Air Forces

Air Forces are the best tool a country can have for delivering results quickly.

Globemaster_0026Military aircraft are fast. A modern fighter jet can take off from a base in Quebec and be in the Arctic  (at, for example, Iqaluit which is AIR_F-18F_RAAF_Armed_AIM-9X_ATFLIR_AGM-154C_lg1,700 kms away) in 2½ hours with weapons ready to fire. A giant C-17, loaded with soldiers and supplies can fly from Trenton, ON to, say, Riga, in Latvia (6,500+ km) in a day, including a rest and refuelling stop.

Military aircraft are flexible: one “multi-role” aircraft cam perform two or three or four of the roles discussed below. One transport can be a “peacekeeper” one day, a “search and rescue” specialist the next and a disaster relief ambassador from Canada the day after that. Equally a modern fighter bomber can shoot down enemy fighters in the morning and destroy enemy tanks on the ground in the afternoon.

Military aircraft and the bases and systems needed to operate and maintain them are also complex and expensive and they require teams of highly trained, very skilled people to make the best use of them and get the most out of them.

h46ca_voyOne key point: aircraft ≠ Air Force. Navies and Armies, including Canada’s, should have their own, organic aircraft. In Canada’s case, the ship-borne helicopters (ancient Sea Kings, being replaced by Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones) and their crews and maintenance people should be transfers55cared from the RCAF to the Navy and the Army should have squadrons of transport, utility, reconnaissance and attack helicopters, too.

A good Air Force has multiple roles:

  • Air defence against missiles and manned aircraft (bombers);
  • Offensive counter-air ~ attacking the enemy’s air forces and achieving air superiority;
  • Reconnaissance;
  • Bombing and ground attack;
  • Air transport;
  • Search and rescue; and
  • Training.

1920px-Boeing_E-3_Sentry_LX-N_90454-3In Canada’s case, we should be full partners in America’s ballistic missile defence shield. We should also have space and ground-based surveillance and warning systems (radars, mostly) and manned, Flags2aircraft for airborne warning and control. Our main air defence role is within the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) and we should continue to provide radars, bases, control centres and fighter squadrons for that role.

Dunne_1---Lockheed-Martin-F-35_Lightning_IIs2011-09-30Canada should also have first-rate expeditionary force fighter-bomber squadrons to conduct offensive counter-air, reconnaissance, bombing and ground attack mission in support of allied combat operations overseas … even though the Trudeau regime has decided not to procure what is, arguably, the best fighter jet available and, instead, will saddle the Royal Canadian Air Force with 1980s technology and hand-me-down sensors.

Canada is a HUGE country and we have (and should cc_130j_super_hercules___rcaf_by_altitude604-d3cdx29understand and acknowledge that we have) vital interests around the world. The Air Force needs to be able to move people and supplies to hot spots and troubled areas on short notice: a large, diverse, very capable air transport fleet is an absolute necessity for our RCAF.  We have, in the C-17s and C-130Js the right aircraft … but they are too few in number. The air transport fleet is an important tool for foreign aid, foreign policy, domestic and international disaster relief and peacekeeping: all of which are components of Canada’s soft power.

Search and rescue is an important function for the safety of Canadians … the Air Force (and the Navy and Army, too, with rotary-wing aircraft and crews) should be a major factor in the national search and rescue effort along with e.g. the Coast Guard and the RCMP.

Finally, the Air Force should be the authority for all flight and aircraft safety and maintenance systems and services. I said, above, the Navy and the Army should “own” and operate and maintain their own, specialized helicopter fleets but that does not mean that they each need their own flying training or maintenance training systems: one, single Air Training Command should provide flight training, aircraft engineering and maintenance training and air safety services for all of the Canadian Forces.

I’m not going to try to set numbers: but more is my common mantra. Combat aircraft are often used, including by me, as an example of how militaries can, sometimes, do more with less. There is no doubt that the performance “envelope” (range, speed, weapon load, reliability, etc) means that 100 CF-18 Hornets could do a more than a mix of 150 F-104 Starfighters and CF-101 Voodoos, but the key question wasn’t could they do more? The important point is what needed doing? Fewer and fewer aircraft may, indeed, do a bit more, but, too often, a lot more is needed.

As I said yesterday, the key is for leaders ~ political, military (usually retired), academics and “opinion leaders” ~ often journalists, to explain that Canada’s soft power is only useful if it is backed up by sufficient hard power. As my friend Tony said: “to inform is to influence.”

Published by Ted Campbell

Old, retired Canadian soldier, Conservative ~ socially moderate, but a fiscal hawk. A husband, father and grandfather. Published material is posted under the "Fair Dealing" provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act for the purposes of research, private study and education.

4 thoughts on “Air Forces

  1. If you were referring to F35 as the best fighter, you are unfortunately misinformed for many reasons starting with too maintenance intensive, low sortie rate, too expensive to buy, high cost per hour to fly, unfinished systems, and it causes us to transfer our sovereignty to a foreign country, the supply chain is unsustainable, there are other other reasons and I have not gotten into fighting qualities or flying qualities just acquisition problems. Yes the F18 may be old technology but it works. Is it the best? Probably not. There are other A/C that would be suitable as well; and some that would provide industrial benefits for our aircraft sector.

    1. Very fair comment, Bill, and I have tried to stay away from recommending one ship or tank or aircraft type over another, I’m simply not qualified to make that judgement, but I am fairly certain that the Super Hornet is not the best military or industrial choice … just the easiest available political one.

      1. Agreed. My feeling is everyone is sleep walking towards a poor solution for what we need in an airforce, ignoring the lessons of war and aftermath, there needs to be a plan. I like the idea of more transport A/C definitely more S.A.R. A/C , but fighters only after an honest competition and evaluation then pick, in the meantime re-evaluate sovereignty patrols, air superiority and fighter bomber needs, it would be a “mixed fleet” yes, but that needs re-evaluation too, cost cutters are fine but the pendulum has swung too far into function.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: