A letter sent to the Ottawa Citizen and not printed (though they phoned to say they were considering it):
Turboprops no substitute for fast air
Re: How to get more air force for the dollar, Oct. 12
I agree with Professor Paul Mitchell that there is much to question about the government’s decision to purchase 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s as the next fighter for the Canadian Air Force. For example, the aircraft’s stealthiness is mainly required to enable success in offensive air strikes through heavy and effective air defence in the first days of a war–such as the US attacks that begin the two Gulf wars. How likely is it that a future Canadian government would commit our fighters (and the number deployable abroad would be very small) to such a role [more here and here]?
On the other hand Prof. Mitchell questions the very need for a new fighter for defence and surveillance of Canadian airspace, and the interception of civilian aircraft that may pose a threat. While the Russian manned bomber threat may be pretty low, if we do not have our own fighters to patrol the approaches to our territory the United States will feel compelled to do that job for us. Rather a bargain for us but would Canadians willingly accept the severe loss of sovereignty?
Prof. Mitchell writes that instead “The most likely avenue of attack from the air on Canada today is…from… a small privately owned commercial aircraft.” He then maintains that an armed version of a modern turboprop military trainer might thus be the best new aircraft to acquire rather than fast air, i.e. fighter jets. There is one big hole in this argument: 9/11. Modern jet airliners are quite a bit faster than those turboprops. They would not be able rapidly to intercept, identify, and take any necessary action against such an airliner that was suspected of posing a threat. Not a risk I think we should run.
Related, at the National Post’s “Full Comment” (more slapping down St. Steve Staples, see also end of this post):
Jeff Jedras: Still wrong about fighters 50 years later
As for a certain Canadian icon mentioned by Mr Jedras:
Arrow not a bullseye
Update: Post is the “more” at the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:
…
Canadian Commentary
…
Jeff Jedras — National Post
Still wrong about fighters – More…
Mark
Ottawa
Let’s get one thing straight, MSM..these leftists are not advocating for a different type of armament..they are advocating for the disarmament of Canada.
They are nothing but traitors.
Turboprops, LOL why not drag out the ole mothed balled Lancasters and be done with it Libs. LOL Turboprops, oh yea high artic here we come NOT.
WHat Mr Staples fails to recognize is that the bad guys that where doing their attacks using conventional, or commercially available are changing their tactics.
They are now attempting to obtain something a bit more robust and advanced. All it takes for them to accomplish this is a rougue nation desperate for cash and a nuke or two for sale.
If I had my choice, I think the stealth fighter that could eliminate said threat would far outweigh the turboprop that could tell us we have 30 minutes to evacuate before impact.
[...] Two reasons we need new fighters/St. Steve Staples slapdown [...]