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

[Rockie]

Rockie,
You are correct in that the F35 cannot be in two places at once. No aircraft can. But the F35 will be in the CORRECTplace at the correct time. The F35 can download the radar pictures gathered from NORAD's over the horizon radars, thus allowing the pilots a complete view of what, where, and how many targets are approaching.....that is way better than a flight of 4 SH burning holes in the sky with there own radars....
Cheers.

Canada can only get 65 of these things and will never replace the ones lost for whatever reason. Take away 15 for an OTU, 10 for major maintenance, another 15-20 for normal maintenance and spread the remaining 20-25 around 2 bases in southern Canada. That makes at best 12 jets in the west and 12 jets in the east available to respond to a 24/7/365 threat in C-a-n-a-d-a.

Looked at a map of our country recently? Unless the jet comes equipped with instant teleportation capability it is comical to suggest it will be in the correct place at the correct time absent a letter sent by the adversary giving two weeks notice.

[frosti]

10 for major maintenance, another 15-20 for normal maintenance

Our CF18s have better serviceability then that. 1 is always in periodic (down 2 months) and i'd say only at max half a dozen are broken for "normal maintenance". If we had the parts readily available at the bases almost always you'll see nothing broken.

[B208]

I genuinely hope that the RCAF pilots and commanders have the biggest say in what will happen with this purchase. Knowing history I have my doubts that will come to fruition.

There's a reason for that though - they don't have to pay for it nor are they the ones who determine what their tasks will be. That's the government's responsibility and ultimately ours as voting citizens. It's the same for every government department.
.

Yes, the government has such a good track record on choosing military equipment; The BOMARC, the Griffon, the MCDVs......

[Rockie]

10 for major maintenance, another 15-20 for normal maintenance

Our CF18s have better serviceability then that. 1 is always in periodic (down 2 months) and i'd say only at max half a dozen are broken for "normal maintenance". If we had the parts readily available at the bases almost always you'll see nothing broken.

Oh yeah? Let's keep the CF-18's then because right now we have more of them than we'll ever have F-35's even before attrition.

That makes at best 12 jets in the west and 12 jets in the east available to respond to a 24/7/365 threat in C-a-n-a-d-a.

That's available. Factor in training sorties, various other taskings, turn times, swapping aircraft out etc. and all 12 of those jets will be needed to maintain 2 on QRA at any time. 2 jets ready to respond to a threat from the southern border up to 90N and east to Winnipeg, with the other two from Winnipeg out to 50W or so. Damn, that capability better be awesome....

[Rockie]

I genuinely hope that the RCAF pilots and commanders have the biggest say in what will happen with this purchase. Knowing history I have my doubts that will come to fruition.

There's a reason for that though - they don't have to pay for it nor are they the ones who determine what their tasks will be. That's the government's responsibility and ultimately ours as voting citizens. It's the same for every government department.
.

Yes, the government has such a good track record on choosing military equipment; The BOMARC, the Griffon, the MCDVs......

For once B208 we are in complete agreement, but if you've got a better way please share.

Edit: One exception I can think of in recent history, the CF-18 was an exceptional choice for a whole bunch of reasons.

[Old fella]

Rockie,
You are correct in that the F35 cannot be in two places at once. No aircraft can. But the F35 will be in the CORRECTplace at the correct time. The F35 can download the radar pictures gathered from NORAD's over the horizon radars, thus allowing the pilots a complete view of what, where, and how many targets are approaching.....that is way better than a flight of 4 SH burning holes in the sky with there own radars....
Cheers.

Canada can only get 65 of these things and will never replace the ones lost for whatever reason. Take away 15 for an OTU, 10 for major maintenance, another 15-20 for normal maintenance and spread the remaining 20-25 around 2 bases in southern Canada. That makes at best 12 jets in the west and 12 jets in the east available to respond to a 24/7/365 threat in C-a-n-a-d-a.

Looked at a map of our country recently? Unless the jet comes equipped with instant teleportation capability it is comical to suggest it will be in the correct place at the correct time absent a letter sent by the adversary giving two weeks notice.

Where is Boeing in all of this latest media chatter, I heard very little from them, unless I am wrong. I am sure they can sweeten the pot as good as others, especially with their commercial airline division. just saying?

[tailgunner]

Rockie, your numbers breakdown is wrong. The 15 F35's for an OTU as you put it is wrong. NATO,and the other nations ordering the F35 will be pooling all training aircraft at Luke AFB in Arizona. Canada will contribute a few of our 65, or simply lease a few from the USAF to maintain the correct combat ready aircraft. So a 15 jet OTU is not planned, nor required.
I'm not sure how it would work with a SH purchase. The USN is pretty tight on the use of their F18's so pooling, or sharing resources with them is probably not feasible.
Cheers.

[tailgunner]

Furthermore, how many follow up orders has Canada placed to replace lost/destroyed F18's? The answer is none. If you are concerned about attrition and the loss of airframes, then ordering the F35 makes the most sense. In 2 years time, it will be the only US produced fighter. The SH is coming to the end of its production run, as is the F15E. There is now talk of restarting the F22 line, but the costs of gathering up and resetting the tooling may make it fantasy. The F35 will be produced for the foreseeable future, so adding attrition replacements is not only feasible, but realistic as well.
Cheers.

[Rockie]

Yeah numbers may vary but the bottom one won't. We'd be lucky to have 2 jets consistently on QRA at either end of the country. So how are those magic electronics going to work again allowing those two jets to be in the correct place at the correct time? I'll say it again...look at an atlas.

Canada bought 136 CF-18's - we're operating 80 now. I fail to see how that supports your case.

[AuxBatOn]

Yeah numbers may vary but the bottom one won't. We'd be lucky to have 2 jets consistently on QRA at either end of the country. So how are those magic electronics going to work again allowing those two jets to be in the correct place at the correct time? I'll say it again...look at an atlas.

Canada bought 136 CF-18's - we're operating 80 now. I fail to see how that supports your case.

You think we would have difficulty generating 4 jets with 65? Something's wrong with you... We operate 77 right now and we can maintain our NORAD commitment as well as have a 6-pack deployed.

If the OTU is at Luke, it'll increase our capacity.

[Rockie]

Yeah numbers may vary but the bottom one won't. We'd be lucky to have 2 jets consistently on QRA at either end of the country. So how are those magic electronics going to work again allowing those two jets to be in the correct place at the correct time? I'll say it again...look at an atlas.

Canada bought 136 CF-18's - we're operating 80 now. I fail to see how that supports your case.

You think we would have difficulty generating 4 jets with 65? Something's wrong with you... We operate 77 right now and we can maintain our NORAD commitment as well as have a 6-pack deployed.

If the OTU is at Luke, it'll increase our capacity.

What's the NORAD commitment? Also 77 - 65 = 12, so I'd say that takes care of the Luke OTU. IT's also unlikely other tasking will disappear either so I'll ask you this time. How is the jets technology going to allow it to be in the correct spot when a contact appears 1500 miles away? It's very nice to talk about "force multipliers" and being able to instantly datalink battlefield information back and forth but how much battlefield information is up north at any given time? What are they going to share, and how does 4 jets magically transformed to 12 help when the threat is half a continent away? Manipulating space/time isn't in the brochure is it?

Look, I get the technology if Russia decides they'd like to own Poland again but WE can get by with something cheaper, more numerous, and has two motors on it. Lots of other people are and they will remain relevant and a threat to whatever nasties are out there.

[AuxBatOn]

We will conduct NORAD the same way we are doing it now. We don't have teletransporters today and won't have them with the JSF. We happen to do just fine now.

[Rockie]

I'm not saying we aren't. I'm saying the F35 is the wrong airplane for Canada.

[AuxBatOn]

I'm not saying we aren't. I'm saying the F35 is the wrong airplane for Canada.

If you JUST want to do NORAD, maybe. If you plan on projecting them overseas then it is the right plane.

Northern Operations with F-18s is really a small fraction of our overall operations. In absolute risk, yes, it is riskier to operate on 1 engine vs 2 engines up North. Overall Operational Risk? I think it's small (catastrophic effect but not likely to happen).

You operated at a different time than we are right now and it is biasing your opinion of what we need.

[Rockie]

I operated at a time when our NATO commitment in Europe was 3 full squadrons in theatre so I have to disagree.

[2R]

While there is still room on our credit cards ,we should help get the F22 production line restarted and get some .
How many ? Not so many ,that the credit cards are maxed out and we cannot get some A-10's as a bundle deal.

