Evidence of meeting #24 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So is it pretty safe to say there's probably nobody in Canada who knows more about the F-35 program and how it relates to the CF-18 program than you?
11:45 a.m.
Col D. C. Burt
It's the F-35 program and how it relates to the next-generation fighter capability project and all the other options as well.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Colonel, there's some concern here that this airplane was not evaluated, that the requirement was not evaluated, and so on. Within the limits of classified information, can you give us a sense of the evaluation that you and your team did with the F-35 and fifth-generation capability versus the fourth-generation aircraft that you looked at?
11:45 a.m.
Col D. C. Burt
Thank you for that question.
Let me start by saying that in 2008, when the Canada First defence strategy came out, there was a very clear understanding between the director of air requirements and me that he and his team would be developing the requirements while I and my team would be doing the analysis against the requirements. We ran two very parallel paths. As those requirements were finalized through the early part of 2010 and as my team and I studied—in some areas, at very highly classified levels—the capabilities of the range of options, it was absolutely clear that, measured against the requirements, there was only one option, the joint strike fighter, the F-35, that met the mandatory requirements. In comparison with the other options, it is revolutionarily different in terms of capability.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Again, within the bounds of classified information, can you outline two or three of those differences between the F-35 fifth-generation and airplanes like the Super Hornet or Eurofighter?
11:45 a.m.
Col D. C. Burt
The attributes of fifth-generation that really stand out are very low observable stealth, advanced sensors, the fusion of that sensor information both from on board the aircraft and off board, and the networking that allows that process to take place. The combination of all of these attributes allows fifth-generation capability to far exceed any other option that we considered, any fourth-generation, or four-plus, type of aircraft.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Put in simple fighter pilot terms, does that mean that the guy sitting in the cockpit now has access to information on a secure basis, a volume of information that is tailored to the needs of that mission, that target, that moment, which you would not have in a fourth-generation aircraft?
11:45 a.m.
Col D. C. Burt
Our biggest challenge, as you are aware, in flying fourth-generation and earlier aircraft was understanding what was going on around us, having situational awareness, and then determining, using the small amount of time that was left, how we would react to the tactical situation. With fifth-generation, that situational awareness is presented to the pilot, far decreasing the amount of time and effort it takes to understand what's going on, and giving far more time to make a much better decision and react far better to the tactical situation.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, sir.
In terms of operational effectiveness, then, would you say that with a fifth-generation aircraft, such as the F-35, the operational effectiveness is dramatically increased and the survivability of the aircraft and the pilot is dramatically increased?
11:45 a.m.
Col D. C. Burt
Fifth-generation capability in terms of survivability and effectiveness is a total game-changer. It's a different level entirely.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you.
I'm going to come back to Mr. Ross later in my next round, but I think I have 30 seconds left.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence
In May 2005.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay. So for the last five years, you've been part of the evolution of the processes of procurement and industrial participation and so on.
Okay, good. I intend to come back to that later.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bryon Wilfert
Thank you, Mr. Hawn.
We will now go to the second round. The second round is five minutes. We will start out with Mr. Simms, followed by Monsieur Bachand, I believe. No? We don't have a Conservative down yet, so unless otherwise informed.... Okay, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Simms.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Colonel Burt, thank you for your testimony. I enjoyed it. It was informative.
So this plane, this F-35, certainly as you've illustrated, is certainly in a class of its own altogether—I believe the word used was “revolutionary”. Someone else brought up another plane that you would consider fourth-generation. Is that correct?
What do you think is the closest competitor to what the F-35 has to offer?
11:50 a.m.
Col D. C. Burt
Thank you very much for the question. There really isn't a close competitor to fifth-generation. All of the other options that were considered were fourth-generation aircraft. Some of them had some improvements to them, so some of the marketing describes them as four-plus generation—4.5 or in that range—but there was no other option that was truly a fifth-generation and had the attributes that I described earlier of the very low observable stealth, advanced sensors, the fusion, and the networking.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Thank you.
What you're basing it on is what Mr. Deschamps talked about in earlier testimony, the perceived threat to sovereignty and that sort of thing. It seems to me that we're really focused here on the perceived threat and the sovereignty issue that we've seen, such as in the exercise of intercepting the Russian bomber. Certainly there are other functions for this as well, including the CF-18 that had a stint in Serbia, or Bosnia or Herzegovina, wherever it was.
When it comes to other missions, I'll say air-to-ground missions, describe to me why the F-35 is the best choice. Do we see ourselves in that position where there is also a perceived threat in an air-to-ground mission, as we did some time ago?
11:50 a.m.
Col D. C. Burt
The key issue in operations is being able to come home safely and go the next day, and because of the very low observable stealth and the other capabilities that are incorporated in fifth- generation aircraft, the risks to the operator are diminished significantly and the chance of coming home is far increased, which enhances survivability. The difference in that kind of technology between fourth and fifth generation is of such a magnitude that there is no comparison.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Ross, I'd like you to go back to the process once again. We seem to be going back to this issue about 1997. When we first signed on to this program, what was asked of Canada, what was it we were to provide, and what was our official function in that 1997 process?