Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

nicky10013 · December 14, 2010

Interestingly to counter Army Guy's link, DND didn't come up with any requirements about what the plane should do until 2010.

DND briefing notes obtained by the Citizen make clear that Canada's participation in the JSF program was directed at understanding aircraft technology and improving the chances of Canadian industry obtaining contracts. There is no mention of Canada having any role in selecting the winning fighter.
Other DND documents note that Canada's requirements for a new fighter weren't drawn up until early 2010, raising the question of how Canada could have selected the F-35 as the plane it wanted back in 2001.

Aerospace industry representatives say the Conservative's claims about competition are laughable. At the time Lockheed Martin's F-35 was selected, Canada had $10 million invested in a $300-billion project. That kind of money buys no influence in a program designed to create 9,000 U.S. jobs, they say.

The Conservatives also had to confront charges that the JSF purchase demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility. The solution?" It was the Liberal government that in 2002 committed Canada to the development of this aircraft," Stephen Harper said, a point frequently echoed by Conservative ministers.

But DND briefing notes and other government documents obtained by the Citizen make clear participation in JSF research did not lock Canada into buying the plane. In fact, the Harper government emphasized this point in a December 2006 press release announcing Canada's involvement in the next phase of the JSF program.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Selling+Canada+need+fighters/3964588/story.html#ixzz182rmarWD

Bonam · December 14, 2010

BTW it isn't difficult to build a 5th generational fighter

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Moonbox · December 14, 2010

Up until recently I've been strongly advocating the purchase of this plane. When it rolls into production it will be pretty much the best thing in the air in any numbers.

My problem with it is how long that will last for. Other than the stealth and electronics on the plane, it has very little going for it. Its range is unremarkable, its thrust/weight is mediocre. Top speed is easily outclassed by 4th generation fighters. Its service ceiling is relatively low and it only has room for 2 anti-air weapons.

What that means is this plane has only one thing going for it: stealth. At the moment it outclasses anything out there simply because radar can't see it. This is all well and good for the time being, but what happens when infrared targetting systems start getting refined to the point where they WILL be able to detect planes at a decent range? When that happens the US and the rest of the world is going to be left with a useless plane that's heavily outclassed by even the 4+ generation fighters in terms of raw dogfighting.

This is supposed to be the go-to plane for the next 40 years. Is it likely that nobody's going to come up with better detection technology within the next 20 years? Doubtful.

bush_cheney2004 · December 14, 2010

....This is supposed to be the go-to plane for the next 40 years. Is it likely that nobody's going to come up with better detection technology within the next 20 years? Doubtful.

Is it likely that Canada will ever face known and future threats alone? Is it likely that Canada will be called upon to develop and execute defense suppression, CAP, and strike missions on its own? Does Canada have its own global positioning system?

Jerry J. Fortin · December 14, 2010

Up until recently I've been strongly advocating the purchase of this plane. When it rolls into production it will be pretty much the best thing in the air in any numbers.

My problem with it is how long that will last for. Other than the stealth and electronics on the plane, it has very little going for it. Its range is unremarkable, its thrust/weight is mediocre. Top speed is easily outclassed by 4th generation fighters. Its service ceiling is relatively low and it only has room for 2 anti-air weapons.

What that means is this plane has only one thing going for it: stealth. At the moment it outclasses anything out there simply because radar can't see it. This is all well and good for the time being, but what happens when infrared targetting systems start getting refined to the point where they WILL be able to detect planes at a decent range? When that happens the US and the rest of the world is going to be left with a useless plane that's heavily outclassed by even the 4+ generation fighters in terms of raw dogfighting.

This is supposed to be the go-to plane for the next 40 years. Is it likely that nobody's going to come up with better detection technology within the next 20 years? Doubtful.

Good solid reasoning. Yet another valid point for the open bid process, but it speaks volumes for our own flawed policy decision to venture into this market at this time. Perhaps our dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

Moonbox · December 14, 2010

Is it likely that Canada will ever face known and future threats alone? Is it likely that Canada will be called upon to develop and execute defense suppression, CAP, and strike missions on its own? Does Canada have its own global positioning system?

