F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WingsofFury]

Astounding.  You are (presumably) an officer in the Canadian Forces, and yet have no clue as to the makeup of the foundations of the country that you have sworn to protect. 

I will give you a few hints:

* Canada is a democracy
* The duly elected government decides what the "military's thing" is, not the military
* The government decides how much to fund the military, and to what end
* The government is responsible to the people (we more progressive thinkers like to call them voters) for the stewardship of the nation, in every sense.  This includes making best possible use of the revenues raised by the government in order to protect the nation's interests
* The determination of the nation's interest is the sole purview of the government.
* Pesky "questions" about how the government do all of the above are the hallmark of a functioning democracy. 

Please learn a little bit about the country that pays your wage, and as a putative military professional, where you and your institution fit within that country.

I would kindly suggest you do a little bit more humanint before you try to tell me who I am, what I do, and how this country operates.  I could make presumptions about you, but I don't so I would kindly ask that you don't do the same to me.

 

[Kirkhill]

Wings:

Everything demands you worry about cost. Just as everything in life is political.  Both are elements in the compromises that everybody has to make all the time.

We elect people to make those compromises.

I can agree that if the government hasn't adequately funded a capability then it shouldn't expect that capability to be available nor expect to be able to employ that capability beyond its funded capacity.

With respect to the NGF that simply means that if national air defence were the minimalist standard required of the RCAF then, based on the track record of the last 110 years, the RCAF need only continue to ensure that it can maintain 4 A/C at NTM at each of Bagotville and Cold Lake and probably 4 more at Yellowknife.  That is a total of 12 A/C.  How many more do they need for maintenance? I dunno.  How many more do they need for training? I dunno either but I do know that training is possible with simulators and by buying time in American training squadrons.  Once those requirements have been met the next question is how many A/C do you want to commit to overseas operations.

Not NEED but WANT.

And that is a matter of opinion.

Given that we have been maintaining club membership with 6 A/C packets, one mission at a time........

 

[Loachman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9780450/Inside-the-F-35-the-futuristic-fighter-jet.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

Much in the same way that there shouldn't be questions about how much we fund our military to do the work of ensuring our nations freedom.

Starship Troopers, we're not.....

.... if we, as a nation, expect our military to do a job, that when the time comes to buy new equipment to fulfill whatever the mandate of the government is, that we shouldn't worry about cost.  Rather, we should get them the best tool for the job ....

Assuming the resource well was bottomless, that would be easy - everybody gets everything they want.  When other things society needs have to be paid for, though, not everybody gets everything they want.

 

[PuckChaser]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9780450/Inside-the-F-35-the-futuristic-fighter-jet.html

What a great article. None of the sensationalizing you see from Canadian media, but still clearly got across the problems and struggles the F-35 program is dealing with.

 

[WingsofFury]

Wings:

Everything demands you worry about cost. Just as everything in life is political.  Both are elements in the compromises that everybody has to make all the time.

We elect people to make those compromises.

I can agree that if the government hasn't adequately funded a capability then it shouldn't expect that capability to be available nor expect to be able to employ that capability beyond its funded capacity.

With respect to the NGF that simply means that if national air defence were the minimalist standard required of the RCAF then, based on the track record of the last 110 years, the RCAF need only continue to ensure that it can maintain 4 A/C at NTM at each of Bagotville and Cold Lake and probably 4 more at Yellowknife.  That is a total of 12 A/C.  How many more do they need for maintenance? I dunno.  How many more do they need for training? I dunno either but I do know that training is possible with simulators and by buying time in American training squadrons.  Once those requirements have been met the next question is how many A/C do you want to commit to overseas operations.

Not NEED but WANT.

And that is a matter of opinion.

Given that we have been maintaining club membership with 6 A/C packets, one mission at a time........

Kirkhill,

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're stating and to all others keep in mind that the reduced number of proposed F-35's purchased totally fits within the outlines which Kirkhill noted above.

What concerns me the most is the text which I highlighted.

Simply using CF-18's as the platform in that argument, you could state that the force was fine participating in the initial Gulf War.  However, one couldn't say that those same CF-18's, while they were flown by more than capable pilots, had the technology to participate well in the Yugoslavian mission.  The lack of advanced technology also played a part in CF-18's not being deployed to Afghanistan.  If the government of the day chose to upgrade the CF-18 fleet, or even just a portion of it, through the 1990's then the result would have been greater success in Yugoslavia along with the ability to deploy to Afghanistan.

Call me persnickety, but I don't like it when any branch of the Forces is tasked by Parliament to perform in a certain role that they don't have the kit to do.  Sure, sometimes it leads to nice things like the Globemaster or the J-Herc.  But the reality is that this country has been playing catch up since the mid 90's, if not beforehand.

Think about how much more we could have done had the RCAF and the Army been equipped for the role before the mission was announced.

 

[dapaterson]

No CF-18 upgrades?  http://www.casr.ca/id-cf18-3-1.htm

 

[WingsofFury]

No CF-18 upgrades?  http://www.casr.ca/id-cf18-3-1.htm

From your very article....

DND's long hoped-for CF18 upgrade finally materialized in the summer of 2000.[1] The Chrétien government, having realized surpluses after its tight budgets of the 1990s, finally consented to put money back into DND coffers.

That's after the Balkans and through the entire Afghanistan campaign.  Since the upgrades took a total of 10 years to complete, the RCAF didn't have the chance to use tech which would have made them even greater assets in both Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan.  Had the government chosen to implement Phase I upgrades through the 90's then CF-18's would have been closer to being current than they were at the time.

 

[YZT580]

Well, if protecting our arctic sovereignty is the priority for the CF then one has to ask are modern (and expensive) fighters really the best way to spend our limited capital budget?  If we were REALLY serious about arctic sovereignty we should probably be putting more money into long-range patrol aircraft, the AOPS, coast guard ice breakers, search and rescue assets, environmental and customs policing, satellite surveillance, RCMP and Ranger presence, etc at the expense of new fighters. 

These sound like the arguments that buried the CF105 and presented us with the BOMARC.  We still ended up buying fighters, CF104s if I recall correctly, but our manufacturing capability was dead. 

On a different note, can the F35 depart Cold Lake, intercept as required and then RTB without aerial refueling?  If not, we need to look for another aircraft because refueling options with the F35 are extremely limited to non-existant in our own forces.  Stealth is a wonderful thing but we don't need it in northern Canada.  We need an aircraft with long legs.  Maybe fewer F35s for our international obligations and supplemental air to air interceptors that can operate in the north for our own defense would be the way to go.

 

[Kirkhill]

On a different note, can the F35 depart Cold Lake, intercept as required and then RTB without aerial refueling?  If not, we need to look for another aircraft because refueling options with the F35 are extremely limited to non-existant in our own forces.  Stealth is a wonderful thing but we don't need it in northern Canada.  We need an aircraft with long legs.  Maybe fewer F35s for our international obligations and supplemental air to air interceptors that can operate in the north for our own defense would be the way to go.

Alternate solutions:

Launch from Cold Lake or Bagotville and recover to any of the following FOLs: Inuvik, Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, Kuujuaq or Iqaluit.  Or Comox or Goose Bay or Resolute. Or any other civilian airfield with a long enough runway.

Launch from Cold Lake with Drop Tanks and recover to any or all of the above - as you rightly state Stealth isn't required for all missions.  But if it were required within Canada there is always the possibility or launching with Drop Tanks, depleting them and dropping them (with Parachutes for recovery? I dunno) so that the target is approached in Stealth mode. 

That still leaves us with a Stealth capability if and when we need it.

Just some thoughts.

 

[HB_Pencil]

On a different note, can the F35 depart Cold Lake, intercept as required and then RTB without aerial refueling?  If not, we need to look for another aircraft because refueling options with the F35 are extremely limited to non-existant in our own forces.  Stealth is a wonderful thing but we don't need it in northern Canada.  We need an aircraft with long legs.  Maybe fewer F35s for our international obligations and supplemental air to air interceptors that can operate in the north for our own defense would be the way to go.

No, but no fighter aircraft in world can do that either. All aircraft available must use the FOBs, which are there to stage out of. The F-35's range should be better than the F/A-18E and our Current CF-18s, probably around that of the Eurofighter and Rafale.

 

[seawolf]

No, but no fighter aircraft in world can do that either. All aircraft available must use the FOBs, which are there to stage out of. The F-35's range should be better than the F/A-18E and our Current CF-18s, probably around that of the Eurofighter and Rafale.

you sure?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/991313--f-35-fighter-falls-short-in-flying-range-pentagon-report-says

and our fleet of tankers cant refuel the F35

http://o.canada.com/2012/12/20/military-will-contract-out-air-to-air-refuelling-if-canada-goes-with-f-35/

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I would kindly suggest you do a little bit more humanint before you try to tell me who I am, what I do, and how this country operates.  I could make presumptions about you, but I don't so I would kindly ask that you don't do the same to me.

Fair enough - and I have done my homework now, and apologise for accusing you of being a pilot  ;D

 

[HB_Pencil]

you sure?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/991313--f-35-fighter-falls-short-in-flying-range-pentagon-report-says

Even at ~590nm Combat radius, the F-35 is superior. That number includes 4000lbs of bombs carried internally and no external tanks. I can't remember off hand, but I believe it has a hi-med-hi profile as well. Remove the bombs, fly it at high altitude all the way and the F-35 should be around 700~750. Our CF-18s are around 650nm, and that is seen as sufficient. Tanks just add more to that. Equip tanks (which will be included in block 4 or 5 upgrade, or can be purchased separately from the Israelis) and you're looking at a very good range.

and our fleet of tankers cant refuel the F35

http://o.canada.com/2012/12/20/military-will-contract-out-air-to-air-refuelling-if-canada-goes-with-f-35/

Our fleet of tankers are seldom used for northern operations. Right now they can't even operate in the north safely until 2013. Basically the United States have been providing Aerial refueling in the north for the past 40 years.

 

[observor 69]

F-35 Software: DoD's Chief Tester Not Impressed

Last September, U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the then incoming director of the troubled  F-35 program, said that he was not optimistic that all the program's current problems—especially those related to software, which has long been a sore point (pdf)—would be fixed in time to meet the services’ planned initial operational capabilities, beginning with the Marine Cops in about 2 years. The 2012 Annual Report (pdf) on major defense acquisitions, by the Department of Defense's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore, isn’t likely to increase Bogdan’s optimism any.

More at LINK

 

[YZT580]

As soon as you add tanks, your stealth is totally gone so that won't work.  On an intercept, by the time it comes to dropping you have already been detected 'cause for sure the bad guys are going to have modern sensors and c & c aircraft and the like.  So for Canada it is back to an aircraft that has the legs for the mission and possibly a squadron or two of F35s for overseas deployment in support of NATO missions and yes that is more airplanes and different types and more costs.  So that is back to the earlier discussion on politics versus procurement and that is a no-win, frustrating discussion.  Personally I don't believe that there is a one aircraft fits all solution but then I don't write the cheques (just make my monthly deposits to cover the ones that they write)

 

[GR66]

As soon as you add tanks, your stealth is totally gone so that won't work.  On an intercept, by the time it comes to dropping you have already been detected 'cause for sure the bad guys are going to have modern sensors and c & c aircraft and the like.  So for Canada it is back to an aircraft that has the legs for the mission and possibly a squadron or two of F35s for overseas deployment in support of NATO missions and yes that is more airplanes and different types and more costs.  So that is back to the earlier discussion on politics versus procurement and that is a no-win, frustrating discussion.  Personally I don't believe that there is a one aircraft fits all solution but then I don't write the cheques (just make my monthly deposits to cover the ones that they write)

I guess I just don't buy the argument that F-35's won't work for defending Canadian airspace if they are not maximizing their stealth potential.  What exactly ARE the air threats against Canada's North?  If we have difficulty getting fighters up to our own arctic territory how are our potential enemies going to go even further to get to our territory?  Even if the Russians or Chinese were to send squadrons of fighters over the pole (with their own un-stealthy tankers and fuel tanks required) then what would they do there?  I don't envision Russian/Chinese bomber waves coming down to attack our cities like was feared in the 50's either...ICBM's and SLBM's replaced bombers for strategic attacks because of the vulnerability of the bombers. 

Of course we still need fighters to respond to incursions into our northern airspace but I just can't wrap my mind around the possibility of some sort of modern "Battle of Britain" scenario with Canadian fighters desperately defending Yellowknife against swarms of Chinese or Russian aircraft.  We need to have the capability to identify air, sea and sub-surface incursions into our territory and to respond to those incursions with a demonstration of our capability and determination to defend our sovereignty.  Frankly though, I think that virtually any current production aircraft that has the range and reliability to simply get there is likely enough to meet that requirement.  My opinion anyway.

 

[WingsofFury]

I guess I just don't buy the argument that F-35's won't work for defending Canadian airspace if they are not maximizing their stealth potential.  What exactly ARE the air threats against Canada's North?  If we have difficulty getting fighters up to our own arctic territory how are our potential enemies going to go even further to get to our territory?  Even if the Russians or Chinese were to send squadrons of fighters over the pole (with their own un-stealthy tankers and fuel tanks required) then what would they do there?  I don't envision Russian/Chinese bomber waves coming down to attack our cities like was feared in the 50's either...ICBM's and SLBM's replaced bombers for strategic attacks because of the vulnerability of the bombers. 

Of course we still need fighters to respond to incursions into our northern airspace but I just can't wrap my mind around the possibility of some sort of modern "Battle of Britain" scenario with Canadian fighters desperately defending Yellowknife against swarms of Chinese or Russian aircraft.  We need to have the capability to identify air, sea and sub-surface incursions into our territory and to respond to those incursions with a demonstration of our capability and determination to defend our sovereignty.  Frankly though, I think that virtually any current production aircraft that has the range and reliability to simply get there is likely enough to meet that requirement.  My opinion anyway.

The USAF puts drop tanks on their F-22's when patrolling their own airspace, thus not maximizing their stealth potential.  The reality is that for northern intercepts stealth isn't a factor, regardless of the platform.  Stealth becomes an asset when engaged in an enemy environment in which the potential to be shot down exists, for example, the recent air campaign in Libya.  Or the previous ones in Yugoslavia and Gulf War I.

You can't wrap your mind around certain possibilities, I can understand that.  Then again, when the CF-18's were purchased, I don't think that anyone saw 9/11 happening either.  As well, to state that strategic attacks made by ICBM's have replaced bombing assets like the B-2 is a little off base.  The thing is, there are those tasked with the job of exploring every conceivable scenario and must come up with the asset which best conforms to the handling of that scenario.  When me, a lowly civilian, looks at the air assets which are in play now, and combines those with surface assets in the form of RCN and Coast Guard vessels, I see a system that works.  It'd be nice to add some submarines into the mix, but this thread isn't about that.

In purchasing the CF-18, Canada acquired a true multirole platform and has made the most out of that purchase.  If we, as a country, want to ensure that we are able to contribute not just to our defence at home but also abroad through our Alliances, then a certain standard must be met.  The asset that meets that level of expectation will have to be a multirole aircraft, given that the government has decided that only one platform will be purchased.

 

[YZT580]

The USAF puts drop tanks on their F-22's when patrolling their own airspace, thus not maximizing their stealth potential.  The reality is that for northern intercepts stealth isn't a factor, regardless of the platform.  Stealth becomes an asset when engaged in an enemy environment in which the potential to be shot down exists, for example, the recent air campaign in Libya.  Or the previous ones in Yugoslavia and Gulf War I.

Your comments validate my point.  If the Gripen or the super hornet or or heck the updated miracle fighter (dreamworks Arrow, just kidding) will provide equal ground coverage at a reduced cost and provide more a/c for the dollar than that is the way to go domestically. Stealth not required.  For the offshore deployments purchase the needed F35s.  What did we deploy for Kosovo 12 including spares?  So two squadrons of F35s earmarked for touchy situations and supporting NATO. 

That might make sense but I can hear the screaming from the NoDirectionParty about weapons of destruction and maintaining our role as peacemakers and moderators now. 

 

[Kirkhill]

But YZT

I think the point has been made a number of times that there is an increased cost in maintaining two separate fleets.

Two sets of spare engines
Two sets of tools
Two sets of simulators
Two sets of simulator spares
Two sets of simulator tools......

So from a cost efficiency stand point one machine that will work in both the low threat domestic environment AND the high threat overseas environment surely makes sense?

Now, having said that, I am sure there is indeed a large portion of the Canadian public who would prefer that the RCAF not be able to operate overseas,  in which case a fly by wire SE5a would be just the ticket.

But if we want to work in war zones as well as at home doesn't it make sense to purchase a beast that will survive in them?

I see the situation as being analogous to a soldier being on Public Duties in his DEUs (F35 with tanks), ACP in Combats (F35 with external weapons), combat with cam paint (F35 with internally stowed weapons).  One soldier, one aircraft, many roles .... suitably equipped.