Preserving capacity, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Keys to Canadian SAR
Issue link: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/407740
20 OCTOBER/nOVEMBER 2014 www.vanguardcanada.com U UNmANNED SYSTEMS for a considerable amount of time – "impermanence" has been acknowledged as one of greatest weaknesses of contemporary air power systems – and some U.S. defence contractors have begun work on high altitude and extreme endurance solar drones. The other obvious benefi t is that they are machines. Should one fail, malfunction, or succumb to counter-measures, no one dies. Importantly, in their prefi gured capacity as surveillance and com- bat vehicles they can perform almost all of the same tasks assigned to advanced fi ghter jets. (Sending combat drones to Syria to con- front the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, in our opinion, would have been a far better and cost effective option than Ot- tawa's CF-18 decision.) They can support infantry and special op- erations units in the fi eld, neutralize tanks and armed insurgents, interdict enemy supply columns, and provide valuable actionable intelligence to military and civilian planners. Admittedly, growing interest in more potent UAVs has driven an increase in cost, but at between US$5-70 million, drones still represent substantial savings compared to their piloted counter- parts. Ballistic missiles, too, are a low-cost alternative to buying a whole new fl eet of next generation combat aircraft. For example, Patriot missile batteries are listed at roughly US$3-4 million per unit, and can be used to destroy bombers, other ballistic missiles, UAVs, and fi ghter jets. Expanding on the Army's inventory of self-propelled air-defence anti-tank weapons (ADATS) would likely add some much needed capacity to Canada's sky defence network as well – most of these units could be used to protect population centres, military instal- lations, and main supply routes. Outwardly, this may look like an endorsement for some form of ballistic missile defence. However, to recognize the utility and qualitative improvements in missile technology since the 1990s is to simply identify a defence option that Ottawa has yet to explore in adequate detail. No invading force – with the exception of the United States – could take Canada without fi rst breaking its will to fi ght – a security reality that could be suitably clarifi ed by a comprehensive defence review. As a matter of course, this would require soften- ing up civilian and military targets via aerial assault. The thought of maneuvering through several hundred super-sonic, long range sub-sonic, and surface-to-air missile stations – similar to Taiwan's SkyBow III air defence system – would likely dissuade any poten- tial adversary from launching an air strike on Canadian soil. The advantage of pursuing an air defence scheme like this would be that it would conform better to Ottawa's desire to rein in budget costs vis-à-vis military spending. Moreover, it would arrest fears of an unlikely Russian and/or Chinese invasion and ensure that Canada remained fi rmly committed to the concept continental defence. Modern jet fi ghters, then, need only supplement a more broadly integrated, intimidating, and stable national air defence network. Canada just needs to make the idea of an attack unacceptable – that is, signal to an adversary that any actual show of force will re- sult in substantial losses – and this is precisely what an investment in drones, missiles, and a number of mobile air defence platforms would do. We would grant that drones and ballistic missiles do have some limitations. Hence, it may be useful to purchase a small fl eet of modern jet fi ghters to augment a multi-layered and more tacti- cally and operationally sound national defence policy. To this end, we wonder why the Eurofi ghter or the French-built Dassault Ra- fales have never been given serious consideration. The Eurofi ght- er Tranche 2 appears to be the perfect fi t for Canada's Air Force. It costs about $96 million per plane, has established its credentials as an effective dogfi ghter, has completed several successful ground strike missions, and seems to be more in line with Ottawa's pur- ported fi scal conservatism. Shouldn't some evidence-based con- siderations be central to the process of selecting a replacement for the country's aging CF-18s fl eet? Canada's size, geography, and fi scal reality are in need of some creative thinking when it comes to the issues of operational needs, enforcing territorial claims, and equipment procurements. When all of the latest developments in drone and missile technology are taken into account, we sense that the days – and effi cacy – of piloted combat aircraft are coming to an end. UAVs and missiles are clearly the way forward – both from a military and economic perspective. The Harper government has a genuine opportunity to save money and commit to the purchase, development, or license pro- duction of drone technology for territorial surveillance, weapons delivery, and other military and civilian applications (an area in which Canada has considerable expertise). We are in no immedi- ate danger from Russia, China, or an unstoppable wave of mono- chromatic militants. Nor do we have the fi scal capacity to support a new legacy fl eet of combat aircraft. Perhaps these "realities" should be better refl ected in military procurement plans. "when all of the latest developments in drone and missile technology are taken into account, we sense that the days – and effi cacy – of piloted combat aircra are coming to an end."