Today's poll question; does Canada need an Air Force? If we are going to start a debate over whether or not to upgrade our Air Force with new fighter jets, maybe we should discuss if we even want to maintain a fleet? We aren't set to receive delivery on these jets for a few years yet and if we cancel the contracts it will delay the upgrading of our fighter force by another several years. We have the option of ceding sovereignty of our air space to the Americans, where we can call the Pentagon if Russia sends bombers towards our shores on practice flights. Our current fleet is old, crashing at air shows, and needs to be upgraded. Should we postpone that by a decade? Should we give up on our Air Force?
I ask you.
Not only do we need an air force, we need one with twice the capacity of the one presently constituted in Canada.
ReplyDeleteWe have one of the largest land masses in the world..how do we protect it without aircraft?
with 16,000 (approx) troops?
Not likely..
Give up sovereignty to the US and Canada will be like their Guantanamo, to the North.
ReplyDeletePer ardua ad astra. Through adversity to the stars. Scrap the air force? "Not bloody likely" as my RAF/RCAF father used to say.
ReplyDelete2001-The military is crippled by underfunding; mechanics had to borrow batteries from the Spanish air force to keep its CF-18 jets in the air over the former Yugoslavia Auditor General Report demonstrates Liberals have a history in undermining our military and ability to protect.
ReplyDeletehttp://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4653433&Language=E&Mode=2&Parl=40&Ses=3#Int-3264095
House of Commons Standing Committee on Defence September 15, 2010
LGen J.P.A. Deschamps:
Thank you, Mr. Simms.
I think it's a good question, because every time I've been out recently, talking to different groups of folks about the program, the first question people ask me is typically, “Why do we need fighters?” If you can't answer that question, then no matter how much money it is, it seems to be too much. So I believe that's a fundamental question.
As I tried to express in my opening remarks, right now the only thing that allows any country to exercise control of its airspace is the manned fighter. There is the potential that in the future unmanned technology would be mature to the point where that might become an option. It doesn't mean it would be cheaper, but it might become an option.
Right now we don't see it being a feasible solution for many decades, and neither does the United States, because it's investing enormous sums of money in that next generation of fighters, as are all the industrialized nations, western and others. So the manned fighter remains the critical platform that's required to maintain control of your airspace, with regard to both a situation of awareness and a capability for deterrence and acting.
The definition of threat, sir, depends on what the circumstances are. There are two components to deterrence. Deterrence comes from having awareness of or at least being alert to what's out there and having the ability to react. For us the combination of that would translate into knowledge, situational awareness, and readiness. Readiness is made up of people and equipment and training.
The two add up to deterrence. If you don't have situational awareness, if you don't know what's going on inside or outside your own domain, then you're very prone to surprise and some very negative outcomes.
As for the second component, if you don't have the capabilities to react or act, then you're also likely not to be successful. Therefore you don't have a deterrent effect.
For us it's really about maintaining balance. As we looked at the future scenarios and the very uncertain future security environment, it was part of our analysis.
We need fighters on the basis that we signed the NORAD agreement. The alternative is that we let the US defend our airspace from international and terrorist threats.
ReplyDeleteVery good question. Wonder why our national press gallery are not talented enough to come up with a question like this for Iffy.
ReplyDeleteThe political response to the F35 announcement is fascinating. The Liberal's are on their hind legs screaming against the purchase...without being against the purchase. Is that even remotely defensible? As it turns out it is, because the media has given them all sorts of cover.
ReplyDeleteOf course we need an air force. Of course the government has the moral, ethical and planning authority to make rational decisions, and of course it shouldn't be the "cheapest" thing on the market.
I also don't need David McGuinty, Jack Layton, or Gilles Duceppe in the committee room making the decision. Each one is hopelessly wrapped in partisan advantage. Their involvement includes trip wires and land mines.
Is the world becoming safer and more peaceful? Is America getting stronger and more able to watch thier niegbors butt for free?
ReplyDeleteNo. No. -and Yes we need fighter jets.
Does the left look stupider by the day? YES.
Once again in Canadian politics, the opposition opposes instead of acting as the government in waiting, and the gotcha press plays right along.
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone at the CBC could go to Germany and ask Schreiber.
We can never truly be independent of the US simply because of our small population/vast area and their dominance in defense. Regardless of what we buy, we will never have enough, or enough people to fly them anyways. If our aim is simply national, I would like to see us buy a great deal of cheaper COIN type aircraft and push unmanned UCAV aircraft.
http://members.shaw.ca/canadaunderattack/CanadaUnderAttack.pdf
ReplyDeleteA very long read but tons of detail of military defunding and problems with each Federal Government.