Foreign Correspondent
Inside Track On World News
By International Syndicated Columnist & Broadcaster
Eric Margolis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.foreigncorrespondent.com
Who stands on guard for Canada?
By Eric Margolis
August 22, 1999
Toronto - The Reform Party recently claimed that Canada's CF-18 fighter
force was unsafe and should be scrapped. These charges were overblown, but
they at least focused attention on the dangerously decrepit state of the
nation's once mighty military forces.
Last March, a rudder section rotted by corrosion fell off a CF-18 during a
training exercise. A subsequent investigation found two more CF-18's with
serious corrosion damage. Many more aircraft with similar problems are
likely to be discovered.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the CF-18, a robust, dependable
aircraft made by Boeing Corp. that is in wide service in Canada, the US,
and in many other nations. Canada has the largest fleet of F-18's outside
the US: 122 of an original buy of 138. Canada rightly selected the
twin-engine F-18 because it was better suited for long-range missions over
the remote north than the competing single-engine F-16. A small squadron
of Canadian CF- 18's performed well in the Kosovo War, flying topcover and
strike missions.
Corrosion is a constant problem with all civil and military aircraft. The
US Navy has lost three F-18 rudders; the Anglo-French Concorde supersonic
airliner lost its entire rudder assembly on a flight from Australia to the
UK. The answer to aircraft corrosion is thorough inspection and
maintenance.
And that's the real problem in Canada. The Canadian military has been so
gutted by budget cuts it often can no longer perform even minimum basic
maintenance on its aircraft, ships and ground equipment. The problem here
is politics, not aircraft. Canada's CF-18's are rotting - and the lives
of its aircrews are being jeopardized - because politicians have diverted
funds from defense to popular social spending schemes.
The government, which is now considering spending billions on state-
sponsored baby sitting to attract female votes, can't find the money to
properly maintain its armed forces or equip them with modern weapons. For
Ottawa has long used peacekeeping to disguise the gelding of its armed
forces, turning its soldiers into the Swiss Guards of the United Nations.
This charade has eliminated the need to equip ground forces with more than
small arms and light, wheeled vehicles.
Canada's 20,900-man ground forces are smaller than the Bolivian Army, have
only 114 totally obsolete tanks that would become tracked coffins in
wartime; a few outdated guns; and scant stores of munitions and other
warstocks. The ground forces, which are little more than a gendarmerie,
amount to only three regiments of combat troops, about 9,000 soldiers,
half of the number of New York City's Transit Police.
Canada has more generals per soldier than any other modern industrial
nation. In real armies, major-generals command 15,000-man divisions. In
Canada, they command desks. In fact, Canada's 60,000-weak armed
forces(now 10% female) have been transformed from a fighting force into
just another politically-correct government bureaucracy. Amazingly, the
precise function of a full 26% of the members of the unified armed forces
cannot even be identified.
The Canadian Navy, the world's second largest in 1945, today has only 16
small surface combattants, most of them aged and combat unfit, and 3
obsolete subs, with which to patrol three oceans and a bigger coastline
than that of the USA. The navy's old helicopters are flying coffins.
Back to the CF-18's. These aircraft have exhausted 60% of their service
lives and will have to be replaced within the next 7-10 years. Canada
faces block obsolescence as its entire inventory of fighter-strike
aircraft becomes inoperative at the same time. This would be comparable
to person's having to replace his or, worse, her entire wardrobe at one
time.
Not only will Canada need new aircraft - plus ships and tanks - the war in
Kosovo showed dramatically that modern air forces must acquire very
expensive military accessories, such as recon drones, electronic warfare
aircraft, including AWACS radar craft and jamming planes, logistical
support transports, integrated communications, and a wide variety of
precision- guided munitions, highly sophisticated avionics and, of course,
stealth technology.
Canada's will need a new a multi-mission aircraft that can serve as a
long- range interceptor to cover the high Arctic and as a strike fighter
to support NATO operations. The most likely candidate for CF-18
replacement is the new F-18E/F, a more powerful, advanced, and capable
version of the original F-18A/B/C model, that is virtually a new aircraft.
Other candidates may include the excellent multi-mission Rafale, now going
into service in France; the new, expensive Eurofighter; and the older
French Mirage-2000 series. Unfortunately, the ideal warplane for Canada,
the superb US F-15, is considered too expensive by Ottawa, though Israel
can afford 86. The US Joint Strike Fighter, which is still in early
development, could also be a candidate.
Russia will offer its very capable SU-27/30 series strike fighters, though
it's most unlikely the Canadian military would buy a Russian aircraft.
The vertical-landing/takeoff Harrier jump jet is not likely for
consideration because of its short range and not wholly reliable engines.
Canada has become a humble spear-carrier in an age of high-tech electronic
knights. Ottawa is spending C$9.7 billion on defense. Yet for this
sizeable sum it gets a tiny parade army, a bathtub navy, and a run-down
air force that is so cash-starved it must ground a quarter of its
aircraft, skimp on maintenance, and curtail training. Defense has become
another giant patronage machine. Forcing Canada's first-rate soldiers,
sailors and airman to make do with deficient, often dangerous equipment is
outrageous. In wartime, it would constitute criminal negligence by
Ottawa's politicians.
The Netherlands, with only half Canada's population, spends a similar
amount on defense annually, but gets a well-trained army of 27,000, with
330 state-of-the art Leopard-II tanks; 16 modern surface combatants and 4
submarines; and a strong air force built around 170 F-16's. In other
words, about 50% more fire-power for the same expenditure.
Switzerland spends only C$4.9 billion on defense, yet has a highly
professional 400,000-man armed forces with 370 Leopard-II's and 171 combat
aircraft, including the F-18C's and D's.
Spain has a smaller GDP than Canada and spends C$2 billion less annually
on defense than Ottawa, but it has armed forces of 193,000, over three
times larger than Canada's, with a strong navy, including a
Harrier-equipped carrier, 17 major surface combatants, 8 subs, and an air
force with 180 EF- 18's and 180 Mirage-F1's.
Canada's defense spending per capita, a paltry 1.3%, is the lowest in
NATO, save for tiny Luxembourg, and is among the lowest worldwide, which
proudly puts Canada in the same percentage league as Guinea Bissau, Papua
New Guinea, and Paraguay.
Clearly, it is America's armed forces that stand on guard for Canada, and
American taxpayers who foot the bill for Canada' defense. As the threat
from cruise and ballistic missiles grows, Americans are going to
increasingly demand their northern neighbor pull its weight in NATO and
ante up for updating continental air defense, including modernizing NORAD.
Very soon now, Canada is going to have to replace or modernize much its
military hardware. This will be the moment of truth. Canadians will be
forced to decide whether they want true armed forces in this
unpredictable, dangerous world, or more empty military tokenism. At
minimum, they should act to stop billions in defense spending being poured
down black holes in Ottawa with nothing to show for the effort but more
desk generals and a bunch of uniformed social workers that Ottawa calls an
army.
Political science teaches that the first role and raison d'etre for
governments - and the primary reason for people to pay taxes - is to
provide internal security and external defense. A government that
blithely talks of spending $13 billion on state-run baby-sitting - 44%
more than it currently spends on defense - has clearly lost its way, and
its mandate to rule. It's not the CF-18's that are rotten. It's Ottawa.
Copyright: E. Margolis, August 1999
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
To receive Foreign Correspondent via email send a note
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message
in the body:
subscribe foreignc
To get off the list, send to the same address but write:
unsubscribe foreignc
WWW: www.foreigncorrespondent.com
WWW: www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm
For Syndication Information please contact:
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAX: (416) 960-4803
Smail:
Eric Margolis
c/o Editorial Department
The Toronto Sun
333 King St. East
Toronto Ontario Canada
M5A 3X5
---------------------------------------------------------------
