The Swedish-built Saab Gripen required minimal maintenance and was
considered “fairly stealthy” thanks to its small size, though there were
concerns whether it could operate alongside U.S. fighter aircraft.
The
Dassault Rafale was fast, manoeuvrable and had above-average range, but
it also featured a clunky cockpit and the French company couldn’t say
whether the jet’s two engines could operate in the cold Canadian north.
The Boeing Super Hornet was a solid, proven aircraft Canadian military pilots and mechanics would have little difficulty getting used to, but it was seen as a fall-back option at best.
And the British-led Eurofighter Typhoon was a powerful fighter with sophisticated sensors and excellent flight controls, but it still had developmental issues and purchasing it would require major changes at Canadian Air Force bases.
These were among the findings Defence Department officials made seven years ago as they reviewed possible replacements for Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter jets.
In the end National Defence opted for the F-35.
But these observations from 2005 and 2006, found in newly released documents obtained by Postmedia News, are relevant again as the Conservative government has ordered National Defence to conduct a fresh review of the fighter aircraft market.
Interestingly, the passage of time may actually end up helping some of the F-35’s competitors, especially the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale, as officials had a number of outstanding questions about those aircraft when the reviews were done.
Most of those questions should have been answered by now, and if any of the aircraft have made significant advances, that might give them a leg up on the F-35, whose own development lags behind schedule.
From March 2005 to February 2006, Defence Department officials visited the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Boeing’s production plant in St. Louis, Missouri, to evaluate the F-35’s main competitors.
Their post-visit reports were instrumental in the government’s decision in December 2006 to keep Canada involved in the F-35’s development — a move the auditor general found was the first step to sole-sourcing the stealth fighters.
The reports, copies of which were heavily censored before being released to Postmedia News, highlight both pros and cons for each fighter under review.
“One remarkable aspect of (the) Typhoon at first glance is the sensor fusion,” reads one section of the report on the Eurofighter aircraft, which is being used by British, German, Austrian, Italian, Spanish and Saudi militaries.
“The Typhoon is a very capable aircraft in the air-to-air arena,” another section reads. “It is a very powerful aircraft with very effective flight controls.”
But the same report notes “interoperability is a key concern for Canada,” referring to the Typhoon’s ability to fly alongside U.S. and allied aircraft without any problems.
Similar concerns were raised with Sweden’s Gripen and France’s Rafale.
“From a strategic approach, purchasing an aircraft from a nation other than the United States needs careful consideration given the potential impact on Canada’s interoperability with the (United States Air Force) — an air force along which we’ve historically operated,” one report reads
Yet the documents also note various steps were being taken to address the concerns in the coming years, which could be key as National Defence goes back to the drawing board on the F-35.
Meanwhile, the engineering design of the Swedish-built Gripen “combined with anti-stealth materiel and its small size result in a very small radar cross-section, making the Gripen a fairly stealthy platform.”
Low maintenance requirements were also a bonus.
But in addition to the aforementioned interoperability concerns, officials noted the Gripen uses a system for emergency landings and landings on short airfields different from Canada, which would require changes.
Officials also raised concerns about the cost of changing existing maintenance facilities to accommodate Gripens, Typhoons or Rafales — though the concluding report that ultimately recommended the F-35 noted similar concerns about the stealth fighter.
Not only does the F-35 have more software than the space shuttle, which will cost a lot to maintain, the concluding report reads, but security upgrades at Canadian military bases “will likely be very expensive.”
Meanwhile, Boeing’s Super Hornet was praised as a larger, stronger, more capable version of Canada’s CF-18. The fact it is an American-made aircraft that is used by many of Canada’s allies was also a bonus.
“The (Super Hornet) is a credible and proven strike fighter system with a range of integrated weapons,” one document reads. “It makes several compromises between approach speed, weight and structure.”
The post-visit report notes “the Super Hornet seems to be a leading contender as a ‘back-up fighter’ for a few countries next to the (F-35) if the (F-35) does not meet promised budget and schedule requirements, etc.”
That assessment has turned out to be true as the U.S. navy and Australia, among others, have purchased Super Hornets in the face of continuing problems with the F-35.
Despite the pros and cons of each option, the concluding report repeatedly notes the F-35 is the only “fifth-generation” fighter aircraft, which it characterizes as having “low observable technology and the enormous tactical advantage stealth confers.”
“The Typhoon includes radar cross-section reduction, but is not a stealth aircraft,” reads one section of the concluding report. Similarly, the Rafale has “a reduced radar signature, but is not a stealth aircraft.”
At the same time, however, the documents note that “arguments can be made for the Typhoon and perhaps the Rafale” to be considered fifth-generation fighters.
The documents show officials were aware “many of the capabilities and performance features (of the F-35) such as signature, payload, speed, range and manoeuvrability, could change due to the U.S. focus on keeping the costs down.”
This it exactly what has happened, as the U.S. Defense Department revealed only last month that it lowered performance requirements for the stealth fighter.
The Defence officials were not told how much each aircraft would cost; instead, they were forced to put come up with their own estimates based on outside information — though those figures are blacked out.
Meanwhile, drones and used jet aircraft were also considered by officials, but the former were considered not yet advanced enough to take over for manned fighters, while it was determined the latter would be cheaper in the short run, but more expensive to maintain.
The government restarted the F-35 procurement process last year after National Defence put the full cost of Canada buying and operating 65 of the stealth fighters until 2052 at more than $45 billion.
This came after years of criticism over what has been seen as the Conservatives’ refusal to fully disclose how much the F-35s would cost, and after the auditor general raised serious concerns about the Defence Department’s handling of the file.
Bureaucrats have been ordered back to the drawing board to again examine what missions Canada’s jets will perform in the future, what threats they will face, and what fighter capabilities are currently available.
The Royal Canadian Air Force will lead the review with support from other federal departments, while a panel of independent experts has been tasked with monitoring the process to ensure it is rigorous and impartial.
While no timelines have been laid out, a final report will be produced to guide the government as it contemplates the next step in replacing the CF-18s.
The
Dassault Rafale was fast, manoeuvrable and had above-average range, but
it also featured a clunky cockpit and the French company couldn’t say
whether the jet’s two engines could operate in the cold Canadian north.The Boeing Super Hornet was a solid, proven aircraft Canadian military pilots and mechanics would have little difficulty getting used to, but it was seen as a fall-back option at best.
And the British-led Eurofighter Typhoon was a powerful fighter with sophisticated sensors and excellent flight controls, but it still had developmental issues and purchasing it would require major changes at Canadian Air Force bases.
These were among the findings Defence Department officials made seven years ago as they reviewed possible replacements for Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter jets.
In the end National Defence opted for the F-35.
But these observations from 2005 and 2006, found in newly released documents obtained by Postmedia News, are relevant again as the Conservative government has ordered National Defence to conduct a fresh review of the fighter aircraft market.
Interestingly, the passage of time may actually end up helping some of the F-35’s competitors, especially the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale, as officials had a number of outstanding questions about those aircraft when the reviews were done.
Most of those questions should have been answered by now, and if any of the aircraft have made significant advances, that might give them a leg up on the F-35, whose own development lags behind schedule.
From March 2005 to February 2006, Defence Department officials visited the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Boeing’s production plant in St. Louis, Missouri, to evaluate the F-35’s main competitors.
Their post-visit reports were instrumental in the government’s decision in December 2006 to keep Canada involved in the F-35’s development — a move the auditor general found was the first step to sole-sourcing the stealth fighters.
The reports, copies of which were heavily censored before being released to Postmedia News, highlight both pros and cons for each fighter under review.
“One remarkable aspect of (the) Typhoon at first glance is the sensor fusion,” reads one section of the report on the Eurofighter aircraft, which is being used by British, German, Austrian, Italian, Spanish and Saudi militaries.
“The Typhoon is a very capable aircraft in the air-to-air arena,” another section reads. “It is a very powerful aircraft with very effective flight controls.”
