Few things are more awe inspiring than having a fighter jet fly over but a hundred feet above your house. The glass rattles, the floors shake -- you can't help but be impressed with the raw power of such a creation.
Living next to Canada's biggest air force base CFB Trenton, it's a monthly occurrence. The CF-18s come in from Bagotville or Cold Lake -- sometimes on a training mission, sometimes escorting the fallen back from Afghanistan. And every time I see them the inner child wanna-be fighter pilot in me can't help but smile.
But alas, the CF-18s are approaching the sunset of their years and will soon require a replacement. The federal government of Canada has arbitrarily decided its successor to be the American designed, multi-national Joint Strike Fighter -- the F-35.
Now never mind no-bid contracts, actual sticker price or other political haggling in Ottawa: is the F-35 the correct fighter jet for Canada?
There's a lot of opinion out there, most of which is negative. Skeptics point out deficiencies such as poor maneuverability (wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratios), small internal weapons carriage, single engine design, low maximum speed and host of other items.
Peter Mackay and DND are standing by the F-35 as the only Generation 5 fighter offered on the world market today. The only equivalent Gen 5 aircraft currently operational is the F-22 (also manufactured by Lockheed Martin) but US laws prevent its sale.
So what of the F-35? And what missions are so essential that the tax payers need to shell out tens of billions of dollars? Let's dive into it.
Point One - Canadian Arctic sovereignty
Undoubtedly, after all those lovely green house gas emissions turn our North into the world's largest schoolyard slush pad, drilling for natural gas and oil won't be far behind. And those billions of dollars flowing into private coffers means these corporations are going to need some public protection. It's not like we've never seen a war over oil before. So the F-35s will be flying over the North pole, mixing it up with Santa's reindeer. This is where many question the use of a single engine.
During the F-35 procurement announcement Defence Minister Peter Mackay was asked by a journalist what would happen if the F-35’s single engine failed in the Far North. Mackay replied confidently: "It won’t."
I hope he found some wood nearby to knock on. As the son of a mechanic, I can tell you that inevitably Murphy's law will kick in. Mechanical devices -- especially complex ones like a modern jet engine involving thousands of parts and run by complex computer software -- will eventually clash with human error and nature itself. If, for example, an F-35 developed engine trouble while on an Arctic sovereignty combat air patrol (CAP), it can't simply drop it's gear and land on a nearby ice flow. The F-35's "competitors" -- the French Dassault Rafale, the European Eurofighter, the Russian Sukhoi series -- all feature twin engine designs. Two engines are a built in, if not vital, redundancy.
Regardless, the Americans have been operating the single engined F-16 since the late seventies, and are still offering the aircraft for contention in India's MMRC fighter competition. The backbone of the US air force fighter, strike and close air support arm, the F-16 is due to be replaced by the F-35 as well.
Point two- Foreign military intervention
Other than the previously mentioned Arctic sovereignty missions, the only time the F-35s would likely ever see action (based on the CF-18's history) is in limited, mostly lop-sided strikes on rogue regimes. The CF-18's first taste of combat was during the 1991 Gulf war. Since then they've dropped bombs on Serbia and Libya. The F-35 would easily usurp CF-18s in these sorts of operations -- given its strike, stealth and electronic warfare capabilities.
The aircraft is also touted by Lockheed Martin for its interoperability among user nations. This isn't only limited to, let's say, a US F-35 sharing communications and sensor data information with a Canadian F-35 during a coalition strike mission on some far off battlefield. It also includes logistics. A common supply chain of parts and weapons, especially among NATO countries, is an attractive option. The bigger the network, the cheaper and more widespread the parts.
What about threats over the modern battlefield? Much of the chatter on the Internet regards the ability of the F-35 to defend itself against current and future air to air threats, in particular the Sukhoi Su-27 series of fighters currently being snapped up around the world. What if a conflict erupted over Taiwan or Korea that pitted Chinese Sukhoi's against a UN fleet of F-35s? I'm not going to dive into this argument, but I will speak to the concept of superiority in numbers.
As a child, I gobbled anything related to World War Two. Documentaries, books-- anything I could get my hands on. And one thing I was reminded of time and again was that no matter how wonderful a piece of German kit was, be it a Tiger tank or a ME 262 fighter jet, there were always more Allied Sherman tanks and P-51 Mustangs than they could contend with.
In particular, Sherman tanks were manufactured in the tens of thousands. One on one they were no match for the Tiger's superior firepower and armor. However as the allies pressed across Europe, the mass of Shermans swarmed and devoured Panzer groups like South American fire ants on a fallen carcass. The Soviets applied the same "mass" concept on the Eastern front. Which brings me to my next point.
Point three - Quantities
Are 65 F-35s enough? The Canadian forces seem to think so. We purchased 138 CF-18s in 1982, but that was in the midst of the Cold War. What about modern requirements?
Given that the largest ever deployment of CF-18 fighters numbered 26 during the Gulf War, a total force of 65 sounds a bit low. Then again, at over $130 million a copy, the feds could run into some red tape trying to buy more. Comparatively, the nearest Western nation in terms of GDP and population, Spain (GDP $1.3T and 46 million people) and Australia (GDP $1.2T and 22.6 million people), also fly F-18s. Australia has already begun replacing their 71 Hornets with 24 F-18 "Super Hornets", and plans a buy of up to 100 F-35s. Spain is replacing their current force of 88 Hornets with 87 Eurofighters.
What about attrition? In the years since acquiring the CF-18, Canada has lost eighteen of the fighter-- an attrition rate of 7.6% over 29 years. Given the same time frame, a force level of 65 F-35s and similar low-intensity combat involvement, that leaves us with about five crashes over the service life of Canadian F-35s. Now that's assuming the F-18 and the F-35 have the same attrition rate. We do not yet know the reliability of this Gen 5 aircraft. With its extremely advanced software architecture, composite materials and stealth coatings, future reliability is anyones guess.
Point 4 - The "IT" factor
Simon Cowell knows what "it" is. I believe that Peter Mackay does as well, even if the rest of us are not privy to the kind of insider information regarding the F-35s capabilities that he is. The following features give the F-35 a leg up.
Speed and Range: The F-35 will probably have one of the fastest ground attack profiles of any fighter ever. The necessity of stealth has produced in the F-35 a curious and useful byproduct -- internal weapons carriage. No other modern fighter carries its stores internally (apart from the F-22) and as a result the aircraft's range and speed is increased due to the lack of drag inducing pylons and bombs. And in combat, speed is life. The quicker the aircraft can get to and from a target, the less time it will be exposed to hostile surface to air missiles and enemy fighters. Increased range means more time on station in the CAP role, and deeper penetration into enemy territory for a strike mission -- a quality I'm sure the Israeli Air Force is eyeing quietly.
Critics point to the F-35s maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or 1200 mph, as a significant weakness. They point to other fighters capable of Mach 2 plus as having an edge. My guess is that most are unaware of actual combat operating envelopes for fighter aircraft. In reality, fighters are more likely to chase down some off course Cessna then go screaming around the universe in full afterburner in pursuit of Iron Man. And from my study of dogfights (thank you History Channel) most don't even come close to maxing out. All that weaving and turning bleeds off energy in even the most powerful of fighters.
Sensor Fusion - HMDS, AESA RADAR, DAS: These bad boys are the pinnacle of modern fighter avionics. The electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) gathers, tracks and projects imagery from several sensors located around the aircraft in order to give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness. A recent test of the system detected and tracked a ballistic missile target from 800 miles away. Unlike radar, the system does not advertise its presence. The French Rafale, Eurofighter and Su-27 family all have InfraRed Search and Track (IRST) sensors, but none even approaching the capabilities of the DAS.
A big selling feature is the AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. Capable of simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, as well as electronic warfare attack (including inserting malicious code into enemy IT infrastructure and jamming radar and radio transmissions) this radar is one of the few AESA radars equipping fighters today.
These systems are brought together in the The Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS). The HMDS allows for off-bore missile shots, meaning the aircraft doesn't have to be pointed at the enemy fighter to lock on to it. If you've ever seen Top Gun, you know how difficult it is for Maverick to get the aiming recticle on the MIG. Now, all the pilot has to do is look and shoot --although this doesn't apply to a close-in gun shot.
So here we are. It looks as if the F-35 is probably the best option in cases of foreign intervention, although possibly a troublesome one for Arctic sovereignty. The F-35 ground attack capabilities are probably unmatched, and it has potential, however suspect, for any future Cessna hunting.
Interestingly, it seems the US never intended the F-35 to serve alone in combat. In its order of battle, the F-22 fulfills all escort and CAP missions. However Canada doesn't have an escort option (besides other F-35s) which could pose a problem in an unforeseen nation vs. nation conflagration involving modern aircraft.
Perhaps Canada should consider the purchase of a squadron of Eurofighter aircraft if it feels it is lacking in the air combat arena. The Brits are having a fire sale trying to offload a committed to yet unpurchased buy of Tranche 3 Eurofighters. The Saudis got theirs this way. Even the Indonesians are looking at the option.
No comments:
Post a Comment