Countries buy weapons to kick ass and avoid getting one's own kicked by others. In this context, Canada's CF-18 Hornets are excellent defence tools, except for their age and the fact they're no longer in production. (Commenter pointed out this last assertion is inaccurate. Apologies)
I am no defence expert: my aviation knowledge stretches barely beyond the ideal economy class seats on a few Airbus or Boeing models. Reading around, I could determine that we could replace the CF-18s with Boeing's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets right away. At least, those can carry a similar load to the CF-18, to approximately the same distance in combat.
Let's pause for a second. Our neighbours are the US, Denmark, France and Russia, and the chances of a military confrontation with all but one are nil. The F-35 will, one assumes, be used up north to intercept pesky Russian Sukhoi Su-35s or PAKs that stray a tad too much into Canadian airspace.
With the current hot seller, the Su-35, we are fairly safe as it can't be stealthy enough. Sure, it can carry 12 "Adder" missiles and some more, but that load would make it conspicuous enough on radars to render it useless.
The new Sukhoi PAK, instead, will be able to carry eight vicious "Adders" in its internal bays alone. By comparison, the most optimistic designs for the F-35 allow for only six comparably effective rockets to be carried without trading away stealth. Chances are it's going to have only four.
We are therefore outgunned - but not outmanoeuvred - in air-to-air combat and too far from Russian mainland for a stealth mission anyway. The F-35s are a formidable defensive machine, and their purchase should be accompanied soon by investment into Arctic air bases to increase the F-35's coverage. Consistent with a policy of reclaiming the Arctic, radar stations and missile defences are probably a good idea as well.
The Liberal, the peacenik and the cost-sensitive libertarian would now argue the entire project's a boondoggle and miss an important nuance. The F-35 is the best money will be able to buy in a few years' time. Among US developments, it's the best bang for one's buck and second only to the F-22 Raptor, which is not for export. The project doesn't involve going shopping in Europe: a course of action that would bring zero benefits to Canadian companies as opposed to the current F-35 contracts.
Never forget, lastly, the Russian factor. The country may not be insane enough to risk being hit by the US nuclear umbrella, but it is an inherently childish superpower. Our purchase of older models such as the Super Hornets - or a pull-out from a major development - would be perceived as weakness in Moscow, with a consequent hardening of the Kremlin's Arctic stance for demagogic gain.
We can't afford to look weak to our biggest neighbour and we can't afford upsetting our closest. In the end, joint contracts like these are the safest way of maintaining a solid argument against US protectionists across the party spectrum. Call this the silver lining if you wish.
While we're at it, we should get Bombardier and the aerospace lot into the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle development. It will be the next "cool" fighter when it goes on sale.
Ignatieff seems completely oblivious to the ramifications of his misguided policies. His Russian blood isn't warning him of how weak Canada would look if it threw in the towel; his American and British experiences don't seem to suggest him that our partners would feel cheated; his Canadian blood won't stop him from throwing Canadian workers and industry under the bus.
Is the guy for real?
9 comments:
very good read, thanks.
F-18s are still in production.
The F-35 is a jack of all trades aircraft, both fighter and bomber. Buying aircraft, like the F-22, is cheaper and a better fighter than the F-35. Similarly, we should buy an aircraft specifically designed in the bomber role. There are liots of versions with stealth and large payloads.
You are simply wrong when you say the F-35 is best value for money. The price has doubled in the past 18 months and they have nither a functioning aircraft nor costs structure for it.
Ignatieff makes a reasonable argument. Dismissing him for having "russian blood" is an unconstructive cheapshot.
Your last paragraph is incorrect. I would assume Ignatieff, being closer to Russian mentality than many others, would see how latest generation aircraft would help our standing with our neighbour. Conversely, this understanding would also tell him that pulling out so abruptly may harm our image.
There's a Russian word, "понты" - ponty - loosely translated as a mix of show-off and bragging rights. Ponty are the opposite of value, but enter the equation when Russia and Central Asia are in question. F35's ponty are massive, and the Russians are likely to appreciate that.
Far from dismissing, I was crediting Ignatieff's heritage as an asset.
I am a little bit above the kind of dirt I'm accused of flinging!
The F-22 is far more expensive than the F-35 (assuming it was for sale in the first place). As well, it is an air superiority fighter, with little ability to prosecute ground targets. The F-18 Super Hornet has about as much in common with our CF-18s as the "New Beatle" has with the VW "Bug" which went out of production in 1973.
As for Canada buying a bomber as well, are you advocating for yet another multi billion dollar program for the Air Force? Not to mention support aircraft like tankers, more aircrew and so on?
For an air force with a limited budget, and living in a political climate where the only way to upgrade or replace military equipment is to wait for the old stuff to literally rust away, the newest multifunctional fighter-bomber available is really the only choice open for Canada; and the CF-35 is it.
Clarification: exports of the F-22 Raptor were BANNED.
Thank you. I'm constantly amazed at the opposition to the F-35 purchase by seemingly reasonable people.
It doesn't matter if the price doubles. We have our MOU. Its just an even better deal now.
I'm convinced Liberal opposition is just the usual doublespeak. If they got in they wouldn't cancel the F-35. They would sooner take the flak for flip flopping than stay out of of government. Populist lies are a Liberal specialty.
CAnada does not currently have 1973 F-18s. The F-18 superhornet is available, is cheaper and we already ahve an air force trained to fly and maintain f-18s.
The F-22 is available to NATO countries and is the best air to air fighter. There are bomber versions that are superior to the F-35. This is not about 2 programs. This about getting the best aircraft at the best price. the F-35 is not as good and is vastly more expensive than the F-22 or bombers.
Thucydides, I would rather have two $5 billion programs rather than a $16 billion program for 50 F-35s.
You partisan aguys are only for the F-35 because Harper has sole-sourced it (which he promised never to do). what happen to you free market Tories?
Globe and Mail, Jan. 6, 2011
"Nevertheless, China’s demonstrated willingness to invest in stealth or fifth-generation fighters could force Japan and South Korea – both currently modernizing their air forces – to seek to buy stealth warplanes such as the F-22 Raptors from Washington. Currently, export sales are banned, even to the U.S.’s closest allies, including Canada, ... "
If we could have the best fighter there ever was or will be, we would have bloody bought it already!
The Superhornet is cheaper and available. It's cheaper for a reason: it's not very stealthy.
Put a Super Hornet, with its maximum ten Mach 4, 50-km range AMRAAMs, conspicuous as a mammoth in a tundra, against a future stealthy Sukhoi PAK equipped with 8 internal Adders flying at Mach 4.5 and the Hornet is a little outclassed.
The aircraft that the Superhornet matches is the currently on sale Sukhoi 35. All Russian developments currently being undertaken, and in future sold to tin-pot dictators over the world, will be better. Ergo, more buying.
If you do something, do it properly. One either gets the best equipment to match one's rivals right away, or we may just as well content ourselves with Fokkers.
Ya sure they all are strong due to Vacation Accrual
Post a Comment