Author Topic: Report of the SC on National Defence: "Canada and the Defence of North America"  (Read 4136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,408
News media coverage of the 19 September Standing Committee on National Defence report is focused on accusations that the government rigged the report to justify a sole-source contract for Super Hornets.  But for a more informed opinion, one could read the report itself at:  http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP8406082/421_NDDN_Rpt02_PDF/421_NDDN_Rpt02-e.pdf

... and see the thirteen recommendations:
Quote
Recommendation 1
That the Government of Canada conduct a thorough review of
Canada’s international and domestic capability requirements for the
replacement of the CF-18 fighter jets; that the Government select a
replacement which satisfies both Canada’s international and domestic
needs by being capable of effectively exercising Canada’s sovereignty
in the high Arctic and remote regions of the country while remaining
interoperable with our allies; and that the CF-18 replacement:

a) Possess an active electronically scanned array (AESA)
radar and beyond line of sight communication equipment;

b) Work to a high degree with Canada’s existing infrastructure;

c) Be interoperable with the United States of America’s NORAD
assets;

d) Provide sufficient fighter capability to ensure NORAD and
NATO commitments can be fulfilled as currently defined; and

e) Have well defined capital and sustainment costs as to not
jeopardize the recapitalization of other much-needed military
equipment.

Recommendation 2
That, for procurement contracts pertaining to aircraft utilized in the
context of the far North region, pilot safety be a key consideration.

Recommendation 3
That the Government of Canada decide on the replacement of the
current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets within the next 12 months.

Recommendation 4
That the Government of Canada recognize the importance of air-to-air
refueling as it relates to the Royal Canadian Air Force’s number one
priority, which is sovereignty.

Recommendation 5
That the defence policy review evaluate the primary locations of
Canada’s Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) assets to ensure they are
optimally positioned to respond to asymmetric threats under the
auspices of Operation NOBLE EAGLE (ONE).

Recommendation 6
That the Government of Canada recognize the proliferation of cruise
missiles, and related emerging technologies, as a threat to Canada and
take the necessary action to protect Canada from this threat.

Recommendation 7
That the Government of Canada recognize emerging ballistic missile
threats.

Recommendation 8
That the defence policy review reconsider Canada’s position with
regard to ballistic missile defence (BMD) in the context of Canada’s
defence priorities and limited financial resources.

Recommendation 9
That, in terms of Canada’s potential role in ballistic missile defence,
Canadian research and development be a consideration.

Recommendation 10
That the defence policy review take into account that witnesses have
questioned the efficacy of the ballistic missile defence program.

Recommendation 11
That the Government of Canada recognize the detrimental effects of
climate change in our North; and that the Government quickly adapt
our northern surveillance and defences to a potential Russian threat.

Recommendation 12
That, with the end of the North Warning System’s operational life
approaching, the Government of Canada recognize the need to
maintain and improve all aspects of Arctic domain awareness.

Recommendation 13
That the Government of Canada ensure that adequate safeguards are
in place to protect Canada and Canadians from, and respond to, cyberattacks
by foreign governments and non-state actors. 
There is certainly something funny about the first three recommendations.

Recommendations 5, 6, 7, and 8 all seem pretty good to me.  We should be examining the threats of ballistic and cruise missile threats, and we should be deciding how we want to defend against these.

Recommendation 11 is schizophrenic. Is it about climate change or Russian threats?  Do we think it is the same resource that addresses either?  Do we need a fleet of combat science vessels for the north?

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 164,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,709
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Don't see a sole-source jusrification for SH in that.. :dunno:

G2G

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 398,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,206
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Don't see a sole-source jusrification for SH in that.. :dunno:

G2G
Unless the opposition is reading the 12-month recommendation for a decision in #3 as a defacto "can't do it any other way"?
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 364,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,571
Pilot safety is a code word for twin engines. In part that is how we got the CF18 to begin with - in trying to stack the deck against the F16, to get the preferred COA of the F15, that requirement was part of the RFP.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 272
Number 4 is the kicker.  Canada does not have boom refueling at this time.  The F-45A is boom refueled. I know the F-35C is but that is not the model we are looking at. 

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 129,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,372
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Nothing about the need to invest in defence at the levels expected by our allies at 2% GDP, or any levels for that matter.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,408
Nothing about the need to invest in defence at the levels expected by our allies at 2% GDP, or any levels for that matter.
Both the current and previous governments have made the argument that Canada's contribution to NATO should not be measured by 1% or 2% but by the quality and capability of the contributions we make.  There is some merit to that argument, but:

Quote
[The SC recommends] that the CF-18 replacement ... Have well defined capital and sustainment costs as to not jeopardize the recapitalization of other much-needed military equipment. 
What we are saying internally is that we need to trade-off capability to stay around 1%.  These positions, while maybe not mutually exclusive, are strongly working against each other.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,814
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
With the air to air refuelling bit Boeing could justify a twofer.

Buy 60 SuperHornets. Get two tankers free.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 875,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,132
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
What quality and capacities do we provide when our Army doesn't have boots, and our Navy is running out of serviceable ships?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk


Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 220,658
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,693
What quality and capacities do we provide when our Army doesn't have boots, and our Navy is running out of serviceable ships?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

The RCN just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the MCVD hulls, so we should get another 15 years out of them.  [:D
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,509
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Conclusion of presentation to Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence by CGAI Senior Analyst Dave Perry (note links at end):

Quote
Canada and Missile Defence plus Russian Cruise Missile Threat
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/mark-collins-canada-and-missile-defence-plus-russian-cruise-missile-threat/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,509
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Lots on NORAD and growing, scary Russian cruise missile threat (ALCMs and SLCMs):

Quote
Beyond NORAD and Modernization to North American Defence Evolution
http://www.cgai.ca/beyond_norad_and_modernization_to_north_american_defence_evolution

Very relevant, note links at end:

Quote
NORAD and Russian Cruise Nukes: “de-escalation”? Part 2
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.