Mrs. Julie Vignola:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Huebert, I will address you.
For several weeks, we have been hearing about how obsolete radars are and how we lack a ground-based air defence system.
I feel—and this is very personal—that those factors are especially important for protecting Canada's huge Arctic northern territory.
We cannot change the past. However, I would like to hear you
comment on what technologies would be more effective for protecting Canada's north.
What would those technologies be and how many devices should we purchase? You can also add any other comments you feel would be relevant.
Thank you.
[
English]
Dr. Robert Huebert:
Well, we can say immediately, of course, that
we do have to update the existing architecture of the north warning system. In other words, the Russians are in the process of modernizing not only their nuclear war-fighting tactical capabilities that we see with the Gazelle missiles and other types; they're also modernizing their
ICBMs. We have to continue to have that capability to monitor that threat. That means that the RADARSAT systems have to be updated.
We also
need to have the ability, however, to be able to detect the Gazelles, the hypersonics. That requires, of course, a system such as the over-the-horizon radar, but it also requires a mobility. In other words,
the Arctic is so large that you are not going to be able to have the old-fashioned DEW line system where you can string a set of radar sites across and have a high degree of confidence that you're going to catch everything. You've got to be able to have an anticipation. That then means that you also have to be developing new space-based systems.
The only way we're going to have
a proper surveillance capability of being able to anticipate what the Russians are doing in terms of aerospace—I would add the Chinese as well, going to into a little bit longer future—
is to have radar sensors. Now, that means, obviously, that we have to tie ourselves much closer with the American space weapons systems, which will be problematic for some people on a political basis.
There's another part, though. You also
need to have the ability to respond. It's not just simply having these three-layered sensor systems. We also have to be talking about what it means in terms of
ABM capabilities and what it means in terms of being able to take out these hypersonics. That's another layer of anti-ballistic missile.
We're also going to have to do anti-missile systems unless we're willing to have the Americans simply bring us around and do it entirely for us.
(1625)
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Huebert.
We'll now go to Mr. Johns for two minutes.
Mr. Gord Johns:
I'm going to expand on that. We know that
the F-35 has an operational range of about 1,100 kilometres, which suggests the need for refuelling capabilities. You just talked about some of the infrastructure we might need.
What other additional infrastructure do you think is required to support fighter jets in the far north year round? Should Canada be making these investments now, given that we're heading into this? Also,
do you think we should be purchasing specialized refuelling planes?
I'll go back to you, Mr. Huebert.
Dr. Robert Huebert:
Absolutely. I mean, once again, because of the difficulty of getting information, there are suggestions that have appeared in some media reports that in fact our ability, a spur-of-the-moment capability, to actually deploy our aircraft into the hangars, particularly in the middle of winter, is problematic. There are issues associated with sort of bread-and-butter issues. We have issues on whether or not the runways of our four forward operating bases can actually provide the ability for all aircraft...including the Americans'. Of course, we have that shared aerospace under NORAD.
If the Americans are sending in their very largest refuellers, can they in fact operate out of the forward operating bases? I don't have the answer for that.
We need to have the four forward operating bases, but if we actually start putting in the over-the-horizon radar, that means going to the northern tips of our Arctic archipelago, which means having some facility beyond Resolute and Eureka to be able to resupply, particularly on the western part of the Arctic.
All of that infrastructure has to be worked out and brought forward.
Mr. Gord Johns:
In terms of the critical path to getting there and ensuring that these aircraft have the equipment, pilots and maintenance, how are we doing on that front,
on the human resource side? Do you see us having challenges there?
Dr. Robert Huebert:
We are getting media reports that we are losing pilots and that we are not able to sustain. It goes back to a point that I was raising earlier. Not only do we need to have pilots who can fly the existing fleets;
we need to have a surplus.
We have to assume, going into the future, that if we move from this environment that was relatively low-conflict and definitely low-tech in terms of any capability, then we will also need, and
this is part of the procurement issue that we have not dealt with at all, to replace pilots who are lost in combat or wounded in combat. At this point in time, I don't think we have any flexibility in that.