The prospective purchase of 65 F-35 fighter aircraft for the Canadian Forces has become, perhaps unsurprisingly, a political football. What is little in evidence, however, is discussion of the role the aircraft are intended to fill in our national defence policy, and the reasons for making this specific purchase.
As background it is worth reminding ourselves that the Canadian CF-18 fleet, originally over 120 strong, has been reduced to some 60 operational aircraft by unit retirement and changing priorities. These last 60 aircraft are approaching the final decade of their design life, and they cannot be kept flying forever. Any replacement aircraft, however, will not appear in the budget until 2016 or so, and the price will be spread over a decade for their delivery. Maintenance costs, an enormous percentage of the total lifetime cost of these assets, would continue over their 25-40 year useful life. A fleet of fighter jets is a big-ticket item, with the current conversation of the F-35 purchase including $9 billion for the planes and $7 billion for the maintenance over their lifespan. This is a lot of money, but on a national scale over a period of decades it is also not really that large. Our government is looking at spending several billion dollars on additional prison buildings in the near future, not to mention what the operation and maintenance expenses of those buildings will turn out to be.
In considering the purchase, then, we have a national defence asset that provides a series of unique capabilities that we are losing in the near future to old age. Those capabilities include:
1 - Air superiority/combat air patrol
2 - Air strikes on surface targets
3 – Aerial Reconnaissance & surveillance
4 - A rapidly deployable force with enormous range
5 - A force element highly interoperable with our allies
The fundamental question underlying the purchase of any replacement fighter aircraft is whether or not we require these capabilities, and if so whether or not new aircraft are the only way to maintain them.
In the case of the original raison d’être of fighter aircraft, the ability to control airspace, they are still an unrivalled tool. Ground-based defences can protect specific sites, but Canada’s capabilities in that area are starkly limited and our airspace is vast. There are now drone aircraft, including the American Predator, with a limited anti-aircraft capability. Given their relatively slow speed, limited sensor capabilities and very limited armament these drones also do not approach the capacity offered by manned aircraft.
The story in terms of surface support is much the same. Army artillery can provide support only within its own range, as is the case with our Navy’s ships and submarines. The aircraft are able to provide support over great distances, and are also capable of using a vast array of munitions, from the most powerful to the most precise. Drones as yet carry only a very limited array of weapons, and are far less survivable to boot.
In terms of surveillance fighter aircraft are essentially never the first option. Dedicated long-range reconnaissance aircraft like the Orion or Nimrod are superior for maritime work and drones are better for tactical work. Where the fighter aircraft do offer a unique strength in this area is in their ability to actually engage a target if required, but for the scouting work itself they are a second option.
The range issue has already been mentioned. Canada is vast, our maritime frontiers even more so, and we have friends and potential commitments all over the world. In that respect this type of aircraft is an excellent asset for foreign deployments for two reasons. First, it is relatively easy to get the planes there. Second, so long as we maintain our tradition of NATO interoperability we can act with our allies without awkward and expensive barriers to overcome.
In my view these are capabilities we should have, both for our own protection and for the aid of our allies. It is also worth noting that these are not capabilities that can be recreated in less than a decade should we decide to eliminate them. To buy the planes, get them delivered, train pilots and re-create an infrastructure would be enormously expensive and time-consuming. To a large extent we shelter under the American aerial umbrella (they operate thousands of fighter aircraft), but their interests are not ours and there will be frictions around northern waters and sovereignty for example where their aid may not be forthcoming, or it may not be available even if they want to help.
This brings me to the question of whether or not the F-35 is the right aircraft for Canada’s needs. There are a variety of aircraft currently in production. Some, like China’s domestically-produced military aircraft are easily ruled out. I put Russian-made MIG aircraft in this category, both due to their inferior performance and more importantly the highly unsafe and unreliable supplier. Given our highly limited influence in Russia, and the difficulties around relying on contracts with Russian organization (i.e.: Shell’s experience with Gazprom) there are far too many red lights to make this practicable. What does that leave us with?
Essentially there are 5 aircraft being produced by Canada’s allies for us to choose from, including the F-35. In Europe the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale also are in production, and thus likely available. In the United States there are the F-16, the F-15E and the F-18 E/F model (the linear descendant of Canada’s CF-18s, which are largely a variant of the F-18D). The Americans are also producing the F-22, but this aircraft is both more expensive than the F-35 and less well-rounded, being focused more on air-to-air combat. Currently it is also restricted from export sale by Congress, just in case anyone here still wanted it…
So why the F-35? The F-15, F-16 and F-18 models are old designs, with the advantages and drawbacks that implies. They are proven performers, but they lack some of the capabilities provided by the newer aircraft. The Eurofighter and Rafale are largely equivalent to their American counterparts, with the exception of the F-35, which stands out from the group as the only option from the very latest design generation; incorporating a variety of stealth characteristics and sensor and computer upgrades.
The question is what capabilities the plane is required to deliver, and the threats it is intended to meet. Fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18s seem like a reasonable defence purchase to me, given the variety and importance of the roles these aircraft perform. What is less clear to me is whether or not we need the F-35. Any of the models mentioned here is an upgrade over our current CF-18s, even if the latter were not at the very end of their useful life. An open tender based on clearly published requirements would seem like an obvious way to allow the field to price itself, and to comparison shop. I am disappointed that this approach was not taken by the government several years ago, but I am hoping that public interest drives a conversation about the topic now. I am also hoping that this conversation does not long delay a selection and a purchase, since such aircraft are an important part of our national defence framework and the timelines on acquisition is long.
While I am on the subject of said framework it is worth pointing out that a full white paper national defence review would seem to be called for as a way of adjudicating priorities on such issues.
*Edit:
Here are the Operational Requirements from the DND website:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/or-bo-eng.asp
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Wee Shuffle
Today's Cabinet Shuffle, necessitated by the retirement of Jim Prentice to move on to a job at CIBC, was as minor as it could have been. A replacement had to be found for Mr. Prentice, and while there were no other important changes the strategy of wooing Greater Toronto prior to the next election continued.
Mr. Prentice's replacement at Environment is Mr. Peter Kent, whose experience in the media will undoubtedly be very useful in a position which this government uses primarily as a heat shield for criticism of the government's environmental policy. I don't envy Mr. Kent the role, though a seat at the Cabinet table is certainly a prize. In addition Mr. Julian Fantino, recent winner of the close Vaughn by-election, was appointed as Minister of State for Seniors. Mr. Kent and Mr. Fantino, a former Chief of both the Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police, are highly visible parts of the Conservative strategy of targeting Toronto seats for the next election. Putting them both in Cabinet, however minor Mr. Fantino's role, will be intended to raise their profile.
Alberta sees Mr. Prentice replaced in Cabinet, at least in theory, by the promotion of Mr. Ted Menzies from Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for finance. Ms. Diane Ablonczy moves sideways from the post now occupied by Mr. Fantino to Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs). With a cabinet whose major figures aside from the Prime Minister are all from outside of Alberta it will be interesting to see if there will be any repercussions here in the Conservative Party's heartland.
Mr. Prentice's replacement at Environment is Mr. Peter Kent, whose experience in the media will undoubtedly be very useful in a position which this government uses primarily as a heat shield for criticism of the government's environmental policy. I don't envy Mr. Kent the role, though a seat at the Cabinet table is certainly a prize. In addition Mr. Julian Fantino, recent winner of the close Vaughn by-election, was appointed as Minister of State for Seniors. Mr. Kent and Mr. Fantino, a former Chief of both the Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police, are highly visible parts of the Conservative strategy of targeting Toronto seats for the next election. Putting them both in Cabinet, however minor Mr. Fantino's role, will be intended to raise their profile.
Alberta sees Mr. Prentice replaced in Cabinet, at least in theory, by the promotion of Mr. Ted Menzies from Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for finance. Ms. Diane Ablonczy moves sideways from the post now occupied by Mr. Fantino to Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs). With a cabinet whose major figures aside from the Prime Minister are all from outside of Alberta it will be interesting to see if there will be any repercussions here in the Conservative Party's heartland.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
'Fixing' what isn't Broken: Tampering with the Census
I have been startled this last few weeks to witness the extent to which a seemingly esoteric subject, the census, has become a political and conversational issue during the dog days of summer. Here in Calgary I have had a series of conversations about this topic, and so far all of them have been with people upset by the changes. Most people have been concerned by the prospect of impeding the gathering of good data, and everyone I have had the conversation with have been baffled by the government's decision to fix something that manifestly wasn't broken.
The decision by the Conservative government of Mr. Harper to change the long-form census from mandatory to optional was announced and defended on two grounds. First, that the current system was intrusive, and thus needed to be changed on privacy grounds. Second, that because there were legal sanctions attached to a failure to return the mandatory form it was necessary to act in order to protect Canadians from being punished by the state should they decide not to return the form.
Both of these grounds were, sadly, completely fatuous. In the case of the latter it is enough to point out that no Canadian has ever been jailed for the failure to complete the census. If there is a case I've missed on this point please let me know! As for the former, well, there are a series of reasons why that concern makes little or no sense. To begin with it is entirely possible to return the form blank, or with inaccurate answers. Tens of thousands do - witness the write-in answer of 'Jedi' under the religion category over the past few censuses. Secondly anything which identifies your answers with you is held in confidence for 92 years, at which point you will be past caring about what you may have said. Thirdly the data you are submitting via the long form frequently exists elsewhere, in tax filings, building permits, school records etc, all of which are vastly more accessible than the census data. Fourthly, many of us submit vast amounts of personal data to private organizations, whether those be stores or banks, that maintain and are held to a much lower standard of privacy. Finally it should be borne in mind that in an era in which we all can and do complain about things which irritate us every day the last census received a grand total of three, yes three, privacy complaints. I would submit that any private organization that sent out a questionnaire to its membership and received only three complaints would be thrilled; and that on a vastly smaller sample size.
The problems with the proposed new system of a mandatory short-form and a voluntary long-form are manifold. To begin with the mandatory long-form is the fundamental control group for all of the research done in this country by Statistics Canada and most private researchers as well. The mandatory long-form is invaluable because it reaches a huge number of people, the response rate is high and the people are randomly chosen. As a result the data provides a statistical sample size and randomness that is unmatched. This means that its results are accurate even though many people either don't complete it or send back that they are Jedi - these outliers fall off the edges of the curve for any given question and we are left with an enormous sample to work with. the result is data that is internationally admired for its reach, accuracy and completeness. To make the sample voluntary means that response rates fall, and the response rate skews away from a representative sample of Canadians. The worst thing about this is that we won't be able to know how much, or which way, the data has skewed - we will have cancelled the control group we test everything else against.
What I have found fascinating the past few weeks is the number of people I have had this conversation with, many of whom are not political people, much less policy wonks. I have several times been told that we, as Canadians, prefer to settle our differences by appealing to the facts. There seems to be something in the census changes that people recognize as an attack on the facts, or at least the system for gathering them. Last time I checked there were hundreds of groups, ranging from provinces and municipalities to professional groups like statisticians and economists, in opposition to the changes. In favour these was only the government, the National Citizen's Coalition (formerly run by Mr. Harper) and the Fraser Institute. The contrast is educational in and of itself. The issue also seems to have resonated with a much wider section of the public than the narrow element of the Conservative Party's base that the move was intended to satisfy. the polling data the last week indicates that it has hurt the government's standing with voters, though like all polls (especially in the summer) that needs to be placed in context. Unless the opposition is able to make strides towards portraying itself as a viable government-in-waiting then the results are unimportant.
Mr. Clement's announcement today that the government would move the language section of the long-form to the short-form census questionnaire is a transparent effort to avoid the court challenge filed by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. The conflict between the maintenance and extension of the short-form census and the rhetoric about removing the mandatory long-form and protecting citizen privacy from the state is striking.
