There are ways to do this. Just not in the way that is being pitched now. If we really wanted to build military aircraft, we could:
1) Push drones and CCAs where requirements are less stringent and where there are more partners available than the US;
2) Push Bombardier to become more of an integrator. Just look at the whole portfolio of surveillance aircraft the US Army is developing using Globals; and,
3) Develop a second tier strategy for example build trainers as a reserve force generation fleet that let's us have more reserve pilots.
But none of this is on the table. Instead we're going to buy a small Panther fleet that will face growing demands and a second Gripen fleet that will be crippled over the long run in many ways.
I have a simplistic view of a conventional defence. We are at risk when the enemy creates mass in proximity to our borders and shores. We eliminate risk when we destroy mass in proximity to our borders and shores.
In the current environment destroyng mass at distance is easier than creating mass at distance. And it is considerably cheaper.
Canada needs the means to destroy ships with high explosives at distance. On all three coasts. That capability is available to us in both piloted and unpiloted, ground launch forms.
Everything beyond enemy mass on shore is a disruption and not an existential threat and provision to manage disruptions of all sorts should be the business of government.
Expedition is the act of a good neighbour. It is voluntary. Not critical.
Bombardment is one form of disruption which we should organize to manage. One aspect of that management is to destroy the incoming missiles and the C-RAM, LAA, GBAD, IAMD, EW response spectrum is making that easier. Another aspect is to repair and mitigate the damage through effective emergency response utilities. And the final aspect is reducing fragility through decentralization and redundancy. Organizing from the bottom up is part of that latter.
We should be organized to manage any disruption caused by man-made or natural damage to infrastructure, or by terrorism, criminal activity, protests, political interference or economic warfare, all of which are more realistic threats with near term consequences than the Chinese fleet appearing off Vancouver or the Russians occupying Yellowknife.
I am sorry.
But I put Tanks and Howitzers well down on my needs table.
Well behind long range, high speed munitions, people movers, ambulances, water carriers and pumpers and local security personnel.
I'm not really fussed if the long range munitions are piloted or not.
I do think we need security personnel afloat and in the air to demonstrate our claims.
