This story in the Ottawa Citizen suggests a major revelation that makes the govenment look bad:

Air force expected bid process for new jets
Competition for contract worth billions was scheduled for this year, documents reveal

Air force officers working on the purchase of Canada’s new fighter planes expected there would a competition this year for the multibillion-dollar deal, according to Defence Department documents obtained by the Citizen.

The plan written by officers for the Next Generation Fighter Capability project called for a “competitive process” for both the aircraft and the long-term maintenance contract, according to the project outline developed in the summer of 2009. That schedule planned for the competition to be run in 2010, with a contract to be awarded by 2012, according to the project documents.

Instead, the Conservative government decided to proceed without a competition and select the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter built by U.S. aerospace firm Lockheed Martin…

I think the government already looks bad enough–e.g., see here, here, here and here. But it is hardly shocking news to discover that the Air Force was making plans for a possible new fighter competition. After all militaries engage in an awful lot of planning as a matter of course, and competition is the usual method for equipment procurement.

On the other hand it has long been clear that the Air Force really wanted the F-35. From Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 2009:

Canada is working to bring forward a decision on its new fighter to later this year, with the Lockheed Martin-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter facing ostensible competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG (Next Generation).

“We are trying to advance the decision to 2009,” says a Department of National Defense (DND) official. The intent, assuming the F-35 is selected, is to allow Canada to participate in a potential “consortium buy” promising better pricing and industrial rewards…

And from the Ottawa Citizen itself, August 2009:

Military favours stealthy jet to replace CF-18s
Sole-source deal for Joint Strike Fighters a mistake: critics [the link has vanished, but part of the story can still be seen here and I have kept more of it in my personal files]

The Defence Department is recommending a multibillion-dollar sole-source purchase of a U.S. stealth-like aircraft to replace Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets.

Work is under way on a presentation to cabinet for approval to buy 65 Joint Strike Fighters, known as JSF, even though military leaders had earlier claimed that a competitive process would be followed in any CF-18 replacement…

Defence officials have always maintained that no decision has been made on whether JSF should be purchased. But a 2006 briefing report produced by the office of Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel, concluded that JSF was the plane best suited for Canada…

Then there’s this from an Ottawa Citizen blog post in October 2009:

…
There is also strong support for a JSF purchase within the Canadian Air Force. In May 2006 the Chief of the Air Staff completed an options analysis study that examined the future global market for next-generation tactical fighter aircraft.

“The results of this study have indicated that the JSF family of aircraft provides the best available operational capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements, while providing the longest service life and the lowest per aircraft cost of all options considered,” according to a Sept. 19, 2006 briefing report entitled JSF Program. The report was prepared for then Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor by office of Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel…

It’s worth noting though that in December 2006 the CF were saying there were possible alternatives to the F-35 and thus implicitly not ruling out a competetion; one never knows what goverments may eventually decide:

U.K., Canada Keep JSF Options Open

Even though Pentagon officials this week inked agreements with three of the eight Joint Strike Fighter partner nations, two of those countries will continue to examine secondary options to the F-35 in the coming months, international defense officials tell Inside the Air Force.

Representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom all approved an international memorandum of understanding solidifying the participation of those nations for the next stage of development on the fifth-generation aircraft…

…
While echoing the sentiment that preliminary evaluations of the F-35 have shown the aircraft to be the answer to its fighter requirements [emphasis added, observe the "prliminary"], Canadian defense officials are also looking at potential alternatives to the fifth-generation aircraft.

“I think that we are going to look at the full spectrum of capabilities to meet future operational requirements,” [Michael] Slack [Canada’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager] said in the interview. “If something emerges that turns out to be extremely capable, who knows? I do not have a crystal ball anymore than you do.”

Canadian defense officials are eying the 2012 time frame for a final decision [so why the rush now? see this post again]…

Production aircraft seen as possible alternatives to the JSF include the JAS 39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, along with upgraded versions of the Super Hornet, Col. Dave Burt, Canada’s director for air requirements, said in a brief Dec. 11 interview with ITAF [Inside the Air Force]…

So more of that normal planning even with a preference. Keeep in mind also that the 2006 agreement clearly in no way committed Canada actually to buying the F-35.

Update: Towards the end of this interview this morning on CFRA Ottawa,

…
Madely in the Morning – 7:45am — Steve Madely is joined by Defence Minister Peter Mackay to discuss his announcement to pump $2 billion into helping the country’s most severely injured veterans.
mp3 (click here to download)…

the MND is asked about the F-35. He says Canada is “getting a preferred price” (why not tell us exactly what it is then?) and that our Air Force will have the “best fighter aircraft on the planet” (Peter has apparently forgot the F-22, but then it’s not for export).  As for getting the best, that clearly does not apply to the Navy, odd that.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

The US Marine Corps, the F-35, and the Super Hornet–4.5 for Canada?

I ask all those who insist that only the best fighter available will do for the Air Force (and remember that the F-35A is still only being flight tested, though apparently going well so far): what about the Navy? The planned capabilities of two of their new types of vessels are being reduced for cost reasons:

…In August, Vanguard [magazine] spoke with Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Ian Mack, National Defence’s Director General for Major Project Delivery (Land and Sea) about the navy’s shipbuilding program [quotes out of sequence]…

Joint Support Ship
…
Mack acknowledged that, in revisiting the requirements, DND has changed the scope of its requirement for “support to forces ashore” through a joint task force headquarters. “We’ve recognized that…with the many trade offs that we’ve had to [make] since we terminated the last procurement process, we’ve had to look hard at all of the capabilities. There will be space to be able to support joint forces headquarters. [How much] will depend upon how these designs evolve: [h]ave we got the resources left in terms of affordability to add more? We’re starting from what could be called a minimum essential requirement as opposed to the first time out on JSS, which was much more complex, and…watching for opportunities to increase the capability.”..

Much more earlier:

Joint Sometime Ship (JSS): At least five years late

Back to the Vanguard article:

…
Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship
…
“[The] project has been going for a while now, since about 2007. We’ve pretty well worked through the definition phase,” Mack said. “We continue to refine the design which we’ve developed…and we’re preparing the request-for-proposal package. We [will be] ready to negotiate that package into a detailed contract once the national shipbuilding procurement strategy [government webpage here] delivers the shipyard that is going to build [those] ships.”..

Nor will the Arctic patrol ships be looking for more trouble than they can handle. The requirements for the weapons suite have not been finalized, Mack said, “[but] we’re not up there with the [AOPS] to take on another combatant [emphasis added, really top gun naval vessel, eh?], we’re up there basically on patrol and we’ll be looking for the ability to convince someone that they should stop, or to stop them.”..

From June 2009:

Navy waters down plans for Arctic patrol ships

The federal government has put off asking shipbuilders for ideas on the construction of a flotilla of Arctic patrol boats, a sign that the two-year-old program is in trouble.

The navy’s project management office advised the defence industry on June 10th that the long-anticipated letters of intent had been delayed.

“The extent of the delay is unknown at this time,” said the note obtained by The Canadian Press.

The navy’s project office describes the postponement as a “glitch,” but the officer in charge, navy Capt. Eric Bramwell, declined to explain what the holdup might be.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in July 2007 that the navy would acquire six to eight ice-capable vessels for nearly year-round operation in the Arctic. The announcement was a cornerstone of the Conservatives’ northern strategy [as for "Arctic sovereignty" see this]…

The navy now envisions purchasing just six Class 5 ice-cutting ships and arming them with 25-mm cannons — the same calibre carried on the army’s light armoured vehicles — as opposed to larger 40-mm weapons.

The ships will also be slower than originally planned and have less cargo capacity…

The original general requirements for the ships are in this 2007 backgrounder from the prime minister; they weren’t exactly cutting edge and are now being scaled back:

…
Speed: The ship must be able to maintain an economical speed of 14 knots and attain a maximum speed of at least 20 knots [that will sure help nab the smugglers and terrorists at sea]…

And note their main role will not in fact be for the Arctic but general maritime patrol to replace the current limited-capability Kingston-class vessels (which however do have a 40mm Bofors gun, as well as two Ma Deuces–see previous link):

…
While the current Kingston-Class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDV) have the versatility to operate in coastal areas, these minor war vessels have limited ability to operate in the open ocean, cannot support a helicopter, and are restricted in their capacity to support boarding operations. The Navy must use its large combatant vessels – destroyers and frigates, which are expensive to operate, to patrol the open ocean.

To fill this capability gap, the Navy will acquire up to eight Polar Class 5 Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPSs). These multi-purpose, ice-capable offshore patrol ships will provide the flexibility for the Navy to operate in both the Arctic and offshore environments, allowing them to be used year-round in a variety of roles, including domestic surveillance, search and rescue and support to other government departments…

Latest requirements here.  It’s now 2010 and after four and a half years in office this government has been unable even to settle on ship designs, while capabilities and numbers have shrunk for cost reasons. Any contracts are a couple of years away at least, who knows when any vessels will be operational.

Always the best for our forces, in a timely fashion, eh?  Except…

Update: As for the competition that the government, and others, claim effectively committed Canada to the F-35:

Put fighter jets to test

As the person responsible for signing the Memorandum of Understanding with the United States in 2002 to formally enter the System Development and Demonstration phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, I would like to address L. Ian Macdonald’s comments in “Grits have short memory fighting F-35s” (Sept. 17).

First, he is incorrect when he states “The F-35 was selected as the next generation fighter by a consortium of the U.S., Canada and other NATO nations.” At the time of the selection in October 2001, Canada had only “observer” status into the program and had no input into the selection of Lockheed Martin as the successful contractor. Surely, as an independent, sovereign country we ought to be able to select an aircraft that meets Canada’s specific requirements.

Second, in dealing with public monies it is critical that the process by which we decide to spend billions of dollars is and is seen to be, open, fair and transparent. While the government has the authority to acquire the F-35s without competition, we should not support or dignify this decision without any valid rationale.

To date, none has been provided. If the F-35 is the best solution for Canada, let it be proven through a competitive process. We have nothing to lose and much to gain.

Alan Williams
Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa

Excerpts from an article in Armed Forces Journal by a US Navy officer (note that the USN is still buying Super Hornets; the USMC is buying the more complex and expensive Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35B, our government intends to buy the simpler and cheaper conventional take-off and landing F-35A):

…the Corps intends to transition all four of its tactical fixed-wing platforms into one new airframe: the STOVL variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35B Lightning II. The F-35B is four years behind schedule, and the per-unit acquisition cost has exceeded $120 million — almost triple the amount envisioned by the Joint Initial Requirements Document for the Joint Strike Fighter.

In proclaiming the F-35B a critical capability for the future of Marine Corps aviation and pursuing no viable alternatives to its full-scale procurement, the service’s leadership has accepted an untenable amount of risk. The Marine Corps must, at least privately, explore options to the wholesale procurement of the F-35B…

TOO BIG TO FAIL

At $300 billion, the F-35 program is the most expensive acquisition project ever undertaken by the Defense Department. With three variants of the F-35 in concurrent production, it will be difficult to assign a per-unit cost for each aircraft. Lockheed Martin is producing the most complex variant, the F-35B, first. As the first airframe in full-scale production, the F-35B will experience the greatest fluctuation in price if quantities later in the production run are changed. The Air Force, for example, initially planned to buy enough F-35As to replace all of its A-10s, F-16s and F-15Es. With a recently announced decision to extend the life of those legacy strike platforms, the Air Force clearly signaled that it would be reducing the number of F-35s required to modernize its strike-fighter fleet [emphasis added, main role of F-35]. The Air Force buy of 1,763 F-35As represents more than two-thirds of the planned domestic production run. Recent estimates of Air Force requirements for the F-35A indicate the service likely will require between 800 and 1,200 aircraft [emphasis added, note the reduced numbers of aircraft for which Canadian subcontractors might seek contracts; the opportunity to bid on very large numbers being the government's main rationale for its decision in favour of the F-35--see also, "US F-35 update..."]. At best, this would drive the per-unit cost over $200 million…

The cancellation of the entire F-35 program is unlikely, but the customers of the STOVL variant [not us, remember] remain those with the most to lose. The program is certainly essential to national security, and new cost controls are in place — lead-turn actions for a Nunn-McCurdy breach. What the Defense Department has not demonstrated is the third requirement for such a breach: that there is no lesser-cost alternative.

The Air Force and the Navy have viable alternatives in place to await the maturation of the F-35. The Block 60 F-16E/F and the Block II F/A-18E/F are still in production [emphasis added], and their designs incorporate modern technology that makes them 4.5-generation strike fighters capable of bridging the gap between legacy aircraft and the fifth-generation F-22 and F-35. Making them even more attractive, the aircraft currently in production represent mature technology available at affordable and fixed costs. Extending multiyear procurements of the 4.5-generation aircraft will in fact drive down their per-unit cost and get newer technology out to the fleet faster than waiting for the perpetually delayed F-35 program.

…The Marine Corps can buy three F/A-18Fs for the cost of a single F-35B…

The F/A-18F [the dual seat version] would revolutionize the way Marines provide close-air support. Using an active electronically scanned array radar, an advanced targeting pod, the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and an expanded communications suite, the dual-seat F/A-18F has the potential to be the most capable airborne forward air controller, or FAC(A), platform in the world [might be a useful role in support of our Army]. No matter how “sensor-fused,” single-seat aircraft are not optimum FAC(A) platforms.

Since the retirement of the A-4 and A-6, the Marine Corps has not possessed a tactical tanker. Marine Air Group (MAG) assets rely on the slower KC-130 for aerial refueling. An F/A-18F equipped with an aerial refueling store is capable of delivering more than 20,000 pounds of fuel to other jet aircraft at tactical airspeeds and altitudes. Having an organic tactical tanker would be a force multiplier for the MAG commander and would provide an internal capability to increase the range of the F-35B in a high-threat scenario [such a capability might be useful for our Air Force both to support its own planes and coalition aircraft].

…procuring the F/A-18F at the end of its production run allows the Marine Corps to get the most refined version of the aircraft with the least amount of risk at one-third the price of the F-35B. This is how the Corps has historically procured aircraft, and with good reason. As a smaller service with a smaller budget, it is necessary to leverage cost advantages when so blatantly presented with the option [and our Air Force is a much smaller service even than USMC Aviation].

…Inexorably tying the future of Marine Corps aviation to a publicly flailing program, however, is not prudent.

The highly politicized nature of an acquisition program as big as the F-35 is inescapable. There are international political and fiscal consequences that demand the seemingly mandatory success of an ambitious and complicated program. In a fiscal environment where the phrase “too big to fail” has become a metaphor for a program requiring significant input from the American taxpayer to prevent it from collapsing under its own weight, the F-35 program indeed seems too big to fail…

Lt. Cmdr. Perry Solomon is a department head in Strike Fighter Squadron 213 aboard Naval Air Station Oceana, Va. His operational assignments include deployments as an F/A-18 pilot in support of operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Unified Assistance.

I have no idea how accurate the cost comparisons are but I’m pretty sure the Super Hornet is considerably cheaper than the F-35A will turn out to be (we still don’t know the unit cost for Canada as no actual contract will be signed for some time yet).

Quite a bit to think about, not that our government does much of that on the military/strategic side of defence issues–at least that is obvious.  Keep in mind that 4.5 generation fighters also include the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and Saab Gripen NG.  All “next generation” compared to the CF-18, if not “fifth generation”; the government maintains Canada must buy the F-35 since it is the only next generation fighter available to us.  I guess it all depends on what the meaning of generation is–note how “next generation” elides into “fifth generation” at this government webpage justifying the F-35 decision without any mention of 4.5 generation aircraft.

It really should be a matter of what our government actually expects our new fighters to do, not potential bucks and jobs for Canadian industry (more here and here).  And I still do not think initial attack against heavy and effective air defences–the primary purpose of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter–is a likely or necessary mission for the very small number of fighters that Canada could commit to any coalition operation overseas; we certainly are not going to act alone.

Update: Media round-up from the Conference of Defence Associations:

F35 procurement, Afghan elections and the surge

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

F-35: Video of Gov’t ministers before Commons’ national defence committee/Real reason for decision Update

goings-on in the US Senate (remember this is still preliminary, er, skirmishing):

Key Senators Eye Cut to JSF Order In 2011
…
The JSF provisions…could challenge Lockheed’s plan to meet envisioned program economies as the industrial team is counting on a production ramp-up. But at a hearing Sept. 14, Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who also chairs the defense subcommittee, pointed to the protracted haggling over the next low-rate initial production award as justification for cutting spending (Aerospace DAILY, Sept. 14).

“I would inform my colleagues that the Defense Department has not yet awarded a contract to build the 30 aircraft, which the Congress funded nearly a year ago,” Inouye said.

In turn, the panel’s bill so far funds just 32 F-35s — six for the Navy, 10 for the Marines Corps and 16 for the Air Force. The legislative language also defers follow-on software development and cuts Navy test funds “due to under-execution.”..

Tough getting those costs down, Peter, Tony and Rona.

Update: Do read this very well-thought out comment by GR66 at Milnet.ca on the lack of governments’ thinking seriously about what they require the CF to do–and the ensuing problems that causes for procurement.

Mark
Ottawa

They’re live on CPAC (Update: here’s the continuing link, watch it and…the second panel, with senior officers and bureaucrats, was somewhat better though I do not think the CAS made a compelling argument that Canada must have the F-35).  Hint: it’s mainly about pork(c), i.e., jobs! votes!–look at the ministers appearing and all the contracts and future prospects they’re citing.  I guess Lockheed Martin both twisted the government’s arms very hard and made a whole lot of noise, with implied promises, about future contract opportunities.  We’ll see what that noise is worth.  And don’t believe the claims about total eventual international sales, see here and Update here.

Earlier:

What the F-35 is mainly about [a bomb truck]

And a whole bunch of posts here, plus more at a Milnet.ca topic thread.

Update:  The truth about the government’s decision.  At 11:00 industry minister Clement said that if Canada had not agreed this year to purchase the F-35 LM would have shut Canadian companies out of participating in much bidding for future  contracts for the overall F-35 program.  All about industrial benefits, made clear.

Ministers made no case as to why we need specifically “next generation” (“fifth generation”), i.e., stealth, fighters.  The only military argument made for the new fighter was that it is necessary for airspace control/defence–for which stealth is not necessary.  No mention was made by either the government or opposition that the F-35′s primary role is as a bomb truck.  Otherwise almost all the the talk, from all parties, was about those industrial benefits.

What a pathetic Commons.  The F-35 may be the right fighter for our Air Force.  But the government cannot explain why convincingly in military terms, only in potential economic advantages.  The ministers kept referring to a supposed “statement of requirements” developed by the Air Force.  Yet those requirements seem to boil down solely to that stealth.  Without, to repeat, any clear indication from the government of why stealth is in fact essential.

The ultimate silliness that points out the general ignorance involved in Canadian political discussions of defence: a Liberal M.P., Scott Simms, made it clear he thought stealth means invisibility to the naked eye.  Help.

More recent points of mine:

…The only mission for which stealth is a necessity is initial attack against heavy and effective air defence systems (first days of war). I cannot see Canada taking part in any such operations–or if we did, with a total of 48 operational F-35s, bringing much to the table.

Stealth also is a great advantage in aerial combat, a necessity in certain limited circumstances such as when seriously outnumbered against very advanced aircraft (see 187 F-22s) . We have not engaged in aerial combat since the Korean War [oops update--RCAF Sabres did not fly in Korea, just pilots seconded to USAF]. And again, the number of aircraft we could bring to the party would not add much to a serious allied effort.

As I keep writing, the USN is still buying Super Hornets for the other attack/fighter roles–plus dogfighting is some circumstances. I simply do not see why our Air Force needs to be capable of doing even more–with extremely limited numbers–than what will remain for many years the majority of the USN’s fighter force.

Plus:

FoverF:

…
As for the critiques of the F-35s performance, there are valid points to be made here. It is not a dogfighter in the mold of the teen series fighters. It is more of a fighter-bomber, and perhaps most analagous to the F-105 Thunderchief, which is not a particularly renowned dog-fighter…

As far as I can see the only non-discretionary role for which the Canadian government absolutely requires that the Air Force have fighters is national airspace control/defence (unless we let the US do it). Any expeditionary deployments, numbers of planes and mission, esp. for combat (think Afstan), are a matter of foreign policy and happen most infrequently.

Thus it does not seem to me that the sort of aircraft you describe above–accurately in my view–is necessarily the sort of fighter that should be sole-sourced as the Air Force’s next fighter. It really is a question of what the planes are for in practical and probable uses. And what will do for those uses at a reasonable cost.

It also seems to me that the small number of F-35s that we could contribute to any allied action that required the aircraft’s special capabilities would in fact add little to the prospects of that action–and thus would not derive any particular foreign policy benefits from our government’s deploying that particular fighter as opposed to another type of modern one that could contribute in other roles.

Frankly, I think the basis for this government’s decision is, under a lot of pressure from LockMart (and the US gov’t?), possible jobs and votes whoopee! Not military, or foreign policy, factors at all.

Looks like I was right, see start of the Update.

Upperdate thought: This decision (not a contract yet) is not about traditional offset IRBs; it’s a fairly risky gamble when put under the gun by LM’s saying if we don’t commit now many fewer contracts will be available in a couple of years after a competition:

…
Normally when aircraft are purchased, governments get iron-clad guarantees, called industrial regional benefits, that commit companies to spend dollar-for-dollar the value of the contract in Canada.

Clement conceded the arrangement with Lockheed Martin provides no such guarantees and that Canadian companies will have to bid on opportunities, but if they win, they’ll be providing parts and services to the entire fleet…

The government’s decision has little, if anything, to do with defence or foreign/strategic policy considerations. The government is betting that Canadian companies will make a lot more money, and get better quality contracts, than would be the case through traditional IRBs were another plane chosen.

Riverboat types, eh?

Mark
Ottawa

Something our government or Air Force does not mention.  From the International Institute for Strategic Studies on the UK and the F-35 (links added, the British are conducting a serious defence review–unlike us):

…
Combat capabilities

As well as equipping the carriers, the F-35 [more in this article on the F-22] is planned to be a key element of the RAF’s future combat capability, providing it with a stealthy platform for first-day-of-war operations in contested air space, probably in concert with US forces [emphasis added]. For high-end operations the F-35 would be used to penetrate defended air space, with the aircraft’s low-observable characteristics degrading the engagement range of surface-to-air missiles (SAM) such as the Russian-made S-300/S-400 families of weapons.

The Typhoon [more here], equipped with stand-off air-to-surface weapons, could operate in support of the F-35 in prosecuting strike missions where the SAM threat could be avoided or negated. The Typhoon was originally designed for air-to-air combat against the Soviet bloc, though with a secondary air-to-surface capability. Since then military needs have changed with the growth of far-flung ground operations and an increased requirement for air support. Arguably, however, one effect of the RAF’s focus on trying to sustain its requirement for 232 aircraft was to slow the pace of development of the Typhoon‘s air-to-surface capability. Within the RAF force structure the Typhoon is still seen as the primary air superiority platform – tasked in the air-defence role both in the UK and in the Falkland Islands – with a secondary air-to-surface capability. This is presently limited to precision-guided bombs, but will be expanded with additional air-to-surface weaponry.

The planned introduction of an active electronically scanned array radar in combination with the Meteor beyond-visual range air-to-air missile for the Typhoon will also enhance it as an air superiority platform. This could allow the aircraft to be used to provide fighter support for the F-35 at stand-off range, without penetrating SAM engagement zones…

Here’s what I wrote when the government first announced its intention to buy the F-35:

…
Another thing the government isn’t mentioning is the primary role of the F-35 for the US. This is how the US Navy sees it (USAF is no different):

…the true introduction of a next-generation weapon system capable of providing joint, coalition striking power on Day One…

That’s why stealth is so important, to shield the aircraft in an initial attack against targets protected by a heavy and effective air defence system. How likely is it that Canada will ever participate in such an attack (think the start of the two wars with Iraq)?..

Yet the only role our government and Air Force tout for the F-35 is defence of Canadian air space–especially our “Arctic sovereignty“. See also, and “Related Posts”:

“Own the air”

Update: Post is the basis for this in the National Post’s “Full Comment” (the commenters hate it, one describes me as “another formal [sic] Liberal public servant”–but I was a Rhino, dammit)!

Upperdate thought: My main point is that for the mission the government, and the CAS, are touting stealth is no particular advantage.  And that we are most unlikely to take part in any initial air strikes against a major enemy with a heavy and effective air defence.  If our fighters ever operate abroad again it will be as a (very small) part of a coalition fighter force; I would think ours could take on tasks that do not require stealth in that situation.

The French and Germans are not acquiring stealth fighters; are we that much more likely to need the capability than they?.  Without a real competition based on realistic mission requirements approved by the government, we will not know if the F-35 is in fact good value for the large amount of money.

Uppestdate: If you’re seriously interested in the subject, rather than the politics, take a look at the discussion at Milnet.ca.

Beyond Uppestdate: In the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

…
Canadian Commentary
…
Mark Collins — Unambiguously Ambidextrous
What the F-35 is mainly about – More…

Further beyond…: From The Economist, on the shrinking the UK armed forces are facing:

…The order for F-35 jets, which are to be shared between the navy and the air force, looks certain to be more than halved to around 60…

Heavens to Betsy! We could have more Lightning IIs than the Brits.

Mark
Ottawa

A different approach from the Conservative government’s–though I think the plane is more an F-22 than an F-35, appropriate since the Raptor was designed as an air superiority fighter whilst the Lightning II, aka Joint Strike Fighter, was firstly a bomb truck.  Left or right click on the image for video:

Mark
Ottawa

Further to the Upperdate at this post,

Why we need F-35s, or, do the Russians have a radar that can reach Cold Lake?/Nuclear Voodoo Update thought/Boys in blue ties Upperdate

the government sure keeps trying to get those votes in Québec:

Deal keeps Mirabel firm aloft
$468-million accord with fees Contract to maintain CF-18 fighter jets would save 500 jobs, L-3 MAS says

L-3 MAS (Canada) Inc. of Mirabel pocketed a $468-million cheque from Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday for the last contract to maintain Canada’s aging fleet of 78 CF-18 fighter jets.

The deal runs to 2017, with possible extensions to 2020 that would add $86 million to the contract’s value and maintain 500 jobs at L-3 MAS’s Mirabel plant.

After the elaborate photo op and announcement ceremony -at which Harper answered briefly to only five questions -L-3 MAS president Sylvain Bedard told reporters that without the agreement, his company would have had to fire 500 employees…

But the bigger prize by far still eludes L-3 MAS, the Canadian subsidiary of New York City-based L-3 Communications, a major global provider of aircraft maintenance and modernization services.

That would be a deal to service the CF-18′s successor, the 65 Joint Strike Fighter CF-35s the federal government recently agreed to buy from Lockheed Martin for $9 billion. The maintenance and servicing clause of that deal is worth another $7 billion.

In a brief interview, National Defence Minister Peter Mackay said L-3 MAS “certainly has the inside track (to snag the CF-35 deal), especially after the job they’ve done (on the CF-18) all these years.”

“The great thing is that they would be in line not just for the 65 (CF-35s), but possibly for other armed forces as well. I mean, (Lockheed Martin) sold 3,000 of those things.”..

Via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.

I mean, those jet fuel fumes really are getting to poor Peter’s brain if he thinks other countries are going to give up their own pork to have their F-35s maintained in Canada Québec. And if he believes Lockheed Martin has actually sold 3,000 F-35s he’s truly in cloud cukoo land; he might do well to read this post:

Fighter sales prospects

Plus the “…F-35 fact check Update” here.

Update: More Conservative pork-o-mania here and here, via John Robson.  Dig the audio of his weekly Friday morning interview at CFRA Ottawa this morning, today on the nth resurrection of the Palestinian peace “process”, Iraq, Afstan, health care run by central planning–plus the federal government’s seeming insatiable propensity for pushing pork.  Mr Robson is a rare Canadian who can speak with real knowledge, fierce intelligence, and wicked wit.

Upperdate: I won’t link to this Ottawa Citizen story,

Russian planes don’t often fly into Canadian territory: Documents

since the only “expert” it quotes is St. Steve Staples.

Mark
Ottawa

Or Bagotville?  That seems to be what the Chief of the Air Staff is suggesting:

Canada needs stealth fighter jets so its military can sneak up on an adversary at the edges of domestic airspace and use that potential for surprise as a deterrent, the head of the air force says.

Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, the chief of the air staff, responded to critics of the government’s planned purchase of high-tech F-35 stealth fighters by asserting that the aircraft will provide a needed capability for defence at home, and not just for fighting air battles abroad.

“If they can’t detect us and don’t know where we are, it dramatically changes their potential tactics. So it is a deterrent,” Gen. Deschamps said in an interview with The Globe and Mail…

The Harper government has pointed to recent flights of Russian long-range bombers near Canadian airspace in the Arctic and off the east coast – intercepted by CF-18s [more here, here, and here]– to assert the need for top-notch fighters.

Gen. Deschamps said he’s not seeking to amplify “the noise around the Russians,” but pointed to the interceptions to argue that the F-35s will let the Canadian Forces observe foreign planes unseen, and the potential surprise will deter interlopers.

“Nobody expects somebody to come in and roll ashore here in the next little while,” he said. “But it’s a question of being able to exercise your sovereignty. And you can’t do that sitting on the runway saying, ‘I wish I could go out there without these guys knowing I’m going to be there two hours before the intercept point [emphasis added].’”..

Now our fighters are based at Cold Lake, Alberta, and Bagotville, Quebec–and will continue to be stationed there when we get new ones. I do not think the Russians have any radars capable of detecting aircraft on the those runways–nor even at, say Yellowknife, N.W.T, if temporarily stationed there. Nor do I think any Russian radars are likely to detect Canadian fighters en route to an interception near our nothern, and particularly, our eastern, or western airspace approaches (see this superb site).

Russian Bear bombers themselves do not have a radar system to search for approaching fighters. Its emissions would be simply suicidal, drawing fighters right to their target.

So why the need for stealth in the air defence/sovereignty protection role? I don’t see it.  Neither does the RAF, which will be using its Eurofighter Typhoons for air defence, not F-35s (whenever it gets them).  In any event our fighters’ radar that tracks the bomber will likely alert the bomber, so stealth is simply irrelevant.

More from the CAS:

…
Deschamps said Canada is expected to pay between $70 million and $75 million per aircraft and the price will be locked in once Ottawa signs a final agreement, likely in 2014.

The air force examined other choices, including an improved version of the CF-18 and the Eurofighter [more on those planes, and some F-35 info here], but the Lightning II proved to be the best all-round aircraft, he said.

However, the chief of air staff would not say what the price difference between the various aircraft might be, citing the confidentiality of the competing aircraft makers…

There’s also been concern that the Lightning II is not suitable for close air support bombing [those are stupid critics, after all it's the Joint Strike Fighter and attacking ground targets is its primary mission], a critical role given the country’s recent experience in Afghanistan ["critical" for our Air Force?-- the government has not even been willing to deploy CF-18s to Afstan to support the CF and allied forces there].

The F-35 can bomb and strafe targets on the ground, but Deschamps said unmanned combat aerial vehicles are increasingly taking on that function.

He said the primary role of the new jet will be to control the country’s airspace.

For which I just do not see the requirement for stealth.  Meanwhile some sense from Jack Granatstein:

In a slow summer for serious political matters, the announcement that Canada will buy 65 F-35 fighter jets at a cost (including maintenance) of $16-billion has upset the opposition parties and critics of the government’s defence policy. For its part, the Harper government did little to help itself by having the Defence Minister talk about how pilots like fast aircraft and that acquiring them would help recruiting [more here]. The Prime Minister’s press secretary also didn’t help much when he announced that, if it hadn’t been for Canada’s CF-18s, two Russian bombers would have invaded across the Pole. It really is the summer silly season.

…if we don’t mount sovereignty patrols in our airspace, who will? The answer is all too clear: the U.S. Air Force. Does anyone want to have American pilots flying over Canada to check out Russian bombers? Can Canada be a sovereign state if the defence of its most basic national interest is provided by another country? We will surely require some aircraft to do such patrols for the foreseeable future…

I don’t know whether the F-35 is the best fighter for our needs. But I do know that Canada has national interests and that these will always need to be defended and advanced. I do know that Canada must always be able to undertake surveillance over its own territory and to be prepared to turn away Russian bombers on training missions today or some other nation’s aircraft on more mischievous operations tomorrow. And I accept that, at some point, Canada may again decide to send its military abroad to work with our allies…

J.L. Granatstein is a historian and a senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Earlier, with great detail:

Canada’s new fighter, the F-35: What the government is and isn’t saying

Update thought: If the government were really concerned about effective air defence–as opposed to scarifying ursine PR ops–they might remember (hah!), from a time when air defence was taken seriously: the CF-101B, non-stealthy, Voodoo with nuclear-armed Genie missiles. From a previous post:

…
We don’t in fact need the capabilities of the F-35 to intercept subsonic Bears. Our current Hornets–which will need replacing, lot’s more here–seem to be doing just fine, do they not?  Then there was the CF-101 Voodoo which our Air Force flew for a quarter century:

…F-101B’s based in alert hangars were sent out on air defence missions. These were usually in reply to unknown intrusions into the air defence identification zone by wayward airliners or Soviet reconnaissance aircraft such as the Tu-95 Bear. Aircraft were usually sent out in pairs. One aircraft would do an identification pass on the unknown while the second one stayed behind, ready to employ the AIM-4 if required. With respect to Soviet reconnaissance flights, one Bear would encounter several different pairs of NATO and NORAD interceptors during it’s flight from the western USSR to Cuba…

E.g:

Not that one is suggesting we should have kept the Voodoo (more photos here) in service.

Update: …

Plus some comment at Milnet.ca on the other, more modern, Russian strategic bomber (a few more may be produced) which the comparatively clueless Conservatives forgot (or did not know about) to mention as part of their threat hyping.

Upperdate: Meanwhile photo op and a whiff of political pork:

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper sits in the cockpit of a CF-18 fighter jet with Major Daniel Dionne in Mirabel, Quebec, September 1, 2010.
SHAUN BEST/REUTERS

And some speculation on what will happen to the UK’s plans for the F-35. Not a subject the government appears to be interested in.

Mark
Ottawa

…plus HMS Unpleasant Surprise.  From The Economist (graphs out of sequence):

The cost of weapons
Defence spending in a time of austerity
The chronic problem of exorbitantly expensive weapons is becoming acute [name the plane]

…

…

…

And maybe a thought for Canada?

…The Netherlands has given up maritime reconnaissance; Denmark has abandoned submarines. The Baltic states have no air force to speak of, relying instead on NATO allies to police their skies.

Plainly, Europe needs economies of scale. But how to achieve them, short of an implausible single European army? One option would be for Europeans to specialise. But the bigger military powers do not want to depend too much on others, so they try to keep a bit of everything…

Earlier some similar thoughts–see the second part of this post:

The Canadian Forces, war present, and future?

As for Augustine’s law:

Some fighter background

If you’re interested in naval matters, this blog is at the least provocative (and mentions our Navy from time to time):

New Wars

More on our Navy:

Joint Sometime Ship (JSS), Take 2

Mark
Ottawa