A Super Hornet's Nest

I recently encountered a high-ranking Canadian military officer in the Toronto airport.  We sat by the departure gate and he noticed I was reading Getting Back in the Game– a foreign policy manual by Paul Heinbecker, past Canadian ambassador to the United Nations.It was only after the discussion on the book that he discovered I was an MP.  “Well, you’ve had an interesting time,” he noted.  At some point the subject of the government’s purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter emerged and he didn’t mince his words.  “Look, of course we want what’s supposedly the best out there; we wouldn’t be a good military if we didn’t.  But I’m not convinced that with the high price, the problems with maintenance, and the cost overruns in production qualifies it as the best for the Canadian forces.”What was fascinating about the discussion wasn’t his frankness or his knowledge, but the fact he offered an alternative – something that with all the debate swirling around the purchase of the F-35 has hardly been raised. He understood he was introducing the proverbial hornet's nest in doing so.“For our purposes, I at least wish we had put out some bids for the F-18F Super Hornet,” he observed.  “That’s a pretty good piece of equipment.”  For the next 20 minutes a dedicated career military officer gave this MP a comprehensive education on aircraft and Canada’s future in military operations.We are now hearing about the American reservations concerning the F-35 and how they will likely cost more than announced.  The Australians have also made a sizeable investment in purchasing the Super Hornet.  This is important in a country like Canada, whose faltering economy is presenting some solid challenges.  But the officer’s argument that finding just the right airplane to suit Canada’s military potential was more to the point.  Cost is one thing, but if another airframe is better suited to this country’s next stage of military development, then we should be listening and scoping it out.Labelled the “Ferrari” of the skies, the Super Hornet jet fighter-bomber has a range of some 2,000 kms and has a speed of 1,900 km/h.  It’s nimble and holds a vast array of weaponry.  It has two engines, not one, and has the capacity to serve in long-range functions such as touring coastlines or the Arctic.  At $50 million per plane, it’s a far cheaper alternative to the expensive F-35.  When I asked the officer about the stealth capability difference, he merely replied: “Stealth for what?  We’re not invading but protecting, and the Super Hornet serves our purposes in NORAD and NATO just fine.”He then brought up a fascinating scenario.  Barring some cataclysmic event, he reasons that the Canadian forces will be looking for more “soft” missions, the kind that provide protection for peacekeeping operations or more limited forms of combat engagement than Afghanistan.  According to him, the Super Hornet is a better fit for the new role the Canadian forces are about to embrace.So it’s time we asked some questions.  Why hasn’t the F-35 been put out for competitive bid?  Why is the hugely expensive stealth technology necessary?  Why hasn’t the government, or the military for that matter, put its case for the purchase of the F-35 to Parliament and to the country to remove doubt?  Would the purchase of the Super Hornet at roughly half the price not produce a financial dividend that could then be put towards some of the country’s domestic challenges, like healthcare or the deficit?We are still waiting for the case of the new jet purchase to be made, and until it is, other options should always be on the table.  This fine officer did just that, and in so doing he pressed the government to present its rationale and offered an alternative at the same time.  He’s a credit to the forces.