National Defence Committee on April 14th, 2016

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

Thank you.

Lieutenant-general, to summarize the situation, let us talk about the short term and the long term.

In the short term, do we have terrorist threats? Does the Royal Canadian Air Force have any particular needs for issues like that? You probably did not mention them, but I just want to make sure. Do you need any special equipment for that?

[LGen Michael Hood]

I am not really in a position to reply about terrorist factors in the country, except in terms of support for the movement of personnel and the army. The most important thing, as we have mentioned previously, is Operation Noble Eagle.

This is a mission where we imagine dealing with a terrorist in an aircraft, a scenario like the events of September 11. That is what the Royal Canadian Air Force is preparing for, and I am very happy that we are ready for that kind of occurrence.

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

Since we are on that topic, I would like to say that I was in the military in 2001. After the attacks, I saw American documents that mentioned that command and control of Canadian airspace was henceforth part of their Northern Command, because the Americans did not trust Canada to counter the threats. Has that changed in 15 years? Do we have sovereignty now in that respect?

[LGen Michael Hood]

I do not know if what you have just said is correct, given that the general in charge of NORAD on September 11 was a Canadian general, from the Royal Canadian Air Force. It was he who made the decision to close the airspace. A Canadian closed United States airspace.

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

My question was more about the fact that the Americans may decide to intervene here when there is a terrorist threat of some kind to which we are not ready to react quickly. That is what has happened in the past. NORAD is a unique command, certainly, but I was talking rather about Canadian sovereignty.

[LGen Michael Hood]

The mission of protecting North American airspace is a joint undertaking of Canada and the United States.

A decision to shoot down an aircraft over Canada is a Canadian one. When we practise Operation Noble Eagle, the authorities to act, even if it's an American aircraft coming across the Canadian border, remain a Canadian political decision to take on that shoot-down, and the Americans would not unilaterally take a decision unless they thought that there was a threat to the United States.

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

Okay.

My next question is about short-term investments.

You mentioned communications systems that are important for us to invest in. Have you evaluated that? Your operational budget is satisfactory, but in terms of investments and procurement, do you have a precise idea of what short-term investments you need?

[LGen Michael Hood]

Are you talking about communications systems?

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

Among other things.

[LGen Michael Hood]

Okay.

I can give you an example. The TIC3 Air project, which I just mentioned, involves new radios with the capacity to do what we call—

beyond-line-of-sight, data link passage. We could put that across the entire country: north, south, east, and west. That would be very expensive. We've had options.

When we look at our airspace, where should we have the most protection in that regard? To answer the earlier question, over our major cities so that we have the capacity to act very quickly, to some of the near north. But again, it all depends on how much you want to invest. The north warning system today does not cover all Canadian territory.

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

The goal of our committee is actually to find out Canada’s needs. So we are seeing that there is a major need in that area.

Let me bring up one last point with you. I am going back to the jet aircraft. The current government has decided to delay the investments. I would like to know the tipping point for changing aircraft, whatever kind they are. We know that, in 10 years or so, our F-18s will be at the end of their useful life. At what point do you have to take delivery of new aircraft in order to do the training and make the changes you need to become operational?

[LGen Michael Hood]

That is a good question.

We have just recently established that the end of the F-18s’ useful life will be in 2025. However, there is no exact date. I know that some aircraft will end their useful life before that date, starting perhaps in 2023. Others could last longer. It will depend. Ideally, for a new project, there would be no change. We are starting

to close our F-18s as new aircraft are arriving. Those are very complex issues to deal with. Even changing from the Sea King to the Cyclone, there will necessarily be some dip because we don't necessarily have the people to be flying. It's complex. I'm confident, heading into what the government has suggested for an open and transparent competition, about the timelines associated with that project. I'm confident that if a decision were taken, certainly in the next five years, we'll be in a comfortable position changing that aircraft.

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

Aircraft must be chosen and delivered five years from now.

[LGen Michael Hood]

No, the decision could be made at the contract stage. After that, a timeline for delivery will be established. I think we have to have new options in 2025

in some form by that is going to be key.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We'll take a question from Ms. Romanado. Then we'll go over to Mr. Gerretsen, if you have a question.

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

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

General, how many bird strikes does the RCAF experience in a year? It may sound a little odd, but I'm just curious.

[LGen Michael Hood]

I wouldn't have the exact number. One of our Snowbirds had a bird strike two weeks ago. They happen quite often. Rarely do they cause any major damage to an aircraft. Certain times of the year are worse than others, but I don't have those numbers. I could get them for you if you're interested. I can take that under advisement.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Absolutely.

My follow-up question to that, if you happen to know, is this. How many F-18s have recovered from a lost engine due to, say, a bird strike?

[LGen Michael Hood]

I don't know the answer to that. If we were to analyze all the engine shutdowns on an F-18.... We do a lot of precautionary engine shutdowns. For instance, if in one of your F-18 engines you were to have a systems anomaly you could choose to shut it down because you could safely fly on one engine. It doesn't mean you had to shut it down. Many two-engine aircraft can operate effectively on one engine.

[BGen Todd Balfe]

Very few, in my experience. I flew the F-18 for 2,500 hours and a lot of time in Inuvik, as well, and during that 2,500 hours, I never lost a single engine. Both continued to operate all the time. I never hit a bird in an F-18 during that time, either.

The other point I would add, anecdotally, is that fighter aircraft don't spend a lot of time in the environment where birds operate. They're normally up very high. The takeoff and landing phases are the critical phases, obviously.

Fortunately, at the airports we operate at, there are very effective bird control measures to minimize the number of birds. Hence, our number of bird strikes, in my personal experience, are very low in the F-18.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Further to your comment, the capacity of having those two engines, for the many reasons that you may turn one off, is an asset?

[BGen Todd Balfe]

In my personal experience, it was a redundancy. I never had to turn one off.

The F-18 engine, the F-404, is remarkably reliable, so much so that the Swedes have put it in their single-engine Gripen that they operate in the high north, as well, with no loss rates, as well.

With the technology at the time, why the F-18 had two engines is largely because of its navy-derived character but also because the aircraft engine didn't produce enough thrust. They needed two engines to be able to provide the thrust. Engines, now, produce thrust far in excess of what they did back when I started flying.

[LGen Michael Hood]

Not only are the Swedes flying a single-engine aircraft, the Norwegians, who actually spend all their time in the north, are buying the F-35s. I think the one, two-engine aircraft engine is not a factor that's going to be pre-eminent in any decision taken.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'm going to ask a completely different question on cyber threats. What are your thoughts on this new threat we're facing and that we're forecasting more and more?

[LGen Michael Hood]

Cyber is not a uniquely Royal Canadian Air Force responsibility. It's shared under the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. We've made plenty of investments in that. The Government of Canada has evolved some of its policy in that regard that's going to give us more tools to be able to be concerned about that.

Imagine being able to affect an enemy so the aircraft couldn't take off for whatever reason? It's unimaginable the length—or perhaps it is imaginable—the risk that cyber presents to us. The Americans have created a cyber command, for example. We have some some nascent cyber capabilities, but that's an area that the Canadian Armed Forces needs to invest a lot more effort in.