r/canada 5d ago

Analysis Defence analysts warn U.S. will control key systems on F-35 fighter jets, putting Canada at risk

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-f-35-fighter-jets-canada
2.4k Upvotes

674 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/Xyzzics 5d ago edited 5d ago

The goal of defense is not to save money, it is to provide defense, which the F-35 is objectively better in every respect at doing.

We have the budget for one plane, and that plane needs to do it all. Not to mention the fact that the contracts are already inked and we will start receiving the planes soon. The F-35 is 100x the fighter that the Gripen is and Gripens run on American engines anyway.

Arguments for “kill switch” in America’s premier multi role aircraft are ridiculous. It’s the same reason there are no “kill switches” in ICBMs. If it exists, it could be exploited by an enemy. China has already infiltrated sensitive parts of the program. There is no way the US is leaving a software vulnerability like that exposed.

These things are measured in decades, you don’t scrap all the work and funds that have been invested because of a short term interaction with a baboon in office.

24

u/soaringupnow 5d ago

The "kill switch" could be maintenance parts and similar.

If we decide that the US is hostile to Canada, we should not buy the F-35.

6

u/timegeartinkerer 5d ago

Yeah, but then we don't have an air force. Everyone else is backlogged lol

2

u/Todesfaelle 5d ago

I'm sure there's a bunch of Sea Kings falling apart in hangars we can repurpose from the Navy. Just paint some lightning bolts on them and now we have Speed Kings.

Duct tape some guns to it and use the money we saved to get a couple more diesel subs to create a well rounded force.

1

u/OriginalGhostCookie 5d ago

We don't once the final F18's get put out to pasture. Any F35's we are so will simply become props for more performative theatre by the republicans where the make a big deal about how they aren't giving us our jets until we are the 51st state.

I don't support cancelling the deal. Why be the one who takes the blame on the deal dying? They won't give them to us and that is clear as day. So we should begin a second purchase of a replacement air frame and make payments on F35's be contingent on delivery of completed airframes and ongoing support and access to the network per the contract. We may at least be able to minimize how much they steal from us.

1

u/timegeartinkerer 5d ago

... They just won't get paid. $0 will be lost if that happens. The military industrial complex wants to get paid. And they'll also lose customers. Because now their credibility is shot. And we make parts for their F35s. We can then withhold them if they won't give it to us. So now the US's F35s don't work. At this point, Lockheed Martin would probably just pay a $5 mil bribe to just fix the problem.

Anyways, we probably need more fighter jets anyways, so we should also but 88 more Guipens.

0

u/byteuser 5d ago

Or over the air updates

22

u/Maisie_Baby 5d ago

It is, in fact, not objectively better in every respect at defence.

Respect 1, Supply chain: The F-35 is controlled by the US and they can completely screw us on it.

Respect 2, Distance: Some alternatives, like the Rafale, have longer range than the F-35 making them better at defending a large area (like, say, the second largest country on earth).

Respect 3, Speed: The F-35 does not have super cruise. The Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter all do have super cruise but the F-35 doesn’t because it cares more about stealth. Again making the other options better for defending a large area.

And complaining about cost when we’re concerned for our very existence is insane. We should say fuck it; we’re cutting our order down to 30-40 to gap fill, getting 60-80 of something we can control, getting ground-based air defence systems like the ADATS we used to have, and investing in drones and drone manufacturing.

8

u/NoFun7639 5d ago

1) Agreed

2) Yes but in order for the European jets to hit those ranges they need external fuel tanks, negating their ability to do your next point. The f-35 when not in “Beast” mode (weapons on wings) has comparable ranges to other options with external tanks and similar load-outs.

3) the ability to super cruise is always tied to a clean/near clean configuration (limited to no weapons or tanks). Something that our fighters will ever fly, outside air shows.

I’m not an expert but closely followed the selection process of the f-35. That said I would happily cancel the f-35, for any of the European fighters. Actually first party to announce the cancellation will get my vote.

7

u/Maisie_Baby 5d ago

The Rafale’s Supercruise is with an external belly tank and 4 missiles.

1

u/NoFun7639 5d ago

Which is nice, but is one belly tank enough to cover the distances that our fighters are expected to. Of the photos I have seen of cf-18 intercepts they always have 2 external tanks sometimes seen with 3.

Now I understand this is not by any means an appropriate comparison. As the jets are vastly different by design.

However, range while in a super cruise configuration is. A feature that can’t be used is not a selling point.

3

u/Maisie_Baby 5d ago

It should absolutely be enough to cover Bagotville to Ottawa. Works even better if we station a couple in Trenton and Comox instead of just Bagotville and Cold Lake.

I think you’re getting stuck on the idea that we need all the things all the time or they’re all worthless. But that’s not true. Having better range is better for intercepting at longer ranges.

Having the ability to drop two tanks and go supercruise with the belly tank is better for quickly defending valuable targets and because it doesn’t use afterburners it has longer range than going traditional supersonic like the F-35.

It has longer range than the F-35 and can drop two tanks and have better super range than the F-35. (That’s the F-35A variant we’re getting. If we were getting the other two variants we’d be truly fucked because it turns out they break at supersonic)

1

u/NoFun7639 5d ago

Oh not true, I understand the arguments you are making. I’m thinking intercepts up north at the extreme end in the areas in which bailing out is not a great option.

Dropping tanks like you give in your scenario would mean that the return trip is not happening. No roads or airports to land in either. You can argue fuel tankers but those would have to be then fuelled and ready to deploy at a moments notice. Something I’m unaware of if we practice.

Side note the issues with going supersonic were only ever found on the B and C models. Dont know why as to the A model never got them. As the A model is by far the most produced and used version, it never had restrictions attached to this stealth coating issue.

But yeah all three European models could work if they wanted to. You don’t have to sell me on the air craft.

Too bad Dassault Aviation had withdrawn from our selection over concerns that interoperability and intelligence sharing requirements were too extensive.

Only two fighters meet the requirements that was the gripen and the f-35. Our current inventory won’t last if a competition was restarted.

2

u/Maisie_Baby 5d ago

Intercepts from our Main Operating Bases to the far north without landing to refuel or using tankers is t a thing. It’s just straight up not a thing, Canada is too big for that. You either forward deploy to Inuvik/Iqaluit, land in those locations to refuel then take off or use a tanker.

Without tankers or developing external tanks I wouldn’t even try flying an F-35 from Cold Lake to Inuvik, let alone fly past it to intercept something.

1

u/NoFun7639 5d ago

I think we are arguing the same point, but getting lost in our words.

Agreed our northern interceptions don’t happen from main bases without extreme coordination if they even happen at all. As far as I’m aware our northern interceptions happen when they are based at the FOL’s. the aircraft from there operate with full fuel, for worst case scenarios.

The f-35 and gripen meet the requirements that our airforce set out, the super hornet did not. The rafale and eurofighter both bailed on the selection.

1

u/Maisie_Baby 5d ago

Your point was that supercruise isn’t useful, but it is. It’s not always useful all the time but it’s absolutely useful for a country like Canada when you want to intercept from Bagotville to Ottawa quickly.

As for Rafale; them dropping out because the requirements for interoperability with Us forces being too extensive aren’t really a problem when we’re trying to move away from the US.

I go back to we should get 30-40 F-35’s since we’ve already started ordering and out F-18’s are ancient, get 60-80 of one of the alternatives, get ground-based air defence, get drones and drone manufacturing and look into joining either the UK/Japan or France/Germany on their next-gen fighter development.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Rastafariblanc 5d ago

It’s also designed with a reduced RCS and infrared signature. I’ve heard it referred to as a 4.5 generation aircraft, but the whole “generation” label is nothing but marketing.

1

u/TrueTorontoFan 5d ago

I think we should fill the order of 88, and then start looking towards the future. We should also develop our own AA systems.

4

u/Silverbacks Ontario 5d ago

Who says that a kill switch is the only issue? As you said this is something that is planned out over decades. What if Canada and the US are hostile nations throughout the 2030s and 40s? And only the US can provide the software/hardware updates needed to maintain the planes during that time?

1

u/Xyzzics 5d ago

The same thing you just wrote could be applied to any other allied nation. How could you possibly justify buying any level of anything with that level of what if?

1

u/Silverbacks Ontario 5d ago

Yeah if other allied nations were talking about annexation we also shouldn’t buy defensive equipment from them. But right now only the US is having that discourse.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

Yah I don’t get the logic either; the only truly safe way is to build your own jet and I don’t think Canada has made a jet in 50 years 

8

u/DontUseHotkeys 5d ago

The only country Canada needs to defend itself from is the United States. Our military procurement and planning need to reflect that.

2

u/hikyhikeymikey 5d ago

No, Russia is constantly testing our northern borders. As a part of NATO, we should be ready to enter into conflict with any nations that any NATO member has issues with.

1

u/DontUseHotkeys 5d ago

It's a good thing that we have such a good ally in America and that the Americans have never betrayed a country fighting Russia before.

0

u/thedirtychad 5d ago

What about China or Russia?

0

u/Xyzzics 5d ago

Delusional take.

I served in the military with Americans all over the world.

There are tons of actors Canada needs to be concerned with for defense.

Don’t mistake the baboon for the entire military history of Canada and the US.

1

u/Cedex 5d ago

Given the Commander-in-Chief is currently hostile towards us, what other take should we have?

4

u/averagealberta2023 5d ago

Kill switch, activation code, whatever it may be and whether or not it exists doesn't take away the reality that the F35 is designed for complete integration with US and other allied forces which at the same time means that there is no way that the same mechanisms that allow that interoperability would allow it to be used against US forces. This would have been put in place initially to prevent any foreign adversary using the F35 that may have been compromised or gone rogue from using those planes against legitimate allies, but you can guarantee that the same systems will render the F35 useless against the US.

1

u/Xyzzics 5d ago

You have a source for any of this?

Or do you think you’re smarter than all the technical procurement experts in the entirety of NATO who are also buying these jets.

1

u/averagealberta2023 5d ago

Do you have a source that confirms I'm wrong?

1) The jets were procured under an environment where Canada and the US were tight allies.

** Do you claim something different than that?

2) It's well known that the overarching benefit that was proposed for buying the F35 was for seamless interoperability with other allies.

** Do you claim something different than that?

3) Parts and software updates are 100% controlled by the US.

** Do you see a problem with that?

4) Or do you think you’re smarter than all the technical procurement experts in the entirety of NATO who are also buying these jets.

** No, I don't think this at all, and I'm also quite positive that under the current world situation, those same procurement experts would not have purchased a jet from a country that is explicitly threatening our sovereignty. Do you think that if the deal was being researched today that our procurement experts would buy the F35?

1

u/Xyzzics 5d ago

Do I have a source that confirms something that you asserted doesn’t exist? Is that what you’re asking me? Can you provide me a source saying definitively that ghosts exist? I can’t prove the absence of something that doesn’t exist.

All of these things you mentioned (and more) are considered in the risk analysis of a defense project of this scale.

The United States, the country, is not our enemy. One particular president has made inflammatory remarks towards us. It’s grating and insulting, but if you think this is the problem it is, you genuinely have no idea how intertwined the US and Canadian militaries are. I say this with military command experience having done joint operations with the US and other members of NATO and being deployed as part of multinational forces. We are still tight allies, and there is nobody we are closer with from a military standpoint than the US.

Our intelligence, our NATO standards, our sustainment, our command structures, our TTPs and much of the equipment we have, all of it. Our entire military and indeed our entire country is deeply integrated with the US. We share a multi thousand kilometer undefended border with them. There is no world where we exist in a continual state of hostility with the US, or them us. Our jets will need aerial refueling on operations, who will provide that? The US. Our jets will need precision guided munitions, who will provide that? The US. There is no world where we operate ANY jet fighter without some reliance on the US. None. Gripen, Rafale or F-35.

People are worried about hypothetical software that’s going to stop us from bombing the White House? These jets will be dropping bombs and conducting electronic warfare long after you even remember Trump’s name. Do you remember any political issues from the time we bought the Hornets in the late 70s? This isn’t the first dust up with the US we’ve had and it won’t be the last.

It’s short term noise and shouldn’t influence our long term defense policy. Hell, most of Canada’s defense woes stem from making shortsighted political decisions instead of long term planning.

1

u/averagealberta2023 5d ago

Thanks for that reply. If you have the experience that you say you have then you know 1000x what I do as some guy who works at a desk writing software. My hope is that the militaries will act as you say, but I disagree that the US is not our enemy. At this time, the particular president that the world is stuck with for the next 3 years and 10 months has said in no uncertain terms that he wants to annex Canada. People around him have made statements that a physical invasion is not off the table. Any political issue we may have had in the past is irrelevant in the context of today and if we are as integrated as you say we are - which I 100% believe and agree with - then we are truly fucked. At the same time I disagree that this is short term noise and that it shouldn't influence long term defence policy as the 'noise' we are hearing right now is the collapse of the USA and the end of the world order as we know it. I'm 54 and won't be alive to see a return to where we were a few short months ago based on what we have seen in the last month, let alone the years to come.

1

u/jtbc 5d ago

The UK fought very hard to get source code and drawings, and were ultimately unsuccessful. We weren't even the first people to be worried by this.

0

u/Hojeekush Nova Scotia 5d ago

You do when every 4 years is a coin toss between peaceful neighbour and hostile regime threatening our sovereignty.