F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Bird_Gunner45]

Don't forget, we are talking about NORAD here.  I am not talking about having you overseas.  When is the last time that Canadian Land faced an artillery threat?  I'd guess pretty much never.  Hence, the requirement to maintain equipment and personnel to man this, for a practically non-existent threat.  The capabilities of the ADATS were severly limited by range and max altitude... 

And DCA and OCA and Air Interdiction and ISR...

The capabilities of the JSF are not questionnable.  Having been exposed to those, I can tell you that the ausairpower website is a bunch of bull.

How do you conduct Air Interdiction with an Attack AH or a UAS?  How fast can you move from 1 AO to the other?  How do you do DCA? In our last 3 operationnal deployments, we have done anything but CAS. 

What air threat does Canada face on Canadian soil? Russian Bears? Suicide Cessnas's? Is the threat such that it requires $9 billion in assets to counter, or could we simply save 1 or 2 billion and get a similarly capable jet (Gripen, etc) for the threat.... if we just want to launch something up to watch for shipping, subs, and do ISR HALE/MALE UAS are a cheaper option.  If we want something to chase away 1960 era Russian relics like the bear than a Gripen, Super Hornet, or something similar would suffice.  If we're talking about a near peer force on force where we anticipate Gen 5 OPFOR, than I would also suggest that the ability to have a GBAD capability to augment the total of 60 F-35s we would have would be neccessary as well.  The threats noted in previous posts include systems which can affect the army in adverse weather (artillery and rockets) or in low cloud cover (small to mini UAS) when the air force may be grounded. 

The artillery threat faced in A-Stan (mortars, rockets, the "strategic bullet, etc) and will face in future deployments to unforeseen areas is very real, same as the UAS threat faced by Canadian Army units.  The threat of artillery on Canadian soil is similar to the threat faced from Chinese or Russian aircraft.  The GBAD is an army SHIELD function permitting freedom of movement of the manoeuvre force.  These are real world issues faced on previous deployments (arty) and will be faced in future warfare scenarios, particularly with the available of small to mini UAS for intelligence collection.  On a side note, the ADATS was limited only in that there was no HIMAD system in Canada to cover higher level threats... I spent a couple of years on Maple Flag where we did pretty good against you guys, which is surprising since they went to the same spot every year. 

Predator and Global Hawk are capable platforms for conducting air interdiction.  Future iterations of predator will be jet powered and have stealth features also, which make them entirely capable of this task, plus a CAS and ISR capability.  With better loiter times than a F 35 at a fraction of the cost ($10 million-ish per according to the manufacturer) it is an affordable option.

Also, the F35s capabilities are not beyond reproach.... see article below.  It notes that there are concerns with performance and the system is still unproven.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/

 

[Loachman]

So, how would this be any different from some of the reports of the performance of the F-35?

In which would you rather be sitting, in a aerial battle? F35, or one of these Chinese or Russian wonderjets?

F35 is currently performing quite well. I see no comparable reports of the Russian or Chinese "competition".

I remember very similar media criticism of the F18 when we were evaluating and buying that, and tend to not put much credence in today's bashing as a result.

 

[Good2Golf]

BG45, don't forget, the low slow movers that Hornets couldn't shoot down for Kananaskis / Huntsville / etc... would have been dealt with by the mighty Griffons -- NORADs slowest ever air interceptor. 

Unless the F35 could do something that the CF18 can't, use of the Girffon would likely remain the case for future DDCAORRSMAT missions (domestic defensive counter-air of really, really slow moving aerial targets). 


Cheers
G2G

 

[SupersonicMax]

BG45, don't forget, the low slow movers that Hornets couldn't shoot down for Kananaskis / Huntsville / etc... would have been dealt with by the mighty Griffons -- NORADs slowest ever air interceptor. 

Unless the F35 could do something that the CF18 can't, use of the Girffon would likely remain the case for future DDCAORRSMAT missions (domestic defensive counter-air of really, really slow moving aerial targets). 


Cheers
G2G

Hornets intercepted helicopters and Cesnas.  It is possible to shoot down and we even train for it.

BG45:  Don't forget that the JSF will not only be used for NORAD.  It will be used for overseas deployments as well. 

 

[HB_Pencil]

In light of the issues surrounding the F35 project does it not irk you that Lockheed decided to just raise the price 20 million dollars?

I can't imagine needing a house to live in because mine is crumbling. Have a company try and sell me a house that hasn't been built yet. People tell me how amazing my new house will be. Have that house run into delay after delay after delay with no guarantee when it will actually be ready.
Then have the company tell me they want even more money, but it's a really great house so I should accept it.

First, the cost hasn't really increased $20 million for Canada, at least not what policymakers actually saw as their price tag between 2010 and 2013. $60~65 million was the 2001 Base year price, which Lockheed uses in PR statements. $85 million is the 2012 base year price. It went up about $10 million in Canadian estimates, which was about the contingency laid out in the 2010 budget outlay. In reality much of that actually occurred in the 2010 budget year. Since then the aircraft's cost has stabilized, and some of the persistent overages decreasing (from 15% on LRIP I to about 8% on LRIP IV.)

Its disappointing sure... maybe I'm sanguine about the reality of development. Buying aircraft is not like building a house, and I generally dislike comparisons with other things. Fighter aircraft are actually the most complex technical challenge in the world today; development risk and cost increases are a part of that equation. No major fighter project gets delivered on time or budget. However the program is really reaching key milestones for demonstrating capability and costs. Its reaching a point where the outcome can reasonably predicted.

In reality all manufacturers make inflated claims. I'll give you an example. In Saab's 2010 presentation to Canadian Parliament, they made several claims:

Confirmed Delivery in 2016
Per Unit Cost of 55 million.
Operational per hour cost of $5,000 dollars.

Saab now won't deliver their first Gripen NG until 2019, with a per unit cost of $80 million (and some suggesting it might be $105 million to Switzerland), and an operational cost of at least $10,000 per hour (with the Swiss Suggesting it is actually $20,000)

What air threat does Canada face on Canadian soil? Russian Bears? Suicide Cessnas's? Is the threat such that it requires $9 billion in assets to counter, or could we simply save 1 or 2 billion and get a similarly capable jet (Gripen, etc) for the threat.... if we just want to launch something up to watch for shipping, subs, and do ISR HALE/MALE UAS are a cheaper option.  If we want something to chase away 1960 era Russian relics like the bear than a Gripen, Super Hornet, or something similar would suffice.  If we're talking about a near peer force on force where we anticipate Gen 5 OPFOR, than I would also suggest that the ability to have a GBAD capability to augment the total of 60 F-35s we would have would be neccessary as well.  The threats noted in previous posts include systems which can affect the army in adverse weather (artillery and rockets) or in low cloud cover (small to mini UAS) when the air force may be grounded. 

There is no clearly cheaper jet. That's a bit of the fallacy that's been created in the past few years by the opposition and critics... as if the F-35 is some sort of cadillac option. Rather its the only aircraft being mass produced, while the others are in very limited production.

Actually the situation has got markedly worse for the other manufacturers as their production lines start reaching their twilight years.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Hornets intercepted helicopters and Cesnas.  It is possible to shoot down and we even train for it.

BG45:  Don't forget that the JSF will not only be used for NORAD.  It will be used for overseas deployments as well.

It's not that fighters "can't" intercept helicopters, it's that they're not optimal for it, particularly in conventional warfare where one would see MEZs, FEZs, etc.  System of systems and such.  If we were engaged in full spectrum warfare with a fixed wing air threat the 60 odd jets we have COULD be hard pressed to maintain air supremacy, superiority, etc, especially in a high AD environment such as against China, Iran, etc.

I didn't forget that the new fighter plane (since the F35's future is still somewhat murky, especially in Canada) would deploy on operations, as it should.  It's the point I made... any future operation that would see any requirement for a Gen 5 fighter in Canada would also see a requirement for GBAD for army support, and on operations the threat still remains Counter munitions and counter UAS primarily, with a tertiary threat from aviation, and a minimal threat from fixed wing, particularly if we are deployed with the US, which we would most likely be.  We can also assume that not every day on this operation will permit fixed wing aviation to fly, but could very well allow UAS or aviation to fly, and artillery can certainly remain active.  Scan Eagle flew in theatre often when fixed wing was grounded..... As an observer for MLR systems, UAS are of extreme importance to ID and destroy by the ground force.

No one is arguing that the CF-18s need to be replaced.  The argument is simply is the F 35 the best plane for what we need. 

The assertion that fighters can do everything and there's no need for GBAD is short sighted at best.  The US, who have far more reason to be optimistic about their ability to maintain air superiority with their fighter fleets, or investing heavily in GBAD systems as they understand the changing nature of the threat, and the fact that it makes no sense to use expensive jets and munitions to shoot down $5000 UAS and the strategic importance of defending against munitions in an assymetric environment.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The argument is simply is the F 35 the best plane for what we need. 

From what's available now, yes. 

The assertion that fighters can do everything and there's no need for GBAD is short sighted at best.  The US, who have far more reason to be optimistic about their ability to maintain air superiority with their fighter fleets, or investing heavily in GBAD systems as they understand the changing nature of the threat, and the fact that it makes no sense to use expensive jets and munitions to shoot down $5000 UAS and the strategic importance of defending against munitions in an assymetric environment.

For defending our borders, I don't think we need Air Defence Arty.  If we deploy in a large scale operation, you can bet we will not be the only ones in the show (as we have never been the only ones in the show).  I am pretty sure that any place we may be deployed will have its own array of Air Defence.  Don't need to bring our own.  As a related subject, when was the last time that Air Defence Arty was deployed and used in a theatre?

 

[Kirkhill]

It's not that fighters "can't" intercept helicopters, it's that they're not optimal for it, particularly in conventional warfare where one would see MEZs, FEZs, etc.  System of systems and such.  If we were engaged in full spectrum warfare with a fixed wing air threat the 60 odd jets we have COULD be hard pressed to maintain air supremacy, superiority, etc, especially in a high AD environment such as against China, Iran, etc.

I didn't forget that the new fighter plane (since the F35's future is still somewhat murky, especially in Canada) would deploy on operations, as it should.  It's the point I made... any future operation that would see any requirement for a Gen 5 fighter in Canada would also see a requirement for GBAD for army support, and on operations the threat still remains Counter munitions and counter UAS primarily, with a tertiary threat from aviation, and a minimal threat from fixed wing, particularly if we are deployed with the US, which we would most likely be.  We can also assume that not every day on this operation will permit fixed wing aviation to fly, but could very well allow UAS or aviation to fly, and artillery can certainly remain active.  Scan Eagle flew in theatre often when fixed wing was grounded..... As an observer for MLR systems, UAS are of extreme importance to ID and destroy by the ground force.

No one is arguing that the CF-18s need to be replaced.  The argument is simply is the F 35 the best plane for what we need. 

The assertion that fighters can do everything and there's no need for GBAD is short sighted at best.  The US, who have far more reason to be optimistic about their ability to maintain air superiority with their fighter fleets, or investing heavily in GBAD systems as they understand the changing nature of the threat, and the fact that it makes no sense to use expensive jets and munitions to shoot down $5000 UAS and the strategic importance of defending against munitions in an assymetric environment.

How many VLLAD, LLAD, MLAD, HAAD, THAAD batteries are you projecting to fill the gaps left by the NGF across Canada?

Just curious.

 

[WingsofFury]

Oh, yes - those guys. I'm not quite sure what their agenda is, but I'm sure that they do not have one at all.

They're fighting for the US to lift the ban on F-22 exports and also want to bring back their fleet of F-111's.

In general, they are mocked by those who actually know something, anything, actually, about air defence.

 

[dapaterson]

From what's available now, yes. 

F35 is not available now.  Block 2B (minimal weapons) is not available yet.  F35A, as of 2012, flies 6 hours before requiring repair - generally in systems like electrical, landing gear, and fuel supply.

It's still a developmental airframe.  The simulator does great things - but the aircraft can't yet do what the simulator does.

 

[Loachman]

I am pretty sure that any place we may be deployed will have its own array of Air Defence.  Don't need to bring our own.  As a related subject, when was the last time that Air Defence Arty was deployed and used in a theatre?

I am pretty sure that any place we may be deployed will have its own array of fighters, too. Don't need to bring our own. Kandahar....?

I am also pretty sure that any place we may be deployed will have its own array of tanks, APCs, Infantry guys, trucks, howitzers, and anything else. Just what do we need to bring, anywhere?

Just because we have not deployed ground-based air defence anywhere since leaving Germany, doesn't mean that we should not have it. It is part of a well-balanced general-purpose combat force and should be preserved.

Equipment - sea, ground, or air - needs to be complimentary as no one system can do everything. We need overlapping capabilities, not one or the other.

On the basis of cost, capability, interoperability, and longevity, I see no better option than F35.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

From what's available now, yes. 

For defending our borders, I don't think we need Air Defence Arty.  If we deploy in a large scale operation, you can bet we will not be the only ones in the show (as we have never been the only ones in the show).  I am pretty sure that any place we may be deployed will have its own array of Air Defence.  Don't need to bring our own.  As a related subject, when was the last time that Air Defence Arty was deployed and used in a theatre?

The US fleet of 2470 jets could  cover us in operations too from an air point of view... Why pay $9 billion for aircraft at all? The force of 60 jets would be so irrelevant in a conventional battle, in Canada, as to be as pointless as the AD Arty you just described.  You are thinking about AD in a fixed wing sense, which I have noted several times, is not the projected GBAD threat model.  Think the US is going to detach assets to us for counter missile and C-RAM or for counter small to mini UAS? We may get support from a Patriot Bn IF we happen to be in the arcs for its defended asset... other than that, negative.

GBAD and fighters complement and fight different threats.  Future GBAD will protect ground HVTs, manoeuvre elements etc on operation, with some domestic capabilities if required.  We are looking at defending HQs, Gun Batteries, Engineering equipment on a 24/7 basis against the threats mentioned many times before, which really do not include fixed wing assets as they are not expected to be a major threat in the future.  That's zoomies domain, until one or two get through, which then require a GBAD backstop (the point of the ADATS, for example, in the cold war was to backstop soviet fighters or helos that got through to friendly airfields).  GBAD is focussed on army operations at the division and below level and WILL fight different threats, even complement the fighters who cannot be everywhere all the time.  Army commanders and soldiers deserve no less.  Heck, our radars even feed into the Common air picture and we provide coordination for y'all.

ADATS were used in Kananaskis as well as for drug interdiction operations in Quebec, so had a domestic capability.  Javelin was deployed in the Gulf War.  The US deployed and used AD Arty in the 2003 invasion, and has a massive GBAD presence in Japan and Korea.

So, to sum, no one is suggesting that GBAD would defend Canadian sovereignty alone same as GBAD does not do it alone anywhere else in the world. 

Back to the 35 itself... my only concern is that with limited resources in Canada is if we can afford a nice to have jet to defend against a fixed wing threat in Canada which no one seems to be able to identify when we require new boats, LAVs, GBAD systems, radars, etc


As for the number of batteries to defend Canada for GBAD, we require 1 x AD regiment in a GS role consisting of 2-3 batteries armed with a mix of C-RAM and MANPAD/SHORAD systems and a radar Tp, and at most 1 x Battery of C-RAM type systems for each Bde in a DS role.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Loachman and BG45,

You guys see us as a tactical asset, when in fact we are more a Strategic or even Political asset (even though I hate talking about Tactical, Operational and Strategic...).  You can deploy us quickly, do a clean job, project a lot of power and we are able to come back home quickly (ie: our footprint is very small)

The government can use us to tell the international audience that we are ready to defend Canada's political objectives abroad. Not necessarily that our tactical contribution is required by the coalition.

 

[Loachman]

Loachman and BG45,

You guys see us as a tactical asset,

No, I do not.

I will happily poke fun at you and your community at every chance presented, but I know your value and will not support any cut in capability.

The problem is that when you posit that one organization is not needed because others will provide that capability, you cannot escape the counter-argument that the same others can also cover off yours and likewise render you redundant.

This is not an either/or argument. We need strong fighter capabilities in a variety of roles. We also need credible mobile ground-based air defence. These are complimentary in a war situation.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If that Air Defence is organic to a combat team, yes.  I agree.  I do not think we need Ground-Based AD on Canadian Soil.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If that Air Defence is organic to a combat team, yes.  I agree.  I do not think we need Ground-Based AD on Canadian Soil.

