FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Canada and the F-35

by WINSLOW T. WHEELER

As an American, I am extremely reluctant to presume to offer Canada advice on how to proceed with the purchase of the F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter.” However, the airplane is the culmination of such malevolent trends in my own country’s defences that I believe any ally and neighbour should be warned about going down the same path.

Three simple questions show what a poor choice the F-35 is for the United States -and for Canada.

What will the F-35 cost? Canada’s Memorandum of Understanding -it’s not a contract -pretends $9 billion (Canadian) will buy 65 F-35s and initial logistics, simulators, spare parts, and more. The unit price for each aircraft in that pitch is “low-to-mid $70M per aircraft.”

That’s hogwash. The current unit price in the Unites States for the F-35 is $155 million. Even considering the discount Canada will get, your Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated a unit cost of either $129 million or $148 million, depending on estimating factors.

All of those figures are optimistic; both Canada and America should expect to pay more, but neither of us will know the exact amount until all testing is complete in about 2017. If the F-35 price does not increase between now and then, that will be the first time for a combat aircraft in decades, perhaps in history.

How well does the F-35 perform? Canada, and the U.S., will not know what F-35 performance really is until after all testing is complete about six years from now.

Most of the performance rhetoric about the F-35 centres on the terms “Fifth Generation” and “stealth.” Far from an ability to fly anywhere “unseen,” as some have said, stealth limits the ability of selected radars to detect the F-35 to lesser distances. In the presence of other radar types -some of them quite old designs -stealth aircraft can be “seen” routinely at long distance. Americans learned this when in 1999 Serbian air defences in the Kosovo air war shot down one “stealth” F-117 and severely damaged another using quite antiquated radar air defences.

Even if the F-35 lives up to all of its aerodynamic promises -and it won’t -it is so heavy and bulky that its engine gives it less rapid acceleration than American F-18Cs or F-16Cs. The F-35’s hefty weight and its small wings give it a “wing loading” (and as a result manoeuvrability) roughly equivalent to a 1960s era American F-105 fighter-bomber. The F-105 “Lead Sled” was notorious for its inability to defend itself over North Vietnam during the Indochina War. When you put aside all the buzz words, the F-35’s already high cost buys only a major performance disappointment.

Why not wait? Like your government’s proposed purchase of F-35s before all testing is complete and all costs are known, the United States has been rushing to “buy” before we “fly” for decades. It has been a disaster.

Since 2000, Americans have added $320 billion to our Air Force’s budget, a 43-per-cent increase. Since then, our fighter and bomber squadrons declined from 146 to 72, or 51 per cent. This is not a smaller, newer Air Force; it is a smaller older Air Force.

This decay comes from new aircraft cost growth above the growth in the Air Force budget. We have been making decisions on the basis of poorly supported “buy-in” promises. The only way out of this decay is to better understand the future consequences of our contemporary decisions: A challenge that Canada faces on the F-35 in a direct and meaningful sense.

Of course, you are being told to commit now. Your CF-18s are wearing out, and you have industrial incentives. Others face a similar aging problem; some have been offered the very same carrots. In response, the U.S. Navy is keeping alive its F-18 production line, and the U.S. Air Force is extending the operating life of F-16s, as you can do with the CF-18. Others are having second thoughts in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Israel.

It is time to start over. That will require a fly-before-buy prototype competition between affordable and effective designs. That would virtually eliminate the F-35, but it should, nonetheless, be allowed to compete. That is the course I recommend for the United States to end the F-35 fiasco. I urge Canadians to consider the same.

WINSLOW T. WHEELER is director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington D.C. He was invited last December to comment on the F-35 to the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on National Defence; this commentary is based on his written testimony.

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Winslow T. Wheeler is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight.  He spent 31 years working for the Government Accountability Office and both Republican and Democratic Senators on national security issues.

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail