Ethyl
01-15-2006, 03:47 AM
Canadian soldiers deploying next month to Afghanistan will be relying on the United States for air cover after a proposal to send Canadian fighter-bombers to the region was scrapped at the last minute, the Post has learned.
Military sources said six CF-18 jets were to have been included in Task Force Aegis, the 2,200-member Canadian battle group that is moving into restive southern Afghanistan in February.
But the air force had to change plans because of the high cost of getting the six upgraded fighters from 4 Wing in CFB Cold Lake, Alta., to Afghanistan and the technical difficulties involved in basing high-tech aircraft halfway around the world.
"It was a bridge too far," said one air force officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They just couldn't get the maintainers [and] all their equipment there and keep them there for six months."
General Rick Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, dropped the CF-18s from the final roster of the task force on Oct. 31, just before the mission went to the federal Cabinet for final approval, the sources said. A military spokesman said yesterday the Forces would not discuss the composition of the Canadian task force.
Military experts say Canadian soldiers need their own aircraft covering them from above and the absence of the CF-18s on the Afghan mission is the result of decades of neglect of the "sharp end" of Canada's air force.
Lou Cuppens, a former air force lieutenant-general, said Canadian fighters should have been sent with the Kandahar battle group, based around 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, because that is the only way of guaranteeing air support in case of trouble.
"If you want guaranteed air support, you have to bring it yourself," said Mr. Cuppens, now an analyst with the defence lobby group Conference of Defence Associations.
"If you have a pool of coalition air, then you're at their mercy -- they decide when and if you get access to that firepower. If you have your own aircraft in that pool -- as the Dutch will -- then they're going to drop whatever they're doing and come when you call. You're their first priority."
The Dutch army, which is contributing troops to the Canadian-led task force along with the British, are bringing six F-16 fighters and Apache attack helicopters to support their soldiers.
Canadian soldiers did not have the benefit of Canadian air support during their previous two Afghanistan missions. A bomb dropped from a U.S. F-16 killed four Canadian soldiers who were participating in a training exercise in April, 2002. The U.S. pilot mistakenly believed he was under enemy fire, and he later suggested the lack of a Canadian presence in the air operations was a contributing factor in the accident.
Mr. Cuppens said the Canadian Forces likely decided not to send their own fighters because of a lack of tanker aircraft, for air-to-air refuelling, and a shortage of transport planes to carry the hundreds of mechanics, spare parts, ground support equipment and high-tech maintenance machinery necessary to keep the CF-18s in the air.
"It all comes down to money and logistics," he said. "We'd have to get some help just to get them over there ... [and] the initial deployment would take up a lot of sea and airlift space."
Major Dale MacEachern, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces, would not comment on the aborted CF-18 deployment. "We won't discuss that," he said in an interview from Ottawa.
"We look at any number of options for force composition for a given mission and we won't speculate about what options may have been under consideration in this case."
Senior officers familiar with planning for the mission said the Canadian Forces has not yet abandoned plans to eventually send fighters to Afghanistan, but not until later this year at the earliest.
David Rudd, of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said that given the increased danger of this latest Afghan mission, it would only be prudent to give the soldiers on the ground their own air cover.
"Given the level of danger, it would be a handy thing to have," he said. "A small deployable air contingent would be a valuable asset to the coalition."
But he questioned whether the air force will be able to send its fighters overseas for some time, despite the government's defence policy that specifically calls for an "Air Expeditionary Unit" made up of "six CF-18 aircraft for air-to-ground missions."
"This is something that the air force would really like to do, if only to show that overseas deployments are not an army-only show," Mr. Rudd said. "I would say this is a key defence objective and this is proof that we just can't do it."
Mr. Cuppens said years of funding cuts and little overseas experience mean it may be some time before the air force can carry out that role.
While Canadian pilots were among the best in the coalition air forces that bombed the former Yugoslavia in 1999, he said a shortage of precision-guided bombs and lack of action in the past six years is blunting the air force's offensive skills.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=420aa1ba-bde0-4f0c-a369-080d17073b6b&k=67952&p=2
Military sources said six CF-18 jets were to have been included in Task Force Aegis, the 2,200-member Canadian battle group that is moving into restive southern Afghanistan in February.
But the air force had to change plans because of the high cost of getting the six upgraded fighters from 4 Wing in CFB Cold Lake, Alta., to Afghanistan and the technical difficulties involved in basing high-tech aircraft halfway around the world.
"It was a bridge too far," said one air force officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They just couldn't get the maintainers [and] all their equipment there and keep them there for six months."
General Rick Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, dropped the CF-18s from the final roster of the task force on Oct. 31, just before the mission went to the federal Cabinet for final approval, the sources said. A military spokesman said yesterday the Forces would not discuss the composition of the Canadian task force.
Military experts say Canadian soldiers need their own aircraft covering them from above and the absence of the CF-18s on the Afghan mission is the result of decades of neglect of the "sharp end" of Canada's air force.
Lou Cuppens, a former air force lieutenant-general, said Canadian fighters should have been sent with the Kandahar battle group, based around 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, because that is the only way of guaranteeing air support in case of trouble.
"If you want guaranteed air support, you have to bring it yourself," said Mr. Cuppens, now an analyst with the defence lobby group Conference of Defence Associations.
"If you have a pool of coalition air, then you're at their mercy -- they decide when and if you get access to that firepower. If you have your own aircraft in that pool -- as the Dutch will -- then they're going to drop whatever they're doing and come when you call. You're their first priority."
The Dutch army, which is contributing troops to the Canadian-led task force along with the British, are bringing six F-16 fighters and Apache attack helicopters to support their soldiers.
Canadian soldiers did not have the benefit of Canadian air support during their previous two Afghanistan missions. A bomb dropped from a U.S. F-16 killed four Canadian soldiers who were participating in a training exercise in April, 2002. The U.S. pilot mistakenly believed he was under enemy fire, and he later suggested the lack of a Canadian presence in the air operations was a contributing factor in the accident.
Mr. Cuppens said the Canadian Forces likely decided not to send their own fighters because of a lack of tanker aircraft, for air-to-air refuelling, and a shortage of transport planes to carry the hundreds of mechanics, spare parts, ground support equipment and high-tech maintenance machinery necessary to keep the CF-18s in the air.
"It all comes down to money and logistics," he said. "We'd have to get some help just to get them over there ... [and] the initial deployment would take up a lot of sea and airlift space."
Major Dale MacEachern, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces, would not comment on the aborted CF-18 deployment. "We won't discuss that," he said in an interview from Ottawa.
"We look at any number of options for force composition for a given mission and we won't speculate about what options may have been under consideration in this case."
Senior officers familiar with planning for the mission said the Canadian Forces has not yet abandoned plans to eventually send fighters to Afghanistan, but not until later this year at the earliest.
David Rudd, of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said that given the increased danger of this latest Afghan mission, it would only be prudent to give the soldiers on the ground their own air cover.
"Given the level of danger, it would be a handy thing to have," he said. "A small deployable air contingent would be a valuable asset to the coalition."
But he questioned whether the air force will be able to send its fighters overseas for some time, despite the government's defence policy that specifically calls for an "Air Expeditionary Unit" made up of "six CF-18 aircraft for air-to-ground missions."
"This is something that the air force would really like to do, if only to show that overseas deployments are not an army-only show," Mr. Rudd said. "I would say this is a key defence objective and this is proof that we just can't do it."
Mr. Cuppens said years of funding cuts and little overseas experience mean it may be some time before the air force can carry out that role.
While Canadian pilots were among the best in the coalition air forces that bombed the former Yugoslavia in 1999, he said a shortage of precision-guided bombs and lack of action in the past six years is blunting the air force's offensive skills.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=420aa1ba-bde0-4f0c-a369-080d17073b6b&k=67952&p=2