Fighter Jets

The blogosphere is a buzz about the Harper Government's decision to purchase F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed-Martin. Now there's talk about the sole sourcing of the contract, the fact that we've been on this train for a few years now and even talk if we need new fighter jets in the first place. First off yes, we do need new fighter jets. Our current jets, the CF-18's are reaching the end of their operational life. We acquired them prior to my joining the CF in 1988. I've since retired from Her Majesty's service. This basically means that a whole generation of fighter pilots have used the aircraft. It also means that the airframes are reaching their design limits in terms of number of hours of flight. To push the airframes beyond that would produce an unnecessary risk to our air crews similar to those faced by those flying the Sea King helicopters (which are finally being replaced). It is an unfortunate cost of doing business as a sovereign state that we need to maintain a military force and part of that is to have an effective air force. Having fighter aircraft that are time-expired is a very poor way to do this. Basically this means that in the next 5 or so years we will need to buy replacement jets for the CF-18 period.

So who are the contenders for replacement?

4.5 generation fighters:

US
- F-16 block 60 (Lockheed)
- F-18 Superhornet (Boeing)
- F-15 SE (Boeing)

France
- Rafale (Dassault)

Sweden
- Gripen (Saab)

Eurofighter Consortium
Typhoon (Eurofighter)

Basically 4.5th generation fighters are fighters that were designed in the 1970's with updated year 2000ish engines and avionics.

Fifth generation fighters:

US
- F-22 (Lockheed/Boeing)
- F-35 (Lockheed)

Now the F-22 is out of the question since there is an export ban on them. Further the F-22 is about $220 million a copy and the F-35 is around $140 million a copy so the F-35 wins on price, also its avionics are more advanced even if the fighter itself is slightly less maneuverable.

So which fighter?

Basically for supply and parts reasons, Canada is generally limited to purchasing American hardware. This basically takes the Europeans out of the equation. So now it's down to basically recycled 1970's vintage airframes with 21st century avionics vs a 21st century design. What are the pros and cons of these?

Of the jets, the F-18 and F-15 are twin engined fighters while the F-16 and F-35 are single engined fighters. In general, twin engined aircraft are more reliable since you have backup if one engine fails. That being said, modern jet engines are extremely reliable and the F-16 has had an excellent service record. Further Canada for decades relied on the CF-104, a single engined aircraft for defence.

The F-18, F-16 and F-35 are designed to be multi-role fighters. The F-15 is designed to be an air superiority fighter. This means that the F-15 attacks other aircraft well, better than the other three, but doesn't do ground attack as well. This is due to it coming from a time when the USAF had specialized aircraft for the intercept, air superiority and ground attack roles. The other three fighters are multi-role, that is can perform all three functions reasonable well, of course not as well as specialized aircraft, but you save money in training and parts with only having one aircraft. This means that the multi-role fighter can do whatever job you ask of it so it is the way to go for a country like Canada which is often uncertain as to its direction in defence matters. So at this point the competition is really between the F-18, F-16 and F-35.

Of these three fighters, two are built by Lockheed and one by Boeing. So looking at this from a competition stand point it's the F-18 vs the other two.

The F-18 has newer avionics than it's original incarnation, which means in theory it should be able to use the next generation of weapons. It has twin engines so there is the greater reliability there, however it doesn't have a stealth airframe, making it easier for it to be spotted by hostile radar.

The F-16 is similar to the F-18 in it's pros and cons with the exception of one engine rather than two.

The F-35 has the advantage of a stealth airframe and superior avionics, but only has a single engine and less range that the other two. It is also more expensive per copy so we can buy less of them.

So how does this pan out for Canada's needs. In theory all three fighters, being multi-role, will do the job, regardless of what that job is. It comes down to the nit-picky details. For this I will look at F-18 vs F-35, since a competition between the F-16 and F-35 is basically the same sole supplier that is the complaint.

With the F-18 there are advantages for Canada. Re-training would be minimized as only the new avionics would need to be learned as aircraft handling and performance would be sufficiently similar as to require no re-training for our current pilots. A greater range also is useful as this is a large country and fewer aircraft would be needed to cover our airspace. There is also the two engines improving reliability.

The downside is that it is an aging platform. Even a factory fresh F-18 is basically an aircraft designed in 1970. Even with uprated avionics, it will be up against aircraft designed within the past 10 years or so which may prove to be a disadvantage in a fight against these newer aircraft. Again it is also not a stealth design which makes it more difficult for it to penetrate hostile defences.

The F-35 on the other hand has the advantage of the latest in design and technology. It is a stealth airframe, making it easier for it to evade hostile radar. Further, being an advanced design it will have a longer service life. Another factor to consider is the fact that the US has indicated that it will be ordering thousands of copies of this design as a replacement for aircraft such as the F-18. This means that parts will be in greater supply than for another airframe. In some sense this will also reduce the re-training cost as much of the training material can be adapted from the USAF/USN/USMC.

Downsides are that it is a more expensive aircraft per copy, which means we can buy less of them. The range issue can also be a problem that can be fixed to a limited degree by in flight refuelling. Further there will be training conversion costs as not only is there new avionics to be learned, but different flight parameters as well.

So where do I think we should go? Looking at the fact that Canada buys new fighters once every 30 years or so, we need to seriously look at very recent designs. The F-18 is currently a 30 year old design and if we were to buy the uprated version, when they are replaced it will be a 60 year old design. Technology changes fast, and fighter aircraft are no exception to this. The F-35's advantages in stealth design and newer technology, in my opinion, make it a preferable aircraft to the F-18 for our future needs, whatever they are.