Canada's Buying 65 F-35s

[Lampshade111]

A compadre at work who was on the YF-22/YF-23 selection team believes the days of using manned aircraft above a land battlefield against a capable enemy are numbered, because integrated air defense technology is progressing faster than its countermeasures.

 

In his opinion, UAVs are the only solution, and even the UAVs will eventually be driven from the battlespace directly above a land battlefield, once the technology of integrated air defense reaches its full potential.

 

I have pointed out the known problems with data links to UAVs. His standard response has been, "Yes, it's a serious issue. On the other hand, they have no choice but to figure out how to make the data links work."

 

As I've said numerous times before, a crash program will be used to develop UAVs -- lots of them will crash before the most difficult problems are resolved. However, there isn't any other choice but to move forward with them.

 

Short of those IADS featuring high-powered lasers which are still many years off, I don't think this will be the case. A combination of steath aircraft, stand-off weapons, and modern ECM would be a challenge to any air defense system.

[Rubberneck]

I stand corrected. The Brits obviously had their home grown aircraft, the French weren't in NATO, the Germans liked a different plane, and the Spanish and Canucks bought F18s instead...

 

Really? When did we get them? Or Canada? Germany? France? Spain? And Italy only rented some used models, very late on, pending the arrival of Eurofighter.

[ScottBrim]

Short of those IADS featuring high-powered lasers which are still many years off, I don't think this will be the case. A combination of steath aircraft, stand-off weapons, and modern ECM would be a challenge to any air defense system.

Yes, such a combination of IADS countermeasures is effective as things stand today.

 

But my compadre's educated opinion is that the timeframe for when IADS start to gain a decided advantage over the existing countermeasures is much closer than is generally believed.

 

He expects that by 2020, the problem will be recognized as an exceptionally serious issue for the continued credibility of American airpower, and that exceptional measures will be needed to cope with it.

 

And, by about 2020, the decision in 2010 to halt further F-22 production will be fully recognized for the absurdly stupid decision it was.

[seahawk]

I stand corrected. The Brits obviously had their home grown aircraft, the French weren't in NATO, the Germans liked a different plane, and the Spanish and Canucks bought F18s instead...

 

The British and the Germans had the Tornado coming and the F-4 in service. There as no need for a light fighter. And after the F-104 the Luftwaffe prefered 2 engines. The psanish were still a dictarship back then and were using lots of hand me down equipment. They joined NATO as late as 1982 and they wanted a multi-role fighter with 2 engines and AIM-7s.

[Chris Werb]

Interesting post about the IADS problem Scott. On the one hand IADS are getting more formidable faster than the countermeasures. OTOH I believe IADS are getting more expensive - some countries (even the UK for example) no longer have them. That means we're less likely to come up against opponents with them (also for geopolitical/economic reasons it's unlikely rogue states will field good IADS). I could forsee a completely distributed IADS* with individual missile cannisters and relatively cheap sensors networked via fibre optic cables - each node would be capable of taking full control. We're already seeing a move in this direction with systems like HUMRAAM/CLAWS, NASMS and the latest Israeli SAMs. One hit on the system would only take out one launch cannister or a relatively cheap sensor. You could deploy lots of decoy cannisters and sensors. One way round the loss of UAVs would be to employ loitering missiles like Harop and Fireshadow, but these would be vastly expensive compared to JDAMs etc., particularly when targeted against decoy missile cannisters. I could forsee a future where we retain expensive very long range loitering munitions for wars against first rate opponents with IADS and non stealth UAVs and aircraft to drop inexpensive guided ordnance on everyone else and/or after the IADS was suppressed. I think the need for stealth on the likes of F-35 is largely justified on a 'first day of war' basis.

 

*Actually there's no reason it would have to be restricted to air targets - with suitably versatile missiles or a selection thereof, such a system could engage anything valuable enough to expend ordnance on including ships, AFVs etc.

[Michael Dekmetzian]

Replying to comments on the previous page, the only edge the F-22 has are in it's typical dominance roles: speed, thrust, and stealth.

 

All other elements of the F-35 are superior to the F-22: Radar, Communications, Processing, EW, fusion with other assets - you name it. The F-35 when delivered will have similar or better EW capabilities than an EA-18G, too. Most of what you'd call the 'killer features' of the F-35 are highly classified and will likely remain so for many years to come. Bear in mind as well that the F-22 for all it's greatness is still a generation behind technologically. The F-35 incorporates many of the lessons learned from the F-22 about building these sorts of assets, so I don't find the above all that surprising.

 

The downside to the F-35 being as closed / classified as it is is that the project as a whole is very difficult to defend based on publicly available information.

 

Be that as it may though, the people in the know are aware of this and as such are continuing the process. You might argue that it has too much momentum to kill - and that's probably true - but that doesn't mean it isn't going to bring an amazing capability once it is introduced.

 

[Chris Werb]

Replying to comments on the previous page, the only edge the F-22 has are in it's typical dominance roles: speed, thrust, and stealth.

 

All other elements of the F-35 are superior to the F-22: Radar, Communications, Processing, EW, fusion with other assets - you name it. The F-35 when delivered will have similar or better EW capabilities than an EA-18G, too. Most of what you'd call the 'killer features' of the F-35 are highly classified and will likely remain so for many years to come. Bear in mind as well that the F-22 for all it's greatness is still a generation behind technologically. The F-35 incorporates many of the lessons learned from the F-22 about building these sorts of assets, so I don't find the above all that surprising.

 

The downside to the F-35 being as closed / classified as it is is that the project as a whole is very difficult to defend based on publicly available information.

 

Be that as it may though, the people in the know are aware of this and as such are continuing the process. You might argue that it has too much momentum to kill - and that's probably true - but that doesn't mean it isn't going to bring an amazing capability once it is introduced.

 

 

Word.

[rmgill]

But radar and avionics can be upgraded. It's a lot harder to come up with new airframes. And, aren't speed, thrust, and stealth rather important in an air superiority fighter? If good radar and avionics were all that was needed, why not just upgrade superbugs for air superiority?

 

Didn't late model M60s have a better fire control system than the Early Model M1 Abrams?

Edited August 5, 2010 by rmgill

[Mike Steele]

But radar and avionics can be upgraded. It's a lot harder to come up with new airframes. And, aren't speed, thrust, and stealth rather important in an air superiority fighter? If good radar and avionics were all that was needed, why not just upgrade superbugs for air superiority?

 

Didn't late model M60s have a better fire control system than the Early Model M1 Abrams?

 

The A3's fire control was superior to the M1, stationary. The whole package made it worth the swap.

[Marek Tucan]

Didn't late model M60s have a better fire control system than the Early Model M1 Abrams?

 

And here T-55AM2 to T-72M1

[ScottBrim]

Short of those IADS featuring high-powered lasers which are still many years off, I don't think this will be the case. A combination of steath aircraft, stand-off weapons, and modern ECM would be a challenge to any air defense system.

 

The BBC is reporting that Raytheon is successfully shooting down UAVs with their new laser CIWS, which apparently can be integrated with the Phalanx CIWS targeting and control system:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10682693

[Exel]

Israel has announced a deal of $2.75 billion dollars for 20 F-35s, to be delivered between 2015-17. It is the largest procurement contract in Israel's history, at least according to Finnish state news channel.

 

The price works out to be 137,5 million USD per plane. Though the news didn't tell what was included in the deal, the price-per-plane is still staggering. So much for the "affordable" fighter. For comparison the price for 21 F-15I delivered to Israel (a similar contract?) was 95 million USD per plane in 1994 dollars..

Edited August 16, 2010 by Exel

[Archie Pellagio]

$91million 1994 dollars is still a heavily subsidised price if accurate: The rough price back then was over $30 mill roughly per airframe.

 

Either way I know I and several others have expected the per unit approximate depending on ancilliaries to top $120mil per airframe in any export packages, guess this proves us right...

[Exel]

Either way I know I and several others have expected the per unit approximate depending on ancilliaries to top $120mil per airframe in any export packages, guess this proves us right...

 

I know, and I have expected the same. But it's still a staggering price especially when contrasted to the official price "estimates" that Lockmart and others go on about. The gap to F-22 is closing fast. Anyone remember when this was supposed to be a $50-60 million dollar aircraft?

Edited August 15, 2010 by Exel

[Rod]

Could the higher price reflect an entire package which includes training, logistical support, spare parts, manuals, tools, etc... Don't forget that since it is a new platform, entire new maintenance tools and programs (as well as training the mechanics) will be required as well as spare parts. I guess the follow-on order should be cheaper as the first batch already paid for the infrastructure.

 

 

I know, and I have expected the same. But it's still a staggering price especially when contrasted to the official price "estimates" that Lockmart and others go on about. The gap to F-22 is closing fast. Anyone remember when this was supposed to be a $50-60 million dollar aircraft?

[DesertEagle]

I hope the F-35's capabilities are THAT good. $2 Billion+ for only 19 aircraft is a lot, even if includes training systems, etc.

[zakk]

For comparison the price for 21 F-15I delivered to Israel (a similar contract?) was 95 million USD in 1994 dollars..

Where on earth did you get those numbers?

Israeli PM Rabin approved purchasing 21 F-15I aircraft for 2 billion USD on 24th January 1994. A letter of acceptance covering the deal was signed on 12th May 1994. The Peace Fox V contract included an option for purchasing 4 more F-15Is. The option was taken up on 22nd December 1995, when 4 additional F-15Is were ordered for a total price of 253 million USD.

[Exel]

Where on earth did you get those numbers?

Israeli PM Rabin approved purchasing 21 F-15I aircraft for 2 billion USD on 24th January 1994. A letter of acceptance covering the deal was signed on 12th May 1994. The Peace Fox V contract included an option for purchasing 4 more F-15Is. The option was taken up on 22nd December 1995, when 4 additional F-15Is were ordered for a total price of 253 million USD.

 

$94 million per plane, obviously. Fixed it above.

 

$2 billion : 21 = _______

Edited August 16, 2010 by Exel

[Tony Williams]

News from the Netherlands, from http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117498/dutch-to-extend-f_16-life%2C-delay-jsf.html

 

Coalition Talks Reach Deal On Defence, Aid Spending: Telegraaf (excerpt)

 

(Source: DutchNews; issued Aug. 24, 2010)

 

The three parties in talks on forming a new, right-wing government have almost reached agreement on cutting spending on defence and development aid, the Telegraaf reports.

 

The VVD Liberals, Christian Democrats and anti-Islam PVV have already agreed to find savings of EUR 18bn in an effort to get government spending back under control.

 

The paper says the three parties have now agreed to shave EUR 300m on defence spending and keep the door open for the purchase of the new JSF fighter jets to replace the country's ageing F16s. But the F16s will remain in service longer and fewer JSFs will be bought, the paper says.

[Xavier]

News from the Netherlands, from http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117498/dutch-to-extend-f_16-life%2C-delay-jsf.html

pfft, we won't even decide what to replace the F-16 with before 2015. (the cynic in me says, if, rather than with what)

[T-44]

pfft, we won't even decide what to replace the F-16 with before 2015. (the cynic in me says, if, rather than with what)

 

Thing is, at this price, we would pobably only buy one, and how are you going to regionalise that

[m4a1]

Any details on the Dutch cuts, other than fighter aircraft?

[Tony Williams]

A couple of articles concerning the Canadian plans:

 

From http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117562/canadian-af-tampers-wikipedia-to-defend-f_35-buy.html

 

Wikipedia Tampering Traced to Winnipeg Air Force Headquarters (excerpt)

 

(Source: Vancouver Sun; published Aug. 24, 2010)

 

The computer used to alter information on a Wikipedia entry critical of the Conservative government’s decision to spend billions of dollars on a new stealth fighters has been traced to the air force’s headquarters in Winnipeg, the Defence Department said Tuesday.

 

The computer was used last month to alter the online encyclopedia’s entry on the Joint Strike Fighter. The alterations included the removal of any information critical of the Harper government’s plan to spend at least $16 billion on the new fighter aircraft.

 

The computer account was also used to insert insults, aimed at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, into the entry. Ignatieff has questioned the proposed purchase. Quotes from news articles outlining opposition to the arms sale by University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers, a former NDP candidate, were also removed.

 

And at http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117569/parliamentary-panel-to-examine-canadian-f_35-plans.html

 

Tories Using Fear to Sell Fighter Jet Deal, Opposition Charges (excerpt)

 

(Source: Ottawa Citizen; published Aug. 25, 2010)

 

(All monetary amounts are expressed in Canadian dollars)

 

OTTAWA --- The Harper government is trying to frighten Canadians into backing its plan to spend more than $9 billion on new fighter jets, opposition MPs charged Wednesday after the Prime Minister's Office revealed that two Russian bombers had approached Canadian airspace within the previous 24 hours.

 

Liberals and New Democrats said Canadians deserve a serious discussion about why the expensive F-35 jets are needed and they should not have to put up with fear-mongering.

 

"We're not in the middle of a Cold War, we don't expect the Russians to attack Canada. This is all foolishness," New Democrat Jack Harris, the party's defence critic, told reporters.

 

"This is all politics," added Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic.

 

Word that Canadian jets were dispatched Tuesday to shadow Russian TU-95 bombers until they turned back surfaced just hours before MPs on the national defence committee met to deal with opposition demands for a thorough examination of the planned "sole-sourced" jet purchase.

 

The government has announced its intention to buy 65 of the new aircraft for $9 billion. Maintenance costs will bring the total price tag to $16 billion.

 

The committee, with the blessing of the Conservatives, agreed to proceed with the study and hear the first round of so far unknown witnesses on Sept. 15. MPs said a top priority would be to hear from the ministers of defence, public works, industry and Treasury Board. (end of excerpt)

[GK Dundas]

A couple of articles concerning the Canadian plans:

 

From http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117562/canadian-af-tampers-wikipedia-to-defend-f_35-buy.html

 

 

 

And at http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117569/parliamentary-panel-to-examine-canadian-f_35-plans.html

Hey I was no where near the Bishop building .I have witnesses that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Tony Williams]

Seems to be warming up...

 

Harper Facing Dogfight Over Fighter Jet Deal

 

 

(Source: National Post (Canada); published Oct. 7, 2010

 

 

Confronted by an insider warning against the sole-sourced purchase of a fighter jet dubbed the Flying Credit Card, a furious Stephen Harper on Thursday chose to attack the whistle-blower — and warn against massive aerospace job losses if opponents continue “playing politics” with the lives of Canadian troops.

 

Such hyperbole suggests the F-35 jet fighter controversy is getting under the Prime Minister’s skin. He may have cause to fret.

 

Retired assistant deputy minister of materials Alan Williams — an expert who is hard to dismiss — took the parliamentary stand on Wednesday afternoon to denounce the lack of competition for $9-billion worth of fighter jets as likely to squander billions of tax dollars and lost business opportunities. Mr. Williams warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s logic on the F-35 file is “flawed,” and he’s taking public positions that “insults our intelligence.”

 

This is no opposition cheap shot.

 

This comes from a 33-year public servant who signed the memorandum of understanding in 2002 committing Canada to $100-million in funding to develop the F-35 stealth fighter. He’s even written a book on the subject: Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement: A View From The Inside.

 

The government moved quickly to undermine the witness’s credibility.

 

“In terms of the individual you are talking about, his advice was very different at the time that he was actually paid to give it,” sniffed Mr. Harper during a brief media chat in Winnipeg.

 

Well, not really. While the PMO helpfully distributed Mr. Williams’ testimony from 2003 that predicted major Canadian benefits from the ongoing F-35 partnership, he never said the original contract was anything more than a lucrative business opportunity. Nowhere does he state Canada was committed to buying the jet. (end of excerpt)

 

 

Click here for the full article, on the National Post website.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/07/don-martin-harper-facing-dogfight-over-fighter-jet-deal/#ixzz11jfG2Cah