# CF-18's Good to Go to AFG (But Not Likely To)



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2007)

More Access to Information coverage...  

An Apparently New Discovery by MSM:  the military plans things _before_ they're asked to do things, so that _if_ they're ordered to, they _can_ do them (or explain why not).  What a concept!   

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*CF-18 jets are mission-ready*
Documents show deployment plans to Afghanistan set, but orders unlikely
Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, 19 Feb 07
Article Link

Canada's air force has detailed plans to deploy six CF-18s fighter jets to Kandahar, even to the point of predicting how many so-called "smart" bombs would be needed for a six-month air campaign battling insurgents, documents show.

Defence officials say they have no intention of sending the fighters overseas. But military memos and orders obtained by the Toronto Star make it clear that extensive planning has laid the groundwork for a deployment should the Conservative government give the okay.

"With respect to the current situation ... there are no plans at this point in time do so," Lt.-Col. John Blakeley, director of air force public affairs, said last Friday.

But just over a year ago – as Canada's army units made the move to Kandahar from Kabul – it seemed certain the air force's front-line fighter would be deployed to join them in an operation expected to cost $18 million, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.

In January 2006, air force headquarters in Winnipeg sent out an order to the two CF-18 bases at Bagotville, Que., and Cold Lake, Alta., regarding "deployment to Kandahar."

"The purpose of this (message) is to co-ordinate deployment milestones that will ensure the directed fighter preparedness posture is achieved and maintained," it said.

The order laid out some of the requirements for the Kandahar operation, such as parking space for six of the sleek fighters with a spot where another jet could undergo maintenance work.

The documents also reveal that planners predicted how many sorties the jets would be flying each day as well as how many precision-guided bombs would be used in a six-month deployment, although those details have been censored.

The documents detail the "weapons on hand," including a selection of laser-guided bombs weighing up to 907 kilograms.

One memo, marked secret, discusses the need for air-to-air refuelling to get the jets from their bases in Alberta and Quebec to Afghanistan.

Among the papers is a presentation totalling about 45 pages on the threats that would face the fighter team in Afghanistan with topics that include narcotics, the "opposing military force," rockets and mortars, convoy ambush, roadside bombs, kidnappings and suicide bombers, although details on each have been blanked out.

The documents also stress the need for positive identification to avoid "collateral damage" to allied troops. Five Canadian soldiers have already been killed in Afghanistan in friendly fire incidents involving American jets.

Air force rules made clear that CF-18 jet jockeys would have to "visually acquire their targets and have the flexibility to deliver ordinance in lower flight regimes to avoid fratricide."

The air force convened a two-day meeting in Winnipeg in November 2005 involving air staff from across the country to discuss issues "related to preparation, deployment, employment and force sustainment of an eventual fighter force supporting the Afghan theatre of operations" reads one memo.

A 14-member military team was to head to Afghanistan in April 2006, to scout out the Kandahar airfield for the unfolding CF-18 deployment.

Blakeley couldn't say whether that trip ever went ahead. But he said it's common for planners to develop contingency plans for possible operations.

The deployment, planned for sometime after May 2006, never took place and now seems to have been shelved indefinitely.

Today, a CF-18 deployment remains a sensitive topic for senior federal government officials who fear the public may perceive Canadian jets in Afghanistan as an escalation of Canada's involvement in a divisive mission.

And because British, Dutch and U.S. fighters are already providing air support for allied troops in southern Afghanistan, it's unlikely Canadian fighter pilots will be called on to show off their skills, defence officials say.

Canada has about 2,600 troops in Afghanistan, with most based in the volatile Kandahar region.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Feb 2007)

A couple of posts at _The Torch_:

CF-18s and Afstan: Toronto Star fixation 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/cf-18s-and-afstan.html

More trouble than we're worth?  
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-trouble-than-were-worth.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Mike Baker (19 Feb 2007)

Why would they say that our CF-18's are good to go to the sand box, when the chances of them going are low? And if they were deployed, how much would the NDP, Green Party, etc. complain that we are now capable of dropping bombs on Afghan civvies? I support the idea of sending them over there, if it would protect the troops and help us win.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2007)

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> Why would they say that our CF-18's are good to go to the sand box, when the chances of them going are low?



It's about the sizzle, not the steak - they COULD HAVE gone, ya know...



> And if they were deployed, how much would the NDP, Green Party, etc. complain that we are now capable of dropping bombs on Afghan civvies?



Now YOU'RE doing the MSM's contingency planning for them    That's what a reporter automatically does, his/her own appreciation - if they go, who do I speak to?  who would say what?  what would be a good counterpoint to that?  

In my more cynical moments, I think some outlets have a headline already blocked off "CRAZED EX-MILITARY/RESERVIST....." ready to fill in.  I'm sure they don't though.....


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Apr 2009)

Matthew Fisher of Canwest News stirs up this Hornets' nest again--post at _The Torch_:

CF-18s for Afstan? No way 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/cf-18s-for-afstan-no-way.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (20 Apr 2009)

Obviously _two_ people are trying to use the media to their own purposes here.

Dan Dugas, disputing that the non-deployment of CF-18s "...was a ‘political decision'," as though the fighter world could just pack up and deploy of their own accord.

And MGen Sullivan's virtual salivating to get in the game: 


> "Canada alone among the allies contributes combat ground forces in Afghanistan without also providing close air support.....This is what I think that other allies are noticing and pointing out to me," Sullivan said. "Canada is the only nation that has not yet done a tour of duty with its fighter force . . . If we brought our F-18s it would allow us to be fully involved in the air/land operation."
> 
> ..."the fighter capability is perhaps an area that Canada might wish to think about bringing into theatre in the future, as well," Sullivan said.
> 
> Everything is now coagulating and coming together in respect to the F-18. It will be full up and ready to go in the August-September time frame," Sullivan said. "If deployed, they would be stars over here."



It doesn't seem like Canwest News' Matthew Fisher had to drag Sullivan very hard to get him into this issue.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Obviously _two_ people are trying to use the media to their own purposes here.
> 
> Dan Dugas, disputing that the non-deployment of CF-18s "...was a ‘political decision'," as though the fighter world could just pack up and deploy of their own accord.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that I would be blaming MGen Sullivan if he was -  considering all the heat that members on this site have visited on the Zoomie community (Not you Zoomie but the other Zoomies  ;D ) for not being in AStan it must be dam annoying in the GOCs' mess.  And I would note that some of the louder voices were fellow wearers of the light blue.


----------



## brihard (20 Apr 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Matthew Fisher of Canwest News stirs up this Hornets' nest again--



Oh, well played, well played indeed.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Apr 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ....considering all the heat that members on this site have visited on the Zoomie community ....


Dated "heat" though, given the Airforce presence in-theatre lately.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Dated "heat" though, given the Airforce presence in-theatre lately.



Admittedly.


----------



## Jammer (20 Apr 2009)

How about the cost to get them there and maintain the A/C while there?
Not mention that real estate on KAF is getting tight.
CHFA had to move to another ramp the make way for the USMC Sea Stallions. Unless another fighter contingent is going to leave so the infrastructure can be tranferred to the CF-18 gang....


----------



## Dissident (20 Apr 2009)

Would they have to be stationed at KAF?

Kabul is 450km away, not really close but would it make sense to have then out of Kabul airport instead?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Apr 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Dated "heat" though, given the Airforce presence in-theatre lately.



Ah, but tac hel pilots and trash haulers are not jet jockeys - internal political dynamics of the Air Force must also be respected.


----------



## brihard (20 Apr 2009)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Would they have to be stationed at KAF?
> 
> Kabul is 450km away, not really close but would it make sense to have then out of Kabul airport instead?



Doesn't make any more sense to me. Why have 'em based in Kabul when instead we could have them a bare ten minute flight from any place they're likely to have to drop ordnance? KAF's a fully developed airfield. Many times a day we'd see/hear Mirages, F16s, F15s, Harriers, and other aircraft taking off. I see no strategic or tactical purpose to basing our jets elsewhere in a hypothetical deployment.

Loachmann or another of our air force types in KAF will laugh at me and call me a newb if I'm wrong on this, but the coalition aircraft are pretty much 'pooled' for close air support (taking into consideration national ROEs), and while any particular participating nation will get priority over its own aircraft, they'll all go out and conduct operations in support of coalition forces as needed. If we were (again, hypothetically) to send CF-18s, they would in all likelihood fall under a similar arrangement. With the majority of the coalition combat operations occurring in the south it would make sense that any new additions of tactical airpower would be deployed there.

Anyway, any further would just be beating this to death. I'm sure you get it.


----------



## Scoobs (20 Apr 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh, well played, well played indeed.


I personally got to know Matthew Fisher while I was in KAF for 9 plus months.  He was actually pretty reasonable and supportive of the military in my private conversations with him.  He dished the dirt on the other reporters.  It is simply another case of be careful what you say to reporters as everyone must remember that newspapers want to sell papers.  If they didn't, then they would go out of business.  

Most of the other reporters that I spoke with either didn't really care about being in KAF or were too ignorant to learn about the military.  Matthew Fisher actually takes time to learn about us, rather than calling everything that moves on the ground a tank.

If anybody is still over in KAF and reading this, is he still wearing the Habs hat?  He, in fact, is a Sens fan.  I bugged him constantly about the hat, but he was always good humoured.

As for the fighter jocks, traditionally the Air Force has been run by the fighter boys and Tac Hel has been the "black sheep" of the Air Force.  I don't know if the fighters will go and frankly it doesn't concern me that much.  I have my own pers to worry about that are there right now and many friends as well.  Good luck to all.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2009)

The MSM seems so good at telling us what we need to bring to theatre to "win", but the next day tell us we're losing and its time to come home. Make up your mind, folks!!


----------



## George Wallace (20 Apr 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The MSM seems so good at telling us what we need to bring to theatre to "win", but the next day tell us we're losing and its time to come home. Make up your mind, folks!!



Armchair Generals have that option.  They can change their minds with each breath they take.  And you know how many breaths they take trying to get out of their comfy chairs.  Could you imagine the mess the world would be in if anyone took them seriously and followed their advice?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2009)

I wish the 18's would go.They need a sharp guy to keep them in line......me!! LOL


----------



## Loachman (21 Apr 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Loachmann or another _*one*_ of our air force types in KAF



I fixed that for you - I know what you really meant.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> the coalition aircraft are pretty much 'pooled' for close air support (taking into consideration national ROEs),



Yes. It's whatever's on tap at any given moment.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> and while any particular participating nation will get priority over its own aircraft,



I wouldn't expect that, for a number of reasons.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> If we were (again, hypothetically) to send CF-18s, they would in all likelihood fall under a similar arrangement.



Yes. The determining factors are effectiveness and efficiency rather than nationality.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> With the majority of the coalition combat operations occurring in the south it would make sense that any new additions of tactical airpower would be deployed there.



There are basing options besides Kandahar or Kabul.

Mention has been made of real estate shortages in KAF. This place is expanding continually. While providing more ramp space would take time and some money, that is not really a limiting factor. There is only one runway, and it and the ATC system can only handle so much traffic, however. How close to capacity it is I would not say even if I could, but it is a busy place due to the itinerant traffic.

Much of the coverage flies in from elsewhere. "Ten minutes" between airfield and target is not a factor. This is not the Battle of Britain, and aircraft do not scramble in response to a ground engagement. They are already airborne, they can move to an engagement quite quickly, and there are tankers.

I am not convinced that there is a need for more bombers, but then, I'm only familiar with the local situation so that is rather outside of my lane. I can appreciate the bomber guys' desire to get involved though.

And Duff Sullivan is not somebody that I would describe as "salivating". He was one of my instructors in Moose Jaw, and was in Germany during my time there. I saw last saw him here, a couple of months ago. Good guy...


----------



## EW (21 Apr 2009)

"...Matthew Fisher actually takes time to learn about us, rather than calling everything that moves on the ground a tank...."

Very true.  Years ago Mr. Fisher wrote an article from Darwin Australia, while covering our contingent that was going to East Timor.  He visited a local Commonwealth War Cemetery (Adelaide River) and reported on the headstone of a Canadian Lt (RCCS) who died during WWII, and efforts to try to find out who he was.  This led to some scurrying at Leitrim (where we did have the full scoop on Lt Miller).  It started a dialogue with Mr. Fisher which led to the revelation that wherever he goes he likes to seek out any local Commonwealth War Cemeteries, so he can visit and look for Canadian graves - for his own personal reasons.  I was impressed, and while in Kabul years later with Athena Roto 0, I had a chance to meet him and think him for reminding us of Lt Miller.  Since then I keep in mind that he has a job to do, and on the whole, I find his articles balanced.  With some rare exceptions.


----------

