F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

We just got rid of ADATS...they were the last AD platform out there. Now it's down to just the fighter force. Next G-20 meeting? It's all you. Next national emergency involving air threats? All you. Next time the US president wants to visit? Again, all you.

It was all us at the previous one.... And the G-8... And the previous one.  No big deal...  We treat it as a normal deployment and cut our FG to do FE.  It's all though of.  The ADATS has never really been part of the AD plans.  It is very much a point defence, SHORAD system.  Not a strategic system.  You put it at a location and hope someones flies low and close in order to shoot (unclass numbers are 4 NM range and 20 000' Max Alt. 

As far as boats providing Air Sovereignty...  Well, your systems are mostly for force protection.  The range is not great, your mobility is nowhere near the mobility of any aircraft.  Pretty much every enemy aircraft can detect you with its RWR and go around you, without you being able to do anything about it.  Don't want to burst your bubble, but your understanding of Air Defence is poor.

That may be true, but there aren't going to be the airframes or the flexibility to do much of that any more. Things are going to have to change.

And why is that?  Those missions are EXACTLY what the JSF is designed to do.

The CDS is going to have to suck it up and accept what Cabinet sees fit to buy. What makes you think you're any different?

Yup.  The people making decisions still need opinions from the experts in order to make a decision.

 

[Haletown]

The F-15SE announcement is for logistics in support of an aircraft sale.

The  F-35 announcement is for the (maybe) sale of actual aircraft.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

It was all us at the previous one.... And the G-8... And the previous one.  No big deal...  We treat it as a normal deployment and cut our FG to do FE.  It's all though of.

Great. You'll still have to do it with fewer airframes. The delta between our original number of upgraded aircraft and what we're going to get is larger than what we deployed to Libya, and that's not counting the three upgraded aircraft that have been lost.

With that loss rate, you're going to have a lot larger problem after a decade or so of having the new ones.

The ADATS has never really been part of the AD plans.  It is very much a point defence, SHORAD system.  Not a strategic system.  You put it at a location and hope someones flies low and close in order to shoot (unclass numbers are 4 NM range and 20 000' Max Alt. 

It has been part of the planning for certain contingencies as point defence for high value targets. Now it's just you.

As far as boats providing Air Sovereignty...  Well, your systems are mostly for force protection.  The range is not great, your mobility is nowhere near the mobility of any aircraft.  Pretty much every enemy aircraft can detect you with its RWR and go around you, without you being able to do anything about it.  Don't want to burst your bubble, but your understanding of Air Defence is poor.

Thanks, I know a little bit about naval AD capabilities. The point is that they're the last ground(-ish) based air defences in the CF. Anything outside their limited capabilities is open season.

And why is that?  Those missions are EXACTLY what the JSF is designed to do.

Not enough airframes. If the government bought more, then I'd agree with you.

The people making decisions still need opinions from the experts in order to make a decision.

Yeeahhh...no. The RCAF has been heard from when the requirements were drawn up. Actually, they've been heard from so much that they pretty much threw MND under the bus. Whatever happens now is going to be between Cabinet and the senior civil servants that are on the Secretariat.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We just got rid of ADATS...they were the last AD platform out there. Now it's down to just the fighter force. Next G-20 meeting? It's all you. Next national emergency involving air threats? All you. Next time the US president wants to visit? Again, all you.

Well the last AD system for us, seems other nations are not so confident of air supremacy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

... The people making decisions still need opinions from the experts in order to make a decision.

Indeed, and, yet again, as with shipbuilding, the prime minister has heard from the military commanders and the bureaucrats and he has, yet again, turned to "outsiders" for advice he thinks may be worthy. In the F-35 case the Evaluation of Options will be done by a small team lead by a former fighter pilot who is much, much better known as a bureaucratic fire-fighter, one university professor best known as an expert on constitutional history, another former PCO bureaucrat and a top level accountant.

The "take away," for me, is that the PM, cabinet and the PCO think DND, including the top levels of the defence staff, is incompetent or, untrustworthy - maybe both. I'm sure no one seriously doubts that Generals (and Admirals) Lawson, Donaldson, Blondin, Beare, Thibeault and Vance are brave, stalwart and dedicated warriors: willing and able to lead Canadians in battle. But I suspect that those same people (PM, cabinet and PCO) think that the CF's senior leaders are in way over their intellectual/training/experience heads when it come to planning strategy and, just as difficult, equipping the armed forces. I think the same doubts exist re: senior bureaucrats in line departments, including PWGSC, Industry Canada and DFAIT. There is, in my opinion, a "big picture" problem regarding strategic interests and national priorities within most government departments and, especially, within DND. Personally, I don't blame the senior military staff for being poorly equipped to do "high level" business - it's not something for which they, we, you were/are trained because, to be brutally, honest, it's none of their/our/your business.

The business of establishing, recruiting, equipping and paying a military force is a primary duty of the civil service - the business of training and then leading that force in battle, however well (or poorly) designed, established and equipped, is the job of military commanders. There are a few very senior civil servants silly enough to think that one person can do both - and, maybe, there are just enough historical exceptions to prove that rule - but not many fall into that trap; sadly, at least when I served, many senior military officers were of the opinion that they could do both - I met one, LGen(Ret'd) Bob Fisher,* who served as ADM(Mat) while still in uniform, who was, probably, able ... but he's the only one and he was, without a doubt, the smartest guy in any room he entered. He was also smart enough to slap down his uniformed confreres who tried to intrude into his domain.

It is not that military officers cannot and should not advise the government, it is that military advice is just one factor in a very complex political, strategic and economic calculus. Nigel Lawson** said, "To govern is to choose. To appear to be unable to choose is to appear to be unable to govern." The new fighter project is a political, not a military or economic choice, and the choice will be made for political, not military or economic reasons.


-----
*  See page 8 of this document
** Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government (1983-89)

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe the F35 programme to be broadly comparable to the EH-101 programme.  In both instances Canada had an upcoming requirement for a replacement aircraft.  In neither instance could Canada afford to develop its own national solution.  (Avro Arrow).  In both instances Canada was offered the opportunity to influence the development process in concert with allies.  In exchange Canada would get an aircraft more suitable to its needs, technology transfer, industrial development and sales potential.

The Tories bought into the EH-101 and the Liberals cancelled it.
The Liberals bought into the F-35 and it would be irony should the Tories cancel that.

The alternative solutions are:

Suck it up and buy what is available then adjust manning, tactics and training to what is available (CC-130, CC-177, CH-147, CH-146, CH-149)
Have manufacturer custom build a solution for your particular needs (CH-148).

All answers are wrong.
Which answer is least wrong.
TANSTAAFL.

The biggest thing to learn is that there is no right answer and every answer will be criticized and therefore, back to Shakespeare:

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly....

 

[cupper]

Some other food for thought:

F-35 Scores Historic First Combat Kill By Shooting Down F-35 Program

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/04/f-35-scores-historic-first-combat-kill-by-shooting-down-f-35-program/


F-35 Fighter Is Newest Exhibit At New York City Air Museum

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/03/f-35-fighter-is-newest-exhibit-at-new-york-city-air-museum/

 

[observor 69]

Reply #1764, Today at 11:34:10 from E.R.Campbell:

"It is not that military officers cannot and should not advise the government, it is that military advice is just one factor in a very complex political, strategic and economic calculus."

I give you the CF-104 used in a conventional ground support role and the increasing obsolescence of the CF-101 during it's later years.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Great. You'll still have to do it with fewer airframes. The delta between our original number of upgraded aircraft and what we're going to get is larger than what we deployed to Libya, and that's not counting the three upgraded aircraft that have been lost.

You clearly do not understand our operational tempo.  Most of the time, in Canada, we do Force Generation. Be it a Wingman Combat Ready Upgrade, Element Lead Upgrade, Section Lead Upgrade, Fighter Weapons Instructor Course or Continuation Training.  We will do Force Employment when we support NORAD (QRA), the Navy (AMC) or the Army (Normally CAS).  Even when doing Force Employment we can squeeze in some Force Generation (for example, an Element Lead Upgrade ride on someone while supporting the Army).  Right now, the syllabi call for roughly 25% Sim to 75% Flying.  Realistically, we do 10% Sim and 90% Flying.  And that's generous for the sim part...  With the JSF, this will be reversed... We will do 25% flying and 75% sim.  A lot of the stuff we will practice in the sim, we will not be able to do in the air during training (not because the aircraft is not capable, but for other reasons).  So, instead of doing a 8 turn 6 on a daily basis (sometimes and 8 turn 8 turn 6 during a surge period), we will do maybe a 2 turn 2 or a 2 turn 2 turn 2.  Most of what we do for Force Employment, minus NORAD will be contracted (Navy and Army support, as it is already with Discovery Air).  If you quickly crunch the numbers, right now we roughly have 25 jets per squadron.  We are able to maintain our current ops tempo at those training ratios.  So, we reduce our flying by 2/3.  Technically, we need 2/3 of the jets for FG that we would normally need.  For an 8 turn 6, we realistically need 10 jets on the line in the morning to make it happen.  So, we would need 4 jets on the line to make our 2 T 2 happen.  We need to maintain our NORAD commitment also.  So that an other couple of jets.  Let's say we need 12 jets to take into account NORAD, FG and maintenance per squadron.  12 jets X 4 squadrons is 48 jets.  Plus whatever the OTU will need (let's tackle another 12), that's 60 jets.  Plus a couple for AETE, OT&E, losses, etc.

So, with the 65 jets, we actually double our operational capability (4 front line squadrons vs the 2 we have now). 

If we bought 65 Super Hornet, I would agree with you.  However, with the way the JSF training is going to be conducted, it makes sense. 

It has been part of the planning for certain contingencies as point defence for high value targets. Now it's just you.

I am very familiar with the ADUSCAN.  Never read of the ADATS in it. Please provide me with a reference...

Thanks, I know a little bit about naval AD capabilities. The point is that they're the last ground(-ish) based air defences in the CF. Anything outside their limited capabilities is open season.

You know the technical aspect of AD, I'll give you that (the systems, maybe the operations).  I doubt you know anything about Air Defence Planning and execution.  Again, I have never seen anything in NORAD documentation about boats.

Yeeahhh...no. The RCAF has been heard from when the requirements were drawn up. Actually, they've been heard from so much that they pretty much threw MND under the bus. Whatever happens now is going to be between Cabinet and the senior civil servants that are on the Secretariat.

Advises are still asked and while not the only factor, it is still one of the plethora of factors in the final decision.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Haletown: Only half the DCSA picture, there's also the F-15SE:
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/mark-collins-s-korean-fighter-competition-us-administration-oks-possible-sale-of-f-35a-f-15se/

Is that reporting fair?

As for the Asians a good point--but not exactly Canada's situation:

"...
Go figure where it’s all heading if you can.  It’s almost as if the plane is remaining too expensive for many Western countries whilst the Asians (South Korea may also buy) have the money and the immediate threats–China, Russia, North Korea–to justify the expense for what they hope will be important and impressive new capabilities."
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/mark-collins-f-35-how-low-can-the-dutch-go-plus-japanese/

Mark
Ottawa

That is not accurate at all. As I made clear to you before, all the other options are as expensive or more so than the F-35. Purchasing an Super Hornet (the only plausible option that could be cheaper) is significantly more expensive through FMS with the admin fee, research fee and basic upgrades surrounding AMC Type 4. That also discounts the very likely production line slowdown with the end of MYP III.  Gripen is  even more expensive; the Swiss Government has stated its cost is 100 million Swiss Francs, or $105 million dollars USD.

The reality is that most European nations are cutting all military activity, not just the F-35.  The UK has lost 40% of its Challenger tanks, all of its operational aircraft carriers, and even the Vanguard replacement program, putting its SSBN deterrent at risk. France will see its military strength cut 17% by  2016, Germany by 25%... with significant cutbacks to capital account projects like the Tiger, NH90 and A400M.I could go on and on. The Eurofighter's production rate was cut by 20% two years ago, with Italy cutting over 22% of its purchase and the british trying to offload whatever aircraft they can from Tranche 3. All programs, including domestic ones, are getting cut.  Its pretty clear that the F-35 is not some sort of unique costly target like you try to portray in your narrative. 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

So, with the 65 jets, we actually double our operational capability (4 front line squadrons vs the 2 we have now). 

If we bought 65 Super Hornet, I would agree with you.  However, with the way the JSF training is going to be conducted, it makes sense.

Thanks, that's very informative. Now what happens if we don't get F-35? Or if the sim training turns out to not work as well as advertised?

I am very familiar with the ADUSCAN.  Never read of the ADATS in it. Please provide me with a reference...

I should be able to dig up pictures of it deployed near HVU's. The point is however, that it was a point defence system designed to defend a specific target vs an area air defence system like Patriot. I don't think you're going to be able to efficiently replace it. Constantly stationing a pair of fighters right over top of an HVU is going to need a lot of airframes and it's still not going to be as effective as parking a few vehicles on the likely approaches.

You know the technical aspect of AD, I'll give you that (the systems, maybe the operations).  I doubt you know anything about Air Defence Planning and execution.  Again, I have never seen anything in NORAD documentation about boats.

I see where you're coming from now. You wouldn't see much in NORAD about ships (not boats. Those are submarines and we don't carry air defences often). We usually look at tactical air defence, not strategic. The most you'd see in NORAD documentation would concern the requirement for IFF operating near naval ships.

Advises are still asked and while not the only factor, it is still one of the plethora of factors in the final decision.

Sure. They were asked to help drawing up the SOR and now their job is done. At this point the PAFO has a lot more to do with the decision than any pilot.

 

[observor 69]

Lockheed Martin lance une campagne de promotion des F-35 au Canada

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Economie/2013/04/07/001-lockheed-martin-f35-promotion-canada.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[WingsofFury]

And the english version....

Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35

U.S. defence contractor takes F-35 simulator on road show

By Terry Milewski, CBC News
Posted: Apr 8, 2013 5:15 AM ET
Last Updated: Apr 8, 2013 5:14 AM ET

Lockheed Martin, the giant U.S. defence contractor, is launching a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince Canadians to buy its F-35 stealth fighter jet — but it's simultaneously raising the price by a hefty $20 million US a plane.

Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O'Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million.It may not be the best time to mention that. The U.S. budget axe is hovering over the whole F-35 program and the Canadian government insists that it's no longer committed to buying the jet at all.

Still, Lockheed Martin is fighting on, sending its executives and a working F-35 flight simulator to wow Canadians with the capabilities of its brand-new, high-tech stealth fighter. The simulator will be on show in Toronto today, and in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa in the weeks ahead.

Lockheed Martin is also sending a Canadian combat veteran into the battle: Billie Flynn.Cue the Darth Vader helmet

Flynn is something of a star among stars — a veteran test pilot who can fly anything. He's married to Canadian astronaut Julie Payette. He served 23 years in the air force, flew combat missions in Kosovo, and has piloted 70 different aircraft — everything from Canada's CF-18 to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Now, Flynn is working for Lockheed Martin, and he says the F-35 is by far the best plane for Canada's needs — whether to support NATO missions like Kosovo or Libya, or to patrol the Arctic — all under the veil of stealth.

More at the link -> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.html

 

[AlexanderM]

$85 million per times 65 aircraft equals $5.525 billion, well within the budget.  We could purchase more than 65 aircraft.

 

[PuckChaser]

$85 million per times 65 aircraft equals $5.525 billion, well within the budget.  We could purchase more than 65 aircraft.

You'd have to include all the ridiculous other numbers that only apply to the F-35 cost (salaries, fuel, parts) that aren't included in estimates for competing aircraft. Just makes it fair...  :

 

[Jarnhamar]

We should plan to pay an extra 35 million per plane instead of just an extra 20.

 

[dapaterson]

What about hangers?  Maintenance equipment?  Training development?  Training costs?  Spares?  Weapons?  Simulators?

$9B is supposed to buy more than just aircraft.

For an interesting read, look at the December 2012 report on the NGFC, where, hidden in the notes, is acknowledgement that funding is not sufficient to cover estimated risks, with a shortfall of $848M.  The contingency plan is to purchase fewer than 65 aircraft.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports-rapports/ngfc-cng/index-eng.asp

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It was all us at the previous one.... And the G-8... And the previous one.  No big deal...  We treat it as a normal deployment and cut our FG to do FE.  It's all though of.  The ADATS has never really been part of the AD plans.  It is very much a point defence, SHORAD system.  Not a strategic system.  You put it at a location and hope someones flies low and close in order to shoot (unclass numbers are 4 NM range and 20 000' Max Alt. 

Problem is that Air Force air frames aren't good at counter UAS, counter aviation, and counter munitions (including ballistic missiles), which are concern areas for the Army, so there remains a requirement for a GBAD shooter.  As the major air threats for the next 20 years are, in order, Counter munitions (including ballistic and cruise missiles and PGM), UAS, and Aviation, with a MINOR fast air threat it would seem that we would be better to put money and PYs into GBAD systems such as Patriot/THAAD, MEADS, or a C-RAM type system and less into fancy jets that defend against non-existant threats (at least for the next 10-20 years). 

 

[Haletown]

The F-35 EODAS will bring considerable enemy fires detection capabilities, including ground fire . .

"F-35 DAS demonstrates hostile fire detection capability
The F-35 DAS has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.

While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area. Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission. This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload. The ability to gather this live fire data expands the mission possibilities of the sensor to include close air support and ground fire targeting."

Interesting that this capability is not part of the EODAS Req.  Bonus capabilities.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Problem is that Air Force air frames aren't good at counter UAS, counter aviation, and counter munitions (including ballistic missiles), which are concern areas for the Army, so there remains a requirement for a GBAD shooter.  As the major air threats for the next 20 years are, in order, Counter munitions (including ballistic and cruise missiles and PGM), UAS, and Aviation, with a MINOR fast air threat it would seem that we would be better to put money and PYs into GBAD systems such as Patriot/THAAD, MEADS, or a C-RAM type system and less into fancy jets that defend against non-existant threats (at least for the next 10-20 years).

Really?  When's the last time you operated an F-18 APG-73?  I can probably do it better, at a greater stand off range than the ADATS could do it. Probably not for PGM, however the idea is to get the PGM dropper before it can drop.  A proper IADS is definitely not part of our doctrine.  Having fighter to defend vital points, stationed at different places in Canada works and will work for the foreseeable future.  I can intercept a UAS, shoot down cruise missiles and shoot down aircraft.  In fact, all those contingencies and how we are going to deal with them is detailed (in excruciating details...) in the NORAD pubs. 

If you wanted to have a total, persistent coverage of the skies, we would need dedicated SAM sites.  However, for point, non-persistent defence, what we have now is perfect.