F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SeaKingTacco]

As a taxpayer, that sentence bugs me.  I don't want you to have the best of anything - I want you to have "good enough to get the assigned task done".

No wonder we have lost credibility with "the center".

As you well know, I do not pretend to know what the right answer is to Canada's fighter purchase dilemma, but...

were Leopard 1s  not "good enough" for the assigned task in Afghanistan? Why did we then buy Leopard 2s? What, precisely, is the armoured threat to Canada that will require our army having tanks in the future? Surely, anyplace that we go will outside of Canada, we will be in a coalition with the US and they have plenty of tanks- I'm sure they will be happy to provide tank support to us.

Do you see where the " good enough" argument gets us, as the CF?  I agree the CF will never be the US military in terms of Combat power- nor do we need to be.

But, we do need to rationally examine our true defence needs and, buy the right kit. Sometimes, the right kit is cheap up front, but has significant life cycle costs.  Sometimes, it is really expensive up front.

Do I know the F35 is right for Canada?  Not a clue.  I do know the US is betting the farm on the program, and I do know that every alternative fighter offered also has one issue or another attached to it. I am pretty sure that if we buy something other than the F35, that the RCAF will make do.  It seems to be a perfectly Canadian trait.

 

[Jungle]

I'm a tax payer too; I also want a plane that will be "good enough to get the assigned task done", but not just today's assigned task, I want it to be good enough for future assigned tasks. If we are unsure what those tasks will be in 20 years, then we need to acquire a new system that will have a lot of upgrade potential, instead of a system that has been upgraded close to it's limit.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Ok then, we'll just fly the CF-18's for the next 50 years.  After all, they are good enough to get the assigned task done.

But wait..keeping them flying....that would cost a lot of money.  So that's not a good idea. 

It's one of the options, and they're getting a price on it. I think your dismissal of that option is premature.

Are there alternatives?  Why yes!  How about one of the following that gives us the most bang for the multi role platform buck we'll end up paying:

Why do we need a whole lot of multi-role capability? We're buying fewer aircraft than the Voodoo fleet to do the same job, and that's stated as higher priority than expeditionary ops.  On top of that, they'll be the only air defence equipment of any stripe other than point defence for the frigates, now that we're stripping Arty AD of their weapons. Whatever aircraft we do have are going to spend their flying hours doing DCA over Canada, not doing super-stealthy "first day of the war" deep strike so why pay extra for what we don't have the numbers to use?

 

[WingsofFury]

It's one of the options, and they're getting a price on it. I think your dismissal of that option is premature.

Thanks, I know what the options are.  But if you think that Canada is going to put the current fleet of CF-18's beyond a 2030 window then I think that you're being very short sighted.  The cost of maintenance would be more than what we would be paying to maintain a new fleet.  I've said before and I'll say it again - the current Hornet fleet will be good until about 2025, not this 2020 window that everyone keeps talking about.  Even the current CDS has stated as such in an article noted above.  If a new platform is delivered around 2020 that will ensure that there is enough time to transition to the new fighter while still flying the old ones.  The Voodoo and Starfighter platforms were in service for 5 years after the CF-18 was acquired, so if that were to happen during the transition to the new fighter this time it's not that big a deal.

Why do we need a whole lot of multi-role capability? We're buying fewer aircraft than the Voodoo fleet to do the same job, and that's stated as higher priority than expeditionary ops.  On top of that, they'll be the only air defence equipment of any stripe other than point defence for the frigates, now that we're stripping Arty AD of their weapons. Whatever aircraft we do have are going to spend their flying hours doing DCA over Canada, not doing super-stealthy "first day of the war" deep strike so why pay extra for what we don't have the numbers to use?

A whole lot of multi role capability?  Apart from being a low observable platform and the unique DAS sensor array, there is NO difference between the weaponry the F-35 can carry and what the other competitors can carry.  And believe it or not, there is such a thing as too little when it comes to a multi role platform.  Just take a look at how far behind the avionics packages in the Hornets in Yugoslavia were without the upgrades which should have been done was.

I'm also going to take exception to your comment that the F-35 is a super stealthy first day of war deep strike platform.  It's not a B-2 or Tomahawk cruise missile, is it?  And it's not meant to be.  Your notion that a plane which has any LO characteristics being a first day of the war deep strike option is far off the mark.  Ask any fighter pilot in a combat situation whether they would want a plane that has a small radar signature vs one with a large signature and you'll see why that feature is an important one.

Unless you intend to remove Canada from NATO, or have them not become an active participant during a UN sanctioned mission, then fine - buy the best air superiority fighter available with the best possible regional offset package and that will be the end of it. 

But that's not going to happen.

So once again, I put the question to you and others - what would you want to see and why?  I've outlined why I think the F-35 would be a good choice, and also gone so far as to say that it should be matched with a second platform - the F-15K or the F-15SG.  Yes, I know it would blow the budget out the door, but quite frankly, I don't care.  It would ensure Canadians had a great fast air capability well past 2050.

So what would you do?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The cost of maintenance would be more than what we would be paying to maintain a new fleet.  I've said before and I'll say it again - the current Hornet fleet will be good until about 2025, not this 2020 window that everyone keeps talking about.  Even the current CDS has stated as such in an article noted above.

The cost of maintenance may or may not be higher than the other options. That would be spelled out in the support bid. The acquisition cost for that option would probably be a whole lot lower, and that will also be spelled out in the bid.

A whole lot of multi role capability?  Apart from being a low observable platform and the unique DAS sensor array, there is NO difference between the weaponry the F-35 can carry and what the other competitors can carry.  And believe it or not, there is such a thing as too little when it comes to a multi role platform.  Just take a look at how far behind the avionics packages in the Hornets in Yugoslavia were without the upgrades which should have been done was.

None of those reasons are going to mean anything intercepting Bears or flying CAP over a G-20 meeting, which is pretty much what they're going to be restricted to doing.

Ask any fighter pilot in a combat situation whether they would want a plane that has a small radar signature vs one with a large signature and you'll see why that feature is an important one.

Sure. Right after I ask whether a Bear has an air-to-air radar.

Unless you intend to remove Canada from NATO, or have them not become an active participant during a UN sanctioned mission, then fine - buy the best air superiority fighter available with the best possible regional offset package and that will be the end of it. 

We're not looking at buying numbers that will allow both NATO/UN and NORAD, and NORAD has been stated as a higher priority. Therefore, we don't need the best air superiority fighter around, we need an interceptor.

So what would you do?

Buy the lowest bidder with the best offsets that will do the NORAD job.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure. Right after I ask whether a Bear has an air-to-air radar.

......

Buy the lowest bidder with the best offsets that will do the NORAD job.

Ships have surface to air radar and foreign ships are allowed to approach our coasts within the 400 km range of those long range radars.

With respect to the lowest bidder.... outstanding.

We can save a ton of money by converting the RCN to a fleet of Holland Class OPVs to monitor and control our EEZ.  When appropriate we can send along a couple of OPVs into territorial waters like the Caribbean to support friendly governments.  No need for multipurpose frigates ... or those nasty, stealthy submarines.  >

 

[PuckChaser]

Buy the lowest bidder with the best offsets that will do the NORAD job.

How's the lowest bidder angle working for our subs?  :

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Ships have surface to air radar and foreign ships are allowed to approach our coasts within the 400 km range of those long range radars.

I don't understand your point. Could you clarify?

We can save a ton of money by converting the RCN to a fleet of Holland Class OPVs to monitor and control our EEZ.  When appropriate we can send along a couple of OPVs into territorial waters like the Caribbean to support friendly governments.  No need for multipurpose frigates

OPV's couldn't meet frigate specs. They wouldn't even be allowed to bid.

or those nasty, stealthy submarines.

Submarines are holes in the water....that you shovel cash into. The only way the current ones were bought was through extremely creative accounting, and that was with the boats themselves being next to free. That's not going to happen twice, so the capability will probably disappear when these ones either wear out or are recognized for their obsolescence.

How's the lowest bidder angle working for our subs?

The only time that kicked in was for the in-service support. That's actually working out well.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't understand your point. Could you clarify?

OPV's couldn't meet frigate specs. They wouldn't even be allowed to bid.

North American defense isn't solely concerned with encroachment by aircraft.  An equal concern is encroachment by foreign vessels.  Given that vessels can carry heavier payloads than aircraft, arguably a single Q-ship is a greater threat than a squadron of Bears.  It may be appropriate to be able to approach maritime target without being observed and kill it.

Those targets do have the ability to mount radar and state owned vessels have very good radar (the Brits are boasting that their Type 45 destroyer radars can track 1000 baseballs at 400 km....)

Argument supporting those opposed to low observables - the F35 will probably be tracked.

Counter proposition - the Super Hornet will definitely be tracked.

Which aircraft do you want to be on board while supplying air cover to the RCN?

With respect to the OPVs not meeting Frigate specs:

Who said anything about needing frigates?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

North American defense isn't solely concerned with encroachment by aircraft.  An equal concern is encroachment by foreign vessels.  Given that vessels can carry heavier payloads than aircraft, arguably a single Q-ship is a greater threat than a squadron of Bears.  It may be appropriate to be able to approach maritime target without being observed and kill it.

Generally if aircraft don't want to be seen by a ship, they approach below the radar horizon. LO doesn't enter into it. In the case you mentioned, the fighters would generally be coached on to the target by either another ship or an Aurora.

Who said anything about needing frigates?

Still not getting your point.

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe that you are proposing that the F35, a multipurpose aircraft, can be replaced by an older vintage, less capable platform dedicated to performing a single function - air intercept (kind of like a manned Bomarc). 

I suggest that the same logic could be applied to the need for multipurpose ships (frigates) and that they could be replaced with less capable platforms dedicated to performing the single function of EEZ patrol.  Unlike your proposals for the aircraft they would at least be of modern design.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Buy the lowest bidder with the best offsets that will do the NORAD job.

That's going to be the F-35. By your criteria there are only three options: F-35, Super Hornet and Gripen.

Acquisitions costs of the Super Hornet and Gripen are both higher: 90~95 million (at least) RRF for the Hornet next year based on SAR and the fees incurred through FMS*; 80~100 million for the Gripen according to the Swiss and Saab documentation. F-35 will be $85 million. Gripen will certainly have lower long operational costs, F/A-18E might depending on the F-35. However that cost savings will likely be offset by higher use rates (lower fleet numbers), higher upgrade costs (funding development + purchasing upgrades alone vs partnership format.)

The F-35 will have the best offsets. With a $9 billion dollar acquisition the actual offset hit is about $7 billion. Boeing and Saab will just meet the minimum based on Canadian contracting regulations, so 100%. Boeing will be the standard fare of subcomponent assembly on 7XX series commercial airliners ect. However I really worry about Saab's ability to deliver meaningful offsets. As DND estimated last year, the partnership will accrue about $9 billion dollars in direct offsets for the acquisition side alone.



* In reality the Super Hornet's cost might broach $100 million in 2015 without another US buy (not likely) or Brazil + Australia making purchases. We won't make a decision until late 2014 at the earliest if the entire thing goes to competition which bodes poorly for the Super Hornet line.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I believe that you are proposing that the F35, a multipurpose aircraft, can be replaced by an older vintage, less capable platform dedicated to performing a single function - air intercept (kind of like a manned Bomarc). 

More like the current multi-purpose aircraft we mostly use for AI that we have now can be replaced by either life-extended versions of the same aircraft or whichever new aircraft that can do the same AI job and is the lowest cost.

I suggest that the same logic could be applied to the need for multipurpose ships (frigates) and that they could be replaced with less capable platforms dedicated to performing the single function of EEZ patrol.  Unlike your proposals for the aircraft they would at least be of modern design.

I counter your suggestion with the observation that we tend to do more with the frigates than just EEZ patrol. If we were to reduce the RCN numbers to just being able to meet our EEZ patrols then you would have a very good point.

That's going to be the F-35. By your criteria there are only three options: F-35, Super Hornet and Gripen.

No, there are other options from other bidders. We really have to wait to see what their bid is. If the F-35 really is the lowest cost then it should be picked.

The F-35 will have the best offsets. With a $9 billion dollar acquisition the actual offset hit is about $7 billion. Boeing and Saab will just meet the minimum based on Canadian contracting regulations, so 100%. Boeing will be the standard fare of subcomponent assembly on 7XX series commercial airliners ect. However I really worry about Saab's ability to deliver meaningful offsets. As DND estimated last year, the partnership will accrue about $9 billion dollars in direct offsets for the acquisition side alone.

I think F-35 is not in a position to offer a guarantee of good offsets, while the other bidders will be able to guarantee theirs. That's just the nature of the MoU.

 

[Kirkhill]

We do more with the frigates because we can do more with the frigates and we wish to do more with the frigates.

We have done more with the F18s than just Air Intercept.  Gulf 1, Bosnia and Libya come to mind.

Both the RCN and the RCAF have been preferentially employed as foreign policy instruments over the Army.  There has been much speculation as to why that might be the case.

 

[HB_Pencil]

No, there are other options from other bidders. We really have to wait to see what their bid is. If the F-35 really is the lowest cost then it should be picked.

The other two bidders are Rafale ($105 million) and Eurofighter ($115 million). Both have much higher purchase and operational costs based on figures from their Audit Agencies. Dassault doesn't go below cost (actually they have been criticized in the UAE and Indian negotiations for uncompetitive bidding). I don't think Eurofighter can go below costs due to UK law (particularly after the  al-Yamamah corruption scandal)  and the partnership agreement. Both have higher operational costs as well.

I think F-35 is not in a position to offer a guarantee of good offsets, while the other bidders will be able to guarantee theirs. That's just the nature of the MoU.

