This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Canada has reduced the number of new fighters it plans to purchase to 65 from 80, and stresses that it has not formally selected the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) despite having participated in its development.
The reduced requirement for new combat aircraft was revealed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he unveiled the Conservative government’s new ‘Canada First’ defense strategy in Halifax last week.
The Department of National Defense (DND) says 65 aircraft is an initial planning figure, and that “the final figure will be based on the operational requirements of the Canadian Forces.” The requirements are being drawn up by the DND’s Next Generation Fighter Capability office.
Canada’s participation in the F-35 program has been based on the planned procurement of 80 aircraft, the number of upgraded Boeing CF-18s the Canadian Forces will operate until they replaced by new fighters in 2017–20. Harper said fewer aircraft are required because the new fighter will have significantly greater capability than the CF-18s.
Despite the widespread and understandable assumption that Harper was referring to the F-35, Canada has not yet selected its next fighter, the DND emphasizes. Like several of the international participants in the JSF program, Ottawa plans to evaluate other candidate combat aircraft before making a decision, which is required by 2012.
Read more on this and other inside scoop from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
Since a presumable requirement in all plane purchases is increased capabilities, why would it come as a ‘surprise’ that one doesn’t need as many, all other things remaining constant (threats, use etc.)? No surprise that countries are reducing their buys.
As many far more knowledgeable people here have stated in any number of posts, the stealth aspects of both the JSF and Raptor are particularly useful in ‘first night’ strikes against integrated air def systems (or however long it takes to degrade those systems). The stealth aspects are not necessary for any Crisis Management/SSTRO work. I bring all of this up because, unlike for the US, for many of the countries that need to replace fighters, the most likely use for them is CM-SSTRO operations (either air patrol or for some, CAS). If one accepts more radar visibility, a number of platforms become reasonable as replacements. ‘
If the Norwegians choose to go with the JSF, I’d look for the final number to be considerably lower than the current offer is for. Then again, they may simply decide to make their AF ‘interchangeable’ with the Swedes, by going for the JAS 39 Demo.
Canada’s reduction in JSF fighters might be because the export version doesn’t include stealth. Because of delays in development, lack of stealth (which stealth tech. also doesn’t tie into Canada’s defense strategy) and the Euro fighter really becoming a more viable choice the JSF is not looking like a good choice right now.
In the past when the government was looking for long haul cargo craft, they were looking at Russian technology. It wouldn’t surprise me if they tried to get a few new SU jets if the Russians would allow it (probably not).
I honestly expect canada to get a few Euro Fighter Typhoons. I also expect a lot of countries to lessen their JSF purchases due to getting the ‘lame bird’ version of this jet. I also think everyone is disappointed that the Raptor turned out much better than the Eurofighter and the JSF isn’t going to be as good of a fighter as the Eurofighter.
Canada buying Typhoon? Not likely. Canada is already invested in the JSF development program, and the armed forces have been working towards increased interoperability with US forces for the past decade. Picking Typhoon (or Rafale or Gripen) would mean undoing some of that progress and buying a fighter with shorter range for a very big land mass.
Buying 65 aircraft is really a recognition that new fighters are a tough sell for a country that has higher modernization priorities for the army and navy. I also have to wonder how much of this is related to a heavily army-dominated command structure at the moment. It was only about 5 years ago that the outgoing chief of the defense staff pitched a vision for the armed forces where the roles of the air force and navy were primarily to provide transport and support for the army.
DND’s not serious about replacing the CF18s with a manned combat aircraft, period. The only reason we’ve got money in JSF is because it’s the only program going we have any hopes of an industrial spinoff from.
This isn’t a Canadian pacifism thing. The Russian Bear “threat” is just mutual dick-swinging; for air support to sovereignty protection on the coast and in the North, a fighter is no damn use compared to UAVs, possibly UCAVs, and big sensor-heavy patrol aircraft; we learned in Kosovo that actually trying to interoperate with the Americans in CAS in support of US forces is just way too much trouble; and there’s no realistic scenario where we’d be deploying our own standalone fast CAS with a top-shelf fighter-bomber.
The lesson that Canada has drawn since Gulf War I is that (for Canada) maintaining a top-shelf fast air combat capability is inefficient, expensive, kind of pointless, and has no political benefit unless you’re building your own airplanes (like the Swedes.) The “international image” of Canada’s armed forces will be taken care of with our beefed-up ground forces and cred from Afghanistan, especially since the air force is pretty shut out of the upper echelons of the CF and NDHQ.
There’s lots of sensible manned air procurement things we could do, like a Hawk 20x for straight-up CAS since we’re already using them for fighter lead-in, a mostly-made-in-Canada AC130, or buying like, two dozen Russian transports instead of 4 C17s. However, the air force brass would rather not exist than not show up at Red Flag with a (C)F-something, so that’s probably what they’ll get.
There’s going to be a “Diefenbaker moment” in around 2012 where DND will announce that we’re partnering into whatever the most viable UK/US UCAV is and we’ll never take JSF delivery…
Foreign.Boy,
Export versions of the F-35 WILL include stealth. They may not be as stealthy as US versions but they will still be VERY stealthy. It has been publicly released that the RCS of the F-35 is “equal to a metal golf ball”. That puts the RCS of the F-35 at ~0.0014 sq m. For comparision the RCS of an F-16C Block 50/52 is reported to be ~1.2 sq m. Even if “lower stealth” export F-35s will have a RCS ~10 times that of the US F-35, that is STILL ~1/100th that of the F-16C. As an example lets say you have a radar system that will detect an F-16C at ~160km [~100 miles]. That would put the range which you would detect a US F-35 at ~20km [~12.5 miles] & a hypothetical “less stealthy” (10x US F-35:1/100th F-16C) export F-35 at ~40km [~25 miles]…
By what criteria is the F-35 (even “less stealthy” export verisions) not going to be as good of a fighter as the Eurofighter? I am sure most/everyone will conceed that the F-35 will not likely be as aerobatic as the Eurofighter but there is A LOT more to making a good fighter than just aerobatics.
Im a big fan of the Gripen NG. Great bang for the buck. And its about 60% cheaper than the F-35. Since Canada doesnt seem to want to attack anyone and its quite a big territory, 130 non-stealth fighters would be more useful than 60 stealths.
This seems to go into the argument of kind of fighter jet do you really need & how many.Everybody seems to be emphasizing stealth over everything else the F-35 has to offer.You’ve already heard me “preaching” about the need for versatility in other threads,& I’ll say again that the most versatile,the most flexible,the most able to perform the most diverse missions is the F-35B.t has more than just “stealth” going for it,it has the ability to operate without the benefit of “traditional” airfields.Like the F-22 Raptor has thrust vectoring & a “blackout button” to keep the plane from crashing if the pilot passes out from pulling sharp Gs,the F-35B has STOVL/VSTOL which gives it unlimited options as to where it can operate.If an errant missile was to hit one of our airfields & damages one of our runways,we don’t have to wait for repairs to be completed before we can take off with the F-35Bs.It can operate anyway no matter what the condition of the runway.it can operate off of highways & interstates,etc.At the risk of repeating myself,I didn’t realize how much better out of the 3 models the F-35B until I read the reasons that Israel wanted it over the F-35A that they originally were going to order.Maybe the Air Force,if they don’t order the F-35B instead of the F-35A,can order them in addition to.
I strongly believe that when the JSF international partners realize its positive attributes,the F-35B will lead the pack as the most desired version of the Joint Strike Fighter.
The F-35B is the “purple” fighter jet.It represents inter service cooperation more than the other models of Joint Strike Fighter.The F-35A comes across as the aloof “go it alone” aircraft that fits into the thinking of the Air Force that they can win a war all by themselves.The F-35B represents an aircraft that will stay with the ground troops & provide CAS in heated battles,it will be there when needed,just like the Apache,Cobra,Kiowa,& ARH helicopters are.It fits in perfectly with the Air-Ground Battle Doctrine.It might even replace the A-10 as the soldier’s best friend.
Huh – I thought the lesson from Gulf War I was that Canada needed a serious upgrade to its combat aircraft capability to stay relevant. That led to CF-18 upgrades for PGMs, and that in turn made Canada an important player in the Kosovo conflict in 1999. Canada is also a signatory to NORAD, so we’re obligated to provide aircraft for continental air defense. 9/11 was an effective reiteration of the need for that mission, even if the Russians aren’t a serious threat since the Cold War.
The problem with the fighter force now is that it’s so old that it’s difficult to operate with other international forces. Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been relying on French air support instead of the CF-18s for this reason.
Roy Smith,
You are living in some kind of dream world. You have basically said that the F-35B can & would operate like an AH-64 Apache. Reality check, the F-35B is designed as a STOVL aircraft, not VTOL. It weighs 29,695 lbs EMPTY (normal take-off with full internal fuel being >46,000 lbs). With 2 1000 lb JDAM & 2 AMRAAM, the F-35B could only take-off vertically with about a half a load of fuel. While the STOVL F-36B requires less than 500 ft of “runway” it DOES still require SOME “runway” & I guarantee that the F-35B will NOT operate from an “unprepared” surface.
Keep in mind that Israel has indicated a desire for SOME of its F-35s to POSSIBLY be F-35B, it DOES NOT want its entire F-35 fleet to be F-35B and it reasoning for considering SOME F-35B is SPECIFICALLY tied to some of its bases being SO close to the enemy (not a problem the USAF has).
George: That was the air force’s view, anyway. Kosovo was basically an exercise in justifying it, and we were just flying Canadian aircraft within US strike packages even if we did get to lead them occasionally. That’s what the army, who’s driving the bus now with a little input from the navy, is trying to get away from– they want interoperable-but-independent capability, not ‘me too!’
I don’t kno whow keen CF would be on doing its own air support in RC(S) even if the CF18s were up to it, because this way they can blame someone else for collateral damage.
We’re obligated to provide aircraft for defense under NORAD… doesn’t say whether those have to be manned or not.
I’m not saying the reasoning is entirely good, just that I’m pretty sure the CF18 is going to be the last Canadian manned fighter.
pfcem,
Actually,with the increased range of rockets that Hamas,Hezbollah,& Syria has coupled with the rumored surrender of the West Bank to the Palestinians for their new country & the Golan Heights to Syria pretty much puts all of their air bases within range of air strikes.they want the F-35B so that they can have a dependable air strike capability & the ability to take off from places other than airfields.I think we’ll learn what the F-35B can & cannot do according to how the Israelis use them.Taking out the Israelis’ air fields will neutralize their F-15I & F-16I fleets & it will certainly take out their capabilities of launching their F-35As.Granted,if the Air Force was pressured to buy F-35Bs,then they’d have to be stationed close to metalled roads to operate in areas that ground forces are located.But even with that limitation they could still operate closer to the front than the F-35A could.In terms of diversity,flexibility,& versatility,the F-35A is still the weakest of the 3 models of Joint Strike Fighter.
Roy Smith,
“Within range” is not the same as under significant threat. These rockets are inhearantly inaccurate, they have a hard enough time hitting something the size of a city block AT RELATIVELY CLOSE RANGE – longer range compounds the inaccuracy.
I think you can look at how everyone who operates Harriers operates them as a guide only the F-35B will be even MORE restrictive (as apposed to your wet dream of operating F-35Bs alongside AH-64s). In fact the only real difference between operating F-35As & F-35Bs is the length of runway required – ALL other basing & support requirements are (for the most part – the F-35B actually requires more) THE SAME. Israel could adopt the Sweden model of disperse basing & get ALMOST the same effect reguardless of whether it operates F-35As or F-35Bs (the only significant difference being the length of runway).
The point is that you are looking at Israel CONSIDERING SOME of its F-35 order being F-35B as some magical sign that the F-35B is the be-all-that-end-all & that somehow the F-35A & F-35C are comparatively useless. In reality it is the opposite & unless you are restricted to conditions where you CAN NOT operate CTOL aircraft (such as a small deck V/STOL carrier or amphibious assault ship), the performance advantage (even between F-35 versions) of CTOL aircraft more often than not trumps any theoretical V/STOL advantage.
In terms of diversity, flexibility & versatility neither the F-35B nor the F-35C meet USAF requirements – just like the F-35A & F-35B don’t meet USN requirements and the F-35A & F-35C don’t meet USMC requirements. It really is unfortunate that Congress has gotten so cheap that the US could not afford for the USAF, the USN & the USMC to develope & procure their own aircraft rather than being forced to compromise ALL THREE in order to develope & procure three versions of the same basic aircraft.
If V/STOL was really what you seem to think it is than it would have replaced MOST/ALL CTOL aircraft by now.
pfcem,
Maybe you can say that the F-35B is a niche aircraft.I did read that the F-35B could be a V/STOL,but not while it’s armed.I hope we’ll see the F-35 in some form or fashion,hopefully all three variants.But,knowing how cheap congress seems to be,it may come down to a certain model over the other two.The F-22 does not need to be STOVL/VSTOL to work.I personally feel that the F-35B can provide close air support for the Army just as well as for the Marines.
The Israelis are expecting Scud-C missiles to be fired into Israel from Syria & God knows what missiles from Iran & maybe even Egypt in addition to the Katyusha & Qassam rockets from Hezbollah & Hamas in event of war.The Israelis want something that they can get off of the ground if their Airfields are hit.Also,Hamas is planning to create internal difficulties for the reservists to report to their stations & weapons.It would be safe to assume they’ll try to sabotage Israeli airfields also.Maybe if Israel hasn’t done so already,they should build underground airfields like something out of the “Thunderbirds” movie(“Thunderbirds are go!”) or “X-men” movie.Just a thought.
Mike,
I agree with you- I too have a sinking feeling that the CF-18 isn’t going to be replaced by a new manned fighter. If it’s replaced by a UCAV, it’s probably going to be Son of Bomarc in the end – another cost-cutting but ill-considered CF initiative like the plastic magazines for C7 rifles (disposable items for combat, used for regular use because they were cheaper than metal…)
IIRC, the F-35B will also have smaller weapons bays than the A and B versions.
I would like to see them reduce this number further and put the reat of the money they save into health care or education. It would be much better spent!
Well I guess it is no surprise after reading the simplistic and inane remarks writing by ‘Canadian Portal’ that the link leads to a site full of nonsense such as a page called ‘silly USA’. I guess if we all hold hands and sing ‘kumbaya’ all will be well in the world. yes I don’t think anyone would be against better education of health care, but to abdicate our responsibilities of defence? And just whom do you think will fill that void? Me thinks the skunky smoke wafting from under your door may explain your thought processes. Grow up, welcome to the real world.
We do actually live in a real world here, with all the pitfalls it entails. We should try to look after ourselves for once.