Editor’s note: Defence Watch reader Kyle Meema has researched
alternatives to the F-35. In a two-part series (part one ran on Monday)
he argues that Canada should purchase the Gripen fighter aircraft plus
other aviation assets.
By Kyle Meema
Defence Watch Guest Writer
Factor 5: Stealth
The F-35A’s claim to be a stealth aircraft is illusionary. No aircraft is invisible to radar and the F-35A is no exception. For example, the F-117 Nighthawk was supposed to be a stealth aircraft and yet one was shot down over Serbia using Cold War era radar guided surface-to-air missiles.[1] Boeing’s new F/A-18G “Growler” was able to shoot down the super-advanced F-22A Raptor stealth fighter during an exercise.[2] The F-22A has been touted as the greatest air superiority fighter in the world, even stealthier than the F-35A,[3] and yet it was downed by a 4.5th generation fighter due to the advances in detection that counter whatever stealth advantage there may have been. During Red Flag in Alaska, the Eurofighter performed better than the F-22A in a dog fight scenario, scoring several F-22A kills.[4] Within a range of 50km, the Eurofighter’s IRST (Infra-red Search and Track) system was easily able to spot and track the allegedly stealthy F-22A.[5] The F-35A is not a stealth aircraft. There is no such thing as a stealth aircraft.[6] Fighters that are allegedly stealthy are still detectable and relying on the myth of stealth puts Canadian and coalition forces in the air and on the ground in real danger. Given that the F-35A has scarified so much for the sake of a dubious stealth advantage, it should not be purchased on the basis that it is stealth and will remain undetectable in battle.
The Eurofighter and Gripen are not stealth aircraft and don’t pretend to have such capabilities. Though they have a reduced radar cross-section and incorporate methods of reducing their profile, they have focused on other areas, such as speed, armament, sensor technology, and, in the case of the Gripen, value for money.
In additional to its questionable usefulness against current detection methods, stealth has other major problems. The F-35A’s stealth has been built into plane and is thus locked in for the life of the airframe itself. No improvements or upgrades can increase the stealth capability. As the F-35A is meant to serve Canada for up to forty years, what little stealth advantage it may have cannot be upgraded to keep pace with the advances in detection technology. Advances in radar detection are primarily limited to software improvements. As this software becomes more and more sophisticated, the F-35A becomes more and more vulnerable. It is further crippled by the fact that it cannot be upgraded to counter the improved radar software. Canada’s $45.8 billion plane could be rendered obsolete by something as little as a software update before it even enters service. In which case, the F-35A’s advanced sensors would be very aware of an adversary that is about to shoot it down.
Factor 6: Non-Combat Advantages
While the Gripen and Eurofighter are about equal in base specs and both outperform the F-35A, the Gripen has a few unique advantages. For example, the Gripen has the advantage in terms of operating in cold winter weather and remote locations. Its design allows it to stop on an 800 metre snow-covered runway[7]. This could be invaluable when operating over the far North as it could land at municipal airports even in poor conditions. Neither the Eurofighter nor the F-35A were designed for cold weather operation in a manner comparable to the Gripen. From an Arctic sovereignty perspective, this cold weather operational capability would be invaluable.
Saab also provides the source code for the Gripen’s software[8], allowing for quick and easy software upgrades without the need complicated and time consuming work to make it compatible with the hardware. The European Consortium does not provide the Eurofighter’s source code to buyers. Lockheed-Martin also does not provide the source code for the F-35A to buyers. The provision of this source code was a major factor that persuaded India to buy the Rafale over the Eurofighter.[9]
Factor 6: Involvement of Canadian Business
The NG Gripen also has an advantage over the Eurofighter in terms of how procurement could involve Canadian businesses. Saab has offered to allow Bombardier to build the jets,[10] which would provide jobs and boost the Canadian economy. The European Consortium has yet to make such an offer to Canada. However, the Eurofighter does have potential to involve Canadian industry, as its engines are made by Rolls-Royce, which has facilities in Canada. The advantage of greater involvement of Canadian businesses gives the Gripen a clear advantage over the Eurofighter. The F-35A does involve some Canadian businesses, but a made-in-Canada Gripen would match or best the F-35A’s Canadian contribution.
Factor 7: What To Do With The Money Saved By Buying the NG Gripen
The total cradle-to-grave cost of a fleet of 150 NG Gripens for 40+ years is approximately $22 billion. At 48% of the cost of a fleet of 65 F-35As, billions of dollars are freed up in the defence budget that could be put towards enhancing the Gripen’s effectiveness and bolstering Canada’s air power in general.
As mentioned earlier, money saved by procuring the Gripen could go towards equipping the jets with the best weapons and equipment available. In particular, acquiring the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile should be a high priority. The Meteor is the most advanced air-to-air missile and has Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capabilities unmatched in the Western world. An F-35A procurement would not allow for such advanced high-quality missiles to be purchased, due to budget constraints, or used, due to the F-35A’s compatibility issues.
The F-35A’s internal weapons bay is suited for short-range missiles and bombs. However, use of such weapons necessitates the F-35A flying deep into enemy territory, making it a target for enemy anti-air defences. Such tactics put the ludicrously expensive fighter and, more importantly, its pilot in great danger. This danger is exacerbated by the lack of a significant stealth advantage, slow speeds, poor manoeuvrability, and severely reduced weapons carrying capacity and compatibility. Surely, it makes far more sense to keep Canadian pilots and planes out of harm’s way whenever possible by taking out defended priority targets from a safe distance. The Gripen can do this by deploying Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs) from as far as 500km away from the target.[11] Even though ALCMs are expensive, they are a much more cost effective solution in comparison to the F-35A. For example, Spain acquired 43 Taurus KEPD 350 ALCMs for approximately $80 million[12] which have completed successful testing.[13] This stock of Taurus ACLMs cost significantly less than the current initial procurement cost of a single F-35A.
Funds saved could also be put towards procuring UAVs and other aircraft for non-combat aerial missions. For example, Northrop Grumman has proposed a variant of its RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV, known as the Polar Hawk) which would serve as a High Altitude Long Endurance surveillance aircraft.[14] This would be ideal for monitoring large areas of Canada’s North for long periods of time. Given how important Arctic sovereignty is today and how it is only going to become more and more important as the Arctic opens up[15] such UAV’s would be an invaluable asset.
Canada’s CP-140 Aurora Maritime patrol aircraft are in need of replacement. The most likely candidate is the Boeing P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.[16] However, the P-8 is extremely expensive at $176 million per plane.[17] While some funds saved by a Gripen procurement should be put towards purchasing the P-8 Poseidon, Canada should seriously consider reducing the number of manned patrol aircraft in favour of UAVs. Northrop Grumman has the MQ-4C Triton UAV, which is another variant of the Global Hawk geared for maritime patrol,[18] which should be seriously considered. At $35 million per unit[19] Canada could purchase 7 Tritons for every 2 P-8s. In terms of effectiveness, the Triton could allow for single patrol missions covering 4.3 million kilometres.[20] While complete reliance on UAVs is not advisable, it would make a great deal of sense to purchase fewer manned aircraft, put funds saved towards UAVs, and operate a mixed fleet of manned and unmanned aircraft. This would provide increased patrol capability at a greatly reduced cost in comparison to relying entirely on a larger fleet of P-8s. Bombardier has also proposed a variant of its R1 Sentinel,[21] which, being Canadian designed and built, should be seriously considered due to the involvement of Canadian business.
Conclusion: The NG Gripen is the Right Fighter For Canada
The NG Gripen is the right fighter for Canada. It is based on a proven design and offers far more reliability and performance for a very reasonable price. The F-35A is vulnerable, underperforming, potentially obsolete before it is even completed, and far too expensive for what it delivers. It is too expensive to buy, too expensive to fly, and poorly suited to meet Canada’s needs. It should not be the first choice for a country like Canada. The Eurofighter performs exceptionally well, but is too expensive considering that the existing Gripen C/D offers nearly equal performance for half the price, and the NG Gripen will offer further improvements. The Gripen currently has greater potential for involvement by Canadian business, which would be a badly needed boost to the Canadian economy. Canada could purchase over twice as many Gripens than F-35As for the same $9 billion initial procurement and the money saved due to the Gripen’s vastly reduced operational cost can be spent equipping the fleet with the best weapons and equipment with funds left order to address other needs, such as Maritime patrol and Arctic sovereignty. Considering all these factors, the NG Gripen is the soundest choice to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s. There is no such thing as a perfect fighter, but when cost and capability are taken into account, the NG Gripen can serve Canada better than any other fighter jet available.
About the Author:
Kyle Meema teaches business and law. In 2014, he expects to obtain his Master’s in Air and Space Law from Leiden University in the Netherlands.
Footnotes:
[1] ://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/shot-down.html
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: David Pugliese
By Kyle Meema
Defence Watch Guest Writer
Factor 5: Stealth
The F-35A’s claim to be a stealth aircraft is illusionary. No aircraft is invisible to radar and the F-35A is no exception. For example, the F-117 Nighthawk was supposed to be a stealth aircraft and yet one was shot down over Serbia using Cold War era radar guided surface-to-air missiles.[1] Boeing’s new F/A-18G “Growler” was able to shoot down the super-advanced F-22A Raptor stealth fighter during an exercise.[2] The F-22A has been touted as the greatest air superiority fighter in the world, even stealthier than the F-35A,[3] and yet it was downed by a 4.5th generation fighter due to the advances in detection that counter whatever stealth advantage there may have been. During Red Flag in Alaska, the Eurofighter performed better than the F-22A in a dog fight scenario, scoring several F-22A kills.[4] Within a range of 50km, the Eurofighter’s IRST (Infra-red Search and Track) system was easily able to spot and track the allegedly stealthy F-22A.[5] The F-35A is not a stealth aircraft. There is no such thing as a stealth aircraft.[6] Fighters that are allegedly stealthy are still detectable and relying on the myth of stealth puts Canadian and coalition forces in the air and on the ground in real danger. Given that the F-35A has scarified so much for the sake of a dubious stealth advantage, it should not be purchased on the basis that it is stealth and will remain undetectable in battle.
The Eurofighter and Gripen are not stealth aircraft and don’t pretend to have such capabilities. Though they have a reduced radar cross-section and incorporate methods of reducing their profile, they have focused on other areas, such as speed, armament, sensor technology, and, in the case of the Gripen, value for money.
In additional to its questionable usefulness against current detection methods, stealth has other major problems. The F-35A’s stealth has been built into plane and is thus locked in for the life of the airframe itself. No improvements or upgrades can increase the stealth capability. As the F-35A is meant to serve Canada for up to forty years, what little stealth advantage it may have cannot be upgraded to keep pace with the advances in detection technology. Advances in radar detection are primarily limited to software improvements. As this software becomes more and more sophisticated, the F-35A becomes more and more vulnerable. It is further crippled by the fact that it cannot be upgraded to counter the improved radar software. Canada’s $45.8 billion plane could be rendered obsolete by something as little as a software update before it even enters service. In which case, the F-35A’s advanced sensors would be very aware of an adversary that is about to shoot it down.
Factor 6: Non-Combat Advantages
While the Gripen and Eurofighter are about equal in base specs and both outperform the F-35A, the Gripen has a few unique advantages. For example, the Gripen has the advantage in terms of operating in cold winter weather and remote locations. Its design allows it to stop on an 800 metre snow-covered runway[7]. This could be invaluable when operating over the far North as it could land at municipal airports even in poor conditions. Neither the Eurofighter nor the F-35A were designed for cold weather operation in a manner comparable to the Gripen. From an Arctic sovereignty perspective, this cold weather operational capability would be invaluable.
Saab also provides the source code for the Gripen’s software[8], allowing for quick and easy software upgrades without the need complicated and time consuming work to make it compatible with the hardware. The European Consortium does not provide the Eurofighter’s source code to buyers. Lockheed-Martin also does not provide the source code for the F-35A to buyers. The provision of this source code was a major factor that persuaded India to buy the Rafale over the Eurofighter.[9]
Factor 6: Involvement of Canadian Business
The NG Gripen also has an advantage over the Eurofighter in terms of how procurement could involve Canadian businesses. Saab has offered to allow Bombardier to build the jets,[10] which would provide jobs and boost the Canadian economy. The European Consortium has yet to make such an offer to Canada. However, the Eurofighter does have potential to involve Canadian industry, as its engines are made by Rolls-Royce, which has facilities in Canada. The advantage of greater involvement of Canadian businesses gives the Gripen a clear advantage over the Eurofighter. The F-35A does involve some Canadian businesses, but a made-in-Canada Gripen would match or best the F-35A’s Canadian contribution.
Factor 7: What To Do With The Money Saved By Buying the NG Gripen
The total cradle-to-grave cost of a fleet of 150 NG Gripens for 40+ years is approximately $22 billion. At 48% of the cost of a fleet of 65 F-35As, billions of dollars are freed up in the defence budget that could be put towards enhancing the Gripen’s effectiveness and bolstering Canada’s air power in general.
As mentioned earlier, money saved by procuring the Gripen could go towards equipping the jets with the best weapons and equipment available. In particular, acquiring the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile should be a high priority. The Meteor is the most advanced air-to-air missile and has Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capabilities unmatched in the Western world. An F-35A procurement would not allow for such advanced high-quality missiles to be purchased, due to budget constraints, or used, due to the F-35A’s compatibility issues.
The F-35A’s internal weapons bay is suited for short-range missiles and bombs. However, use of such weapons necessitates the F-35A flying deep into enemy territory, making it a target for enemy anti-air defences. Such tactics put the ludicrously expensive fighter and, more importantly, its pilot in great danger. This danger is exacerbated by the lack of a significant stealth advantage, slow speeds, poor manoeuvrability, and severely reduced weapons carrying capacity and compatibility. Surely, it makes far more sense to keep Canadian pilots and planes out of harm’s way whenever possible by taking out defended priority targets from a safe distance. The Gripen can do this by deploying Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs) from as far as 500km away from the target.[11] Even though ALCMs are expensive, they are a much more cost effective solution in comparison to the F-35A. For example, Spain acquired 43 Taurus KEPD 350 ALCMs for approximately $80 million[12] which have completed successful testing.[13] This stock of Taurus ACLMs cost significantly less than the current initial procurement cost of a single F-35A.
Funds saved could also be put towards procuring UAVs and other aircraft for non-combat aerial missions. For example, Northrop Grumman has proposed a variant of its RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV, known as the Polar Hawk) which would serve as a High Altitude Long Endurance surveillance aircraft.[14] This would be ideal for monitoring large areas of Canada’s North for long periods of time. Given how important Arctic sovereignty is today and how it is only going to become more and more important as the Arctic opens up[15] such UAV’s would be an invaluable asset.
Canada’s CP-140 Aurora Maritime patrol aircraft are in need of replacement. The most likely candidate is the Boeing P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.[16] However, the P-8 is extremely expensive at $176 million per plane.[17] While some funds saved by a Gripen procurement should be put towards purchasing the P-8 Poseidon, Canada should seriously consider reducing the number of manned patrol aircraft in favour of UAVs. Northrop Grumman has the MQ-4C Triton UAV, which is another variant of the Global Hawk geared for maritime patrol,[18] which should be seriously considered. At $35 million per unit[19] Canada could purchase 7 Tritons for every 2 P-8s. In terms of effectiveness, the Triton could allow for single patrol missions covering 4.3 million kilometres.[20] While complete reliance on UAVs is not advisable, it would make a great deal of sense to purchase fewer manned aircraft, put funds saved towards UAVs, and operate a mixed fleet of manned and unmanned aircraft. This would provide increased patrol capability at a greatly reduced cost in comparison to relying entirely on a larger fleet of P-8s. Bombardier has also proposed a variant of its R1 Sentinel,[21] which, being Canadian designed and built, should be seriously considered due to the involvement of Canadian business.
Conclusion: The NG Gripen is the Right Fighter For Canada
The NG Gripen is the right fighter for Canada. It is based on a proven design and offers far more reliability and performance for a very reasonable price. The F-35A is vulnerable, underperforming, potentially obsolete before it is even completed, and far too expensive for what it delivers. It is too expensive to buy, too expensive to fly, and poorly suited to meet Canada’s needs. It should not be the first choice for a country like Canada. The Eurofighter performs exceptionally well, but is too expensive considering that the existing Gripen C/D offers nearly equal performance for half the price, and the NG Gripen will offer further improvements. The Gripen currently has greater potential for involvement by Canadian business, which would be a badly needed boost to the Canadian economy. Canada could purchase over twice as many Gripens than F-35As for the same $9 billion initial procurement and the money saved due to the Gripen’s vastly reduced operational cost can be spent equipping the fleet with the best weapons and equipment with funds left order to address other needs, such as Maritime patrol and Arctic sovereignty. Considering all these factors, the NG Gripen is the soundest choice to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s. There is no such thing as a perfect fighter, but when cost and capability are taken into account, the NG Gripen can serve Canada better than any other fighter jet available.
About the Author:
Kyle Meema teaches business and law. In 2014, he expects to obtain his Master’s in Air and Space Law from Leiden University in the Netherlands.
Footnotes:
[1] ://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/shot-down.html
[7] Williams, Mel, ed. Superfighters: The Next Generation of Combat Aircraft. London: AIRtime Publishing Inc., 2002. ISBN 1-880588-53-6. (page 82)
[8] Williams, Mel, ed. Superfighters: The Next Generation of Combat Aircraft. London: AIRtime Publishing Inc., 2002. ISBN 1-880588-53-6. (page 82)
[11] Depending on which particular ALCM is used
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: David Pugliese
No comments:
Post a Comment