Ceasefire.ca, the mouthpiece of Steve Staples’ quasi-pacificst Rideau Institute (see the end of this post), seeks to capitalize on anti-drone feeling aroused by American assassinations–latest on that here–severely to circumscribe the RCAF if it ever gets drones. My comments and Mr Staples’ making clear he wants Canada to abandon the strike role for our fighters:
Canada should reject armed drones
Contrary to the impression left by this piece armed drones are not used just for assassination. They also serve as a substitute for manned aircraft in the normal air strike role, such as the one our CF-18s performed in Libya.
What’s wrong with that type of employment?
In other words, we should abandon the strike role for the RCAF’s manned fighters? Is that the position of Ceasefire.ca and the Rideau Institute?
Steven Staples Says:
March 20, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Yes – that would be about right. See:
Pilot Error: Why the F-35 stealth fighter is wrong for Canada
Written by: Steven Staples
Date: 14 October 2010
Canada does not need the F-35 Lightning II either for North American/domestic roles or for expeditionary roles.
The Canadian government should not proceed with the planned procurement of the F-35.
Instead, Canada should:
curtail the expeditionary role for Canadian fighter aircraft;
stretch the life of Canada’s existing CF-18 fleet by restricting the aircraft to North American/domestic air surveillance and control role;
investigate the acquisition of the next generation of unarmed long-range, long-endurance pilotless aircraft; and
use the money saved by the above measures to contribute to Canadian and global security in more effective ways.
Staples, Steven. Pilot Error: Why the F-35 stealth fighter is wrong for Canada. Foreign Policy Series. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, October 2010.
Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute