Second thoughts about the F-35
When the most senior U.S. military officer admits that the largest defence procurement program in history has affordability issues, then you can bet that the situation is dire. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has even put forth the likelihood that at least one variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be cancelled, and total numbers reduced. Even if the F-35 eventually meets reasonable cost projections, it must still be vetted as an operational combat aircraft.
It was not only meant to be an affordable fifth-generation fighter-bomber for the U.S. and her allies, but also to have lower maintenance costs than aircraft now in service. These claims may also turn out to be inaccurate, with the F-35 a potential hanger-queen like the F-22 Raptor.
Besides the F-35’s development and cost troubles, we are left with the question of whether 65 of these particular planes will meet Canada’s defence and alliance commitments. Unlike the F-22 Raptor, which has been built exclusively for the U.S. military, the F-35 was conceived as a less capable aircraft in terms of sheer performance but better than the planes of potential adversaries, especially in terms of stealth and first-strike capability — and development costs would be shared with trusted allies.
Canada has always intended to buy the F-35A, the simplest, least expensive variant, which is a conventional take-off-and-landing aircraft. But affordability is a relative term when an aircraft has not been fully tested and proven. Australia, which originally had intended to buy 100 F-35As, has had to purchase two dozen new F-18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure due, among other things, to delays in the F-35 program. If the F-35 has further problems, we may have to take the same route.
And even if the F-35 is as effective as claimed, it may still be the wrong plane for Canada. It is not very fast and has less range and weapons-load capacity than other allied fighters — even more so compared with new planes being developed in Russia, India and China.
There are a few multi-role fighter competitions taking place around the globe, and it is instructional to view which aircraft are rising to the top. The nations conducting the most in-depth fighter competitions are India, Brazil and Japan.
The Indian Air Force is seeking up to 126 multi-role fighters for approximately $10 billion, with the provisos that there is a transfer of technology and at least 50 per cent value in industrial offsets. India has traditionally purchased and operated Soviet/Russian designs, as well as quality French fighter aircraft. The six types in the competition are: Saab Gripen, Eurofigther Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Mikoyan MiG-35, Lockheed Martin F-16 Super Viper and Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.
The two finalists are the Typhoon and the Rafale, the most expensive contenders. The winner will be determined based on the total package, including technology transfer, industrial offsets, purchase price and life-cycle sustainment costs.
Brazil has had a decade-long on-again, off-again competition to replace its aging French Mirage fighters, with the competitors being the Rafale, Typhoon, Sukhoi Su-35, Gripen and the Super Hornet. It was expected the Rafale would win because of its inclusion in a complex deal between France and Brazil including both naval ships and transport aircraft, but the Gripen has been noted as the best performance-by-cost bid.
Japan has long been a military dependant of the U.S., so it is surprising that the Typhoon has been shortlisted alongside the Super Hornet and the F-35 to be its near-term aerial deterrent to Russian and Chinese incursions. With the F-35 expected to have further delays and costs increasing, the Typhoon might be a winner.
Only time will tell if the F-35 is the outstanding first strike/attack aircraft it is advertised to be, but it will never be a high-speed air supremacy fighter. Canada is so vast that we need a fast, long-range interceptor deterrent against air or sea threats, whether they are terrorist-based or an aggressor nation. Keep in mind that long-range cruise missiles can travel 3,000 miles, with Iran, Pakistan, China and North Korea all having the technology. We need to review the options, just like the rest of our allies, on what aircraft can compliment the F-35, or even replace it.
Mark M. Miller is a Vancouver-based research consultant who writes on international and military affairs.
