment for that purpose.

However, I would bet that isn't what will happen.  As soon as the RCAF is sure that the F-35 is secured, they'll start talking about a Polaris replacement, probably all fitted as boom tankers.

Don't get me wrong; I would love to see us get the expeditionary wing the Australians have: 737 based Wedgetails, 737 based Poseidans, 330 KC-30 Tankers (maybe 767 based KC-46As, or could a 737 based tanker be enough?), F-35s, Superhornets, Growlers, Tritons, Herons... but we can't afford it, by a long shot.  We need to make smart, affordable decisions; and I think the fact that the groundwork is being laid to replace the Polaris before some of the other capabilities is scary.

I don't think its that scary at all. We should be looking at this for several years before we make a decision. The CC-150s won't last forever and will require replacement in the 2020s.  I think its more scary that we would make a snap decision on a capability, rather than seeing how the market evolves and what options might be available. Its an interesting question as to whether we'll get a KC-30 or KC-46. Australia are quite happy with their KC-30s, and the type probably will be better suited for Canadian requirements, being larger and more effective transport, which would assist in our deployments.

 

[Baz]

The reason it is scary to me is that their are certain corners of the RCAF that will make the argument that a replacement for the Airbus is more important than some other things, like say Griffins (well we just got Chinooks didn't we) or fixed wing SAR.  I will be willing to bet that those same people will use the argument (in a few years) that we can't tank our 35s (assuming that is where we go).

That's why saying that it isn't important now, in my opinion, will turn out to be disingenuous in the future.

Maybe I'm wrong, with the departure of two fighter types at the very top...

 

[HB_Pencil]

OGBD,

Yes, but my understanding is that hybridization project for the F-35A was cancelled, unless Canada paid for all the R&D, as we were the only ones who wanted it.  If we bought B or C models, it wouldn't be a problem.  But we are supposed to be buying the A model (if at all). 

There's also the not inconsequential problem of the lack of suitable northern airfields of sufficient length for anything bigger than a Herc - if you are imagining using AAR assets in the region.

Harrigan

The F-35A drogue installation was canned something like three years ago since we were going to be the only customer and assumed the R&D and support cost burden.

Most choices for Canada's next generation fighter, with the exception of the Gripen and Super Hornet would reduce, but not eliminate, the need for tanking in the north. We need it for specific transit scenarios where weather plays a role.

Going F-35 would be the best option in this regard, as it has the longest range of the other options and compatibility with USAF tanking assets. The number of scenarios where we would need a tanker would be significantly reduced, while any KC-135 could provide fuel.

edit: a couple of points that I forgot. I've heard, part of the reason why the drogue retrofit got canned was the eventual replacement of the Polaris. All of the current options have dual boom/drogue systems. I should also note that by the time Canada finally gets the F-35, many, if not most, KC-135s will have been replaced by KC-46s.

 

[HB_Pencil]

The reason it is scary to me is that their are certain corners of the RCAF that will make the argument that a replacement for the Airbus is more important than some other things, like say Griffins (well we just got Chinooks didn't we) or fixed wing SAR.  I will be willing to bet that those same people will use the argument (in a few years) that we can't tank our 35s (assuming that is where we go).

That's why saying that it isn't important now, in my opinion, will turn out to be disingenuous in the future.

Maybe I'm wrong, with the departure of two fighter types at the very top...

I think the timelines/strategic priorities are not as serious as they may seem. I'm not sure about the Griffins (which again is a different capability to the Chinook- perhaps others here are better placed to speak about this), but FWSAR is something you'll see in the next five years. The transport fleet is in relatively good condition, the only other question mark is our training aircraft and a possible hawk replacement. I can't think of any other one.

Polaris recently got an upgrade approved for its avionics that allow it to operate in the north, and the US and Airbus production lines will likely remain open for another decade, so I don't foresee Canada rushing into this decision for another 10 years.

 

[Harrigan]

The F-35A drogue installation was canned something like three years ago since we were going to be the only customer and assumed the R&D and support cost burden.

Most choices for Canada's next generation fighter, with the exception of the Gripen and Super Hornet would reduce, but not eliminate, the need for tanking in the north. We need it for specific transit scenarios where weather plays a role.

Going F-35 would be the best option in this regard, as it has the longest range of the other options and compatibility with USAF tanking assets. The number of scenarios where we would need a tanker would be significantly reduced, while any KC-135 could provide fuel.

edit: a couple of points that I forgot. I've heard, part of the reason why the drogue retrofit got canned was the eventual replacement of the Polaris. All of the current options have dual boom/drogue systems. I should also note that by the time Canada finally gets the F-35, many, if not most, KC-135s will have been replaced by KC-46s.

And the F-18s and F-35s cannot just fuel from "any" KC-135 - only ones that have specifically been modified to trail a hose from their boom.

In terms of Northern airfields, I am talking for AAR.  non-CC130 tankers cannot operate from Kuujjuaq, Rankin Inlet or Inuvik.

Harrigan

 

[HB_Pencil]

And the F-18s and F-35s cannot just fuel from "any" KC-135 - only ones that have specifically been modified to trail a hose from their boom.

F-35s can refuel from boom only. In reality the KC-135 will probably be out of service before we get the F-35 or any other aircraft, so much of this is moot.

In terms of Northern airfields, I am talking for AAR. non-CC130 tankers cannot operate from Kuujjuaq, Rankin Inlet or Inuvik.

Harrigan

I never claimed otherwise... I'm not really sure why this is an issue. Sure if we get the F-35 we won't be able to boom with our CC-130H based in the FOLs, but that's not quite a big loss from what I've heard. Most next generation fighters' range will likely make up for that loss Moreover, we will have greater access to the USAF's tankers based at Eielson as the KC-46 program spools up (or we select the F-35), which is more valuable for very long range intercepts. Perhaps Supersonic Max can chime in and fill in some more of the details here.

Again, our Polaris tanker fleet is really intended for expeditionary operations, not domestic ops. We don't have the number of aircraft or (more importantly) personnel needed to keep them on alert.

 

[Baz]

Again, our Polaris tanker fleet is really intended for expeditionary operations, not domestic ops. We don't have the number of aircraft or (more importantly) personnel needed to keep them on alert.

And that statement sums up what should be the core of the discussion about the F-35, and supporting bits, like tankers.

I thought the core of the Government's defence strategy was "Canada First?"

Jets and tankers are a political statement by Canada for expeditionary ops, backed op by General Officers that want to see it happen.  They are not a refection of our Allies real needs.  Disclaimer: this is shaped by the work I did at SHAPE after Libya.

So, a thought bubble: keep the 18s, lower the flight hours, and get more new tankers, based at the fighter bases, for domestic ops.  Get TLAMs and AHs for expeditionary.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

F-35s can refuel from boom only. In reality the KC-135 will probably be out of service before we get the F-35 or any other aircraft, so much of this is moot.

I never claimed otherwise... I'm not really sure why this is an issue. Sure if we get the F-35 we won't be able to boom with our CC-130H based in the FOLs, but that's not quite a big loss from what I've heard. Most next generation fighters' range will likely make up for that loss Moreover, we will have greater access to the USAF's tankers based at Eielson as the KC-46 program spools up (or we select the F-35), which is more valuable for very long range intercepts. Perhaps Supersonic Max can chime in and fill in some more of the details here.

Again, our Polaris tanker fleet is really intended for expeditionary operations, not domestic ops. We don't have the number of aircraft or (more importantly) personnel needed to keep them on alert.

Being able to tank domestically using our own aircraft is not an issue, being able to tank domestically using American tankers might be a cause for concern though. 

Look at a map of Canada and the North.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if a fighter jet takes off from Cold Lake, it may need to air to air refuel sometime during it's flight to intercept whatever it's going to intercept.  With our five CC150s in Trenton, that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use them. 

NORAD is a shared defence agreement but a lot of what we do is only possible with American support because don't provide the money or resources to actually do the job, another reason why we are ultimately going to go with the F35. 

 

[George Wallace]

Like anything else, relying on an Allie for support leaves you at their whims.  This can place you in a situation where they will not support due to national interests/priorities coming first.  You may find that you will only get support when they are capable to do so without diminishing their own operational requirements.

 

[dapaterson]

With our five CC150s in Trenton, that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use them. 

Only two CC150s are configured as tankers.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It is in the US interests to defend North America.  I don't see how this would not be a priority our southern neighbours.  Making a couple of tankers available for us is not going to break them. In fact, during OIF when tankers were a premium in the Gulf, they still had tankers available to us.  Because it was in their National interest.  Right now, we are very limited in what tanker we can use:  they have to have a Boom Drogue Adapter installed (it is not a permanent mod despite what Harrigan said).  Only a few are fitted with them on a regular basis (in CONUS and AK).  Regardless of what we buy, we will still rely on US assets for tanking for NORAD.

The CC-130T is a tactical tanker that we use for Strategic/Operational purposes.  I transited across the ocean being drug by a Herc on a couple of occasions and it turns a 6 hours flight into a 10 hours one. Hardly efficient.

The CC-150T is an operational tanker (ideal for use during an operation like Impact, shared amongst a pool of coalition tankers although it lacks the dual systems).  We also use it for strategic purposes (dragging fighters across) but it lacks the offload a true strategic tanker needs.  We need 3 hops to make it to the Middle East with 2 aircraft. 

I hope we get the new US tanker.  I tanked on both the KC-767 and KC-30A and they have an enormous offload, dual systems, can go high and fast and are easy to tank on (as opposed to the KC-135 which is a nightmare to tank on).  They are true Strategic tankers.

If I was in charge and money was no object, I would get single seat F-15E with conformal tanks.  You wouldn't need a tanker to go up North, state of the art EW and radar, loads of weapons stations and multi-role.  But that would be way more expensive than the F-35... 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Only two CC150s are configured as tankers.

Ack, I suppose I could have been less lazy and actually looked that up 

Ack all you said Max, imagine if we go with the Rafale which has a probe and drogue system 

I don't think we are going to get a tanker though tbh.  It will be just another one of the (many) capabilities we will need to rely on someone else for. 

 

[Baz]

It is in the US interests to defend North America.  I don't see how this would not be a priority our southern neighbours.  Making a couple of tankers available for us is not going to break them. In fact, during OIF when tankers were a premium in the Gulf, they still had tankers available to us.  Because it was in their National interest.  Right now, we are very limited in what tanker we can use:  they have to have a Boom Drogue Adapter installed (it is not a permanent mod despite what Harrigan said).  Only a few are fitted with them on a regular basis (in CONUS and AK).  Regardless of what we buy, we will still rely on US assets for tanking for NORAD.

However, it comes with a political price.  Mostly buried inside NORAD, to be sure, but still there.  Disclaimer: shaped by my experience in the Bi-National Planning Group, created after 9/11 to study the Canadian US North American Defense Relationship.

Second disclaimer: there is a feeling (rightly or wrongly) amongst some in the RCAF (and I personally rather be in the RCN, but they'd ignore us as well) that there are two Air Forces: one that would ignore almost anything to ensure we have a "world class" Fighter Force, and one that makes do with the scraps that fall off the table.

Editted to add: my last thought may be tainted by history.  It was a long time ago, but a big part of the reason the Arrow was cancelled was because it was consuming almost half of the entire Defence Budget, and a lot of the RCAF was perfectly happy with that.  The other services, not so much...

 

[tomahawk6]

Buy F-35C's instead of the A model solves the problem does it not ?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Closer and closer for Marines:

F-35B IOC Expected Soon, Awaits Marine Commandant’s OK
...
[USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation Jon] What remains is for Marine Corps Commandant Joseph Dunford to give the official nod for initial operational capability, Davis said July 27. The IOC declaration is expected by “the end of July,” said USMC spokesman Maj. Paul Greenberg. Dunford has been nominated to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Davis says the first squadron – VMFA-121 in Yuma, Arizona – is ready for operations following an operational readiness inspection. Lockheed Martin builds the F-35; the Marines are declaring IOC with the F-35, optimized for short takeoff and vertical landing. The U.K. and Italy are also buying the B version. The U.S. Air Force expects to declare its IOC by December 2016, with the Navy to follow by February 2019.

A major concern for Davis moving forward is to improve the mission capability rate for the stealthy, single-engine aircraft. VMFA-121’s rates are around 60%, where they are expected to be now. This is because the squadron comprises early low-rate initial production jets. Aircraft off the line later in production, which are being used in training, are performing better, Davis said.

The goal for reaching full operational capability, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017, is 80% he said.

An issue is that spares accounts are often raided and readiness rates are tied to the availability of spares for crews maintaining the aircraft.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35b-ioc-expected-soon-awaits-marine-commandant-s-ok

Mark
Ottawa