But the same report notes “interoperability is a key concern for Canada,” referring to the Typhoon’s ability to fly alongside U.S. and allied aircraft without any problems.
Similar concerns were raised with Sweden’s Gripen and France’s Rafale.
“From a strategic approach, purchasing an aircraft from a nation other than the United States needs careful consideration given the potential impact on Canada’s interoperability with the (United States Air Force) — an air force along which we’ve historically operated,” one report reads
Yet the documents also note various steps were being taken to address the concerns in the coming years, which could be key as National Defence goes back to the drawing board on the F-35.
Meanwhile, the engineering design of the Swedish-built Gripen “combined with anti-stealth materiel and its small size result in a very small radar cross-section, making the Gripen a fairly stealthy platform.”
Low maintenance requirements were also a bonus.
But in addition to the aforementioned interoperability concerns, officials noted the Gripen uses a system for emergency landings and landings on short airfields different from Canada, which would require changes.
Officials also raised concerns about the cost of changing existing maintenance facilities to accommodate Gripens, Typhoons or Rafales — though the concluding report that ultimately recommended the F-35 noted similar concerns about the stealth fighter.
Not only does the F-35 have more software than the space shuttle, which will cost a lot to maintain, the concluding report reads, but security upgrades at Canadian military bases “will likely be very expensive.”
Meanwhile, Boeing’s Super Hornet was praised as a larger, stronger, more capable version of Canada’s CF-18. The fact it is an American-made aircraft that is used by many of Canada’s allies was also a bonus.
“The (Super Hornet) is a credible and proven strike fighter system with a range of integrated weapons,” one document reads. “It makes several compromises between approach speed, weight and structure.”
The post-visit report notes “the Super Hornet seems to be a leading contender as a ‘back-up fighter’ for a few countries next to the (F-35) if the (F-35) does not meet promised budget and schedule requirements, etc.”
That assessment has turned out to be true as the U.S. navy and Australia, among others, have purchased Super Hornets in the face of continuing problems with the F-35.
Despite the pros and cons of each option, the concluding report repeatedly notes the F-35 is the only “fifth-generation” fighter aircraft, which it characterizes as having “low observable technology and the enormous tactical advantage stealth confers.”
“The Typhoon includes radar cross-section reduction, but is not a stealth aircraft,” reads one section of the concluding report. Similarly, the Rafale has “a reduced radar signature, but is not a stealth aircraft.”
At the same time, however, the documents note that “arguments can be made for the Typhoon and perhaps the Rafale” to be considered fifth-generation fighters.
The documents show officials were aware “many of the capabilities and performance features (of the F-35) such as signature, payload, speed, range and manoeuvrability, could change due to the U.S. focus on keeping the costs down.”
This it exactly what has happened, as the U.S. Defense Department revealed only last month that it lowered performance requirements for the stealth fighter.
The Defence officials were not told how much each aircraft would cost; instead, they were forced to put come up with their own estimates based on outside information — though those figures are blacked out.
Meanwhile, drones and used jet aircraft were also considered by officials, but the former were considered not yet advanced enough to take over for manned fighters, while it was determined the latter would be cheaper in the short run, but more expensive to maintain.
The government restarted the F-35 procurement process last year after National Defence put the full cost of Canada buying and operating 65 of the stealth fighters until 2052 at more than $45 billion.
This came after years of criticism over what has been seen as the Conservatives’ refusal to fully disclose how much the F-35s would cost, and after the auditor general raised serious concerns about the Defence Department’s handling of the file.
Bureaucrats have been ordered back to the drawing board to again examine what missions Canada’s jets will perform in the future, what threats they will face, and what fighter capabilities are currently available.
The Royal Canadian Air Force will lead the review with support from other federal departments, while a panel of independent experts has been tasked with monitoring the process to ensure it is rigorous and impartial.
While no timelines have been laid out, a final report will be produced to guide the government as it contemplates the next step in replacing the CF-18s.
No comments:
Post a Comment