National Defence Committee on April 14th, 2016

[LGen Michael Hood]

You heard my comments about the block 3 Aurora. For the capacity the Cyclone aircraft is going to bring to us, and the Royal Canadian Navy, it's going to be world-leading capability.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I was beyond impressed with that.

[LGen Michael Hood]

In fact, if you look at the training system we've put in in the facilities at Shearwater, I couldn't be happier with where we're headed with it.

Would I have liked this to have gone smoother? Of course I would have, but we can't control everything. I'm very optimistic, though, it's going to come in as planned and very successfully.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I just want to circle back really quickly. I know we talked about it, but I just wanted to take this a little further. Regarding that number of 65, I would love to debate that, but I just want to get down to a very specific question. If we don't get 65 of something, are we going to have to circle back as an organization and decrease our commitments to either NORAD or NATO, or both? Is that a minimum number of fighter aircraft, or whatever they are in the future to meet our commitments?

[LGen Michael Hood]

Yes, we would have to change our present commitments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Okay. That's all I wanted to know.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have the floor.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, 65 aircraft is the minimum.

I would like to know whether, with 65 aircraft, our deployment capabilities for overseas missions would be compromised.

[LGen Michael Hood]

With a fleet of 65 aircraft, our capabilities are not compromised. We can fulfill our mission with NORAD and conduct one deployment, perhaps two. That depends on the demands with NORAD.

In the various levels of NORAD commitment, based on the risk, the number of fighters we have to have available changes. On any given day right now we have a small number of aircraft committed to NORAD, but we have a commitment that could increase in size. We have flexibility to do other things, and 65 will give us some flexibility.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay.

Given that, if you had to identify our actual needs for the capabilities of the aircraft, what would they be? For example, do we need more aircraft with air-to-air capability, air-to-ground capability or multiple capabilities? What are our greatest needs at that level?

[LGen Michael Hood]

I think that all the aircraft in competition to replace the F-18s would have those capabilities. That is not the case with most aircraft.

For example, the Eurofighter, which was bought to be used as

air-to-air

now has the capability to be

air-to-ground.

Excuse me, I do not know the words in French.

I feel that the next fighter will be flexible enough for any mission that we can anticipate.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay.

So, the fundamental goal in buying new aircraft is to maintain interoperability with United States. Otherwise, we will no longer be in the game.

[LGen Michael Hood]

Looking into the future, it's important to imagine a formation of aircraft like a computer network. In a formation in the future, you could have an aircraft over here whose radar can see something, but the optimum weapons deployment is done from a different aircraft in the formation. In the newest types of capability, that's all transparent.

The ability to pass information without giving away your position is very important. How discreetly and securely it passes information is key moving forward. All of the new systems that are coming in place, whether they're AWACS, space-based, or radio, are working in that environment. We need to make sure that whatever we get is able to do that now, but also out into the future. That will be key.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you very much.

We're going to take another question from the right side of the table, and then I'll give Mr. Garrison a question, if that works.

Mr. Rioux.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am curious about one thing. At the outset, Canada bought 140 F-18 aircraft. We have about 70 left. What happened to the other 70? Have they reached the end of their useful life?

[LGen Michael Hood]

We started with 138. Then we made a decision. Normally, an F-18 should only be in service for 20 years. That was the plan. When we decided to keep the life going we decided to invest in 80 aircraft only. That was sufficient. Currently, we feel that we do not need more than 65. The situation has changed. Our commitments have changed

over time. So that was a conscious decision not to increase.

We've lost 18 CF-18s to accidents, but many of them were retired because we didn't upgrade them.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to do a quick one here before I give it to Mr. Garrison.

We've talked about tankers quite a bit. I think anybody whose been in this business knows that the tanker is probably one of the biggest force multipliers when we have fighter airplanes, for all sorts of reasons given the number we have and the size of the airspace we have to operate in.

I noticed earlier, sir, that you mentioned there is a plan for a replacement tanker. I'm not aware if that plan is funded. We have lots of plans that may or may not see the light of day. I'm also aware that we had a significant gap in capability for strategic tankers. The 707 is declining, and the Airbus is ramping up, which hurt us a little bit in terms of our capability. We had to scramble to make that happen, but we did.

The only higher priority that we have, other than NORAD, is our own indigenous Canadian sovereignty, our ability to operate within our own borders autonomously without any help from anybody.

There are five options that we could be looking at potentially, maybe more, in a replacement airplane. If we don't get something that's compatible with our current fleet, what's your view on our being able to be sovereign within our own borders without help from the Americans? Also, given our current infrastructure and the fact that I'm pretty sure a tanker is not funded, and even it is, given our procurement history this thing is a decade away, maybe even longer realistically.

In terms of operating within our own borders as a sovereign nation without any help from the Americans, are you concerned that if we buy something, we may not be able to do that?

[LGen Michael Hood]

The plan right now, as I think I've said, is that once a decision is made on the next fighter aircraft, the next decision will be the tanker replacement. We know that the lifespan of the Airbus is 2026 right now, so that decision has to be taken regardless. I won't debate what's funded or not, because that ebbs and flows over time. In fact, with the horizon it's in, I wouldn't expect it to be funded today, quite frankly.

We've used a number of options. In fact, recently we leased a tanker to bring some aircraft back overseas. There are options that will allow us to mitigate whatever program challenges we have. I will tell you, however, that the plan all along was to choose a fighter and then make sure that the tanker capacity was there in the subsequent one, because we know we have to replace the Airbus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much.

I did some international human rights work and peacekeeping and was on the ground both in East Timor and in Afghanistan waiting to deliver troops through heavy lift.

I'm going to say something much more positive now and talk about the C-17 Globemaster. It seems to be an example of a procurement in which the system works fairly quickly. We were able to get the aircraft in fairly short order, and the air force I think had pilots training on the U.S. C-17, so that when we got the aircraft we were ready to go. That seems like to me a bigger success story in procurement, for those who say that our system is a mess, that it doesn't work.

Do you have any comments on that, as a positive example?

[LGen Michael Hood]

I think the C-17 was a remarkable success and continues to be. All the C-17 users in the world keep a common configuration of the aircraft, so that if you got into a U.S. one it would look like an Australian or Canadian one. That's by design, because it gives us flexibility and redundancy.

I'll give you one story that I think is emblematic of what this capacity provides.

When Typhoon Haiyan hit in the Philippines, all of our C-17s were between Afghanistan and Canada, because we were bringing all of our equipment back. Within 24 hours they were outbound the other way. In fact, with the exception of the U.S., which had troops in Guam and Japan, Canada was the first country there. It was the C-17 that allowed that Canadian expression of support to the Philippines to be there quickly and on time.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We want to save a bit of time for committee business.

I know Mr. Spengemann has a quick question.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very briefly, it's 2016 and our government is very proudly championing the empowerment of women. We have a cabinet that is 50% female. Let me take advantage of your presence here to update us on the role of women in the Royal Canadian Air Force, both operationally and logistically, and maybe even with respect also to civilian staff.