National Defence Committee on Sept. 15th, 2010

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

It isn't, and the reason why is that you have to ask why the Russians had the motivation to resume bomber patrols when in fact we had more or less worked out arrangements at the end of the Cold War whereby we acknowledged how these are perceived as escalatory activities, or at least as creating a mistrust that had not been there before.

The question is why, then, in 2007? One could say, okay, they were doing it because Putin was getting more money back into the military and they wanted to show that it was for domestic consumption. But, if anything, there are reports in the open literature saying that our governments are not sharing the degree to which overflights are in fact occurring. In other words, there are suggestions that the numbers are substantially higher than those announced by, say, Minister MacKay on a trip to the north.

If that is true--and I have no way of verifying whether it is--one has to ask the question, are the Russians are doing it for domestic consumption, are they doing it for intelligence-gathering, or are they doing it for other various reasons?

The other issue that's suggested in the open literature is that the Russians, unlike NATO, do not share pre-flight clearances. In other words, the Russians are staying in international airspace, and they're not required to.... But as a confidence-building measure, when NATO does similar activities, we tend to notify the Russians that we will be having these exercises, and we give them advance notice. My understanding--and I stand to be corrected--is the Russians are not doing this in that particular context, which raises concerns for me regardless of how they're portrayed as a means of political advancement.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Good, because it's over. Thank you.

Mr. Harris, you have seven minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Huebert, following on your last comments about the behaviour of the Russians, we do know the Russian Bears are 1955-designed aircraft, propeller-based, that fly back and forth. NORAD tells us publicly and consistently that both sides do the exercises of testing airspace and response times on an occasional basis, and that despite the—I won't call it hysteria--at least political use of these flights by the Government of Canada, this is just routine, and there's nothing really to it.

A new long-range bomber may or may not be in the works by the Russians, but do we need to have a type of aircraft other than the CF-18s? I'm not saying the CF-18s are going to last forever. Obviously, we have to replace planes if they're going out of service, but for what reason do we need or would we need something like the F-35 stealth strike fighter to keep track of those?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

This is the interesting question. It gets very much into the gestalt of how we try to understand what the Russian intentions are. There are the arguments that Putin is doing this, of course, simply for domestic consumption to show that he is the strong man. In other words, there is this whole aspect that he's not even focusing on the outside world.

However, the issue of course is why in 2007 they had maintained this at substantial cost and, of course, whether they are going to follow through with the new advanced bomber as they say they are. If they don't, many of the premises of your question are, indeed, in order.

The second part of your question is whether we actually need the F-35. Theoretically, could we have a cheaper aircraft, something that perhaps will provide us with the type of air superiority or at least air surveillance that fighters give us? The answer is in theory yes, but we simply don't see that type of company capability.

As I said, the Eurofighter is probably going to come up at a cost roughly akin to what the F-35s are, or at least that's the speculation. That may be proven to be wrong, but it's an older technology, and it won't last quite up to the 2060 timeframe. I expect we'll be seeing the F-35s go...despite the government saying they will be replacing them sooner.

If you're not willing to go to the Russians to buy your fighters, there really are going to be limited options. You either go with the F-35, which may not be a perfect fit, or you go with nothing. It's almost the type of choice that any government...and this was reflected, of course, even with the Liberals when the initial contract in the mid 1990s to engage in the development of the F-35 was taken. This is the real challenge any western government outside of the United States is going to be facing.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Of course, we do have the Super Hornets.

If the stealth bombers are what we're worried about, surely the capability you require is to actually be able to find them, not by going and looking for them but by being able to detect them through other means, whether it be by satellite or by detection systems. The idea of stealth versus stealth sounds like cloak and dagger: you have an invisible plane, so I need an invisible plane to find you. It doesn't make sense to me. It seems clear to me that you have to find ways of having your detection system.

I think Canada and NORAD now know when a jet takes off in Russia, if that's what we're worried about. It's not a big secret. It's not likely to be a big secret when stealth bombers take off either, if we concentrate on detection systems as opposed to interceptor jets.

Would you care to comment on that?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

I guess my response to that is that it's along the lines of the unknown. We're talking about going for the Russians, who probably will not be the major issue.

When you say NORAD knows, well, of course we have recently seen the re-coverage of the events of 9/11, and NORAD was not able to respond to the type of capability, the type of threat, that people were not perceiving. NORAD, as everyone knows, was looking outward, not inward. When somebody decided to turn these aircraft into basically what amounted to be cruise missiles, NORAD did have a problem understanding and responding.

I'm not saying there is a continuous terrorist threat of using aircraft as cruise missiles, but we have to have serious debate on the question of having a response capability that goes beyond surveillance and on what we do when we have this type of threat.

Unfortunately, a fast aircraft is still your best means for the necessary force on force when you are dealing with very short time periods. At least that's the argument amongst most of the air power circles. You want to have that quick capability that goes beyond simply knowing what's happening. Let's be blunt: we're talking about using deadly force against some future...[Technical difficulty--Editor]

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Harris, you have about a minute and a half left.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have a question for the representatives of Project Ploughshares.

The cost issue is—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Harris, we've lost Mr. Huebert in Calgary.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I didn't think he was finished--but I was going to go to Project Ploughshares.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Maybe he anticipated another question from you--I don't know--but he's not here. We're going to check on that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Will we wait and check? I would just as soon have another question....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Is your question directed at—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I was going to direct it at these other witnesses, but if we need Mr. Huebert's presence....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

If your question is for either of these gentlemen, please proceed.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It is, actually.

I wonder if you could talk a little about the cost. With regard to the potential cost escalation causing these other countries such as Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands to postpone decisions, along with the U.K. experience and possible downsizing, which has already been done by the Americans, are we looking at the kind of cost uncertainty in the future that may make this...? If you look at the Norwegian numbers, the comparable number for Canada is 65. A straight arithmetic comparison would mean it would be $42 billion or $44 billion. Are you looking at escalating numbers for Canada's costs as well should these numbers change downward as we go forward? Do you think, in your analysis, that the costs for Canada could escalate considerably up into the $40 billion range?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Gentlemen, the easiest way to answer the question is to submit a response in writing, because Mr. Harris' time is up, but we would be looking for additional information.

You can give a very short, short answer.

[Ken Epps]

I don't have a short answer, I'm sorry.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Time would seem to be taken up by Mr. Huebert disappearing from our screen.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Siebert, do you have a short answer?

[John Siebert]

Well, we don't know.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

That's a short answer. Thank you, sir.

That's the end of the round for Mr. Harris, and now we will go to Mr. Hawn.

Mr. Hawn, you have seven minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bryon Wilfert]

Mr. Huebert is now back.