The F-35 is not dead

[Rockie]

Like I said before, stealth is about 1% of the interesting things on the JSF. There is another 99% that most Canadian will never know.

The SH will not be supported past 2025. What do you suggest we do then??

What BPF said, and by 2040 maybe they'll put another engine on the F-35 and drop the price by 50%. Then it might be suitable for our vast country with the small tax base.

[Diadem]

I came across an interesting stat recently. The F 15, a decidedly non stealthy airframe, has a world wide all operator record of 115 to 0 in air to air combat in multiple theaters of operations and against aircraft that are peer competitors.

Just how many times better than the opposition do we have to be........

I don't know about you, but if I were fighting in a war I would would every possible technological advantage over my enemies. For soldiers, there is no limit to how much better they can be than their opponents. Would you honestly want a fair fight when your life was at risk? The stealth technology may never be needed, but wouldn't it be better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it? I've never crashed an airplane, but I'm not going to remove my ELT because I've never needed it before.
Western countries aren't the only ones that have been developing technology over the last three decades, and just because F-15s didn't need stealth in the 80s doesn't mean fighters won't need it in the future. The Russians and Chinese are improving their radar at the same time as we're improving our stealth capabilities. It's the same reason we don't still use piston-powered fighters.

[frosti]

It may shock you to know military pilots are not immune especially when they don't have to pay for it.

It may shock you to know that current military pilots also pay taxes AND will have to fly the next generation jets. Their opinions on the topic matter more than what joe canada tax payer has to say. I don't hear too much from the riff raff crowd regarding the new ships for the Navy. Too many experts on fighter jets these days, especially those in the media.

The US Navy has already stood up a midlife extension and sustainment project office for the F-18E/F. They are on record in a report to Congress that the F-18 platform will be a part of USN fleet fast air until 2040.

Great. We order the SH, receive them during 2020 then 5 years later we should have them fully operational. We just wasted $billions on a legacy aircraft that will only last us 15 years and are obsolete on delivery day. Meanwhile, all our allies fly upgraded F35s and we are the laughing stock of western air power. Again. I would love to see what would happen if a strike package of CF-18s flew over Syrian airspace right now. If you think that is bad, wait to see what will happen in 2040 when we are STILL flying legacy jets into hostile airspace.

Too many penny pinchers on this forum...

[Rockie]

It may shock you to know that current military pilots also pay taxes AND will have to fly the next generation jets. Their opinions on the topic matter more than what joe canada tax payer has to say.

No it doesn't. Unless those military pilots are going to bear the cost of this thing entirely on their own. If that's the case then fill your boots.

Meanwhile, all our allies fly upgraded F35s and we are the laughing stock of western air power.

Is that why you want this jet? So nobody will laugh at you?

I would love to see what would happen if a strike package of CF-18s flew over Syrian airspace right now.

Canada isn't about to send a package over Syrian airspace now or in the future regardless what airplane they have. Either is the United States in case you haven't been following the news.

[Rockie]

The stealth technology may never be needed, but wouldn't it be better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?

There's a little thing called "cost" that has to be considered not to mention the other reasons this airplane is not suited to Canadian needs. Plus this airplane is so fraught with problems who knows when it will be available and at what price and in acceptable numbers?

Simplistic arguments like that one are not helpful.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I came across an interesting stat recently. The F 15, a decidedly non stealthy airframe, has a world wide all operator record of 115 to 0 in air to air combat in multiple theaters of operations and against aircraft that are peer competitors.

Just how many times better than the opposition do we have to be........

I don't know about you, but if I were fighting in a war I would would every possible technological advantage over my enemies. For soldiers, there is no limit to how much better they can be than their opponents. Would you honestly want a fair fight when your life was at risk? The stealth technology may never be needed, but wouldn't it be better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it? I've never crashed an airplane, but I'm not going to remove my ELT because I've never needed it before.
Western countries aren't the only ones that have been developing technology over the last three decades, and just because F-15s didn't need stealth in the 80s doesn't mean fighters won't need it in the future. The Russians and Chinese are improving their radar at the same time as we're improving our stealth capabilities. It's the same reason we don't still use piston-powered fighters.

This would be true if the Defence budget was unlimited but it is of course not. AFAIK there has never been a CAF fighter pilot killed in action in the last 60 yrs. But 150 soldiers have died in the last 10, yet we are going to spend up to 1/3 of the next 20 years of the capital procurement budget on not Gold plating but Platinum plating, the requirements for tactical air effects, only one small part of what the Canadian Military does to further the national security interests of Canada.

I know this sounds unfeeling but why is a fighter pilots life worth so much more than everybody else's in the Canadian Military ?

[frosti]

No it doesn't. Unless those military pilots are going to bear the cost of this thing entirely on their own. If that's the case then fill your boots.

Great just what this country needs, farmer frank from Saskatchewan giving his opinion on what fighter jet to buy.

Canada isn't about to send a package over Syrian airspace now or in the future regardless what airplane they have. Either is the United States in case you haven't been following the news.

What else do you see in that crystal ball of yours? Did it show you that CF-18s were going to be flying over Libya?

I know this sounds unfeeling but why is a fighter pilots life worth so much more than everybody else's in the Canadian Military ?

Probably because of the astronomical costs it requires to get him trained up to be fully combat capable. Infantry is easy, give him a rifle and put him in the field for 2 months.

[careerpilot?]

Thus far, I have agreed with your (and others') arguments for the F-35. I choose to remain silent as I don't want to get tangled into this argument.

Probably because of the astronomical costs it requires to get him trained up to be fully combat capable. Infantry is easy, give him a rifle and put him in the field for 2 months.

However, I take offense to this comment. If its so easy, you go out there and sweat your ass off in the Afghan heat wearing 100lbs of gear and body armor, all the while dodging bullets and IEDs. I've accumulated over a year outside the wire - what have you got?

Please keep in mind many of those 158 "expendable infantrymen" were my friends. Their lives are worth no more, no less than any other.

Now back to the discussion. If the stealth saves just one life, IMHO it is worth it (and we are buying these so we can be expeditionary, make no mistake. The days of Canada following that painful myth of peacekeeping are over)

Edited - damn you, autocorrect!

[careerpilot?]

Anyway, apologies for my previous rant. A purely emotional response.

I'd like to throw out something for discussion. The key arguments seem to center around the role of the new aircraft. I think we could all agree (at least in principle) that the F-35 is better suited to expeditionary ops in a medium-high threat environment with its stealth and sensor capabilities, while the SH is better suited to the defense of Canada and NORAD obligations (2 engines, cost, no need for stealth, etc.)

What if we considered a mixed fleet? I haven't done the math, but what about 30 or so F-35s for expeditionary ops (sure we would probably only deploy 4-8, but the rest would be required for training, spares, etc) and 30-40 SHs for NORAD obligations? Of course, each is somewhat capable of fulfilling the others' role as well, if a surge were required. The overhead would increase to maintain parts, qualifications, etc for 2 different types - but would the cost savings, both up front and for long term maintenance, be enough to make this viable? I'm just musing this over without having done any quantifiable math (I wouldn't know where to start), and thought I would throw it out for discussion.

Thoughts?

[Rockie]

Great just what this country needs, farmer frank from Saskatchewan giving his opinion on what fighter jet to buy.

Farmer Frank may know nothing about military capability but if he's paying for it then you're damn right his opinion counts, and if he says he's not willing to pay for something he doesn't think we can afford the government had better listen to him.

What else do you see in that crystal ball of yours? Did it show you that CF-18s were going to be flying over Libya?

It doesn't require a crystal ball to know Canada will not be sending any aircraft over Syria...ever. The only reason any country undertook operations over Libya is because the Americans all but eliminated the serious anti-air threat first and Libya was all alone. Syria has much more capable defenses and Moscow backing them up.

[Rockie]

What if we considered a mixed fleet? I haven't done the math, but what about 30 or so F-35s for expeditionary ops (sure we would probably only deploy 4-8, but the rest would be required for training, spares, etc) and 30-40 SHs for NORAD obligations? Of course, each is somewhat capable of fulfilling the others' role as well, if a surge were required. The overhead would increase to maintain parts, qualifications, etc for 2 different types - but would the cost savings, both up front and for long term maintenance, be enough to make this viable? I'm just musing this over without having done any quantifiable math (I wouldn't know where to start), and thought I would throw it out for discussion.

Thoughts?

The nice thing about the CF-18 when it was selected was that although it wasn't the best at anything, it did everything well. It was a true multi-role fighter that was best suited for Canada at the time militarily, economically and politically. Canada can no longer afford multiple types of combat aircraft, in fact even the Americans with their vast military budget are realizing the benefits of consolidating types. We can only get one type of fighter so it has to do everything, it has to be reliable, and it has to be affordable.

[careerpilot?]

What if we considered a mixed fleet? I haven't done the math, but what about 30 or so F-35s for expeditionary ops (sure we would probably only deploy 4-8, but the rest would be required for training, spares, etc) and 30-40 SHs for NORAD obligations? Of course, each is somewhat capable of fulfilling the others' role as well, if a surge were required. The overhead would increase to maintain parts, qualifications, etc for 2 different types - but would the cost savings, both up front and for long term maintenance, be enough to make this viable? I'm just musing this over without having done any quantifiable math (I wouldn't know where to start), and thought I would throw it out for discussion.

Thoughts?

The nice thing about the CF-18 when it was selected was that although it wasn't the best at anything, it did everything well. It was a true multi-role fighter that was best suited for Canada at the time militarily, economically and politically. Canada can no longer afford multiple types of combat aircraft, in fact even the Americans with their vast military budget are realizing the benefits of consolidating types. We can only get one type of fighter so it has to do everything, it has to be reliable, and it has to be affordable.

True indeed. However, I think where we are stuck is that we don't have a fighter available that can do everything, like we did with the CF-18 purchase. The F-35 can't do it all due to its much publicised shortcomings (over-publicised, IMO), but I'm not sure the SH can be expected to in the long term either. Not that I have a solution, just musing...

Hey, maybe we can pull the old CF-5s out of mothball for NORAD defense, and use the F-35 for expeditionary ops?

[frosti]

However, I take offense to this comment. If its so easy, you go out there and sweat your ass off in the Afghan heat wearing 100lbs of gear and body armor, all the while dodging bullets and IEDs. I've accumulated over a year outside the wire - what have you got?

I was merely pointing out the costs of generating fighter pilots vs. infantry. I never said infantry was easy, however from my point of view they chose their careers knowing very well what they'd be getting themselves into. There was no draft in Canada and I know a lot of kids joined the CF after the Afghan conflict started.

However, I think where we are stuck is that we don't have a fighter available that can do everything. The F-35 can't do it all due to its much publicised shortcomings (over-publicised, IMO)

The F35 was designed as a multi-role expeditionary fighter right from the beginning. It's going to replace a lot of legacy fighters in the US and allied fleets that are nearing the end of their life.

Farmer Frank may know nothing about military capability but if he's paying for it then you're damn right his opinion counts, and if he says he's not willing to pay for something he doesn't think we can afford the government had better listen to him.

Franks job is to provide the money to the government, he is not qualified to give his opinion on aircraft type. Can you imagine the gong show that would ensue if we left government/military procurements to public referendums? People get their information from the media (who don't have a clue themselves) and the internet, neither are reliable sources. If Canadians don't want fighter jets or a military that is a different story. We are going to spend X amount of dollars on new fighter jets, it's the qualified people in government who are responsible for the aircraft type, not your average taxpayer. They don't have a say on tanks, ships, submarines, helicopters, rifles or tac vests. What makes fighter jets so special? Cost?

[Rockie]

Franks job is to provide the money to the government,

The government works for Frank, Frank does not work for the government.

This is a concept you and the government would do well to learn.

[fleetcanuck]

Not taking aim at any particular posters.

I do not think the government or military 'experts' have done a credible job at procurement with any equipment except perhaps the C-17s for the last three decades. Helicopters, submarines, icebreakers, SAR fixed wing etc ad nauseum...

[yultoto]

I do not think the government or military 'experts' have done a credible job at procurement with any equipment except perhaps the C-17s for the last three decades.

The C-17 was a single source purchase based on specifications (SOR) that were Cut-and-paste right out of the C-17 documentation and performance manuals. The people at DND looked up the C-17 specs and capabilities and wrote the SOR around it. Late in the procurement stages, when it became clear that other contenders were going to be able to compete, the required payload was doubled overnight.
Are you certain that this is what you want to call a "credible" job at procurement ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Canada needed Strat Lift and we got it in the C 17, which is the only major Canadian Armed Forces capital procurement program in at least the last 30 years that was delivered ahead of schedule and below the projected cost....that sure works for me.

The CDS at the time specifically ordered that the C 17 had to be a USAF spec airplane and that the "Air Force good idea club" would not be allowed to "Canadianize it. Contrast that to the Chinook project. Last I heard out unit cost is 75 % higher than a US Army spec machine mostly because of all the mods we insisted be installed

[Tom H]

Haven't read this thread in a while as it had gone circular....

But the aircraft (or multiple types of aircraft) required comes down to the mission it is expected to perform.

Sovereignty Patrols and interdiction?
NATO/NORAD support and commitment?
Other International commitment?

How long is it expected to be in service...really?
How long do we really expect any fighter bought over the next 5 years to be front line in 15...seriously?

Like lets get serious...

[Colonel Sanders]

The CDS at the time specifically ordered that the C 17 had to be a USAF spec airplane and that the "Air Force good idea club" would not be allowed to "Canadianize it. Contrast that to the Chinook project. Last I heard out unit cost is 75 % higher than a US Army spec machine mostly because of all the mods we insisted be installed

It's incredible how things don't change over the decades.

50 years ago, my father at CEPE was asked to chair the
cockpit configuration committee of the "Canadianized"
CF-104.

He looked at the cockpit, and found some deficiencies
that he would have liked to have changed. But he was
horrified at the cost, and the delay, and his recommendation
was to accept the F-104 "as-is".

The CO of CEPE pulled him aside and told him that he
simply couldn't do that. There were legions of government
bureaucrats who's jobs depended upon "Canadianizing"
aircraft, regardless of the cost/benefit.

My father, sickened by the corruption, refused. That was
the end of his RCAF career, really. No more promotions.
Left in 1965 after all the good flying was had, and the F-5
was the "new, fast" airplane and the Liberals were in the
process of dismantling the military.

I really don't understand how people can stomach working
for such a corrupt government, that is really in the business
of providing an elaborate welfare program which is hidesouly
expensive to the taxpayer, and delays procurement.

Revolting.

[2R]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I33k8vV3Sk

These are not the Droids you are looking for

[Diadem]

This would be true if the Defence budget was unlimited but it is of course not. AFAIK there has never been a CAF fighter pilot killed in action in the last 60 yrs. But 150 soldiers have died in the last 10, yet we are going to spend up to 1/3 of the next 20 years of the capital procurement budget on not Gold plating but Platinum plating, the requirements for tactical air effects, only one small part of what the Canadian Military does to further the national security interests of Canada.

I know this sounds unfeeling but why is a fighter pilots life worth so much more than everybody else's in the Canadian Military ?

You're absolutely right, but I want the best equipment for the job for army, navy and air force; rather than bringing fighter pilots down to the level of poorly-equipped infantry and tankers, we should raise the soldiers and sailors up to the level of the pilots. People who are putting their lives on the line should be given the best equipment for the task, regardless of cost, and the people who are putting their lives in danger are the ones in the best position to judge what equipment they need. If cost is such an issue for so many people on this board, do they advocate giving our soldiers swords instead of assault rifles, and Cessna 172s and pistols to the pilots? Give them equipment which will give them the best chance of surviving a combat situation, especially if it's decades ahead of anything the enemy can field.

Franks job is to provide the money to the government,

The government works for Frank, Frank does not work for the government.

This is a concept you and the government would do well to learn.

Okay, then I guess Frank should tell the fire department how to fight fires, and engineers how to build bridges. He pays his taxes to hire people with expertise that he doesn't have.

It doesn't require a crystal ball to know Canada will not be sending any aircraft over Syria...ever. The only reason any country undertook operations over Libya is because the Americans all but eliminated the serious anti-air threat first and Libya was all alone. Syria has much more capable defenses and Moscow backing them up.

And what will Canada's air force be doing in five years? Ten? Twenty? We don't base our decisions to buy aircraft on the current possible missions. We have no idea what kind of threat we'll face over the ensuing decades, and I for one would like our military to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality. Oh, and during the intervention in Libya the coalition had to use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy radar and anti-aircraft weapons before deploying fighters to enforce the no-fly zone. Shall I restate that stealth aircraft were able to operate in a warzone from which conventional aircraft were initially prohibited?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Oh, and during the intervention in Libya the coalition had to use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy radar and anti-aircraft weapons before deploying fighters to enforce the no-fly zone. Shall I restate that stealth aircraft were able to operate in a warzone from which conventional aircraft were initially prohibited?

So why does it have to be our stealth aircraft ? After the first few days of Libyan SEAD ops the non stealthy CF 18 was extensively employed. All of the national security, foreign affairs and international objectives of Canada were achieved.

Canada has never conducted unilateral strike operations. All of out operations have been part of a coalition of like minded nations. Each of these countries contributed to the extent of the political will not to the extent of the capabilities of the equipment they had. I think that it is in the future national security interests of Canada to maintain the capability for tactical air effects. I have yet to see a cogent argument for why Canada would want to conduct first strike warfare, the principal advantage to a high end stealth platform.

In my mind the choice is simple.

1) Do we go with a as yet unproven F 35 stealth platform with no cost certainty and one that will require substantial investment in the legacy F18 fleet due to the ongoing program delays, or

2) Do we go with the highly proven mature F18E/F platform which has total cost certainty, is available before the current fleet ages out and represents a substantial advance in capability over what we have now ?

[Rockie]

Okay, then I guess Frank should tell the fire department how to fight fires, and engineers how to build bridges. He pays his taxes to hire people with expertise that he doesn't have.

You should pay more attention to your local or regional budget processes. Police and Fire services are never given a blank cheque and they have to justify every dollar they're given every single year. Every year they also make decisions on what they can do without based on what the civilian population can afford to give them. Neither they or engineers who build bridges are told how to do their jobs, but they most definitely are told how much money they will be given to do it. It's a fact of life in our society.

The same principle applies to the military. Yes, it would be nice if they always had the best manpower, training and equipment but that is not possible anywhere in the world because it has to be paid for. It is up to us to ensure the politicians don't send our military somewhere they are ill equipped or unprepared to go. That's Frank's job, not sending money as demanded to the government or government departments to do with as they see fit. It's Frank's money. Don't ever forget that.

[Beefitarian]

Was it Frank's money that helped bolster Paul Martin's ship building company? More importantly, did Frank get a refund?

That second one was rhetorical.

[tailgunner]

What the critics of the F35 have failed to grasp, is the enormous ability this will provide us in international affairs.
With the F35 Canada can seamlessly integrate in any future UN or NATO mission. This means that our committment as an effective ally can encompass a detachment of fighters. This gives us the ability and the means to be an effective front line partner as opposed to an afterr thought cheerleader. The cost of deploying 6-8 fighters overseas is way less expensive than a Naval detachment and rotation, and way less risky in lives than a battalion or company of the Army. We will be able to have 10-12 pilots over hostile territory rather than 120-240 troops digging in and taking fire.....
During Kosovo, we were an initial hinderance to the strike packages because our jets were not modernized, during the Libyian campaign we were effective....what a difference an modern asset can be.
The F18 SH looks good now, but definately has a quicker best before date. While the F35 will soldier on way past it. Cheers.