CF-18's were to have been sent to Afghanistan but....

[teacher]

Once again presenting the Liberal foriegn policey objectives!!!!

U.S. to provide Canadian air cover
Afghanistan 'too far' for our fighter jets

Chris Wattie
National Post

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

CREDIT: HO/AFP/Getty Images
This image recieved 16 August, 2005 from the Canadian Air Force website shows a CF-18 from 410 TF (OT) Squadron in Cold Lake flying a high alpha with its tail hook extended.

Canadian soldiers deploying next month to Afghanistan will be relying on the United States for air cover after a proposal to send Canadian fighter-bombers to the region was scrapped at the last minute, the Post has learned.

Military sources said six CF-18 jets were to have been included in Task Force Aegis, the 2,200-member Canadian battle group that is moving into restive southern Afghanistan in February.

But the air force had to change plans because of the high cost of getting the six upgraded fighters from 4 Wing in CFB Cold Lake, Alta., to Afghanistan and the technical difficulties involved in basing high-tech aircraft halfway around the world.

"It was a bridge too far," said one air force officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They just couldn't get the maintainers [and] all their equipment there and keep them there for six months."

General Rick Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, dropped the CF-18s from the final roster of the task force on Oct. 31, just before the mission went to the federal Cabinet for final approval, the sources said. A military spokesman said yesterday the Forces would not discuss the composition of the Canadian task force.

Military experts say Canadian soldiers need their own aircraft covering them from above and the absence of the CF-18s on the Afghan mission is the result of decades of neglect of the "sharp end" of Canada's air force.

Lou Cuppens, a former air force lieutenant-general, said Canadian fighters should have been sent with the Kandahar battle group, based around 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, because that is the only way of guaranteeing air support in case of trouble.

"If you want guaranteed air support, you have to bring it yourself," said Mr. Cuppens, now an analyst with the defence lobby group Conference of Defence Associations.

"If you have a pool of coalition air, then you're at their mercy -- they decide when and if you get access to that firepower. If you have your own aircraft in that pool -- as the Dutch will -- then they're going to drop whatever they're doing and come when you call. You're their first priority."

The Dutch army, which is contributing troops to the Canadian-led task force along with the British, are bringing six F-16 fighters and Apache attack helicopters to support their soldiers.

Canadian soldiers did not have the benefit of Canadian air support during their previous two Afghanistan missions. A bomb dropped from a U.S. F-16 killed four Canadian soldiers who were participating in a training exercise in April, 2002. The U.S. pilot mistakenly believed he was under enemy fire, and he later suggested the lack of a Canadian presence in the air operations was a contributing factor in the accident.

Mr. Cuppens said the Canadian Forces likely decided not to send their own fighters because of a lack of tanker aircraft, for air-to-air refuelling, and a shortage of transport planes to carry the hundreds of mechanics, spare parts, ground support equipment and high-tech maintenance machinery necessary to keep the CF-18s in the air.

"It all comes down to money and logistics," he said. "We'd have to get some help just to get them over there ... [and] the initial deployment would take up a lot of sea and airlift space."

Major Dale MacEachern, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces, would not comment on the aborted CF-18 deployment. "We won't discuss that," he said in an interview from Ottawa.

"We look at any number of options for force composition for a given mission and we won't speculate about what options may have been under consideration in this case."

Senior officers familiar with planning for the mission said the Canadian Forces has not yet abandoned plans to eventually send fighters to Afghanistan, but not until later this year at the earliest.

David Rudd, of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said that given the increased danger of this latest Afghan mission, it would only be prudent to give the soldiers on the ground their own air cover.

"Given the level of danger, it would be a handy thing to have," he said. "A small deployable air contingent would be a valuable asset to the coalition."

But he questioned whether the air force will be able to send its fighters overseas for some time, despite the government's defence policy that specifically calls for an "Air Expeditionary Unit" made up of "six CF-18 aircraft for air-to-ground missions."

"This is something that the air force would really like to do, if only to show that overseas deployments are not an army-only show," Mr. Rudd said. "I would say this is a key defence objective and this is proof that we just can't do it."

Mr. Cuppens said years of funding cuts and little overseas experience mean it may be some time before the air force can carry out that role.

While Canadian pilots were among the best in the coalition air forces that bombed the former Yugoslavia in 1999, he said a shortage of precision-guided bombs and lack of action in the past six years is blunting the air force's offensive skills.


http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... 0d17073b6b

[Hedley]

Am I the only one embarrassed to read the above?

Why do Canadians have such low expectations of their government?

Why is total and complete failure such as this considered perfectly acceptable performance?

Why do we even have F-18's if we can't deploy them?

[x-wind]

Who cares, are planes are for protecting Canada not for helping the U.S
Why should we spend crap loads of money to help them in there efforts to ..... to do what again? We sent troops to show support I say that’s enough. However I think it’s embarrassing that we proposed the idea to go and then cancel it, sure makes us look like a bunch of asses.

[Brewguy]

Let me start by saying I am embarressed too. Our armed forces have suffered greatly over the past decades due to lack of funding, lack of support (by government AND by the general public), and a really poor procurement process.

We should most certainly be able to deploy our fighters (and reletively quickly) as required to support the Canadian Forces any time our personnel are on operations with NATO, the UN etc. We should also have the tankers and heavy air lift capabilities required too. Just look at the farce of getting DART deployed any time there is a disaster. It's not the fault of the CF - they are good people doing a damn fine job with what they have.

However, and just to play Devil's Advocate , I am also going to bring up a few points from the 'other side of the coin' here:
(Oh, the response to this is going to hurt ... brace, brace, brace!!! )
The primary objective of our armed forces, should at all times be, the defence of Canadian soverignty. While we do have, as members of the international community, a responsibility to participate in the activities of groups such as NORAD, NATO and the UN - Canada must come first. And of course (and I'm sure this will get quoted in a number of replies) - There is no direct threat to Canada, for which the CF currently needs to be deployed abroad, in order to "Defend Canada".

"IF" the defence budget is not, and has not been for many years, sufficient to keep the forces ready (personnel, equipment, training) for long-term deployment; "THEN" we should not be deploying them overseas. The problem is that the politicos keep commiting the CF beyond their current capabilities. If they want Canada to be seen on the international stage, then they need to get the forces up to an appropriate strength and equipped FIRST. Don't make the commitments, then do a half-assed job of following through. That just exposes our sailors, soldiers and airmen to unnecessry risk.. Just my opinion.

[Holy Magenta]

I have to disagree with you Xwind,

Your point is understandable, although the airpower we have wouldn't protect Canada if it had to, however Afghanistan is a little different than Iraq.

Canada and other UN nations are involved in Afghanistan as a result of 911 and all the other terror attacks around the world. Whether or not America has brought it on itself, we are lumped in with it as western nations of wealth and excess. We are fortunate that Canada has not been a target and who knows for the future. Maybe we shouldn't have gone over there, but now we have a responsibility to our men and women serving over there. I think if we go to do a job, you gotta do it right. We may be endangering our soldiers with their ill-equiped forces and no air support. We look like jack asses having a military we can't afford to deploy.

Don't get me wrong, Im the first to freak out over fear mongering and the US's military conquest for oil, oops sorry conquest for democracy.
But you cannot deny that our military is ill equiped and under funded. Canadian heritage goes way back in aviation and military ability, and now we look like clowns.

With the future looming the way it is, Ie oil demands, fresh water demands, the north west passage openning up as the ice melts, we have to be in a position to protect our interests and our solidarity. We need to bone up our military.

(sorry for any bad spelling)

[complexintentions]

"who cares" sums up exactly why the Forces are in the position they are.

The F-18's are for protecting Canadians, yes. And correct me if I'm wrong, but those are Canadians on the ground over there, who deserve to be protected.

x-wind, you're entitled to your political opinions, hell I probably even agree with some of them. But once the decision has been made to send our guys/girls, it's absolutely disgraceful that they aren't given the support they need and deserve.

Absolutely pathetic. The Conservatives may not be any better than the Liberals, but they will have to try hard to be worse...

[Holy Magenta]

Valid point nblythin,

can't disagree with that really, although I think home defense would be a stretch as well if we were ever truely under attack. And I know people make the arguement that we don't have to worry about it cause we have the states. Truth is though, they will always protect their interests first, and who is to say they won't be an issue in the future as comodities become more limited.

Just crazy talk though, Im just saying we gotta look after ourselves.

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

The decision not to send them likely has more to do with this, would be quite costly for us po' Cdns.

For anyone in the know, do six 18's really require "hundreds" of mechanics?

10/05 - RAF Harrier 'destroyed' in Afghanistan. An RAF Harrier is reported effectively destroyed, and another has been damaged, in a rocket attack in Afghanistan, it emerged on 15 October. The aircraft were on the ground at a military airfield at Kandahar in the south of the country when they were damaged early on the morning of 14 October. First reports of the attack from the Ministry of Defence made no mention of the damage to the aircraft and failed to disclose that one of them had been destroyed. The RAF has six Harrier GR7A jets in Afghanistan, all of them from No 3 (Fighter) Squadron based at RAF Cottesmore. The aircraft have been based at Kandahar since September last year, with the detachment expected to continue into 2006, longer than initially expected. They have been widely used on reconnaissance missions and to help special forces. One aircraft is being repaired at the airfield and the other has been replaced by another fighter which flew out from Britain on 14 October.

[ahramin]

Politicking aside, how do you think you are ever going to use those CF-18s for "home defense" if you pass up every opportunity to send them into battle? When was the last time our air force got any combat experience?

[teacher]

The Hornets were last used over Kosovo.

It's like the arguement that Jean Cretin had about tanks. He said that they hadn't been used in decades so why have any at all. The reason of course is that the govornment had refused the opportunity to use them many times before.

[Brewguy]

Exactly! It's one of those Chicken & Egg things. The government scales back the forces during peace time, but expects it to be ready to deploy into a theatre of operations with little notice. You can substitute any piece of equipment you want into the following phrases:
Government: Does the forces really need ____? It will cost too much! Our priority is _____.
DND/CF: We can't deploy to (location), because we need ______.

Fighters, Tankers, Helicopters, Transports, SAR, Ships, Subs, Tanks, APCs, uniforms, small arms ... it's all the same story. Unfortunately, whenever the CF makes progress towards getting something they desperately need, the Government changes their minds. Or, or a new Chief of Defence comes in and decides to change the priority from Army to Navy, Navy to Airforce, Airforce to Army etc. Not that you can blame them, the whole CF needs modernizing - and they have to make a judgement based on best bang for the buck.

I largely blame the procurement process. It takes too long (many, many years - during which it may get scrapped), and industry gets too involved. Wasn't there a recent stink about the Airforce changing how they put out request for proposals for the new transport / heavy airlift aircraft?

[Hedley]

It is supremely depressing, the state that our once-proud military has deteriorated into.

However, I guess it's not very surprising after decades of budget cuts, politicized abuse of the military's budget and procurement.

Canada's supposedly "greatest" Prime Minister of all time, Pierre Trudeau (barf) was a draft-dodger during WWII and held the military in complete contempt.

The Minister of Defence, Paul Hellyer, that presided over the destruction of the separate branches of the military in the 1960's, is a nutcase who thinks we're being invaded by UFO's. Sadly, I am not making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hellyer

This is the "creator" of Canada's modern military?! WTF?!

Here's a quote from his biography:

In November, 2005, he accused U.S. President George W. Bush of plotting an "Intergalactic War." The former deputy prime minister told an audience at the University of Toronto: "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning"

[ScudRunner]

Pierre Trudeau (barf) was a draft-dodger during WWII

Quoted from wikipedia:
"Trudeau was conscripted into the army, and joined the Canadian Officers Training Corps under the wartime National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940. Trudeau served with other conscripts in the home guard, since it was only later, starting in 1944, that limited numbers of conscripts were sent overseas, with the vast majority of those sent overseas being volunteers. He said he was willing to become involved in the war, but he believed that to do so would be to turn his back on a Quebec population he considered to have been betrayed by the King government. In a 1942 Outremont by-election, he campaigned for the Quebec anti-conscription candidate Jean Drapeau (see Conscription Crisis of 1944), and was eventually expelled from the Officers' Training Corps for lack of discipline. After the war, he attended the Institut d'études politiques de Paris in Paris in 1946-47, and spent the following year at the London School of Economics."

Far be it for me to defend Trudeau but get your facts straight. I agree though that the forces get pillaged during peace time then are expected to suddenly defend our interest overseas. I ask those that question why we are even in Afghanistan, Why go to cypress why go to Bosnia why go to Britian or Korea. Answer Because its the right thing to do and Canadians should take pride in their military and not allow it to be raped like a bangkok hooker by politicians trying to find money to pay to their friends for ads.

[WJflyer]

CF-18's may the best plane we have avaiable to cover the skies of Afghanistan, but rationally, they are a bit too much for the mission. The CF-18 is more of a very complex air superiority jet with a secondary attack role to it. It is a great jet for when there is the possibility that there are enemy planes in the area and you want to deal with them, plus bomb whatever is on the ground, but I doubt that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have an airforce, or any airplanes for that matter.

What is more appropriate to send to Afghanistan is a more simpler airplane that is easily maintained, carries a decent load, cheap, and has enough performance for the region. An aircraft that the CF is familiar with already is the BAe Hawk trainer and light combat aircraft. This aircraft, in the current models, of which Canada is familar with, can carry most weapons that the Canadian Forces already use and are familar with, is very manuverable, and has a max speed of Mach 0.82 in level flight, and is able to hit Mach 1.2 in a shallow dive.

What Canada could do to improve its airborne capabilites is to order the BAe Hawk 200 light combat aircraft and trainer for service. About 50 aircraft can be procured for light combat duties, such as Afghanistan, operating with the Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment at CFB Cold Lake for chase plane duties, and point air defense of our territory. Additional airplanes can be ordered in the Hawk 115 variant, for Snowbird Aircraft Replacement Project, replacing the current CT-114 Tutors.

The Hawk 200, unlike the other Hawk's are single seat aircraft, carry the Northrop-Grumman AN/APG-66H pulse-Doppler X-band multimode radar in the nose, which is derived from the AN/APG-66 used on the F-16. The cockpit of the latest variants of the BAe Hawk are compatible with the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet, meaning pilots can be switched from either the CF-18 or the Hawk with minimal familarization. The Hawk can carry the AIM-9 Sidwinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AGM-65 Maverick, various 'dumb' and 'smart' bombs (up to 9, count, 9 250kg (550lb) bombs, impressive for a airplane this small), and the advanced, Canadian designed CRV-7 series of unguided rockets (of which are already in service with the CF). The internal cannon is the British 30mm ADEN cannon, which provides a excellent punch against air and ground targets, as shown in the Falkland War. All of these weapons are already in service or are being used by the CF, except for the internal cannons. Service range of the BAe Hawk 200 is 2,520 km, and can carry an optional inflight refueling probe and external drop tanks, extending the range even further. Hawk 200's are in service as trainers and as combat aircraft with the Royal Air Force Of Oman, the Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force, the Royal Malaysian Air Force, and the Indonesian Air Force, with stellar service records. Not bad for a basic design that first flew in 1974; over 30 years ago.

What is needed is a cheap, easily maitained airplane for close air support and operations for peacekeeping in such nations like Afganistan, and when not deployed, provide air defense for our country. The BAe Hawk 200 easily fills this requirement, and then some.

[teacher]

CF-18 jets are mission-ready

CF-18 jets are mission-ready
Documents show deployment plans to Afghanistan set, but orders unlikely

February 19, 2007
Bruce Campion-Smith
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA–Canada's air force has detailed plans to deploy six CF-18s fighter jets to Kandahar, even to the point of predicting how many so-called "smart" bombs would be needed for a six-month air campaign battling insurgents, documents show.

Defence officials say they have no intention of sending the fighters overseas. But military memos and orders obtained by the Toronto Star make it clear that extensive planning has laid the groundwork for a deployment should the Conservative government give the okay.

