F-35 looking more like white elephant

[WileyCoyote]

I think if defense contractors had to be more accountable for cost overruns this wouldn't be such a problem. It seems to be a real cash cow for these aerospace contractors. The world is changing, and I think we really need to sit down and figure out what we as a country really need as military hardware. What equipment will best defend us when people come looking for our resources? Is the US still the best to buy hardware off of, or are they just fleecing trusted allies? Have we worked ourselves into a corner by not shopping around? I'm just curious what other options are out there?

[Brewguy]

...You are forgetting again that the government is not an endless resource of money...

Unless of course they're shopping for a new fighter fleet - in which case, cost is not an issue.

[AuxBatOn]

Two points:

Detection and engagement range is also decreased by going low and fast. How much training do we do for that these days? Is it also not true that everything we've done since GW 1 is from med/high altitude with laser guided munitions?

Yup, and there are reasons for that. How well did this work for the UK Tornados during GW1 (flying low level pops it is)? It worked so well that 2 weeks into the war, they decided to bring in the old Buccaneer from UK to lase GR1s' weapons in (the Tornado did not have a targeting pod at that time). Yes, flying from medium level. UK GR1s took 9 losses total during the war, 8 of which were during low level ops., 2 to pilot error, multiple to AAA and IR SAMS, mostly in target areas. To deliver your weapons, you will need to pop at one point. You pop right over your target, which is, most likely, well defended by IR SAMs and AAA. Yup, that's how the Iraqis shot GR1s down. Not to mention that there is no real accurate way of delivering a weapon from low level without having a significant risk of inflicting unintended damage (collateral or other). Yes, going BACK to low level is the way to go Rockie...... (feel the sarcasm?)

The military's primary role is sovereign defence over delving into "enemy" territory. For Canada that mean arctic sovereignty, and indeed with the opening of the Northwest passage and the resources it makes available that is unquestionably this government's priority. How many telephone poles do you expect to be coming your direction up there? Plus how do you feel about that single engine out over the Beaufort given Canada's pathetic SAR capability?

Yup, protecting Canada is our primary role. Sure. But it's not the only one. Defending Canada's interests abroad is an other one. We've seen it in GW1, Kosovo and more recently, Libya. Best solution is 2 fleets: 1 for NORAD, 1 for overseas deployments. The reality doesn't allow that. Single fleet it is. That means we need to be ready to perform in both roles. We need an aircraft that will be able to go North, East or West and protect the country. The JSF can do that just fine. We also need an aircraft that will be able to cross the FLOT and go into enemy's territory to defend our interests. That means facing Air and Surface threats. That's where decreasing detection and engagement ranges with stealth. The JSF truly offers incredible capabilities that we haven't seen yet. It will be able to keep us into the game in the coming decades, as opposed to the Super Hornet that will be obsolete soon.

[trampbike]

AuxBatOn, is it just me or the DAS is too rarely mentionned when speaking about the F35 capabilities?

IMO, DAS seems to be, with stealth, one of the best thing to mention about the F35 (it really shows the difference between a gen 4.5 and a 5, and also proves just how big an advantage interoperability can be).
Way too often, people compare airplanes capabilities only in terms of speed, endurance, maneuvrability, weapon load and number of engines.

I'd love to hear more about that system.

There's a quick summary of what DAS will be for people who had no idea what is was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ

[oldncold]

i repeat again kill ratio f22 87to 1 f35 45to 1 explains why usa does not want to sell f22 to anyone .

however as 'our closest neighbour and friend and provides them with the oil to turn into jet fuel should we not demand as your ally the f22 as a sign of enduring friendship ?

[trampbike]

F22 is not a multirole platform.

[2R]

It is multi-engine time baby
Not as sexy as the A-10, but it would do in a pinch

[frosti]

Yah, and Japan is so similar to Canada, geographically, militarily, and politically, that the aeroplane they choose *must* be the best choice for us, too

Here's an Australian take:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

And, with direct reference to Canada:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html

APA, where only the F-22 can defeat the mighty Russian airshow tumblers. Thanks linking that site again, your credibility just went out the window.

F22 is not a multirole platform.

Nor is it in production anymore or exportable.

...You are forgetting again that the government is not an endless resource of money...

Unless of course they're shopping for a new fighter fleet - in which case, cost is not an issue.

Different fleets and different budgets. I don't think the lefties would be too happy if we opened more military bases in Canada, the people of E.Hastings are more of a priority.

[frosti]

I find it interesting that nobody has answered a question that I posed earlier. What is a likely scenario that would have Canada participating in an air military operation where a gen 4.5 fighter like the F18E would not be good enough ? Personally I can't think of any scenarios that are even remotely credible.

5th gen jets cost only a small fraction more to acquire, yet do much more than similarly equipped 4th+ gen jets. Less 5th gen assets are needed to do the same job as 4th. 5th gen is much more survivable thereby reducing pilot training costs. 5th gen can be upgraded faster and cheaper than 4th gen as newer weapons and technology become available. All our allies will be flying F35's or above in the coming decades. If we want to remain a contributing force to future air missions we need something that is current. A SH in 2030 flying with allied stealth aircraft will stick out like a sore thumb on enemy radar. The SH may be 'good enough', as military penny pinchers like to say, for Canadian-based policing. For multi-national air campaigns however, not so much.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find it interesting that nobody has answered a question that I posed earlier. What is a likely scenario that would have Canada participating in an air military operation where a gen 4.5 fighter like the F18E would not be good enough ? Personally I can't think of any scenarios that are even remotely credible.

5th gen jets cost only a small fraction more to acquire .

That very much remains to be seen. If you believe Lockheed then I guess you could use the words a "small fraction", however if you believe the various budget offices auditing the F 35 program you get a different picture. It is hard to say what the final costs will be but the reality is that the total program cost have steadily risen throughout the development of the aircraft. This reflects not only the unit costs but also the fact that everybody now acknowledges the aircraft will cost more to operate. The latest figure I saw from the OMB was that operating costs will be about 25 % higher than an F 16.

[Rockie]

UK GR1s took 9 losses total during the war, 8 of which were during low level ops., 2 to pilot error, multiple to AAA and IR SAMS, mostly in target areas.

Tactics evolve as a threat evolves. Low level has its own risks as you know full well even in peace time, and moving it up to medium level during GW1 was a good idea since surface to air weapons were less of a threat at that point than the ground itself. As threats become more sophisticated and prolific (meaning the US can't eliminate it first) then getting down low all of a sudden becomes pretty attractive again. Greatly reduced search and engagement envelopes help keep you alive wherever they're derived from, and there's nothing like a hill between you and the telephone pole when they do get one off...right? Tactical doctrines are also sometimes driven by things other than the obvious. In this case I suggest the lack of low level training has as much to do with the paltry training hours you guys get nowadays as anything else.

Yes, going BACK to low level is the way to go Rockie...... (feel the sarcasm?)

Sarcasm noted. Bear in mind my first statement about tactics evolving as the threat does though, and remember that they said pretty much exactly the same thing about the gun you're carrying in the nose. Or do you think you don't need that anymore either?

[AuxBatOn]

Tactics evolve as a threat evolves. Low level has its own risks as you know full well even in peace time, and moving it up to medium level during GW1 was a good idea since surface to air weapons were less of a threat at that point than the ground itself. As threats become more sophisticated and prolific (meaning the US can't eliminate it first) then getting down low all of a sudden becomes pretty attractive again. Greatly reduced search and engagement envelopes help keep you alive wherever they're derived from, and there's nothing like a hill between you and the telephone pole when they do get one off...right? Tactical doctrines are also sometimes driven by things other than the obvious. In this case I suggest the lack of low level training has as much to do with the paltry training hours you guys get nowadays as anything else.

If we have the technology available to us to fly medium level, deliver precision guided munitions yet, diminishing the ability for the enemy to shoot you down, why would you not use that technology? Why take the risk of flying low level, max out your crews (can't really effectively look out after yourself A/A low level can you) Don't forget, we are a self escort platform. And the next fighter will also be.

SAM were less of a threat? I suggest you take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMu6mGgqepo

Now, tell me again the SAMs were less of a threat? Lots of SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8s kicking around in Iraq back then. And they were relevant threats. Does that mean we need to go back to the low level environment? Absolutely not.

Sarcasm noted. Bear in mind my first statement about tactics evolving as the threat does though, and remember that they said pretty much exactly the same thing about the gun you're carrying in the nose. Or do you think you don't need that anymore either?

When's the last time using the gun was actually useful? Not too long ago. It's used all the time in CAS. It is and will always be your most accurate weapon.

When's the last time flying low level to get to a target was useful? I can't think of anything post 1989. Tactics evolve because of technology. Either our technology or the enemies' technology. If we were to keep a 4.5 Gen, non stealth aircraft, you bet, we could probably start thinking about training for low level (and also accept the risks involved, is the government too risk adverse to let us fly low in an AO?? That's an other discussion). However, we are given the opportunity to get the technology and be up there for years to come. At a reasonable price too, cheaper than most 4.5 Gen aircraft. Why is there so much resistance?

[Doc]

I'm all for spending a huge portion of our military budget on a world class coast guard. Do we really need to spend the big dollars on fighter jets? I know England has some more subs we can buy cheap. Keep the Ruskies off the Grand Banks, I says! Gawd bless the cod!

[Rockie]

Why take the risk of flying low level, max out your crews (can't really effectively look out after yourself A/A low level can you)

You missed my point. When your technology fails you change tactics. When your technology no longer protects you adequately from SAM threats for whatever reason low level decreases that risk and is always (usually) available.

SAM were less of a threat? I suggest you take a look at this video:

SAM's were obviously less of a threat than snorting around low level or they wouldn't have been flying in their engagement envelope would they? Would you deliberately do something more risky if you didn't have to?

It's used all the time in CAS. It is and will always be your most accurate weapon.

Would you go into an air fight without one? There was a time when people said a gun was useless in the air to air arena, much like what you're saying about low level. Obviously you don't agree with that but are unable to see the parallel with low level flying in a high threat SAM environment. Also the gun is a short range weapon and last time I checked you had to be down in the weeds to perform the CAS role. You also have to pop up to acquire and engage a target that you haven't had the luxury of preplanning, which kind of contradicts what you've been saying so far.

I guess I'm just surprised that a multi-role fighter pilot would buy into the line that low level has no place anymore. You also haven't answered my question about tooling around over the Beaufort with one engine. Your thoughts?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I guess I'm just surprised that a multi-role fighter pilot would buy into the line that low level has no place anymore. You also haven't answered my question about tooling around over the Beaufort with one engine. Your thoughts?

No worries, the MND has given his personal assurance that the guys and gals flying way up North do not have to worry about engine failures

[frosti]

Why is there so much resistance?

People are afraid of change and you're more likely to dislike something you don't understand.

No worries, the MND has given his personal assurance that the guys and gals flying way up North do not have to worry about engine failures

You're more likely to get killed driving into work than you are "tooling around" on a F135 powered JSF up north. The F-16 guys who operate up north (Norway) don't seem to have an issue with it. New recruits who want to be fighter pilots don't seem to have an issue with it either.

[Rockie]

You're more likely to get killed driving into work than you are "tooling around" on a F135 powered JSF up north. The F-16 guys who operate up north (Norway) don't seem to have an issue with it. New recruits who want to be fighter pilots don't seem to have an issue with it either.

I guess I just don't see how car accident statistics are relevant to operating fighter aircraft in remote arctic environments. You also might want to check on the respective sizes of Canada and Norway before making silly statements like that. And I confess new recruits who want to be fighter pilots wouldn't be on my list of people to ask for an informed opinion on that issue.

[AuxBatOn]

I guess I'm just surprised that a multi-role fighter pilot would buy into the line that low level has no place anymore.

I haven't said it doesn't have its place anymore. I said that we should not limit ourselves in our equipment upgrades because we can use old tactics with old airframes.

You also haven't answered my question about tooling around over the Beaufort with one engine. Your thoughts?

I'm okay with it. It's risk management. Odds of the engine failing during un-planned operations up North are pretty slim.

Also the gun is a short range weapon and last time I checked you had to be down in the weeds to perform the CAS role. You also have to pop up to acquire and engage a target that you haven't had the luxury of preplanning, which kind of contradicts what you've been saying so far.

CAS can be performed from 30K if you want to... Normal CAS wheel is around 10-15K. Pretty much everything nowadays is LGB/JDAM/EP2 level deliveries, except for the gun. You don't rage around low level at 250' looking for a pre-planned target you are going to drop dumb iron onto anymore.

[Mach1]

It is a zombie thread... it just won't die.

[frosti]

It is a zombie thread... it just won't die.

The naysayers will put up a fight, all the up to the CF35 retirement date.