This is Part III of an ongoing Western Standard feature examining leaked F-18 fighter replacement program documents..Read Part I.Read Part II.The public line from the federal government is that the CF-18 fighter replacement program is coming along just fine, and that defence bureaucrats are conducting an open and fair competition. .This is called into question by 800 pages of leaked documents obtained by the Western Standard showing that defence bureaucrats are defying their political orders by inflating the replacement program requirements in favour of the F-35, the most expensive option by far. At stake are Canada’s air defence capabilities, and billions of dollars in federal taxpayer funds..The strike scenarios in the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) draft RFP all involve a hypothetical war between a Western NATO equipped “Blueland” and an aggressive “Redland” armed with the latest Russian weapons. This is standard jargon for wargames..Scenario 3 is laughable, as it reads like a subtle insult to the Prime Minister for his 2015 promise to spend more on the navy. In this scenario, Redland sends a state-of-the-art Russian S-400-armed frigate down an unnamed Blueland river (that looks like the St. Lawrence) to attack a Blueland port (that looks like Quebec City). The Blueland navy is nowhere to be found, thus leaving the Air Force to save the day. When I shared this scenario with a naval expert, he said that this scenario sounds like a job for Canada’s new Type-26 Frigates: the ships Trudeau promised to spend more money on instead of buying the F-35. Only a naval warship can perform a blockade, intercept another ship, and deescalate a conflict. .Instead, two fighters are asked to sink six small fast boats and disable the frigate. Weapon configurations are not dictated, but the requirement to sink 6 small boats and only temporarily disable the frigate’s S-400 system, suggest the mission should be flown using small weapons that fit inside an F-35. The Gripen gains little to no advantage for supporting the new Saab RBS15 Odin’s Spear anti-ship missile, one of the more advanced large anti-ship weapons in NATO’s arsenal. A weapon that is also supported on the made-in-Canada Saab/Bombardier Swordfish: the leading contender to replace our aging CP-140 maritime patrol aircraft.. GripenE antiship weapons smallerSwedish Saab Gripen-E armed with anti-ship missiles. Photo by Jerry Lindberg (Copyright Saab AB) .Scenario 4 is a combination of defensive and offensive counter air missions against a Redland defended by S-400 Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS), and a mix of Su-57 and Su-35 fighters. While unlikely, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that sometime in the next 30 years NATO nations may be called upon to bomb a dictator who possess some of these impressive Russian weapons. However, the way the strike is designed represents a departure from how coalition forces have historically neutralized modern IADS and from how Canada participated with the CF-18. .In the First Gulf War and Libyan campaign, IADS were targeted for destruction in the opening salvo of naval cruise missiles, American stealth strikes (F-117 over Iraq, B-2 over Libya), and coalition air launched cruise missiles. Surviving SAM sties were then ruthlessly hunted by specialized SEAD fighters. In both conflicts, the CF-18s transitioned from defensive counter air, to offensive counter air, to bombing missions only as the enemy’s air defences were significantly weakened. If these are the future weapons the RCAF will be up against, then we should ensure that the Royal Canadian Navy’s Type 26 Frigates have enough money in the budget to be armed with modern long-range cruise missiles..While the Saab Gripen-E, armed with meteor missiles, should prove capable of performing the offensive counter air mission as written, the method points are awarded gives an unfair advantage to the F-35. Only the F-35 is likely to earn the maximum points for getting close to the S-400 system and for threatening the enemy A-50 Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft. .Points in every scenario can be deducted by the Department of National Defence’s (DND’s) evaluators based on a risk factor. The strike scenarios allow for bias to significantly influence that risk factor. If DND evaluators accept Lockheed Martin’s claims that the F-35’s systems will perform perfectly, then it will receive a “low risk” factor and earn full points. If DND evaluators decide that the Gripen’s systems will fail miserably, then they can assign the “very high risk” factor and deduct sixty percent of Saab’s points. This presents a worrisome opportunity for principal-agent mischief and should demand checks and balances like those under the New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) program that selected the affordable CF-18 over the considerably more expensive F-15 that RCAF leadership preferred at the time..The Scenario 5 strike missions include close air support (CAS), coordinating a naval missile strike on an S-400 system, and engaging moving targets while minimizing collateral damage. All are reasonable air-to-ground missions that would have to be flown during a coalition bombing campaign. That said, the tasks involving the S-400 are biased to benefit the F-35. These types of missions are far beyond the capabilities of the CF-18 and have historically been left to the Americans. .History has shown that affordable light fighters can make valuable contributions to coalition campaigns. By flying the US Navy defensive counter air mission on day 1 of the First Gulf War, Canada’s CF-18s freed up more advanced US Navy assets to fly missions over Iraq and earned Canadian pilots praise from US Navy controllers. Swedish Gripen-C jets flew 570 armed recon missions over Libya, earning Swedish officers a guest seat at Five Eyes intelligence meetings and praise from the NATO commander, Canadian Lt-General Bouchard: “The Gripens have a strategic importance for the operation. They have a spectacular capability.” French Mirage 2000 light fighters successfully flew numerous missions over Libya, destroyed many Libyan tanks, and bombed Gaddafi’s convoy..Scenario 6 demands capabilities so far beyond what the RCAF has ever possessed that even the F-35 may be hard pressed to deliver. In a major coalition conflict, it is likely that none of these strike missions would be performed as written in the RFP. The Americans would go in first using the full breadth of their arsenal including stealth drones, an overwhelming naval cruise missile strike, and the future B-21 next-generation stealth bomber. The last stealth bombing mission ordered over Libya by President Obama involved a pair of B-2 stealth bombers, carrying 160 JDAM precision guided bombs. It would have required 80 F-35s to carry that many bombs in stealth mode..Canadian taxpayers would be right to ask why the RCAF needs such an expensive first strike capability, especially given how it will inflate the costs of performing our NORAD and NATO air policing missions by over $10 billion. Scenario 6 should be discarded, and the associated points distributed to the two NORAD Arctic scenarios..With COVID-19 related deficits placing a huge financial burden on future taxpayers, there will be significant pressure to keep military spending to a minimum.. Canadian Gripen-E jets would be made in Canada, with full technology transfer, and full industrial offsets. The Gripen is the only jet in the competition that costs less per flight hour than Canada currently spends on the CF-18. .When Pierre Trudeau purchased the CF-18, it was the least expensive jet in the competition that fulfilled reasonable mission requirements. Respect for the taxpayer and respect for the military are not mutually exclusive concepts in Sweden. The Gripen-E is the right jet to replace the CF-18..Alex McColl is the National Defence Columnist with the Western Standard and a Canadian military analyst
This is Part III of an ongoing Western Standard feature examining leaked F-18 fighter replacement program documents..Read Part I.Read Part II.The public line from the federal government is that the CF-18 fighter replacement program is coming along just fine, and that defence bureaucrats are conducting an open and fair competition. .This is called into question by 800 pages of leaked documents obtained by the Western Standard showing that defence bureaucrats are defying their political orders by inflating the replacement program requirements in favour of the F-35, the most expensive option by far. At stake are Canada’s air defence capabilities, and billions of dollars in federal taxpayer funds..The strike scenarios in the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) draft RFP all involve a hypothetical war between a Western NATO equipped “Blueland” and an aggressive “Redland” armed with the latest Russian weapons. This is standard jargon for wargames..Scenario 3 is laughable, as it reads like a subtle insult to the Prime Minister for his 2015 promise to spend more on the navy. In this scenario, Redland sends a state-of-the-art Russian S-400-armed frigate down an unnamed Blueland river (that looks like the St. Lawrence) to attack a Blueland port (that looks like Quebec City). The Blueland navy is nowhere to be found, thus leaving the Air Force to save the day. When I shared this scenario with a naval expert, he said that this scenario sounds like a job for Canada’s new Type-26 Frigates: the ships Trudeau promised to spend more money on instead of buying the F-35. Only a naval warship can perform a blockade, intercept another ship, and deescalate a conflict. .Instead, two fighters are asked to sink six small fast boats and disable the frigate. Weapon configurations are not dictated, but the requirement to sink 6 small boats and only temporarily disable the frigate’s S-400 system, suggest the mission should be flown using small weapons that fit inside an F-35. The Gripen gains little to no advantage for supporting the new Saab RBS15 Odin’s Spear anti-ship missile, one of the more advanced large anti-ship weapons in NATO’s arsenal. A weapon that is also supported on the made-in-Canada Saab/Bombardier Swordfish: the leading contender to replace our aging CP-140 maritime patrol aircraft.. GripenE antiship weapons smallerSwedish Saab Gripen-E armed with anti-ship missiles. Photo by Jerry Lindberg (Copyright Saab AB) .Scenario 4 is a combination of defensive and offensive counter air missions against a Redland defended by S-400 Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS), and a mix of Su-57 and Su-35 fighters. While unlikely, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that sometime in the next 30 years NATO nations may be called upon to bomb a dictator who possess some of these impressive Russian weapons. However, the way the strike is designed represents a departure from how coalition forces have historically neutralized modern IADS and from how Canada participated with the CF-18. .In the First Gulf War and Libyan campaign, IADS were targeted for destruction in the opening salvo of naval cruise missiles, American stealth strikes (F-117 over Iraq, B-2 over Libya), and coalition air launched cruise missiles. Surviving SAM sties were then ruthlessly hunted by specialized SEAD fighters. In both conflicts, the CF-18s transitioned from defensive counter air, to offensive counter air, to bombing missions only as the enemy’s air defences were significantly weakened. If these are the future weapons the RCAF will be up against, then we should ensure that the Royal Canadian Navy’s Type 26 Frigates have enough money in the budget to be armed with modern long-range cruise missiles..While the Saab Gripen-E, armed with meteor missiles, should prove capable of performing the offensive counter air mission as written, the method points are awarded gives an unfair advantage to the F-35. Only the F-35 is likely to earn the maximum points for getting close to the S-400 system and for threatening the enemy A-50 Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft. .Points in every scenario can be deducted by the Department of National Defence’s (DND’s) evaluators based on a risk factor. The strike scenarios allow for bias to significantly influence that risk factor. If DND evaluators accept Lockheed Martin’s claims that the F-35’s systems will perform perfectly, then it will receive a “low risk” factor and earn full points. If DND evaluators decide that the Gripen’s systems will fail miserably, then they can assign the “very high risk” factor and deduct sixty percent of Saab’s points. This presents a worrisome opportunity for principal-agent mischief and should demand checks and balances like those under the New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) program that selected the affordable CF-18 over the considerably more expensive F-15 that RCAF leadership preferred at the time..The Scenario 5 strike missions include close air support (CAS), coordinating a naval missile strike on an S-400 system, and engaging moving targets while minimizing collateral damage. All are reasonable air-to-ground missions that would have to be flown during a coalition bombing campaign. That said, the tasks involving the S-400 are biased to benefit the F-35. These types of missions are far beyond the capabilities of the CF-18 and have historically been left to the Americans. .History has shown that affordable light fighters can make valuable contributions to coalition campaigns. By flying the US Navy defensive counter air mission on day 1 of the First Gulf War, Canada’s CF-18s freed up more advanced US Navy assets to fly missions over Iraq and earned Canadian pilots praise from US Navy controllers. Swedish Gripen-C jets flew 570 armed recon missions over Libya, earning Swedish officers a guest seat at Five Eyes intelligence meetings and praise from the NATO commander, Canadian Lt-General Bouchard: “The Gripens have a strategic importance for the operation. They have a spectacular capability.” French Mirage 2000 light fighters successfully flew numerous missions over Libya, destroyed many Libyan tanks, and bombed Gaddafi’s convoy..Scenario 6 demands capabilities so far beyond what the RCAF has ever possessed that even the F-35 may be hard pressed to deliver. In a major coalition conflict, it is likely that none of these strike missions would be performed as written in the RFP. The Americans would go in first using the full breadth of their arsenal including stealth drones, an overwhelming naval cruise missile strike, and the future B-21 next-generation stealth bomber. The last stealth bombing mission ordered over Libya by President Obama involved a pair of B-2 stealth bombers, carrying 160 JDAM precision guided bombs. It would have required 80 F-35s to carry that many bombs in stealth mode..Canadian taxpayers would be right to ask why the RCAF needs such an expensive first strike capability, especially given how it will inflate the costs of performing our NORAD and NATO air policing missions by over $10 billion. Scenario 6 should be discarded, and the associated points distributed to the two NORAD Arctic scenarios..With COVID-19 related deficits placing a huge financial burden on future taxpayers, there will be significant pressure to keep military spending to a minimum.. Canadian Gripen-E jets would be made in Canada, with full technology transfer, and full industrial offsets. The Gripen is the only jet in the competition that costs less per flight hour than Canada currently spends on the CF-18. .When Pierre Trudeau purchased the CF-18, it was the least expensive jet in the competition that fulfilled reasonable mission requirements. Respect for the taxpayer and respect for the military are not mutually exclusive concepts in Sweden. The Gripen-E is the right jet to replace the CF-18..Alex McColl is the National Defence Columnist with the Western Standard and a Canadian military analyst
