F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[ReeferMadness]

The F-35 presents the same problem as the Avro Arrow. They are too expensive. Canadians do not want to pay for or participate in, the defence of Canada. Their attitude is folly, but they are the boss.

If you think that Canadians don't want to pay to defend Canada, provide some evidence that's true. I think Canadians are happy to pay for Canada's defence - they just don't see how bombing Iraq and Syria necessarily does that.

[Smallc]

My understanding was that the F35 was intended to be a multi-role aircraft and that's why it's so expensive.

The F-18 and F-16 are both multirole aircraft.

One last question. We had well over 100 F18's but the proposal is to buy only 65 F35's. Did we have too many F18's or is this just a matter of us only buying 65 because they think that the cost of the 100+ F35's wouldn't be politically acceptable?

We operate only 77 F-18s now.

[segnosaur]

So far, the RCAF deployment in Iraq and Syria have been confined to killing individuals or small groups. These are operations that could be carried out with more success and a lot less money using infantry.

Deploying ground troops (with the inevitable Canadian deaths that would come with it) would be politically unpopular, and a non-starter.

As I said previously, the flock of wild turkey's behind my cabin are a better air combat platform than the F-35.

Then I guess you'd be wrong about that.

Unless those turkeys are actually Autobot Transformers.

The F-35 presents the same problem as the Avro Arrow. They are too expensive.

Two points:

- The F35 is not necessarily more expensive than the alternatives

- The arrow had other problems... it was designed for only a single role (interceptor) and was unsuitable for other purposes. The F35 is multirole.

[ReeferMadness]

The F-18 and F-16 are both multirole aircraft.

The F-18's were bought as multi-role aircraft. The F-16 was designed as an air superiority aircraft and evolved into a multi-role aircraft. However, neither had the mind-boggling costs of the F-35.

We operate only 77 F-18s now.

Which is worrisome because 138 CF-18's were built. If we buy 65 F-35's and have a similar attrition rate, we're going to be operating with no airforce at some point.

[segnosaur]

I'm not sure that Canadians generally would be in favour of spending a lot more money to allow future governments to "set international policy".

The average voter has multiple personalities. They want to save money, but they want social programs, and (occasionally) military involvement. Those are contradictory.

The examples you've provided (Libya, Afghanistan) and Iraq have all turned into disasters. Now Syria is a huge mess. Maybe we shouldn't be using bombing as a tool of international policy.

While Libya, Afghanistan, etc. are not exactly shangra la, what you should be comparing them to is not how they are now to how you want them to be, but how they are now with how they would be today had we not gotten involved.

Afghanistan (before the invasion) was a horrible place to live (especially if you were a female). There is a level of violence now, and the current government is far from what we'd recognize as a full democracy, but the average citizen is still better off now than they'd be if the Taliban were in power.

(Not to mention the fact that the use of Afghanistan territory for Al Qaueda training camps had to be addressed.)

Similarly, Libya is not a nice place now, but it wasn't under the previous government either. And the western countries didn't start the conflict... a war was already ongoing. If the western forces hadn't started bombing, you probably would have had a more protracted civil war, with more dead, and still with a bad government at the end.

There are stories that the F35's are terrible in a dogfight (slow, don't turn or climb well). I understand that the point is to defeat the enemy without getting to the dogfight stage but are we sure that dogfighting is no longer required?

First of all, as I pointed out, the suggestion that its "terrible in a dogfight" largely comes from a misinterpretation of a test which pitted an F35 against an F16. However, the F35 didn't have the completed software, the pilot didn't have the proper helmet, and the whole point of the exercise was to test (and adjust) the aircraft's control settings.

Secondly, you are right... the point is to defeat the enemy before getting into a dog fight. The idea of a sort of top-gun plane-vs-plane fight with guns-ablazing is pretty much fictional at this point. And do you really want to sacrifice the greater advantage that comes with a smaller radar cross section (allowing you hit a plane from much further way without detection, which probably affects 99% of air battles) for the supposedly better ability to dog fight (which would help in 1% of air battles)?

Lastly, I find it amazing how people who complain about Canada getting involved in foreign military engagements also complain about the ability to dogfight, since we are even more unlikely to get involved in dogfights over our own territory than we are over (for example) syria.

Edited September 22, 2015 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Is the F16 safer than the F15 because it's a simpler design?

Possibly. Or its safer because its slightly newer. (It didn't have its first flight until a couple of years after the F15.) Or its just one of those random unplanned things.

Either way, the point is that halving a single engine isn't the "death sentence" that F35 critics seem to suggest.

My understanding was that the F35 was intended to be a multi-role aircraft and that's why it's so expensive.

Its expensive because, well, its a jet plain, not a Yugo.

All fighter jets are expensive. Others have pointed out that the potential competitors to the F35 have prices that are in the same range as the F35 (and in some cases significantly higher.)

Of course, some of the new technology might increase the cost, but some of that technology (e.g. internal weapons bays) will benefit us regardless of what we use the planes for.

[segnosaur]

Fair enough. But given the bad press that the aircraft has had and what's at stake, isn't there an incentive for them to provide favorable reports?

You referring to the media giving bad press to the F35?

There are a couple of possibilities:

- Media people are unfamiliar with military issues, and thus are easily swayed by negative reports

- Media people want to sell subscriptions/get viewers, and a controversy (like "Oh no, the F35 is a scandal!") might get them those viewers

- Media people are biased agaist the conservatives and/or military establishment.

One last question. We had well over 100 F18's but the proposal is to buy only 65 F35's. Did we have too many F18's or is this just a matter of us only buying 65 because they think that the cost of the 100+ F35's wouldn't be politically acceptable?

Well, the operative word was "had" over 100 F18s. Many were canibalized to keep the rest flying.

There are several reasons I can see to buy only 65 F35s...

- It would be politically unpopular to buy an even bigger (and more expensive) fleet. Its bad enough hearing about the "+$40 billion" planes; hearing about $60 billion planes would be even worse

- Because the F35 will probably be produced for the next 2 or 3 decades, we don't need to buy replacement planes now. If, in 20 years we loose a few, we can buy new ones off the assembly line. (On the other hand, if we buy an alternative, we may have to buy more up front in case a few crash and they aren't making any more.)
Edited September 22, 2015 by segnosaur

[Big Guy]

...

Afghanistan (before the invasion) was a horrible place to live (especially if you were a female). There is a level of violence now, and the current government is far from what we'd recognize as a full democracy, but the average citizen is still better off now than they'd be if the Taliban were in power.

...

Sorry segnosaur, I challenge that statement. It has been generally accept that in human behaviour, humans have a series of "needs" priorities which have to be satisfied, in order, for stability. In Maslow's theorems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

if physiological and safety needs are not met than you can forget the others. At least under the Taliban, there was safety. Hundreds of thousands of people were, and continue to be killed. with Western intervention. I suggest the same situation prevails in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

Do you really think the average citizen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya et al are safer to-day than they were before Western intervention?

[ReeferMadness]

Secondly, you are right... the point is to defeat the enemy before getting into a dog fight. The idea of a sort of top-gun plane-vs-plane fight with guns-ablazing is pretty much fictional at this point. And do you really want to sacrifice the greater advantage that comes with a smaller radar cross section (allowing you hit a plane from much further way without detection, which probably affects 99% of air battles) for the supposedly better ability to dog fight (which would help in 1% of air battles)?

If you're fighting less capable enemies, I agree you probably wouldn't need to dog fight. However, if you're fighting another stealth plane (e.g. the Russians), wouldn't the stealth technologies cancel each other out and put you back into a dog fight?

Lastly, I find it amazing how people who complain about Canada getting involved in foreign military engagements also complain about the ability to dogfight, since we are even more unlikely to get involved in dogfights over our own territory than we are over (for example) syria.

I'm not complaining - I'm asking questions. And if you're of the mindset that our focus should be air defence over Canada rather than bombing Syria, then it seems like dog fighting should be a higher priority.

[Smallc]

Which is worrisome because 138 CF-18's were built. If we buy 65 F-35's and have a similar attrition rate, we're going to be operating with no airforce at some point.

Most of that was not attrition, but rather a strategic shift out of Europe. We only upgraded 80 if the 138 aircraft.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you're fighting less capable enemies, I agree you probably wouldn't need to dog fight. However, if you're fighting another stealth plane (e.g. the Russians), wouldn't the stealth technologies cancel each other out and put you back into a dog fight?

Not necessarily, as US/NATO F-35 strike fighter would have significant range and sensor advantages over "the Russians" because of integrated data links and countermeasures from other platforms.

[ReeferMadness]

Not necessarily, as US/NATO F-35 strike fighter would have significant range and sensor advantages over "the Russians" because of integrated data links and countermeasures from other platforms.

Well. That remains to be seen. And when it's seen, it will be too late to do anything about it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well. That remains to be seen. And when it's seen, it will be too late to do anything about it.

If you really believe that, then the advantage goes to the F-35, which will "see" the other guy first (BVR).

[segnosaur]

if physiological and safety needs are not met than you can forget the others. At least under the Taliban, there was safety. Hundreds of thousands of people were, and continue to be killed. with Western intervention. I suggest the same situation prevails in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

No, there wasn't "safety". There was stability. That is not the same thing, since under the Taliban, women could be arrested for going outside the house alone (especially a problem for women who were widows), This is in addition to mass slaughter of civilians in areas the Taliban was trying to control, and starvation because Afghanistan was denying food aid.

Oh, and did I mention the trafficking in sex slaves?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Massacre_campaigns

Like I said, I'm not saying Afghanistan is a wonderful place to live now. Its just better than it was.

Do you really think the average citizen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya et al are safer to-day than they were before Western intervention?

Yup.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/afghanistan-is-doing-better-than-you-think-104903

The Afghan capital, far and away its largest city, is safer than ever by most measures. Of course, not all is well. In addition to the Serena attack, a popular Lebanese restaurant was bombed this past winter and many expatriates killed; a Norwegian journalist was recently murdered in cold blood on a street by a fringe insurgent group. But for the local population, the danger posed by insurgents is not the major worry in their lives.

And from: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/afghanistan-abc-news-national-survey-poll-show-support/story?id=9511961

Afghans' expectations that their own lives will be better a year from now have jumped by 20 points, to 71 percent, a new high.

Not going to bother with Libya, since (as I said before) the civil war had already started by the time the western bombing started. Same with Syria.

[ReeferMadness]

If you really believe that, then the advantage goes to the F-35, which will "see" the other guy first (BVR).

You don't know that.

[segnosaur]

If you're fighting less capable enemies, I agree you probably wouldn't need to dog fight. However, if you're fighting another stealth plane (e.g. the Russians), wouldn't the stealth technologies cancel each other out and put you back into a dog fight?

First of all, keep in mind that the Russian program to develop a stealth jet are way behind those of the U.S. (They're still at the prototype phase), and last I heard they were planning on cutting back to 12 planes. They're also developing the plane along with India, but apparently India was not happy with the progress. So, I doubt we'll be seeing any Russian stealth jets in the near future.

http://theweek.com/articles/558397/russias-fancy-new-stealth-fighter-serious-trouble

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/01/indian-air-force-not-happy-with-sukhoi-t-50pak-fafgfa.html

Secondly, even if Russia did get a reliable stealth jet in the air, that doesn't necessarily make the F35 a bad choice. There are no other stealth jets available for western airforces (except the F22, which isn't available for sale), and a pilot in a stealthy F35 will still be better off than if they were in a non-stealthy F18, since they would at least still have a chance to catch the Russian plane unaware.

[Derek 2.0]

Doesn't Canada have much more territory to cover than either Norway or the US? I'm thinking of the chance that the fighter would be over the Arctic Ocean when it lost an engine and the distance/time that would be involved in a rescue. Maybe Denmark might be a better comparison because it defends Greenland, although I don't know how often it would do air patrols there. Also, is the comparison to the F16 fair? My understanding of the F16 was that it was designed to be a fairly simple aircraft that could be purchased in relatively high numbers because it was relatively low cost. That's not my impression of the F35.

Is the F16 safer than the F15 because it's a simpler design?

The two most common causes of fighter aircraft losses, from engine failures, are fuel contamination and ingesting birds. Fuel contamination will effect a single or multi-engine type equally, likewise, we’ve lost twin engine Hornets (and Voodoos before that) to birds, where unlike a civilian airliner (with its engines under the wings), both single and twin engine fighters share common inlets (air intakes) and their engines are within in a near proximity within the airframe/fuselage……I don’t know if there has ever been an instance of a twin engine fighter surviving a bird strike that resulted in the loss of only one engine.

And yes, the Danes do conduct sovereignty missions over Greenland with their F-16s, likewise, the United States Navy and USMC have used more single engine types in their history than twins. And I think the comparison to the F-16 is fair, as that is the primary aircraft the F-35A will replace. Despite the often repeated myth that we purchased the Hornet because of its 2 engines, the reason we didn’t purchase the cheaper F-16 (which at the time had its engines made in Quebec) was because the early versions didn’t have a radar capable of guiding the Sparrow medium range missile, which we needed for NORAD.

Once the later F-16s did have an upgraded radar, the once cheap fighter became comparable in price as other fighters. The F-35A version will be a modern “cheap” aircraft purchased in the thousands, as the F-16 was before it.

My understanding was that the F35 was intended to be a multi-role aircraft and that's why it's so expensive. It seemed like Trudeau was arguing we should focus on air defence and not something designed to penetrate other countries' defences. Is there a less expensive alternative that would be better?

All modern types are considered multirole, absent air superiority types like the aging F-15 and the F-22 (or the Russian T-50), of course said types are nearly limited to only air-to-air missions, but would excel in the NORAD mission. Of course though, said types cost more than the F-35 (The newest version of the F-15, an aircraft in service since the early 70s, even costs more than the current price of the F-35), and would preclude us from NATO commitments that require a more multirole type.

Very few air forces today can afford singular mission focused aircraft.

Fair enough. But given the bad press that the aircraft has had and what's at stake, isn't there an incentive for them to provide favorable reports?

The USMC, since WW II, have had no qualms with rejecting countless underperforming aircraft types (even during wartime), inversely have a reputation of taking aircraft panned by “experts” and restoring said aircraft’s “reputation”….From the F4u corsair, to the Phantom II as a CAS platform, the widow making Harrier and now the F-35B………If the Marines are jumping up and down over it there should be little concern.

One last question. We had well over 100 F18's but the proposal is to buy only 65 F35's. Did we have too many F18's or is this just a matter of us only buying 65 because they think that the cost of the 100+ F35's wouldn't be politically acceptable?

We initially (during the cold war) had a requirement for nearly 175- 200 fighters, to fulfill our commitments to NORAD, NATO (in Germany) and to reinforce Norway in case of a war with the Soviets. We ended up purchasing nearly a 140 Hornets (with options for another 30 IIRC) and filled the balance of our needs with the substandard CF-5 Freedom Fighter. From the early 60s to the present day, it was determined we would require ~50 aircraft at home for NORAD (plus spares and aircraft for training) and an equal number based in Germany.

Once the Wall came down, we no longer needed the older Freedom Fighters, and the active Hornet numbers were also reduced to present levels. We currently have 48 operational Hornets, plus spares and trainers, with an F-35 buy, we’d have 48 operational F-35s, with spares and a reduced requirement for trainers, as F-35 training will be more reliant on technology (simulators) and joint international training in the United States (similar to how we operate today the NATO flight training center). With that said, sometime in the future, depending on aircraft losses, we might require a small attrition purchase of anywhere from ~5-10 aircraft (based on the loss rate of our current Hornets).

[Derek 2.0]

There are stories that the F35's are terrible in a dogfight (slow, don't turn or climb well). I understand that the point is to defeat the enemy without getting to the dogfight stage but are we sure that dogfighting is no longer required?

The stories are exactly that, the test flights with the F-16 was used to calibrate the F-35 avionics and flight safety presets.........From what has been released in the public sphere, the F-35 will have similar performance to both the Hornet and F-16, the difference though, such specs are based on "air show" configuration, without fuel tanks and munitions hanging under the wings, which degrade performance drastically.......The F-35 can carry munitions and similar amounts of fuel internally, hence not effected by drag, hence not a reduction in performance.

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't know that.

Sure I do...and so do the "Russians".

[Argus]

So far, the RCAF deployment in Iraq and Syria have been confined to killing individuals or small groups. These are operations that could be carried out with more success and a lot less money using infantry.

You willing to be parachuted in?

How many casualties are you willing to accept in order to have cheaper aircraft?

[ReeferMadness]

First of all, keep in mind that the Russian program to develop a stealth jet are way behind those of the U.S. (They're still at the prototype phase), and last I heard they were planning on cutting back to 12 planes. They're also developing the plane along with India, but apparently India was not happy with the progress. So, I doubt we'll be seeing any Russian stealth jets in the near future.

http://theweek.com/articles/558397/russias-fancy-new-stealth-fighter-serious-trouble

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/01/indian-air-force-not-happy-with-sukhoi-t-50pak-fafgfa.html

Secondly, even if Russia did get a reliable stealth jet in the air, that doesn't necessarily make the F35 a bad choice. There are no other stealth jets available for western airforces (except the F22, which isn't available for sale), and a pilot in a stealthy F35 will still be better off than if they were in a non-stealthy F18, since they would at least still have a chance to catch the Russian plane unaware.

Yeah.

I have to say that I think the main factor to consider is that we have a credible deterrent so that we don't wind up fighting the Russians. They have nuclear arms and any actual war with them is unlikely to end well for anyone concerned. Same goes for the Chinese.

My main concern with buying these planes is that they wind up fighting all kinds of wars where the argument that they are making me safer is really iffy. And the argument that they are actually making me less safe is more convincing.

That's why I would be much more comfortable with a plane that is designed for air defence and not so much for attacking another country.

[ReeferMadness]

Sure I do...and so do the "Russians".

Maybe you think you know but I don't believe you do. There is all kinds of guessing about the capabilities of the Russians and the Chinese. Even if there are people in the know, I don't trust any information they release. They will overstate the other guys capabilities to get the population to support higher military spending or understate them to avoid panic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe you think you know but I don't believe you do. There is all kinds of guessing about the capabilities of the Russians and the Chinese.

Go count their number of air combat kills and get back to me. Even the Israelis have more.

[ReeferMadness]

Go count their number of air combat kills and get back to me. Even the Israelis have more.

The number of combat kills for the F-35 is zero. Want me to count again?

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe you think you know but I don't believe you do. There is all kinds of guessing about the capabilities of the Russians and the Chinese. Even if there are people in the know, I don't trust any information they release. They will overstate the other guys capabilities to get the population to support higher military spending or understate them to avoid panic.

The Chinese are still incapable of designing their own military engines, relying still on Russian produced engines. Their latest domestic fighter uses Russian engines from the 70s/80s, engines that the West knows inside and out (Many of the Soviet’s former allies are now in NATO), as such are able to determine the aircraft’s performance based on its size and aerodynamic shape, coupled with the engines…….

The Russians aren’t much better, but in fairness, their latest developments can be expected to be a least on par with current Western 4^th and 4.5 generation aircraft.