We may be finally getting somewhere on replacing Canada’s aging CF-18s. At least we have a process that, if allowed to carry through to completion without any more interference, will give us the new fighter-bomber that our air force has been seeking for years.
While our CF-18s have served us well, they have already undergone one life extension. They must be replaced. Almost everyone agrees that we need jets to defend our own airspace against enemy aircraft or hijacked airliners. There are too many rogue actors on the international stage who would like to do us harm. Protecting our skies from those threats is a key component of national defence. We have some capacity in NORAD, but that’s only as a defence against aircraft attacking North America.
As North Korea’s recent missile tests show, enemy or hijacked aircraft are only a small part of the threat. It’s goofy that we continue to exclude ourselves from ballistic missile defence. We also need new aircraft to provide air support for military operations abroad that have the back of our ground troops, like the CF-18s did in the former Yugoslavia in 1997.
The final reason we need a new fleet is that having a robust air force serves as a deterrent to those who seek to do us harm. Often just having a big stick means you’re less likely to have to use it.
The need for these new aircraft is clear. But every attempt to make a decision about which aircraft should be purchased, and how to purchase one, has stuttered and stalled. Everyone seems to have an opinion. But as one who’s studied defence issues for 40 years, neither I, nor a parliamentary committee, are qualified to make a decision on which aircraft is best. These are matters best left to the folks who will ultimately be responsible for flying the missions and hopefully getting our personnel home safely.
Despite a lot of political background noise, the prime minister has issued directives to hold “an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18.” Furthermore, the questionnaire sent out to the competing defence contractors was by all accounts fair and inclusive. Now, we all need to take a deep breath, and get out of the way.
Let’s get on with the fighter-jet competition. An inclusive and transparent process is the Canadian way. It’s how we do business with each other and the world. It is also a sign that the needs of our airmen and women will be taken into account and that the ultimate selection will yield the best plane at the best price for Canada. We’ve wasted too much time already. The defence minister has been given his orders and should now ensure that the competitive process is fair to suppliers and transparent to all Canadians.
Canada also has a responsibility to our allies, and we have not been pulling our weight in this regard. The Americans know this and speak often and loudly in closed-door sessions about Canada and other NATO countries behaving like freeloaders. Sometimes they are polite and diplomatically refer to it as “burden sharing” but they understand that they are giving up other domestic programs as a consequence.
Now Donald Trump has put it all out in public by calling out NATO countries who are not carrying their fair share of the defence burden – measured at two per cent of GDP. Even President Barack Obama publicly pointed out, in his address to Parliament, that Canada should contribute “its full share to common security.” It is important to note that Canada, like other NATO partners, voluntarily adopted these commitments.
Not being seen as freeloaders will require a lot of additional spending. But we do not need to make it up all at once, and part of that spending commitment is allocating one-fifth to capital investment. One good way to start would be to improve our fighter aircraft capacity. Let’s make that happen. Without delay and without any more political interference.
----
Colin Kenny is former chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment