Preserving capacity, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Keys to Canadian SAR
Issue link: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/439940
40 DECEMBER 2014/JANUARY 2015 www.vanguardcanada.com a air PowER And they need to be engaged as valuable, contributing members of the larger RCAF team. A culture of inclusiveness will not only help individuals develop, it will ensure that they have an intimate understanding of air force capabilities – their weaknesses and strengths – and how best to employ the resources available. The challenge is to fi nd and maintain a cadre of people with the intellectual fl exibility and analytical skills to deliver the appropriate response to any situation, anticipated or not. interoperability While Canada's air force may operate in- dependently at home, it is almost certain that forces will be integrated into a coali- tion of allies when deployed abroad. Plan- ners must ensure that air force capabilities can continue to integrate with like forces of other coalition partners. Like most nations, Canada will almost always be in a position to only provide niche elements of air force capability to a coalition and the effectiveness of any con- tribution will almost certainly be depen- dent on the ability of the air force to op- erate seamlessly within the coalition. This implies physical interoperability – com- munications systems, weapons types, sup- port structure, etc – but also commonality of tactical employment of air power. The RCAF is already capable of this with the U.S. and several other allies, and needs to respond to changes in technology and op- erational doctrine to ensure continuance of close interoperability. When choosing capabilities, planners must strike a balance to create a fl exible air force that can be effective both indepen- dently in domestic operations, and with a coalition. This speaks to the traditional air force doctrine of multi-purpose combat capability. It also brings up the traditional debate that exists in force development activity – do you focus on contingency or deployed operations, assuming that do- mestic needs can be accomplished with the capabilities that will exist, or do you focus on domestic needs, enhanced as needed for deployed operations? The former will provide greater combat capability, with the logistic support to go with it, but will be less cost effective if the potential use for that capability is low. The latter will provide what is needed to de- fend and support Canada fi rst, but may not provide the robust capability needed in a higher threat deployed operation. Whatever approach is taken, some level of interoperability is needed and there is a real risk of losing operational relevance if new advances are not adopted. This nec- essarily involves a commitment to track changes in the capabilities of other forces, engage with them in the need for new standards or procedures, and implement those that are essential. It is also important to remember that, whether we like it or not, Canada's secu- rity is closely linked with the actions and policies adopted by the U.S. Our mutual success in NORAD, for example, hinges on the continued major contribution of our southern partner. Likewise, the fu- ture of NATO is dependent on American support and commitment. Canada must, above all, be able to continue a close op- erational relationship with the U.S. so that our forces can work together whenever necessary without the need for signifi cant incremental training or modifi cations to be made to the equipment employed. Whole of government approach While the RCAF must be able to project air power and support effectively, it must also be able to conduct and support the "para- military" missions associated with humani- tarian assistance and respond to natural disasters such as earthquakes and fl oods. These missions are a major consideration as they involve many non-military stakehold- ers, including various government depart- ments, agencies, non-governmental orga- nizations, and international government representatives. In order for the RCAF to connect effectively with other participants they have to understand what they do, how they operate, and what RCAF resources are fundamentally important to working effec- tively together. These conversations must occur regularly as the time to exchange business cards is not on arrival at the scene of a humanitarian disaster. Military and other personnel assigned to a mission often assume a natural lead- ership role, providing command and con- trol, communications assistance, logistical support, etc. With the increasing trend to a whole-of-government approach to respond to security concerns and crisis management, the RCAF must be prepared to coordinate and communicate with a myriad of stakeholders, and especially with those who are being supported with air force resources. Moreover, the RCAF or the CAF may be the only agency that can effectively bring the stakeholders together to address common concerns, establish priorities, coordinate actions to take and report outcomes. The staff training pro- vided to air force offi cers offers the ability for disciplined options analysis and consid- eration of effective courses of action which is often not available elsewhere. The responsiveness and fl exibility of the air force can really be taxed in such situ- ations where many lives and critical infra- structure is at risk. Innovative coordination of resources, dependable communications, and decisive command and control are all important capabilities needed here. One of the challenges for planners is to ensure that the appropriate priority is assigned to these "para-military" functions. While they may be seen by some within the military to be of lesser concern, the reality is that the military response to a natural disaster often provides the most exposure that the CAF has with the majority of Canadian citizens. conclusion In addressing future challenges, balance will be key – balance in the provision of multi-purpose, sustainable, and fl exible ca- pabilities. Throughout, planners must ad- dress the natural tension between achieving this balance and living within the resources available. Moreover, the elements needed to employ and sustain each capability must be balanced or it will not be effective or effi ciently used. This becomes a complex undertaking due to overlapping resources that can be applied to multiple missions and there is a risk of over-tasking when competing missions confl ict. The ability to prioritize and reassign resources should be a persistent consideration throughout the planning process. In the long-run the RCAF must remain open to new technological developments, maintain the intellectual fl exibility to react quickly in unexpected circumstances, and be innovative in identifying potential re- sponses. Overall the goal is to minimize, or eliminate, "shocks" that may occur, reduc- ing them to anticipated "surprises." This article is adapted from a policy paper for CDFAI: www.cdfai.org