"With respect to the current situation ... there are no plans at this point in time do so," Lt.-Col. John Blakeley, director of air force public affairs, said last Friday.

But just over a year ago – as Canada's army units made the move to Kandahar from Kabul – it seemed certain the air force's front-line fighter would be deployed to join them in an operation expected to cost $18 million, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.

In January 2006, air force headquarters in Winnipeg sent out an order to the two CF-18 bases at Bagotville, Que., and Cold Lake, Alta., regarding "deployment to Kandahar."

"The purpose of this (message) is to co-ordinate deployment milestones that will ensure the directed fighter preparedness posture is achieved and maintained," it said.

The order laid out some of the requirements for the Kandahar operation, such as parking space for six of the sleek fighters with a spot where another jet could undergo maintenance work.

The documents also reveal that planners predicted how many sorties the jets would be flying each day as well as how many precision-guided bombs would be used in a six-month deployment, although those details have been censored.

The documents detail the "weapons on hand," including a selection of laser-guided bombs weighing up to 907 kilograms.

One memo, marked secret, discusses the need for air-to-air refuelling to get the jets from their bases in Alberta and Quebec to Afghanistan.

Among the papers is a presentation totalling about 45 pages on the threats that would face the fighter team in Afghanistan with topics that include narcotics, the "opposing military force," rockets and mortars, convoy ambush, roadside bombs, kidnappings and suicide bombers, although details on each have been blanked out.

The documents also stress the need for positive identification to avoid "collateral damage" to allied troops. Five Canadian soldiers have already been killed in Afghanistan in friendly fire incidents involving American jets.

Air force rules made clear that CF-18 jet jockeys would have to "visually acquire their targets and have the flexibility to deliver ordinance in lower flight regimes to avoid fratricide."

The air force convened a two-day meeting in Winnipeg in November 2005 involving air staff from across the country to discuss issues "related to preparation, deployment, employment and force sustainment of an eventual fighter force supporting the Afghan theatre of operations" reads one memo.

A 14-member military team was to head to Afghanistan in April 2006, to scout out the Kandahar airfield for the unfolding CF-18 deployment.

Blakeley couldn't say whether that trip ever went ahead. But he said it's common for planners to develop contingency plans for possible operations.

The deployment, planned for sometime after May 2006, never took place and now seems to have been shelved indefinitely.

Today, a CF-18 deployment remains a sensitive topic for senior federal government officials who fear the public may perceive Canadian jets in Afghanistan as an escalation of Canada's involvement in a divisive mission.

And because British, Dutch and U.S. fighters are already providing air support for allied troops in southern Afghanistan, it's unlikely Canadian fighter pilots will be called on to show off their skills, defence officials say.

Canada has about 2,600 troops in Afghanistan, with most based in the volatile Kandahar region.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/183204

[Dash-Ate]

So for the actions of 19 people (plus all the people who turned a blind eye/stood down to let it happen) you get to invade not one but TWO countries? And one of them is the 2nd invasion of the same country? wow.

What is your source on this? You do know that ALL news our of the middle east comes from and it controlled/made up by the US government? You do know that there are no cub reporters rushing to file the latest breaking news that he found? A record number of journalists have been killed in IRaq, mainly by US forces. What does that tell you.

So if you choose to beleive the propraganda go ahead. Who is winning? Did you see the oil companys record prfits? 50% of us budget spend on military and weapons? Follow the money flow to see who is gaining.

[cone]

I'm not going to get into this one, as the original article is a repeat from a year ago, and this argument has already taken place. I'll just say this: right now we have a government that's finally doing right by the military, a chief of defence staff who is great, and isn't afraid to speak his mind, and CF-18s that are going to be NVG capable, with more modernisation coming online very soon. Don't be surprised if you see Canadian Hornets over there soon, after all the leopard tanks were about to be retired...

[Blue Side Down]

Why do Canadians have such low expectations of their government?

I think it goes far beyond just the government.

From the perspective of a kid in college- low expectiations are becoming the norm. BS is the cornerstone in much of what can be observed around campus. It looks like we're headed downhill at a considerable clip and there's no sight of where the valley begins.

...there's a reason why (before the current administration) our neighbors to the south were regarded so highly.

Just say 'no' to bulls**t.

[Four1oh]

I think we should be sending our f18's over there. They'll gain valuable mission experience which will come in handy when the US invades canada for our natural resources!

[sky's the limit]

I say the CF should commandeer a few of North Wright's Cessna 337's, stuff some rockets on them, and hire a few Seneca Grads to fly them.... Cheaper to purchase, cheaper to run, cheaper to fix... Oh wait, not much fixing req'd. Something our Tax Base here in Canada can truly afford.

See all the benefits to my plan?

STL

[TerrainTerrain]

So for the actions of 19 people (plus all the people who turned a blind eye/stood down to let it happen) you get to invade not one but TWO countries? And one of them is the 2nd invasion of the same country? wow.

What is your source on this? You do know that ALL news our of the middle east comes from and it controlled/made up by the US government? You do know that there are no cub reporters rushing to file the latest breaking news that he found? A record number of journalists have been killed in IRaq, mainly by US forces. What does that tell you.

So if you choose to beleive the propraganda go ahead. Who is winning? Did you see the oil companys record prfits? 50% of us budget spend on military and weapons? Follow the money flow to see who is gaining.

I'm starting to miss Cloudcounter. I never really liked you, Mr. Moore. Fat ass.

[gli77]

No where has it been mentioned what the cost and logistics are for this. In a country full of people bitching about taxes and a new prime minister poised to cut out years of Liberal waste I can see a reluctance for this as there are alternatives.

[LH]

I live in Canada......not Afganistan or anywheres else. I believe that my Canadian Armed Forces were primarily developed and put in place to have one primary objective foremost in their minds at all times..........the defense of Canadian national soil.

When the day finally arrives when the CAF can ably defend their own soil, then I will believe that it is time for them to consider venturing overseas to other countries and helping them defend their own borders. If that "helping" of others means a weakening of our own defenses, then the other countries are going to have to understand that we aren't coming to their aide. Europe, the Middle East, the Far East are populated with hundreds of cemeteries that hold Canadian dead from both WW1, WW2 and Korea. This all makes no mention at all of the many Canadians who were also buried at sea during two wars, so let there should be no misunderstanding that we have and will fight for others weaker then us. We also have to keep in mind that our tax base to make all this happen is smaller than the State of California's because the population of that State is more than our whole nation.

[Nightshiftzombie]

Lots of bitching on here about "The Government" treating the Armed Forces like shit. After 20 odd years of cuts in the defence budget I think the people of Canada have to own up on this one. How many people consider the armed forces on election day? If the people of this country really wanted to have a bad ass, high-tech, globe-trotting military we would have one. For good or bad this country has got other priorities than military spending.

[Rockie]

Lots of bitching on here about "The Government" treating the Armed Forces like shit. After 20 odd years of cuts in the defence budget I think the people of Canada have to own up on this one. How many people consider the armed forces on election day? If the people of this country really wanted to have a bad ass, high-tech, globe-trotting military we would have one. For good or bad this country has got other priorities than military spending.

I'll second that.

For a long time we have been more than neglecting our military, we've been deliberately starving it. Here is the chain of responsibility:

1. Undermanned, underequipped and underfunded military because;
2. Gutless military leaders unwilling to support their troops because;
3. Politicians who view the military as unnecessary because;
4. We elect them knowing all of the above

We as Canadians own this problem because we created it. For years the policy makers pushed this "peace dividend" at us after the end of the cold war and we bought into it. Even though it is obvious that the world is a more dangerous place than it ever was. Canada cannot possibly hope to defend our own borders. As was pointed out earlier we have a tiny tax base compared to the sheer size of our country. But we can, and have in the past, do our part within mutual defence treaties that will help to ensure our own security. NATO isn't irrelevant, it just needs to amend its charter to keep pace with the threat.

But we can't do that with an emaciated, decrepid military. Thankfully people are starting to get it.