National Defence Committee on Sept. 15th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Ross.

[Dan Ross]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask Mr. Slack to also comment. As the project manager, he's been involved in the program for 13 years, right from the beginning.

Now, right from the beginning, when we initially signed that first MOU, as I said in my opening remarks, we put full-time people into the joint program office in Washington. Even in the most early days, the only real participants in that were the Americans, the British, and Canada.

Right from the beginning, the joint project office was keenly interested in understanding what the needs of the partners were in terms of lethality, survivability, and affordability, without which those partners would not have proceeded to continue in the program and actually acquire aircraft. It had to respond to the needs of all of the partners. That's one of the reasons you see three variants today: conventional takeoff and landing, which we're buying; carrier variant, which the British and the Americans are buying; and a short takeoff and landing variant, which, again, the British and the Americans are buying. We had direct input into the operational requirements document that drove the competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

Mr. Simms, you have about 35 seconds.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Did we put a formal proposal in, a list of operational requirements from strictly a Canadian perspective, to the Americans that indeed the Lockheed Martin choice was the best one?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Ross.

[Dan Ross]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

No, we did not have a separate, unique Canadian proposal. We reviewed effectively the joint multinational requirement, of course heavily and initially drafted by the United States Navy and the United States Air Force, and had input and comment. There was a feedback loop: are we meeting the needs of all the participants in the program?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you very much.

I will now turn to my colleague Mr. Payne for five minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To start, my questions, through you, Chair, are for either the general or Colonel Burt.

In particular I'm interested in getting a little more detail on what the Canadian air force had in terms of its development needs and the requirements, and how that fit in with the overall program as to how it developed for the F-35.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

General Deschamps.

[LGen J.P.A. Deschamps]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to go back to what's already been expressed in different questions, we've been looking at this for several years...clearly Colonel Burt and his team, and the folks before him as the program was evolving from 2001 and so on. Once the government decided in 2008 that we were going to replace the CF-18, then that gave us the impetus to finalize our views of the future requirements.

So the analysis had been ongoing, but clearly now that we understood the government wanted to move to a new generation of fighters for the future security environment, we were able to complete our analysis and then do a final check, looking around to make sure that we had looked at every possible opportunity out there for us to look at what we were going to table as our requirements.

It's safe to say that we certainly considered how we would approach this option. Something that didn't come out is we have three major missions. The minister has kind of mentioned them, but we have to defend Canada--clearly, number one--North America, and then of course there's peace and security as part of our contribution abroad.

We can't really afford to buy three airplanes to do those three big missions. It's been brought to bear, do we really need stealth to go to intercept or deal with something like a Bear and so on? Clearly there are ranges of options. Unfortunately for us, our ability on a resource basis to afford multiple fleets to do the really high-end stuff and to do, maybe, the less demanding stuff is not there.

If you look back at the history of the air force, we had thousands of fighters in World War II, hundreds and hundreds in the Korean War, still hundreds in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. We're now looking at 65. Therefore quality does count, because to do multi-roles in multi-domains, from high-intensity, high-demand environments that we can't predict, to maybe the home scenario, which doesn't necessarily require all those skills sets or all those capabilities, we have to consider that. Obviously, a mixed-fleet option for us is not affordable.

So the requirement is there. You could meet the requirement by having multiple fleets, but that option was not viable, just from a resource perspective. The F-35 meets all the needs and is affordable. So to us that was a very compelling argument.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, General.

Mr. Payne, you have two minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

You mentioned interoperability with regard to our aircraft and certainly as part of NATO and NORAD. Can you maybe give us an insight as to how that will help us in terms of working with our allies?

[LGen J.P.A. Deschamps]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an important component. We talk about what interoperability means. Up to now we've spent a lot of money on upgrading the CF-18 so it would be functional to work outside of Canada within NORAD and, of course, with the coalition, but I would say it has first-level interoperability. We can talk to other people, and we can share some data, and that's an important first step.

The F-35 would take it to a whole new level, which would mean in the end that we could communicate using means through which we can't right now. Right now we still have to use a lot of verbal communications that give away your position. They are a means involving compromise, if you will. We need to exchange some electronic information with our friends out there, but only a limited amount.

The F-35 allows you to share with partner aircraft basically the entire situational awareness that the platform sees, which dramatically changes the effect you can have with a smaller fleet of airplanes. So when we go into operations abroad with like-minded coalition nations with the same platform, the airplanes are exactly the same. Therefore, we reduce our need to bring everything with us. We can share resources. We can quickly go into an operation without weeks and weeks of training, because we have exactly the same kit and the same software. It will make a big difference in how we do business as a coalition.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

You have about 10 seconds.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay, thank you.

Just in terms of this one aircraft, if we had to have different types of fleets, I am assuming we would be saving billions of dollars by not purchasing other aircraft.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

General, go ahead very quickly.

[LGen J.P.A. Deschamps]

Yes, sir.

Honestly, we could not afford more than a single fleet, and as a single fleet, the F-35 will meet all our needs and give us long-term savings in that domain.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, General.

Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Bachand, you have five minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome everyone. For a while now, it has been my understanding that only Lockheed Martin will have in its possession the fifth generation and stealth aircraft. I understand your argument that as soon as we decide we want a stealth aircraft and a fifth generation, we cannot use a competitive bidding process and that, regardless, no one else manufactures fifth generation and stealth aircraft. Basically, you think it is pointless to hold a process, from what I understand.

The fact remains that certain people are not entirely satisfied with the performance of the aircraft. I will read you a statement made by Eurofighter, as good a competitor as any. There is the Super Hornet, but there is also the Eurofighter. I will read you the quotes in English because they are taken from an English-language publication.

Eurofighter say they have conducted internal simulations

—Colonel Burt may understand what is meant by “internal simulations”—

in which four-ship Typhoon combat air patrols, supported by an Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS), defeat eight-ship JSF formations 85% of the time.

I would like to know whether or not that is true and what you think.

Further on, it says:

There are also suggestions that other simulation series pitting the JSF in one-on-one scenarios against such modern combat types as the Su-35 or the J-10 “do not always end in a JSF victory”....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Colonel Burt.

[Col D. C. Burt]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We read all sorts of things in the media, and there's all sorts of speculation. The challenge I have is not being able to ask the author of articles like that the basis of some of their information.

I can assure you and this committee that the extensive analysis we have done shows us that the fifth-generation attributes of stealth, advance sensors, sensor fusion, and networking truly are game-changers and war-winners. We would not want to be without those fifth-generation capabilities. The allegations in this article that in certain scenarios the Typhoon may have an advantage do not compare at all with the analyses that we have completed.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Did your analyses include that kind of training, that is, simulations pitting one combat type against the other and those pitting groups of aircraft against each other?

[Col D. C. Burt]

Absolutely. We have done a lot of simulation activities, both as part of the JSF program with other partner nations and unilaterally. I have been running a simulation-based process with a team that is uniquely Canadian, where we have been studying the differences between fourth- and fifth-generation capabilities and their employment, their exploitation, in unique Canadian scenarios. By far, fifth-generation capabilities are needed for unique Canadian scenarios, and by far they are far superior.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Now I have a question for General Deschamps.

General, having an aircraft with stealth technology gives rise to a new doctrine or new way of looking at air missions. Could you explain how a stealth aircraft could change the mission? Could it attack in an air-to-ground mission, without many people knowing? Are you looking to change the air doctrine somewhat? You are familiar with air doctrines that are based on what has happened, but is there a desire to move towards a new doctrine and a new kind of mission, as far as this aircraft is concerned? Could you give us a brief explanation?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

General, you have roughly 30 seconds.