QOTW: Will procurement policy influence your vote?

I hear they have cookies...

Now that we know where the major political parties stand on the CF-18 replacement, there remains a question as to how much this will effect the election.

While the F-35 issue dominated the headlines for a day or so, it seems to have been eclipsed by the controversy surrounding the niqab.  This shows how fickle the news media and the general public can be.

Myself, I feel strongly enough about Canadian military procurement to factor it into my vote.  It is not the be-all, end-all however.  Other issues, such as health care, senate reform, and marijuana legalization concern me just as much.

As usual, I will be voting for the party that most replicates my own views.  I have never shown particular loyalty to a party in the past, and I still remain (mostly) undecided about this current election.

How important is military procurement in your view?  Will it be a primary factor in your vote?  A consideration?  Or do other issues demand your attention more?


Published: By: Unknown - 10:54 AM

Canada's New Naval Ships: Should one be named "Bluenose"?

The Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessel.

It looks like an overwhelming 51% of you think that none of the Canadian political parties have a plan to fix the Department of National Defence's procurement shenanigans.  Oh well, so much for that.

Speaking of procurement shenanigans, Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced that Irving Shipyards in Halifax will soon cut steel on the Harry DeWolf (although did so using an American-owned bridge located in Ontario).  The Harry DeWolf marks a major milestone in the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, a project that has already been criticized for being too expensive and too unwieldy to provide Canada's navy with the ships it needs in a timely manner.

Allow me to add two of my own criticisms:

1.  Naming one of the ships after John G. Diefenbaker.  The Prime Minister responsible for devaluing the Canadian dollar and building the infamous "Diefenbunker" to house Canada's leaders in time of nuclear attack.  Most famously, he cancelled the Avro Arrow in favor of American-built Bomarc missiles and F-101 Voodoos.

2.  Not naming any of the ships Bluenose.

(Normally, I would suggest renaming the Diefenbaker, but that ship is being build on the west coast by Seaspan.  Any ship named Bluenose has to be built in Nova Scotia.)

A Canadian icon.

 The original Bluenose is Canada's most famous ship, and a point of pride for Nova Scotians in particular.  We call ourselves "Bluenosers" with a sense of pride.

Lately, the term "Bluenose" has become sullied by the Bluenose II, a replica of the original that has been a source of local controversy thanks to bungled refit costing millions.

This simply should not be.  The name "Bluenose" should be as revered in Canada as much as the name "Enterprise" is revered in the USA.  It deserves more than to remembered as a simple tourist attraction.

If the construction of the Harry DeWolf-class is supposed to signify Nova Scotia's triumphant return to shipbuilding excellence, than what better way to celebrate that than naming one of those vessels Bluenose?

If not one of the Harry DeWolf-class...  Then perhaps the Single Class Surface Combatant?

Published: By: Unknown - 7:48 AM

QOTW: Which political party will be best for Canada's military?

'Ugh..."

A whopping 79% of you believe that Canada would be much better off with a "good enough" fighter provided in greater numbers than a flagship model.  Since Canada would not be expected to do the heavy lifting in any armed conflict, this would seem to make the most sense.  (In other words, let the other nations blow their wallets on fancy toys!)

Seeing as how we now in the midst of an (extended) election campaign, it is now time to ask the obvious question:  Which political party is best for Canada's military?

I have asked the question before (just not in poll form).  Since that time, none of the major political parties have gone into much detail on how they would fix the DND's current procurement woes.

While all the parties have released generalized statements that they will support Canada's military as well as our veterans, they are so far silent on what they will do to replace aging equipment in a timely and affordable fashion.

Why is this not an issue?

More is being said about hairstyles and questionable airline food than our nation's lack of replenishment ships.  More ink is devoted to a $90,000 housing allowance than the $46 billion+ it would cost Canada to purchase the F-35.

Do Canadians simply not care about our military, and those who serve in it?  Perhaps we should be making this more of an issue.  When your local MP candidate comes knocking at your door, take a few minutes to ask him or her about where they and their party stands.  DO NOT be satisfied with platitudes.  Ask for specifics.

• "Will your party support a fair and open competition to replace the CF-18?"

• "Is your party committed to increasing military spending in order to more closely align with the 2% of GDP suggested by NATO?

• "What is your party's stance on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy?"

• "How will your party support our veterans, now and in the future?"

Published: By: Unknown - 6:36 AM

QOTW: Quality or Quantity?

VS.

(Sorry about the haphazard updates lately.  Summer is here, the weather is too nice, and great outdoors beckons.)

My last Question of the Week (or so) looked at the potential for using a bomber platform as an air-superiority asset.  A resounding 64% of you think I might need mental health counseling for even asking the question

Fair enough.

This week (or so)'s question revolves around the need to balance numbers with capability.

In most cases with fighter aircraft, you get what you pay for.  Top-notch fighters like the F-22 earn their "air-superiority" classification thanks to their speed, agility, and powerful sensor suite.  The ability to out-run, out-maneuver, and out-shoot an opponent does not come cheap, however.  The F-22 was an incredibly expensive aircraft to develop and build, and it has more than triple the cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) of the F-16C.

Needless to say, during the post-Cold War era of declining defense budgets, purchasing and operating high-end assets means buying less of them.

So how do we prioritize capability versus cost?

Obviously, a certain level of capability is needed.  Canada cannot simply replace its CF-18s with second-hand Cessnas sporting .50 calibre machine guns duct-taped on.  A "reference threat" is needed  to be benchmarked, with any new fighter being required to exceed that threat.

But how far should we exceed that goal?

More capable and more expensive assets have the advantage of being more "future proof".  These fighters are not only capable of dealing with what is out there now, but will likely be able to handle what may come down the road.

F-15C.  Still deadly.

The F-15C is an example of this.  Despite being a 40-year-old design, the Eagle is still a very capable air-superiority fighter thanks to its impressive performance and a slew of upgrades over the years.  It is safe to say that the F-22 Raptor will likely follow suit.

The F-15C was (and still is) a very expensive aircraft, however.  It costs nearly twice as much to fly as the F-16C.

Saab Gripen.  A little less capable, but a LOT more affordable.

The biggest argument against high-cost, high-capability fighters like the F-15 and F-22 is that more affordable fighters like the F-16 and Gripen offer slightly less capability at a greatly reduced cost.

This was not always the case.  Years ago, smaller fighters like the F-5 Freedom Fighter lacked the speed and BVR capabilities of their larger, costlier counterparts.  Smaller fighters have now caught up, however and fly just as fast while carrying the same BVR missiles.  Their size limits their maximum payload and fuel, but they should no longer be seen as inferior.

Thanks to reduced costs, these fighters can be bought in greater numbers.  Not only that, but training hours can be extended, and more spares can be kept.  This allows more "wiggle room" later on.

F-35.  Blurring the lines on what makes an "affordable" fighter.

The verdict is still out on where the F-35 Lightning II lies on this spectrum.  While it does seem to offer a great deal of capability, its CPFH will likely land mid-way between the F-16C and F-15C.  The big question is is whether its vaunted abilities make it worth that much more than fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet.  Its operating cost certainly stretches the limit of what is considered an "affordable fighter".

So what works best for Canada?

Do we buy the best fighter we can afford, but at reduced numbers and reduced flying hours?  Or do we buy a "less-capable" fighter, but keep (or maybe even increase) our current numbers and flying hours?

Published: By: Unknown - 6:55 AM

Would a bomber make a better fighter?

Next Generation Bomber concept art.

Sorry I missed posting last week.

Looks like a whopping 47% of you believe that the Su-35 should be the designated "bad guy" when considering future threats.  Fair enough.  It's fast, agile, and nasty.

For this week, I wanted to slightly revisit the question "Is the dogfight dead".  While the majority of you disagree with that statement, it would seem that those pushing for the F-35 have hitched their horse to the BVR combat wagon.

Undoubtedly, BVR combat has become the norm, rather than the exception.  Better sensors and better missiles have lead to the point where if a pilot finds themselves in a fur-ball, than something has probably gone wrong.  Better to take out the enemy unseen, from a distance, without the need to burn excess fuel.  This is the case for the F-35.

If there is validity to this argument; that fighter aircraft no longer need to maneuver, then why not push the concept further?

Fighters like the F-35 and F-22 are indeed stealthy, but they are not the stealthiest thing in the sky.  That honor belongs to the B-2 Spirit.  While the specifics are classified, the B-2 has about the same RCS (radar cross section) as the much smaller F-35 (about the size of a metal golf ball).  The B-2's tailless "flying wing" design makes stealthier to low band radars, and its inboard exhaust substantially reduce its IR signature.

If stealth and sensors have rendered traditional fighter characteristics like agility and speed obsolete, then why not adapt a bomber platform to carry out the air-superiority role?

With a similar RCS, the ability to cary a much higher payload of missiles, a longer loiter time, longer range, and the possibility of being fitted with a massive sensor package; a bomber platform could make for an impressive air-superiority platform.

With the USAF's Next Generation Bomber (NGB) coming soon, is it time to consider its potential role in air-to-air combat?






Published: By: Unknown - 6:47 AM

QOTW: WHAT IS THE "REFERENCE THREAT"?

Su-35

No discussion about Canada's next fighter would be complete without asking the simple question:  What could they be up against?

During the Cold War, the answer was easy:  Whatever the Soviets were flying.

These days, the answer is a lot more complicated.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has become less of a threat.  Recent events in the Ukraine have brought some of those Cold War tensions back, however.

Russian fighters are quite well known among aviation enthusiasts.  Cold War era Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrums have been updated to keep with the times.  Sukhoi's latest, the Su-35, may look like its 80's vintage predecessor, but the addition of thrust vectoring, fly-by-wire, RCS improvements, and a PESA radar make it a thoroughly modern fighter.

Then, of course, there is also the impressive PAK FA on the horizon.

Chengdu J-10B

Russia is not the only possibly adversary, however.  China's predominance has brought it up to the status of full-blown superpower.  In the past, China predominantly used Soviet equipment, or variants of Russian designs, like the Shenyang J-15 (based on the Su-30).

Now, China is more determined to use its manufacturing might to construct its own indigenous fighter designs.  The most notable of which, the J-10 "Vigorous Dragon", bears a striking resemblance to Israel's failed IAI Lavi concept.

Some have dismissed China's previous attempts to build fighters in the past.  Two "5th generation" fighters under development, the Chengdu J-20 "Mighty Dragon" and the Shenyang J-31 "Falcon Hawk", have caused quite a stir, however.  The fact that China used classified F-35 design documents to help in the design may have something to do with that.

Dassault Rafale

There is always the possibility of going up against a presumably "friendly" fighter design.

Political alliances can change, regimes can change, and governments can fall.  This can sometimes lead to unfriendly nations equipped with cutting edge "western" hardware.

Iran still flies American-sourced F-14 Tomcats.  During the Falklands conflict, British Sea Harrier found themselves up against French made Mirage IIIs and Mirage Vs.  Iraq utilized Mirage F1s during the first Gulf War.

With buyers still being sought out for the F-16, F-15, Super Hornet, and F-35, there is always the possibility of history repeating itself with American hardware finding itself in the "wrong hands".  One must also not ignore the recent sales of Typhoons and Rafales to middle-eastern countries (a region not known for its stability).

I'm going to ignore the SAM missile threat debate...  For now.  

So which possible threat should be considered the "standard" possible threat that a future RCAF fighter might face?

My vote would be for the J-10B at a bare minimum, with the Su-35 being considered as a "high-end threat".  Aircraft like the J-20 and PAK FA are still a ways off, and it is debatable whether or not anything in the western inventory short of a F-22 would be match.

Oddly enough, I believe the Dassault Rafale should set the standard.  (This is not a dig at the French, of course!) It is an impressive aircraft in all respects, so one could not be faulted for wanting a fighter that can match or exceed its capabilities.

What do you think? Published: By: Unknown - 6:05 AM

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: IS THE DOGFIGHT DEAD?

Welcome to QUESTION OF THE WEEK!  During the summer, I hope to post a (hopefully) weekly series asking a simple question with a difficult answer!

Last weeks revelation that the F-35 fared poorly against a F-16 in a simulated dogfight seems to have left aviation experts (and the not-so experts) debating as to whether or not the test was even relevant, given the fact that the F-35 in question was not fitted with some of its more advanced features that would typically give it the advantage.

“It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

This excuse for the F-35's poor performance only highlights what many see as one of the JSF's glaring problems.  It is a "one-trick-pony".  Without its much publicized stealth and sensor technology, the aircraft cannot match fighter designs that are decades old and available for a fraction of the price.

Let's hope stealth and tech is enough...

Defenders of the JSF would point out (and rightly so) that missile and sensor technology has advanced to the point that where the traditional "dogfight" is a relic better left to Hollywood blockbusters.  

As exciting and romantic a dogfight may seem, modern fighter tactics would really prefer pilots to avoid them altogether.  Better to take your opponent out from a distance, preferably before they even know you are there.  This is the promise of the F-35; a ninja-of-the-skies taking down its opponents unseen.  Basically, if an enemy JSF shows up on your scopes...  It's already too late.

Of course, this was the same line of thinking that got  U.S. airpower in trouble over Vietnam.  Fast powerful fighters like the F-4 found that their AIM-7 Sparrow missiles faired poorly against nimble MiGs.  The Sparrow's lack of accuracy was exacerbated by the fact that early F-4 models did not have a cannon.

In order to "lock on" to an enemy target with an AIM-7 Sparrow, the launching fighter needed to "paint" the target with its radar.  The Sparrow would then follow this reflected radar beam onto the target.  This is not so hard to do with bomber flying straight and level, but not so easy with an enemy fighter that can turn faster and is shooting at you.

Similarly, in order for a heat-seeking missile like the AIM-9 Sidewinder to work, its seeker head would have to have a clear view of the enemy's exhaust (the hottest part of the aircraft).  Again, not so easy when the enemy would rather shoot you first.

The JSF standard issue AMRAAM.

Of course, the modern day AIM-120 AMRAAM is a far deal more sophisticated than Vietnam-era Sparrow.  As are modern versions of the Sidewinder.  More accurate, more agile, and "smarter"; the the latest missiles are capable of both LOAL (lock-on after launch) and HOBS (high off-boresight).  This, combined with the JSF's sensors and helmet mounted display, allows the pilot to simply look at the intended target, pull the trigger, and let the missile do all the work.

Indeed, the ability to lock on to and fire a missile at enemy without all the stress of "getting on their six" would put the F-35 at a distinct advantage...  If it was the only aircraft of doing so.

Thales TopSight (as used the MiG-29K and Su-30MKI)

Helmet mounted displays are nothing new.  Aircraft like the Su-27, MiG-29, and Eurofighter Typhoon have been using them for years.  While the F-35's HMD may be the most advanced version available, it still has some teething issues to work out.

HOBS and LOAL capability is not exclusive to the F-35 either.  Almost every fighter in the NATO inventory is compatible with the AMRAAM and Sidewinder.  Missiles like the IRIS-T, Meteor, and MICA offer similar capabilities as well.

While information on Russian air-to-air missiles is rather limited, it would be foolish to assume western superiority.  Russian missiles are actually said to be quite good.

As missile technology has advanced through the years, countermeasures have followed suit.  Modern aircraft have access to far more than the traditional "flares and chaff".  Towed decoys, expendable active decoys, and active radar jamming or "spoofing" can throw off radar-guided missiles.  Heat-seekers can be countered by lasers that lock on to and confuse their seeker head.  

Of course...  There is also the possibility of taking out a missile with another missile.

"But I don't want to fight..."

What "5th generation" fighters like the F-22 and F-35 offer that others cannot is stealth.  While other fighters may be able to match them in weapons, sensors, and countermeasures, 5th-gen fighters should, in theory, have the ability to "see-first, shoot-first".  

The F-22 and F-35 differ in performance, however.  Take away its stealth, and the F-22 Raptor is still a helluva fighter.  Thrust vectoring, supercruise, and a monstrous radar give it an edge over most fighters in any situation.  Add stealth, and you have a near unstoppable force.  Still, the Raptor has an achilles heel, it still pumps out a great deal of heat, and it lacks an IRST suitable for WVR combat.  Get in close enough with an agile aircraft and it could be "Raptor Salad".

The F-35 lacks the F-22's raw performance, but clearly outshines it in sensors.  The 360° Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) certainly should give the pilot a much better idea of what is around the aircraft.  But is this enough?

First, being able to turn your head and target your opponent is of little use if you physically cannot move your head because the helmet is too big for the cockpit.

Second, being stealthy may not be as big of an advantage as it is made out to be.  Radar technology will likely catch up sooner or later.  Unlike other countermeasures, stealth is not easily upgraded since it is "baked in" to the aircraft's design.

Third, stealthiness is not strictly the domain of American fighter manufacturers.  The next 20 years should see a proliferation of stealthy fighters originating from Russia, China, Japan, Turkey, Korea, and possibly others.

China's J-20

So does the F-35's advanced sensors and stealth give an edge in air-to-air combat?  Probably, but this edge would not be 100% effective, nor would it last very long given current advancements technology.

Stating that the F-35 will be able detect and eliminate enemy fighters using no other method but sheer technological superiority seems to be putting all the eggs into one basket.  A basket that happens to need batteries and an active wi-fi connection.

Right now, declaring the dogfight dead seems premature.

What do you think?  Please let me know in the comments below and/or the poll in the upper right hand corner of the blog (may not be visible on the mobile version).

Published: By: Unknown - 10:21 AM