No. What's your point? Relatively speaking we're spending nothing on these planes. We're buying 65 of them. The US is buying thousands. I'm far from an expert on military tech, but the idea of big daddy down south putting all/most of their eggs into one basket is a little worrying to me. The plane actually doesn't seem that good aside from the anti-radar stealth. Is this a well-reasoned and practical military procurement decision, or is it a political and economical one? The US did pretty well for themselves from the late 70's early 2000's in terms of designing and building solid and practical tech. I'm hoping they're not taking a step backwards.

bush_cheney2004 · December 15, 2010

No. What's your point? Relatively speaking we're spending nothing on these planes. We're buying 65 of them. The US is buying thousands. I'm far from an expert on military tech, but the idea of big daddy down south putting all/most of their eggs into one basket is a little worrying to me.

The US has and will continue to have a platform mix driven by mission profiles...it is not dependent on one type of aircraft. Even Australia has managed to mitigate F-35 program risks by procuring Super Hornets. My point is that demanding the F-35 excel in many areas fails to recognize the inherent multi-role design compromises, actual Canadian mission profiles flown to date, and joint defense / interoperability objectives.

The plane actually doesn't seem that good aside from the anti-radar stealth. Is this a well-reasoned and practical military procurement decision, or is it a political and economical one? The US did pretty well for themselves from the late 70's early 2000's in terms of designing and building solid and practical tech. I'm hoping they're not taking a step backwards.

All such decisions are economic and political in the end, but few nations twist in the wind as much as Canada when it comes to such procurements.

The US already has world class air superiority and strike mission aircraft. It can take a step "backwards" and still be ahead of the game. If you feel the F-35 JSF is a "step backwards", try designing and building something better. Call it the...Avro Arrow II.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

Bonam · December 15, 2010

Up until recently I've been strongly advocating the purchase of this plane. When it rolls into production it will be pretty much the best thing in the air in any numbers.

My problem with it is how long that will last for. Other than the stealth and electronics on the plane, it has very little going for it. Its range is unremarkable, its thrust/weight is mediocre. Top speed is easily outclassed by 4th generation fighters. Its service ceiling is relatively low and it only has room for 2 anti-air weapons.

What that means is this plane has only one thing going for it: stealth. At the moment it outclasses anything out there simply because radar can't see it. This is all well and good for the time being, but what happens when infrared targetting systems start getting refined to the point where they WILL be able to detect planes at a decent range? When that happens the US and the rest of the world is going to be left with a useless plane that's heavily outclassed by even the 4+ generation fighters in terms of raw dogfighting.

This is supposed to be the go-to plane for the next 40 years. Is it likely that nobody's going to come up with better detection technology within the next 20 years? Doubtful.

Your evaluation of the F-35's non-stealth capabilities isn't exactly fair or accurate. Individually, it may be outclassed by specific older aircraft on the performance factors that you mention. But take them all together and the F-35 offers a well-rounded package unmatched by other production fighters (except the F-22). Name one Western fighter currently in production that simultaneously is better than the F-35 in all the following factors: top speed, design cruise speed, combat radius, maximum range, air-to-ground strike capability, ceiling, rate of climb, thrust/weight. You can't, because there isn't one. Not even close. That is not including the vast superiority it enjoys in stealth and ECM as well.

And yes, you are right, this won't still be the best plane 40 years from now. Of course not. Technology improves constantly and new things come around all the time. That is not the fault of the plane, rather, it is a problem of Canada's plane acquisition strategy: making a major purchase once every several decades and flying just that one model of plane for decades thereafter. If we were interested in maintaining an up to date air force we would purchase new planes more frequently and have multiple types (generations) of aircraft in service at the same time. 40 years from now, combat aircraft may well have directed energy weapons, hypersonic cruise, and be unmanned. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to modernize our systems now.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Bonam

Moonbox · December 17, 2010

Name one Western fighter currently in production that simultaneously is better than the F-35 in all the following factors: top speed, design cruise speed, combat radius, maximum range, air-to-ground strike capability, ceiling, rate of climb, thrust/weight. You can't, because there isn't one. Not even close. That is not including the vast superiority it enjoys in stealth and ECM as well.

Bonam you usually make better arguments than that. This is total straw man. Even the F-22 isn't better than the F-35 in ALL categories, although it's a much better and much more expensive plane. What really matters is how good the F-35 is at the roles it will be fulfilling. As a bomb truck, it looks pretty good. In an air-to-air roll, it looks to be outclassed by a good number of craft already. Considering how heavily the west is appearing to be relying on this plane moving forward, it's slightly worrying. The F-35, aside from stealth and ecm, doesn't look any better on paper than the F-16 in air-to-air capabilities. Comparing it to more modern Russian planes, like the Su-35-1 E for example, leaves a lot to be desired in air-to-air rolls. The F-35 us also twice as expensive.

And yes, you are right, this won't still be the best plane 40 years from now. Of course not. Technology improves constantly and new things come around all the time. That is not the fault of the plane, rather, it is a problem of Canada's plane acquisition strategy: making a major purchase once every several decades and flying just that one model of plane for decades thereafter.

I'm not expecting it to be, nor am I expecting Canada to fly a top line airforce. What's worrying is that the F-35 looks like a one-trick pony (stealth)and the West is building THOUSANDS of them. How long do you think it will take for the russians to develop more modern radar/infrared and how much do you think it will cost to equip their airforce with it? Disregarding stealth, the F-35 looks no better than a lot of the 4th generation fighters, and its costs are out of control.

bush_cheney2004 · December 17, 2010

...I'm not expecting it to be, nor am I expecting Canada to fly a top line airforce. What's worrying is that the F-35 looks like a one-trick pony (stealth)and the West is building THOUSANDS of them. How long do you think it will take for the russians to develop more modern radar/infrared and how much do you think it will cost to equip their airforce with it? Disregarding stealth, the F-35 looks no better than a lot of the 4th generation fighters, and its costs are out of control.

You are not being consistent....the F-35 is a multi-role platform designed to meet expected mission objectives, not an air superiority role against "Russians". It is first and foremost a strike / attack aircraft just as the original requirements stemming from Desert Storm dictated. That Canada can only afford to field one platform type does not condemn the design.

Moonbox · December 17, 2010

You are not being consistent....the F-35 is a multi-role platform designed to meet expected mission objectives, not an air superiority role against "Russians". It is first and foremost a strike / attack aircraft just as the original requirements stemming from Desert Storm dictated. That Canada can only afford to field one platform type does not condemn the design.

I apologize if I'm being unclear. I understand the multi-role platform and previous designs fulfilled the requirements well. My concern is more that it doesn't appear to be very multi-role at all. It looks to be a superb strike craft for the time being, and a waste of space in the air superiority role.

bush_cheney2004 · December 17, 2010

I apologize if I'm being unclear. I understand the multi-role platform and previous designs fulfilled the requirements well. My concern is more that it doesn't appear to be very multi-role at all. It looks to be a superb strike craft for the time being, and a waste of space in the air superiority role.

Maybe...maybe not. The order of battle, at least for American doctrine, is to obtain air superiority by suppressing defenses, establishing CAP, and dominating the electromagnetic spectrum. Ingress and egress to/from targets with strike aircraft is not a solo dance, even for stealth platforms, but stealth helps to reduce the amount of support required because of reduced detection and enhanced survivability. Once air superiority is established, strike missions can be completed with even more impunity.

Multi-role includes all variants, not just mission profiles. America has seen this movie before in the FB-111 fighter bomber...many years ago. This led to other platforms and advanced stand-off missile designs (e.g. Phoenix).

Edited December 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

Topaz · December 17, 2010

Ontario Liberal government's business.

NOT when they have Federal LOANS.

Moonbox · December 20, 2010

Maybe...maybe not. The order of battle, at least for American doctrine, is to obtain air superiority by suppressing defenses, establishing CAP, and dominating the electromagnetic spectrum. Ingress and egress to/from targets with strike aircraft is not a solo dance, even for stealth platforms, but stealth helps to reduce the amount of support required because of reduced detection and enhanced survivability. Once air superiority is established, strike missions can be completed with even more impunity.

Iraq proved how effective that doctrine was as well. I guess my question really is what platform is taking care of the air superiority for the US in ~15 years? In 1991 the US was operating F-14s, F-15s, F-16's, F-18's, F-117s and all of them had different roles. Move forward to 2020 and it looks like the US will be operating F-18E's and F-35's along with leftover 4th gens and a handful of 22's. Obviously I'm missing something here, because to me it seems that the US is going to be relying primarily on the F-35 to cover most/all of their bases. Aside from stealth, it really doesn't appear very impressive. It's completely outclassed by a number of existing platforms in terms of flight performance and the F-22 blows it away. For $130M a pop, why is everyone so into this thing?

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2010

..... Obviously I'm missing something here, because to me it seems that the US is going to be relying primarily on the F-35 to cover most/all of their bases.

I think what you are missing is the F-35's primary role, as well as other US assets that can be brought to bear (e.g. Tomahawk, JASSM ALCM, older Air National Guard aircraft types, Bomber stand-off weapons, etc.)

Aside from stealth, it really doesn't appear very impressive. It's completely outclassed by a number of existing platforms in terms of flight performance and the F-22 blows it away. For $130M a pop, why is everyone so into this thing?

Because it is designed to do several things well enough and survive the mission based on known and projected threats. Russia and China watched the Americans and NATO make child's play of their deployed systems and tactics...several times.

Edited December 20, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

Bonam · December 20, 2010

Bonam you usually make better arguments than that. This is total straw man. Even the F-22 isn't better than the F-35 in ALL categories, although it's a much better and much more expensive plane. What really matters is how good the F-35 is at the roles it will be fulfilling. As a bomb truck, it looks pretty good. In an air-to-air roll, it looks to be outclassed by a good number of craft already. Considering how heavily the west is appearing to be relying on this plane moving forward, it's slightly worrying. The F-35, aside from stealth and ecm, doesn't look any better on paper than the F-16 in air-to-air capabilities. Comparing it to more modern Russian planes, like the Su-35-1 E for example, leaves a lot to be desired in air-to-air rolls. The F-35 us also twice as expensive.

So it's as good as an F-16 at air-to-air, is a superb strike aircraft, and also has cutting edge stealth and ECM. What's the problem again?

Yes, it is not a revolutionary air superiority platform. But it doesn't need to be. For one, fighting large and powerful airforces to establish air superiority is not something that the West will likely be engaging in anytime soon, and certainly not Canada by itself. Secondly, the performance of these planes in the air-to-air combat role is limited by the g-forces that the pilot can be subjected to. You can't benefit from having acceleration much higher than existing fighters, unless you go unmanned.

As for the SU-35, you do know that the US already has more F-22s alone than all the SU-35s that Russia has ordered to be built in the future, right? The West is hardly outclassed here.

I'm not expecting it to be, nor am I expecting Canada to fly a top line airforce. What's worrying is that the F-35 looks like a one-trick pony (stealth)and the West is building THOUSANDS of them.

It's less of a one-trick pony than the F-16, and thousands of those were built anyway.

How long do you think it will take for the russians to develop more modern radar/infrared and how much do you think it will cost to equip their airforce with it?

I dunno. But I expect that our F-35s aren't gonna be called on to have a full out confrontation with Russia's air force any time soon. And if they did, they'd still blow Russia's air force to bits regardless because the West has vastly more aircraft, superior command and control, better trained pilots, and incomparably superior force projection capability (carriers). Any such all-out conflict between the West and Russia would quickly go nuclear anyway making that point moot. And if you mean Russian fighters being used by middle-eastern regimes which we might be more likely to fight at some point, they are and will continue to be a joke either way.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Bonam

Moonbox · December 20, 2010

So it's as good as an F-16 at air-to-air, is a superb strike aircraft, and also has cutting edge stealth and ECM. What's the problem again?

The F-16 is over 30 years old. When the F-35 comes out in 2018 or whatever it will be flying and handling like the US's discount fighter of 1980's. For $130 million, we'll be getting something that flies like it should cost $15 million.

Yes, it is not a revolutionary air superiority platform. But it doesn't need to be. For one, fighting large and powerful airforces to establish air superiority is not something that the West will likely be engaging in anytime soon, and certainly not Canada by itself.

Third world countries will be flying faster and more agile aircraft.

Secondly, the performance of these planes in the air-to-air combat role is limited by the g-forces that the pilot can be subjected to. You can't benefit from having acceleration much higher than existing fighters, unless you go unmanned.

Perhaps that argument could be made for the F-22, but not the F-35.

As for the SU-35, you do know that the US already has more F-22s alone than all the SU-35s that Russia has ordered to be built in the future, right? The West is hardly outclassed here.

