National Defence Committee on April 14th, 2016

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

I am going to bring up another topic now.

Last Tuesday, at the meeting with the pilots, one pilot told me that it was unthinkable to replace the F-18s with single-engine aircraft. That pilot seemed to be adamant about that. In his opinion, there are too few runways and the climate here is too cold for us to use that kind of aircraft.

What do you think about his position on that?

[LGen Michael Hood]

I would tell you that I don't agree with either of the points in your question, quite frankly. On the question of one or two engines, even going back to when we selected the F-18, which is a two-engine aircraft, that wasn't a mandatory requirement of the replacement.

In fact, since 1991, U.S. aircraft have not lost a single-engine fighter to an engine failure. That's why the 777 that flies you from Vancouver to Sydney only has two engines, whereas the 747 had four. The reliability of engine technology has increased to the point where there is really no requirement to concede to have two. Technology has improved. There are some advantages to having a single engine. One is maintenance costs. Engines are a huge part of that. So on that question, I don't know the background of the individual you were speaking to.

The second part of it is that in fact aircraft tend to work better in cold temperatures. They're more efficient in cold temperatures, so there's nothing precluding a single- or a twin-engine aircraft from operating anywhere in Canadian airspace.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Ms. Gallant, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

We have been told, and indeed you mentioned as well, General Hood, that cruise missiles are something that we have to be concerned about as an evolving threat. We have been told that we really don't have a hard and fast way of protecting North America from such missiles, especially with the potential for them to be launched offshore, be it from a surface vessel or a submarine.

With respect to the aspects that we need to protect ourselves, there is the detection system as well as the interception system. We're told that the north warning system is reaching the end of its operational life and needs to be replaced. When do you expect the replacement of the north warning system to occur?

[LGen Michael Hood]

That may be a better question for General St-Amand. I will tell you that investments are being made to support research and development, shared between Canada and the U.S., for what the replacement system will look like given the threats you've pointed out.

Looking at air-launched cruise missiles and their capability, the detection of them is a challenge moving forward. There are a number of ways to build a system: from space, terrestrial, from the air. That is a real challenging area, and certainly a consideration that we spend a lot of time thinking about.

I would think the plans right now, though, would see the north warning system replaced in the latter part of the next decade, from 2025 to 2030, but I don't have any more precision on that, Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It sounds like the Russians have the capabilities right now, so we're quite behind in protecting ourselves.

[LGen Michael Hood]

Well, no, I wouldn't.... I think we have to be careful; with the system we have in place, there are no guarantees. It's not to say that we can't detect, they're just getting increasingly difficult to with the capability they have. Many of the cues we would have used in the past to be able to anticipate responding to those have diminished with technological advances.

I mean, I can't imagine precisely what the next system would look at, but it should be certainly able to address the threats as we perceive them.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay.

As the defence review progresses, there will be a consideration of participation in the BMD. What long-term repercussions to Canada-U.S. defence relations, if any, could result from Canada's non-participation in BMD as we go forward?

[LGen Michael Hood]

If I could, Ms. Gallant, I actually think that question would be a perfect one for General St-Amand on Tuesday when he's here as the deputy commander in NORAD. I don't have a strong background in ballistic missile defence. I know that the policy of our country has been, certainly in the last 15 years, not to participate. I think he would be well placed to talk about the pros and cons of that, because it's not part of my portfolio of responsibilities right now.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How important is it that Canada operates its fifth-generation stealth fighter as part of our commitment to NORAD?

[LGen Michael Hood]

Well, we don't have a fifth-generation stealth fighter. I've talked about interoperability and the complexity moving forward. I think when we look at the statement of requirements for the replacement of the F-18, one of the considerations is its ability to be interoperable with our key allies—and that's most specifically, in the defence of Canada, the U.S. Air Force, as I pointed out in my comments.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

What has been the level of RCAF engagement in the F-35 program over the years? Is the air force still actively engaged in it, and if so, at what level?

[LGen Michael Hood]

I think you'd be aware that Canada remains a participant in the memorandum of understanding. The RCAF has personnel in the project office as part of our MOU commitments moving forward. We have had a project. In fact, the previous government had committed to buying the F-35, so I have a project office for that, which was stood down from that capability. We're in options analysis, looking at the capabilities required. We're actively looking at replacing the F-18, so I have people...F-35 being one of the considerations.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay.

What is the status update on JUSTAS? You had mentioned that project earlier.

[LGen Michael Hood]

We've recently gone out to industry asking a number of questions as we do, as we seek to refine our request for proposal. They have a lot of R & D going on in industry that we're not necessarily up to speed with every moment of the day, so we ask a number of questions as we look for the types of solutions we're looking for. There will be an options analysis, and hopefully we'll be delivering that capability within the next four to five years.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

We've been told that there is no imminent threat from a state actor. Yet, there are reports in the news that the Royal Canadian Air Force is looking at purchasing UAVs with a capability to be armed. What would that be used for?

[LGen Michael Hood]

It could be used for a multiple of contingencies abroad. In Afghanistan we had UAVs. Many of our allies had them armed. It could be used in defence of Canada, actually, when you're trying to have a deterrent capability. Part of having a deterrence is the ability to act, and we're in the business—part of our business—of acting, as I talked to, with the power and the capability.

I guess as a base piece, yes, in defence acquisition we're looking for an armed UAV. But I can arm every aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I could arm the Airbus. That's not the question. It's actually the question of the use of force, which is strictly controlled by the government. Whether or not a platform can be armed, to me personally that is not particularly the right question. It's what is the government asking us to do and our ability. If we can arm it, we have more flexibility. It only makes sense to see that capability armed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you very much.

The floor goes to Mr. Gerretsen. You have it for five minutes.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There are two topics that I wanted to go on, and one I'll follow on from Ms. Gallant. You were responding to her about the interoperability of the jets and with our allies in particular, and how important that is.

Can you give us a sense of what that interoperability is like now?

[LGen Michael Hood]

If I use the campaign that we're in right now, or were recently in, and if we're just talking about jets, for example, the F-18 is extremely interoperable with the majority of the platforms that are out there.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

This is the F-18 that....

[LGen Michael Hood]

The present F-18.

As newer platforms come on, the capability of the equipment we have to be seamlessly interoperable in an environment where you need to be very discrete with signals passage.... This is technology. How they detect our aircraft are there is quite often...by how we pass information between aircraft and platforms. That capability is becoming more and more complex, and the majority of our allies are in the process right now of fielding advanced aircraft. We will continue to have problems with our present F-18 fleet in being seamlessly interoperable.

There are many things that we'd still be able to do: processes, tactics, techniques, procedures. But in the aerial warfare in the future, that ability to be seamlessly interoperable is a key consideration.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

At the present time, are we interoperable, then, pretty much?

[LGen Michael Hood]

With the majority. There are some aircraft for which we would have limited ability to be seamlessly interoperable—the F-22 Raptor, for example, right now.