How Harper can punish Obama over Keystone XL: drop out of the F-35 program

There are many disturbing reports that indicate that the new Northrop-Grumman F-35 is a dog. It is apparently slower and less maneuverable than the 30-year old CF-18 that it is currently scheduled to replace. This is not surprising as it is designed to be everything: air superiority fighter, close air support, carrier-based fighter and VTOL aircraft for the Marines. Aircraft that are designed to be good in every role rarely work out satisfactorily (think F-111, a medium bomber that was originally meant to double as a fighter!). How can the F-35 be better than an F-22 in air superiority, an A-10 in ground attack, an F-18 in a carrier role and a Harrier as a ‘jump jet’? The short answer is that it can’t; a jack-of-all-trades is the master of none. Therefore, it is in Canada’s best interest to get out of the F-35 contract as soon as possible.

There are many options. First, there is the F-18 Super Hornet, an upgraded version of the CF-18 fighter the RCAF already flies. That is the conservative option.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama enjoyed good relations, this would present Harper with a dilemma. The F-35 program is a huge deal. In fact, it is the most expensive military procurement contract in history and it is under pressure due to the aircraft’s poor performance. If Canada backed out of a deal now, it would look bad for the President, and might precipitate a death spiral for the project as other potential F-35 buyers follow Canada’s lead.

But Harper faces no such dilemma. Obama disses Canada every chance he gets. He leaves the post of Canadian ambassador vacant for many months, he does everything to delay the second (and much needed) Windsor-Detroit crossing and, most infamously, he is preventing the Keystone XL pipeline from being built. I guess Canada isn’t enough like those third-world dictatorships that he favours.

To date, Harper has been patient and nice. I have argued that he should start getting tough with Obama. One way to get even on Keystone would be to choose the Eurofighter Typhoon, a much superior aircraft produced in Europe. Ouch! Take that Barack!

 

Comments

[Auto Guy]

OK, this one I can get on board with. The final read on the F35 is still an open question, and the utility of a multi-role aircraft is what we want. Having said that, early returns on the F35 are that it is a dog. The limited stealth capabilities are cutting deeply into the performance curve of the airframe, according to many observers. If Harper were to drop out, the proper message would be very important; that we would stand behind our allies if they showed that they stood behind us. If they don't, they can go jump in a lake and take their crappy F35 with them.

[old white guy]

good idea.

[Fred]

Dumb idea.

Like Obama gives a shit if we deprive our Air Force of the best choice to replace the CF-18.

The only ones who will suffer are the pilots in the RCAF.

[Cincinnatus]

Suffer, with a superior aircraft?

[Auto Guy]

Everyone should be aware that in this case, newer does not necessarily equal better. The F-35 has issues because its tough to marry low-observational tech to a high performance airframe. If you want something that yanks and banks, 1960's era tech will do the trick just fine, thank you. If you want to hide you can't yank and bank as well and you cost a lot more. Hiding is great, but in this case it looks like the performance won't be all that great. Tough call on which way to go with this one...

[Cincinnatus]

Well, I sure hope your right. Otherwise, the F-35 will be the biggest white elephant in Pentagon history.

[John T]

I am of the (perhaps) strange opinion that Obama will still approve Keystone after the mid-terms, as part of a political deal in which he claims "I had no choice. I had to do it in order to get x,y and z..."
Yes, Obama treats Canada very shabbily, but I would hold off until he gives a final and absolute "No" to Keystone. Then I would take retaliatory action that is in Canada's best interest (and walking away from the F-35 may be one of them, but I'm not enough of an expert on military aircraft to know whether that's wise). But if it is, then we're out of there, fast.

[Al in Cranbrook]

This from Kelly McParland...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/07/kelly-mcparland-white-house-climate-study-may-be-the-nail-in-keystones-coffin/

Frankly, if I'm Harper, I'd personally call that useless SOB and tell him, no pipeline, then he can jam his F-35s where green stuff goes to rot.

[Auto Guy]

People will probably argue over this one for a long time. IF we keep with the project the one bright spot is that aerospace defence contractors have a very good record in continuing to work on bad airplanes and improving them until they're very good.

[Burns Matkin]

I don't know exactly how the f-35 performs and I'd wager a guess that none of you do either. You can read contradictory things on any number of websites including ones dedicated to military air like "Combat Aircraft".
However, one thing is certain. Unless Canada has a stealth aircraft it might as well not even show up on the first few days of combat. Why? Ground defense systems are really, really good. The new SAM 300 from Russia is superb as are Chinese copies.
What Canada needs are actually a few f-22s and the rest can be made up with used (but upgraded) warthogs A-10s The US is disposing of a lot of them, upgrades are cheap, they are cheap to fly and are very, very good aircraft particularly for Canada. We only need a handful of super fast attack aircraft.
However, right now the F-35 is the only stealth gen. 5 aircraft available.
I for one do not want to send our flyers into combat in gen. 3 and 4 aircraft on the first days before air supremacy.

[Auto Guy]

Gotta disagree overall. You're right that nobody knows how the F-35 will perform (I stated that earlier)but the preponderance of wisdom is negative. A few F-22 aircraft sounds great, but would be ridiculously expensive just from a maintenance standpoint alone, not to mention training. You have to buy a lot of stuff and do a lot of training to introduce a new platform into the military. To invest all that money for just a few planes just costs too much. Furthermore, don't expect the US to sell anyone the full up version of the F22. They generally don't sell their best air superiority fighter to anyone (one exception was the F15C to Israel back in the early 80's).
We have to consider roles here. Canada needs more than an air superiority fighter. We need ground attack capability. Yep, the warthog will do that in spades, but now we have to support two platforms (see previous argument). Furthermore, those SAM's you were talking about will hurt the warthog and the F-22 can't touch them (unless it has a ground capability that hasn't surfaced yet).
Again, the question on the F-35 is still open. If we can get some political capital out of it, that might be a smart thing to do.

[Quentin Dalgado]

Too bad Canada walking away from the F-35 wouldn't sink it, because then we'd have leverage. Doing so at this point would just give O'Bama another reason to disdain Canadian oil (not to mention other exports). The danger with this sort of linkage is that it can cut both ways.