The good professor (amongst other things, see below) is now knotting his knickers over the possibility that Canada might start an arms race in the Arctic if we buy F-35s:
A government purchase of F-35 fighter jets could cause “angst in Russia” and trigger an Arctic arms race, Arctic sovereignty expert Michael Byers said Thursday.
“I don’t want my country to be the country that starts an Arctic arms race,” Byers said as debate over the government’s plan to spend $16 billion on 65 of the F-35s raged on several fronts on Parliament Hill.
Byers is chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia…
Perish the thought of causing Bad Vlad Putin any Angst (though the fellow certainly can surprise one, as with endorsing The Gulag Archipelago).
What a load of hooey. The F-35–or any other new Canadian fighter–can hardly start any Arctic arms race. The roles of Canadian fighters up there, and off our other coasts, are airspace surveillance, defence and interception. That’s what our current CF-18s do and what their replacements will do. No offensive role whatsoever so nothing for the Russians to race to defend against.
Moreover, the F-35′s radar-evading stealth is no advantage in those missions; there’s nothing for the Russians to counter since, as I wrote earlier:
…Russian Bear bombers themselves do not have a radar system to search for approaching fighters. Its emissions would be simply suicidal, drawing fighters right to their target…
Stealth fighters do not up the ante in terms of air defence against Russian bombers. But I think Mischievous Michael knows that and is just trying to stir things up anyway. Not exactly intellectually honest, I’d say. But not unexpected.
The Postmedia News story identifies him as “chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.” That’s hardly a really informative identification. It is indeed effectively misleading by making him seem the disinterested “expert” he is described as. Take a look at this post to see where he (a defeated federal NDP candidate) and some of his buddies really are, as they say, coming from:
The major media, the Rideau Institute and, e.g., Steve Staples, Michael Wallace and Michael Byers…
A very committed crew of Rideau Institute advocates trying to push the view that the CF should essentially become a non-combat constabulary and peacekeeping organization. But, contrary to what Senator Pamela Wallin writes in her letter quoted in the post, Mischievous Michael unfortunately does not appear to be retired from active professing at the university.
By the way, as readers of this blog well know, I’m no fan of the way this government has committed to, and justified, acquiring the F-35.
Update: In reality:
Breaking: CF-18 on the job
Mark
Ottawa
[...] F-35s: Bilge from Byers [...]
For those people suggesting that UAV’s will be able to dog fight against manned jet fighters anytime soon, should consider this. Computer flight sims have a very difficult time creating an AI that can effectively combat manned simulated aircraft, even given the advantages that the computer has in the simulated environment where it can instantly analysis input from the user and respond appropriately.
Now jump into the real world, where the UAV must now also collect the required information through passive and active means, then compute that information into a program where it will predict the possible moves and react accordingly. Unless you are willing to program enough variables into the program to cause the UAV to be unpredictable in it’s response to a threat and risk having it make a totally stupid move causing it to be shot down, then the opposing pilots will force the UAV into a predictable path of their choosing.
The day will come when computers are strong enough, smart enough and light enough to fight UAV’s against manned aircraft, but that day is not coming as soon as people think. Hollywood can ignore physics and plot holes. Real life militaries can not.
Byers comments are about the stupidest thing I’ve heard spewed over the lips of a Leftard for some time…which, considering the usual inane babble we hear from ‘em, is saying quite a lot.
I can’t believe anyone even wasted space reporting such ignorant twaddle.
*smirk*… ‘chair’ of global politics…
You know, I once took a moment and sat at the anchor desk in the local studio at ITV (before it was Global before it was Canwest), so I guess I could also claim ‘residually’ I am a chair of broadcast network news myself, using that logic…
Regardless. If anyone maintains the delusion that we somehow do not need new (this time ‘brand new’ please) airframes for the Air Forces, I would submit they should personally put their lives on the line duct taped to the belly of an F18 or some of the few remaining 50+ year old helicopters.
Had this been done to libtard thinkers and the like back before the EH101 fiasco, several honourable service personnel wouldn’t have died as a result of their cheapskate decision. They would still be alive flying instead in a 101 replacement that to this day would have many services years remaining. Nor would their descendants be running in underpowered, third choice machines they have over in theatre at present.
That wrongfully labelled “expensive” helicopter deal would have been a fraction of the debt we bear now because of the cost inflating delays, substandard alternate acquisitions, half billion dollars in cancellation fees, and the petty political meddling that can be attributed to the Liberals. Clearly the neurotic decision processes have to be viciously choked off, and actual clear thinking, economically intelligent choices have to become the standard when putting our people at such risk.
Same things can be extended to the submarine debacle. Because it looked good financially on paper as a ‘used, cheaper-than-new-priced’ acquisition, it gave the government of the day visually substantial bragging rights ‘action was taken’, which actually turned out to be broken down death traps.
“Pricier, upfront” choices for anything worthwhile always loses out a cheap carpetbagger’s deal; that which becomes an even higher costing, deadlier, less effective plan that is dragged out and factually ‘obscured’ over a longer period.
The general public just has so much ADD and short term memory problems regarding such things, why not use it against them, apparently? The government at fault will be long gone by the time the shoddy deal is discovered, so they ‘get away with it’.
The same failures will and are being seen growing in our current fighters… it seems the investigation to this summer’s pre-airshow crash of an F18 cleared the pilot of any wrong doing, and yet could not find the culprit behind the inexplicable loss of power in one engine that DID cause the crash. I wouldn’t be surprised it is age-related.
Does this Byers fellow really think these airframes were tarmac FOD all this time; that they weren’t pushed to the max in dangerous patrols over the waters of the middle east, taking part in the Highway of Death turkey shoot caused by Saddam’s bandit army, the mountain ranges of actively hostile countries patrolling as security cover for ATG groups from around the world? He thinks none of their demanding use over the years does not speed up the aging of airframes?
And what about our own Air Transport Group (ATG)? They spent decades running patched up old C130′s beyond reasonability. Powers-that-be did not see fit to bulk up when vastly improved variants emerged, rather the ‘make do with much less’ Canadian-way was the political expectation, as usual.
In spite of such laughable restrictions, our ATG has routinely been ranked as top crews in various categories of performance and overall scores at American “Flag” exercises over the years… in direct duel with a highly funded, more advanced American military infrastructure.
Sure, they finally got some C-17s… not new of course. These are adjunct to the unique capabilities of the C130s anyway, not replacements to them (people tend to forget 130′s are used more in support and aid distribution than most any other tasking, and on roughshod, dirt-tamped runways the Galaxy’s can’t even consider operating from). Do the cheapskates out there suggest we up and leave African nations to starve because we can no longer ‘lift’ them our generously supplied food aid? Or do we attempt to keep our machinery with the times now and then and fulfill UN, NATO and worldly expectations?
How about the threat detection equipment installed on old Hercs flying into the Sarajevo at the start of that war; that gear sold to us was already rejected by the US Forces for not having been adequate enough to suit their own needs. I saw jury rigged, civilian level GPS units being used in the view domes, which actually increased operational capabilities.
Why do armchair critics and ignorant civilians claim this to be acceptable? Is it only because they weren’t on those flights, did not ask the questions as to WHY the obviously home-style electronics were installed, or why threat measures were shut off? (because they werent accurate and gave far too many false reads, to answer the last question).
No, it is more likely because they dont give a shit, full stop. They arent the ones riding the machines, only partly paying for them.
What would be really ideal is if we actually made our own again. We built some of the best aircraft in the world once, much like we did regarding ship building. Its too bad that was starved to death in favor of farming out to cheaper, shoddier alternatives. We will never amount to such achievement like that again, sadly.
There is a perpetual, systemic problem when it comes to such decision making, in all sorts of choices being made regarding the military, but no one appears mentally fit to challenge and change things.
