# CF-18's to AFG?



## The Bread Guy (22 Sep 2006)

Reporter translation of "staying ready" = "they're going"?

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-334

*Canada readies fighter jets*
Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, 22 Sept 06
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158875420005&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Canada readies fighter jets
Sep. 22, 2006. 05:19 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA—While publicly touting redevelopment efforts in Afghanistan, the federal government has quietly laid the groundwork to deploy CF-18s, its front-line fighter jet, to support Canadian troops battling insurgents, documents show. 

Ottawa has awarded the U.S. government a $1.9 million contract for "deployment support" for the CF-18s, according to a list of contracts from Public Works and Government Services.

If deployed, it's likely the twin-engine jets would join U.S. and British fighters in attacking insurgent positions in southern Afghanistan.

Lieut. Adam Thomson, a defence department spokesperson, said the military was simply doing "prudent planning" in considering a possible deployment of the fighter fleet but stressed the final decision rests with the government.

"Yes, it's always something that is being considered but we haven't received any direction," he said yesterday.

New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) obtained details of the military contracts for Afghanistan, including the previously undisclosed proposal that CF-18s could be deployed. She said the swelling cost and scale of Canada's military involvement should worry Canadians.

"The whole thing is escalating. I share the concern that so many other Canadians have that we're getting into a quagmire here that we're not going to be able to get out of," Black, the NDP's defence critic, said yesterday in an interview.

Details of the costs of Canada's Afghan mission were received by Black's office from the government in response to questions she posed earlier in the summer. That response also shows Ottawa is spending $41 million to establish its embassy in Kabul, complete with a chancery, official residence and staff quarters, and expects to spend $9.2 million a year to operate it.

But in a surprising note, the government doesn't expect its mission to stay open long.

"The embassy is expected to be operational for 15 years," according to the government document, raising questions about the future of Canada's diplomatic mission in the troubled country after that time.

The documents also detail a military spending spree over the last year — totalling $250 million — to deliver new gear to protect Canadian troops from insurgent attacks, everything from extra armour to unmanned surveillance aircraft and sophisticated gear to pinpoint mortar attacks.

The ballooning military bill had opposition leaders speaking out yesterday, saying it comes at the expense of reconstruction for the war-battered nation.

"This mission is completely out of whack," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "By investing so heavily in the war effort in the south ... it is depriving Afghanistan from the investments in humanitarian aid and in reconstruction that are required elsewhere," said Layton, who has called for Canadian troops to be brought home.

Canada has so far spent $2.3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001, with the bulk of the money — $1.8 billion — going to military operations. The extension of the mission through to 2009 is expected to boost the bill by $1.25 billion, according to figures provided to Black's office by the government.

In contrast, the Canadian International Development Agency has spent $466 million with another $310 million earmarked for development through to 2011.

"An approach which took us to a ceasefire and to a reconstruction with a lot more emphasis on diplomacy than on weaponry would in our view be a much more appropriate role," Layton said.

Liberal Leader Bill Graham echoed that view, saying Canada's well-equipped troops have to be backed up with aid and reconstruction.

The contract to the Americans to support a possible deployment of Canadian fighter jets, awarded in January, hints that the planning has gone beyond mere talk.

One scenario considered by the air force would be to dispatch a "six-pack" of CF-18s — six aircraft, plus ground crews.

Earlier in the summer, air force head Lt.-Gen. Steve Lucas said Canada was ready to send CF-18 fighters but doubted they would be deployed any time soon because other countries had their own fighters there.

Still, a military expert says Ottawa may want to dispatch CF-18s, able to serve as ground attack aircraft, as backup to American and British aircraft already operating in the area.

"If they're having troubles with U.S. availability, there may be a contingency plan that has been put in place to deploy the `18s,'" said Brian MacDonald, a senior analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.

He said the CF-18s, if deployed, would likely operate from the U.S. air base at Bagram, near Kabul, rather than the air base at Kandahar, which has been targeted by insurgent mortar attacks. MacDonald speculated the $1.9 million contract with the United States could be for fuel and space to house aircraft.

However, Ottawa would face other costs to deploy its fighters, including transporting the sizeable ground crew needed to run the operation and the bills for bombs and ammunition.

The supersonic jet can be equipped with an infrared sensor that lets pilots see targets at night. It also has a laser designator for precision bombing. Canada's CF-18s last saw action in 1999 over the former Yugoslavia. Since then, the 80 aircraft in the fleet have gone through an extensive upgrade.

The CF-18 contract was one of 20 contracts for the Afghan mission revealed in documents that were tabled this week. They include: 

- $30 million for an "acoustic weapon locator system" to pinpoint enemy weapons, such as rockets and mortars.
- $34.1 million in two separate contracts for aerial drones to act as soldiers' "eyes-in-the-sky."
- $13 million for additional armour for vehicles.
- $31 million for a system to defend against roadside bombs, plus another $2.3 million contract for a "personal landmine protection system."
- $4.4 million for a tactical satellite communication system.
- $4.7 million for food services awarded to a Dubai firm and $5.6 million to a Monaco company for accommodation buildings.


----------



## Rodahn (22 Sep 2006)

- $4.7 million for food services awarded to a Dubai firm and $5.6 million to a Monaco company for accommodation buildings.

And Mr. Layton in his infinite stupidity will beitch and moan about the above expenditures.....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Sep 2006)

What unadulterated speculation... :


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2006)

Note the gratuitious comparison with "development" in the first sentence of the _Toronto Star_ story.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1158875420005&call_pageid=968332188492



> While publicly touting redevelopment efforts in Afghanistan, the federal government has quietly laid the groundwork to deploy CF-18s, its front-line fighter jet [it's our only fighter, Mr Campion-Smith], to support Canadian troops battling insurgents, documents show.
> 
> Ottawa has awarded the U.S. government a $1.9 million contract for "deployment support" for the CF-18s, according to a list of contracts from Public Works and Government Services...
> 
> ...



In an interview this morning (mainly about the Parliament Hill rally) on CFRA, Ottawa, Minister of National Defence O'Connor said that nothing about this had crossed his desk--which does not mean it's not being considered.

Mark 
Ottawa
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/SM-O-CON.mp3


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2006)

In an interview this morning (mainly about the Parliament Hill rally) on CFRA, Ottawa, Minister of National Defence O'Connor said that nothing about this had crossed his desk.  Audio here:
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/SM-O-CON.mp3

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Sep 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> In an interview this morning (mainly about the Parliament Hill rally) on CFRA, Ottawa, Minister of National Defence O'Connor said that nothing about this had crossed his desk--which does not mean it's not being considered.


The fact that it hadn't crossed his desk means nothing.  Heck, application for von Garvin's gender re-allocation (re-issue? re-vamp?) hasn't crossed it either.  You know why?  It doesn't exist!  I mean, geez, that would hurt: removing ALL of my "X" chromosomes to make them all "Y"s (or whichever it is) would take a long time, and trust me fellas, if ever I became a woman, I'd swing for the other team (as in march on Pride day for Lesbian rights and all that jazz!)

But seriously, my point is that you could also say that because it hadn't crossed his desk means nothing.  Actually, it just means what it says: it hadn't crossed his desk.  Period.  It may or may not exist.  Heck, to blend with another thread, maybe Schrödinger has it in a super-position!


----------



## BernDawg (22 Sep 2006)

Did the CDS not state at one time that he intended to have Canadian aircraft in direct support of Canadian troops during deployments?  I do believe he was talking about fast air at the time.


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Did the CDS not state at one time that he intended to have Canadian aircraft in direct support of Canadian troops during deployments?  I do believe he was talking about fast air at the time.



BernDawg I'm searching the archives because I seem to recall hearing that at one point in time as well...

Funny though, the only one's making mention today of fast-air is the TO Star.

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotnews_e.html


----------



## Rodahn (22 Sep 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> What unadulterated speculation... :



Very true, but then again I do not have much faith in Mr. Layton, and would expect him to complain about food and shelter for the troops...... Then again, maybe I'm just too cynical......


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Did the CDS not state at one time that he intended to have Canadian aircraft in direct support of Canadian troops during deployments?  I do believe he was talking about fast air at the time.



Air Force Transformation:

Perhaps someone read this and assumed something....

Part 5:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/vision/strategic_e.asp


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Sep 2006)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Very true, but then again I do not have much faith in Mr. Layton, and would expect him to complain about food and shelter for the troops...... Then again, maybe I'm just too cynical......



I was actually referring to the original story...heh...


----------



## Garbageman (22 Sep 2006)

Interesting update/clarification:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2078

Statement by the Department of National Defence
NR-06.064 - September 22, 2006

OTTAWA - The Department of National Defence issued the following statement today:

In the Toronto Star article of September 22 titled “Canada Readies Fighter Jets,” authored by Mr. Bruce Campion-Smith, it was indicated that the government was possibly preparing to deploy CF-18s to Afghanistan.

To clarify, the Department of National Defence has no intention to deploy CF-18s to Afghanistan.


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin's speculation on unadultered speculation is bang on once again!!

Thanks for the clarification Garbageman, that ought to clear this little matter up.


----------

