tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post1910786680607191277..comments2024-03-28T16:15:19.319-04:00Comments on Saideman's Semi-Spew: To Buy or not to FlySteve Saidemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-92058981492099672462012-12-07T13:02:09.112-05:002012-12-07T13:02:09.112-05:00I think what you're trying to touch on and wha...I think what you're trying to touch on and what may be the most important point about this debate is that while it's a nominally a procurement decision, it is ultimately a policy decision. The military has included in its list of requirements, a stealth capability. This is as you've noted not required for the purpose of air to air combat under any realistic NORAD scenario. This is more about having the ability to participate in early bombing of targets in NATO or US led wars outside of NATO. Presumably having this capability matters for Canada's role within NATO and our bilateral relations with the US. Of course, it would be helpful if the government , thought out loud about under what conditions in might use force, what kind of role Canada might play in combat etc. Then we could have a procurement policy that matched a policy from which there flowed a strategy for defence. In Kosovo we faced a 60's vintage Soviet air defence system, in Libya I am not sure there was an air defence system that could be called robust. Does the government want to have the option to play a role in bombing Iran, China, North Korea? I don't know but it would be these kinds of places that a 5th generation fighter would be more suited for. It seems the debate is more about comparing different fighter planes which are all frankly too much plane for what we need for the next 20 years if we simply want to suit up pilots for NORAD and fight small wars against states either lacking a modern air force or any air force at all for that matter.vladnoreply@blogger.com