Report: F-35 is an ‘expensive mistake’ for Canada

Report: F-35 is an ‘expensive mistake’ for Canada

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs doesn’t pull any punches in a new report about Canada’s membership in the F-35 club: It doesn’t belong, the study concludes.

In addition to the many questions about how much the CF-35 will ultimately cost — just like Washington, Ottawa has competing sets of numbers that come from different sides of the political spectrum — the Council’s study argues that Canada should wave off because it just doesn’t need the kind of capability the F-35 offers.

The Lightning II, as Buzz readers know, is designed to drop the first ordnance of the war or have the first dogfight — that’s why it needs to be stealthy, agile, networked, etc. But let’s be honest, the Council’s report says: Canada shouldn’t be committing itself to an aircraft based on this kind of strategy: It’s a bad idea in principle and practically speaking, Canada doesn’t have the firepower to follow through on the kinds of major campaigns for which the U.S. designed this aircraft. “The F-35 is unsuitable for Canadian military operations and marks an unfortunate shift in Canadian foreign policy towards single-mindedly backing the U.S. military,” wrote the Council’s lead author.


He concludes:

Canada’s foreign policy should not be tied closely to that of the U.S., especially when conducting Canadian military operations. The goals and orientations of these two militaries are completely different. The F-35’s fundamental role is a day-one stealth bomber used to penetrate enemy air defense, which later secures air cover and provides the opportunity to bomb important military targets. Therefore, the F-35 purchase suggests that the Conservative government is willing to conduct further NATO operations in bombing or suppression of air defense. However, Canada lacks the capacity to follow through with this type of invasion or large-scale operation.

The Canadian government should have instead used its resources to invest in areas that would benefit Canada overseas, such as the land forces. Steven Staples points out, “as the second largest country in the world, a significant portion of [Canada’s] military spending should be dedicated to disaster relief, search-and-rescue, and constabulary patrols along [Canada’s] three coasts. [Canada’s] potential military contribution to expeditionary missions will be neither necessary nor sufficient for the success of operations involving significant use of force.”

With the current budget deficit and Canada’s historical role in peacekeeping missions, the Canadian Forces should focus on missions sanctioned by the United Nations. Canada could make a greater contribution to UN missions by having the Canadian Forces specialize in general use capabilities. General specialization will allow Canada to offer greater support for humanitarian missions – an option that investing in concepts such as “first-strike capabilities” renders impossible. However, even though these UN missions are very important, Canada has dramatically reduced its contributions to UN operations since 1997, partly because of the NATO-led mission in Bosnia. By 2005, Canada committed only 83 military personnel to UN peacekeeping missions, in comparison 500 Canadian soldiers participated in stabilizing Haiti from 1993 to 1996. Once again, Staples recognizes that Canada stopped operating strategic bombers after the end of the Second World War, and retired the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonadventure forty years ago. Until recently, previous administrations reoriented the Canadian Forces to conduct smaller peace-keeping operations. Its critics say that the F-35 purchase marks a grave mistake by the Conservatives, as Canada does not need the F-35 in any shape or capacity in its inventory. Instead, Canada’s scarce resources should be invested in existing sectors of their armed forces.

The is only the latest shot fired in what has been a long, public battle over the CF-35, but at the moment, the jet’s backers in Ottawa appear to have the upper hand. There’s every indication that despite the long controversy, Canada will keep its membership in the F-35 club and move forward with its planned buy of 65.

Join the Conversation

Mr. Ewing — an important post because it shows the kind of strategic thinking, based on underlying national concerns, that should permeate a nation’s defense policy evaluations. I am clearly not expert enough to judge exactly what the F-35 can or cannot do. But clearly, with Canada, a nation of, I think, 23 million people, the comments above demonstrate the kind of big picture analysis that is so important for national departments of defense and top leadership. You asked a few days ago what kind of questions new Sec. Panetta should be focusing on. Canada’s approach to its defense policy analysis is one to be studied.

population approx 33,739,900

Since when does Canada purchase single engine fighters to patrol in the Arctic Circle? I bet the Pilots have some concerns about this decision.

It sounds like their underlying argument is more political than anything else.

What planes would the Russians put up to patrol their side? MiG-29s, MiG-31s, Su-35BMs? If the CF-18 can beat all these planes then they should stay with those planes. If they can’t then Canada needs a 4.5+ fighter, perhaps an updated F-15SE or a 5th Gen fighter. And the only one for export is the F-35.

No more concern than pilots going over the Arctic in 2 engine airliners with 300 passengers.

By all means, Mr. Ewing, emasculate the Canadian military forces and make them do all the nanny state and nation building stuff you want. They are internationally irrelevant already, and all potential adversaries know it. You might as well take advantage of the fact that the USA must defend North America anyway. Why not consider outsourcing your whole air force. Get some bids from the USAF and the RAF, and contrast them to offers from the PLAAF and VVS while you’re at it. Or maybe just paying extortion to the Chinese or Russians would save all the money you need for your social projects. Think outside the box.

So you’re trying to tell us that Canada has a robust military already and NOT adding a new strike fighter will somehow degrade their ability? They’re pretty much a token force, at best, anyway…

COHA is a left leaning American lobbyist organization. Their conclusion is obviously going to match their ideological beliefs. I’m not saying they aren’t entitled to their view, but it wouldn’t be any less valid than one coming from a right wing think tank. My main concern comes purely from the costs of the jets rather than if we could use them. However, our military spending per GDP is still in the lower-middle range for developed countries so I think there’s enough leeway to purchase them.

No runway needed, easy to hide in our north, competitive with anything the Russians or Chinese have? What is the cost to build and maintain traditional, defensible runways across the north? Maybe the F-35 is not so expensive?

The Canadians have operated single engine jet aircraft in the past, including the CF-104 which certainly was far more likely to suffer an engine failure than the CF-35.

Fair assessment there Michael, although making a main argument to purchase F-35s based on some advertised financial budget affordability to buy them alone, isn’t the most relevant issue to the debate either.

And Daniel — there would be considerable new MILCON costs attributed to an actual CF-35 selection as well as the need to maintain traditional defended air bases.

Unfortunately, the F-35 will be far more expensive per unit (all life cycle costs) than currently expected. Moreover, it is far from mature, it will hold an investment strapped CAF captive to the system for 30+ yrs and drain funds from possibly acquiring new superior air combat technology which might come down the pipe in the next decade + and it will by default force CAF to make substantial CF-18 SLEP investments currently unfunded (taking away from somewhere else in the defence budget) in order to maintain sufficient squadron levels of fully operational hornets into the early 20s until they can be completely replaced operationally.

canada should just buy a budget aircraft with meteor missile and a good radar and that’s it. fa-18, gripen (if it’s not possible to integrate to fa-18), even rafale, if they desire a good strike role (the problem is french-ONLY weapons).

rafale might actually be the best, as at least it doesn’t have the absurd range limits like the fa-18 and is still 2 engine.
OTOH its radar is not so good i hear.

Can anyone keep a straight face and say that Canada or, for that matter, North America is likely to come under attack by a massive wave of bombers — therefore we need F35s . I don’t think so. Sounds to much like 1960 Cold war thinking. The world has evolved way past that insanity!

For the forseeable future the nations of the world that even have a remote capability to attack us militarily are Russia, China and the USA. [Lets rule out the USA]. These nations are going to need our resources. Insanely bombing us into oblivion would not be in their best interests. They don’t have the capability to occupy and remove resources from our land. It is much easier for them to simply buy our property and resources. And that is what is happening. Therein lies the major threat to the future of our country. No role for the F35

Why would we, in support of NATO, be buying an aircraft capable of attacking third world nations. That makes no sense! NATO has evolved from its original role of protecting Europe from a perceived threat from Russia and other eastern bloc nations to a role of policing and beating up on third world nations who do not conform to our western “standards”. Do Canadians want to be a part of that organization. I think not!

I see no credible military threat that the F35 could counter.

As I see it, the real threat to our sovereignty is an economic threat.

The threat is that unaffordable actions by our government will bankrupt our country. To defend our “sovereignty” we need to counter the economic threat to our Arctic, protect our coastal fisheries, deal with internal unrest, root out terrorist cells, and, most importantly, keep our country financially viable, etc. A tactical force with suitable air transport is what is needed.

Since we have a limited defense budget my fear is that by purchasing the very expensive F35 we will undermine our ability to deal with credible threats. We must spend wisely on efforts to assert our sovereignty even if such efforts cost as much or more than the F35 program. With the threat I envisage the F35 contributes very little towards enhancing the sovereignty of our nation.

Actually, depending on which set of ‘cost projections’ you chose to use, the F-35 will be LESS expensive per unit than ‘currently’ expected. What new superior air combat technology might come down the pipe in the next decade? If it is not already at least flying in a technology demonstrator TODAY, it isn’t going to even be where the F-35 is today in decade.

Can anyone keep a straight face and say that defending against a massive wave of bombers is THE only reason for Canada wants/needs combat aircraft? I don’t think so.

What is it like to be so blind?

I disagree aSDF,
If price is the problem, Canada should go with the F-18 Super Hornet. Its about 30 million dollars cheaper per aircraft. Canada also could get the Super Hornet pre-wired for the Growler role just like the Aussies. Plus the Canadian pilots are very familiar with the Hornet family already. And with the
F-18 Super Hornet International road map they could purchase semi-stealthy aircraft in the future still much less expensive then the F-35. Your right about the range though, 1275 nmi.

What other reason do you have in mind? Perhaps you like the idea of bombing defenceless third world nations.

Why do people assume the sole purpose of the cf-35 in Canada would be to shoot down enemy bombers invading our borders or drop bombs in first-strike stealth missions? Seems to me several posters are unaware of several important facts to take into consideration:
1.) Canada’s cf-18’s were used in Afghanistan.
2.) Canada’s cf-18’s fairly recently have flown missions in and around Libya
3.) Canada’s cf-18’s are nearly 30 years old now and realistically cannot be replaced for likely another
5–10 years which will put them at 35–40 years of service

A fighter with stealth abilities is a huge advantage over non-stealth aircraft. Being able to see your enemy and not be seen can save your aircraft and most importantly save your pilots. Red Flag training games have proven how massive the stealth advantage can be with the f-22.

One can safely assume our fighters will need to fly future missions overseas again. We can’t be so naive to think we know all our fighter aircraft will remain within our borders for the next 40 years and never need to be called upon. Let us also not forget the trouble and turmoil that has been brewing in the middle east.

One thing I do question however, is the manner of which we are purchasing the f-35. Are purchases such as these not usually tendered out? Perhaps a better price could have been found?

Where in the world do you think air to air combat such as staged at “Red Flag” exercises could take place? Please give us the benefit of your thoughts by pointing out a plausible scenario. Even our recent misadventure into Libya did not take place until the air defences in Libya were reduced to a non effective state by unmanned Tomahawk missiles.

Why do people assume the sole purpose of the cf-35 in Canada would be to shoot down enemy bombers invading our borders or drop bombs in first-strike stealth missions? Seems to me several posters are unaware of several important facts to take into consideration:

Are you proposing that Canada should stay put with their 30+ year old jets or abandon their use of fighter jets all together?

The fact that the report depends on comments from Steven Staples and his Rideau Institute, Eric Margolis and Carlo Kopp tells me this is nothing but a hatchet job against the F-35. Staples (and his Rideau Institute) is nothing but a left-winger who has nothing good to say about the Canadian military and thinks it it should be turned into a bunch of traffic cops handing out speeding tickets. As for Margolis, he is known for his anti-American/anti-western reporting and very few people in Canada actually take his reporting seriously. Kopp, on the other hand, is a very good analyst and puts out some very good reports, however, he does have a hate-on for the F-35 that tends to colour his reporting.

You have avoided sharing with us the scenario you envisage that would cause us to use the F35s to defend our sovereignty.

To answer your next question we will have to decide as a nation what role we want our military to play within the context of our defence budget!

There are some things that we simply cannot afford to do!

Honestly, this is a ridiculous question you ask. I can name several nations that are in or have been in political strife, or are on unfriendly terms with nations Canada deems as close allies. Any 8 year old can post a reply to this and say, “NOPE. That will never happen”, or “Canada will NEVER be involved in air combat”.

I’ll let you use your imagination on the possible scenarios, you write well enough to seem educated. You’ll be better off catching the news on tv or the internet as the events unfold over the over the next 40 years.
Fact is, nobody on this board knows who the U.S., Canada or NATO will have conflict with. Furthermore, it’s undeniably plausible Canada’s fighter jets will be called upon to help out in future missions, and yes it’s entirely possible an enemy jet fighter can be involved.

Well, seeing as the Canadian government is currently purchasing f-35’s, it would appear we CAN afford to do it.

No, it is not a ridiculous question. When planning the future we cannot be prepared to counter every eventuality. Accordingly, we have to determine the “most likely” scenarios that may arise and then plan as to how we would handle the situation. To see where you are at I just wanted you to come up with one “most likely”.

I do not believe there is any threat of an insane massive bomber/ICBM raid on North America and in particular Canada in the forseeable future. I also don’t believe that we should be involved in meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state like, for example, Libya.

The conflict we will mainly have to confront is a financial conflict.

We are not a “super power”. With our limited financial resources our emphasis should be on homeland security. In that regard the threat to our way of life comes in an economic form. We need to counter the economic threat to our Arctic, protect our coastal fisheries, deal with internal unrest, root out terrorist cells, and, first and foremost, keep our country financially viable.

Well a Country with some common Sense. JSF is worthless.… STEALTH IS DEAD.… Google SA-21 NOW.… Spending a Countries Funds on this piece of Shit is crazy. You can purchase 4 New F/A-18E/F, or 2 EA-18G’s, 3 New F-15SE, 4 F-16CJ’s or 240,000,000.00 New M-16’s for the price of ONE JSF with NO Internal GUN and NO Capability of Bombing a Bridge without hanging Pylons, and no Communicaitons with F-22, F-15, F-18, F-16, B-52, B-1, B-2, C-130H, J, or any other platform. The only thing this platform does well is keep the assholes in the steer roping state of texas where fucking bush lives employed.

Everyone in the pentagon that I work with know JSF is worthless with the exception of our stupid Senior Leadership at the Pentagon, that are paid under the Table by Lockheed Martin. They should fire all the “Generals” at the Pentagon and promote some individuals with some ability to make a decision and not listen to integrators attempting to keep wall street happy. We cannot find our fallen Warriors at Arlington National Cemetery, or help our Vets coming home from committing suicide but we can continue to purchase a platform that is NOT STEALTH.… Stealth is DEAD. The F-35, B-2, F-22 and NGB need to be defunded and the programs STOPPED.… ASAP. We will not be effective in the Battlespace or the GIG without a complete turnaround in our current policy. If these platforms were so wonderful why have we begin a new Fighter and Bomber Program.… more Funds for Lockheed Martin and wall street to squander away and to pay their lying senior leadership a bonus. This Country has completely lost their minds. Thank GOD for Canada, Britton and the other countries that has said NO to this front gate museum piece.

>Actually, depending on which set of ‘cost projections’ you chose to use, the F-35 will be LESS expensive per unit than ‘currently’ expected

Yea but not any of the cost projections that the DoD, GAO or Lockheed have produced.

The US empire is crumbling and the response of small time conservatives in the west is the same from Canada to Australia — send tribute to try to keep it propped up. Delivering hopeless unpractical F-35 fail jets is very much a secondary condition, the objective of Canada’s F-35 buy is to keep Lockheed going.

The Russians are planning to deploy 2 divisions to the Arctic to lay claim to contraversial resources. They are getting way too close to the N. American Continent. It would behoove the Canadians to maintain their membership in NATO, because they might need the US to help fend off the Russians. The F35 is what will be needed to maintain air suppority. The Canadians are part of the North American Air Defence Network.

willow Canada knows it needs the United States to help defend her. Besides no nation is helpless. Are you implying that the United States bombs “poor helpless nations.

I have questions about the f35 also, The F22 is a much more capable platform.

The F135 is the most powerful and exotic single engine ever put in any fighter anywhere, and comparing the GE-J79 in the CF-104 to the engine living in the F-35 is at best a simplistic and inaccurate.

Of course the F-35 and its propulsion system has been such a “model” of reliability so far I’m sure there’s nothing to worry about! :-)

The F-35 has been across the board more expensive to date in pretty much every area of the program then projected. The F-35 technology is at this point 10 years old due to the stupefying glacial pace of development and yes there are aircraft on the horizon that will be more advanced.

The F-35 is a fighter with 5th generation avionics trapped in the body of a overweight aircraft comparable to the performance of a mid-80’s F-16.

The PAK-FA the Russians are developing is a supercruiseing stealth fighter which 3D thrust vectoring engines, 5 AESA radar systems (including L-band arrays in the wings), advanced passive/active infrared sensors giving 360 degree coverage of the sky (like the EODAS in the JSF) all fused in the most advanced avionics/helmet mounted display ever incorporated in a Russian fighter. Its T/W ratio, top speed, and maneuverability easily surpass the F-35.

Canada will have NO air superiority in the future with the F-35.

Just a statistic: Canada’s planned (and hopefully cancelled) 65 F-$$s represent only 1 % – 2 % of all ordered F-$$s (U.S. American and otherwise).

COHA — “…encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.” So naturally, they’d rather Canada be available to help the UN defend Haitians from machete-wielding mobs…

The F-35 isn’t perfect (by a long shot), but unless Canada builds its own fighter, it has to select from what’s out there (Avro Arrow proponets — just let it go, OK?). Contrary to Boeing pamphlets, Super Hornet is not cheaper than the F-35A (you need detailed and proprietary company briefs from LM and Boeing to get a true apples to apples comparison there, which Canada has). And who will be flying the Super Hornet after 2030? Nobody so far…
Rafale? Come on…No one else is buying them…
Eurofighter? Way more expensive.
J-20/PAK FA? Interoperability with Allies is paramount.
F-22? Oh baby, yes please. Dang Congressional export ban…

I never see much discussion of the ISR capabilities of F-35 on here, which will be far more tested than dogfighting ability. You don’t need support aircraft (excpet tankers probably). The F-35 can sense and act all on its own.
Range? It has better range than CF-18s with 3 external fuel tanks, so I have no complaints there.
CAS? In this age of Rovers, IR pointers and the JSF sensors, you don’t need to take your A-10 down to 50ft to get a confirmed visual on where the friendlies are…
Some organizations would rather Canadda play a peacekeeping, backup role and isolate the US as the sole warfighting nation in the UN (so they can try and balance the power and influence of the US on the world). But bottom line, Canadians choose their foreign policy, not left-leaning Latin-American-Centric (or Aussie) think tanks. Maybe Canada will never make use of the F-35A’s stealth capabilities, but considering the other advantages it possesses over it’s competitors, it provides a range of options to its political masters in times of unrest, which makes it a very worthwhile investment.

To the poster “MWA”

You wrote: “Eurofighter? Way more expensive.”

