The F-35: $75 million? $128 million? $151 million?
The F-35 is the only fighter jet that meets Canada’s specifications, according to the Department of National Defence. But you have to take this on faith, since the Harper government has deemed the “statement of operational requirements” confidential.
If you don’t have an absolute trust in government, it’s worth considering what those specifications should be. Based on the past and likely future operations of Canada’s air force, is the F-35 really the best plane?
None of the current fleet of CF-18s has been deployed to Afghanistan, and no CF-18 has ever been involved in air-to-air combat.
Indeed, CF-18s have only occasionally served overseas. A small number were based in Germany until 1990, and 24 served in the 1991 Gulf War. In 1998, 18 CF-18s were involved in NATO’s operations over Kosovo. Last month, eight of the planes were sent to Libya.
The CF-18s’ only other uses have been patrolling North American airspace for possible hijackings of civilian aircraft and, occasionally, greeting Russian bombers in international airspace.
There are two proven planes that could fulfill these roles better than the F-35 and at a much lower price.
F/A-15E Strike Eagles operate in five air forces and cost $60 million per plane. F/A-18E Super Hornets fly for the U.S. and Australia and cost just $55 million. The F-35 will cost at least $75 million per plane — $128 million according to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. The Pentagon has earmarked $151 million (U.S.) per plane.
Both the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet have two engines, whereas the F-35 has only one. Canada chose the CF-18 because of concerns that a single-engine aircraft would put pilots at risk in remote locations such as the Arctic. Logically, any replacement should also have two engines.
The F-35 does have stealth, but the technology requires compromises with respect to other capabilities. F-35s can fly only 2,220 kilometres without refueling, unless non-stealthy external tanks are added. The CF-18s now in service have a range of 3,330 kilometres, which, again, is handy in the Arctic.
The F-35 has a top speed of only Mach 1.6, compared with the CF-18 and Super Hornet (both Mach 1.8) and Strike Eagle (Mach 2.5).
The F-35 also has a limited carrying capacity for missiles and bombs, which puts it at risk of being overwhelmed if outnumbered by conventional fighters, while also making it ill-suited for most ground attacks.
Finally, stealth planes require more maintenance and have a lower “mission capable rate.” The United States has never deployed its 5-year-old stealth fighter-bombers, the F-22s, abroad.
Nor is it clear that Canada even needs many — if any — new piloted planes. Our 138 CF-18s were acquired between 1982-1988, which makes the youngest of them just 23 years old. Eighty of them were upgraded between 2001-2010 at a cost of $2.6 billion.
Thirty-year-old planes with technical upgrades can still do the job because the main limitation on fighter performance is the skill of the pilots and the sophistication of their munitions.
In the last decade, the technology of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) has improved at a staggering rate. Predator and Reaper drones have become the United States’ weapon of choice in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya — and increasingly for homeland defence. The New York Air National Guard 174th Fighter Wing is replacing its F-16 fighter-jets with long-range, high-altitude Reaper drones capable of both aircraft interception and ground targeting.
Jet-powered, stealth UAVs are now also available, such as Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 Sentinel, already deployed by the U.S. in Afghanistan and South Korea.
UAVs are currently hindered by slight time lags between the control movements of the remotely situated pilot and the plane itself. These limitations are being addressed, either by positioning the pilots closer to the theatre of operation or developing more autonomous aircraft.
As a result, the F-35s could be out-of-date shortly after they’re delivered.
Fortunately, it’s not too late for us to change our mind. As Page has noted, “Canada has not signed any binding contract for acquisition, nor is it under any legal obligation — international or otherwise — to go ahead with the purchase.”
Nor do we stand to lose much of a down payment, relative to the projected $30 billion total cost. Since 1997, Canada has contributed just $168 million to the F-35 program.
So if we decide to buy more piloted fighters, let’s do the prudent thing. Let’s buy a small number of Super Hornets or Strike Eagles, and see what technological and geopolitical changes the next decade brings.
Michael Byers teaches political science at the University of British Columbia.
Stewart Webb is a research associate of the Salt Spring Forum.
For the original text, see: F-35 a poor fit for Canada
It's a ground attack jet. It's not optimal for defensive air to air. That says a lot about how the Conservatives see our future military engagements defined. And that frightens me.
Posted by: Colin Chau | April 17, 2011 at 02:18 AM
It's not a ground attack jet...
It is an omnrole jet design.
But, willing to do everything... it won't do anything in a proper way.
F18se or Rafale.
Posted by: LittleBoy | November 23, 2011 at 06:37 AM