Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The value of the F-35

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, January 7, 2011 4:39pm - 38 Comments

While the American joint strike fighter program continues to be a source of questions, Philippe Lagassé and Justin Massie figure we’ll end up buying the planes one way or the other.

While both sides have a case to make with respect to the procurement costs and industrial benefits, the sovereignty question sidesteps the larger issue behind this purchase. Although the F-35’s ability to defend Canadian airspace was surely taken into account, that is not what makes this plane especially attractive to the government and the air force. The value of the F-35 is that it will permit Canada to take part in multinational air operations overseas for decades to come. Put simply, in buying these aircraft, the government will ensure that Canada can play a visible role in future allied air campaigns across the world.

In fact, if the Liberals eventually form a government, it’s this aspect of the F-35 that is likely to persuade them to go through with the purchase, however grudgingly.

Bookmark and Share
  • Richard_S_Argent

    Honestly, had the Conservatives made this their central argument I suspect they'd have received much less flak than they have so far.

    It's like they can't help themselves and simply must treat us like morons whenever they get the chance:

    It's not NATO obligations, it's that the Russians might attack us.
    It's not that our prison system is pretty outdated and could use a revamping/revitalization, it's that there's so much unreported crime that we need more prisons to lock up the brutes.
    (I'm trying to think of a similar point for the census decision, but there's no way to put it that it makes even the slightest bit of sense. No matter how you slice it, that one stinks to high heavens.)

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Hear, hear! My problem's never been that there are no arguments to be made in favour of the F-35, but that the government WASN'T MAKING ANY OF THEM!!!

      • madeyoulook

        Well, there was something Paul noted a while back about trumpeting the (C?)F-18 (or something) escorting a compliant and unthreatening civilian aircraft into its scheduled destination. So give them a chance. Maybe they are just warming up?

  • Tceh

    The aircraft itself is not the question, it is the rather dubious non-competitive non-bidding process that irks. I wouldn't want Elmer's boy, Peter to negotiate a deal on a new car for me based on how he buys planes.

  • Fido

    What do these coddled academic elites know about public and international affairs? ;- ]

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    Put simply, in buying these aircraft, the government will ensure that Canada can play a visible role in future allied air campaigns across the world.

    Or in other words, it will allow Canada to participate in a future war crime to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

    • madeyoulook

      Cool! When do we start?

  • Jeff Jedras

    This is an argument for why we need to buy planes. It is not an argument for why we need to sole-source a contract for the F-35, instead of putting it to tender and considering other options, such as the Super Hornet, the Eurofighter or the Silent Eagle.

    The interoperability argument just doesn't hold water. We have held joint operations for many years with allies operating a rainbow of aircraft. There's no reason why we can't continue to do so in the future.

    • madeyoulook

      Can you think of no reason why progressing towards interoperability with allies might be a good idea?

      • Jeff Jedras

        The best reason I can think of for hardware interoperability is ease of spare part procurement in a deployment situation. "Hey U.S., we're out of purple widgets, could you loan us one?"

        Otherwise, interoperability isn't a hardware issue. It's a software issue. It's the communications package that you put in the plane. Today we operate CF-18s. The U.S. and Brits operate various other aircraft. We are able to interoperate and hold joint exercises all the time, because what's important is the comms system that allows all the aircraft, and the combat air controllers, to talk to each other and coordinate.

        Put simply, interoperability isn't really a hardware issue. And while I can think of one hardware benefit, it's so limited that in my view it doesn't justify the cost premium that inevitably comes with sole-sourcing without competitive tender.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I believe his point was that we can be totally inter-operable with our allies with many options other than the F-35. If one is to believe that you can't be inter-operable with NATO fighters unless you're flying an F-35, then large portions of the U.S. air force won't be inter-operable with NATO (nor, strangely, with their own forces!), and several NATO allies will never be able to fly NATO missions requiring fighters ever again.

        We don't really need to move "towards" interoperability, we've got it now, and we'd still have it with any of the options Jeff mentions. There are arguments, I suppose, that the F-35 could give us "better" interoperability than other options, or interoperability that flows further into the future, but the interoperability argument has been grossly overplayed by the government imho, and only gets worse as more and more of our allies start to cut back on their F-35 orders, or suggest that they may not order any at all. We're going to get the F-35s, I'm certain, and they're going to fly many missions alongside allied Super Hornets and Typhoons and Silent Eagles and Raptors, and probably any number of allied fighters I'm not even thinking of just fine.

        • McC_

          …Rafales, Gripens…

  • Dale D.

    This is waaaay beside the point.

    - The government has not articulated why we need this specific plane
    - Even if they had, a competitive process drives the cost down
    - Dassault and Boeing both make aircraft which are compatible with NATO air operations.
    -The F-35 is not going to help us fight the wars of the future. We will be operating in failed states like afghanistan and Somalia. These countries have no airforce. If these planes are for continental defense, we certainly do not need 65.

    • CanadianPatriot35

      The government has articulated why, it is the direct replacement for the F-18, it does all that the Hornet does just better and more survivable. 2500+ of these aircraft are going to be built Canadian Aerospace should be apart of that.

      The competitve process will just name the same plane in the end, adding years to buying the aircraft and millions of dolllars. I can't believe people want the government to run another lengthy competition, after what we saw from the Liberals and the Sea King affair.

      If you believe the only conflicts we will see in the next 40 years will be small conflicts like Afghanistan I have ocean-front property in Saskatchewan I can sell you.

  • Mike R

    The version "on probation" is not the version we are proposing to buy.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      That's an extremely important point, more so than my next point, but I still have to add that while the version that we're going to buy is definitely NOT "on probation" there have been, and continue to be numerous concerns about the F-35 program well beyond the problems with the STOVL variant.

      • Emily

        Yes, it's a flying lemon, and we have quite enough lemons.

  • André

    "Put simply, in buying these aircraft, the government will ensure that Canada can play a visible role in future allied air campaigns across the world."

    Considering the 'Allied' track record of the past two decades, I fail to see how 1) air campaigns have any significance 2) that it's a worthy goal.

    Troops transport, tactical equipment, special forces training, reconnaissance technology, high resolution satellite intelligence… that's the stuff we need which best fit the military role Canadians want to play in this world. Not fly around and exercise massive amounts of friendly fire and collateral damage.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      I wouldn't say that air campaigns have no significance, but I was interested in some of the air combat stats that show just how far ahead of any rivals the U.S., and by extension NATO, are in air-to-air combat.

      China "leaked" pics of their new stealth fighter the other day. It's a runway pic because the plane can't fly yet. Experts estimate that China is two decades behind the U.S. in the technology, and one of the experts notes that he believes that UAVs will dominate the skies before 2020 when this Chinese plane might be operational (and 4 years after we start taking deliveries of our F-35s).

      Also of note in that article is that no U.S.-built fighter has been shot down in aerial combat since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973 (no American piloted fighter of any make has been shot down in aerial combat since Vietnam). We're (the Western allies) just RIDICULOUSLY ahead of our rivals in this area, and while I don't mind getting the F-35 and staying ridiculously ahead, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that we "need" the F-35 to "keep up" with any potential rivals. The U.S. and her allies are far enough ahead of everybody else that Canada could almost certainly stay well ahead of all potential rivals with a less expensive plane.

      • Emily

        China can shoot down individual satellites….something the US can't do.

        The Chinese can also now take out aircraft carriers….making them sitting ducks.

        Don't worry about Chinese tech levels.

        F-35's or any other 'fighter planes' are obsolete

        There is no Snoopy and the Red Baron dog fight contest anymore.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Oh, I'm not worried about the Chinese. It's truly amazing what totalitarianism can achieve.

          • André

            Thankfully, consumerism might save the day.

        • CanadianPatriot35

          Fighters are obsolete? Then why is there a bunch of new fighters being developed? For example aircraft that just became public knowledge within the last couple of years, China developing the J-20 (Stealth interceptor) and the Russian/Indian PAK-FA? Seems to me the fighter market is alive and well and heating up.

      • Andre

        Oh I wouldn't be so sure. Developmental progress in the U.S. is at a crawl right now compared to China. They'll catch up. When that happens their superior manufacturing capacity will overtake any other technological advantage the U.S. may hold.

        Also I'm pretty sure the Russians have had air superiority since the 50's in terms of technology and variety in application. The U.S.'s dominance is mainly due to superior training, tactics, intelligence, and reliability. I don't think the U.S. and Russia have had any direct major air confrontations, so the comparison is hard to make.

        Anyway, my point is that aside from Afghanistan, which is quite out of character for us, we've been engaged in mission where air dominance makes no difference. Fighting some African genocide or Eastern European uprising has never benefited from fighter airplanes.

        Those are the feel good missions Canadians like to engage into.

        • CanadianPatriot35

          Engaged in missions where air dominance makes no difference? What about the air campaign in Kosovo, or our CF-18s doing bombing missions in the first Gulf War?

          As for the question of air superiority, the US has had it since the 1950s, the Israelis have shot down numerous Russian built aircraft using US made fighters with little or no loss.

          40 years is a long time for the F-35 to operate, there is not telling what conflicts we will enter into. To think all conflicts will be Afghanistan types is pretty small-minded.

    • CanadianPatriot35

      Andre, exercise massive amounts of friendly fire and collateral damage? Are you insinuating that these aircraft when bought will only inflict damage to our own troops?

  • http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com The Jurist

    Ummm…has nobody noticed that the interoperability argument doesn't much help if our allies don't actually buy F-35s themselves? Which would make the U.S.' "probation" and other countries' cancellations/delays highly important…

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      We're not there yet but it's true, we could well end up in a scenario where only a very tiny percentage of our allies even have F-35s, and those few that do are the forces large enough to be flying 2-6 other types of fighters along side them.

  • chet

    Grudgingly.

    We all know that the decision doesn't count (or at least your not held to account by the liberal media)

    if you do something, but do it…."grudgingly"…..if you're a liberal that is.

    Sort of like Iggy signing his solomn declaration in writing for his support for the coalition.

    It was done…grudgingly. So…ya know…it doesn't count.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      Tenuous chiff, real tenuous…even by your standards.

      • Jan

        But he does score bonus points for managing to fit the word coalition in.

      • chet

        I guess you weren't around when the media made much of Iggy's being the last to sign and how that was evidence he did so grudgingly. So it wasn't like a real signature and other such nonsense.

        Tenuous?

        Spot on,

        I'd say.

  • pdpd

    By the by, isn't the real story that the price tag just went up even more, since the Yanks just cut back on their own order?

  • http://unambig.com/ MarkOttawa

    As for "interoperability", the US Navy (one of the world's largest air forces and an ally) is buying even more Super Hornets as F-35C full-rate production keeps receding. If our government thinks it will get F-35As in 2016 at under $80 million each it is in never never land. See:

    "F-35s for our Air Force in 2016? Good flipping luck" http://unambig.com/f-35s-for-our-air-force-in-201…

    Mark
    Ottawa

  • http://unambig.com/ MarkOttawa

    By the way, see how US planned procurement keeps slipping away (table much clearer at link): http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/201…

    "Johan Boeder, a Dutch defense analyst and editor of jsfnieuws.nl, has compiled a chart showing how the Department of Defense's planned F-35 orders have declined since contract award in October 2001…

    2001Sep-06Nov-06Apr-07Nov-08Aug-09Jan-11
    FY0622
    FY0749552222
    FY0882181612121212
    FY09108524716141414
    FY10156705630303028
    FY11170986443434332
    FY1217013310382828232
    FY1317014313590909042
    FY1417015715711611011062
    FY1517016016013013013081
    FY16170160160130130130108

    Totals1447996903651643643413
    FY0622
    FY0749552222
    FY0882181612121212
    FY09108524716141414
    FY10156705630303028
    FY11170986443434332
    FY1217013310382828232
    FY1317014313590909042
    FY1417015715711611011062
    FY1517016016013013013081
    FY16170160160130130130108

    Totals1447996903651643643413"

    Mark
    Ottawa

  • Dubh

    I still think it's about propping up the US economy, specifically the military-industrial complex, which is about the only US sector actually making things for export anymore.

    "With $40 billion in annual revenue, Lockheed Martin is the single largest recipient of U.S. tax dollars. The company receives about $36 billion in government contracts per year. In 2008, $29 billion of that was for U.S. military contracts – a dollar figure 25% higher than its competitors Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman." — from "Too big to fail: Lockheed-Martin's Got Their FIngers Everywhere" http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/too-big-to-f…

    Also see: Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex http://www.amazon.com/Prophets-War-Lockheed-Milit…

  • http://unambig.com/ MarkOttawa

    So that's why '…Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the termination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program Thursday, saying the price tag for the 80,000-pound armored vehicle used to storm beaches was too high.

    "The EFV, originally conceived during the Reagan administration, has already consumed more than $3 billion to develop, and will cost another $12 billion to build, all for a fleet with the capacity to put 4,000 troops abroad ashore," Mr. Gates said in unveiling a revamp of the Pentagon budget. "To fully execute the EFV…would essentially swallow the entire Marine vehicle budget, and most of its total procurement budget for the foreseeable future," Mr. Gates said…"' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704…

    Leading to this:

    "10,000 Ohio jobs put at risk by new cuts in defense spending" http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/gd…

    Mark
    Ottawa

    • Dubh

      Military contracts are strategically distributed across the US, probably to every state. Call it an insurance policy for the arms industry. Any cutback or cancellation means jobs somewhere — and the inevitable backlash, both economic and political.

From Macleans