The “Eurofighter” is “way more expensive” than what? “Way more expensive” than the most expensive fighter ever built, the F-$$ ?

Canada operated the Zipper, but as a strike aircraft in Europe, not as a sovereignty patrol fighter/interceptor. That role was filled by the CF-100, the CF-101, and the CF-18. All of which just happened to be twin-engined.

The features which make the F-35 so expensive to buy and operate are not features that Canada requires to accomplish its sovereign defence and NATO obligations. And all else being equal, a single engine jet is never going to be as reliable as a twin jet. Period.

JL

From briefings at BAe, the unit cost is substantially more than the what Canada will pay for the F-35 (Canada isn’t paying for the development costs of the F-35, nor is it paying for those uber-expensive early LRIP jets, which together give the inflated price that the press touts in the US and in Canada too). Instead, Canada is buying in the sweet spot of the current production schedule, when the most jets are produced in a Multi Year buy, which results in a lower price.
Plus, not much in the way of industrial benefits with Eurofighter, since the support side is already set up in Europe. Unlike JSF, where Canada has already double the initial government investment in high tech contracts for Canadian companies.
Interestingly, when you factor in inflation, what Canada is forecasted to pay for the F-35 is pretty comparable to what we paid for the CF-18 in 1982. Again, don’t add development/LRIP jets to skew the average.

Willowway, read “The Next 100 Years” by George Friedman, founder of Stratfor. He and his esteemed colleagues forecast all kinds of nastiness around the globe this century. And those guys have proven correct many times in the past…

Let’s look back at history…Could laymen such as you and I have forecasted 9/11, war in Afghanistan after supporting those same fighters in the 80s, the fall of the Soviet Union, Iraq invading Kuwait, lobbing Scuds at Israel and the Israelis not doing a thing about it, OJ walking free (for a period of time), etc? (OK, I digress).

What we CAN predict is that there will be large and small wars in the 30+ year lifespan of the F-35. Some may represent a significant threat to Canadian interests, some may not. Since it’s tough to forecast what we’ll need, it’s best to pick an asset with a range of capabilities to provide some options. And when it is comparably priced to other fighters, with a huge benefit to Canadian industry, it’s not a difficult decision.

VF 143,

Please stop drinking. It is nearly impossible to decipher your point amid all the screaming…

Thank you.

shitty plane nothing more

The Russians are planning 2 brigades for the Arctic, not divisions. And oh yeah, they’re talking about building nuclear powered surface warships, aircraft carriers, and more. They can’t even build amphibious ships and have to buy from the French. A lot of talk but no substance. They are no threat to Canada.

The F-22 is more capable, when it flies. Right now it’s a hangar queen.

Is fixing the oxygen system beyond our technical capabilities?

What about buying F-15 Silent Eagles as well?

For the U.S. and a few choice allies, i.e. the U.K., Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel an updated F-22 should be made available for all of us and be in production at at least in a couple years before the PAK FA and J-20 are in full production.

Two aspects to consider that I didn’t hear mentioned.
One: This will likely be that last jet fighter to be developed with any significant advancement, reason no one in the future will have the money capable of developing a new fighter jet.
Two: This program transfer technology which allows other countries that could never afford the development cost to become partners for a cheap price and in return they get manufacturing commitments almost equal to the cost of their purchase.

All good points, Cocidius.

It is ironic that for example purposes only, a next-gen Super Hornet block, enhanced F-15, Gripen NG, or Typhoon could be integrated with the next-gen Litening or Sniper-SE pod + enhanced LW IRST to give superior BVR situational awareness compared to the F-35’s EOTS system. Moreover, as was noted by someone else the above jets can be wired for next-gen evolved SoJ and EA jamming pods mounted on a center-line pod, where as currently there are no definite time lines to my knowledge for integrating the NGJ jamming pod on F-35.

It must be further calculated as well that there will be far fewer F-35s produced and thus total unit prices will be significantly more expensive than currently advertised. Lastly, CAF might require FOC squadrons by 2018 to begin replacing CF-18. That means ordering (buy or Lease) mature operational jets (not a couple training jets) in 2014, 2015 at the latest.

Why not go with the F-15K, or F-15J, or F-15S? Anyone one of those models would appear to do all that Canada needs…and cost a whole lot less.

Interesting.

1) Any MILITARY objections against buying the “Eurofighter”, or none?

2) The F-$$ didn’t take off yet, its “B” version even less, but their unit prices are still taking off vertically.

3) Wait for their operating costs to “touch down”, too. This may very well be the last moment in life to mention this case of escalating operating costs: In 1975, when the Space Shuttle was formally presented to Congress, its flight cost was anounced to be ~ 10,5 million $ .
From 1981 onwards it was 5 BILLION $ ( PER FLIGHT ! ) instead.

The good news (since numbers matter so much to you) : The “Eurofighter” already flies and fights (in Libya), however NOTHING similar happened to its operating costs. That’s a firm given.

The 100 years war the war of the Roses, Alexanders campaigns in India. The list goes on and on — of wars that have nothing to do with Canada or it’s security.

But can we find a single scenario that does ?

Just a statistic : Production on the Rafael started in 1997, and to this date France does not have a single export order to speak of. UAE is finding the French offer a little to costly, and might turn to the F-16. Good luck in India though, that might go your way. But.….….that “Eurofighter”.

Since the creation of the RCAF. I bet the pilots are not as ignorant as you are about the safety of single engine aircraft.

Yes cost projections that the DOD (CAPE), GAO & LM have produced.

Waste of money.

Dream on. EOTS IS next-gen FLIR/IRST & even when legacy aircraft get equal systems they still won’t have the sensor fusion of the F-35. Integrating NGJ to F-35 has been part of the NGJ program since it began & F-35s will be built wired for it. Legacy aircraft will likely receive it 1st since they NEED it more.

No it must NOT be further calculated as well that there will be far fewer F-35s produced and thus total unit prices will be significantly more expensive than currently advertised. It is idiotic to assume current economic woes will persist for the next 2+ decades. Contrary to what the naysayers would have evryone think, the F-35 remains on track for delivery to Canada beginning in 2016.

No they would not cost less.

EOTS is a customized 3rd gen FLIR based on Sniper ATP, with an IRST mode, nothing to sneeze at. But the next gen Sniper SE –enhanced sensor– pod under development and exected to be operational by 2016/2017 will most definitely have some ‘next gen’ updates.

re: the large aperture LW IRST system (a separate system), it has and will have specialized long range passive search capabilities beyond that which the smaller, MW EOTS sensor can produce.. moreover, sensor fusion on a 4.5 gen is ‘good enough’.

re: F-35 receiving NGJ, it is possible sure, but decision on any specialized wiring required and potential display let alone eventual integration will have to be decided later depending on actual functionality and funding. It is NOT a simple plug in and go part of block III F-35’s EW kit, I’m sorry, as for one thing the precise NGJ has not to my knowledge even be defined nor completed. Thus, both the F-35 alternative and the block III F-35 would require specialized wiring and integration for SoJ/EA pod. No advantage there.

You have to understand the way Parliamentary systems work. The Conservative Party, which is committed to the F-35A, and just fought an election where opposition parties made the F-35 an issue, won an absolute majority in that election.

In the USA, you have to corral votes individually. In Canada, the Prime Minister can refuse to sign the party nomination papers of same-party MPs who cross him, which means you have to run as an independent. So votes that aren’t set up in advance as free votes are 100% party line. And the conservatives have an absolute Parliamentary majority.

I believe the F-35 is a very unwise choice for Canada. but the reality is, the debate is over, and this is a done deal.

No worries to Canada’s Liberal party. They may be thinking “Why should we spend the money when we always enjoyed the US military assets”. Remember their “significant” contributions during the cold war?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement