The Chief of the Air Staff said what?

This is one of those times I wish I had more context to work with. The Chief of the Air Staff is quoted in the Globe & Mail making statements that you could fly a bomber through. Further, as opposed to the head air honcho taking the route of laying expensive capital acquisitions at the feet of the cabinet, he has repeated the Soudas/Mackay/Harper spin of pointing at TU-95 interceptions in international airspace as being the axiom for purchasing a particular brand of fighter plane.

Unfortunately, Lt. Gen Deschamps is quoted without sufficient context. So... (Emphasis mine)

Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, the chief of the air staff, responded to critics of the government’s planned purchase of high-tech F-35 stealth fighters by asserting that the aircraft will provide a needed capability for defence at home, and not just for fighting air battles abroad.

“If they can’t detect us and don’t know where we are, it dramatically changes their potential tactics. So it is a deterrent,” Gen. Deschamps said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

Problem. Speaking to people who do not understand deterrence in the first place. I would expect a much more defined answer from the Chief of the Air Staff in regards to a future fighter's capabilities than that. That answer is about as thoughtful as "they go really fast". We already have a deterrent. We just don't know how relevant it will be in 15 years. And the "stealth" qualities of the F-35 is still being debated. Notwithstanding, by the time the F-35 is wheels up over Canada potential adversaries will have already started to develop countermeasures. A more important point, (and one which seems to have slid by), is the ability to maintain relevant interoperability within a NORAD force and contribute effectively. Whatever the question was, the CAS apparent answer doesn't say much. If he is so confident that the F-35 is undetectable by current and future potential adversaries it could be argued that we don't need to fly to meet long range air patrols at all. Better reasons and rationale behind the requirements are here.

The Harper government has pointed to recent flights of Russian long-range bombers near Canadian airspace in the Arctic and off the east coast – intercepted by CF-18s – to assert the need for top-notch fighters.

Gen. Deschamps said he’s not seeking to amplify “the noise around the Russians,” but pointed to the interceptions to argue that the F-35s will let the Canadian Forces observe foreign planes unseen, and the potential surprise will deter interlopers.

Repeating the words of the prime minister's communications director is a fools play. This hang-up with "stealth" is getting really boring. Sometimes you want the opposition to know you're there. I understand where the CAS is coming from, but he needed to spell it out. Everyone is spinning those "interceptions" as the raison d'etre for buying that particular aircraft. Repeating the crap produced by some smarmy creature like Dimitri Soudas doesn't score points with any thinking individual. Again, lack of context clouds the picture. Deschamps may not have wanted to amplify "the noise around the Russians" but that's the only thing he succeeded in doing.

Despite analysts suggesting that the air force has some nefarious secret reason for pursuing a 5th generation fighter, the obvious answer is to get something which increases your overall capability, folds a multitude of roles into one asset and remains serviceable and relevant for as long as possible.

No country other than Russia will be a potential threat in Canadian airspace for decades, said Philippe Lagassé, a defence analyst at the University of Ottawa.

He doesn't know that.

Stealth capability won’t assert sovereignty against the occasional long-range Russian bomber that is intended to be seen, Mr. Lagassé said. “It doesn’t fit with the threat environment. Let’s be frank: The real value of this aircraft is inter-operability with allies overseas.”

Agreed. The stealth factor is being highly overplayed. The inter-operability factor however is just as important for domestic operations as it is for anything which might occur overseas. Lest we forget that we rely heavily on NORAD to maintain sovereign airspace and if we can't operate within the NORAD environment we either subcontract our defence requirements to the Americans completely or pay a whole lot more for an air force.

As has been said in post after post, the problem most people have is the sole-sourcing of this very expensive project after the minister of national defence said there would be a competitive process.

Snowbirds are lashed

It looks like the Canadian Air Force aerobatic team might get a little more time to reduce their handicaps.

The Snowbirds, Canada's iconic military aerobatic team, have had their wings temporarily clipped while investigators probe a technical problem with their aging fleet of 20 CT-114 Tutors.

I'm glad O'Neill tossed "aging" in there, because if she hadn't I would have.

Sub-Lieutenant David Lavallee, an air force spokesman, said the military doesn't know how long the investigation will take or whether the Snowbirds will have to cancel any upcoming appearances, including their popular Canada Day fly past Parliament Hill in Ottawa on July 1.

Ah, yes, the Canada Day event. Woody day for the Conservatives.

In the event that the Air Force faces the prospect of continuing a critical safety investigation beyond Canada Day, (I'm not being facetious), there is a solution established by precedence. (Back to being facetious).

Harper recalls Parliament in an emergency session. The Conservatives howl and yowl about how this is affecting the morale of Canadians and the decision to ground the "Toots" was clearly made by somebody who voted "Liberal".

Harper declares the CT-114 Tutor absolutely safe and has Parliament order them to fly.

Harper fires the person that grounded them in the first place.

17 months later, Harper puts the entire Air Force fleet up for sale.

O'Connor's strategic lift hobby horse just hobbled the air force

It was a Harper/O'Connor pet project. They were intent on making it happen. Despite the fact that the Canadian Forces had alternatives, they forced heavy strategic lift aircraft on the air force, against the objections of most senior officers, including the Chief of Defence Staff.

Afghanistan is also taking a toll. Already the navy threatened to cancel a scheduled sovereignty patrol due to a budget crunch and the need to up-gun artillery, armour and infantry vehicles deployed with Canadian Forces in Afghanistan has caused other services to suffer.

Now, the real price of those aircraft is about to cross home-plate and the damage to other air force operations is significant. (Emphasis mine)

Canada's air force is looking at cutting the operating and maintenance budgets of some of its frontline aircraft next year in a fiscal pinch that defence insiders blame on new heavy-lift C-17 transport aircraft and the war in Afghanistan.

Senior planners at the 1st Canadian Air Division are studying a proposed 32-per-cent cut in funding for fuel and spare parts for the CF-18s, the C-130 Hercules, C-140 Auroras and the Sea Kings, defence sources told The Canadian Press.

"That's a damn significant hit," said one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"The staff in Winnipeg, the air force staff, are currently doing the staff checks to find out what the impact will be of those cuts."

The reductions, under consideration for the next budget year, would vary depending upon the fleet, but another defence insider said: "You're basically looking at a one-third cut in operating budget."

The fleets being affected, according to the report, are Canada's fighter interceptor force, medium-lift transport aircraft, long range maritime patrol aircraft and the navy's shipborne helicopters.

An official at National Defence headquarters confirmed the study is underway, but described it as a paper exercise, meant to give commanders a better sense of what is possible.

Yeah... but the truth would have been nice right there. It's not a paper exercise at all. When preparing each year's budget, the past year is the working document. The next year's budget is put together based on known quantities and some assumptions. Rarely does a budget cut, especially one as significant as this, occur without prior communications coming from on high.

The "paper exercise" is actually a planning document and one of the factors when preparing a budget submission is the limit of money to be made available from government. The planners have to work on the assumption that the money made available in the current year is the same or slightly increased for the next year. Other factors are included in budget submission such as increases in size of the air fleet which would be accompanied by an increase in the total operations and maintenance costs of the entire air force.

The "paper exercise" is actually an "options" list presented to departmental finance types and superior commanders. Much simplified it would be something along this line:

Acquisition of four C-17s will increase O&M costs by X million dollars annually based on a normal operating and training tempo. Air Command will require: 1. A significant increase in budget allocations to accommodate the arrival of new aircraft. The remainder of the air fleet will continue to be operated and maintained at current levels; 2. Authority to decommission aircraft and transfer the O&M funding to the C-17 program; 3. Reduce the operating and maintenance tempo of a large portion of the air fleet, transferring savings to the C-17 program.

The reason the air force is discussing a 32 percent cut in funding in the O&M budgets of specific aircraft types is because they have obviously been told that there has been no guarantee that there is any additional funding to meet the needs of the C-17 program or the contingency operations in Afghanistan. No, you may not decommission aircraft. Produce a budget document based on option 3.

In short, the air force has been told it is getting C-17s but no additional funding. And, like the navy, Afghanistan is chewing through the air force's O&M money because it is outside normal program funding.

The number-crunching may go on every year, but it is the size of the proposed cut that has air force insiders worried. "We've been cutting back our national procurement funding for years," said an air force source. "The military is supposed to be about readiness. When you're cutting back your spares, you're cutting back your readiness, your ability to respond."

But, just think what those heavy-lift transports will look like on Steve Harper's world stage.

I can hardly wait for the photo op.