The decision by the Conservative government of Mr. Harper to change the long-form census from mandatory to optional was announced and defended on two grounds. First, that the current system was intrusive, and thus needed to be changed on privacy grounds. Second, that because there were legal sanctions attached to a failure to return the mandatory form it was necessary to act in order to protect Canadians from being punished by the state should they decide not to return the form.
Both of these grounds were, sadly, completely fatuous. In the case of the latter it is enough to point out that no Canadian has ever been jailed for the failure to complete the census. If there is a case I've missed on this point please let me know! As for the former, well, there are a series of reasons why that concern makes little or no sense. To begin with it is entirely possible to return the form blank, or with inaccurate answers. Tens of thousands do - witness the write-in answer of 'Jedi' under the religion category over the past few censuses. Secondly anything which identifies your answers with you is held in confidence for 92 years, at which point you will be past caring about what you may have said. Thirdly the data you are submitting via the long form frequently exists elsewhere, in tax filings, building permits, school records etc, all of which are vastly more accessible than the census data. Fourthly, many of us submit vast amounts of personal data to private organizations, whether those be stores or banks, that maintain and are held to a much lower standard of privacy. Finally it should be borne in mind that in an era in which we all can and do complain about things which irritate us every day the last census received a grand total of three, yes three, privacy complaints. I would submit that any private organization that sent out a questionnaire to its membership and received only three complaints would be thrilled; and that on a vastly smaller sample size.
The problems with the proposed new system of a mandatory short-form and a voluntary long-form are manifold. To begin with the mandatory long-form is the fundamental control group for all of the research done in this country by Statistics Canada and most private researchers as well. The mandatory long-form is invaluable because it reaches a huge number of people, the response rate is high and the people are randomly chosen. As a result the data provides a statistical sample size and randomness that is unmatched. This means that its results are accurate even though many people either don't complete it or send back that they are Jedi - these outliers fall off the edges of the curve for any given question and we are left with an enormous sample to work with. the result is data that is internationally admired for its reach, accuracy and completeness. To make the sample voluntary means that response rates fall, and the response rate skews away from a representative sample of Canadians. The worst thing about this is that we won't be able to know how much, or which way, the data has skewed - we will have cancelled the control group we test everything else against.
What I have found fascinating the past few weeks is the number of people I have had this conversation with, many of whom are not political people, much less policy wonks. I have several times been told that we, as Canadians, prefer to settle our differences by appealing to the facts. There seems to be something in the census changes that people recognize as an attack on the facts, or at least the system for gathering them. Last time I checked there were hundreds of groups, ranging from provinces and municipalities to professional groups like statisticians and economists, in opposition to the changes. In favour these was only the government, the National Citizen's Coalition (formerly run by Mr. Harper) and the Fraser Institute. The contrast is educational in and of itself. The issue also seems to have resonated with a much wider section of the public than the narrow element of the Conservative Party's base that the move was intended to satisfy. the polling data the last week indicates that it has hurt the government's standing with voters, though like all polls (especially in the summer) that needs to be placed in context. Unless the opposition is able to make strides towards portraying itself as a viable government-in-waiting then the results are unimportant.
Mr. Clement's announcement today that the government would move the language section of the long-form to the short-form census questionnaire is a transparent effort to avoid the court challenge filed by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. The conflict between the maintenance and extension of the short-form census and the rhetoric about removing the mandatory long-form and protecting citizen privacy from the state is striking.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Stimulus and Partisanship
I had this article brought to my attention this morning: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1147994.html
It is worth diving into the comments section as well, there is some interesting by-play there.
I share the author's serious concerns about the systemic obfuscation regarding the stimulus spending. Whether or not there are partisan abuses of the system is hard to say, given that it is almost impossible to ascertain what money is in fact spent, or committed, and what stage of planning the projects concerned are at. Based on my research there are certainly enough gaps to be concerned, but not enough information to be definitive.
Obviously it is my opinion that this information should be easily and freely available - in as much detail as possible. Sadly this government appears to oppose, as both Conservative and Liberal governments have in the past, free access to public information. What the Harper government has managed, however, is to promote stonewalling to an art form. Given the reform roots and the passionate cries for transparency and grassroots engagement that informed that movement under Mr. Manning it is particularly depressing to see the lengths to which Mr. Harper and his government are going to prevent just such transparency.
It is worth diving into the comments section as well, there is some interesting by-play there.
I share the author's serious concerns about the systemic obfuscation regarding the stimulus spending. Whether or not there are partisan abuses of the system is hard to say, given that it is almost impossible to ascertain what money is in fact spent, or committed, and what stage of planning the projects concerned are at. Based on my research there are certainly enough gaps to be concerned, but not enough information to be definitive.
Obviously it is my opinion that this information should be easily and freely available - in as much detail as possible. Sadly this government appears to oppose, as both Conservative and Liberal governments have in the past, free access to public information. What the Harper government has managed, however, is to promote stonewalling to an art form. Given the reform roots and the passionate cries for transparency and grassroots engagement that informed that movement under Mr. Manning it is particularly depressing to see the lengths to which Mr. Harper and his government are going to prevent just such transparency.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Devolution or Dysfuntion?
I saw this article today http://www.themarknews.com/articles/519-political-action-on-stage-west and I found it profoundly troubling on several fronts.
Provincial governments are elected based on an avowedly narrow and exclusive mandate - their job is to advance the interests of their population without any requirement for regarding the interests of others. The Alberta government's entire electorate resides in Alberta, after all. Parochialism is also a risk - one has only to look at the Alberta government's ludicris speculation about a provincial cap-and-trade system in years past. It is unrealistic to expect provincial governments, which lack the information, the inclination or the mandate, to develop good national policy.
The dysfunction in Ottawa is the result of Stephen Harper's style of politics, not the minority government system as Roger Gibbons proposes. No compliment should be taken there by the opposition parties, who have also done themselves no credit, but the responsibility lies with the power - on the Harper conservatives. Harper has not proven willing to work with Canada's moderate majority, or with the restrictions and subtlties of Wesminster democracy.
More troublingly Harper does not appear to appreciate the importance of a strong federal government. The actions taken by provincial leaders that Gibbons is lauding are taken to fill a gap left by Harper's weak and divisive leadership. Historically the Premiers' provincial protectionism has been an impediment to progress. The fact that premiers from the former "regions" are beginning to recognize the importance of national standards is a progressive move toward better governance, but certainly not one that indicates a declining role for the national government.
In my view the increasing complexity and scale of the challenges facing Canadians requires increased leadership and engagement from the Federal government. That even the provinces see it and are acting collectively simply damns the absence of leadership from the top, it doesn't point the way to a better future.
Provincial governments are elected based on an avowedly narrow and exclusive mandate - their job is to advance the interests of their population without any requirement for regarding the interests of others. The Alberta government's entire electorate resides in Alberta, after all. Parochialism is also a risk - one has only to look at the Alberta government's ludicris speculation about a provincial cap-and-trade system in years past. It is unrealistic to expect provincial governments, which lack the information, the inclination or the mandate, to develop good national policy.
The dysfunction in Ottawa is the result of Stephen Harper's style of politics, not the minority government system as Roger Gibbons proposes. No compliment should be taken there by the opposition parties, who have also done themselves no credit, but the responsibility lies with the power - on the Harper conservatives. Harper has not proven willing to work with Canada's moderate majority, or with the restrictions and subtlties of Wesminster democracy.
More troublingly Harper does not appear to appreciate the importance of a strong federal government. The actions taken by provincial leaders that Gibbons is lauding are taken to fill a gap left by Harper's weak and divisive leadership. Historically the Premiers' provincial protectionism has been an impediment to progress. The fact that premiers from the former "regions" are beginning to recognize the importance of national standards is a progressive move toward better governance, but certainly not one that indicates a declining role for the national government.
In my view the increasing complexity and scale of the challenges facing Canadians requires increased leadership and engagement from the Federal government. That even the provinces see it and are acting collectively simply damns the absence of leadership from the top, it doesn't point the way to a better future.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)