Captain Simon Petitt is
quoted as saying that “there was still a
lot of symbolism in modern warfare and having a ship the size of HMS Queen
Elizabeth, which will be the navy's biggest ever, was significant.” and
that “the sight of a heavily equipped
65,000-tonne carrier, which is almost 300 metres long, heading towards a
potential enemy had a deterrent effect that is essential if the UK wants to
project influence across the world.”
These carriers have a
displacement of 70,600 tonnes, are 300 metres in length and have a core crew of
680; however it is the number of aircraft carried that is the issue. As
designed the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers can carry more then fourty
aircraft, but the growing costs of purchasing and maintaining the fighter-bomber
of choice, the F-35B, means that according to Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in a speech on 1 November 2012 only some 12
F-35B’s will be routinely embarked. It is not clear just how
significant the deterrent effect of 12 short ranged F-35s will be on potential
enemies.
It is almost unbelievable
that the Royal Navy would build an aircraft carrier that it can not afford
aircraft for. The money spent on these two white elephants will never be
recouped and could better have been spent on the frigates, patrol ships and
destroyers that are so desperately needed by that service. The only possible
interpretation of these events is that the admirals making the decisions are
hoping that someone, sometime, somewhere, will find the money to buy more
aircraft.
Nobody needs a 70,000 ton
aircraft carrier for 12 F-35Bs. The raison d'être that drives ever larger
air-capable ships is the economies of scale found in larger air wings. Needless
to say, if you aren’t going to have larger air groups then much of the rational
for larger ships is lost. It would appear to most observers that ships more
like the successful Invincible class carriers that these new,
larger, ships are to replace would have been a better choice.
Is there even any merit at
all in having a force of 12 F-35Bs? The answer may well be a qualified yes. It
should be noted that in OP Mobile Canada’s
fighter contribution to the NATO force over Libya consisted of just 6 F-18s.
This force, along with support aircraft, was considered to be a reasonable
response, one in keeping with our aims and alliance responsibilities.
If one is not interested in “a
deterrent effect on a potential enemy” but rather in maintaining alliances and
contributing to common causes then recent history suggests that six to twelve
fighters and some support may well be sufficient. The question then becomes;
how can Canada
best achieve this more limited goal?
Canadian Defence Matters has
long advocated that Canada
should consider a mixed purchase of aircraft to replace the CF-18 in RCAF
service. The case for buying Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets is well made by James Hasik
who recently pointed out that no matter what the future brings Canada would
always find use for a medium range bomb-truck with air defence potential.
Given the design limitations
of the Super Hornet, Canadian Defence Matters believes that a small purchase,
on the order of twenty F-35’s, as well as approximately sixty Super Hornets
would be sufficient to meet our immediate needs. If it should become apparent
in the future that more F-35s were needed then it would be relatively easy to
integrate them into an already existing force. If the F-35s should not be
needed, or if the program should be seen to be a failure, then F-18Es would
serve as a useful, and less expensive, insurance policy.
When the search was for one
aircraft type to fulfill all our fighter needs then the F-35A, the Air Force
model, was the obvious choice. But if
instead we are looking for a small intervention force, one designed to act as
part of a coalition, rather then a one type for all purposes larger force, the
question then becomes; which model of F-35 should Canada procure?
The F-35B, the “Marine” or V/STOL
model, has not been considered for Canadian use up to this time. To quote Doug
Allen at Best Fighter for Canada, “Theoretically,
a V/STOL aircraft would be a great choice for deployment flexibility. Realistically, they don't make much sense for
Canada. Short range, high cost, and they require more
maintenance than conventional fighter jet. Aircraft that have STOL (Short Take Off and
Landing) capabilities, or close to them, like the CC-130 Hercules, offer
similar benefits without the extravagant costs or range compromises” These
are reasonable arguments, but they could be leveled against any of the F-35
variants.
The F35-B would be a good
choice for deployment flexibility. Although it’s a fun thought experiment to
imagine what the smallest ship capable of launching and recovering 6 CF-18’s
might be like ( I suspect the answer has something to do with the length of the
catapult ) it may not be completely practical. More realistically, if Canada should ever deploy a “Big Honking Ship”
such as the Australian Canberra class or
even Hyuga type vessels capable of carrying them, the utility of 35Bs would be immense.
If Canada is only going to have a
small force of F-35’s used mainly for deployments outside the country in
support of our allies and treaty obligations then it only makes sense to have
the most flexible model of F-35. As unlikely as it seems, F-35B’s just might be
a good choice for Canada.
Royal Navy says huge size of
its new aircraft carrier will be a deterrent
RN in Review: 2012
Invincible-class aircraft
carrier
Operation Mobile
Less stealth, more agility,
and more certainty: what the Super Hornet has, and whether that will matter in Canada
The F-35 Lightning II: The
Controversial Front-runner
Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD)
DDH-161 Hyuga / 16DDH
"13,500 ton" ton Class
