RSS Feed MenuPerhaps the silliest justification for the proposed spending of C$16 billion defense dollars for 65 yet-unbuilt F-35 stealth fighter jets, is that they’ll deter Russian bombers from approaching our air space in the Arctic.
Yet that’s a reason issued by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office.
Think about it for a moment. We all know that Russian aircraft routinely come close to our air space in the north — and equally routinely our present CF-18s fly close, to let the Russkies know that we know they’re there.
What will the costly F-35s do that the CF-18s don’t do? Shoot at the bombers? Blast them down? Of course not. They won’t do anything.
To say these new fighters will enhance our sovereignty or security is simply rhetoric. Feel good stuff that is short on substance. It’s all cosmetics.
The Parliamentary Opposition frets that the deal to buy these planes was negotiated without bidders. And the Opposition has a point. The Boeing Company feels its Super Hornet, used by the U.S. Navy and Australia, is a worthy contender to replace the aging CF-18. But the Canadian government has apparently made up its mind.
Nothing personal, but Harper feels there are Canadian jobs and contracts if we buy the F-35 (and, apparently, the contract has not yet been signed). Spending $16 billion on this stealth fighter may make some sense for providing jobs in Canada for the aircraft industry, but it makes no sense when it comes to security and sovereignty.
The CF-18 that the F-35 Lightning II would replace is coming to the end of its use-before date. So what? It has been used operationally in war twice – briefly, and unnecessarily in the first Gulf war, then in the fabricated air war against Serbia on behalf of Kosovo that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stage-managed.
If Canada is ever in a crisis where F-35 stealth fighters are essential to our survival, you can bet we’ll be in the middle of a world war. With 2,500 of these aircraft, the Americans will be involved on our behalf – as they already are in NORAD and NATO.
While it’d be nice to be able to afford a state of the art air force, it is not (or shouldn’t be) a top priority for a country with a limited military budget. The same goes for our navy and submarines – we don’t need them. The four subs we got from Britain at a supposedly bargain basement price in 1998 have been something of an embarrassment.
Supposedly to enhance our sovereignty, the damn things have had no end of trouble — submerging, leaking, dangerous fires, and so on. We haven’t heard much about them of late. For the record, no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger. Do they even go underwater these days (perhaps too expensive or too risky)?
Canadian Forces will need new mechanized vehicles after Afghanistan, our navy and land forces need helicopters. We have no real supply ships and we need warships, plus boots on the ground.
It’s easier to document what our military needs in order to stay world class (which has been established in Afghanistan when it comes to fighting and doing the job), than it is to decide what should take priority with a limited budget.
Put bluntly, the F-35 is a luxury item that will never be needed.
Carney // Aug 31, 2010 at 4:53 pm
So what’s this profoundly silly and irresponsible article saying?
Canada should just let its aged CF-18s die without replacement? It should have no submarines?
It should choose to allow submarines and long-range bombers, armed with nuclear missiles, and at the command of the KGB regime in the Kremlin, to prowl at the edges of, or even intrude deep into Canadian airspace and waterways, while being deliberately helpless to respond?
Regardless of whether Canada simply turns its defenses over to the USA, or forbids the US to patrol and defend its air and maritime borders, in what way, in such a scenario, would Canada remain a de facto sovereign state?
Even an isolationist Canada that turns its back on NATO, turns its back on all international alliances and obligations, ignores threats such as terrorism and nuclear proliferations, yawns at overseas genocide and aggression, etc., should desire to be able to defend its own immediate and short-term national security interests, such as being able to repel unfriendly military incursions.
LB // Aug 31, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I think the big problem in Canada is we tend to spend on defense in huge waves every 30 years or so. Then once everything is new again we wind everything back down for another 30 years.
If we were to be a little more consistent no one would bat an eye about this sort of thing.
forgetn // Sep 1, 2010 at 8:27 am
Peter:
Again! I don’t think that replacing 30 year old aircraft is such a bad idea. The CF-18 fleet, introduced in 1983, went through a major refurbishment program in the mid 90s to give them another decade of uses. However, the reality is that they are old aircraft, in a business that requires newer aircraft.
Your argument seems to be: Let the Americans defend our borders. as if defending our own sovereignty is a bad idea, we should just let the Americans do that for us! That’s where you loose me. Global warming (which I am sure you don’t believe in anyway) has made Canada’s North far more accessible. If we don’t defend our northern border we don;t “own” our norther border.
Since the Americans use the F-35 it makes sense for us to use the same aircraft (parts commonality etc), its actually rather efficient. I don’t know how much the other options would cost, but I am rather confident that these other aircraft are not cheap either
sinz54 // Sep 1, 2010 at 9:27 am
Carney:
There are cheaper alternatives to the F-35 for a third-tier world power like Canada.
Canada can simply buy the upgraded “Super Hornet” F/A-18E/F fighters to replace their older F-18 models. That’s the plane that the Australian Air Force is buying, as well as other U.S. allies.
The F/A-18F is perfectly capable of intercepting the Russian TU-95 bombers.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm
Clearly Harper’s decision to go with the F-35 has more to do with domestic politics (provide some jobs in this bad economy) than with military needs.
Carney // Sep 1, 2010 at 10:51 am
sinz54, the Super Hornet is that rare breed of military program that I actually oppose, at least for the US armed forces.
It’s not a stealth aircraft, is not capable of super-cruise, has no super-maneuverability or advanced avionics, and is thus vastly inferior to the F-22 Raptor, a truly modern air-to-air interceptor.
Even worse, it’s even distinctly inferior to the aircraft it’s replacing, the F-14 Tomcat. The Super Hornet is slower and has a smaller range than the Tomcat; moreover its radar is far less powerful and much more short-ranged. Even worse, the Super Hornet cannot carry the highly lethal, super long ranged, “fire and forget” AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missile which has its own powerful radar and is tailor-made for shooting down enemy aircraft, especially cruise missile carrying Russian bombers, at extreme ranges, far out of reach of any retaliatory strike. Instead, the Super Hornet must fly much more close up to the enemy to acquire it, and since its weaker shorter ranged missiles lack the Phoenix’s built-in radar, must supply its missiles, once launched, with plane-provided reflected radar information – thus the Super Hornet must keep its nose pointed at (and thus keep flying toward) the enemy aircraft after launching its air to air missiles, maximizing its vulnerability to a counter-attack.
We’d be far better off with a navalized F-22, or even newly manufactured F-14 Tomcats. And so would the Canadians.
In the absence of either, even the F-35, a short-ranged light fighter, is arguably better than the Super Hornet, since it’s stealthy and at least does offer some Canadian jobs.
forgetn // Sep 1, 2010 at 11:03 am
You see Peter, Carney seems to know what the problem is for Canada, so instead of talking refurb of 30 year old aircraft, he make a suggestion that the F-22, still not that cheap I guess. You give journalists a bad reputation, clearly you didn’t do your homework.
Although I think the F-22 is not cheap either at about $150 MM each (the F35 is around $200MM)