Submitted by Paul Kishimoto on

Shiny, innit?1 Nevertheless, the F-35 is one of ~36 reasons to not vote Conservative in the 2011 Canadian general election, and the first post in my daily series.

At least part of each item will involve me asserting some kind of authority on the topic, in order to make you receptive to what I say. Sometimes that will be a stretch; in this case, it's not. I have been a fighter jet nerd2 since I was a kid; this led me to join Air Cadets while in junior high, earn my pilot's license, briefly consider joining the Canadian Forces, and eventually study aerospace engineering for about six years. I have seen Top Gun about a dozen times, etc.

Viz., I like planes.

Yesterday I linked to the history of Canada's involvement in the procurement process. As it stands, the Conservatives have committed to buying 65 jets as replacements for our current CF-18s. The Parliamentary Budget Officer3 has estimated the total cost of ownership to be $29.3 billion.

The issue of what the "real" price is, and who should have told whom about it when, is important, but I'll deal with that in the future. Let's just focus on the purchase itself.

Here are some relevant policy questions, from broad to specific:

  1. What is Canada's role in the world?
  2. What threats, if any, does it face?
  3. To fulfill #1 and address #2, is military action required?
  4. What kind?
  5. What military capability would we need, cost being no object?
  6. What equipment is necessary to support that capability?
  7. How much (given our other priorities), are we willing to pay for it?

The answers that would make the purchase a clear good idea are roughly:

  1. Do the same kinds of things the U.S. does.
  2. People coming to attack us with things that can be stopped using air superiority.
  3. Yes, inevitably.
  4. Air combat, close air support, or bombing.
  5. An air command capable of performing the above tasks.
  6. Manned jet aircraft.
  7. ~$30 billion.

These are either weak or highly reductive.

On defence (#2), obviously not. The Cold War is over; there are no longer Soviets eager to bring death to us over the pole.4 Even were valuable resources discovered on the Arctic seafloor—now sadly accessible in the summer—there would be intensive diplomatic and trade disputes, but no war, nor any need for deterrence in our northern airspace. On this matter good points are raised about the value of unmanned aircraft for surveillance and the risks of flying a single-engine jet in remote areas.5 These are valid; but air superiority in the north is still of limited value.

In terms of action abroad, I can't imagine a situation where we would act without the blessing of both the UN Security Council and NATO, as in Libya. In such cases we will always act with allies who happily spend lots of their money on significant jet air power. Good for them. There is no requirement that our participation in joint military action be in-kind. My understanding is that the Canadian Forces are renowned for the high calibre of their training; we can certainly supply more than our share of talented infantry, artillery, airlift, naval support and commanders.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the real air power story is unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These raise interesting questions about autonomy, but they are certainly cheaper by orders of magnitude and in some senses perform better than manned aircraft.6

Finally, on cost. The best figure I can find on the CF-18 procurement was $2.4b in 1977 dollars, which is roughly $8.4b today, or only a quarter of the F-35 price (for twice as many aircraft). This "replacement" would, perhaps, be the largest defence procurement in Canadian history; and yet there is no discussion happening on the above questions. Nor is anyone advancing those shaky intermediate answers, trying to provide an alternate justification,7 or claiming that we can't address the many needs of the Canadian Forces with anything less than $29.3b.

It's reasonable to expect that a new Conservative government would interpret their mandate as one to go ahead with the purchase; that's one reason to not elect one on May 2.

Tomorrow: Absousfian Abdelrazik

Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

  1. I realize that Canada would not be buying the STOVL variant. The video is not an attempt to mislead on this point.
  2. I am several kinds of nerd.
  3. Kevin Page gets an entire post to himself, later.
  4. One wonders how few in the USSR ever were eager.
  5. The CF-18 has two; if a goose flies into one, you limp home on the other.
  6. The U.S.'s perennial problems with civilian deaths in Pakistan may suggest that even precision air strikes are too blunt an instrument for dealing with terrorists; but so-called collateral damage can be a problem even with human pilots.
  7. For example, economics; Canadian firms might help build the jets we buy, yes. But is buying an already-designed American military aircraft the best way to stimulate our aircraft industry? Why is it a better choice than supporting new, domestic, civil aircraft?

Stories: 

Comments

It's funny that we're

It's funny that we're spending so much money on planes we don't need. I remember reading the article for the first time thinking it was a terrible idea. How is this in any way necessary, or in any way in line with the majority of Canadians' expectations of our role in the world. I bet a random poll of the country with the question: "what should Canada do with $30 billion" would produce exactly zero responses of "buy 65 fighter aircraft". We could definitely spend this money more wisely, and perhaps as you suggest, on things that would help the Canadian economy.

For me there are a couple

For me there are a couple issues tangled together here. One is the cost of the jets (and them maybe trying to hide this cost) and the other is the change in policy. You seem to be arguing that this purchase indicates a change in Canada's foreign policy, but couldn't it be argued that it's just a really expensive way to maintain the policy we've already got? I mean generally speaking we're still just replacing fighter jets with fighter jets, right? It's not like we're buying a bunch of fighter jets for the first time.

Or are you saying that since the international climate has changed we should have a different role? E.g., since the Cold War is over, jets aren't really as important to defence as they were?

Excellent post, Paul. I look

Excellent post, Paul. I look forward to reading the rest of the entries. One point of note, though. I recall reading in the Globe & Mail that $30 billion was the quoted as the development fee, but that they had also set aside a pre-determined $10 billion for projected maintenance. Are you aware of anything regarding that?

Cheers,
Naeem

Perhaps you should revise

Perhaps you should revise your thinking...

1) This is not the cold war it is true (and thankfully it isn't) but we still need to defend our territory, interests, and resources, as well as support those other aspects of our military that you included in your posts. That support may well require airpower. If we fail to provide a replacement for our current (outdated, and barely flyable) jets our military will be a virtual joke in defending our own territory. There is not one modern military which exists without some level of airpower and any military that is serious knows that this is vital on the battlefield, just ask the Libyans.

2) It is interesting that you suggest that we dont bother spending and just let our allies do it. That is the type of woeful planning that will only result in a risk to Canadian lives, not only our troops but potentially civilians who our airforce would need to protect. While it is nice to think we will only be involved in engagements that are sanctioned by the UN/Nato, it is a serious error to assume that we will only be involved in that for the next 20+ years. Our military exists to protect this nation and its interests, not just to peacekeep for the UN (although it is a role which myself and others are very proud of). Our allies may well not see it in their interests to provide air support for our troops when they are in need, relying on others for our defense will only put us at more risk.

3)The fact is the CF18 should have been replaced years ago and wasn't. We have the choice between existing aircraft marketed by our allies which are 4 or 4.5 generation mainly and were designed in the 1980's and early 90's. They are cheaper (much like the CF18's were cheap). The downside is that most of our allies are replacing those jets with the F35. Our military will be a generation behind in aircraft, we will lose the capabilities that they have, and we will lose domestic contracts for parts, support, spares, and research that we get through the purchase. The 4.5 generation aircraft like the Typhoon are very capable. But they when compared to the upcoming 5th generation fighters which will be fielded by multiple militaries in the near future do not stack up. I would not want to put our pilots in danger through not giving them a chance to use their superior training and skills because they get shot down before they can fire a shot.

Brendan, thanks for

Brendan, thanks for commenting. I was starting to worry no one would challenge what I said.

  1. My point is that "may well" is not good enough for such a large expense. We need "will certainly," or else a smaller expense. The characterization "barely flyable" is misleading, given that CF-18s are conducting bombing raids in Libya. You mean that some of our original fleet has been grounded for want of spare parts or money to buy them.
  2. Why is it a serious error? Protecting our interests is almost always a matter of trade, diplomatic or economic policy; I'm suggesting that the very few instances when military action is called for tend to be those where there is international consensus. What situation could be conceived in which we act unilaterally? How likely is it? Will 65 jets serve us better than 60, 55 or some other number, in such a situation?
  3. Most of the nations that are developing fifth-generation fighters I would consider allies. Which are not? Again, how likely is us-versus-them, air-to-air combat, without other countries becoming involved?

'Should' and 'fact' don't go well together.

I bet a random poll of the

I bet a random poll of the country with the question: "what should Canada do with $30 billion" would produce exactly zero responses of "buy 65 fighter aircraft".

While I certainly agree that the jets are a huge waste of money, I think that arguing particular government spending decisions based entirely on what citizens would (or do) list as their top priority on polls is probably not the best strategy.

To me, the issue with the

To me, the issue with the F-35 debate is not so much the question of whether or not we need them, but more about the process itself. Canadian military experts, politicians, and citizens of all stripes will rightfully debate and dispute the points you make about the need (or lack thereof) for these aircraft, simply because it is not a black and white issue with a right or wrong answer.

However, the necessary ingredients or a large government purchase like this must be competition and transparency. Maybe we do need the F-35, or maybe we don't, but without an open, competitive bidding process and an honest assessment of our military needs we cannot possibly hope to keep costs down or make people satisfied that we have truly examined all the options and made the right choice.