F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[HB_Pencil]

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

I agree, though with reservations. I just can't conceive of a threat that would require long range IADS system like PAC, S-3/400, or THAAD. Moreover I can't see how it might be effectively used in a domestic security operation and not be considered overkill. I would assume that any unknown flying aircraft would almost certainly be visually identified as a threat before any launch: would we ever fire on an airborne target without visual confirmation (not to mention attempting to visually signal it?) A short range system could make sense, but even then it seems a bit much to keep around just for the occasional G8 meeting.

One other point about AD; its one of the easier capabilities to regenerate and there are a number of options out there. Compared to a jet fighter (which requires a huge range of support trades and years of training), it is possible to stand up a new unit from scratch within a year of purchase and expect to see reasonable results in the field. Jets could take a decade.

 

[WingsofFury]

Wouldn't the DAS on the F-35, or even better the combination of the DAS' on a 2 or 4 ship of F-35's, be an aid to any GBAD as it would relay the positions of potential adversaries from a greater sphere to those on the ground?

 

[Baz]

The difference between Politcal and Strategic Assets is being confused.  Canada has no Strategic Air Assets, no matter how we like to talk about them.  Think U2, Global Hawke, B2, B52 in certain roles, etc.

Any asset can be used as a Political Asset - look at Dutch Patriots in Turkey, which is a big deal.  Canadian ships are arguably the most used for this, and look how much the RCAF supports the MH communitte (by the way, CH124s also did low/slow intercept in the Olympics, for very good reasons).  Look at the discussions surrounding Flying Rates for this year and who is getting the hours...

The CF-18 deployed footprint is not small, heck it isn't even small compared to other Nations fighter forces, which was a big reason we couldn't get them into AFG.  From NATO's point of view you could argue that the best Politcal asset we can bring to the table would be an ISR asset (Polar Hawke would be great) and the analysts, targeteers, planners, CDE experts, et al to go with them.

So its back to the basic question: what kind of fighter force do we want, expeditionary or not.  If yes, the F-35 seems (IMHO) a good choice, if not, is their something cheaper that meets Canada's requirments?

I also heard an Italian make a good point: if you want to be in the inner circle in the US, you need the F-35 to get there.  However, Canada, UK, and Austrailia are there anyway so it's not so much a factor for us.

All of this is irrelevant now anyway, becuase the RCAF arguable botched the file and hung the Minster out to dry.  We will get what the politicians decide on.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Best.Post.Ever.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

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.

Max,

Are you sure you can do NORAD/protecting a HVU without a GBAD backstop/training, as well as simultaneously deploying an expeditionary force with what will probably be 55 declining to 45 airframes? I hear what you're saying about the simulators, but that seems to be penny-packeting a lot of the aircraft out to different places.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Wouldn't the DAS on the F-35, or even better the combination of the DAS' on a 2 or 4 ship of F-35's, be an aid to any GBAD as it would relay the positions of potential adversaries from a greater sphere to those on the ground?

Yes, and this point has been brought up.  The more sensors providing a LAP to feed into a RAP and provide SA to the entirety of the air users certainly assists.  Jets alone are not the answer unless we're chasing stray bear bombers away from the arctic or tasks along those lines. 

HB Pencil- Any threat domestically that one would require a Gen 5 stealth fighter to counter can also be countered by a GBAD system.  How is a GBAD system worth 10-15 million more overkill than a 80-120 million jet? In the case where an OPFOR Gen 5 type fighter or bomber threat came, we could assume that it wouldn't be attacking targets outside of key nodes in Canada.  Fighters could be used for early engagement, with the GBAD deployed around those key targets where the planes would actually be headed (Ottawa, Toronto, etc etc) and defend the ones that get through. 

Baz- I agree with your assessment that on a strategic level NATO would be just as happy if we brought high level UAS, targeteers, etc to the table.  They were extremely useful in recent operations, could conduct long range persistent ISR over the arctic or operationally, could do "some" air to air (Global Hawk can be kitted out with stinger missiles), and would be cheaper to buy and MUCH cheaper to operate than a jet. 

I have one question reference the Gen 5 threat- if the Gen 5 OPFOR fighters are stealth how would the F 35 acquire them as a target to use standoff? They would, I assume, use their radar, which I would also assume, would be inneffective against a stealth opponent.  Visual only?

 

[SupersonicMax]

drunknsubmrnr, yes.

BG,  you dont get it....  JSF for expedetionary force.  Dont want to do that politically?  Buy a F-101...

 

[SupersonicMax]

The difference between Politcal and Strategic Assets is being confused.  Canada has no Strategic Air Assets, no matter how we like to talk about them.  Think U2, Global Hawke, B2, B52 in certain roles, etc.

I beg to differ, and in fact, it seems our leadership seems do as well.  IIRC, AFOD blk 3 specifically describe fighters as being "strategic" assets (I can't believe I actually remember something from AFOD...).  Have a good read of "Every man a tiger" by Chuck Horner (CFACC during Gulf War).  Same kind of concepts. 

We are the only conventional assets that can and do (on a regular basis) have a strategic impact.  At home and abroad.  What if tomorrow, Bagotville's jets get wiped out.  Doesn't that have a strategic impact on Canada's defence? I think so.  On deployments, we are the only asset that can effectively strike targets well beyond the FSCL and have a big strategic impact on the enemy and in turn, influence the overall campaign.  On a regular basis.  Not in a "one off" scenario.  You think this didn't have a strategic impact?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

The CF-18 deployed footprint is not small, heck it isn't even small compared to other Nations fighter forces, which was a big reason we couldn't get them into AFG.  From NATO's point of view you could argue that the best Politcal asset we can bring to the table would be an ISR asset (Polar Hawke would be great) and the analysts, targeteers, planners, CDE experts, et al to go with them.

Did you visit us in Trapani?  I think it was a pretty small footprint...  You are thinking Afghanistan, last war.  Let's think forward, next war.  If I would bet money, I would bet on a non-COIN conflict.

So its back to the basic question: what kind of fighter force do we want, expeditionary or not.  If yes, the F-35 seems (IMHO) a good choice, if not, is their something cheaper that meets Canada's requirments?

It is the cheapest option out there...

I also heard an Italian make a good point: if you want to be stay in the inner circle in the US, you need the F-35 to get there.

Fixed that for you.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Jets alone are not the answer unless we're chasing stray bear bombers away from the arctic or tasks along those lines. 

Which is pretty much what we do for NORAD....

could do "some" air to air (Global Hawk can be kitted out with stinger missiles), and would be cheaper to buy and MUCH cheaper to operate than a jet. 

Until the aircraft zips past at 400 KTS and the UAV is out of range. Oh no....  Because is has missile doesn't mean it can effectively employ them.  I could put AMRAAMs on a Cessna if I wanted.  But effective employment ain't going to happen.

I have one question reference the Gen 5 threat- if the Gen 5 OPFOR fighters are stealth how would the F 35 acquire them as a target to use standoff? They would, I assume, use their radar, which I would also assume, would be inneffective against a stealth opponent.  Visual only?

You should know better... As an Air Defence "SME"...

 

[Baz]

Of course the RCAF leadership feels that way... that is why there are some capabilities in the RCAF teatering on collapse... and those other capabilites also deliver political effect.

... and I do understand that fighters can be part of a package that deleivers strategic effect.  The discussion of a strategic air campaign is a long way from the Bomber Campaign of WWII.  Given the right conditions, modern strike assets can deliver certain strategic goals.  Whether that is the best way to obtain those goals, or even if they are the right goals, is a theoritical discussion way beyond this forum (but one I'm involved in most nearly every day).

Have you read the NATO Lessons Learned from either FRY (15 years ago) or Libya.  It is not about whether the Nations could provide enough jets, or tankers, or AWACS.  Its about other capabilites that Canada does not (yet) choose to spend the kind of resources the CF-18 eats: ISR and Link infrastructure.

Put it simply, no Nation will ever have enough resources to meet the militaries perceived needs; its well on the way to bankrupting the US.  So you try to use the resources you have to cover the need.  If Canada truly wants to be a player in expediationary air campaigns, then not only does it need (again, IMHO, probably) the F-35, but the other capabilities to enable them, because we don't possess them now.  And its quite likely that will mean something else has to give.  However, the RCAF (techically Air Command as it was a while ago) convinced the government that is the right thing to do a while ago.  So be it, we bought into JSF, its now political.  If that means my community dies so be it... I'll do my best up until then.

Its all a roll of the dice.  Make the right decisions, yeah.  Make the wrong ones, but they're never tested, oh well.  Make the wrong ones and you are tested, bad news.  But at the end of the day its not our money.

... and trust me, whether we have the F-35 or not will only be a (small) piece of whether we stay in that circle, its not based on a fighter but relationships that literally go back a century.  The name Delisle probably has more impact on that than the F-35 ever will.

 

[Baz]

Oh, and by the way, neither AFG nor Libya are necessarily indicative of the next war...  and tell the approx 1000 Cdns in AFG right now that, not to mention all our partners that its not important... they would probably beg to differ.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Which is pretty much what we do for NORAD....

Until the aircraft zips past at 400 KTS and the UAV is out of range. Oh no....  Because is has missile doesn't mean it can effectively employ them.  I could put AMRAAMs on a Cessna if I wanted.  But effective employment ain't going to happen.

You should know better... As an Air Defence "SME"...

The radar question was rhetorical, but I do appreciate the quotes around SME... very indicative of a professional response.

Your argument has zipped from expeditionary operations, to NORAD, and back to expeditionary, etc etc... one argues domestic operations, you bring up NORAD, mention NORAD you go back to expeditionary.  Throughout this conversation you have shown a lack of understanding of the concept of layered AD, including air and ground platforms.  Remember, when 1 finger points, 4 point back.  Never has it been stated that jets aren't required as part of a layered AD concept so stop with sarcastic responses. 

Domestic- what is the threat? If it's sovereignty, than really we are looking at warding off bears, more than likely counter UAS in the artic.  No big requirement for something like the F 35.  If it's gen 5 fighters (or older for argument sake), than unless they're just flying around the artic getting flight hours in we can safely assume that they're heading south to strike strategic targets.  They would need pretty significant fuel reserves, refuellers with them, a carrier to fly off of just off the coast, or would be on a suicide mission.  So, domestically we can assume counter long range bomber, long range missiles, or UAS are the real threats.  Other UAS, GBAD, and less capable jets are all capable of countering this threat assuming that the target is identified early, and can be either intercepted (by CAS) or intercepted closer to the target by GBAD using longer range weapons to minimize line of weapon release stand off.

Expeditionary- The F35 would be handy for foreign expeditionary operations, mixed with other assets such as UAS and aviation, particularly in a high threat environment.  How many F35s is the canadian government willing to lose? They are the most capable platform in this theatre, but using UAS in a SEAD role (such as in US doctrine) would provide freedom of movement at less risk.  Having a deployable GBAD to defend the ground force from small-mini UAS, C-RAM, and aviation would then free up the very very few F35s that would be deployable (of 60 total, perhaps 40-45 operational, of those likely a max of 20 deployable?) to do AI or air superiority operations. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

We are the only conventional assets that can and do (on a regular basis) have a strategic impact.  At home and abroad.  What if tomorrow, Bagotville's jets get wiped out.  Doesn't that have a strategic impact on Canada's defence? I think so.  On deployments, we are the only asset that can effectively strike targets well beyond the FSCL and have a big strategic impact on the enemy and in turn, influence the overall campaign.  On a regular basis.  Not in a "one off" scenario.  You think this didn't have a strategic impact?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

If all the jets in Bagotville got wiped out, it would have a strategic impact.  Same if the Halifax Class frigates got blown up or CFB Edmonton was wiped out. 

HIMARs, Global Hawk, Reaper, Tomahawk missiles from ships, etc can all strike targets well beyond the FSCL to name a few.  Op Opera was carried out in 1981...in 2013 it could have just as easily been done by a number of other delivery systems.  On a regular basis.  jets are part of a bigger picture.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Throughout this conversation you have shown a lack of understanding of the concept of layered AD, including air and ground platforms. 

I have a good understanding of the layered defence concepts.  I just don't see a need for it (kinematically) in Canada (domestically) simply because of the threat we are facing and are likely to face.  That's all.  Want to have an organic air defence for the ground troops deployed in a theatre?  Fill your boots.  Different story, different subject.

If it's sovereignty, than really we are looking at warding off bears, more than likely counter UAS in the artic.  No big requirement for something like the F 35.  If it's gen 5 fighters (or older for argument sake), [...] So, domestically we can assume counter long range bomber, long range missiles, or UAS are the real threats.  Other UAS, GBAD, and less capable jets are all capable of countering this threat assuming that the target is identified early, and can be either intercepted (by CAS) or intercepted closer to the target by GBAD using longer range weapons to minimize line of weapon release stand off.

