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
ah yes. canada will continue to not defend what we call canada. vote liberal and put an end to all this self defence foolishness////// the u.s under barak the magic one will not defend it’s own borders. anyone who thinks they will defend ours is simply deluded.
There’s so much more to all this than the average street Freddy, or for that matter, so-called journalist, even begins to understand.
The reality is that development, and subsequent purchase, of top line fighters is getting ridiculously expensive. And everyone knows this, especially the manufacturers thereof!
The concept behind the Joint Strike Fighter program was to present a capable fighter that US allies could afford, and that tamed as much as possible the ever increasingly and prohibitively costly maintenance over the ensuing 30 years of service. Having umpteen different fighter aircraft…F14, F15, F16, F18, F117, Jaguar, Tornado, Mirage, etc., etc…to look after just simply no longer is economically feasible.
Thus, the order of the day was, and is, “multi-role” capability in one fighter jet. More to the point, one fighter that readily fits both budgets and the demands of NORAD/NATO nations. The more nations involved, the greater the cost reduction that benefits everyone. Not to mention that the Americans, and rightfully so, no longer are terribly keen on carrying the weight of defense of the free world…including Canada (probably especially Canada!)… entirely on their shoulders any more.
I’ve been to CFB Cold Lake air shows. The variety of allied forces jets on the ground is impressive, no doubt. But there’s also no doubt that the logistical demands of maintaining all those different fighters, particularly within the context of combat…such as the Balkans, f’rinstance…are even more challenging!
The F-22 Raptor is specifically designed for “air superiority” for the next 30 years, and there’s little doubt about it fulfilling this role. Similarly, so is the exceedingly impressive Typhoon.
That said, the F-35 is no slouch either.
Stealth provides an edge. And in modern warfare, even the slightest advantage in edge can mean the difference between victory and a lot of destroyed aircraft and dead pilots.
Anyone actually think the Russians, and now the Chinese, are sitting on their butts when it comes to air combat jets and weaponry??? Don’t kid yourself!
Nobody, not for even one second, has the foggiest clue in hell about what the future holds. But what we do have to go on is what we’ve learned from the past.
Which is: The very best way to prevent going to war is to be more prepared than anyone else to go to war. (Think “neutral” Sweden, who take their national defense damn serious, and prepare accordingly.)
Canadians’ propensity to default defense of our own sovereignty to the US, especially if it means saving us a few bucks, is, IMHO, a national disgrace upon us all. Is there another nation on the planet that takes the good graces and intentions of its neighbor more for granted, and more lightly, than do we? I think not.
Good points if Canada were a serious military power. But how does stealth aid in any substantial fashion when trying to intercept approaching Russian (or other, of which there are none) bombers? Remember what the CAS said:
“…the primary role of the new jet will be to control the country’s airspace.”
Canada is not a major military power. The idea that Canadian Air Force fighters are likely to have any substantial role in any major future war seems most implausible to me. What significant contribution would they make to such an allied air campaign?
So what are they for? A–at one time gung-ho, no “cut and run”, Conservative government–would not deploy Hornets to Afstan for fear the odd civilian might be killed in ground attack.
In summary, as far as I can see stealth is not important for the airspace defence role. So why does Canada need the F-35, as the case is being made, as opposed to other fighters that are non-stealth?
Mark
Ottawa
So, what you’re saying then is: America, we’ll leave the defense of Canada in your good hands. We’re countin’ on ya, buddy!
But, BTW, in the mean time don’t be interfering in our sovereignty, eh?
What do you really know about “stealth” capability? Or interoperability with NORAD/NATO air defense? Or what the Russians or Chinese are working on behind closed doors? Or the politics in either of those nations going on behind other closed doors?
I mean, really?
What the hell does “implausible” mean???
It was, certainly to the French, totally “implausible” that Hitler’s Germany could ever have the might and the means to get past their Maginot Line of defense! And the very idea of an attack via the Ardennes was considered ridiculous, preposterous, and completely out of the question!
Until it wasn’t.
It was, certainly to the Americans, “implausible” that Saddam could be so stupid beyond belief as to think he could actually invade Kuwait and get away it.
Until it wasn’t.
Nobody seriously thought the Chinese would storm across the border by the hundreds of thousands into Korea.
Until they did.
Stalin refused to believe right up until the day of the attack that Hitler would dare break their pact with him and invade the USSR.
Until they did.
I admire the Swedes…all 13 million of their relatively puny little nation…immensely. They build their own fighters, and ships, and subs, and tanks, and whatever else they need. And it’s all first rate, front line, and damn deadly! They are a “neutral” nation, and they know damn straight that to keep it that way, they have to be the very best at defending themselves. And even if they might not win in the end, they’ve made it patently clear that whomever is stupid enough to go up against them will pay a bloody serious price!
We Canadians certainly could learn a helluva lot from them about “sovereignty” and the defense thereof!
Not to mention about national pride.
Oh, and did I mention Pearl Harbor? That was about as “implausible” as it possibly gets, wasn’t it?
Why am I constantly reminded of Chamberlin waving a piece of paper with Hitler’s signature on it, and declaring to anyone who would listen that peace had been secured for Britain and the world?
Fortunately, a not nearly so naive and, frankly, stupid, Winston Churchill arrived, and ultimately saved the day for all.
Canada should buy the FC-1 Chao Qi fighter. China owns half our Country and the U.S is up to it’s ass in debt to them,so why not buy Chinese fighters,like we do everything else. Maybe Wal-Mart can negotiate a price for us.
I’m sure they’d give some maintenance contracts to Bombardier, just to keep Quebec happy for our politicians.
Canada’s “need” for the F-35 is the aerospace industry’s “need”, not the Country’s. Just keep us peasants in a constant state of fear,and we’ll okay the expenditure.
We spent billions on the F-18,and did they ever actually fire a shot in combat? As Mark said, why pay for “stealth” technology when our role is supposed to be air defence against intruding bombers.
dmorris, I refer you to Gulf War 1 and Kosovo for actual combat missions for the CF-18.
Also, a multi-role aircraft means just that. The F-35 may be destined for air sovereignty missions, but then can you predict the future? Nor can I. Why pay for a technology that may be needed in the future now? How about because you can’t go back and remake a decision.
The best weapon of war is the weapon that is never needed but kept polished and sharp in its scabbard ready to be employed by men and women with resolve.
Do we still have the resolve?
[...] Why we need F-35s, or, do the Russians have a radar that can reach Cold Lake?/Nuclear Voodoo Update … [...]
[...] 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 [...]
Instead of spending billions on a fighter whose value to the Country is questionable,why not an alternate plan that makes Canada one of those Countries no one wants to invade?
Why don’t we establish a well armed and trained militia,as in Switzerland,and develop anti-aircraft missile technology right here in Canada? We can then take out THEIR high tech fighters that cost 100 million each.
A few fighters doesn’t guarantee anything,except that a few well connected contractors in Quebec will prosper,while the Nation is not one iota more secure.
This isn’t the 1930′s,and the political doctrines have changed dramatically, not least due to the introduction of Capitalism in former adversarial Countries.
Let’s not piss away tens of billions for a small number of planes that might make temporarily life difficult for imaginary enemy bombers.
How about a two or three million strong militia,with a modern assault rifle in the closet of each member? And modern ground weapons such as Tanks,Artillery, and APC’s capable of putting up a massive defense effort?
Combine that with a well prepared plan to repel an invading force, and the Nation would be more secure than any fighter could make it.
Make Canada as tough a Country to invade as there is on this planet,because regardless of what fancy fighters do in the air, wars are won on the ground by troops and armour.
Make an invader pay dearly for every inch of Canadian soil,and contemplation of that fact will do a hell of a lot more to deter an invader than the knowledge we have 65 high tech fighters to battle their 665 high tech fighters.
And after the Air Battle is over,what do we do, send Jack Layton to negotiate with the invading Armenians,or whoever the hell it is we’re supposed to prepare for?
A well trained militia can also be ready to defend us against internal threats,should some unknown faction decide to launch a civil war on us.
Granted, militias aren’t nearly as exciting as a fighter swooping by at 600 mph at the Abbotsford Air show, but they’ll do the dirty job that has to be done to win a war on our soil.
Ah the old peoples’ Militia idea Shades of Gwynne Dyer when he was the NDP’s go to guy for defence issues.the only problem with it aside from the fact it would last about 20 minutes in fight with any one with a decent tech base.
The real killer is that you’d need Conscription we couldn’t manage it wartime how do you think it’ll play in peace time?
Call them the National Guard then,if that makes you happier. The U.S. does quite well with them.
Each Province can have it’s own,well trained and well equipped,to slay the invader we’re supposed to be using the F-35′s to protect us from.
It’d give our youth something better to do than signing up for more Arts degrees that doesn’t prepare them for anything,and just might light a spark of patriotism in them.
Who is this phantom enemy we’re supposed to buy these planes to protect ourselves from? China? hell,they already own our resources,why would they attack their own property?
Russia? Not for years,maybe never.. They can’t solve the Islamic Republics,let alone consider world conquest.
The only enemy I see is our own ruling elite,and the radical groups they pander to.
A well trained militia/National Guard would be a lot better quelling the rebellion of the David Suzuki Environmental Army on the ground than an airplane.
I want to see the Canadian Forces well equipped, but with the weapons and machines they NEED, not expensive hardware that will rarely or never be used.
If I remember the first Gulf War,Canadian CF-18′s only did reconnaissance,there was a problem with outdated electronics including IFF devices that precluded them from being in the thick of the action.
Regardless of how any of us feel,if the government can negotiate enough maintenance contracts for Quebec industries,the purchase will go ahead,even if Elizabeth May is the PM when the time comes to take delivery.
Sorry friend but your plan just wont fly again in order for it to be workable like the Swiss and Swedish models .You’re going to need conscription Otherwise it will be a costly failure….On the other hand from a historical view no one will likely notice it against the backdrop of other Canadian military projects that have fallen flat on their faces as it were. ‘)
A few remarks on the F-35 for those who don’t know much about the aircraft:
- The goal of the F-35 is to break the tendency of ever rising cost of military aircraft. Usually each new generation a/c costs 3 times as much as the older one. It has been calculated that the US DOD will only be able to buy 1 fighter in 2054 if the trend continues. To deal with the problem, the JSF will be a tri-service a/c to increase production numbers and reduce unit cost. The air force variant will be the cheapest of the 3.
