National Defence committee  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.

National Defence committee  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.

National Defence committee  UAVs will play an important role moving forward. In that whole technology piece I was talking about and the requirement for increased amounts of surveillance and reconnaissance, UAVs will have a very important role to play. Certainly, in my assessment and the assessment of the air force—and I think General Vance would have said the same thing—we don't see drones replacing fighter aircraft, for example, certainly not at this juncture, not with the technology that's available.

National Defence committee  What I would say is that UAVs have capacity limitations. In fact, even weaponized UAVs, those that will have dropped ordnance in Afghanistan or in Iraq, are very limited in their capacity of what they would carry. They're not going to provide the flexibility and weapons choices that a manned fighter would.

National Defence committee  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.

National Defence committee  In most cases it's actually critical. I think with the fusion of data links—voice, radio, full-motion video—that are used to help decision-makers in a very complex world, we're starting to see increased investments in that. In fact, the air force has a major project to replace all of the ground-air-ground radios used by NORAD in air defence, and we're also embedding the ability for beyond-line-of-sights within that.

National Defence committee  I think it's certainly a consideration. I'll break those out into a couple of cases. If we're just talking about fighters, for example, they're going to operate from paved surfaces. The Inuvik runway is 6,000 feet. Quite often when our F-18s are there, they'll take the cable with a hook.

National Defence committee  The Aurora doesn't have a primary search and rescue role. The majority of those launches would be either the Cormorant helicopter across the country, the Griffon helicopter in Trenton, C-130s in Winnipeg, Trenton, and Greenwood, or Buffalos. There are times when we require more assets, and the Aurora deployed on a search and rescue mission in support of a Russian aviator who crashed into the Arctic Ocean.

National Defence committee  I would have to say truthfully that I imagine that there could be at some point, but quite frankly, the RCAF is responsible for aeronautical search and rescue. That's a task the government has given us. We have a good chunk of our air force on standby and support. I have a whole air force that could respond as required, so I don't think there's anyone out there who's going to do it as well as I can, and I'm not actually interested in facilitating discussions looking at other options.

National Defence committee  The assessment is right now that 65 is the correct answer when we look at our present defence commitments at the various NORAD alert levels, plus, by and large, a standing commitment to NATO. That is how the number was derived. With some of our fleets, for example the C-130 fleet, we bought more C-130s in small packets over time, so the size and shape in the fleet we deliver at any one time doesn't necessarily have to be stagnant.

National Defence committee  Absolutely. The decision at that time was to increase the number of aircraft that we were modernizing from 10 to 14. That's a good-news story in that the subsequent development of the capability of the CP-140 has two roles. Principally it's an anti-submarine warfare capability and maritime surveillance, but it also has an overland ISR role as it's deployed right now in Iraq and Syria, as you pointed out.

National Defence committee  There are two phases to the modernization. Block 3 is just finishing and then there's block 4, which is going to put on some defensive countermeasures, and link 16. I know that I'm getting a bit technical. On husband, the life of most aircraft is predicated on wing life. For instance, we just flew aircraft 307, a C-130, into the museum here in Ottawa, because it had reached the end of its wing life.

National Defence committee  Absolutely. Daily, they would have maritime warning tasks and sovereignty patrols, both in support of that NORAD mission and in Canada's national missions. They have done patrols of long-line fishing and drift-net fishing in the Pacific, as well as a lot of training, because we train a lot for our primary task, which is anti-submarine warfare.

National Defence committee  We have near-term projects that are in investment planning. In fact you could look at the defence acquisition guide; it's a public document. It tells you all the programs that are beyond.... Typically, 2025 may not be in the defence acquisition guide, so we know that we've got sufficient time.

National Defence committee  Are you talking about our operational fighter bases?