National Defence Committee on Dec. 13th, 2011

[LGen André Deschamps]

Thank you for that question.

The stealth capability in and of itself is certainly an advantage, but it's also what it comes with, the overall package that the fifth-generation aircraft brings to any sort of conflict. Stealth allows you to have a low probability of detection. Ultimately, all airplanes can be eventually found. What you're looking for is the advantage of time and space. Stealth lets you observe without being observed, and also lets you take action where opposing forces will have minimal time to react, if at all. This means you have a significant tactical advantage in all cases.

Clearly that links back to survivability, going into very complex and dangerous environments where unpredictability is the nature of the beast. Stealth allows you to have additional assets on your side, which buys you the time to make the right tactical decisions to either act or avoid being engaged and destroyed. Stealth is a fairly winning hand in any modern conflict. For us not to go that route would be to spend a lot of money on equipment that would be fairly marginalized as far as complex environments are concerned.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

You also mentioned there were some other options that were tested, perhaps a newer model of the CF-18. Or an F-22 would be.... We've heard that said, but could you elaborate on why that's not an option?

[LGen André Deschamps]

As far as the option analysis phase, we've been looking at this for almost 10 years. The F-22 is not available for foreign sales, and so it wasn't part of the list of aircraft we looked at. Also, the F-22 is optimized for air combat only; it's not a multi-role platform.

Canada cannot afford to maintain several fleets that do different missions. That's why we're acquiring an airplane that is multi-role. It can do the air sovereignty role, but it can also support our troops or naval operations across the world.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I have one final question. We've heard a lot of criticism, as well, that the F-35 will not be able to communicate in the Arctic. Is there any way that the F-35 will be less capable than the CF-18 in terms of communication or capability in the Arctic?

[LGen André Deschamps]

Should the F-35 show up tomorrow, it would have the same capabilities as our F-18s have had for 28 years of their service life in the Arctic. We will have beyond line-of-sight communication on the F-35 by the time we reach our operating capabilities in 2020. The modifications for beyond line-of-sight will be integrated in the aircraft in what's called the block III series, which is beyond 2018 and 2019, and it will be retrofitted to all the other aircraft that have been produced beforehand.

We did 50 years in NORAD without having beyond line-of-sight communications. As I said, our F-18s have only had it for two years. So we know how to do the business. Beyond line-of-sight adds an additional flexibility factor that is certainly welcome, and it certainly would be part of our future fleets but I have no concern as to the F-35's ability to deliver NORAD mission tomorrow, should it have to.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. McKay, you have the last of the seven minutes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you General Deschamps for coming this morning.

When General Natynczyk was here, he said that we absolutely needed 65 airplanes. He was quite forceful, in the way that General Natynczyk can be quite forceful. Yet, we have the minister this week saying there's still time before 2013 to decide on the final number.

The problem is that if you fix your budget at $9 billion and deal with what seems to be an ever-escalating number—the latest of which is $141 million to $145 million per plane, which the U.S./U.K. purchased from Lockheed Martin in a batch of 30 aircraft—you'll end up with about half the number of airplanes you said that you needed. Something has to give.

Could you under any scenario survive with 30, 35, or 40 airplanes?

[LGen André Deschamps]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To answer the question without speculating—and, of course, a lot of this has to do with speculation about what the future may hold—first of all, I'd just like to put into context the issue of cost. Of course, much ink has flowed over the cost of aircraft, both in the U.S. and abroad. It's a complex program that has three different variants of the aircraft. The U.S. tends to measure their costs based on the summary of those three cost lines and they include all the research development. That's part of the reason why one always tends to see differences in the costs when the U.S. talks about its costs versus what we expect our costs to be.

All that is to say that when we procure the aircraft, the strategy is to procure the aircraft at the best production time, which is high rate production. Right now, as you pointed out, we have a slow rate, of 30 airplanes in a year versus 300 to 400 a year. So the cost will be higher if you buy in the low rate year. Our plan is to purchase the aircraft when it's at its peak production and, therefore, the best value for our dollars.

As to the number of aircraft, as I expressed previously to your colleague, 65 is based on our analysis of what we can generate as far as capabilities and the capacity to deliver on the defence missions that we have currently. We stand behind that. That was our recommendation to government. Government has accepted that, and that's what is in the Canada First defence strategy.

Beyond that, we will execute the mission with the number of platforms that government buys for us. Ultimately, that's government's decision.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Pushing the date out, which seems to be the argument here.... You said it would be 2016 in your speech. We've heard 2018. Buying the argument that the more that are produced, the cheaper the cost will be doesn't always follow, but let's say that it does. It puts strain on your F-18s. The minister said at one point that around 2016, the F-18s will start falling out of the sky. In order to be able to get the price that you seem to want and to get the number of aircraft that you want, you're essentially going to have to delay or postpone your purchase.

Is that the position of the air force at this point?

[LGen André Deschamps]

Thank you for the question.

It goes back to having the time to make the right decisions. The previous government also invested in the F-18 renewal, which started in 2002 and was completed in 2010, with a fairly significant investment in modernizing the F-18. We have an advantage where other countries have not had an advantage: we've renewed our F-18 fleet so it's sustainable until the end of this decade without concern.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So they won't be falling out of the sky?

[LGen André Deschamps]

We would never fly our planes that would be at risk for falling out of the sky, sir.

However, there is an end of life to the F-18. It depends on how much you fly it. But currently, with the investment we've made, we do have flexibility to adjust our acquisition of the F-35 to suit our needs.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You're, in effect, keeping the binder twine and the duct tape going for the F-18s for as long as you need to go in order to be able to get to your price point around 2018 or 2020 for, if you will, cheaper versions of the F-35.

The Israelis have taken a different route. They've essentially said they can't live with the uncertainty of the F-35 program and so they're upgrading their F-16s. Now, they live in a different environment, obviously, than do we. Is your plan B, effectively, like the Israelis, to upgrade your F-18s to keep them in the air longer?

[LGen André Deschamps]

I will just go back to the first point you made. Our F-18s are absolutely safe and viable. That's why government spent billions of dollars on the upgrade. The airplanes will fly. When they fly they will be at their best capacity. The issue is, as everybody understands, that as airplanes age, the required maintenance goes up.

When they do fly they will be effective, as we saw in Libya.

What the Israelis are doing is this. Again, because different fleets have different ages, they have to continue investing in their current fleets, and they also have a mixture of capability, given, as you point out, the environment they live in. They have to have a range of options available to them, so the government can defend themselves as best they can. Therefore, they make a slightly different decision from what we may make, based on our circumstances.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Their threat environment is obviously far greater than ours, yet they seem to think that they can maintain a strategic advantage over those who might attack them simply by doing upgrades to their F-16s.

It seems to be an argument that makes some sense to me, but in our situation, where our threat environment is not nearly as extant, are you able, in effect, to maintain our readiness out to 2018 or 2020, if necessary, with the F-18s?

[LGen André Deschamps]

Yes, sir.

We are confident that we will be able to maintain our current commitments all the way to 2020 with the current fleet of F-18s.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Is that, in effect, the plan B, to do the upgrades of the maintenance then?

[LGen André Deschamps]

I'm not sure what the plan B notion is for us. We have a commitment to a program, like we do for any other programs. Whether it's the C-17 or C-130, we're proceeding with that program with due diligence, as fast as we can. We will make the right decisions. It's the most effective way of doing a transition to a new fighter fleet.

Our F-18s remain viable. That's why we've invested a lot of money to make sure they remain viable as a combat platform to the end of the decade. At some point they will need to be replaced.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. The time has expired.

Mr. Norlock, you're going to kick us off in the five-minute round.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And through you to our witness, welcome here, General. We always like to see you because you were our first base commander when we were first elected in Northumberland—Quinte West.

I would like to talk about the C-17s, because the folks who live where I live get a big lump in their throat when they see that big bird flying over Trenton. We can recall a time when our ability as a nation was limited because of our aging fleet. Now we are not saddled with that.

I'd like to discuss the readiness of the RCAF and the CF, and how the C-17s have complemented the CF's readiness as a whole—and, if you wouldn't mind, discuss how this aircraft enhances our ability not just internationally, but specifically domestically. Why did we choose that particular model of the C-17?

And if you have a few minutes left, could you could talk about the difference between what I call the older Hercules and the new C-130Js and their extra capability, both domestically and internationally?

[LGen André Deschamps]

Thank you for your question.

I'll go with the basic enhancement that the C-17 has brought to the CF and, of course, to Canada. What the C-17 embodies is the ability to respond quickly and effectively to either domestic situations or international situations, whereas in the past we had to pull together a different option package based on the tactical lift we had available, plus contracted lift, plus support from our allies. The C-17 has allowed us now to be able to initiate a response to any crisis on our own time and at our own speed, if you will. The airplane provides the range and the load capacity to pretty much take anything we need to bring to bear in any sort of situation. It can even carry our massive Leopard 2 tanks, which are pretty heavy vehicles. It's a platform that has opened up new doors for us, in being able to respond to our security needs. As you've seen in the last couple of years, it also has great potential for employment in the north, in the Arctic, in bringing to bear the capacity to bring outside cargo and personnel, whether CF or government agencies, that need to be in the Arctic for whatever reason.

We're also looking at its capabilities in the future. Up to now, we have used the C-17 mostly as a strategic platform to deliver those big payloads to Afghanistan and elsewhere. It's been used in the Arctic for re-supply. Clearly, the platform has potential that we have yet to explore and exploit. It can airdrop just about everything it carries. For domestic use, there is great potential for immediate reaction, and for bringing support and succour to those in need in Canada, through either landed or airdrop operations. So I think it holds great potential for us that we have yet to explore.

In the C-130 tactical fleets, the J model is, of course, a more robust and modern version of our very reliable C-130s. It brings with it greater load capacities. It's a slightly larger and faster aircraft that is more fuel efficient, with very reliable engines and systems, and, of course, it can be operated by very few individuals. So, from a resource perspective, it represents a far more manageable long-term sustainment bill for the air force to pay. It proved itself almost upon arrival. We took delivery of our first airplane only a year and a bit ago, and yet within a week or two from arrival, we were deploying it forward into Afghanistan because of the needs there. The airplane did wonderfully.

We have two platforms that have changed the game, and I see great things down the road for both platforms. We've seen them in action for the last two years and seen what they can bring to bear.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. We have about 20 seconds.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Well, thank you, General, and, as I say, folks in Quinte West and Trenton are extremely proud of the men and women who work at CFB Trenton, and we look forward to a very long, fruitful, and expanded role for that base.

Thank you.

[LGen André Deschamps]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Moving along, we now go to Mr. Kellway.