Michael Byers
June 30, 2015 11:38 AM ET
U.S. Navy Media Content Services via APAn American F/A-18F Super Hornet prepares to launch off the flight deck aboard aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt.
Pity Canada’s fighter jet pilots: their 33-year-old CF-18 Hornets are suffering from metal fatigue, to the point where strong G-forces could rip off their wings.
Some of the CF-18s are being refitted in a move that officials claim will extend their lives to 2025. But metal fatigue is difficult to address through refits and for safety reasons, the planes are no longer used for training in aerial combat, or sent to places where they might become involved in a “dogfight.” Instead, they drop precision-guided bombs in places where there are no enemy jets.
The need to avoid air-to-air combat helps explain why the six CF-18s deployed with great fanfare to Romania and Lithuania last year for NATO support were quietly withdrawn just seven months later. The Canadian planes were of limited use for training Eastern European pilots and of little deterrence value vis-à-vis the Russian Air Force.
Unfortunately, the proposed fleet of new F-35 Strike Fighters will provide little improvement in the dogfighting department. The pressure to build a stealth aircraft, and to do so in the same airframe as a vertical-landing version, has resulted in a relatively heavy jet with small wings and a single engine. As the Rand Corporation has stated, the F-35 “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”
There are other reasons why the F-35 is wrong for Canada. Our current fleet of CF-18s is used in NORAD missions to intercept suspect aircraft inside or approaching North American airspace, including in the Arctic where twin-engine aircraft are safer. They can also be used in coalition operations to attack ground targets in situations of “air superiority.” They are not used for first-day strikes against enemy radar and anti-aircraft installations, the mission for which the stealthy F-35 was designed.
The F-35 is punishingly expensive. They currently cost $170- to $180-million per plane to produce, and have operating and sustainment costs that are double that of a F/A-18 Super Hornet, the other U.S.-made fighter jet currently in production.
The F-35 could become even more expensive if problems with the engine and software are not soon resolved. In April, a U.S. Government Accountability Office report found the F-35’s engine reliability “very poor.” This, combined with ongoing problems with the plane’s software, means that the U.S. “procurement plan may not be affordable.”
In Canada, these cost risks and uncertainties could consume a large portion of our defence budget, leaving little money for much-needed ships, trucks and search-and-rescue planes.
The Harper government erred when, in 2010, it announced its intention to purchase 65 F-35s. The mistake was exacerbated when the government misled Canadians by claiming that the life-cycle cost of the fleet would be $16 billion — when it would actually be at least $45 billion.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to the ensuing kerfuffle by suspending the F-35 procurement, ordering the Air Force to conduct an “options analysis” and then attempting to push the issue beyond the October election. In the meantime, the CF-18s have aged and become increasingly dangerous to fly, with no replacements in sight.
The Harper government erred when, in 2010, it announced its intention to purchase 65 F-35s.
Since 2010, both opposition parties have helped Harper avoid the F-35 issue by calling for a competitive tendering process to replace the CF-18s. This position suggests that the F-35 might indeed be a viable option — when in fact it is not. A genuine competitive tendering process has become even more unlikely with the passage of time and the urgent need for new fighter jets.
Fortunately, a reasonable and affordable solution is available: the F/A-18 Super Hornet. The U.S. Navy is buying Super Hornets to operate in conjunction with its F-35s, because of the Super Hornet’s ability to dogfight, as well as the over-water safety provided by its twin engines.
AP Photo/U.S. Air Force, Staff Sgt. Shawn NickelA formation of U.S. Navy F-18E Super Hornets over northern Iraq as part of U.S. led coalition airstrikes on ISIL and other targets in Syria.
The Super Hornet is the latest version of the CF-18. For this reason, Canada would only need to acquire 30 to 40 as a fleet extension. The Super Hornets could then be used for day-to-day operations, while the well-worn CF-18s are reserved for situations requiring a larger number of planes.
This approach would result in substantial savings on the acquisition, operating and sustainment costs associated with an entirely new full fleet of fighter jets. It would also ensure that new planes arrive before the CF-18s become un-flyable.
From a long-term cost perspective, a fleet extension of Super Hornets would provide a capability “bridge’ of up to two decades, giving future governments time to ascertain whether a new full fleet of fighter jets is needed, or whether the development of autonomous dogfight-capable drones will have rendered such planes obsolete.
There is no time to waste. The Harper government’s incompetence on this file has robbed the country of the time needed for a competitive tendering process. The only way to maintain our current fighter jet capabilities is to provide our pilots with a new and improved version of the plane they already fly.
The F-35 is an albatross around Harper’s neck. It is time for the opposition parties to speak up — and make the prime minister carry the full weight of his mistake.
No comments:
Post a Comment