Brad
Our C-17′s are new, they were destined to be USAF, but the Air Force step aside to allow us to get them right away. We also have had new C130J delivered as well, with more coming. The “newer” old hercs will go to replace the old ones being used for SAR (C-130E’s I think?)
The C-17′s can land a lot of places that the C-130J can as well, but it makes more sense to use the J’s for the short hops.
P. 30 here:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ams/2009_HOC_Presentations/Wed_0830_Canadian_Forces_Search_and_Rescue_%28SAR%29_Operations.pdf
“•13 CF C-130H Model aircraft to transition to SAR role until 2017″
Mark
Ottawa
I will try to find a written source to the contrary… otherwise Im going by what I was told when one came through the international while I was the fueler on shift… was nice to BRIEFLY oo and ah over it… If I go into my photo archive and get the 17′s serial, will you be able to verify what I was told or not, or do you have those kind of connections? My bosses at PLH didnt have that kind of connection, so Im going by what I was told on the infield. Im pretty sure I read it in the Journal not that long ago as well, but that remains uncertain.
As for FINALLY getting these ‘gifts’ as it were, these moves should have been completed ages ago, not touted then ignored from one election to the next…want to google yourself the timeline between Cretin promising to kill the 101 contract and the time an actual alternative was flying? It didnt even happen ‘on his watch’… his non-solution was ‘shoot, shut up, and shovel’… with only retirement ‘away from the problem’ in mind.
Snails on glaciers move faster….
What I fear is these recent happy surprises are a short lived anomaly, and it all returns to the way it was before.
There is nothing excusable about those crews having to run civvy GPS’s and rejected US threat indicators into a full out war, in 130 airframes that were so much older than they were. Years after, the conditions hadnt change a bit. You tell me, what is the excuse there? Or the sub decisions, or the helicopter ones? Or our fleet problems? Sadly, one example is merely a common reality in our military, not just a singled-out group of flyers being ‘treated badly’ or anything.
Do not forget the crap and outrage that was raised after the announcement to move on C-17s… as if we didnt need them or something?
(Aside: Ive got hours of video of our C130 crews landing on goats, potholes and dirt piles in Jijiga, jabouti and other African fields pretending to be ‘runways’ delivering the food aid I spoke about earlier- – courtesy my Herc pilot brother – - but I do not see a single C17 doing so. Sure, there are also plenty of American Hercs and Russian Tu’s, but everything on tape was a prop not turbojet or -fan… do you understand why that is? explain to me, are you claiming that 17s are designed to routinely do this, actually tasked to land in these conditions? Just long haul all the way from Canada to dirt?… Im sure a 747 can also do that – - once- – but that doesnt prove sane or realistic purposing…
No ‘short hop vs. long hop’ theory needed thanks, Im aware of the differences. I am also aware these are two differently designed machines that do respectively different task priorities, with the newer one not capable of ‘replacing the older one’. I find it hard to swallow your claim considering such powerplant-killing conditions, which might explain why you can find maybe one C17 photo landing on anything other than hardened runways…((the photoshopped carrier landing in Google doesnt count, although nicely done))
Like I said, its an adjunct, NOT A REPLACEMENT, to Hercs that are made for this tasking. The overseas world is not always a comfortable, convenient place of concrete tarmacs that a 17 is more suited to, nor are we going to stop backwoods food delivery any time soon. Again, I guess only the Herc drivers themselves are the only ones not making assumptions as to how much dirt they will actually spend time in, over ‘normal aircraft’ expectations. Thankfully the military assigned to outline such duties are not going to be making such expensive leaps of faith with a 17.)
The same autistically determined response to the F-35 (or any) upgrade plan is the same one that has been so robust over the decades; illogical, backwards decision making processes based on ‘what looks good’ economically, not on what actually is needed to keep from killing service crew. Those defects have to be addressed and changed, or more people will die.
A slow trickle of promised gear DOES NOT make the remaining ‘rust buckets’ suddenly safer, nor does it change the fact the majority of our machinery is still waiting for each small rollout to finally be retired. If the news agencies can broadcast the findings of military reports to the nation, Im sure it can be dug up by civvies… especially the reports that repeatedly show the number of units beyond acceptable operating age: “the majority”, from what I recall…
I do not want to make this a Harper booster event but it seems pretty evident to me that the majority of the improvements tabled from his government actually came to pass during his government… that has got to be a first, militarily.
Normally, grandiose gestures never are followed through in much timely fashion, if at all. Promises made, studies written up, lots of money blown to gather evidence, then everything tabled put aside for any number of reasons. In the last few short years, it was the exact opposite, with short periods of time between words said and gear on the ground. FINALLY.
People dont get it. It will cost more now, but it will cost less over the long haul, and it wont ALSO cost lives in the process.
I agree that the C-17 is not a replacement for the Herc, in fact it fills a niche that we never filled before, I would also argue that the C17 is far superior to it’s predecessors for landing on rough fields, although it would be foolish to do so if you can use the C130J for that role instead. The C17 bring longer legs and greater speed, which means our new Hercs won’t have to spend so much time doing the longer hauls, the combo of the two aircraft is an excellent mix for us and gives future governments a lot of options for deployment and also will be sought after to provide support for ill-thought out UN missions in the wrong places, which I am sure will occur again and again.
I spent years driving deuces, firing C2’s (fun but inadequate for the role) and operating a howitzer that would have pounded flat by Soviet counterbattery fire which far outranged us had we gone to war. So I know far to much about cost-cutting in the forces.
Is the F-35 the best choice for us? I honestly am not sure, my preference is a mix, say 40 f-35’s and 40 Super Hornets, with some converted to Growlers, throw in a air reserve squadron of the new armed Hawks while we are at it!!
As for ships, we are a bit screwed, the costs are to big to farmed out to another country regardless of what it might save us. The Tories plan to create a long term strategy for ship building is the right track, even if they are mucking it up a bit. I would prefer that they had brought in some respected Liberals like Bill Graham to work with them on the plan so it will survive a change of government. For a minority government they done pretty good considering how bad it was under the Liberals. Hopefully we have turned a corner on short sightedness in regards to defence procurement, but going by Canadian tradition I doubt it, if the Green party had their way the army would be equipped with re-furbished Snider’s and Militia bullets.
My bro might have even dropped you out the back of his wings back when, if you ever added the silks to your service, who knows….
The places he went, let me assure you, no 17 would be wasted in landing at, not without a clear disregard for the collective pocketbook.
The frame would compromise unless they off-loaded to equal the tonnage of the Herc loads, at which time then whats the point? More fuel wasted carrying incomplete loads to the exact same spot…
that returns things to the two different specialities as already covered, leaving the 17s to long haul, just as it should be….a knife to a gunfight never works well, time and place for everything, a bird in the hand… and so on.
Hercs were trashing the flats when landing, so a single 17 would have ‘cratered’ it easily with its load. One flight in only? not realistic… and if you expected to stop anytime soon by brakes alone that maybe one thing, but reverse thrusting a 17 would be a heart sinking waste of the engines. When it rained, they sunk in and had to wait…a 17, would that be more like ‘submarining’?
It was an anticipated risk for the hardier propped Hercs in those conditions, a turbofan would have many times the cost for sucking all that through the power plant. We aren’t talking ‘just dust’ here in a way casual blowing grit is thought of in Canada, it was something else entirely horrid. Very… very… expensive. I would not want to be anywhere in the chain of command having to justify expenses to the ‘shareholders’ for using a 17 in that manner. The 17s arent and shouldnt be even thought of as competition against the Hercs, again with the adjunct…. and yes agreed there wasnt even anything in place for far too long that it now fills… the Hercs will still need to be advocated on regarding shelf-life, hopefully not years after prime.
But as for you seeing the same weirdly ‘nice’ outlook in the last couple years, I agree, and what a nice surprise.. but it has to be kept at this level regularly…. like I said, I hope it isnt the fleeting feeling of goodness, expecting it to be an anomaly in the history of military support.