Tory ministers deflect criticism of $9B fighter jets

Opposition parties are criticizing the federal government's decision to spend $9 billion on the purchase and maintenance of 65 F-35 jets to protect Canadian airspace, the biggest military purchase in the country's history.

Power Play: Industry Minister Tony Clement

Industry Minister Tony Clement explains why the Conservative government feels the new F-35 planes will meet the needs of the Canadian military, and answers to criticism from the opposition parties on the cost of the contract.

Power Play: Jack Harris and Mark Holland

NDP Defence Critic Jack Harris says the price tag for the new F-35 fighter jets could skyrocket. Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland says industrial guarantees should have been made in the deal to ensure jobs would be secured in Canada.

CTV News Channel: Steven Staples, Rideau Inst.

President and CEO the Rideau Institute in Ottawa says that the decision for new fighter jets came at an odd time considering $2 billion had just been spent in updating the current fleet of jets.

CTV News Channel: Roger Smith on jet controversy

CTV's Ottawa bureau chief says the overall price of the jets and maintenance will cost between $16 billion and $18 billion. He explains that while the government defends the purchase by saying an upgraded is needed, many wonder if Canada needs such a large number of F-35s.

CTV News Channel: Alan Williams, expert

A former defence department employee in Ottawa says he's disappointed that the government has decided to sole source the purchase of fighter jets for $9 billion as opposed to searching out competing bids.

CTV News Channel: Ministers face questions

Peter MacKay, Tony Clement and Rona Ambrose take questions as they appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence. The ministers are questioned on the economic benefits to Canada.

CTV News Channel: Defence Minister Peter MacKay

Cabinet ministers Peter MacKay, Tony Clement and Rona Ambrose appear as witnesses on committee hearing on the next generation of fighter jet.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (120) Tweet

Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose waits to appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

View Larger Image

More on this topic

In Pictures: Meet the F-35

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Wed. Sep. 15 2010 8:06 PM ET

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and two other cabinet ministers have rallied behind Ottawa's proposal to buy stealth fighter jets for up to $9 billion, while opponents questioned the need to purchase the high-tech aircraft from an American company.

MacKay appeared before the House of Commons defence committee on Wednesday and argued that choosing not to buy the F-35 Lightning II jets might leave Canadian airspace vulnerable down the road.

"This is the right plane. This is the right number. This is the right aircraft for our Canadian forces and for Canada," he said.

"If we don't make this purchase there is a real danger we'll be unable to defend our airspace, unable to exercise our sovereignty or unable to share our responsibility to both NORAD and NATO."

Ottawa has a contract to purchase 65 of the new stealth fighter jets from U.S. defence company Lockheed Martin.

Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc called the proposed purchase wasteful.

"If the government thinks that this is in fact the best and only aircraft that can meet its requirements, then surely it would win a competitive process," Leblanc told reporters.

"A competitive process would ensure that Canadians have some transparency as to value for money."

He said he believed the price would be reduced if Lockheed Martin had to compete against a similar aircraft, adding that if the Liberals form the next government they would put a hold on the contract and review the process.

Under a 20-year maintenance contract, the price tag for the deal could reach $16 billion, which would make it the most expensive procurement ever in Canada.

Leblanc added that the Harper government was failing Canadian industry by not requiring Lockheed Martin to spend money on Canadian suppliers.

However, speaking on CTV's Power Play, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Canada's aviation industry will benefit from the plan.

While there is no requirement for Lockheed Martin to ensure that Canadian companies construct components for the 65 aircraft, Clement said that domestic businesses will be allowed to bid on the global supply chain of 5,000 jets.

"It means decades of work," said Clement.

Still, New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris added to the skepticism.

Harris said he wasn't convinced the Canadian military needs stealth fighters, and he added that no contract had yet been signed, meaning the deal can still be scuttled.

"You don't need a Maserati to drive to work and you don't need a stealth, invisible jet fighter to patrol the Arctic or to patrol the East Coast of Canada," Harris told reporters after the meeting.

Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister (materiel) with the Department of National Defence, said there's no way of knowing the government is getting the best deal without opening up the process to competing companies.

"In procurement, the perception is as important as the reality," he added. "People can start to hypothesize, why are they doing this? Because none of the public reasons make any sense."

That concern was echoed by analyst Steven Staples of the Rideau Institute, who told CTV News Channel that the government squandered negotiating leverage by announcing its intent before the deal was done.

"It's like going into a BMW dealership and saying ‘I've decided to buy a Beamer, now tell me how much I am going to have to pay?' You really give up all your negotiating ability for it."

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

Lance Usher
said

Great, we do need to replace the aging CF-18s and really, there is no better option than these jets. They are built in North America, so if there is ever another major war, the parts are made here, not offshore... However, how about looking after our Veterans, buy a couple of less planes and pay sions they deserve, not just a cheap lump sum settlement and a pat on the back with a "thanks for coming out..." Our vets gave our politicians their freedom but their thanks is a slap in the face!

quinn
said

The fact is that there is a jet that meets the needs we have. And the americans are letting us have which ever suite we want. The f-22 is the jet we need, but it is more expensive. And the government with the suite we picked is of course taking the cheapest one. Also one which does both air superiority and ground attack, on the smallest budget possible to keep everyone happy. If we want to use the F-35 properly we need to but twice as many with half for ground attack and the other half to clear the skies.

Jamie, Ottawa
said

So if what I'm reading in the comments is correct, the government claims we need these to protect the arctic, and those who know aircraft here say that this plane is not equipped for the arctic?wtf?

Steve in manotick
said

It seems the Conservatives have already prepared and added their canned comments to this blog. One more time Harper and his cronies are trying to control the pressI am sick and fed up with this BS from the conservatives

Vancouverite
said

They don't have to sell the idea to me. I fully support this. Those who don't, either don't want us to defend ourselves or want a foreign country to defend us.

Bob H from Petawawa
said

We could use them yes. However we should be able to pick our own "options and not be dictated by someone else" if that is in fact the case. OR maybe we should spend half the money on purchasing icebreaker warships and only order half the nmber of planes. Just a thought.

reifd
said

Am I in an episode of the Twilight Zone? Why on earth are we even entertaining the idea of buying 35 fighter jets? When the last time Canada was under any threat whatsoever from anyone, anywhere? The late 1800's is the only weak answer. At most, we need 2 on each coast and maybe 2 in Ontario to protect against terrorist activities? Surely we don't really think the Russians will attack from the North and if the US wanted to attack, we would have the white flag out before they crossed the border. This can't be happening for real. We're living in 2010, not 1950 where everyone was building bomb shelters. This is paranoia on steroids.

Jason
said

Fyi, not that i expect most of you to read this, F22 is currently 250mil per jet alone and is prohibited from being exported to any other countries, including all U.S. allies. Due to the sensitive technologies incorporated on that airplane. F35 shares most of the technologies from F22 albeit partly watered-down, but they cost 150mil per plane.

Keith in Brampton
said

Rule of thumb: if Clement is one of the defenders, then there's definitely something fishy about it. As for the Libs promising to halt the contract to take a closer look if they form the gov't: As much as I'm suspicious of this contract, we ALL, even us Lib supporters, remember what a bad decision halting Mulroney's helicopter deal turned out to be. Aren't we STILL waiting for the replacement for the Sea Kings? And how many have died as a result of the delay? Just be careful what you promise...

Christopher
said

I really hope we do not have a repeat of the EH-101 fiasco. These politicians are playing with the lives of our service members who are flying antique aircraft, so they can score political points. If we do not grab these fighters now, it will take us an additional 15 years to get something else at a higher price. These same politicians will have to accept buying them when Canadians become upset about our CF-18's falling out of the sky. We keep repeating these same mistakes over and over again. The military needs new equipment, it costs money accept it and move on.

Combat vets before jets!
said

Yes we need some jets, but let's not forget our combat vets! The goverment now knows the abuse of Combat Vets by Veteran Affairs... are they going to do anything about it?

Flip Flop Lie berals..
said

All games by the flip flop Lieberals, who started our commitment to this program, by giving millions of dollars to this project, years ago! We need the jets, stop wasting our tax money and buy them!

Born and Bred Edmontonian
said

Guess the personal insecurities about the military found in the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are starting to show.

Rob
said

Everyone is an expert!!! This is a purchase that is sorely needed, and the research that went into the F-35 wasn't done on a lark at the local Tim Horton's. There is a great deal of time given in consulting with military experts, etc that goes into this process prior to any decision being made. This is just a bunch of political grandstanding by the opposition, as near as I can tell. At least we are getting some value for this purchase. Long-gun registry, Sponsership scandal ring any bells???

Ryan
said

Guess what Liberal-NDP folk-to have a sovereign nation you have to spend money on defence. I'd rather have tax money fund programs like this as opposed to full day babysitting.

Steve in Toronto
said

Since Canada can't really afford a military large enough to protect its vast borders, stealth fighters (and decoy bases) make a certain sense. Nothing wrong with keeping the Russians off-guard.No-bid procurement processes, though, are a bad idea. I'm guessing it is being used here to ensure the deal is finalized before a possible election.

Tim from Calgary
said

Franck in Montreal: "SCRAP that deal and let's CREATE a Canadian plane for the Canadian, by the Canadian workers with the Canadian money"And who's going to provide the billions to research and build this Canadian made plane like you suggest? It takes billions to build a top quality plane as it's not like building a Cessna. Look at how many billions Boeing and Bombardier spend to develop airliners. The fact is that Canadian businesses will get billions of dollars of contracts with the F-35 due to Canada being a partner with the program.

Mike
said

I'm just a simple Canadian, and as far as I know there is no comparable fighter jet out there so how then could Lockheed Martin compete for the bid against someone else. You have to be able to compete against apples to apples not oranges to apples. The liberals are so dumb.

Memi
said

What an abominable insult to Canadian taxpayers! First, they waste $2 Billion trashing Toronto for securing 20 heads of state for a few days! Now, they spend $16 Billion on useless single engine mid-air refueling crap aircraft to please American contractors! Give the taxpayers $5 billion in a new useful NATIONAL CHILD CARE plan, invest in Infrastructure and Education and, most of all, HEALTH TECHNOLOGY and Research and Development!Will the Boys on the Hill please stop playing with shiny new War Toys! If the U.S. decides to attack, they'll do it in less than an hour! This is a pathetic partisan bowing to American industry at the expense of home-grown CF 18s, far superior twin-engine, larger tank capacity.Canadians don't need members of our Ottawa Tea Party spending $16 billion of our hard-earned money on their retirement pensions in some U.S. consulting firm! Kick them out, for they don't represent Canadians' best interests! They just spend our money on one stupidity after another! Yup, The Economist is right, we're ruled by a bunch of undemocratic incompetent, ruthless taciticians... And, by the way, thanks to our previous Govenrment for keeping us out of the Iraq Disaster!

MiggsVer2.0
said

The Liberals sent our troops to Afghanistan with World War II equipment. Enough Said!!!

Tod
said

What conservative government? I guess they must mean social conservative, because fiscal conservatism refers to the "previous liberal government".

Mark W...A proud Canadian
said

Some people are asking why would we need a stealth fighter jet? Who would invade Canada? Could we just buy more F-18s at $30 million each? Other countries are developing stealth technology, a brand new F-18 would not see and therefore have not chance against an enemy stealth fighter. So that brand new $30 million F-18 jet is shot down. Canada has far more resources than any other country in the world. When the oil runs dry in the middle east, Canada will still have plenty. So everyone will want our resources. Why would they pay us money for it when they could just take it and bomb our cities and kill us.

Closed and Opaque.
said

"This is the right plane. This is the right number. This is the right aircraft for our Canadian forces and for Canada," he said. He never said, "the right price". Bottom line is that when you spend $16 Billion in tax payer dollars, a tender process should be manditory.

Jim
said

Calling these planes "stealth" fighters is nothing but partisan wedge hogwash. These are the contemporary fighter jets available on the market for defense use. They have a small radar profile because they are mostly made of modern composites. They are in no way specialized for stealth strikes.

Ben Hanhart
said

@ Frank in Montreal,1. The F-35 can in fact operate in the arctic.2. Canadian money is also going to Canada who due to our involvement with the F-35, had a number of contracts awarded to Canadian companies.3. We do need it and our enemies do have them. Further, passenger aircraft have also been used as weapons or have you forgotten that?For those who want the F-22, remember even the US is having trouble reconciling that expense and won�t have nearly as many F-22�s as they will have F-35�s.Frankly, I wish we had purchased more.For those who fondly remember the CF-105, please remember that the Arrow is dead and buried. The odds of hitting the bulls-eye like that again are pretty low. I doubt we could design and build a jet comparable to the F-35 on our first go around. Imagine THAT cost?

Retired Mariner
said

What a sin.....why is it everytime our Governement tries to buy military equipment....the other parties oppose it? Liberals...what hypocrites! They started down this road to acquire the F-35 long before the Conservratives were elected...Boeing DID have a fair chance...they blew it...as for buying European...forget it..! They don't mind screwing us when ever they feel like it trying to interfere with the seal hunt etc. Not 1 dime to those clowns..Mr. Harper you win on this issue.

billwjames
said

If one really thinks about what would give our troops the best air support is the A 10 Thunderbolt 11 "warthog" Replacement is expected in 2028 or later. France and the US give our troops fighter support in Afghanistan at present, what we need is air support that can get down and dirty with ground support. The A 10s would round out our kind of fighting.

herb Beaumont
said

How many other countries have purchased this magnificent fighter aircraft F-35 11 Stealth. W e did buy submarines that can't go under water and thought it was a wonderful deal.Just how much money is being paid under the table to support the Uncle Sam's economic recovery. Canada looks more and more like Sam's little lackie.

Dan in Surrey
said

For those of you who think we should get the F22 or EuroFighter, think again. The F22 and EuroFighter although being superb fighters, aren't need in Canada. The F22 is a Fighter where the F35 is indeed a strike-fighter, which is what Canada needs. Having the capability to hit air and ground targets is important if we are to keep overall costs down of not having to purchase 2 aircraft types. Also, there will be many more F35's in the skies with our allies, therefore making interoperability much easier. There is no other aircraft that have the capability of the F35 on the market, and these also go well with the proposed assault aircraft the navy also want to purchase. The F18, although an okay aircraft, is not as good as the F14 and 15 in any way shape or form, and they are older aircraft. The AvroArrow that Canada had planned more then a decade prior to the F18, was faster, better range, and manouverability then the F18 which we had to purchase after the Arrow was scrapped. Remember, F18's were designed for carrier operations only and were never intended for land-based use.Stop being arm chair generals and talk to people who ACTUALLY know what they're talking about.

Paul from VI
said

Here's another angle: rather us having to ship groud troops into a future dangerous situation, we could sent these modern, capable aircraft. Result? Canada remains a credible part of collective defence w/o always having to risk large numbers of soldiers on the ground.

Brian`
said

Well what would Michael Ignatieff's solution to protecting Canada be? Oh let me guess. He would rather get together with our enemies and make little Girl Guide cookies with pink swirls and sparkles on them and sing Kumbaya while wearing white pants and reminding everyone that he can't get them dirty. Canada needs strength not some floozy government waving at Russians with a big goofy smile as they fly into our airspace.

scott
said

To all canadians reading this article, sit down, watch your damn hockey, and shut your mouth .who are you to judge the governments decisions when it comes to guarding the country. All you are required to do is pay your damn taxes. As for economic benifits, we all know which province will receive the lion's share of the money, its guaranteed.

Franck in Montreal
said

let's see FACTS as they are:

1) The F-35 CANNOT operate in the arctic!
2) Canadian money is again going to a foreign country.
3) We do not need it! as NONE of our "enemies" have ANY planes!

Are the Canadian have become so stupid that they cannot built what they need? EVEN if it cost us MORE, that money will create JOBS in CANADA and that Canadian money will remain in the Canadian economy!

SCRAP that deal and let's CREATE a Canadian plane for the Canadian, by the Canadian workers with the Canadian money: that will HELP the Canadian military AND the Canadian economy!

Tim from Calgary
said

If anyone believes what the Liberals and their cohorts are saying, just look at the EH-101 fiasco Chretien pulled that cost us taxpayers $500 million just to cancel the contract. Then over 10 years later, the Liberals procured almost the exact same helicopter under a different name. The Liberals just waited until the Canadians with smaller memories forgot about $500 million wasted. And what about the used subs the Liberals brought at supposed bargain? The Liberals' opposition has nothing to do with the F-35 or the contract, they would have cried whether the F-22 or the Super Hornet would have been chosen. This is more Liberal opposition by slander.

Nick in Gatineau
said

We would not be having a problem with our Sovereignty if the Military had not requested that they 'Outsource' our northern detection sites which resulted in Electronic equipment rather than actual humans residing up there. Yes, there are threats from Greenland, Finland, Norway, Russia and the US. The US is willing to 'forgive' Canada for claiming US land IF we let them drill for oil. All we needed to do was have people live up there. That's it. Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar could have been seriously tested up there and we would not be having a fight which will more than likely lose. Did the Harper government handover Canada's claims to land in May to the UN as dictated ? Yes or No ? I'm guessing No. They were late. You think Russia was late ?

Kevin
said

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would better suit Canada's needs for less than half the price of F-35 & built right here in Canada. The F-35 is a waste of money.

Nick in Gatineau
said

St�phane...I'm well aware of our NORAD and NATO obligations AND sharing. But get this. When OUR government is protecting OUR borders - prior to elevating any intrusion to NORAD or NATO status - it has a mandate to keep things internal. When the alert that a Russian Mig is flying within 50 KMs of our airspace and Cold Lake sends out 2 F18s, it does so because CANADIAN radar systems caught it. Not NORAD or NATO systems. If we get the F35s then it will be from NORAD and NATO systems in Colorado, Herndon and Langley that Canada will get its information. Those pilots don't ask US generals for direction; they ask Canadian Lt-colonels for it. (God knows we got alot of those !!!)If you believe anything else, you are basically saying that the Canadian Military is simply a division of the US armed forces. Is that what you are saying ? If it is, why are my tax dollars paying for these planes ? Or for anything the military wants ?

Ontario Taxpayer
said

The single engined F-16 operates rather nicely in the hostile arctic environment. Another misbelief that only twin engine aircraft can work well in the arctic....I am guessing all of those single engine bush pilots are morons.....it is amazing how everybody is an expert of CF fighter requirements!

Ontario Taxpayer
said

The opposition parties are ripping a page fron the Chretien playbook. They are trying to convince John Q Public that this is a bad decision and that it is a cadillac of airplanes. As usual, they play politics with the equipment needs of the Forces just to score cheap political points. As for there not being any benefits to to Canada's Aerospace companies, that is complete bunk. Many currently employed on F 35 work at at Megellan Aerospace would disagree! Also, follow the money, contracts close to close to 1 Billion dollars of work geared towards the F 35 is already being done by Canadian Aerospece companies. So I suggest the NDP and BLOC Defence Committee members actuallt do their homework and stop playing politics with the equipment needs of the Canadian Forces.

Ontario Taxpayer
said

Canada has never been involved in the F-22 program. That was and is strictly a US program, and they are the only country in the world flying the F-22.

BCDarr
said

Since the going explanation of this purchase is that the liberals started it, and ALL conservative justifications are that the liberals did it, are just as bad, forced it on the Prime Minister etc., then why do we need the conservatives?It's not like they're doing anything different than the liberals (according to their own rhetoric) so let's just get rid of them.

ron byers, gananoque,ont.
said

Defence Minister Peter McKay and two other cabinet ministers rallying behind the Conservative governments proposal to buy stealth fighter jets for up to $9 billion, with a 20-year maintenance contractthat could reach $16 billion, making it the most expensive procurement ever in Canada, is notrhing but Tory propoganda extolling their decision to spend such a huge amount of money without competing bids.What did you expect from a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.The Tories are acting as if they were in a majority, when they can be easily defeated in Parliament by asimple vote.Wake up fellow Canadians and smell the coffee.Call your local MP and express your opinion aboutthis overspending on this unnecessary expenditure.

kim
said

"Walk silently and carry a big stick"Canadians in general walk silently, these aircraft will be our big stick.The people who are complaining about this need to think about our ability to tdefend our airspace with modern technology. This makes a statement to would be enemies and our allies that we are ready and willing to defend, and have the means to do so.

Framck commonsens (montreal)
said

Sorry but it's a LIE, pure and simple:1) That contract was "done" a year and half ago.2) The price tag is NOT 16 billion but 23 billion (will actually cost a lot more in the long run)3) The F-35 CANNOT flight normally in the arctic!!!!! What morons want to buy that!4) We do NOT need it as none of the country we are "at war with" have ANY planes!Are Canadians have become so stupids that they cannot built what they need by themselves? EVEN if it cost more, due to the building of the infrastructures etc etc, that Canadian money will:A) create jobs in Canada.B) Canadian money will remain in the Canadian economy and not be going in a foreign country.C) Give us better tools and tools we can SELL to others if we want to.Enough with the lies and the slow sell of Canada to the USA!

S in Alberta
said

The planes are worth every bit of the money.Canada cannot always just rely on America to do our work for us.

billwjames
said

The F-35 is like a jack of all trades but master of none.The new F-18 Super Hornet is more suitable to Canada�s needs.The hornet has the ability to carry more fuel plus work as a tanker for those long arctic missions.The short range F-35 is more dependent on mid-air refuelling, which is a challenge in remote locations. In parts of Canada's Arctic, it can take eight hours for a C-135 Hercules tanker to arrive.The new F 18 twin engine super hornet out performs the single engine F-35 and at a much lower purchase cost then the F-35.The US and some allies commissioned the building of a fighter jet to replace the teens era. Canada contributed as a tier 3 which gave us essentially option to buy. What they come up with is the F-22, which few Governments can afford, and besides the US cut off exports. Told to go back to the drawing board, they came up with the jack of all trades but master of none, F-35.CF18 � maximum speedMach 1.8 (1,911 kilometres an hour at 40,000 feet)� range (unarmed)3,700 kilometres� enginestwo General Electric turbofans generating 7,250 kilograms of thrust eachF35 � maximum speedMach 1.67 (1,773 kilometres an hour at 40,000 feet)� range (unarmed)2,220 kilometres� enginesingle Pratt and Whitney turbofan with 12,700 kilograms of thrust

LP, thornhill
said

For 65 F-35 jet fighters, as many Canadians live from paycheck to paycheck. Is it worth?The Tories government is heavy spending on endless military rivalry. The tens of billion expenses ultimate beneficial owners are not majority Canadians and it should be enriched the American ammunition merchant together with under table rebate check receivers.

Scott
said

We don't have to buy the jets. How about we don't buy/build new ships either, and not train new soldiers, or get any new equipment for them. We'll just keep the old ones. How does that sound?

Patrick
said

The F-22 is a dead issue. The U.S. did not produce an export variant. Many countries want it, but the U.S. will not export it, even watered down. The F-35 is a world class fighter needed to protect Canada. It is the best option available. The Liberals thought it was in Canada's best interest when they invested in the program years ago. Now drop the issue and move on to something else. I am sure NDP and the Liberals can find something else to blow out of proportion and grandstand about.

JPC
said

Why does the opposition and in this case the Liberals AGAIN (see EH101 maritime helicopters) always think they know better than the military in terms of what they need? The military feels they need this not the Conservatives. The military puts forward it's requirements and the govornment approves or disapproves.As for buying state of the art it is a very smart idea considering this will probably be the last manned fighter in Canadian skies AND will have to last until 2050. Would you buy old or used technology in a car you expected to last over 30 years?Let the Canadian Forces decide their requirements not the opposition.

trevor
said

i'd much rather see us arm our schools with books and teachers, or our hospitals with nurses and doctors.piss on the fighter jets. what a waste.

PB
said

All future fighter will be stealth?Look at other air forces and navys? I hate MPs that don't know what they are talking about.

stephane
said

To nick in Gatineau:You didn't read my comments so let me paraphrase - We have something that we are involved in with the US already most commonly known as Norad. Although this has subsequently changed to a more braod role since after 9/11.This means that since 1954 we have been sharing all of our information between both countries, and FYI, the commander is always American and the Deputy commander is always Canadian. That means that if something really big happened, the decision to react would "most" likely have come from the American side anyway. That said, both countries have a unique partnership which no matter how much we may hate to admit, the following is true: We supply a fast amount of natural resources to our southern Neighbor, and our southern neighbor has a heavily vested interested in ensuring that those resources remain safe. And quite frankly, we need to start thinking in the same manner. so as I said previously! Forget 65 - go big! Buy Buy Buy!

B. Kelley, Ontario
said

If Ignatieff and the Liberals had their way our pilots would still be flying Sopwith Camels at 65 MPH at 300 feet and shooting rifles at the enemy from an open cockpit. The fact is that old aircraft become killer aircraft when subjected to the necessary stresses that are put on them by military pilots. How many armed forces members have been seriously injured or have met unnecessary deaths because of the Sea King debacle brought to us courtesy of Liberal logic? Chretien made us the laughing stock of the military world and we're just now managing to crawl out of that. We need those jets and we need them soon.

Ken
said

It seems the Conservatives are all for it and Liberals and anyone with half a clue are against it. Fact is, the Conservatives picked a plane that the US Republicans wanted Canada to buy, while US lobbyist are spreading tons of cash around to ensure Canada buys this plane. Doesn't it makes smart sense to have a competition and only then pick the best plane for the best dollar value for Canada ... NOT the Harper minority government's single choice. It seems this minority Conservative government, spends, spends, spends, then will say, look at all these shiny new toys the Conservatives purchased for Canada even though the threat to Canada is extremely low. It would have made smarter sense investing that money in sovereignty of our North, since the F18 have just been or are being upgraded in Canada. This government has put Canada in more debt than any other government to date ... how about a government that is working on getting us out of debt without trying to blame everything and everyone else. How often have we heard Harper and his cronies say, it was the previous government or previous crooked government, quickly forgetting PM Mulroney's cash payoffs! I think most goverments including Canada's are "slightly" crooked but I would rather have a slightly crooked government as long as they were knocking Canada's debt down and stop taxing us to death. Was Canada better off before Harper? Were we in more or less debt before Harper became dictator of the Conservative party? The next line from them will likely be anyone against this purchase is UnCanadian.

Randy in Calgary
said

I think it's great we're finally getting new fighters. Anyone who thinks we don't need them is evidently oblivious to global geopolitics. I just wish we would stop this niggling business of so often going for the Volkswagen approach when we buy military aircraft. This F35 Lightning is, from what I've read, nothing all that special, and I also agree with so many that a single-engined fighter is utterly ludicrous for Canada. On top of that it's such a damned UGLY bird. One very real role of the military is to inspire and instill confidence and pride among the nation's citizens, and I sure won't feel very proud of some pudgy little machine that looks like a scaled-down space shuttle.

michelle
said

and what budget is this coming from???? cuz in all honesty i see that money spent in better ways, like maybe give that money to health care, education, making things better for homeless!!!! it can be given to other agancys. they say canada is in debt and they wonder why

Jason Wood from Toronto
said

So it will cost $9-16 Billion over 20 years for these 65 aircraft.And Canadian companies will receive *up to* $12 Billion for work on these and ****5000**** other aircraft.It is silly to even mention this! What we should all want to know is - how much of the $9-16 Billion is going to Canadian companies and workers?????If every man, woman and child in Canada is spending $300-$533 in taxes on a bunch of planes, I should hope most of that is being reinvested in the Canadian economy.

Steve
said

Protect us from what? More CON scare tactics.

djtf
said

i am in the army and all i can say is simple this was a liberal plan a joint country plan, the air force and the navy deserve this why don't you complainers join the army and see how the army has 83% of its machines out of service right now and tax payers dont feel we should pay money to fix or replace them as nessesary so for all you who disagree with this stuff heres a thought from a soildier, if canada was attatcked today we have a operational force of 8000 men and woman and only 17% machinery to defend this country, not to mention tax payers believe that the governments shouldnt give the military more money to get more people in the military the governments because of tax payers believe 67000 reg and reserve force is all we have to defend 30 plus million of you wow people arent you glad us few is all you have why not complain about that. if you dont understand it dont comment because of coperate media. pffft.

Nick in Gatineau
said

The Liberals did in fact ask that RFPs be submitted for new Fighter planes. The Conservatives simply want to award the contract without due dilligence and without an RFP process. As for NORAD and NATO requirements... Does England, France, Italy, Germany, Finalnd, Sweden, hell the entire EU, have F35 jets ? Do they not fullfil their requirements ? The F35 is an American Plane that uses American technology and American Logistics based in American territory to run it. Purchasing the F35s means that we also have upgrade our logistics systems to link US systems with ours. That translates to handing over all of our security parameters regarding our sovereignty. It will cost much, much more than $ 16 Billion in the end. When all is said and done, we will have spent more than 10 times that amount so Uncle Sam knows what we do every step of the way.Harper got suckered into an arms race. And WE will have to pay for it. Bad deal.

Nick in Gatineau
said

I find it laughable that when the Liberals criticize it is nothing but Fear mongering and 'cheap shots' but when Conservatives criticize it is the very essence of our Nation that dictates it. You want to run your campaigns that way? fine. Just make sure your annonymous donations don't come from Conservative-led-corporations' Credit Cards this time ?

stephane
said

I've read a lot of comments, and to be honest its really disapointing! As usual. a lot of criticism and not one idea better than anything that's been suggested. Here's an idea for all of you - 65 planes = approximately at best 1.5 to 2 hours of defense if the russians decide to get " busy".For those of you who think we don't need a good offensive platform, Have you noticed that it isn't just the Russians testing our sovereignty. Even Greenland is laying claim to OUR arctic reserves. And the only reason Russia is doing close encounter "fly by's" is to test us to see if we actually have the b#ll's to stand up to them, because they would love to sink their bear claws into our untapped great white north. Long and the short of it - stop whinning!! I'm sick of us looking like idiots on the world stage and having to rely on the US to defend our own air space. my opinion.....if the government and anybody who cares about the freedom our country enjoys is listening - INCREASE THE ORDER TO AT LEAST 150 UNITS, AND FORCE A BETTER PRICE AND THE SAME TECHNOLOGY AS EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING, OR BETTER EVEN! If we really are truly partners in NORAD and such a close partner with the US, then they will let us get a good deal and share EVERYTHING. It's not like they have anything to fear from us anyway. And to everyone else who is still complaining, we spent over 2 BILLION on a stupid, useless, long gun registry still trying to decide if we want to keep it. We bicker over the procurement of something for our military that is badly needed.ENOUGH! 16 Billion = National Pride! Period!

Al - Ottawa
said

Our current jets are almost at the end of their life, they need to be replace. You can bet that if they are not replaced, when our exixting jets start falling out of the sky, the opposition will be screaming at the government, blaming them, saying that the jets should have been replaced. They don't care. It's all about politics.

Winnipeg Centred
said

I wonder why there was no open competition. A competitive bid process usually results in cost reductions for the taxpayer. This government is acting like drunken sailors with our tax dollars! I hope that any maintence work is not awarded to a Quebec company due to political considerations...always seems to happen when the Conservatives are in power. I remember Winnipeg getting the shaft big time from Mulroney!

Alethia
said

We pay 9b for 65 planes we get 10-12b in sales from over 100 Canadian Aerospace companies.High-paying aero space jobs centered in Toronto/Montreal--probably union jobs. 9 for 12? Fantastic deal. Even though we out here in the west don't have much hope of getting much out of it. It is good for Canada. We get the planes for nothing, and have a few billion left over to put toward maintenance.

Merle.Terlesky
said

So many people complain that we are too linked to the USA for military purposes. Well these jet would set us apart and allow us to stand alone for a change. I say get on with it and stop dithering.

ralph in sask
said

I was in Cold Lake 2 weeks ago were my brother in-law who is in the military brought up the F35 fighters and after our conversation I can understand why the Liberals are hated so much in that part of the country. They don't have a damn clue of what the military needs. The liberal leader says he is going to take a long hard look at this if he was leader of the government, yea right he will cancel it and cost the tax payers a half a billion dollars and then what. The military knows what they need and that is a plane that is also being used in the States, kind of smart having a plane that our ally has so both have the same parts for repair not a Russian built plane.

Paul Vancouver Island
said

Conservartives put us into deficit even before the recession and have been doling out our money whereever Harper shows up for a photo up. After the $billion waste at the G20 Harper now wants to borrow another $10 billion to buy new aircraft to put us into greater debt by purchasing aircraft while our economy is in a slump and we are in debt up to our ears. Now is not the time; perhaps we can when Conservatives are out of power and we can get back to a surplus position again and people are working.

Vern
said

The reason the Liberals are up in arms is because Quebec is not getting 99.999% of the contracts to build the plane. Don"t know why the Liberals are sucking up to Quebec so much, Quebec votes Bloc all the time.

Ron
said

Many Canadian's seem to forget a very big fact about us... Canada is the 2nd largest country on the planet! That said, we should be spending at least 100 billion dollars more then we are at a minimum! We have so much country to defend and so little to do it with! I find it unacceptable that many studies have shown that a foreign power (or terrorist group) could actually land and invade into our northern areas and they say it litterally could be months to a year or more before we would even detect them! That is unacceptable for us, and unacceptable for a nation of our size and status. I think next we should be looking at aircraft carriers and some form of armed sea transports too so our forces can go where they need to... even without any U.S or NATO support behind them. We should be able to take care of our own. For those counting, I'm generally a liberal... but one that actually supports our military. The way the world of the future is looking we better get protecting it all... because you can bet many others are looking our way....

PBW
said

Steve's "Peacekeeping nation" is another bit of left-wing propaganda. True, Canadian armed forces have spent a certain number of man-years (technical term, no offence intended) in peace keeping, but nowhere near the number of man-years fighting wars - in which our armed forces acquitted themselves extremely well. Humanitarian efforts - e.g. Haiti - are good training to ensure the mobility of our forces. But remember, whatever the tasking, our forces need the best materials we can supply if they are to do the job effectively. We have done it before (except under the Liberal draw-down, starting under Trudeau) and must keep planes, ships, vehicles up to CURRENT standards, not the standards of the 1970's (when the CF-18 was designed). The Bloc and NDP would send our troops out in chainmail, carrying spears - if they even conceded that Canada needs defence forces. The Liberals are crying foul because they didn't get the chance to back out of the "gentlemens agreement' after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars - or worse, to cancel any existing contract at the cost of billions. Their track record vis a vis the supply of proper equipment to our forces has been painfully, woefully inadequate over the last forty years- and overly expensive to boot. They just don't accept that military hardware - like everything else - wears out and becomes obsolete, like themselves.

GVR
said

I'd say Einstein sums it all up right here:"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein

Shawn in Point Edward
said

Simple put If you DO NOT have a strong military, you will have someone elses.Out military needs current equipment to be able to perform, even in a peackeeping role.While $9B is a lot of cash, it is actually a good buy for 65 state of the art fighters.

Art
said

The Bloc & NDP don't like the deal for state of the art fighter jets? Then it must be a really good purchase for the Canadian Forces ! We've seen in the past what happens when purchases for the Canadian Forces are cancelled . It costs millions to cancel and inevitably we order replacements later at twice the cost.

simon in montreal
said

"Under a 20-year maintenance contract, the price tag for the deal could reach $16 billion, which would make it the most expensive procurement ever in Canada." The Maintenance Contracts should be awarded to the Aerospace Companies in QUEBEC. This would ensure that the additional $7 billion remains in the country. This is Nordic, I mean, LOGIC!

Jim McB
said

Iggy will be on record by this evening saying he is willing to scrap this deal. New players in the Lib sandbox, same old crap!

Anne M
said

If the F35 has only one engine, then what will happen if that one engine fails???? What ever you do don't, don't, don't buy from the Montreal based airplane builder.

Get Real
said

I wasn't aware the Taliban had such advanced aircraft. Our true threats will not arrive with superior technology. It will be a dirty bomb in a shipping container....there's nothing sexy about working to prevent that, but I'm pretty sure you can't do it in an F-35.

Niagara George
said

Canada is buying 65 of these planes. The USA is buying 2000 . Anyone who thinks buying these futuristic 'toys' means we are "playing with the big boys" is in the typical neoCon dreamworkd that says 'any show of might is good and will bring us one step closer to peace.' That philosphy doesn't work when you deal with your own children. It doesn't work on a school playground. It doesn't work on the job site. It doesn't even work in a jail. The truth is... it doesn't work in international relations either. It's time King Steve and friends became leaders, instead of pandering to a noisy crowd of non-thinkers in their wreckless spending quest for the elusive majority.

Robert
said

I find it rather interesting that the Federal Government can find $9B, possibly reaching up to $16B (which would make this the largest procurement in history, according to this article) yet the Federal Government recently down-graded our Naval support by 50%. You've got to wonder how that it.

Pervenche, Quebec
said

I'll correct a little of the rampant misinformation I've read in previous comments.1) The involvement of Canadian industry in the F-35 project does NOT depend on this contract. Canada is and will remain a partner in F-35 development/production regardless of whether we purchase the plane.2) Nobody posting comments here actually knows whether the F-35 is the best plane for our military. Sure, the manufacturer and hobbyist magazines published in the US say it's the best, but really... Don't be taken gimmicky slogans "the fighter of the future" and "5th Generation Fighter". Other very modern options exist. If these are good enough for the air forces of major NATO allies like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and others perhaps they're good enough for Canada too. The only way to decide upon the best option for us: a proper competition. We will lose NOTHING by holding one, and we'll lose nothing if we decide to walk away from the F-35 (Mac and others have entirely misunderstood Canada's commitment to the project; the Libs. didn't sign a contract or an MOU) and go with another plane. A staggering amount of money is at stake here. It seems to me we ought to take a great deal of care with this matter.

T
said

There is no doubt that Cananda needs to maintain a relevant and well equipped fleet of aircraft and I support the investment in new equipment completely.

That being said, I do not agree that such a massive procurement should be awarded without competing bids in a transparent process, operationally sensitive details aside.

After Mulroney, I would think the Conservatives would be particularly mindful when it comes to aircraft purchases.

Wendy
said

The agreement signed when the Liberals were in power was for development of the aircraft, meaning that Canadian companies could compete for contracts to supply the various technological bits and pieces. It was NOT an agreement to purchase the plane and made no commitment to do so. It was NOT a competition to supply a plane to Canadian Forces. The Conservative attempts to characterize that agreement as such represents another example of their conviction to never let the truth get in the way of their spin.

neilpk
said

Stealth technology is great, if you're planning on a surprise attack on another country. Is that in our plans? Otherwise, stealth planes are aerodynamically inferior, and by the time we actually get the f35s, the technology will be obsolescent. I for one am looking forward to seeing all of the pros and cons of this deal coming out. After all, we were promised transparency, if I remember correctly.

Stu
said

16,000 millions. What are we thinking? A waste of money beyond belief. What a boost to the economy if we were to give a million dollars to 16,000 Canadians. Certainly more bang for your buck than giving $16 billion to americans. Who will receive the payback for that contract. harper going to work for a US military contractor when they're thrown out of office. How many Board of Directors will harper sit on for this deal. Sounds like more mulroneyism. Have you all noticed, the conservative blue has turned into red, white & blue?

George Piskor
said

Sole-sourcing based on earlier Liberal Canadian contribution to consortium R&D for a 5th gen plane having no other competitors makes sense and is allowed under procurement guidelines. Opposition criticism is welcomed, but smacks of cheap-shots until such time as critics point to viable alternatives, of which there are none- a fact that was accepted by the Liberals when they joined the R&D consortium. Let's have principled adult criticism from the opposition!

joe blow taxpayer
said

Now why would the liberals and NDP want to spend money to protect our soldiers and country. There are more important things for them to spend money on, educating prisoners, taking bus rides, begging for interviews, protecting a lizard, discussing global warming in December, trying to get their picture taken, pretending that anybody cares. They must protest, they need attention, they need the media, no time to think and create intelligent platforms. No.....

Faryn
said

The F-22 is not a great success. The US Air Force is unhappy with the aircraft. They have a number of issues, such as being ineffective in the rain.The F-35 is a better aircraft all around, including its VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) ability. In other words, it can lift itself off the ground like a helicopter, this requiring no runway, It's also a close support aircraft, meaning it can be used to support our troops on the ground.

winniped
said

The only problem with this plan is that they're replacing 130 aircraft with only 65. Over the years each subsequent military purchase has been less and less. Pretty soon it will be zero and those bleading-heartliberals will be finally happy.....Nah, they'll find something else to whine about....

Peter
said

Actually the plane isn't that important, the avionics aboard are more critical. These guys have no experience in this area and refuse to listen to best advice. Israel (which did not contribute to the early develoopment of these planes) is paying half the price Canada is. Australia and Britain indicate they have much better deals that will provide far more jobs than will be available for Britain's former colony. Who the hell goes to a car lot and pays full asking price for a car? Evidently, according to our government, Canadians do this all the time. The taxpayer is being screwed by people who couldn't fix a tractor. If you make it known you want to be screwed, there is no lack of international salesmen who will tell you how pretty you are. Evidently, Canada is beautiful.

Adam Ja
said

Its a rotten deal considering the Americans are paying 132 million per plane while Canadians are being asked to pay 246 million per plane. As a tax payer I find paying 86% more for the same product is unacceptable. I didnt vote for Harper or his gang of thugs, yet his digging deep in my wallet. If you dont believe me have a look at the F-35 wikipedia entry.

hollinm
said

The critics argue there was no competitive process. The fact is there are probably only two companies in the world qualified to build these type of planes. The consortium reviewed the submissions of both companies and one was chosen. The fact is these planes are not going to be delivered until 2016 and the Canadian aerospace industry will get badly needed work. Do we want to wait like we did for the helicopters that Chretien cancelled and see the F18s start falling out of the sky.It is a lot of money but we need to be able to monitor our own airspace and we need to be in a position to assist our allies when requested. Once again the Libs are playing to the anti war crowd and of course the media is in lock step.

tim
said

It's amazing how many hypocrites there are living in this country. For years, the government cut, cut cut, defence spending because the public screamed, "why do we need to spend so much money on the military in peace-time". Then the attacks on 911, the wars in Iraq and subsequently Afganistan began and the public screamed "how come our military is in such a shambles." Well, duh!!!!!!.

M.Fontaine
said

Canada needs to stay current with defence technologies weather it's Land, Air or Sea. Our fleet of CF-118s are aging fast they will be 30 plus years by the time we take possesion of hte new platform. We must have the ability to defend our nation. Who in this country would not want the best aircrafts for our proud airmen and women to fly with?

PM
said

As a taxpayer, I don't have an issue with the military procuring a new fleet of aircraft. The issue I have is the fact that the government did not open this up to tender. The gov't of Canada is very strict with its rules and regulations regarding Procurement. Working as a sub-contractor for many years, I have seen this first-hand. However, the gov't themselves chose to award this without going to tender and I find that appalling. I am hoping that Mr. Mackay, Mr. Clement and Ms. Ambrose can explain this to my satisfaction, one of these days.

BC boy
said

All I have to do is chip in about $3.00 for each jet so lets get several of them because the Russians are getting to pushy.

GHW
said

At least the government will be able to pay for them using money saved from scrapping the long gun registry.

Golf Company Grunt
said

>>>StevesaidA peace keeping nation>>>Why do people like you perpetuate this myth that we are a peace keeping nation. You really need a reality check buddy.'Pro Patria'

GVR
said

Good decision or bad, we are taxed to death and this is not the time. If we had a great surplus maybe.Invest the money into small business so we can get the economy rolling strong again. I don't know about you but I'd rather see my tax dollars going to far more useful and sensible causes. They'll always be ready for sale at the drop of a hat. You " Cons " Need to focus on the economy.Stop trying to distract us from the real problems at hand.

Diolbat
said

The Government's should provide leadership, strategic vision and set policy to the benefit of Canadians both at home and on the world stage. Unfortunately, in this age of knee jerk reactions and political expediency, this is not always the case. However, the decision to participate and acquire the F35 actually does addresses government's primary role and I for one applaud them. Besides, there aren't that many manufacturers to choose from, the development and manufacturing cycle is long and expensive and Canada played a role in the F35's funtional development. Doesn't it now make sense to follow through and buy them?

John
said

You can't put a price on national security.

On another note, why are these article comments only open for less than an hour?

Kevin
said

The maintenance costs for these planes is ludicrous. Plus these planes fly a much shorter distance then the CF-18's can. Canada needs long range fighters which these are not. The F-35 doesn't meet Canada's specific needs.

migrantworker
said

Tim: I agree that this isn't the worst deal ever and that we get contracts from this but I don't agree with your other statements.1) The F-35 is a single engine plane, unsuitable for arctic weather, for a little more we could have bought F-22s (an air superiority fighter that can do everything the JSF does but better) probably which would have been more than adequate and a much better deal, heck, even F-15Es would be a better deal and those are just 2 of many examples of things that make more sense in our situation, location and niche in NATO.2) If we were to get into a battle with the Russians we would get our rear-ends handed to us in about a day. Doesn't matter how good we are, what are our 65 planes against thousands of theirs? Either way we're going to hope our nice neighbors to the south are going to ward off this full scale invasion you are expecting. We're better off doing what we do best, prepare for low intensity conflicts and being a middle power. The F-35 is not the right plane for that.3) There are a lot of other assets the Canadian Forces really need. How about an adequate amount of icebreakers for the arctic? more LAV3's we're so well known for using to such amazing effect? Better naval helicopters? Or a refit of the existing CF-188s? (which CAN ACTUALLY operate in the arctic if we were to fight Russia) The list goes on of things we need more than a NEW "multi-role fighter" that we'd have to supplement with what we already have.

Anthony
said

I have nothing against the purchase of new jets which, as we are to believe will be there to defend us, intercepting visits from Russian bombers and flying over approaching vessels carrying illegal immigrants, but in turn to save money - politicians from PM to sleeping senators should use a public transportation including airlines, to save country some money. A fair trade in, isn't it ?

Goldens
said

We don't need them! Just ask Georgia! They did not have anythg like the stealh fighter and look what happened to them.

Thunderhead
said

The only problem with them is that the americans will not permit us to have any combat suite that we want. They tell us what we'll have. Oh, and they won't let us upgrade or change anything. They will do that after we ask humble permission. Oh, and they don't want us to have the same level of tactical capability as them so our jet won't have the same level of technology on board as theirs (including support for the stealth capability), even though we paid for part of the development of the things. Oh, and they're not fighters, they're multi-role aircraft with a heavy slant towards bombing capability. Oh, and if we bought the new SAAB fighters we'd spend less money and not have all the above problems. But you know what? We need this aircraft to build up our own aerospace industry. It meets the needs of the military, but it meets the needs of canadian industry MORE. Twenty years down the road I'd like to see them replaced with a Canadian designed and built aircraft, and this will be a mere stepping stone.

Tim from Calgary
said

Evan, As far as I know, Canada was not involved at all with the F-22 program. The F-22 is not even close to what the F-35 program will be as only 187 F-22's are planned compared to an estimated 5,000 F-35s. For those lefties against the purchase, the left wing government of Australia is expected to purchase about 75 F-35's. I wonder if they get the same ol' useless comments like "We don't need fighters' and "More money for this or that instead of fighters" that we hear or read in Canada? Lefties would leave our air space undefended and then complain about Russian bombers flying over Canadian air space which they certainly will unless Canada has fighters to deter them.

Shempatolla in the Hammer
said

Why would a previous Liberal government sign on to the development program of this aircraft without the intntention of buying it. The CF 18s are excellent aircraft that have served us well. But they are nearing the end of their useful life. Buying the F35 is the prudent thing to do especially since many of our allies will be flying the same aircraft. Only I would have increased the order to something like 96 instead of 65.

Jim in the West
said

This is nothing more than political theater on the part of the opposition. The Liberals agreed to the F-35 when they were in power, and the NDP never agree with military spending. The F-35 is a multi-national program to build one amazing aircraft to defend the diverse nations of the West. Having multiple manufacturers takes away from the basic principles of the program, so it is sound business sense for Canada to sign on with the same supplier the US was using. Our CF-18s are outdated, and need replacing now, let alone when the F-35s come online. Canada needs this plane, and we need to honor our commitments to purchase them.

Evan in Athabasca
said

I for one cannot see another fighter plane more suited for Canada's needs other than the F-22. That is more expensive, but would have been more in line of a once policy of having a twin engine fighter. The canadian government also put money into the F-22 program but backed out due to overal costs.Can anybody confirm this?

Chuck
said

Where are the duel engines that are needed for the Artic weather? Single engine jets have no back-up engine in case something goes awry. Nothing that can be done now. We'll have to live with what was purchased.

Ron
said

Much has been made of the "single sourcing" of this aircraft. The reality is that the choice needed to be compatible with avionics needs, weapons platforms, service sparing, etc. which tie us intimately with our US ally. Of the choices touted by the press, there are only two that meet the criteria: the F35, and the F18 SuperHornet. The SuperHornet was developed as a stop-gap to allow the modernization of the US F18 fleet in preparation for replacement of the F35. Operationally, it is more expensive. It's also vastly inferior technologically, and would therefore suffer a reduced service life.So I have no issue as all with the choice of the F35, nor do I have a problem with the sole sourcing. The F35 represents the cooperation of NATO allies, and this needs to be applauded, not derided. The Liberals are making mischief with this, as they clearly believed this was the right choice when, during their reign, they invested in the program.

D in Calgary
said

It appears that politics can make good decisions difficult. It is clear we must have a replacement for the CF18, so if not the CF-35 then what? The Eurofighter, Mig 29 or SU 27. They are all current fighters a generation behind in technology. The Liberals made the decision (a good one) to be involved in the F-35 development so Canada could create jobs around purchasing and maintaining the fighters. The Conservatives make the decision to go ahead with the purchase (a good one) and we dickering whether/how we should? That decision was made when we got involved in the first place. I'd hate to see another sea king fiasco where politics puts the lives of our armed forces at risk delaying this purchase for grand standing.

Paul
said

I for one am disgusted at the amount of money being wasted. 9- 16 BILLION? Yet our Federal Gov't only gave 2.5 MILLION to MS research and the new liberation technique. VERY sad considering Canada has the highest occurrences of MS in the WORLD. I guess some shiny new toys are more important. PATHETIC

Steve
said

A peace keeping nation spending 16 billion on fighter jets in hard economic times is insanity. The only country in the world that might invade Canada is the US. I'd bet it would take the Americans more than a hour to shoot down 65 planes & another hour to take over Canada. All this money goes to the US, Canada only gets a few hundred million in work out of this the US gets more than 15.5 billion out of the 16 billion, almost nothing. If the conservatives hadn't destroyed the Avro Arrow, Canada would be a leader in air technology, the conservative have always caused great destruction to our wonderful nation.

Mac
said

The rhetoric against this purchase is unbelievable - the air force NEEDS new planes... The benefits across Canada will be huge - jobs jobs jobs... ie the maintainence program etc...I trust sane heads will prevail unlike the shear stupidity of cancelling the helicopter program in 1993 at a huge cost as in lost jobs - $30 million alone in NB plus $1 billion penalty for nothing... except the deaths of several servicemen flying old deteriorating machines... my Dad walked away twice from Sabres that caught fire - he flew the CF104 - with no mishaps but not before many others didnt ... it took years for the "Widowmaker" to be replaced because of rhetoric and non-interest !We have signed MOU's (Memorandum of Understanding) for military contracts etc which the Liberals signed so to turn on the Conservatives now is laughable...So to all... please don't get caught up in nit-picking and stupidity...

Brian Fr Langley
said

If you want to be treated like one of the big boys, and play with the big boys, then you have to pay like the big boys. This was a good idea when the Liberals first signed on to develop this new fighter plane, and its still a good idea now that these fighters are in production. Welcome back to the big leagues Canada.

Tim from Calgary
said

This purchase is 100% worth the money as the F-35 is the plane of the future. Plus Canada is a partner in the program and Canadians are estimated to be able to receive up to $12 billion dollars worth of contracts for the F-35 projects. Those who are against the F-35 are totally ignorant of the plane and its performance and are only parroting the Liberal line of opposition by slander. These same people then turn around and post comments about how the Russians are not a threat anymore even though they flew near (and soon into) our air space.

Citizen
said

The government is seeing through a deal which the Liberals signed onto in the 90's. They are finishing what was started. This is a great boost to our aerospace industry which employs a lot of Canadians in a time of instability in the industry. This is exactly the time for these kind of projects. This is a versatile, multipurpose fighter which is exactly what the Canadian forces need. As a military we rely on being flexible. If the Liberals had not left this for so long, than we could have spaced it out more but the fact is that our CF-18's are getting to old to do the job. This is good for the economy, good for Canadians and good for our military. Seems like a win-win all around.

Today's Canada Stories

Double lung transplant recipient Helene Campbell appears on 'Ellen,' on Friday, May 25, 2012.

Most Viewed News Stories

View More News Stories

Most Talked about Stories

I feel that if certain organs were in demand, less effort would be made to revive people. Am I being silly? Not really. I had a bad experience in hospital when my heart stopped, the doctors tried to revive me and failed. They stopped and said I was gone. I came around on my own when the nurse was giving a final BP reading of 'zero'. I heard her declare me dead! It was all I could do to shake my head but they never caught on til I was able to open my eyes. You should have seen them scramble then! I thought the nurse was going to faint. The thing is, I think we may write people off too soon when there is something of value to be gained from them.

me

Should all Canadians be automatically considered organ donors?

Got something to say? Share on CTV News

Pick your location

Canada -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: