Ginnerhttp://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/robert-work-f35-canada-1.3485473
Pentagon official anxious for direction from Canada.
“Whatever Canada’s choice is we’re going to be interoperable,” said Work. “I mean Canada and the United States armed forces are as about as interoperable as you can imagine.”
GinnerThis is because F-35 is the only 5th generation that is on sale from US/Europe. Nothing more, nothing less. So it is not “want”, it is “must”.
The F35 is not a “must” for Canada. The Typhoon and Rafale ( the plane itself) are both better suited to the Canadian mission set. The Gripen is far cheaper to operate and cheaper to acquire. The F18 is cheaper to buy and operate. Canada does not need a first day strike fighter.
GinnerNobody is minimizing anything, we are just pointing out that Canada’s circumstances aren’t all that unique. Past a point bigger just doesn’t matter anymore. The north/interior of Alaska is every bit as cold, empty, and inhospitable as similar areas in Canada. Canada is bigger than Alaska but it isn’t trying to patrol it’s territory from a single base. (And as mentioned above, if a pilot goes down in the water it doesn’t matter how far from base he is… he will be dead in minutes, before a helicopter could even get off the ground. )
Canad’s circumstances are very unique. This conversation just got quite silly
GinnerThat is your opinion based on, well.. inference and guesswork.
On the other hand we have USAF & allies (including the RCAF) who’s judgement is based on activities such as the Combat Archer program (300+ air-to-air missile launches every year)
And given the money and effort invested by Russia & China on stealth and radar tech, they probably have the same idea.
Are they really? One has to wonder why Saab and Dassault aren’t participating in the Danish competition then. And why Canada still continues to pay to be a member of the F-35 consortium.
Sorry…you don’t believe the canadian competition to be genuine? You don’t read the tea leaves very well. At this point the f35 is not the favourite.
GinnerSure, but when the CF-18 was chosen the other competitor in the competition was the F-16. Clearly even in 1979 the Canadians were not adverse to operating a single engine jet, else their requirements even then would have excluded single engine aircraft.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here?
The truly funny part of this whole single engine versus twin engine argument is it doesn’t matter where you are, if you lose an engine in a single fighter you are going to struggle. Being in the north of Canada doesn’t matter anymore than being in the middle of continental USA. If we look at the most numerous western fighter from the last generation, far and away it is the F-16, with more sold than any other fourth gen and more than the twin-engined F-15 and F-18 combined. Fear of a single engine has not stopped nations from purchasing the F-16 and it won’t stop Canada from choosing a single engine aircraft.
The single engine was the reason the f16 lost last time.
It does matter in Canada…or at least it did. If you lose an engine in the Beaufort the pilot is not going to survive. The Canadian arctic is far larger than Alaska or Norway. While there are f-16’s in Alaska (red flag aggressors) there are also f 22’s.
I am not so sure a single engine is a show stopper. But don’t minimize the vast expanse of territory we own.
GinnerWell if we grade any of the competitors against the requirements as outlined previously the F-35 right now has the best chance to fulfill all of them. By the time this competition gets going, if it ever does, production Blk 3F jets will be flying and available for evaluation.
Sorry, that argument doesn’t fly. Canada has operated single engine jets previously and there are other operators, including the USN operating from aircraft carriers and Australia operating over large stretches of desert, who have no problems operating a single engine aircraft. The US also has no problem operating the F-16 from Alaska and I hear it gets cold there occasionally…
I suppose it’s a good thing they are re-evaluating the requirements then.
Ginnerer, care to remind le how the aircraft was evaluated? what TESTS/missions has it flown?
Computer modelling for Japan. The Japanese purchase deciaion was pretty defensible. They had a perceived need for a strike aircraft. They also have F15s and a compatible tanker fleet.
GinnerNobody is upset that there is a competition. The f-35 has won every time so far. What is irritating is to have clueless politicians trying to override what the Canadian airforce wants.
There is nothing clueless about transparency. As far as I can tell the F35 has never even participated in a fair, transparent and open competion. Does Norway count as a win? Should South Korea count as a loss in 2013?
http://thediplomat.com/2013/09/south-korea-rejects-boeings-f-15se-fighter-will-restart-fx-iii/
What I see are a lot of F35 partners second guessing the program and reducing commitments. Denmark and Canada are both up in the air.
GinnerGiven that “dogfighting” is the least used aspect of modern air warfare, why would it be you top criterion for the F-35?
It’s a baseline requirement. If it can’t fight within visual range it’s a scary proposition as any nations only fighter. There’s enough information out there to suggest that it’s a legitimate point of concern. Alongside an F 22 F 15 or Typhoon to protect it…sure.
GinnerIf the plane can fight as well as it’s peers in A2A sure. But there’s enough reason to be concerned if it can compete with other planes on offer or the reference threat. It’s all marketing until they can prove it
GinnerI’d only be comfortable with the f-35 if it can show in actual flight testing the ability to be on par with or better than the other aircraft WVR. It would also be interesting to see just how stealthy it is against IRST and from the side. The BVR argument for the F35 is a lot of wishful thinking. We don’t engage BVR and it will rely on the ability of those missiles to actually hit if we did.
GinnerThe question remains, when the requirements are written again, why will they differ from what was already in place?
Why not? When was the last time Canadian aircraft operationally fought an air to air engagement? When was the last time Canadian aircraft operationally conducted an A2G mission?
Patently stupid is a bold claim given the requirements are not determined by government but by the RCAF. I trust they have a good idea on what they expect to do and who they expect to face.
As for your additional requirements, a focus on WVR goes against the entire trend in fighter combat aviation over the last 40 years and in that aspect the stealth and sensor fit of the F-35 will almost certainly allow it to win more than it loses against any adversary. Operating from short runways will be no different for the F-35 than any of the other contenders and the Norwegians have even funded the chute for you. Finally, the F-35A can be fitted with a probe and drogue attachment in place of the boom receptacle if requested, the Canadian will just need to pay for the modification and associated certification costs.I think you will be disappointed. Three years from now on the campaign trail Justin Trudeau will be trumpeting the decision to acquire the F-35 after an open and honest competition and the jobs it will bring to Canada.
The “trends” are irrelevant if you know anything about Canadian ROE. The ability to engage WVR is essential in this country…no matter if it has not taken place recently. If you are a F35 fan fine, but you clearly don’t understand this country nor it’s unique circumstances that make first day strike fighters far less relevant than interceptors. The A2A mission is more relevant and more frequent than bombing over denied air space which could have taken place exactly twice in the last 50 years.
GinnerThat is not accurate. If the following is to be believed it explains the different requirements,
Let us be clear, of those requirements only the first can probably only be accomplished by the F-35 and even that is subjective to the determined threat. Of the above, all are pretty specific for requirements that improve the ability of the RCAF to operate and survive in hostile environments.
Every other platform has the opportunity to employ a secure data-link, allow ops in no light conditions, share data between friendly aircraft, identify and track small targets at significant distances and conduct sensor fusion.
Should we fault the F-35 because it will likely do all of those better than its competitors? Should the RCAF settle for lesser requirements because only a limited number of aircraft can fulfill the previous ones?
Those requirements were written specifically to ensure that only the F-35 can meet them, or play to it’s relative (unproven) strengths. They do not necessarily reflect the actual operating needs of the Canadian Air Force. The SOR were actually written well after the government had made a decision to sole source the contract. An open competition never took place. They never even properly evaluated the capabilities of the Rafale, SH, Gripen and Typhoon against those requirements.
The F-35 can carry the core mission set of the military (as all 5 planes can). The fact is, as nice of an aircraft as it may turn out to be for bombing missions on day one of an offensive attack against another country in a denied airspace environment, that is not a high priority for this country. I think it patently stupid to emphasize those unique attributes over say….
The ability to defend itself against agile A2A threats WVR (see Canada’s ROE)
The ability to operate from remote forward operating locations with short runways in icy conditions
The ability to leverage existing tankers (probe and drogue)
etc. etc. etc.
If it’s the best plane for Canada (and especially if it’s the only plane), it better be a great fit in the roles we use our fighter aircraft for. In my opinion the F-35 is only an attractive solution to Canada’s needs if operated in a mixed fleet as it is going to in almost every other country/air force looking at buying it. We will see how it does in an open, fair, and transparent competition. Personally, I can’t see it winning.
GinnerGood to know that politics will not play a role in the Canadian selection!
If they can afford 65 F-35 then it becomes a no-brainer.
Your comment regarding Singapore is also very interesting: “they chose F-15SG to fulfil a specific need” — well one could argue that choosing F-35 is also to fulfil a “specific need”; which is the need for stealth.
Even the USAF may now start to back-peddle when they say that replacing the A-10 with F-35 is not going to be cost-effective.
Whether it makes sense for Canada to go for mixed fleet or not will depend on many factors including the cost differential between the “hi” and the “lo” in a “hi/lo” mix.
Affordability of the f35 is not the only issue. The SOR was written to exclude other vendors on false prioritization of stealth capabilities.
Ginnerhttp://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions Lots of interesting reading in these submissions. A few crackpots and quite a few experts. Most have made the determination that while the F35 program is a travesty, 4++ gen aircraft are not a long term solution to a reference threat of chinese stealth and Russian Su-35 and Su-50. Paranoid bunch in reference to Indonesia and Malaysia. Not to many kind words about the SH unless used as a strike fighter alongside the f-22 or next generation fighter.
Sign In
