Admiral leery of stealth fighters

Enlarge Image

HANDOUT PHOTO Canadian officials have repeatedly cited the stealth capabilities of the F-35 (above) in justifying their decision to use it to replace the country�s aging CF-18s. (POSTMEDIA)

OTTAWA -- The U.S. Navy's top commander has publicly questioned the long-term benefits of stealth technology like that employed in the F-35 jet fighter, suggesting drones and other alternatives are the way of the future.

The comments from Admiral Jonathan Greenert stand in sharp contrast to repeated Conservative government and Defence Department assertions about the overwhelming need for stealth in whatever aircraft replaces Canada's CF-18s.

Defence analysts north and south of the border say they also highlight the large degree of faith Canada and its allies are investing as they prepare to spend billions of dollars to purchase an aircraft that is supposed to last decades -- but could be obsolete much sooner.

In an article published by the U.S. Naval Institute this month, Greenert writes that a rapid expansion in computing power combined with changes to sensor technology have made it increasingly easy to sidestep the stealth capabilities of ships and aircraft.

Staying ahead of the curve is possible, he adds, but it would be require even larger financial investments than have already been made.

"It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems -- or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them," Greenert concludes.

The naval commander did not specifically mention the F-35, and a U.S. Navy official said Greenert was not suggesting the stealth fighter program, which is as politically sensitive in the U.S. as it is in Canada, be abandoned.

However, the official said Greenert was warning that the timeline for the viability of stealth technology is shorter than many would like to believe, and alternatives must be considered to ensure the U.S. is not caught flat-footed in a future conflict.

Canada's Defence Department has been conducting research into drones, but mainly for surveillance in the Arctic, and the F-35 is envisioned as being Canada's prime aerial workhorse until at least 2050.

The Conservative government has repeatedly trumpeted the aircraft's stealth capabilities when explaining why the F-35 is the only aircraft that meets Canada's requirements.

"Stealth beats non-stealth every time," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told a parliamentary committee on March 13. "There's only one stealth aircraft available to Canada, and that's the F-35."

Those comments echo similar sentiments from senior Canadian military officials.

"Stealth is a fairly winning hand in any modern conflict," Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, said in December. "For us not to go that route would be to spend a lot of money on equipment that would be fairly marginalized as far as complex environments are concerned."

Such assertions have been questioned before, particularly as stealth technology generally comes at a financial and capability cost that makes planes slower, less acrobatic and more restricted in terms of payload and range.

Some analysts said Greenert's comments add a new layer to the discussion, not least because they come from the commander of a U.S. military branch that is supposed to be a main purchaser of the F-35.

"The understanding is sinking in that it's a very limited tactical advantage," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, who described stealth technology as a "fad."

"There are huge amounts of money at risk, and it's not just money, it's a serious question what your air force will and will not be able to do if it carries for the next 30 years the giant millstone of stealth technology."

Philippe Lagassé, a defence procurement expert at the University of Ottawa, agreed that given the costs and lack of certainty about how long stealth technology will truly improve the survivability of an aircraft, caution is advised.

He suggested Canada consider purchasing a lower-cost, non-stealth aircraft that already exists to meet the air force's basic requirement and see how technology and the security environment develop before committing to a major overhaul.

But University of Calgary defence expert Rob Huebert said Greenert's comments aside, the reality is stealth will remain an important factor in future military conflicts for the short to medium term, and Canada must be prepared.

"In the future battlefield, it's going to be who sees whom first," he said. "I don't think we have a choice. I look at the alternatives, and if we don't have it, Canadian security suffers."

-- Postmedia News

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition July 12, 2012 A8