In reaction to requests for more information from firms who want to sell their fighters to Canada, as part of a review of options the government began after its $45.8-billion plan to acquire a fleet of 65 F-35 jets hit a brick wall last April, the government last Sunday released a 22-page questionnaire that included six “vignettes” the new fighter planes might face from 2020 past 2030, four of which involve terrorist attacks within Canada, terrorist attacks from abroad, or war operations as part of a coalition.
Only one of the six scenarios involves protecting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic or off Canada’s shores through joint North American Aerospace Defence Command operations with the U.S. Air Force. One other involves Canadian fighter protection to protect UN-led responses to humanitarian crisis or disasters, where the Canadian planes would suppress criminal activity or “general lawlessness” that threaten the emergency relief.
“The following mission vignettes provide additional information on the types of missions and tasks that a Canadian fighter may be required to complete,” the letter says to the fighter aircraft firms informally competing to have their fighters chosen to replace Canada’s F-18, either as short-term bridges to a time when the trouble-plagued F-35 can produce operational aircraft, or afterward, to face a grim scenario of air war the U.S. and other countries backing development of the F-35 have envisaged.
The letter also lists Russia’s current modern jet fighter, the Sukhoi SU-27, and a Russian long-range bomber as potential threats in the near future, and a new Russian stealth fighter now under development, Russia’s equivalent to the F-35, as a long-term threat Canada’s new fighters might have to face.
The first “vignette” the new fighters should be able to handle is a scenario involving joint Norad surveillance with the U.S. over North America, including the Arctic, while the second vignette poses the possibility of an attack against “a major international event” being held in Canada.
“Given an identified threat, the fighter will prosecute any potential land, maritime, and air threats,” the letter states. “If an attack does materialize, the fighter, combined with other joint assets, will be used to maintain over watch and negate further attacks.”
The third scenario the new fighter jet must anticipate is Canada leading or conducting a major international operation, such as a peace enforcement operation in a failed state. The Canadian fighters would protect civilian populations and key infrastructure, while a coalition involved in the operation with Canada would “also use the Canadian fighter to locate and destroy known terrorist cells,” while the airplanes might also be used to “maintain sovereignty in the face of threatening neighbour states.”
The letter states that in the fourth scenario, “Canada has committed the CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) as part of a coalition to the threat of aggression from a foreign state. Included in the CAF contribution to the allied force is a fighter expeditionary force aimed at helping to deter aggression from the threatening state. If deterrence fails, the threatening state will be defeated.”
“State on state war fighting will require the conduct of the full-spectrum of operational capabilities in a joint coalition,” the requirements say.
The fifth scenario envisages that “a terrorist threat to Canada has been identified” and Canadian fighters might strike first to destroy the terrorist threat before it can attack Canada.
“In the case of the attack being planned abroad, an expeditionary fighter unit will deploy to a sympathetic country in the region in preparation to support a pre-emptive, joint force attack,” the letter says. “In the case of weapons in transit the Canadian fighter will be used to prevent the attack in progress, or respond to this major terrorist attack after it has occurred.” The scenarios provided to the fighter jet companies go further than any explanation so far that the Canadian government or Air Force officials have given Parliament about why the Canadian Forces were so determined over the past six years to acquire the F-35 that, as Auditor General Michael Ferguson reported last year, National Defence and the Conservative government withheld more than $10-billion in operation and maintenance costs for the F-35 fleet when they announced the procurement in July, 2010.
Liberal MP John McKay said the descriptions, particularly the references to Canada leading a coalition war against other states, are implausible and run against Canada’s military roles over the past century, let alone its peacekeeping roles from the 1950s onward.
“I don’t know what it is they are contemplating, it’s in fantasy land,” Mr. McKay said. “We simply don’t have the capability of doing that, period, end of sentence,” he said. “Even if we bought everything that’s on Peter MacKay’s wish list, we still don’t have capability to lead and or support an attack on another nation over a protracted period of time.”
In the House of Commons Tuesday, the government came under fire for a decision that went by with little notice last December to have the Canadian Forces review its plans to retire the F-18s by 2020 and instead devise ways to extend the fleet life further, even though the fighter jets, acquired in 1982, have already undergone billions of dollars in upgrades to extend their service beyond their original 2003 expiry date.
Liberal MP Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.) chided the government for using the term “reset” to describe the new acquisition process, after the government had earlier argued the F-35 procurement was vital because the F-18s could not last beyond 2020.
“Here’s my advice to the Prime Minister, it’s not the reset button that needs to be pushed it’s the eject button,” Mr. Garneau said, in reference to past opposition demands that Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) should be stripped of his post for the way he has handled the procurement.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: TIM NAUMETZ
No comments:
Post a Comment