Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy

[a_majoor]

There is an opportunity, given Russia's renewed attention to the Arctic, for Prime Minister designate Trudeau to reorient Canada's foreign and defence policies in directions that may please more Canadians than did Prime Minister Harper's:

  First: get out of thew Middle East ~ completely out;

  Second: stay engaged in Eastern Europe with a mix of naval, land and air elements;

  Third: focus more and more attention on the North ~

      a. Commit to defined (larger) number of AOPS and to accelerating the construction of the CCGS John G Diefenbaker;

      b. Increase the number, duration, frequency, intensity and, especially, visibility of Army exercises in the North;

      c. Keep the promise to cancel the F-35 but commit to buying aircraft (fighter/interceptors and long range patrol) that will do better at maintaining sovereignty over the Arctic; and

      d. Commit to an integrated space, air, terrestrial and underwater sensor/warning/communications system to give Canada near real time coverage of all the territory and contiguous waters (and maritime approaches) we claim as our own and the airspace over both.

While I agree that these are important policy issues, they have little or no interest to voters, so therefore will probably have little traction in political circles as well (no votes or links to buying votes). If only some grown ups who were ready to govern were in charge...

 

[Kirkhill]

There is an opportunity, given Russia's renewed attention to the Arctic, for Prime Minister designate Trudeau to reorient Canada's foreign and defence policies in directions that may please more Canadians than did Prime Minister Harper's:

  First: get out of thew Middle East ~ completely out;

  Second: stay engaged in Eastern Europe with a mix of naval, land and air elements;

  Third: focus more and more attention on the North ~

      a. Commit to defined (larger) number of AOPS and to accelerating the construction of the CCGS John G Diefenbaker;

      b. Increase the number, duration, frequency, intensity and, especially, visibility of Army exercises in the North;

      c. Keep the promise to cancel the F-35 but commit to buying aircraft (fighter/interceptors and long range patrol) that will do better at maintaining sovereignty over the Arctic; and

      d. Commit to an integrated space, air, terrestrial and underwater sensor/warning/communications system to give Canada near real time coverage of all the territory and contiguous waters (and maritime approaches) we claim as our own and the airspace over both.

So when do you figure a NATO CF-18/Whatever Squadron will be permanently located in SW Poland? Perhaps with a couple of LRPAs?

We have done the Black Sea from Romania and the Baltic from Lithuania.  Rzeszow is roughly equidistant - and it is just over the border from Lviv/Lvov/Lv'v.

And once we are in the area the distance from Bucharest in Romania to Aleppo in Syria is roughly the same as Toronto to Kenora or Toronto to Halifax.

 

[PuckChaser]

Cancel the F-35, but keep air assets engaged in Eastern Europe where they would have the greatest chance to have to need the Gen 5 capabilities? Sounds like a perfect Liberal defense platform, CAF making do with insufficient kit for the task given.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I wouldn't put 'a couple' of LRPAs anywhere if you want to have them available for the third task.  3c isn't going to happen anytime soon for the LRP fleet;  14 are going to upgraded to Block 3 and flying until at least 2030. 

14 LRPAs sounds like 'lots' but it isn't, more over when they are 35+ years old.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cancel the F-35, but keep air assets engaged in Eastern Europe where they would have the greatest chance to have to need the Gen 5 capabilities? Sounds like a perfect Liberal defense platform, CAF making do with insufficient kit for the task given.

Agreed.

 

[Kirkhill]

.....

14 LRPAs sounds like 'lots' ...

It doesn't.

 

[PanaEng]

That is the army model.  I think pilots illustrate that the air force uses a different model.
I acknowledge the professional groups, but note rank inflation exists there too.  Within these occupations, the statement still is true: Majors are not required where there are not people to command.  There is no reason for the local office of lawyers to be all majors when all but one could be captains.  They have thier own pay scale; they don't need extra compensation with inflated ranks.

you (and many others here) forget to acknowledge the restrictive compensation schedule we work under. At the moment, how do you retain a good medical doctor or lawyer? rank inflation (until the pay scales catch up)

 

[GR66]

I wouldn't put 'a couple' of LRPAs anywhere if you want to have them available for the third task.  3c isn't going to happen anytime soon for the LRP fleet;  14 are going to upgraded to Block 3 and flying until at least 2030. 

14 LRPAs sounds like 'lots' but it isn't, more over when they are 35+ years old.

IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?

Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods). 

http://defense-update.com/20150209_elta_g5000_mpa.html#.VjfGmCvj-K8

Having more MPA's would fit the Liberal narrative of focusing more on defending our own sovereignty than fighting foreign wars with the added political bonus of giving industrial support for a (struggling) Canadian aircraft manufacturer.

Would such aircraft be a useful addition or are there better/more cost effective ways of acheiving a similar goal? 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?

Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods). 

http://defense-update.com/20150209_elta_g5000_mpa.html#.VjfGmCvj-K8

Having more MPA's would fit the Liberal narrative of focusing more on defending our own sovereignty than fighting foreign wars with the added political bonus of giving industrial support for a (struggling) Canadian aircraft manufacturer.

Would such aircraft be a useful addition or are there better/more cost effective ways of acheiving a similar goal?

After a quick look, it has the potential of being a decent platform to add to current capabilities.  I haven't seen the endurance specs (and with what wpns and/or search stores configs), or any other data on it.  In very simple terms, turbo-prop is better for the low and slow stuff; jet engines are better for speed and are fuel pigs at say, 300 feet or so.  Every aircraft, whether fixed or fling-wing, has a 'max takeoff weight'.  If you take more search stores, weapons and the like it usually means taking a smaller fuel load.  As one option, you could say, forego the MAD and sonobuoys and make it strictly a surveillance/AsuW platform with the ASW being handled by the 140 until she is retired in about 15 years.  FWIW we used to have CP-140A Actaurus which had no ASW gear and were used in that role.  They rapidly had their hours maxed out and are at the boneyard now.

The RCAF could, I believe, benefit from a platform like this (without looking at the details yet...*disclaimer*) but I would rather see other options looked at first before a purchase.  With the RAF still talking about an MPA purchase, reopening Kinloss etc, and looking at 'other than P-8 solutions' other folks will be putting their best foot forward, so I am interested to see what comes out of that.

Having said all that, the 140 community is relatively healthy now and has had $ put our way and have a fairly capable aircraft (I wish we had more of them but...).  I'd like to see the Cyclone get on its feet, FWSAR moved forward and a decision on fighter replacements before $ is spent to replace/add to the LRPA fleet.  We can hold our own for a bit.  CMA was put on the back burner for a while, which was why we upgraded 14 vice 10 IIRC.  Maybe add to/adjust YFR as a start, if this was the way the incoming government wanted to go.  Personally, I think the Arctic is something that we need to think about, plan for NOW not later...later will be too...late.  :2c:

I'd like to see their definition of lightweight fish.

 

[McG]

At the moment, how do you retain a good medical doctor or lawyer? rank inflation (until the pay scales catch up)

That is wrong.  You do not rank inflate.  You set the pay scales appropriately. 

 

[dapaterson]

you (and many others here) forget to acknowledge the restrictive compensation schedule we work under. At the moment, how do you retain a good medical doctor or lawyer? rank inflation (until the pay scales catch up)

Our pay scales are more than competitive.  Unlike private sector lawyers and doctors, CAF doctors and lawyers don't pay for their practice expenses.  Don't pay for ongoing professional development.  Receive a lucrative pension plan.

A new entry doctor receives in excess of $140K per year (Capt Basic plus medical differential) - hardly poverty wages.  By the time they hit Major they're just below $200K - again, with none of the expenses of running a practice that their civilian confreres face.  Lawyers?  They start at $77K (Capt Basic) and within four years are at nearly $100K - again, with no costs to run  practice, no pressure to increase billable hours...

I know several lawyers who joined the military as general service officers, and find themselves now making more money with less effort than they every did hanging out their shingles.


If anything, CAF officer compensation needs to be examined under a cold, hard light; given the responsibilities now assigned to most GSOs, their compensation appears to have outstripped their comparables.  Allowances should be used to compensate for hardship and risk; and it may also be time to abandon the team approach and compensate based on jobs - not all LCol positions are equal - commanding 3 VP is several order of magnitude more challenging than most staff flopper positions in Bde, Dvi and NDHQ, yet the CO gets no additional pay.

 

[Jed]

Our pay scales are more than competitive.  Unlike private sector lawyers and doctors, CAF doctors and lawyers don't pay for their practice expenses.  Don't pay for ongoing professional development.  Receive a lucrative pension plan.

A new entry doctor receives in excess of $140K per year (Capt Basic plus medical differential) - hardly poverty wages.  By the time they hit Major they're just below $200K - again, with none of the expenses of running a practice that their civilian confreres face.  Lawyers?  They start at $77K (Capt Basic) and within four years are at nearly $100K - again, with no costs to run  practice, no pressure to increase billable hours...

I know several lawyers who joined the military as general service officers, and find themselves now making more money with less effort than they every did hanging out their shingles.


If anything, CAF officer compensation needs to be examined under a cold, hard light; given the responsibilities now assigned to most GSOs, their compensation appears to have outstripped their comparables.  Allowances should be used to compensate for hardship and risk; and it may also be time to abandon the team approach and compensate based on jobs - not all LCol positions are equal - commanding 3 VP is several order of magnitude more challenging than most staff flopper positions in Bde, Dvi and NDHQ, yet the CO gets no additional pay.

Its not all about the pay though, is it?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Its not all about the pay though, is it?

It is if you have kids and a mortgage.

 

[a_majoor]

IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?

Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods). 

http://defense-update.com/20150209_elta_g5000_mpa.html#.VjfGmCvj-K8

Having more MPA's would fit the Liberal narrative of focusing more on defending our own sovereignty than fighting foreign wars with the added political bonus of giving industrial support for a (struggling) Canadian aircraft manufacturer.

Would such aircraft be a useful addition or are there better/more cost effective ways of acheiving a similar goal?

While not a zoomie, I think you can make a useful analogy. A full fledged minivan (like a Dodge Caravan or Toyota Sienna) and a mini SUV like a Ford Escape or Honda CRV could conceivably carry a similar amount of "stuff", but which one would you rather carry large loads in for a long distance?

The smaller aircraft can either carry less "stuff", or carry all the stuff a larger aircraft could but forego range. As well, farther in the future, you will find it more difficult to modify the smaller plane to carry whatever "next generation" stuff that might become vital for the mission.

It would actually be more practical to buy C-130's and build racks to hold various sorts of electronic or other equipment for these sorts of missions, being a large and capable airframe (although the C-130 isn't optimized for the sorts of flight regimes).

 

[GR66]

While not a zoomie, I think you can make a useful analogy. A full fledged minivan (like a Dodge Caravan or Toyota Sienna) and a mini SUV like a Ford Escape or Honda CRV could conceivably carry a similar amount of "stuff", but which one would you rather carry large loads in for a long distance?

The smaller aircraft can either carry less "stuff", or carry all the stuff a larger aircraft could but forego range. As well, farther in the future, you will find it more difficult to modify the smaller plane to carry whatever "next generation" stuff that might become vital for the mission.

It would actually be more practical to buy C-130's and build racks to hold various sorts of electronic or other equipment for these sorts of missions, being a large and capable airframe (although the C-130 isn't optimized for the sorts of flight regimes).

I understand the analogy and obviously the preference would be to have a larger fleet of next-Gen CP-140s to handle our requirements.  However, like every other piece of kit we need, we're not likely going to get enough of them to do the job properly.


With the size of the territory that we need to patrol I wonder if a better analogy than compact SUV vs. full-sized van on a one-to-one basis would be comparing delivery companies.  Say you needed to service a large city like Toronto...with delivery requirements all over the city every day.  You have a limited budget for your fleet of trucks.  Obviously a semi-trailer can handle every size load you might be asked to carry but they are very expensive and you can only afford a few.  However, you can get two cube vans for the same price as a single semi-trailer.  They're not as good to be sure, and they can't handle every delivery, but there's lots of jobs they CAN do.  You probably don't want to just have cube vans because you won't be able to handle some of the important work out there...but if you only have semi-trucks there might be a lot of deliveries that you just can't get done. 

Just wondering if a Global 5000 or Q-400 variant might be a useful "cube van" for the CF.  Or maybe something else.  Remotely piloted vehicles may or may not be ready for "prime time".  Perhaps as E.R. Campbell mentioned satellites would be a better long-term investment.  Or maybe even a non-CF solution (less advanced aircraft for the DFO, the CCG or Environment Canada could fulfill a useful role).  Personally however, I think the ability to respond to a threat is as important as being able to detect the threat so my inclination is toward and armed, manned aircraft option.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

IF (big "if" I know) there were cost savings in buying fewer/cheaper fighters would there be the possibility of suplementing the Aurora fleet with cheaper/smaller aircraft?

Isreal Aerospace Industries (IAI) has an MPA suite (ELI-3360) that they've integrated into two Bombardier aircraft, the Global Express 5000 (which has a range similar to the CP-140 from what I can see) and the Q-400.  Both are also weaponized (the Global Express supposedly has 4 x external hardpoints for lightweight torpedoes, harpoon-class missiles or deployable SAR pods). 

http://defense-update.com/20150209_elta_g5000_mpa.html#.VjfGmCvj-K8

Having more MPA's would fit the Liberal narrative of focusing more on defending our own sovereignty than fighting foreign wars with the added political bonus of giving industrial support for a (struggling) Canadian aircraft manufacturer.

Would such aircraft be a useful addition or are there better/more cost effective ways of acheiving a similar goal?

The simple answer is that you cannot carry torpedos externally on anything other than a helicopter and expect them to actually work when you need them in an environment like Canada's.

They actually do need to be protected in a heated bomb bay. That rules out most aircraft, right there.

I also doubt the Q400 has the speed or fuel reserves to make it out 1500nm from shore and actually be able to hang around long enough to do anything useful.

None of this is to say that we have to do MPA work with something like the P3. It is just that the alternative solution is not obvious to me.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

SKT: How about fitting it inside a slightly modified C-Series 100? I gather fuel economy is good, and you would have ample space for internal bays.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That is the thing: Bombardier has been trying for years to get DND to pay for the engineering work and drop trials.

If this is such an awesome idea, why don't they pay for it themselves?

Oh, I know! Because inserting a bomb bay into a passenger aircraft is a non-trivial amount of work with a lot of risk.

 

[dapaterson]

That is the thing: Bombardier has been trying for years to get DND to pay for the engineering work and drop trials.

If this is such an awesome idea, why don't they pay for it themselves?

Oh, I know! Because inserting a bomb bay into a passenger aircraft is a non-trivial amount of work with a lot of risk.

Also because none of their competitors pay for such things - they all receive generous state subsidies for such work.

The entire aerospace industry is built on national subsidies, both direct and indirect.  Airbus, Boeing and Ebraer (to say nothing of China's nascent industry) all rely on government support.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Fine. Stipulated.

Corporate welfare is still wrong.