Most of the contracts at this point have been signed and production has been spooling up... so the 9.0 billion is probably pretty firm at this point compared to earlier estimates. Moreover the quality of the offsets are significantly more advantageous from a economic standpoint compared to the normal way of doing business. 20+ years of work on new technology is far more significant than 2 years of work on existing technology.

 

[The Bread Guy]

How's the lowest bidder angle working for our subs?  :

To be fair, that was more of a "we can get a bar-GOON buying them used!" approach.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

We do more with the frigates because we can do more with the frigates and we wish to do more with the frigates.

And we have enough frigates that we have the option of doing what you've stated. If the frigate numbers were cut to only permit EEZ patrols, their multi-purpose capabilities would be largely wasted.

We have done more with the F18s than just Air Intercept.  Gulf 1, Bosnia and Libya come to mind.

We've also had the airframe numbers to permit that. The new project will reduce airframe numbers to less than the Voodoo's assigneds to AI, so we probably will not be able to both do NORAD and other lower priorities.

Both the RCN and the RCAF have been preferentially employed as foreign policy instruments over the Army.  There has been much speculation as to why that might be the case.

Yes, well that may change. The government did choose to only buy enough aircraft to do NORAD. They've either made a decision to use other options or they're going to be in for quite a surprise.

The other two bidders are Rafale ($105 million) and Eurofighter ($115 million). Both have much higher purchase and operational costs based on figures from their Audit Agencies. Dassault doesn't go below cost (actually they have been criticized in the UAE and Indian negotiations for uncompetitive bidding). I don't think Eurofighter can go below costs due to UK law (particularly after the  al-Yamamah corruption scandal)  and the partnership agreement. Both have higher operational costs as well.

Perhaps so, I wouldn't be surprised. They have a chance to put in their bid.

Most of the contracts at this point have been signed and production has been spooling up... so the 9.0 billion is probably pretty firm at this point compared to earlier estimates.

I doubt that. Not many of the actual aircraft production contracts have been signed at all, and the $9 billion depends on all of the aircraft being produced.

 

[WingsofFury]

We've also had the airframe numbers to permit that.

The new project will reduce airframe numbers to less than the Voodoo's assigneds to AI, so we probably will not be able to both do NORAD and other lower priorities.

Yes, well that may change. The government did choose to only buy enough aircraft to do NORAD. They've either made a decision to use other options or they're going to be in for quite a surprise.

Let's see...there are 77 CF-18's currently in service.  15 of those go to 410 for training purposes.  That left 62 between the two TFS for deployment.  If we estimate that 5 of that fleet are in the hanger for maintenance, then it drops the number to 57.  That means with 57 aircraft available we managed to look after Canadian air space and rotate planes over the course of the mission to Libya to keep 7 planes on station for the entire mission.

So what, then, would be the problem with having 65 planes on hand if none are being used for training purposes and we make the assumption that 5 of them might be hanger queens which would leave about 60 planes left to cover NORAD duties and to deploy from if necessary?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Let's see...there are 77 CF-18's currently in service.  15 of those go to 410 for training purposes.  That left 62 between the two TFS for deployment.  If we estimate that 5 of that fleet are in the hanger for maintenance, then it drops the number to 57.  That means with 57 aircraft available we managed to look after Canadian air space and rotate planes over the course of the mission to Libya to keep 7 planes on station for the entire mission.

So what, then, would be the problem with having 65 planes on hand if none are being used for training purposes and we make the assumption that 5 of them might be hanger queens which would leave about 60 planes left to cover NORAD duties and to deploy from if necessary?

Would we not still have a F-35 OTU for advanced training before pilots join and operational squadron?

I was happy with 65, given the better performance envelope and reliability/availability/maintainability criteria than ever before, but I was happy with:

Pacific Det:              6
NORAD Sqn West:  12
Expeditionary Sqn: 12 (serves as backup for NORAD sqns when not deployed)
NORAD Sqn East:  12
Atlantic Det:            6
OTU:                      12
T&E & Log Stocks:    5

 

[WingsofFury]

Would we not still have a F-35 OTU for advanced training before pilots join and operational squadron?

I was happy with 65, given the better performance envelope and reliability/availability/maintainability criteria than ever before, but I was happy with:

Pacific Det:              6
NORAD Sqn West:  12
Expeditionary Sqn: 12 (serves as backup for NORAD sqns when not deployed)
NORAD Sqn East:  12
Atlantic Det:            6
OTU:                      12
T&E & Log Stocks:    5

I like your breakdown.

I just think that the OT portion will be completed down in the US as part of the bigger training mandate which was put forth which would include instructor pilots from the various partner countries.

Once again, there are options on the table and since we're not getting them for another few years who knows what the arrangement will be at that time.