- the stealth caracteristics of the F-35 will not be too expensive. Stealth comes from the most part from faceting the a/c and carrying the weapons in internal bays. The F-35 has the same shape as the F-22, only smaller and most of its stealth comes from its shape. The F-35 goal is to achieve affordable stealth. LM has developed new coating technologies which are much more easier to maintain than on previous generation of stealth aircraft.
- The F-35 has a significant firepower with its internal bays. It can carry 2 AMRAAMs and 8 small diameter bombs in the bays. The SDB comes in 2 variants. They can destroyed reinforced shelters, targets in the open, moving targets etc.. and have a range of about 70km thanks to their mini wings. They are much cheaper than standoff missiles and the 2 variant combined are effective against 80% of targets.
- The F-35 can carry 4 internal AMRAAMs in air to air configuration initially but that will be increased to 6 in 2017.
- the range of the F-35 will be excellent. It is designed to carry all of its fuel internally. Its fuel fraction is much higher than those of older aircraft. It carries 8.3 tons of fuel which gives it a range of at least 600nm.
- The Israelis are going to develop large 600gal tanks for the F-35. We could very well buy those for extended CAP missions over Canada.
- The F-35 has 4 external hard points for 15000lbs of air/ground weapons externally, plus 2 external hardpoints for extra a/a missiles in non stealth mode.
- the top speed of the F-35 is sufficient. Most fighters loaded with a centerline tank and external missile don’t go faster than Mach 1.6 -1.7. The F-35 is also likely to supercruise at about mach 1.1-1.2. so the F-35 will not be disadvantaged in terms of top speed.
- The F-35A is capable of 9G sustained like the best fighters ( 7.5 for the Super Hornet ), and 50 degrees angle of attack. It has nothing to envy from any other fighter.
- The combination of its stealth, powerful AESA radar, very advanced radar warning receivers, sensor fusion, FLIR, stealthy directional datalinks will make it extremely deadly in air to air. Even if its it is not aerodynamically superior it will be MUCH better.
- In visual range and near beyond visual range the F-35 will use its Distributed Aperture System, which consists of 6 IR sensors positioned around the aircraft to give it a 360degrees full sphere detection capability. The F-35 will be able to launch its a/a missiles at any angle without having to manoeuver at all. That’s a big advantage because close in dogfights are becoming suicidal because of the huge capabilities of today’s missiles and Helmet Mounted Sights.
- The USAF is developing stealthy pods to carry bombs externally. The F-35 will not be as stealthy with them as with only internal weapons but it will still be low observable.
- with internal bombs the F-35 will be capable of up to mach 1.6 on afterburner if required, which is completely impossible with other aircraft carrying their bombs externally. The bombs can be released from the bays at supersonic speed.
- the AESA radar will be capable of electronic attacks, ie soft kills against air targets and ground targets. This capability combined with stealth will be a revolutionary capability.
- the level of sensor fusion is better than on any other fighter.
- the Helmet mounted sight combined with the DAS enables the pilot to see through the airframe. The information on the helmet is much more effective than with other helmet mounted sights.
- Concerning the cost, the F-35 will be produced at a rate of 200 per day, which will have e huge effect on unit cost. LM has proposed a fixed price for LRIP 4 ( 2011) to prove that the F-35 is not that expensive. The LRIP 4 contract is under negociations now but the aircraft are expected to cost between 20 and 40% less than the alarmist CAPE estimates.
We are going to buy this aircraft for the next 30 years. It will come at almost the same price as the other aircraft but will be much more capable. It will be also significantly cheaper to operate than the F-18E, because it is a single engine aircraft. And its engine is optimized for consumption while the SH’s engines are more optimized for speed.
We won’t pay much for the capabilities we’ll get, and if we don’t get those extra capabilities our losses will go through the roof..
You guys are looking at the issue from the completely wrong point-of-view. The stealth capabilities of the F-35 are of little use to the Forces, BUT THE VTOL IS!
Remember, we’re getting two, possibly three new Operational Support Ships with sufficient hangar space and storage area to fit multiple F-35s. The VTOL is what the forces are most interested in as it allows us to project fire like most other modern navies by having strong ship-based air support.
The government plans to buy the CTOL USAF-version F-35A, not the USMC STOVL F-35B. In any case the JSSs now planned would not be capable of handling or maintaining fighters–see this post:
“Joint Sometime Ship (JSS): At least five years late”
http://unambig.com/joint-sometime-ship-jss-at-least-five-years-late/
Mark
Ottawa
[...] 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 [...]
[...] the only role our government and Air Force tout for the F-35 is defence of Canadian air space–especially our “Arctic [...]
[...] the only role our government and Air Force tout for the F-35 is defence of Canadian air space–especially our “Arctic [...]
[...] 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-35s primary role is as a [...]