F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

[Rockie]

If one really researches the two planes, the growth and future lies with the F35

You could be right as far as the United States is concerned because that program is one of the "too big to fail" disasters and they're stuck with it. However your list of shortcomings for the SH pales in comparison to the F-35 failures. It is also completely unsuited for use in Canada, promises (while not delivering) technology unnecessary for Canada - and Canada cannot afford it.

[teacher]

If one really researches the two planes, the growth and future lies with the F35

You could be right as far as the United States is concerned because that program is one of the "too big to fail" disasters and they're stuck with it. However your list of shortcomings for the SH pales in comparison to the F-35 failures. It is also completely unsuited for use in Canada, promises (while not delivering) technology unnecessary for Canada - and Canada cannot afford it.

Short comings of a proven design that is no longer going to be improved VS the short comings of an aircraft still in development with decades of R and D left to go.

Can the Super Hornet be upgraded with the F-35's avionics?

[frosti]

Can the Super Hornet be upgraded with the F-35's avionics?

F35 avionics are all integrated, you can't just swap out box for box.

This decision is purely political and has nothing to do with capability or what the Air Force needs. Can't wait to see those "50 million" dollar super hornets the Canadian media was telling us all about.

[frosti]

The Danes have figure it out. Correctly.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comment ... -dont.html

Canadian governments of different political stripes have spent more than a decade trying to figure out whether to buy new fighter jets and which one to buy.

The Conservatives developed an aversion to military-procurement commitments, deferring some, bungling others; Liberals, by contrast are in the habit of politicizing military procurement decisions.

First they make an election plank out of scuttling the F-35 sole-source fighter purchase, now we learn that they are looking at sole-sourcing the F-18. Instead of politicking, which jet Canada buys and how many is secondary to having a proper process that generates and legitimates a commitment on which to follow through.

Recently, the Danish government concluded the F-35 is cheaper, more efficient, and more effective than the alternatives and recommended the F-35 over the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its aging F-16 fleet. Contrary to the approach taken by Conservatives or Liberals in Canada, the Danish options analysis was transparent, public, and its findings were validated independently. There are important lessons for Canada here on both substance and method.

The Danish government considered four criteria: military performance, acquisition and life-cycle costs, industrial benefits, and strategic considerations — primarily the “ability … to support or fulfil Danish defence and security policy objectives, including potential co-operation with other countries.”

They evaluated each category separately and concluded the F-35 trumps the F/A-18 and the Typhoon in all four categories.

Given the F-35’s reputation, the conclusion about costs was most surprising — and key to the budget-conscious Danes. The detailed analysis provided to the parliament and public found that life cycle costs were driven by the number of expected flight hours of each aircraft: 8,000 for the F-35 and 6,000 for the F/A-18 and Typhoon. Since they last longer, the Danes concluded they could meet their defence needs over 30 years with fewer F-35s.

Critics have questioned the data used by the Danish Ministry of Defence. But the information was supplied by the companies themselves as part of the bidding process. Eurofighter explained they were very conservative in their estimate then, but have since calculated the Typhoon could fly for 8,300 hours. Boeing made a similar case: that the actual flight hours for each F/A-18 Super Hornet is 9,500.

The Danes have stood by their process, using data the manufacturers submitted, which they verified and was validated independently by external auditors. It is now up to the Parliament to consider the government’s recommendation.

There are two lessons here for Canada. First, reach a cross-party consensus in principle. In the Danish case, the political parties agreed in 2012, as a matter of principle, that a new combat aircraft purchase will take place, even with a minority government now in power.

Second, Parliament’s external validation can challenge but should not substitute new metrics for those used by the government. In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Auditor General, and KPMG all used different metrics, including different life cycle lengths: whether you calculate jet fuel over 20 or 40 years makes quite the difference!

The Danish process included external validation by RAND Europe and Deloitte Consulting — whose joint report is also publicly available — as well as independent, outside experts. Barring illegality or incompetence on the part of the New Fighter Program Office, the Ministry of Defence, RAND Europe, and Deloitte, it is difficult to see how Boeing or Eurofighter can convince the Danish parliament to forego the government’s recommendations.

The Danish process is democratic and transparent, which makes it difficult to assail. It demonstrates democratic representatives can agree if the processes in place have integrity.

But process does not determine outcome: Canada might well conclude an aircraft other than the F-35 best meets its defence needs. That the largest military purchase in Danish history is proceeding so quickly and with little controversy puts Canadian military procurement processes to shame.

If the Canadian government is serious about the Defence Policy Review it has initiated, learning from Danish technocrats how to procure it may be a good place to start.

[Rockie]

The Danes have figure it out. Correctly.

While the Danish process is to be admired and emulated, don't assume because they're getting it we should. There are many reasons why we shouldn't. Here are some:

http://country-facts.findthedata.com/co ... vs-Denmark

[fish4life]

I guess one question we should be asking is if we want manned or unmanned fighters as well.

[AuxBatOn]

I guess one question we should be asking is if we want manned or unmanned fighters as well.

Because there is a vast choice of unmanned fighters, prototype or operational, to be had....

[teacher]

How accurate is this comparison? Seems they are pretty even on range so why would one claim the SH a better fighter for Canada. Seems to me it'd come down to air to air performance and avionics. I'm far from an expert and fully admit that.

[Rockie]

Seems they are pretty even on range so why would one claim the SH a better fighter for Canada. Seems to me it'd come down to air to air performance and avionics.

The Super Hornet has two spinning things keeping it airborne instead of only one. Do not dismiss that as unimportant because it is regardless of any other magic crap the airplane promises. If the engine quits on an F-35 it's instantly an expensive pile of junk strewn over the arctic or sinking into the Beaufort Sea.

Next is cost. Do not dismiss that as unimportant either because it is for a whole host of reasons.

[frosti]

Seems they are pretty even on range so why would one claim the SH a better fighter for Canada. Seems to me it'd come down to air to air performance and avionics.

The Super Hornet has two spinning things keeping it airborne instead of only one. Do not dismiss that as unimportant because it is regardless of any other magic crap the airplane promises. If the engine quits on an F-35 it's instantly an expensive pile of junk strewn over the arctic or sinking into the Beaufort Sea.

Next is cost. Do not dismiss that as unimportant either because it is for a whole host of reasons.

The minute amount of time we spend flying in the arctic does not justify buying a 80's era aircraft because it has, again, two 80's era engines. Two engines does not mean its less likely to crash, it means there is twice the risk of a failure happening. F16s have been flying in the arctic for decades now and no one is rushing to replace them with a twin-engine fighter because its more safe. I still wait for this mystical, cheaper, Super Hornet.

[teacher]

Next is cost. Do not dismiss that as unimportant either because it is for a whole host of reasons.

The Danes claim the F35 will be cheaper than the Super Hornet. Especially in the long run.

The single engine argument IMHO is a mute point as today's technology IS better and more reliable and Frosti is right, you don't see showers of single engine airplanes falling form the sky. I flew a PC12 for years from coast to coast, day and night North and South and not a peep or hiccup from the engine. I know it's not the same but with today's trend monitoring of engines AMEs know something is up WAY before the pilot does.

[niss]

The Super Hornet has two spinning things keeping it airborne instead of only one.

If we approached this differently would a single engine be such a drawback? I understand that the Hornet Squadrons are in Baggotville and Coldlake, and are responsible for covering the whole country, so twin-engine make sense given how few assets the RCAF has vs the area it covers.

If there were were additional squadrons in the arctic (with local SAR assets), reducing their coverage would a single engine fighter be such a draw back?

[Rockie]

F-16's in the Arctic are aggressors. They don't stray far from home and the US has more SAR assets in a single hanger at Fairbanks than we do in our whole country (only a small exaggeration). It cannot - in any way - be compared to sovereignty protection in Canada.

Yes, engines are more reliable. Engines quit for reasons external to themselves however, I know because it happened to me. And even though transport category engines are orders of magnitude more reliable than any fighter engine, ETOPS procedures and requirements are predicated on one of them quitting or becoming unusable. And guess what - they quit sometimes. Yes, single engine matters no matter what it is. Besides losing a pilot we'd be losing an obscenely expensive asset that will never be replaced for want of one more fan.

As for cost comparisons I am not advocating the SH, but it would take creative accounting indeed to make it cheaper than the F35 which remains the most expensive and problematic weapon program in US history. As well, numbers are a force multiplier in its own right and we can't afford enough of them to be effective anyway. Finally, why do we need them? It's not like any nation NOT flying them will be defenseless.

[Old fella]

Trudeau made a campaign issue in that he would not proceed with the F-35 so this issue is more about politics. Every think tank/military consultant/ former generals on either side can make a case for their product and against the other, not to mention all the carrot - tops here on this site If Trudeau doesn't proceed with this acquisition, the general population won't hold it against him and it will not be an issue come 2019........which is where he has his eyes focused

Anyway keep going with the rants, tis certainly interesting readings

By your leave

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
the F35's integration into the information web, makes it a bigger force multiplier than sheer numbers. This aircraft can use ANY allied radar information as its own.....it can see what an Aegis destroyer is painting, or it can use what an AWACS is seeing. THAT is a force multiplier! It can also share radar and info with each member in its flight. A flights of 4 F35's can reportedly cover a huge swath of airspace that other fighters, including the F22cannot.

[Rockie]

It can't make the airplane be in two places at once or put more weapons in its bays. And how much of this wonderful technology is north of Inuvik in our airspace? Plus are the F35's the only airplane that has this technology? I hope not or they're going to desperately need all the force multipliers they can get.

[7ECA]

And as has been learned in every single war fought, that wonder technology that was invented, rarely ever works as expected if at all.

Wars have a way of levelling the playing field, regardless of what the generals or military-industrial complex has to say about it.

[AuxBatOn]

7ECA,

Look at the Gulf War. New, unproven technologies worked as advertised then (GPS, Stealth, Laser Guided Weapons, amongst many other things...)

[7ECA]

Using the Gulf War as a rubric for all future wars is a mistake, and it is a mistake that is going to cost the West dearly when the next big war kicks off. And I don't mean another war were a Western nation is fighting a foe that operates on the scale of tribal warriors like the Taliban.

As far as I am concerned, the lessons to be taken from the Gulf War are that training pays dividends, the US military at the time was extremely well trained, and were all volunteers. The Iraqis on the other hand, were an army of poorly trained, -led, and -motivated group of conscripts. It was training, not equipment, that allowed the coalition troops to wrap things up as quickly as they did.

[AuxBatOn]

I'd argue it was a combinaison of well trained, motivated soldiers and airmen, and superior technology thay won the war. Without Stealth to take out the key leadership infrastructure and C2 links in probably the most defended city in the world, without LGB to minimize the number of sorties required to achieve the desired effect and the GPS to allow ground troops to navigate in the open desert versus roads (where Iraqi troops were waiting for American troops), the war would have either been very long or a draw.

My point is that war is not an equalizer when it comes to technology. Non-combat tested techlogy allowed the US to have the upper hand in a conflict that initially looked like was going to be a fair fight.

The Joint Forces Air Component Commander at the time (LGen Charles Horner) agrees with me. Read his book.