That wasn't the point. The point was that the SU-35 rolled off the production lines well before the F-35, costs 25% of what the F-35 does, and would outmatch the F-35 in an air-to-air scenario. Russia is aggressively marketing these for export to the third world. Venezuala already has them on order. If existing planes already outmatch it in the air, what's going to happen when newer designs come out in the VERY near future?

It's less of a one-trick pony than the F-16, and thousands of those were built anyway.

Not really. The F-16 was successful as a multirole craft and was dirt cheap to boot.

And if you mean Russian fighters being used by middle-eastern regimes which we might be more likely to fight at some point, they are and will continue to be a joke either way.

How many US fighters went down in Vietnam?

Bonam · December 20, 2010

That wasn't the point. The point was that the SU-35 rolled off the production lines well before the F-35, costs 25% of what the F-35 does, and would outmatch the F-35 in an air-to-air scenario.

The first F-35 rolled off the production lines in 2006, the first new SU-35 (whose performance specs you are talking about) in 2008. Russia does have a faster prototype to production cycle though.

The cost is more like 50%, not 25%. The estimated cost of the SU-35 is "45 million - 65 million" while the F-35 is "89 million - 130 million" (for the air force variant), with Lockheed Martin promising to reduce that by ~20% over time. And much of the cost difference is likely due to the differences in labour costs, quality assurance, and standards compliance in Russia vs the US.

How they match in an actual air-to-air scenario is as yet entirely unknown.

0/3...

Anyway, if you think the F-35 isn't a good enough fighter, then feel free to campaign for us to develop our own better fighter, or change US law so we can buy F-22s instead, or for Canada to get an airforce consisting of multiple different aircraft that fill different roles.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Bonam

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2010

The F-16 is over 30 years old. When the F-35 comes out in 2018 or whatever it will be flying and handling like the US's discount fighter of 1980's. For $130 million, we'll be getting something that flies like it should cost $15 million.

A "modern" F-16 Block 60 is far more capable than the original and cost the UAE about $80 million each. These are new airframes with extended capabilities.

Third world countries will be flying faster and more agile aircraft.

Not as well as an American or NATO trained pilot.

How many US fighters went down in Vietnam?

Check for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#United_States_aircraft

Smallc · December 21, 2010

Since the F-16 is better at air to air than what we have now, I don't really see the problem. The only thing that is lacking when it comes to the F-35 is speed, and that won't be much of a problem, as it makes up for it with endurance.

Jerry J. Fortin · December 21, 2010

Since the F-16 is better at air to air than what we have now, I don't really see the problem. The only thing that is lacking when it comes to the F-35 is speed, and that won't be much of a problem, as it makes up for it with endurance.

I think the feds should call in their loans with Bombardier. Tell them to design and build us what we need and pay for it with what they owe us.

Bonam · December 21, 2010

I think the feds should call in their loans with Bombardier. Tell them to design and build us what we need and pay for it with what they owe us.

Not even close to being sufficient. Not to mention Bombardier does not have the capability to develop such an aircraft.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Bonam

Smallc · December 21, 2010

Not even close to being sufficient. Not to mention Bombardier does not have the capability to develop such an aircraft.

Exactly. It's either the F-35 or the Eurofighter. One of the two.

Moonbox · December 21, 2010

Doesn't anybody else worry about spending $130 on an apparently multirole fighter that, aside from stealth, will barely compete with 4th gen fighters in the air??

Nobody?

Its only advantage is stealth and being able to launch BVR before its enemies see it. Combine the F-35's low service ceiling and the fact that it carries only TWO air-to-air weapons, however, and it's unlikely that it's going to enjoy a great kill ratio against the most modern Russian-built fighters.

Bush you keep saying that the F-35 isn't meant to fill the air-superiority role. My question then, is what plane IS going to fill that for the USA moving forward? The only thing I can think of is the <200 F-22's, which can't even fly off of carriers.

M.Dancer · December 21, 2010

Its only advantage is stealth and being able to launch BVR before its enemies see it. Combine the F-35's low service ceiling and the fact that it carries only TWO air-to-air weapons, however, and it's unlikely that it's going to enjoy a great kill ratio against the most modern Russian-built fighters.

a 2-0 ratio at best...