Strategic SAMs are not, as far as I know, part of our defence strategy.  Why re-invent the wheel when we already have that capability and will keep that capability with fighters we are going to buy?  How many strategic sites you need to cover the same footprint as fighters do?  How much money is it going to cost in equipment alone to do that?  How many PY are we going to have to train and maintain qualifications?  See where I am going?  It's not cheaper, especially since we are providing this already with a platform that is multi-role (ie: not dedicated to sovereignty).

UAS to intercept bombers.. Yup, you have a big assumption.. Assuming we get the ID at range.  What if you don't?  The SAMs will get it?  Check my previous point. 

Expeditionary- The F35 would be handy for foreign expeditionary operations, mixed with other assets such as UAS and aviation, particularly in a high threat environment.  How many F35s is the canadian government willing to lose? They are the most capable platform in this theatre, but using UAS in a SEAD role (such as in US doctrine) would provide freedom of movement at less risk.  Having a deployable GBAD to defend the ground force from small-mini UAS, C-RAM, and aviation would then free up the very very few F35s that would be deployable (of 60 total, perhaps 40-45 operational, of those likely a max of 20 deployable?) to do AI or air superiority operations.

You are thinking Canada going up against 1 country.  That's not normally how it works for us, and in our aviation history, we have never gone against a country on our own.  We have support from other countries through a coalition.  Those platforms exists and support the coalition.  I know, it would be NICE to have all those capabilities for us and be able to be independent of big brother.  However, that's not going to happen.  We need to make choices.  So, what would we rather have?  A kick ass deployable IADS with UAS?  Or a capable fighter force?

All the support roles (SEAD, Airborne C2, most of the Tankers, etc) are provided by other countries, mostly the US.  I think you misunderstand how air operates in a more conventional role: in a package where all the support elements are included to protect the strikers, with a fairly complex fallout plan and very precise go-no-go criteria.  And that package is not going to be strictly Canadian, unfortunately.  But that's our reality.

HIMARs, Global Hawk, Reaper, Tomahawk missiles from ships, etc can all strike targets well beyond the FSCL to name a few.

How many of those we have in our inventory?  That's what I tought....

 

[Good2Golf]

Did I say Griffons were not tasked to do this kind of stuff.   

Nope.  Nor did I say you said that.

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... 

However good you think you or your fellow CF-18 pilots are, the Government does/did not agree with your assessment. 

CF-18s were deemed operationally ineffective to deal with the low, slow threat, no matter what you may say, thus Griffons, and as also pointed out, Sea Kings, were tasked for intercept and DCA of low, slow movers where the CF-18 was unable.


Regards
G2G

p.s.  Thanks for the daily chuckle about fighters having a small foot print.  That's good stuff! 

 

[Jungle]

p.s.  Thanks for the daily chuckle about fighters having a small foot print.  That's good stuff! 

Actually, they do have a small footprint... when they deploy to Alaska. When going to Hawai, it's a different story...

 

[dimsum]

As an aside:  Global Hawk does not carry any armament.

Now, back to the regularly-scheduled bunfight...

 

[HB_Pencil]

Nope.  Nor did I say you said that.

However good you think you or your fellow CF-18 pilots are, the Government does/did not agree with your assessment. 

CF-18s were deemed operationally ineffective to deal with the low, slow threat, no matter what you may say, thus Griffons, and as also pointed out, Sea Kings, were tasked for intercept and DCA of low, slow movers where the CF-18 was unable.


Regards
G2G

p.s.  Thanks for the daily chuckle about fighters having a small foot print.  That's good stuff! 

Sorry, a bit of a question and a point. First, weren't the helis also being used for quick JTF/troop insertion?

Also, I disagree that jets were "operationally ineffective against slow movers." CF-18s have been routinely tasked over the past 20+ years on drug interdiction missions where slow, low flying aircraft were intercepted. They developed a number of tactics to offset their relative speed issue. AFAIK that role still continues to this day (though I think the actual number of drug aircraft has diminished significantly)

 

[Loachman]

We had four-man RCMP ERT Teams on standby in our hangar at night.

When we began doing the onsite recces during the first few days after our arrival, we discovered that almost all of the pre-determined urban LZs had party tents and stages built on them. There were only one or two still useable. We suggested to the ERT guys that we could put them into one of those and they could cab it the rest of the way to wherever they needed to be.

"Low and slow" meant "down in mountain valleys" I don't think that too many bomber pilots would have been comfortable in that environment, even in daylight, which is why we practised intercepts.

Bomber guys sure speak funny.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

You are thinking Canada going up against 1 country.  That's not normally how it works for us, and in our aviation history, we have never gone against a country on our own.  We have support from other countries through a coalition.  Those platforms exists and support the coalition.  I know, it would be NICE to have all those capabilities for us and be able to be independent of big brother.  However, that's not going to happen.  We need to make choices.  So, what would we rather have?  A kick *** deployable IADS with UAS?  Or a capable fighter force?

All the support roles (SEAD, Airborne C2, most of the Tankers, etc) are provided by other countries, mostly the US.  I think you misunderstand how air operates in a more conventional role: in a package where all the support elements are included to protect the strikers, with a fairly complex fallout plan and very precise go-no-go criteria.  And that package is not going to be strictly Canadian, unfortunately.  But that's our reality.

How many of those we have in our inventory?  That's what I tought....

A Patriot missile system costs $2-3 million/launcher.  For a Regiment of 3 batteries of 6 launchers complete with radar suites would then cost approximately $60 million (give or take).  Therein, we could buy 3 complete regiments worth of systems (LFWA, LFCA, SQFT) for $180-200 million.  Each Regiment (Battalion in US verbiage) would be a total of 600 PYs, including support staff, for a total of 1800 all ranks (in 3 Regiments, or a total of 9 Patriot batteries).  The manning is based on US manning, so we could assume relatively safely that the 600/Regiment would be lower in our forces.  Stinger missiles cost $38000/missile, or the costs of 4 flight hours of a 35.  In sum, for the cost of 1.5-2 F 35s we could afford an entire GBAD Bde.  That would be deployable.  That could defend vital points in all parts of Canada.

For foreign deployments I wasn't thinking about canada going against one country... clearly we would be in a coalition, be it US led (more than likely) or British led.  And you're right, we do have support through the other countries in a coalition- it is safe to say that the US or British would do 99% of the air supremacy operations, with maybe Canadians playing a "carry the flag" role like in Desert Storm.  So, no requirement for Gen 5 fighters for expeditionary ops aside from a minor at most "show the flag" or to provide CAS/AI.  In a coalition operation, as such, we would really have more of a requirement for an ISR and strike platform which could be more cheaply done (and some might say more effectively) through a UCAV system with better ISR packages and better loiter time.  Pilot training would be easier on an UAS also, meaning cost savings and the pilots could remain in Canada meaning more savings.  At $5-10 million per Reaper we could lOSE 10-13 of them operationally for the same cost as a F-35, with none of the strategic problems of having pilots KIA or being shown on the nightly news of some foreign agency.

However.... GBAD being an army asset would not be provided for Canada aside from incidental coverage.  With the main threats being C-RAM, Counter-UAS (mini and small) and ballistic missiles, on expeditionary ops there's more of a requirement to ensure our freedom of movement and survivability.  There's no real determinable fixed wing threat to deployed Canadian forces, particularly in lieu of the fact that we would be in a US or Brit coalition, but a very real C-RAM, missile, and UAS threat.

So to answer your question- would I rather have a kick *** IADS and UAS/UCAV or a capable fighter force? Domestic operations a CAPABLE (not necessarily F 35s) fighter force is preferable.  Expeditionary ops, ESPECIALLY in a US or British coalition I would rather have IADS and UAS, along with targeteers.  For the money we'd save on the F-35s we could throw HIMARS in there too.

On a side note- How many of what do we have in our inventory? 

side note 2- Gen 5 or 4 fighters from foreign countries do not currently have the range to fly through the arctic or across the Pacific, hit targets and fly back.  Ipso facto, the only thing that could do that is a long range bomber or ICBM.  A bear bomber WOULD be picked up on radar and identified WELL before it got close to anywhere of strategic value (Southern Canada from Edmonton down) that would be worth sending said bomber in the first place.  As such, there would be significant time to ID this threat, even for a UAS.  A Gen 4 fighter would be better for this, but it COULD be an option if neccessary. Or GBAD (assuming the Russians or Chinese dont go all "Red Dawn" and just arbitrarily attack North America).