The Cessna Scorpion might be useful for cheap patrol,SAR and little buddy support for the Aurora maritime patrol work on the coast without being to much of a threat to our nervous friends.
If the salesmen are to be believed it would be a very useful little buddy plane.
Should be loads of room on the credit cards and we could get frequent flyer miles.
It would be a mistake to have only one type and Canada is rich enough to have F-35's ,F-22s and A-10s and some Typhoons .With loads of room on the credit cards for some new subs and Ice breakers.
Maybe some new furry boots and hats as well

[AuxBatOn]

I operated at a time when our NATO commitment in Europe was 3 full squadrons in theatre so I have to disagree.

You mean you grew up at a time when we had 138 aircraft and 3 squadrons permanently stationed in Europe. In other words, loads of aircraft with most of the continental work defending against Russians.

Like I said, I don't think the Operational Risk is high enough for it to block an F-35 purchase. Your argument is not sound. I am not saying there no risk, I am saying the benefits the F-35 will bring in the long run outweigh the risk of operating in the arctic with it (for the few times we actually operate out of there).

As far as price go, it will be cheaper, in the long run, to buy F-35. Acquisition may be slightly more than a Super Hornet fleet (but not by much, maybe $10M a piece) but the sustainement and upgrade costs will be only on us as we would be the only user past 2040: as support dwindles down, price goes way up (as we are seeing with our legacy Hornets).

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will allow us to effectively operate past 2030.

[B208]

For once B208 we are in complete agreement, but if you've got a better way please share.

Better way: Let those who are trained to do the job, who having been doing the job and who will be doing the job in the future have a leading role in choosing the equipment to do the job.

[TheStig]

Rockie, your numbers breakdown is wrong. The 15 F35's for an OTU as you put it is wrong. NATO,and the other nations ordering the F35 will be pooling all training aircraft at Luke AFB in Arizona. Canada will contribute a few of our 65, or simply lease a few from the USAF to maintain the correct combat ready aircraft. So a 15 jet OTU is not planned, nor required.

Cheers.

I'm not sure this is correct from what I've read Pilots are training at Luke AFB in Az. but are doing so in their own countries aircraft.

As a reference, the RAAF has 72 F-35A on order, currently 2 have been delivered, 2 pilots have completed training with plans to have 12 trained by the time the jets return to Australia in 2018. This was reported in Air International (June 2016), it also mentions pilot training will be migrated to Australia in in 2021. So while training could be completed in the US using USAF F-35's the current training program appears to be in place for 'standing up' initial squadrons. The article also mentions that in 2019 a F-35A will cost $80-85 million (in 2019 USD) each, FWIW.

Based on what I've read my opinion is that the F-35A is the best jet for the job, but I'm no expert. I'm happy to leave these matters to those who are. However, unfortunately, it seems like that ship sailed when the Conservatives failed to properly explain Canada's role as a partner in this program while the jet suffered countless teething problems and cost overruns (but honestly I can't think of one aircraft program this century has been on time and on budget).

While it's politically very difficult to argue in favor of a project that was over budget and under performing, notably against a large portion of the media that seemed to think Canada doesn't need ANY fighters, it would have been the right thing to do.

This has become a political issue now and what the military actually requires no longer seems relevant, Canada has unfortunately backed its self into a corner. Buying the Super Hornet, even as interim measure could cost our industries billions. While The US, Australia, The UK, Italy, and Norway now have F-35 programs underway others such as Korea, Turkey, Israel, and Japan eagerly await the arrival of their aircraft, we sit here making the same debates we were a decade ago.

[rigpiggy]

One thing about the F-35A that nobody mentions is that our present fleet of Tankers won't work. so how much extra to either refit the probe and drogue to the F35's or to refit the A310's to the "flying boom" refuelling. If we have to get the F-35's at least get the carrier model, bigger wing/fuel tanks, proper AAR kit. I would think the USN ordering 450 would be happy to have someone amortize the R&D with another 12% production

[Rockie]

Like I said, I don't think the Operational Risk is high enough for it to block an F-35 purchase. Your argument is not sound. I am not saying there no risk, I am saying the benefits the F-35 will bring in the long run outweigh the risk of operating in the arctic with it (for the few times we actually operate out of there).

My argument is entirely sound. It is your opinion that the benefits outweigh the risks, an opinion BTW that is subject to change should you be unfortunate enough to lose an engine for any reason. My opinion is that the risk is unacceptable for Canada to operate the single engine F-35 for the following reasons:

1. We can only afford a skeletal minimum because they are so expensive. Any losses (there will be losses) will not be replaced reducing the fleet below minimum levels.

2. Fighter aircraft of any type are grotesquely expensive. Losing them because we weren't smart enough to have engine redundancy is just plain stupid.

3. Canada is vast and inhospitable. See reason 2.

4. Assuming for a moment we operate in a high threat environment that absolutely requires the technology only the F35 promises (notice I didn't say delivers), it is foolish to have a combat aircraft that cannot sustain any combat damage to its one and only engine unless you have lots and lots of them making such losses acceptable.

As far as price go, it will be cheaper, in the long run, to buy F-35.

You can't say that. The costs are not in any way settled as it is, except that they are hugely over budget, the jet has tons of problems, is not living up to expectations and still has much of its testing to go.

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will allow us to effectively operate past 2030.

I have a real problem with this statement because it is entirely subjective. Define "effective", and compared to what? You don't even know what the jet will be asked to do past 2030, and your statement explicitly states no other aircraft will be effective past 2030 which is patently false.

Better way: Let those who are trained to do the job, who having been doing the job and who will be doing the job in the future have a leading role in choosing the equipment to do the job.

Uh, no. Let me explain how a democracy works B208. People vote in a government for a limited term to represent them and "manage" the nation if you will. The government has sole legal authority to levy taxes to pay for services benefitting the population, and are responsible for how those funds are spent. Government departments have an input of course, but they do not have final say because their perspective is extremely narrow, self-serving, and only occasionally in the best interest of the country as a whole. Deciding what is in the best interests of the country as a whole is the government's job and if they get it wrong they get fired next election. See how that works?

[B208]

Uh, no. Let me explain how a democracy works B208. People vote in a government for a limited term to represent them and "manage" the nation if you will.

Yep. Manage. A good manager knows the areas in which he is ignorant and listens to the advice of his expert staff. Last I checked, politicians are mostly lawyers, or at best MBAs. At worst they are stoned drama teachers. Suffice it to say, none of them are overly qualified to decide on the minute details of military operations, (the politicians role is best limited to setting tasks and objectives; as in 'Go there and destroy that'). The details of what is needed to get the job done are best left to those trained to do the job. To borrow from the civilian paradigm; A good manager hires good people and then let's them do their job.
While it is the government's legal right to muddle about in things they are not qualified to understand, it is a bad plan for them to do so. It always ends badly; The Ross rifle, The F5, The Sea King, The FW SAR replacement, the defense of Hong Kong and the entirety of the Soviet military prior to the collapse.

[Rockie]

Governments have all kinds of experts that they should consult B208. They do that because regardless of the issue there are many, many considerations at play. Did you know Public Works and Government Services has huge influence and authority on what kind of weapons the military gets? Do you know why? Do you even know what Public Works is?

The real world isn't as simple as you would like it to be. Government's don't just have the right to be involved in this kind of thing, it's their responsibility. Every department is subordinate to the political government in a democracy B208, do you need me to explain to you why that especially applies to the military?

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Government's don't just have the right to be involved in this kind of thing, it's their responsibility. Every department is subordinate to the political government in a democracy B208, do you need me to explain to you why that especially applies to the military?

And quite sadly, often the political government is subordinate to the arms industry.

[Old fella]

Uh, no. Let me explain how a democracy works B208. People vote in a government for a limited term to represent them and "manage" the nation if you will.

Yep. Manage. A good manager knows the areas in which he is ignorant and listens to the advice of his expert staff. Last I checked, politicians are mostly lawyers, or at best MBAs. At worst they are stoned drama teachers. Suffice it to say, none of them are overly qualified to decide on the minute details of military operations, (the politicians role is best limited to setting tasks and objectives; as in 'Go there and destroy that'). The details of what is needed to get the job done are best left to those trained to do the job. To borrow from the civilian paradigm; A good manager hires good people and then let's them do their job.
While it is the government's legal right to muddle about in things they are not qualified to understand, it is a bad plan for them to do so. It always ends badly; The Ross rifle, The F5, The Sea King, The FW SAR replacement, the defense of Hong Kong and the entirety of the Soviet military prior to the collapse.

Guess we should let the "whiz kids" over at NDHQ run the entire show(Federal Departments/Agencies).......... and things will run a lot smoother because those "OCs, MBAs et al" although given the dubious distinction of being elected by the Canadian population writ large, are incapable of rendering decisions that affect the entire population. Population, I might add, that placed their trust through a Democratic process not a Military Junta.....