Canada does not need fighter jets, period - G&M

[dimsum]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-does-not-need-fighter-jets-period/article19503129/?click=sf_globefb#dashboard/follows/

I find it interesting that a former Deputy MND would say something like this. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It is shocking that a former Deputy MND would write this.  By his estimation then, we don't need a military and we should cede sovereign control of our space (air, land and sea) to the Americans. 

 

[George Wallace]

No more shocking than the Senior Serving Dragoon, as CDS, saying we don't need tanks. 

 

[Sub_Guy]

I agree with him, and the Americans already control the sea, especially when it comes to submarine ops.

 

[Remius]

I agree with him, and the Americans already control the sea, especially when it comes to submarine ops.

Here's why I can't agree with him.  He's wearing the goggles from his time.  In fact what he is really saying is that our military should focus on domestic disaster relief and foreign aid operations and peacekeeping.  He was the DMND from 1975 to 1983.  He's obviously an expert on what's been going on since  :

He ignores the Lybian Campaign all together or the fact that we could indeed face threats that might occur.  No one could have predicted what 911 would bring and how the world could change.  Our country divested itself of some valuable ressources that could have been put to good use but instead we were forced to re-invent the wheel in many cases.

Canada has the longest cosat line in the world and vast untapped ressources in the far North that many foreign countries do not recognise as as ours.  We might not need jet fighters now but we might in 15 years.  Or maybe we wil be drawn into a more conventional conflict (because that never happened before right?).

It is a short sighted opinion piece.  We may not need F-35s but we need fighter/multi purpose jet aircraft.  This kind of opinion is dangerous and that kind of thinking does more damage than good.

 

[Lame]

I think there are other more reasonable places to put the money, however i agree that it's not something bad to have.. I feel that saying we don't need them now, will jeopardize the request for them in the future when we might actually need them.. better be safe than sorry..

 

[Good2Golf]

No more surprising/shocking than a former ADM(Materiel) saying, after signing the JSF MOU in 2003, that he had no expectation that Canada would actually buy the JSF...  ???

 

[Rocky Mountains]

No more surprising/shocking than a former ADM(Materiel) saying, after signing the JSF MOU in 2003, that he had no expectation that Canada would actually buy the JSF...  ???

Jets? My problem is I can't afford a car because it's going to cost me $ 200,000 over the next 40 years - for a Kia!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don't worry space aliens will save us, I have it on authority from our ex-MND

 

[FJAG]

Didn't like him then, don't like him now. Here's the US Embassy's assessment of him when Trudeau appointed him. It was right on.

"1. PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE ANNOUNCED MAY 15 THAT
NIXON WOULD REPLACE SYLVAIN CLOUTIER AS DEPUTY MINISTER
IN DND. "BUZZ" NIXON IS 47, FROM ANITOBA, (sic) GRADUATED
FROM ROYAL CANADIAN NAVAL COLLEGE AND AS A COMMANDER
IN RCN. HE HAS ATTENDED UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AND MIT,
AND HAS BEEN WITH PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (CABINET SECRETARIAT)
SINCE 1966. HE IS PRESENTLY DEPUTY SECRETARY TO CABINET
FOR PLANS.

2. DESPITE HIS NAVAL EXPERIENCE 1946-63, NIXON'S REPUTATION
IS THAT OF A QUINTESSENTIAL BUREAUCRAT, AN EXPERT
IN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND IN THE PROCESS
OF GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING. HE IS WELL KNOWN
WITH GOC FOR HIS ABILITY TO PUT ANYTHING IN GRAPH
FORM, AND HIS LECTURES, REPETE WITH MULTI-COLOR
CHARTS AND GRAPHS, ARE SOMETHING OF A JOKE IN OTTAWA.
HE HAS RECENTLY BEEN THE PCO REPRESENTATIVE AT THE
DEFENCE FORCE STRUCTURE REVIEW, WHICH IS STUDYING
CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

PAGE 02  OTTAWA 01909  212204Z

THE SEVERAL OPTIONS FOR CANADIAN ARMED FORCES, WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE COMPOSITION OF CANADA'S
NATO CONTRIBUTION. IN THIS LATTER CONTEXT, A COLLEAGUE
IN THE PCO SAID NIXON "WILL BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THE
VIEWS OF PRIMIN TRUDEAU AND THE CABINET IN DND."

3. EMBASSY DOUBTS THIS APPOINTMENT WILL BE WELL
RECEIVED BY CANADIAN FORCES, WHO ARE ALREADY UNHAPPY
WITH DEFMIN RICHARDSON. THOUGH HIGHLY INTELLIGENT
AND NOT WITHOUT HUMOR, NIXON IS A DRY, RESERVED AND
METICULOUS INDIVIDUAL, CONCERNED MORE WITH THE PROCESS
OF DECISION-MAKING THAN THE DECISIONS THEMSELVES, AND
HARDLY LIKELY TO TAKE A STRONG STAND ON POLICY MATTERS.
THERE IS NO RPT NO INDICATION HE IS ANTI-AMERICAN, BUT
HE IS A FIRM CANADIAN NATIONALIST, A SENTIMENT WHICH
HIS YEARS IN THE PCO HAVE STRENGTHENED.

4. ANNOUNCEMENT WILL ALSO BE A DISAPPOINTMENT TO
ACTING DEPUTY MINISTER DAVID KIRKWOOD, A GOOD FRIEND
OF US WHO HAD BEEN CONSIDERED (AND CONSIDERED HIMSELF)
LIKELY CANDIDATE FOR THIS POSITION. PORTER

http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1975OTTAWA01909_b.html

;D

:cheers:

 

[George Wallace]

2. DESPITE HIS NAVAL EXPERIENCE 1946-63, NIXON'S REPUTATION
IS THAT OF A QUINTESSENTIAL BUREAUCRAT, AN EXPERT
IN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND IN THE PROCESS
OF GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING. HE IS WELL KNOWN
WITH GOC FOR HIS ABILITY TO PUT ANYTHING IN GRAPH
FORM, AND HIS LECTURES, REPETE WITH MULTI-COLOR
CHARTS AND GRAPHS, ARE SOMETHING OF A JOKE IN OTTAWA.
HE HAS RECENTLY BEEN THE PCO REPRESENTATIVE AT THE
DEFENCE FORCE STRUCTURE REVIEW, WHICH IS STUDYING
CONFIDENTIAL

Just imagine what he could have been today with knowledge on how to use PowerPoint.    >

 

[Remius]

If Canada were exiting the international scene and was pulling itself from NATO, NORAD and whatever else then his point might make a little more sense.  In fact from all indications we are actually pulling from peacekeeping and the kind of stuff he says we are more likely to do in his mind. 

We are still committed to NATO and NORAD and those two things alone justify why we need jet fighters.

@FJAG: Thanks for confirming how irrelevant this guy is.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Look, just by clicking on the links in his own article, you can see that he contradicts his own position:

He states in the article that fighters are not required for ANY of the six defence objectives DND has set for itself. Yet, the very first objective is participation and support of NORAD. I wonder how he thinks we can do that without fighters ???

 

[GR66]

Look, just by clicking on the links in his own article, you can see that he contradicts his own position:

He states in the article that fighters are not required for ANY of the six defence objectives DND has set for itself. Yet, the very first objective is participation and support of NORAD. I wonder how he thinks we can do that without fighters ???

Through strongly worded condemnations at the UN of course!

 

[a_majoor]

From a very narrow technical viewpoint he has a point.

Canada is a long way from places where *we* have gone to project power in the national interest, so something like a fleet of B-1B bombers (with the capability of carrying and firing anti-ship missiles, mines and other naval stores when needed) would actually fit our needs much better. A big platform like the B-1B can also carry long range sensors and be fitted with a load of AAM's in the weapons bay for arctic patrols (and has the range and endurance to do so). B-1's carrying AAMs and decoys can also act as escorts for a package of strike craft going in.

Of course all we have really done in this thought experiment is substituted one platform to carry out offensive roles for another one, so in the larger sense he is full of s**t.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Come to think about it seems only China, the US and Russia make(made) big long range bombers anymore. Maybe we need to make modern Vulcans. A non-US NATO/UN country with long range bombers might prove to be an interesting assets.

 

[daftandbarmy]

"Then German chancellor Konrad Adenauer defended the decision to re-establish that country’s armed forces by remarking that "every country has an army on its soil; either its own, or someone else’s".

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2013/05/27/military-spending-need-not-be-ruinous-to-the-economy

I assume the same applies to the air force above that soil.

The man is an idiot and it's too bad the G&M thought it a good idea to publish his insanity.

 

[Transporter]

Our national defence is based on the notion of collective defence through partnerships in such things as NORAD, NATO, etc. That implies that we contribute what we are able to contribute, and as a G7 nation, I don't believe having fighter aircraft is beyond our financial means, especially when we're only considering buying 65 (not the 120 CF-18's we purchased in the 80's). These aircraft are required for the defense of our partners as much as they are for the defense of Canada. For example, we conduct NATO Air Policing with Iceland, the Baltic states (upcoming), etc. If we can't provide, why should we expect to receive?

Look at it this way. Have you ever been on TD or course with a group of buddies where you all decide to go out for dinner? You call a cab, pile in, and head off to the restaurant. The cab arrives, and everyone digs into their pockets to get some cash to pay the fare, but there's one guy who maybe only throws in a buck or two, which is less than his fair share. You blow it off as maybe he's short on cash (but he makes just as much or more money than you). You have a wonderful meal and the bill comes. You all agree that because everyone pretty much had the same thing, you're just going to split it equally x-number of ways. But this same guy speaks up and says he didn't have a soda, he only had water, so he doesn't want it split equally. Then it comes time for the tip. Everyone leaves their 18%, except that same guy who throws in a dollar.

The next night you're in the mess. Same group of guys. It's Saturday and HNIC is on... Leafs-Habs. Everyone is taking turns buying a round. It's that guy's turn next, but as you take the final few sips of your current beer, he looks around, declares he's not really interested in the game and decides to head to his room.

You gonna invite that guy to do anything with you next time?

 

[daftandbarmy]

And, of course, Russia isn't that big an issue these days so who needs jet interceptors? :

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874221.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/24/russian-tu-95-bear-aircraft-scotland_n_5208543.html

 

[pancakes]

If Russia desides to piss in our cornflakes over the resources in the north I doubt 65 new fighter jets would be enough to change their mind.  Probing our airspace is one thing but let's not forget all the submarine activity up there under the ice that we are powerless to stop.

On the other hand.  65 new jets are better than none.