GBAD works at the Bde and Div level, not within a combat team.  GBAD still has a role within the strategic defence of canada in the traditional backstop/all weather role IMHO.  GBAD is a strategic asset (see the US, Russia, etc) that can be used to achieve strategic aims, whether in Canada or abroad.  Patriot missile batteries for example, or extremely strategic, same for THAAD.  Would Canada have a capability similar to that? Not likely.  But to simply state that it's not strategic is wrong also.

What is the future air threat to Canada on Canadian soil? Are we really expecting hoards of Gen 5 fighters and strategic bombers coming over the artic circle? Do we anticipate escorting stray Russian/Chinese planes out of our airspace? Intercepting hijacked aircraft? What threat do we have that needs a F-35?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Would Canada have a capability similar to that? Not likely.  But to simply state that it's not strategic is wrong also.

The fact that we don't have or didn't have any in the recent-ish past indicates that Canadian Air Defence is not a strategic asset.  If we had a couple of Patriot Batteries, I would agree with you. But we don't and like you said, likely will not, at least in the foreseeable future.

What is the future air threat to Canada on Canadian soil? Are we really expecting hoards of Gen 5 fighters and strategic bombers coming over the artic circle? Do we anticipate escorting stray Russian/Chinese planes out of our airspace? Intercepting hijacked aircraft? What threat do we have that needs a F-35?

Again, you keep referring to NORAD only which is only a small part of the equation.  Think about projection of power.  Look at the proliferation of the S-300/400 family SAMs and tell me a Gripen would do just fine...  The SA-10 is old news and guess what, I wouldn't really want to get anywhere close to that!

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The fact that we don't have or didn't have any in the recent-ish past indicates that Canadian Air Defence is not a strategic asset.  If we had a couple of Patriot Batteries, I would agree with you. But we don't and like you said, likely will not, at least in the foreseeable future.

Again, you keep referring to NORAD only which is only a small part of the equation.  Think about projection of power.  Look at the proliferation of the S-300/400 family SAMs and tell me a Gripen would do just fine...  The SA-10 is old news and guess what, I wouldn't really want to get anywhere close to that!

The only reason Canadian GBAD didn't deploy to the olympics, for example, was because of money and logistical issues involved with fuelling systems on mountains and the cost of a missile ($300,000/missile) not because it wasn't deemed necessary.  Same story for the G-8.  The initial plan for the olympics was to go with a Stinger missile (MANPAD or Avenger) and to use the sentinel to feed into the RAP.

You're right about those Russian GBAD systems though... with a max engagement range of 75km and acquisition range of 180km to 360km at a fraction of the cost of a modern fighter jet they are a nasty system to go against.  Particularly when integrated with lower level assets. 

You've made a fantastic case for the requirement for GBAD systems in the Canadian Forces.  :bowing:

 

[Good2Golf]

Hornets intercepted helicopters and Cesnas.  It is possible to shoot down and we even train for it.

Blasting past at 100+ kts may be intercept to you, but it was not sufficient enough for the Government to rely on them as an interceptor against low, slow movers in OP GRIZZLY (G7 in Kanaskis...if this doesn't ring a bell, ask your CO or someone who was perhaps not still in high school at the time) or in OP CADENCE (G8/G20)?  CH146s were the tasked low, slow interceptor, DCA tasked asset.  Are you saying they weren't?

Regards
G2G

 

[SupersonicMax]

Did I say Griffons were not tasked to do this kind of stuff.    I said we are able to take care of a low/slow mover.  There are TTPs that we train to in our NORAD syllabi and it does not necessarily involve zipping past at 200 kts closure...  I said we do not need Ground Air Defence for our NORAD/Sovereignty commitments, be it ONE, Boise or NSO. 

BG45:  For the threat we face in Canada, I don't think a complex IADS is necessary (a la Russian).  Alert fighters do just fine...  Believe it or not we do get scrambled a couple of times a year.  If you want to deploy with army troops as an organic asset for short-range, self defence Air Defence Arty, go for it.  A bit like the SA-9/SA-13, SA-12 type systems