My solemn advice to the federal Conservative government: hands off the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
While you are seemingly still prepared to throw away more than $1 billion per annum on state broadcaster CBC, and are now warming to the numbing stupidity of paying $2 billion to public servants to leave the bloated bureaucracy, you are wavering on national defence. You are threatening the integrity of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which, thank God, due to your wisdom, we are now able to say again without sounding wistfully nostalgic.
Now is not the time for defence penury. We perceived more than a hint of parsimony and this week's non-commitment and equivocation from Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino. His repeated use of the word "if" when describing the purchase of the F-35 to the House of Commons defence committee must give pause for concern.
Let us proceed with both hands on the throttle, but let us proceed with a flight plan. What will be the final price tag? Is it $9 billion, $16 billion or $30 billion? Confusion only engenders fear and a good talking point for the NDP, three letters which must persist in being deciphered as "No Defence Policy."
If les Neo Democrats had their way, the RCAF would be flying Sopwith Camel biplanes and putting out forest fires, so much do they loathe the military.
But let us remember what we do know about the F-35.
Can we please allow the facts to get in the way of NDP obfuscation?
The official Opposition is fond of reminding Canadians that the fighter jet was "sole sourced." This may make for good election commercials, but it doesn't explain why we should not purchase this particular aircraft. The F-35 was a longterm project that Canada supported along with the U.S. Department of Defence. The Liberal government of the day was part of that process and the Liberal-run Defence Department spent Canadian defence dollars in the research and development of the project. This was clearly a project engendered in the national - and not the political - interest and nurtured by operational requirements.
Those dollars were spent in conjunction with our allies, particularly the United States. That relationship is another reason that Canada needs the F-35. It is the fighter replacement choice for all three branches of the U.S. military that currently fly fighter jets: The U.S. air force, navy and marines.
The F-35 is also Australia's choice and will be flown by Britain's air force, both also key countries that Canada works with on a regular basis. This is called being interoperable with your allies and it makes good military sense.
Can we stop playing politics with defence in this country? If this plea seems more of a cliche to you than a heartfelt desire, it is due to the preponderance of political theatre in Canada for which the military is the primary target.
We have got to do better than that. If it is in our grasp to emulate any other country's defence posture, it should be that of Australia, where military issues are a source of unity among the populace and the political parties, where the NDPcounterpart Labour Party, whether as government or in opposition, has consistently viewed national defence initiatives from a non-partisan perspective.
But if the facts from the present are insufficient, let us consider some lessons from the past, such as the dreadful legacy of the EH-101 helicopter. The Brian Mulroney government had initially ordered 50 of these helicopters to replace both the Labrador search and rescue helicopter and the Sea King ship-borne helicopter. Blink-of-an-eye PM Kim Campbell downgraded that order to 35, but that was still too much for the Liberal party.
In 1993, when the decade of despair commenced, Jean Chretien cancelled the EH-101, claiming it was a "Cadillac" and that the Canadian military should never require any product approaching the best. The chopper cancellation played a large part in that year's election campaign and Chretien kept his promise.
The result was 10 years of chaos and cancellation fees.
The Liberal government ultimately turned around and bought the EH-101 as the search and rescue replacement (now called the Cormorant so nobody would notice that it was the same aircraft) and dithered about replacing the Sea King to the point that air force crews aboard navy ships are still flying the 49-year-old helicopter and waiting for the delivery of the 24 Cyclone replacements.
This is precisely where another aircraft cancellation will lead us again and precisely where this government knows it should not go.
David Krayden is a former air force public affairs officer and the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, notfor-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy. www.policystudies.ca
Original Article
Source: calgary herald
Author: Dsavid Krayden
While you are seemingly still prepared to throw away more than $1 billion per annum on state broadcaster CBC, and are now warming to the numbing stupidity of paying $2 billion to public servants to leave the bloated bureaucracy, you are wavering on national defence. You are threatening the integrity of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which, thank God, due to your wisdom, we are now able to say again without sounding wistfully nostalgic.
Now is not the time for defence penury. We perceived more than a hint of parsimony and this week's non-commitment and equivocation from Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino. His repeated use of the word "if" when describing the purchase of the F-35 to the House of Commons defence committee must give pause for concern.
Let us proceed with both hands on the throttle, but let us proceed with a flight plan. What will be the final price tag? Is it $9 billion, $16 billion or $30 billion? Confusion only engenders fear and a good talking point for the NDP, three letters which must persist in being deciphered as "No Defence Policy."
If les Neo Democrats had their way, the RCAF would be flying Sopwith Camel biplanes and putting out forest fires, so much do they loathe the military.
But let us remember what we do know about the F-35.
Can we please allow the facts to get in the way of NDP obfuscation?
The official Opposition is fond of reminding Canadians that the fighter jet was "sole sourced." This may make for good election commercials, but it doesn't explain why we should not purchase this particular aircraft. The F-35 was a longterm project that Canada supported along with the U.S. Department of Defence. The Liberal government of the day was part of that process and the Liberal-run Defence Department spent Canadian defence dollars in the research and development of the project. This was clearly a project engendered in the national - and not the political - interest and nurtured by operational requirements.
Those dollars were spent in conjunction with our allies, particularly the United States. That relationship is another reason that Canada needs the F-35. It is the fighter replacement choice for all three branches of the U.S. military that currently fly fighter jets: The U.S. air force, navy and marines.
The F-35 is also Australia's choice and will be flown by Britain's air force, both also key countries that Canada works with on a regular basis. This is called being interoperable with your allies and it makes good military sense.
Can we stop playing politics with defence in this country? If this plea seems more of a cliche to you than a heartfelt desire, it is due to the preponderance of political theatre in Canada for which the military is the primary target.
We have got to do better than that. If it is in our grasp to emulate any other country's defence posture, it should be that of Australia, where military issues are a source of unity among the populace and the political parties, where the NDPcounterpart Labour Party, whether as government or in opposition, has consistently viewed national defence initiatives from a non-partisan perspective.
But if the facts from the present are insufficient, let us consider some lessons from the past, such as the dreadful legacy of the EH-101 helicopter. The Brian Mulroney government had initially ordered 50 of these helicopters to replace both the Labrador search and rescue helicopter and the Sea King ship-borne helicopter. Blink-of-an-eye PM Kim Campbell downgraded that order to 35, but that was still too much for the Liberal party.
In 1993, when the decade of despair commenced, Jean Chretien cancelled the EH-101, claiming it was a "Cadillac" and that the Canadian military should never require any product approaching the best. The chopper cancellation played a large part in that year's election campaign and Chretien kept his promise.
The result was 10 years of chaos and cancellation fees.
The Liberal government ultimately turned around and bought the EH-101 as the search and rescue replacement (now called the Cormorant so nobody would notice that it was the same aircraft) and dithered about replacing the Sea King to the point that air force crews aboard navy ships are still flying the 49-year-old helicopter and waiting for the delivery of the 24 Cyclone replacements.
This is precisely where another aircraft cancellation will lead us again and precisely where this government knows it should not go.
David Krayden is a former air force public affairs officer and the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, notfor-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy. www.policystudies.ca
Original Article
Source: calgary herald
Author: Dsavid Krayden
No comments:
Post a Comment