Ignatieff seizes on DND report of rising F-35 costs

The Department of National Defence has acknowledged that a new high-tech F-35 stealth fighters will cost more than it budgeted for, but the full extent of the cost increase is not yet known.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (142) Tweet

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff announces his party will continue to defend gun control, during a campaign stop in front of the Vancouver Police station in Vancouver, Tuesday, April 26, 2011. (Paul Chiasson / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

View Larger Image

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Tue. Apr. 26 2011 10:58 PM ET

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is renewing his attack on the Conservatives over soaring costs for the high-tech F-35 fighter jets, as newly released Pentagon reports indicate that unforeseen production costs are pushing up the planes' price tag.

The Department of National Defence acknowledged Monday that the new wave of F-35 stealth fighters will cost more than it budgeted for, but the full extent of the cost increase is not yet known.

The department's admission followed a recent report from the Pentagon that indicates the cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will rise, though National Defence has yet to see details on why.

The Liberals said Tuesday the price increase will jeopardize the government's ability to reinvest in the health-care system as the federal-provincial Health Accord expires in 2014.

"Stephen Harper has consistently ignored the skyrocketing cost of these stealth fighters in his quest to push this untendered acquisition through," Ignatieff said in the statement released Tuesday by the Liberals.

"But now even his own defence officials can't ignore what the experts and what other countries have been saying for months -- and these astronomically high bills will start coming due at exactly the same time as we need to start a new round of investments in health care."

The Harper government has stated its intention to buy 65 Joint Strike Fighters starting in 2017, in order to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets. It has projected that each of the forthcoming F-35s will cost about $75 million, though the parliamentary budget officer has suggested that Ottawa will likely end up spending twice that figure.

Opposition critics say the F-35s are an expensive and unnecessary purchase for Canada and the Liberals have promised to cancel the plan to buy them.

As recently as late March, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters that "all the information suggests we're well within the cost estimates for these jets, which we need."

But a separate report from a Pentagon cost-analysis unit is also raising questions about how much the F-35s could cost Canada over the fleet's lifetime.

Bloomberg News has reported that the Pentagon's cost-analysis unit estimates Washington will spend as much as $1 billion keeping the U.S. F-35 fleet of 2,443 jets in flight for the next 30 years.

In a statement released to The Canadian Press on Monday, National Defence said that "Canada is not a recipient of the report, however, as an international partner in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, we have been advised that it forecasts an increase in production costs for the JSF Program."

"Once we have an opportunity to see the details of the report, we will be able to assess how it may impact the cost of Canadian production aircraft."

The statement also indicated that "a degree of cost variation is envisaged in any program," suggesting National Defence officials had planned for the possibility of a price hike in the fighter that is still under development.

On Tuesday, Harper paused while campaigning in Quebec to say that U.S. cost estimates should not be compared to the Canadian government's projections.

"Many of these reports you are citing are comparing apples to oranges," Harper said. "Our experts have put out their detailed figures and everything we've seen is within those figures and their contingencies, the contingencies that have been allowed."

But Alan Williams, a former senior Canadian defence official, said the Pentagon's projected costs would be similar on a per-plane basis for the fleet of F-35s that Ottawa wants to buy.

Under this scenario, Ottawa would have to spend more than $20 billion to maintain its F-35 fleet over a 30-year period. This number well exceeds estimates from the Harper government, which have suggested that Ottawa will spend a maximum of $7 billion on fleet service and maintenance over the next 20 years.

"The Pentagon's new forecast represents a significant increase even over what the U.S. expected," Williams said.

"The simple fact is we just don't know how much we'll spend. It just lends more weight to the argument that we should wait."

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

Confused
said

What's being forgotten here is the fact the Liberals actually signed us on for this joint project when they were in power but are now complaining about the actual cost now it is coming to fruition?? Not all Cdn's forget ....

Dave in Courtenay
said

Have you really thought about what the concept of the Joint Strike Fighter is about? There is a near zero probability that Canada would ever fight a war by itself. This program, signed on to by the Liberals, and not yet cancelled by the Conservatives, was a multi-nation agreement to develop a system for air superiority coordination and control so that aircraft, weapons and communications would allow units of member countries to act together as if they were one air force. The most precious part is still the pilot, a heavy equipment operator inside of an armed computer. Canada could contribute a squadron or two to a group effort having the identical weapons, training, support and communications. The plane carries fuel and weapons inside its envelope, so that stealth characteristics are not compromised by external loads. When is the last time a twin engine fighter struggled home on one engine? Symmetry and technology to hide exhaust heat target is critical. Forget about one plane versus one plane. Think about a team that makes sure that no million dollar missiles are launched toward the same one thousand dollar target.

Ray
said

@ yes to F35s The fact the we have a vast territory and a huge Arctic coast is the very reason we should not buy a short range single engine jet such as this. And that is if it performs as advertised, and so far a lot of analysts think it will be outdated by the time it's deployed even for it's stated purpose.

demmo
said

How can any of you say the Liberals are now trying to make political hay from this.The hidden cost of these planes was one of the reasons Harper was found in contempt ,there is a big difference between 18.5 billion and at least 32 billion.With your analogy the price means nothing and to that I disagree with you, between the cons low balling the amount of the crime bill the jets plus corporate tax cuts can you please tell me what programs Harper is going to axe to pay for all this.I don't believe he is being honest in the least with Canadians and since it is our money he's spending that should be out in the open were not in a surplus it's a thirty billion deficit.

steve
said

K Im putting this out there for anyone who wants to know more about the F-35 project and for those who doubt the positives this aircraft can bring to canada Netflix Battle of the Xplanes: Nova. If we go with the cheaper aircraft like the liberals want we will lose the battle for air superiority over canada. No the f35 is no f-22; but then again what would you also when told an f-22 costs about a 100 million a plane (A Plane). You want to feel safe at home this is the plan go with it

Elmer in BC
said

So Mr Ignatieff you still have not told us how much it will cost taxpayers to cancel the fighter program.... the ones that the liberals invested money into themselves. Is the cost going to be in the millions like it was when the liberals canceled the helicopters and then had to turn around and pay more several years later? Also Mr Ignatieff are you just going to let our flyboys continue with what they have until every plane totally falls apart or disband the airforce and we depend on your friend in the US forever???

Fred N Ont
said

Harper is shure taking a lot of bombardment from 4 other parties and most of all from the media. if it was only from the other 4 parties he would certianly win a majority or even if the media was equal sided, so many mistakes by the Liberals swept under the rug by the media and everything from soup to nuts of no relivence thrown at Harper and he is still in the winning place with all the odds against him I must vote for him ,, only a great man could endure what he has.

Cara
said

The F-35 was competed in 1994. It was between Boeing, MacDonnell Douglas, Northrup Gruman and Lockheed Martin. In 2001, after considering the proposals of these four manufacturers Lockheed Martin won. Anyone that tells you the F-35 was not competed is seriously misinformed.

Miles
said

Canada is going to need new fighter jets in the near enough future. But what most right wingers don't understand is that the F-35's are not the best ones for this country. First of all they can only fly 2200 km's on one tank of fuel. That means they can't even make it from Vancouver to Winnipeg without having to stop in Regina for fuel. A 2nd major fault is this jet only has 1 engine. Jet engines are most prone to failing in the extreme cold....not that we get that in Canada.....The other jets available for purchase actually do cost under 100 million each and fly 3700 km's on a tank of gas and have TWO engines. Imagine that. A jet that is actually suitable to protect CANADA and not some foreign desert country. The government should send this jet purchase out to tender and choose the best jet that will serve at protecting Canada first.

Margaret
said

I find it quite ludicrous to expect our military personnel to go abroad and serve in theatres where are deliberately put 'in harms way", using out of date equipment and delapidated hardware! These fighter jets are needed! We can't depend on "Uncle Sam" to fight all our battles for us. We have to remain an independent, completely sovereign nation. To do THAT, we must ensure that our Armed Forces have the tools they need to do they job they are trained for. Costly? Yes. But no one ever said that defending Democracy and the Canadian Way of Life was "cheap". Remember D-Day. Remember Vimy Ridge.

NO TO WAR PLANES
said

@TRex in BC....Now who is naive my fellow Canadian. You think for a minute the US would sit still and let someone invade us to take our resources? if anyone takes our resources, it will be the US themselves and no 70 planes, I don"t care what configuration or model we have, will ever stop them. Let's not relive the cold war or the Bush era where everything was about scaring people into buying Military equipment, shall we? On this, I wish you a good evening.....

JETSOLVER
said

For the life of me, I cannot understand what the LPC has against the CF. Time and time and time again, they get us (ME) involved in whatever takes their fancy, and then after admitting time and time again that we are under-equipped, they play politics to the point of futility with military procurement. In the meantime, real procurement facts and reasoning gets lost in the dross of a largely ignorant Canadian public's mythologies, stoked by the usual suspects in the Liberal back room. Makes it real hard to recommend to Canadian youth to serve your country...Thanks for nothing YET AGAIN LPC...

NO WAR PLANES
said

I have nothing against those who fought and died for us. In fact I wore the uniform and I was deployed almost out of the CMR (RMC). It does not mean that I have to believe a Military force is required in Canada "ad vitam aeternam". It is a reality that Canada's Military strength has slipped steadily since 1935 when our Navy was 3rd in the world and our combined forces were in the top 10. However, in the new millennium, we must take stocks of what we can and can't do. Maintaining this skeleton CAF is ill-advised. What is the point in maintain such a minuscule force? Moreover, why put in billions for such an ineffective force? Heck, we could not even master a few Taliban equipped with WWII AK47.. This is the CAF you believe will protect our borders? Get real! It is time to change the mandate of the military into a defense force and avoid wasting the billions we currently are into an ineffective force. Enough is enough. When something does not work anymore, get rid of it. "Satis est satis"

KJ in Kingston Ontario
said

It is impossible to project the cost of a car over 30 years so how could anyone project a fighter jet that is still being developed. Nobody knows the inflation rates, the fuel costs 25 years ahead, the technological changes in three decades -- all guesstimates are equally unreliable. The fighter jet program is certainly a good example of Liberal double talk and misdirection. There's no alternative in the current market place unless Iggy wants to wait a decade for the Chinese fighter jets to roll of their assembly line -- then again there might be a "down-side" to strategy that he's not seeing if we are defending Canada with hang gliders and hot air.

Fighter Jock
said

There is nothing wrong with the CF-35. It is the right aircraft at the right time. Everything else is politics. Regardless, in less than a week I won't have to listen to Iggy spouting off anymore, my kids won't have to here the tree-hugging idiots going on about how horrible fighter planes are, and I will still be going to work and doing my job.

glenn
said

i would imagine all prices rise as the f35 however it is still a piece down the road and new ewuip might start to be more moderate as mp hawn explained if you go by the step in costs are saved our spin offs are tremendous--- a item i would like to know where is rick mercer with his offer of massey hall for the pm and iggy before iggy heads for the us

Mike from Kington
said

The F35 is Harper's pay-back gift to McKay. It is not about defending Canada or strengthening our military forces.

Cambob in Toronto
said

@ Joe and Goran. If it's the wrong aircraft, why is Ignatieff still going to buy it "later". And if you're experts in the field, what 'other' plane would you suggest replace our CF-18's?

Yes to F35's
said

They cost what they cost. We are one of the richest countries with significant natural resourses and a vast northern frontier that will only become more valuable. The issue of the F35's is a no brainer really.

Polarizing the DND
said

What does he mean when he says Harper's defence officials? The DND is subservient to the democratic process.. No soldier is in anybody's pocket. These officials were in the military long before Harper was in power and long before the Liberal leader remembered Canada..

willowway
said

The pro F35 purchase argument is "We have an air defence role with NORAD and we also contribute as part of NATO and international missions, and this dual role will not change in the future." Nonsense. We need to start thinking "outside the box".Can anyone keep a straight face and say that Canada or, for that matter, North America is likely to come under attack by a massive wave of bombers - therefore we need F35s . I don't think so. Sounds to much like 1960 Cold war thinking. The world has evolved way past that!Why would we, in support of NATO, be buying an aircraft capable of attacking third world nations. That makes no sense! NATO has evolved from its original role of protecting Europe from a perceived threat from Russia and other eastern bloc nations to a role of policing and beating up on third world nations who do not conform to our western "standards". Do Canadians want to be a part of that organization. I think not! The decision to buy F35s must be based on pragmatism not symbolism! There is no credible threat that could be countered by our few F35s. Rather, we need to counter the economic threat to our Arctic, protect our coastal fisheries, deal with internal unrest, root out terrorist cells, keep our country economically viable,etc. If after we can do that there is still money available we should then consider buying F35s for symbolic "airshow" reasons. But what a colossal waste that would be!

George V.
said

When desperate with your back against the wall, seeing your career flash before your eyes, grab at any straw. It is like a drowning non-swimmer you grab at anything to save yourself sometimes it is a life buoy, sometimes it is a person who is coming to your aid to safe you, instead both go to their demise. Iggy I think it is over.

Jack - AB
said

The "issue" is 1) Harper misinformed and lied about the per jet and service costs 2) Harper won't come clean or be honest even though other credible sources have said the jet cost will be double and 3) Many believe Harper is not making the best choice for military aircraft for Canada. From Wikipedia, "On 14 May 2010, it was reported that Boeing and the US Department of Defense reached an agreement for a multi-year contract for an additional 66 F/A-18E/Fs and 58 EA-18Gs over the next four years. The latest order for 124 aircraft will raise the total fleet count to 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18Gs." The F/A-18E/F are the Super Hornets and the EA-18G is "a specialized version of the two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet." Maybe the US knows something we don't? If the F-35 is so great then why is the US wasting tons of money buying Super Hornets in 2010? Shouldn't they wait to buy only F-35s like Canada?

Joe S. in Durham Region
said

@Goran...Very well put and very hard to refute. The F35 is simply the wrong aircraft to buy. It's all about keeping up with the Jones' and trying to measure up to America. A contract of this magnitude has to put up for open tender. We're talking about a considerable portion of our national treasury and a huge debt we're passing along to our grandchildren.

Alexandria
said

We need these planes to keep our Country North Strong and Free.If Iggie wants to listen to the Pentagon he should move back to the USA.

Brent G
said

We need jets, plain and simple.However, we need to buy things through a competetive bidding process. Harper and his cronies arbitrarily decided we need THESE jets.The other issue here is cost. As is true with purchasing ANY first generation product from paintball guns to cars to appliances, the first gen product ALWAYS has unforseen issues which can require expensive maintenance. Why not buy a proven jet through a competetive bidding process? Well, because Harper is in bed with the Americans, and does what they want.In a corporation, large acquisitions or jobs are always bid by contractors to make sure the purchasing company gets the best value for the dollar. This is usually the case with the govt, but not with Harper. This isn't some 60 million dollar Liberal ADSCAM. This is BILLIONS. This is crazy!

Shashy
said

Can anyone tell me when the liberals will begin to pay off their debts created By former PMs?

TRex in BC
said

SAY NO to WARPLANES ~ I'd have to say that you are very naive my fellow Canadian. The reason no one has attacked our borders is due to the Army, the Air Force and the Navy!! To reduce us to what would be the equivilent of an adult version of the boy scouts would invite nations to attack our borders and steal our resources. More so now than ever, Canada NEEDS to spool up our military and maintain it at a global level to keep what is ours!!By the way, the next there is a flood, ice storm, tornado or forest fire; don't call the military for help as you have reduced us to nothing!!

Jim in Ottawa
said

If the federal government does not take a leadership role in maintaining our armed forces, who will? The private sector? An outsourced third-party? Unlike child care which is well within the capabilities of the private sector, the military is sole discrection of the federal government because nobody else CAN take care of our military. The Liberals and their sympathetic media have their priorities wrong. We don't need the federal government meddling in things that I can find in the Yellow Pages; we need the federal government focusing on its core priorities: the military, the justice system--the tough things that only the federal government can handle, not silly feel-good nonsense such as child care.

Doug ^^^ BC
said

Am I missing something here.I thought that the submarine fiasco that "Halifax Voter" reffered to was a Liberal gaffe.One that continues to cost us money,and one that cosy a fine young man his life. Not unlike their other gaffe.The big penalty we apid to cancel an order for helicopters,just so we could pay more for inferior helicopters later on. Sorry folks.These F35's may never happen.If the costs keep rising,they will suffer the same fate as the Avro Arrow.The don't mass produce planes if there isn't a market for them. Either way,the CF will need at least 65 planes near the end of the decade.In fact,the Liberals had originally planeed to buy 85 of these F 35"s. If the F 35 comes offf the table.don't be surprised if we buy 85 copies of a more affordable plane. When it's all done,we still need high quality planes.Speculating about what will be available in eve 5 years is a waste of time and energy.

Goran
said

@ Chris you clearly are not a member of the military that deals with maintenance of aircraft. Otherwise you would know that of the original 138 we bought, 18 have been lost to attrition, and 80 remain in operational use. Due to maintenance down time and rotations and such, of those 80, 37 are ready at any given time for actual use. Try those ratios again with 65 fighters, and tell me again how 20-30 fighters are supposed to protect the 2nd largest air space on this planet?

The US and Australia operate super hornets. We could buy 160+ for the same cost as 65 F-35s. The F-35's stealth capabiltiies are only under specific conditions ie head on in certain weather. So much for the stealth advantage. We could buy slightly more eurofighters, a superior fighter. Sole sourcing simply tells Boeing they have no incentive to keep costs down, and can charge us whatever they wish. We simply cannot afford the F-35. Get used to the fact that the Canadian economy just isn't big enough to sustain such expensive military hardware, especially right now. We need the best thing we can get for our needs, not the best thing possible that can feed the American military-industrial complex some more.

Steve in Vancouver
said

This issue has become a political hot potato and i'm sure many people involved are using it for their political ends. That's sad. We have men and women dying and injured in world conflicts and costs of these jets are a political football. The Liberals will use anything to gain a foothold and pull themselves out of a big hole they have dug over the decades. It isn't going to work. Its obvious why we need a Conservative majority. And last minute antics aren't going to win it for the contemptuous Liberals.

NB Soldier Gal
said

The fact that people can even question what the Canadian Forces are protecting them from is a compliment to the great job our troops are doing in keeping Canadians safe and free (and oblivious). If we didn't have such a strong, skilled military force, you would KNOW what you need protection from. Please, folks, show some respect to those who have fought and died for the freedoms and the democracy we enjoy today and to those who are, on a regular basis, ready and willing to risk their lives in dangerous ops (including training right here in Canada) to make sure we all continue to enjoy those freedoms that are so often taken for granted. One of the ways to honour them is to get out and VOTE on May 2nd.As for theF-35 purchase, Canadian Forces members put their lives on the line for their country and deserve the safest, best equipment that the government can provide. 'Give us what we need to do the job you ask us to do'. There should be no debate about that. One final point: I have to say that as a member of the military mysef, I can pretty clearly pick out who is actually military or ex-military on here vice who is just trying to add credibility by claiming to be something they're not. A real 'retired captain', for instance, would know the correct abbreviation is not "Cpt".

Darrell in Woodstock, ON
said

How about we stop dredging up past mistakes, set aside our personal political preferences and actually assess what is truly best for all of us? I understand that our military requires current and effective technology to carry out its' directives, and I respect that. What I do not respect is back-room deals and shady cost analysis. I don't care if it's the bloody Communist party of Canada that's deceiving us - deception by a government is simply unethical. Stop protecting your own self-righteousness based on your voting history, and take a good look at what's happening. Just because a politician engages in rhetoric you sympathize with based on your religious, financial, or other preferences, does not mean they actually represent you. Study action, not words, and base your judgement on that.

Richard in New Brunswick
said

"Honestly, how can 15K personnel defend 30 million people across the second largest land mass in the world? " A question posed by Chris.My answer: they can't. Nor could 150,000. Nor could 1,500,000. Likewise, spreading these 65 jet fighters across the vast geography that is Canada is akin to putting one of those silly propane-powered mosquito killers every square mile or so. Complete waste of money. When you consider probably 20% of them will be "in for servicing" at any given time, that means we will have available for actual duty only about 52 of them, minus those that crash & burn.What do you suppose the chances are that any of them might be withing range of any "problem." And BTW, what might the "problem" be? Do you really think the Russians or Chinese are about to descend upon us to take over the country? Absolute nonsense.From what I see, our BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars will be going to buy and support a very few high priced jets for jockeys to play with (in training, of course) and then, on a very few occasions fire a few missiles in some far off land that hardly anyone in Canada has ever heard of. This entire boondoggle is obscenely ridiculous. Sure glad I'm not paying taxes anymore to support this nonsense.

Marcel amused
said

Politics and gullable people. You think that you are so safe in Canada. Why do you feel safe? The citizens of Canada are asked to vote for the next government. We have seen the advancement of the Russians trying to claim our northern lands by putting a flag at the bottom of the ocean. What is your answer to solving this? What about having fighter jets that can defend out northern borders. Are you aware of the advancement in high tech warfare? How about we send you to Russia and you ask them to stop this. Why would they? They will place the challenge to you by asking how you plan on stopping them or any country from claiming Canada. We can offer to take care of their health since we will have more doctors and nurses. Gullable people and politics can be found everywhere. Make your vote count for something.

Prof. Pye Chartt
said

This "issue" is merely another lead balloon that Iggy thinks that he can float into the electoral sky with. My political instincts tell me (and polling, arguably, supports the notion) that Canadians trust the current Conservative government, along with their own Department of National Defence, to determine what this country needs, and whether the expenditure is "worth it" or not. Based upon Liberal history, and self-interested partisan rhetoric, I don't see the electorate, by and large, trusting Iggy & Company with ANYTHING that has to do with our military and/or Canada's security interests. Zero credibility. The bumbling Liberal camp needs to move on.

Goran
said

@Tim because the Liberals are ignorant about the C-17 and it's use. The average loadout remains approximately 20 tonnes; the same as a C-130. It is several times more expensive than the far superior An-124, and carries much less a shorter distance. Even the US leases out An-124's every chance they get. They cannot land at civilian airports without special permits unlike the An-124. The list goes on about that boondoggle.

@Phil credibility has long left both the Cons and Libs. This NATO standard you speak of, how does not buying F-35's mean we reneg on it? The US and Australia have bought superhornets. Half of Europe bought/is buying Eurofighters, which are superior to the F-35 for a lower cost. Are they reneging the NATO standard as well? What incentive does Boeing have to give us a good deal if we sole source everything to them? None. So much for "fiscally responsible" conservatives; they get us into debt, and the "tax and spend" liberals get us out of it.

Alan
said

Mr Ignatieff now says no planes. At least he didn't say to resurrect the Arrow. He is simply wanting to ignore the issue. Canada is buying the F-35 with its NATO partners who are also upset with the increasing costs so it is premature to wildly speculate where it will wind up.Do remember the planes bring huge job benefits. I am sure there will be a collective NATO decision but then Mr Ignatieff probably wants to opt out of NATO. So his theme of let's have peace so we don't need planes, let's prevent crime so we don't need prisons. let's increase corporate taxes so we can pay the people. Red Book you say and I can get it at the Big Red Tent Circus. The ringmaster looks so fitting in his rose coloured glasses.

TheOtherLowellInBC
said

Chris, I don't think anyone could deny that the CF need to be adequately equipped to defend our borders. Its just the process that is the process to acquire the expensive military hardware. There is quite a difference between 75 million and 135 million per jet especially when we are supposedly in deficit reduction mode and health care costs are going through the roof.

Elias Nasrallah
said

@exmilitary in Alberta, Please get your comments right. The engines were a part of the deal. When planes are manufactured, the engines are intalled later in the process. Also, the plane is created at Lockheed, the engines at Prat and Witney. When you buy a plane, the engine does come with the package and price. So get your facts correct sir. I would like to ask Mr. Iggy and all you Liberal hacks out there. What is your plan?

No Common Sense please...we're Liberal
said

Let's vote the Liberals in and get a deal on some older planes...maybe from England....just like we did with our illustrious submarine fleet.

SAY NO to WARPLANES
said

Defending us? Who ever attacked us? Besides, if we are ever attached, those who would defend us would be the Americans, not our undermanned, under equipments and underfunded CAF. We cannot afford our CAF anymore. Time to reduce it to a Civil Protection and Defence Force with about 15k members only. Close the bases, cancel the purchase of plans and ships and focus on civil protection only. Then you can use the billions that DND waste on a yearly basis to fund Education and Health Care. Those two programs are our future. Not WAR!. Who cares about an Army but those who profit from war?

Goldens
said

What is Iggy going on about. 2017 is beyond the mandate of the next government. The jet purchases really have nothing to do with this election as whoever the government is, it won't be the government in power as there will be another election before the purchase takes place.

Sir Guy
said

Ignatieff is either stupid, dumb, naive or all of the above - completely ignoring the fact it was HIS Liberal government that started the F-35 ball rolling years ago under Chretien/Martin. Millions were invested by the Liberal gov't south of the border with Lockheed to fund and develop the F-35 fighters. And now this Ignatieff clown is slamming the Conservatives for following through with it. How completely oblivious to history is Mr. Ignatieff? How about the helicopter fiasco, Iggy? Do you recall your party's track record on that one? Let's talk about fire-prone subs from the U.K. (oops, better leave that swept under the carpet for fear of overkill).Vote Harper May 2nd. Conservative majority is the ONLY way to go this time!

Damon
said

Clearly the parliament budget officer, the pentagon, DND people and the media are all trying to mislead us. They have a lot more to lose by telling us the truth then a guy who is running for political officer and hoping to be re-elected. Obviously the Conservatives know the exact figures for the F35s, what would military people know compared to politicians when it comes to costing military equipment. Besides, who cares about accurate figures anyway, its the military, let's just write a blank check (sarcasm off).

Paul(wpg)
said

These jets are not only overpriced, we are buying more than we will ever use. Besides, jets can't protect us from terrorists. They won't stop Harper from selling Canada's resources to the highest bidder either, that's the real threat to our country! We don't have to rely on the Americans for our defense either, NORAD is a joint venture that we have already invested billions in. Suddenly it's not good enough?

ABHarperRegime
said

How the Harper regime can dare complain about any of the oppositions spending promises in this election is beyond bizarro world for me?! LOL!, wile in the very same breath they are spending MEGA BILLIONS on a flying credit card to make their American buddies happy?!. "Does Canada spend enough on defense?" No BUT we should be spending/buying based on Canada's needs NOT the Americans. Canada does not need a FIRST-STRIKE WARMONGERS F-35, it needs a long-range interceptor. Their are options out their MUCH newer then our CF-18 for BILLIONS LESS.

JR
said

why is Iggy so intent on the price of F15 jets going up, everything in the world is going up, gas, food, hydro, you name it, so whats the big deal about F15's when they are not even being gotten in the next 5 years or more. grow up Iggy, tell what you are going to do to protect us instead of harping on the same old thing.....

Bob in CFB Petawawa
said

Well I know Retired Cpt. in Downsview does not know what he is talking about. As a mater of fact I do not think you were even in the military. If you were you would have written your rank as Capt or Cpl not Cpt. This is not a mistake a military member would make. Please do not write a comment as if you were a member of the Forces pushing for one party or the other when you have not knowledge of what you are saying.

Steph
said

It is kind of interesting that there is so many "military experts" out of the Libs camp commenting about the "rising costs" of those planes! Those "experts" are probably the same that cancelled the helicopters and bought this humongous fiasco called the submarines that are chewing a large amount of funding without doing any services to Canada! Ask any military personel what they think about this news release that has no actual facts other than alarming the uninformed crowd for political gains!!!I am still in the military after 23 years and had to endured the humiliation of working with obsolete equipments, the increased fear of losing my own life because of it and the demoralizing effects it created within the ranks thanks to Mr. Chretien!Now Iggy, Jack and Gilles are trying to make me believe that under their governance we, military personel, will have a better chance to succeed in our future missions? I would rather quit! The Canadian Forces serving members is also aging and a lot of them are thinking the same way as I do......We do not want to go back to the Liberals era...period!

Lee in Ottawa
said

Political leveraging aside, as a 33 year member of the CF and in particular the Air Force, the one issue that frustrates me about the F-35 issue is the simple fact that this is the best replacement for our worn out fleet of F-18 aircraft. No matter who is in power after the election, the fact that we need to purchase new planes is a no brainer. If Ingatiff has his way he will cancel the current program, start another using the bidding process, find that the F-35 is the plane Canada should buy and throw away tens of millions of dollars that have already been committed that allows Canada to participate in the development of this aircraft. Not to mention thousands of hours of work by very dedicated personnel both Military and Civilian on behalf of the Canadian people. This will only delay the replacement of the F-18 which should have been done already (if a suitable aircraft had been available) and cost the Canadian taxpayers much, much more in the end. People also have to realize that Canada does not have the political muscle, the money or the personnel required to do this on our own and if we aren't onboard from the start of a project with the Americans, the Australians and the UK, we get left outside like a dirty pet and are not given access to the test and development information and classified data that is necessary to maintain an effective capability. Please don't buy into the argument that the F-35 will cost more than originally expected and that Canada doesn't need or will not benefit from the purchase of this plane. When was the last time a simple project at home didn't cost you more than forecasted. It's unavoidable.

Ex military in Albert
said

These are the wrong jets at the wrong time. Please remember this forever increasing cost does not yet include engines. We don't need stealth, strike first jets to protect our boarders.

k markham
said

@jane. There is nothing fishy about the media and the Liberals getting the information and the Conservatives not getting it. The Conservatives had the information for some time now, they simply chose not to share the information with us and Parliament. This is partly why the Conservatives were found to be in contempt of parliament. Many Conservatives supporters claimed it was a contempt vote brought on by the opposition parties to overthrow the government and force an election. The Liberals brought forward a contempt motion because the Conservatives had this information and they refused to share it with parliament as they were required to do. It was the responsibility of the opposition parties to protect the tax payer and make the government accountable. Ok you can claim an election costs tax payers $300million, but the Conservatives wanted to spend $billions we did not have and were not being honest. Would you not hold them accountable if it was directly coming out your wallet, which it was. This is why Conservative governments never balance the books and drive us deeper into debt, $120billion so far under Harper.

Phil in London
said

Credibility has long left the Liberal Party. First they were the party to damn our forces with 30 and 40 year old helicopters and then they found ways to look at the F-35s. If I'm right in my memory of this story - they actually committed our forces to join the NATO standard and now are reneging?They talk about cred like it's a word they understand but they are the ones who are losing it big time with numbers showing people just don't trust them. Years of lying are catching up to them this time. It will be cute to see the Count shining Jack Layton's shoes and washing his car instead of the other way around.If I were this idiot I would be levelling my guns on the guy he has to catch to get back to second not try to convince the committed Tory's they are wrong.Bottom line is his entourage will be heading back to Harvard soon and I say good riddance. Now if the Liberals can actually admit a defeat next Tuesday morning and try to rebuild with a DEMOCRATIC election of leader. I may turn my ear back to at least listen to them but I'm quite content to choose true left or true right if they continue their Patrician attitude toward use the voters.

Tim - Calgary
said

The Liberals were also against the C-17 transports calling them overpriced and not needed. But now the C-17's are hardworking horses hauling freight to disaster zones as well supporting our forces overseas. You don't hear the Liberals admit they made a mistake, do you?

k markham
said

The real issue in this matter is the lack of credibility the Harper Conservatives have shown. They constantly refused to acknowledge that these jets will cost more than their low ball estimate. Now they are being forced to acknowledge the price tag will be much higher, possibly greater than the $30billion some had previously tagged it at. The truth is they entered into a deal using tax payers money, not knowing what the real cost would be. Can anyone explain to me how the Conservatives can claim to be fiscally responsible when they are prepared to do such bad deals, and then try to cover it up by denying the real costs, even though the USA was telling them and us that the costs would be at least double. There are two separate issues here 1) do we need the jets. Maybe we do need new jets in 10 years from now, but is this the right product for our available budget. 2) Is it right that our government who we entrust to spend our tax dollars wisely is not being open with us about the real costs and is outright lying to us about those costs. We know they were lying because they have been caught in the lie. We wonder why Conservatives governments can never balance the books and they create more national debt each year they are in government. Our national debt as increased by $120billion under Harper, how much more debt do you want to leave the next generation by voting Conservative.

Chris
said

CTV... this is my second attempt at a post on this forum and PLEASE make it public reading. As a member of the CF, all I see on this forum is "who are the forces protecting us from, why do we need a military, blah blah blah". Well, to all those naive people asking these questions: You do know Canada has enemies... you do know that there are other countries out there... you do know that there are organizations that want to cause anarchy... YOU DO KNOW, RIGHT??? One person said lets downsize our military to 15,000. Honestly, how can 15K personnel defend 30 million people across the second largest land mass in the world? If you say let the Americans defend us, then where is your democracy now? Where is your sense of Canadian sovereignty now? Give your heads a complete shake and wake up to a REAL world. The F-35s will give us the capability to defend our borders from coast to coast to coast, and continue to protect your rights to ask such silly, thoughtless questions!!!

Jack - AB
said

For me, the total cost for jets is not the problem here. The issue is we were misinformed about the unit and service costs. According to this story, the F-35s will cost 2X Harper's estimate. Also, to run them over 20 years will cost little over 2X higher ($24B/30 x 20 = $16B versus Harper's $7B). This will require more taxes or higher debt than budgeted to pay for them. From Wikipedia, the Super Hornet has flyaway cost of $55M versus F-35 of $122M and is a lower cost option available to us. Another jet worth looking at is the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle with $100M average cost (estimate from 2009) versus $150M average cost for F-35. Of course, I would rather we purchase mostly Super Hornets with only 25%-35% F-35 or F-15SE for our air-force because we fight undeveloped nations who have little or no air support which is not likely to change. We only need the newest and most expensive jets for war against a strong, developed nation and that is not likely to ever happen.

J.C.
said

@Lee I do believe we have refueling planes and if you check I think you will find that one is currently working in the Libya conflict with NATO. People we went through all the same arguments when we were about to purchase the F-18's that we currently have,cost was too high / we don't need these, etc. etc. and the 100 or so that we have served us well but they are no longer viable and the F35's will have communication divices so that the NATO countries will be able to communicate with each other while in the air. When your home computer or vehicle gets outdated do you buy a new one? Do you get one that will get you by or do you buy one that has everything in it that you need?? Also you cannot compare what the US is spending as they usually request more installed equipment than Canada does thus their prices for purchase and maintenance would be higher than ours. I fail to understand why this has come up this week anyway when the article states Canada have not been given these documents. This is just another attempt to decrease votes for the conservatives and nothing more. Just another attack ruse!!! Our military deserve good equipment and not outdated, falling apart equipment.

Jonathan from Saskatoon
said

While I would generally prefer an open tender process, there is no one else building anything remotely like this jet. The current mission in Libya proves that we need to maintain a capable air force, and since we know that the CF18's are running out of life span, we need to plan for their replacement. The Liberals, bloc & NDP all want to just scrap the deal we have, wait until 2018, then put out a tender. Much like the SeaKing debacle, what this ultimately looks like is spend billions now to cancel the signed deal, then wait until pilots are dying by the dozens because their aircraft are not just obsolete, but worn completely out, then put out a tender which is designed to exclude the one vehicle that is what is really needed to do the job properly so they don't look too bad, then pay billions more for the wrong plane. Iggy's predecessors committed hundreds of millions to the development of this aircraft so that Canada could reap the benefits. Now they want to throw their baby out with the bath water. I can't think of another example of how much a Liberal government would cost this Nation on the verge of true greatness.

Sam
said

First off we aren't allowed to build our own military jets, we can only buy American fighter planes because of the 300 million dollar deal the Diefenbaker government made when canceling the Avro Arrow. Second, it was the liberals who signed us up for the fighter plane in the first place & are using this to get them selves into power. Lastly, the more things change the more they stay the same. We are under contract and if we cancel out, we will pay billions & billions in cancellation fees. Sound failure, maybe with helicopters? Get those planes for our forces, put our engines and technology in them and stop allowing politicians to mess with your information.

Jayce
said

I see a bunch of comments here saying that Canada or Bombardier should create Canada's new jet. Folks, this would cost us so much more, not to mention the time that would go into developing this aircraft. You're looking at research, development, test flights, camoflauge research, avionics creation...folks...Canada participated in this during the development of the YF-35 (future CF-35). This option is the best that we have right now. If you think the military should deal with what it has, feel free to take my boots, my rifle and stand on my post; i wouldn't mind sitting in your warm and comfortable chair for a bit. Deal? Stop taking advantage of our loyalty to you...we're Canadian too!

Kang Li Scarb.
said

Why so much money, nobody get jobs here? We need jobs, less cost! Do the middle way is better. I vote Liberals, good for newcomers.

Tod
said

You're getting an under performing airplane for a huge amount of money. Harper just wants to fill the pockets of Americans with our tax dollars, we don't need these they are not a good buy.

Retired Cpt. in Downsview
said

So these things might not have engines, costs are different weekly. Is that why the Harper Conservatives wouldn't table the costs in Parliament? What a bunch of underhanded weasels.

I think Jack Layton is right, consult the country on this, let the people decide. Jacks's got fortitude and is a straight shooter, I'm going to vote NDP for the first time in my life!

MuskyBuck
said

Without intent to disrespect anyone, I have but just one question.Who is the Canadian military protecting us from?I keep hearing and reading the same generalization for decades now, 'our troops are protecting us'.From whom? And since when?Why do we need to spend billions on war strategies? The world has never been rosey and non-chaotic. There are bad people the world over and there always has been.But the American/Canadian war complex has only been around since the end of WW II and since that time Canadians have spent billions protecting ourselves from .....??Dismantle the machine. Put our money into free education for all our population.Should the world need our services, just as history has proven before 'billions in defense spending was ever an idea', Canadians will volunteer to protect.Everything else is a very large, long running, expensive scam.

Andrew in Ottawa
said

In school I was taught:"To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders fields."I would rather see long waiting lines at the hospital, because we did not invest more in health care, than to see the next Hitler destroy the freedom that our brave soldiers fought for, because we did not invest in our military.

danR
said

Those jets will probably be worthless by 2017, and certainly worthless by 2020. Fiscal conservatives. 20th century bows and arrows from the slick-talking American military-industrial complex. We've been conned.

Jane
said

For those who seem to think Canada has an adequate fleet of planes compared to the US, think again. There is no comparison.

We expect our Canadian military to protect us and we give them a few toys!

As for the cost of the aircraft, how did Pentagon release their figures to the Liberal party and news media without going through our Prime Minister? Something fishy here.

It would make good sense to have these aircraft manufactured in Canada, but remember, the longer the delay in purchasing them, the more costly they will be, no matter who ultimately gets the contract. Mr. Harper was not able to sign a contract for these planes, so what would you expect the price to be at the end?

Goanna
said

I still think it was wrong not to take open bids for new jets I believe we need to start replacing our aging fleet but why the most expensive jet available.I also think it would be wise to ensure that jobs are created here in Canada for the creation of these new jets and not just to some American company

Just get the troops what they need
said

What's missing here, and oddly by DND itself, is what would the cost be to continue maintaning our way too old CF-18's? They recently went through an upgrade for the electronics system, which was a major expense which equated to putting a $8000 stereo into an '89 ford escort. The body is still shot. There isn't time to waste like the Libs did in the early '90's when they cancelled the helicopter contract, and who payed the price? Tax payers to cancell the contract ($10 Billion I beleive) Then the troops had to use outdated, unsafe equipment, and in the end got a cheap, civilian style helicopter. I'm a Liberal, but the Cons are the only ones offering money to get the troops the gear they need.

Ken
said

WOW great news, that is just wonderful, I just love to pay more for a P.O.S. single engine jets. DND doesn't even know what the final cost will be but go ask Harper and he will give you his BS line about having a contract. Harper will tax the lower, middle and seniors ... as everyone knows Harper doesn't believe in taxing the rich, it's very American of him! How much is this going to cost Canadians? How much more debt is Harper looking to put Canada in? Send Harper a message vote ABC, anything but conservative. It is time for this arrogant minority PM to start packing!

JP
said

What alot of people are missing is that (I was half asleep watching the CPAC special on the jets, so I cant remember the exact numbers) there was another jet of comparable capabilites availible at almost half the price. I agree that we do need new jets, but do we need the most expensive ones ...well I would say on the market, but they are not yet on the market....Who would go pay $9 for a burger thats slightly better then a bigmac, when the bigmac is $5? The waste of money argument is not that we dont need the jets, just that we could have gotten better value per doller spent.

Steve in wildrose country
said

And how much is the Liberals option going to cost? Right they do not have one and are just going to cancel the best jet on the market (wasting millions already spent) and then some day come up with an inferior jet. Are we really going let the Liberals gut the military like they did last time?

PBW
said

Correction, the second hand subs bought from Britain were bought by a LIBERAL government because they would not invest in decent equipment for our troops.

abby
said

I always thought that when you made a purchase the price was set beforehand. Maybe if the US are doing this Canada should build them themselves. Just think of the job creations. We do have qualified people here. I do believe that purchasing the jets are the right thing to do, so that we can protect our own airspace and not rely on others. They retire passenger jets after so many years and so they should with our older jets as well.

C Zenko
said

We do need to update our Fighter Attack planes i do agree.

As with everyone here i have an opinion. For the price of the F-35 i think it should have to do a fly off with some of the new contenders before we sink any more of our Canadian Tire money into the project. The newer F/A-18 E and F versions i think would fill the need just as well at quite a bit less cost. Look it up, do your research. There is the New F-15 Silent Eagle, un update to the F-15. There are other options and i think a fly off would settle the bet pretty easy. I think our Air Force squadron leaders should have a say, they are the ones on the line. If the F-35 shows it is far superior then i guess the choice is obvious.

Albertaboy111
said

Well Duh. You would have to drink an awful lot of kool-aid to believe that Harper and Co. are getting this jet for half what anyone else in the world is going to pay. Especially considering every, and I mean EVERY expert in the field has said we will not pay what the Cons are telling us we will pay. Every expert has said we will pay much more than has been forecast here in Canada. The Conservative party and all it's members have been lying, for the purpose of misleading Canadians and their representatives, about the most massive military procurement deal in Canadian history. It's kind of the reason we are in an election here...

Greg - Signs and Wonders
said

Is anyone surprised? Just add 50% to what you hear/read. Thankfully [sarcasm] the government has a bottomless pit of money to pay for this.Our Wallets !!

Bob in Ottawa
said

I only have two question. Are these aircraft really necessary? Is it ever going to be possible for Stephen Harper to tell the truth on the cost of any procurement cost?

Kate (GTA)
said

@ Steve in Ottawa - "regardless of the negativity... the Canadian electorate is gearing towards giving him a majority"......that is the story of the Liberals between 1968-1998. For 30 years the Liberals corrupted our culture and country and stole our money. Harper has a long way to go before he ever looks as bad as the Liberals do. It's "unbelievable" I agree but true none the less.

Debbie
said

It seems to me that whatever the cost is going to be out of the gate, it is only going to increase as time goes by. Much like buying a car, last year's model is cheaper than this year's model. If we were to purchase half now and half in another five years, we would end up paying far more than the original figure. It only makes good economic sense to purchase the full number of aircraft needed at once, rather than at a substantially increased cost down the road.

Canada's CF18 fleet is antiquated at best. Yes they're fast, agile machines, but if we were put into a direct, first response conflict; which is a real possibility; do we really want to risk not only our freedoms, but first and foremost the lives of those men and women that protect us so well? Would you be willing to step into the boots of any member of our forces? I doubt it; you would have already done so if you were.

Ron S
said

I am sure that we can all find arguments both pro and con for this purchase. However, what I find hard to swallow is that Harper has been hiding the truth from parliament and the people (voters) of Canada.

The only comment that really appealed to me was the idea of having Bombardier or some other Canadian Company develope our own Jet Fighter. It seems that we keep getting stuck with the neverending cost overruns that is prominent in the American Military Spending Program. Why not use "our" tax dollars to support "our" industries and jobs.

Furthermore, we do not need to keep up with the Americans on Military Spending Programs since we do not go to war as easily as they do; especially in oil producing nations.

Cody
said

Whether we like it or not, we need new planes and 65 is a VERY small number. Consider that we bought around 120 CF-18's in the early 80's and our fleet is now down to around 65 operational aircraft, with some reserve airframes. The F-35 won't be any different, over time their numbers will shrink due to crashes and airframe fatigue. For the 2nd largest land mass in the world to only have around 50 planes to cover it's airspace is a joke. We as Canadians owe much of our sovereignty to big brother (USA), which is funny because we bad mouth them so often. People need a dose of reality.

Stu
said

The conservatives think it's ok to write a blank cheque for war planes that are inadequate for our air space. We don't need these war planes but the real issue is Harper lied to Canadians about the price.

scott
said

Convenient timing of this story CTV. I most recently watched a CPAC documentary on the subject. The Canadian Version of the F35 does not include all the upgrades as the American version... The estimates will be close to what has been reported by the Conservatives. If the government did not sign on, the price will go up even further.. So what is the issue here, the cost or the fact that you do not favour purchasing the jets?

MarkinTO
said

I think an easy compromise can be made that will satisfy all parties involved and not leave the CF or the Canadian tax payer short changed. Do not cancel the F-35 purchase, simply reduce the current order by half. Here's a breakdown of the numbers $8.75 billion for 65 (that's without spares), versus 33 at $4 billion. However, with only 33 planes this will not be enough to fully equip our air force by the time the CF-18's start routinely falling out of the sky.My proposal would be to diversify the acquisition with the Super Hornet F-18 upgrade and filling the gaps at 33 (total of 66 planes to be ordered), we would be paying $1.8 billion (total of $6.4 billion for both). We would not only be in a more flexible position to deploy operationally, we could save billions in unneeded spending.

Vic, Thornhill
said

The question is that Harper spent as much as he can to boost American ammunition tycoon profit. Our fellow Canadians, we better tighten our belts five more years.

Steve in Ottawa
said

In the end the issue is not about fighter jets. It's more about how Stephen Harper continues to display a secretive nature with no regard to providing us with the truth. He simply figures that we're so stupid we wouldn't care anyway. He's the "teflon" PM - regardless of the negativity or scandals or how misleading he is, the Canadian electorate is gearing towards giving him a majority. Unbelievable.

Christian
said

ReeceSo I guess all the fighting in the Middle East and the bullets and rockets being fired are all coming from Wall Street. Geewiz next time I go to the Military compound, remind me to get a transfer to Wall Street for the next tour. War is fought by the military and government, not by paper pushers at Wall Street, put credit where its due. Go Canada!

greg
said

30 years ago you would not have thought gas prices would be what they are. You would have never beleived mechanics shop rate for cars either. Prices will rise as time goes on so forget the estimates...we don't know what prices will be. Do you value your freedom and standard of living? What would you pay to keep that?? Our partners to the south could walk in and defeat our country in a military battle within hours. Maybe you should let them do that, and this whiole conversation and election crap would be over for a while.

LT
said

Personally we should have had a similar fighter jet made in Canada by Bombardier.

snafu169
said

RE: Enlightened ....Kill Millions??? really? a slight exaggeration ....while I don't agree with everything that the jets might be used for, we definitely need to protect our airspace and enforce our Sovereignty in the north.

PBW
said

"You all seem to think the military needs fighter jets. To defend us from whom? The US? Russia? Those are our neighbors " Substitute "Germany" and "Italy" and that statement could easily have been made in the 1930's, when politicians in Britain and France refused to pay for upgraded machinery for their militaries, but were willing to pay for out-dated static defences (Maginot Line). We all know how that turned out. There was a non aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR: we know how that turned out. Better we have an expensive fifth generation plane available to us, in common with our neighbor, than risk being as unprepared as western European nations were in the thirties.

Naveed
said

One more reason not to vote in Harper government, who don't tell the truth about costs of fighter jets, which they are acquiring needlessly without any bidding other companies or suppliers.Vote strategically, (x) Liberal, or where other parties have a chance of defeating the Conservative candidate in your riding.

Reality
said

Can't wait to see them the Canadian skies ! A healthy military is great for all Canadians. For those that think we are a warmonger nation - move.
Our military has been been behind for years, time to boost it up.
I agree with Bob in Calgary - no one complains about the billions poured into health care. If they only knew about the mismanagement..

Cal in Ottawa
said

Wrong plane at the wrong time with no mission. I generally support spending on military equipment but this ranks up there with acquiring Brit subs...dumb.

Reece
said

@Ryan....you say freedom cost money? The USA is broke trying to bring freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq etc. It can't even pay it's own firefighters or police officers without cashing in bonds. It is so broke that it goes begging to communist china to cover its month to month expenses. You know when you begin asking for favours from communist nations you can't be free. To have soverignty you need to stand up on your own feet. The USA is begging China for trillions. So, again, how is a nation free when it's broke? Infastructure is for sale, ports, chrysler building, banks, insurers....the USA is selling everything it has. Ryan, has it occurred to you that wars today are also fought on Wall Street via currency manipulation? Oil futures?

Earthwatcher
said

Would not hurt to put the brakes on this program. Find out what the true long term and short term costs are before committing to it. In my opinion, we have to replace the old Hornets with SOMETHING...you just cannot say "sorry, can't replace them too expensive". As a member in good standing with NATO, at the very least, we owe it to our allies to have some form of functional, operational and updated air force. Yes, I acknowledge that there are so many priorities facing government. I hope they make the right choice, balance the options and get the best deal for us. Not only now but down the long haul too.

wstrncehnehdeh in SK
said

There probably is a reason why Allan Williams is a former DND official. The fact that he opens his mouth whenever the Canadian Left Media needs a story about the F-35 is annoying. The CLM and Allan Williams continue to mislead Canadians by qouting the costs for the VTOL (vertical take off and landing) version of the F-35 which Canada HAS NOT ordered.

Halifax Voter
said

Don't you think the government should have researched this purchase just a little closer than they did? You would have thought they would have learned a lesson from the Submarine fiasco. Another gaffe for Peter McKay and the Conservatives. How many errors in judgement by a government until they're no longer competent to lead our country? I'll vote the way that they are incompetent to lead us any further.

ML
said

A few years back I actually watched the documentary on Discovery channel about the competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin competing for the Us contract on the next joint strike fighter. Quite impressive. These jets were intended to reduce costs in the long run and are to eliminate the need for different types of craft. They are to combine and eliminte the F-18 (speed and versatility), the harrier jet (landing capabilites, can launch off a dingy) and the stealth bomber (weapons capability). No need to depend on expensive aircraft carriers to launch these jets which can launch off a 100ft speed boat. Weapons systems so advanced it could bullseye Womprats in my T-16 back home.

grandma
said

Im a 78 year old ggrandmother who has 3 retired military persons in my family. We remember how Trudeau & the Liberals decimated the military, destroyed morale & how badly equipped our soldiers were. I have no problem with costs of purchasing equipment for them. Our military is vital to our country & anyone who doesn't think so needs to give their head a shake.

Reece
said

Very odd that somebody posted that they'd pay "double". That kind of talk is straight out of George Bush's era of government. Today's war's are mostly fought on Wall Street...currency manipulation, oil futures manipulations etc. Nations are provoked into wars so they can bust the bank and go broke - perhaps to allow Iran to continue to build their nukes unmolested. Who knows? One thing for sure we won't be going to war in the future - the USA is done. So why are we buying these obsolete jets again? We gonna lead a mission?? LOL!

Enlightened
said

I can't believe that we as a nation would waste billions of our tax dollars on military budgets so that we can go into third world countries killing millions of innocent civilians with our war machine. We need to spend that money on things like Planned Parenthood so that they can go around the world and provide free abortion services to third world countries. Clearly people, you need to get a conscience.

Bob in Calgary
said

The budget officers number was $30 billion over 30 years. So you break that down into $1 billion per year. That is 0.5% of what the government pays in healthcare cost in a year! I think our military deserves at least half a percentage! It's all in perspective!

Jayce
said

@Who needs warplanes: The very fact that you have the freedom to make such comments has been paid for by those men and women in uniform. "Canada doesn't need a military". Who are you?! Canada has now established itself as a credible military force since our short-comings in Bosnia. You want to go and grow some flowers with Iggy? Be my guest; but know that while you're sitting on your park bench calling out cloud shapes, I'll be 'en guarde' protecting that very freedom you enjoy...with my shiny new jet.

TwoDogGuy
said

I think I would have a spiritual experience if anything ever came in LESS than FORECASTED!

Mike
said

@Ryan I totally agree.. sounds expensive.. We already are laughed at by others with our tiny army. Can Canada wait any longer? No

Ryan
said

I'd pay double the estimates to keep our country and soldiers safe. Freedom costs real dollars-These dollars are better spent on this program as opposed to the fluff Iggy and the coalition have put forward.

Howard in Brampton
said

Anything purchased from the US, including the JSF fighter, is going to eventually cost more, as the US continuously prints more money to cover their debts. This devalues their currency, thus making the materials they purchase offshore more expensive, thus driving up their own pricing to maintain profitability.

Dinsdale Pirahna - Oshawa
said

"Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with Washington last summer that signaled its intention to buy 65 of the F-35 Lightnings, but it has yet to sign a contract for the actual sale." Read my lips, there is no penalty for cancelling the purchase of these jets. But you won't hear the cons "righting" this piece of misinformation.

Jeremy
said

Eurofighter. Why is there no talk of a healthy alternative. I just don't understand. They only thing I can think of is that the Americans are forcing us to get the F-35 to be in line and compatible with their fleet of planes.

Jon in London ON
said

What part of this fighter jet story is new news? Who in this country is so naive to think that the final cost on these jets would not rise? For all of those on the progressive left, what is correct dollar amount to spend on equipment to save and protect our armed forces lives? What price do you assign a soldier's life? Usual response from the left? *crickets*

Cambob in Toronto
said

Joey B, yes, half of those billions would be great for old people and health care and shiny streets and blooming flowers. Until our natural resources became too much of a lure and we were invaded and our old people were slaughtered, our young people forced into slavery and our blooming flowers crushed under tanks and foriegn warboots... What? no one would ever attack Canada? Yeah, right.

M
said

We may need the aircraft or we may not need the aircraft--that is not the point--the Tory's lied to the Canadian people and to Parliament about the cost estimates--seems to be a recurring theme.

Cambob in Toronto
said

Mr Ignatieff is correct. We don't need to buy these jets. We need to let the flowers bloom. Right? I mean, that was his big pitch in the debate... blooming flowers. Oh and he will still buy the same jets later according to the Lib-Bloc platform. Bloom flowers!

Al Ratani
said

Continued: ...the rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on "probation" for two years because of development issues. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY 2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included

Al
said

Don't go that far! Check Wikipedia for F-35s and you'll have some idea of how much each would cost: ..."The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever. The United States Air Force (USAF) budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projects the F-35 to have a flyaway cost from US$89 million to US$200 million over the planned production of F-35s. Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each."

Who needs warplanes?
said

Really? who needs war planes? Why do we have a military anyway? use those billions and billions of $ to better use. All we need is a Japan like Defence Force with no offensive weapons. Close most of the Military Bases and reduce the number of members to approx 15K. You will see great savings that can be put to better use. Wars are antiquated and Canada needs no part in it.

lee
said

I have a few questions !Are we going to keep these cloned planes in the airforce stable for 30 years ?Ask any military analyst if this is going to happen and they will say that this is like keeping a hay burning Horse on the farm while your competetive neighbor is using a computer controlled tractor ..the technology that is currently in this plane will already be 14 years old before we recieve our first one ..does it make sense to order 65 of these soon to be obselete cloned "work horses " all at once? Why not order 20 different planes at different times as the the new technology comes online over the next 30 years instead of ordering 65 clones all at once? ..this way we are always up to date with the "competition " (whoever that is ) instead of having 65 useless rusting obselete dinos sitting in the barn ,Why do we need these planes in the first place ?Who do we think we are going to use them against ? How do you refuel these things since we have no refueling tanker planes ?I guess that will the next thing on King Steven's shopping list for new toys ..too bad that the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars that these planes will really cost to purchase and maintain over 30 imaginary years could not be spent on the MILLIONS of Baby Boomers who will desperately need hospital and long term facility care within the next 30 years ,,but that does not make the King look cool on the international stage does it .SHAME ,EH?

Chicken Eggrolls - Ottawa
said

Canada is not a recipient of this report but somehow the report gets to CTV from the Pentagon then reports on the cost of the F35's with their figures .. could this be that Ignatieff was praised by the "Pentagon" on his work (Carr Centre) on the Iraq War during the Bush years... Hmmmmmm

J.S.
said

The Cons knew that their figures were not right, and withheld that information from the Canadian public. There is no new revelation here. The Liberals were the first to raise a red flag and demand more accountability many weeks ago. As we know from the last five years, the Cons do not do accountability, honesty or openness.

Joey B Montreal
said

24 BILLION DOLLARS! What would 1/2 of that do for Better Healthcare for our aging population, Child Poverty, Battered Women ...etc. Would that help just a little...to improve the quality of life for less fortunate Canadians? Maybe I have my priorties out of order! .....Joey B

Peter 1951
said

I would like Jack Layton to answer this question with a simple YES or No. If the NDP replace the bloc will he treat the people of Quebec any different than he would treat the rest of the people right across Canada.

NRM
said

If it were the Liberals in power and the Conservatives in opposition, it'd be the Liberals defending the jets and the Conservatives bashing their purchase. Politicians are a fickle bunch.

Sam C
said

When the Chretien Liberals cancelled the helicopter order, and we incurred a $900 Million cancellation penalty. No doubt cancelling the jet fighter order would come with a similarly outrageous penalty. The cost may be rising (when does it not?) but the military needs these aircraft -- and Canadians need the jobs that come with them.

David
said

The Liberals will cancel anything involved with the military; just look at the past Liberal dictatorships and what they did. We put a budget together for some new equipment and it is coming out to be 30% more than just 6 months ago; oil related and cost of living relaated may have something to do with this. Milk may go up but it doesn't mean we are going to remove it from the grocery list!

Gerald
said

Here we go with this plane thing again..more Trump/Palin style politics. Next will be birthergate.

Chris in Kingston
said

American aircraft typically fly more sorties than our airframes, so why will our maintenance costs be the same as the Americans? That's like comparing apples to oranges.

Robin Moore
said

You all seem to think the military needs fighter jets. To defend us from whom? The US? Russia? Those are our neighbors so do you really think 35 planes would protect us from them? We don't have to provide fighter planes to be NATO members and there are current members who have very limited fighter capabilities, they provide other forms of air support. We could for 1/4 of that price purchase state of the art heavy lift air craft and other troupe and equipment transport. When Canadians make it clear we don't want our soldiers on front lines of world conflicts then we should accept this and redefine our role. Being a work horse in the vital NATO supply and logistics chain is nothing to be ashamed of, it's what our Navy does. As for this being politically motivated, please grow up! These are American numbers, and when their Military leaders are upset with the ridiculous and unjustified price increases, you know there are real problems. Parliament asked the Government to show their numbers and they refused and were found in contempt ... now we know why ... they already had these new numbers and didn't want Canadians to know the truth.

PM
said

This article (incredibly) fails to mention that the US fleet includes two different (far more costly) models of the f35. Since the article doesn't mention anything about the difference between the US fleet, and the Canadian fleet (DIFFERENT PLANES) it is impossible to draw accurate conclusions from the numbers given.Of course, the reporter who wrote the story must have known this, so why didn't they mention it?

M.M.B. Ont
said

I don't believe that anyone is WRONG here as stated in a comment below. It appears that the US has now been given different cost estimates from before but Canada has not been informed of anything new according to this story. So why is this news for Canada now in election week? Are not the F35 's that the US wants equipped a bit differently than the ones Canada wants? That would certainly account for a difference in costs. And remember these are just estimates and will change yet again. I am sure all countries that want to buy these planes will be looking at a purchase plan over and over before making a final committment.And with each year of delay, the cost will rise and that must be factored in also.Lots of variables to be considered!

Len Luke
said

Great timing on whoevers part on releasing this not so secret information in the last days before an election. No worries though, if the Liberals become the next leaders of Canada they will cancel this project as promised just like the helicopter programs a few years back. Then they will wait a few more years and purchase the same aircraft anyways (smaller amount of aircraft) but at a higher cost again just like the helicopters.

Greg in Cambridge
said

I said right from the start. We don't want or need these expensive toys and buying them will cost the C's votes. Lots of them.

Jeff
said

Well then it's simple - if it costs more, we get fewer planes. No more budget creep.

J.C.
said

The plane is still in development so the costs are not exact. Well then we will have to wait to see what the final costs are before we sign any contract for them then won't we. To date there is no contract to buy them but there is money spent on them as the Liberals agreed to the funding for the research along with other NATO countries. There will likely be differences in price for the US as they usually add more to their equipment than we in Canada do. Our needs are somewhat different than theirs and always have been.

spaz
said

A couple of thinks to keep in mind.......Has ANYONE EVER seen a government project of this scale come in at, or even NEAR the initial estimate ?????....no matter WHO is in power.If we are to have a military, then we need to train and equip them for protecting us, and for whatever missions we send them on. The ability to contol airspace is the only way to protect people and troops on the ground.One only needs to look at the purchase of those British subs, and the costly repairs to see there is no such thing as cheap military equipment.

George V.
said

This whole news report is very confusing. Cost figures were given for the entire stealth fleet and other planes purchased by the U.S.A.. are we comparing oranges to oranges? Than total cost figures were given for the Canadian purchase, this figure included the maintenance and repairs for the new jet fighters and for all the jets we presently own. There seems to be no real fixed costs, all we have are assumptions, and guess work. This type of scare mongering is great news for political reasons, especially in the last week of the election campaign.

George in Calgary
said

Yup going to cost more than originally expected. Well we all knew that so this is not news. Just a media plug against the Conservatives. But also a plug against all the other parties to except maybe the NDP which would go that extra step past the Liberals and scrap the entire military BUT keep everyone hired one doing. . . . ????? Well we really don't know do we. However lets move on and state that Canada will be needing news jets in the not too distant future. So and I have asked this question many times without even a simple reply, if not the F-35's then what? If the Liberals get in then they will scrap the F-35's then do a tender and find out that they are the best out there and now Canada has gone through even more studies, put back the delivery dates, had to refit the CF-18's yet again and end up paying more. Well that's the Liberal way isn't it instead of making a concrete decision and acting on it. Makes one all fuzzy warm inside doesn't it? So for the military experts out there if not the F-35's whatelse is out there that would be equal and fit within the NATO specs? Oh by the way the vertical take off and landing feature would be good for our Arctic. Land anywhere, don't need a runway, cut costs etc etc. You get the picture. So whatelse is out there, names, specs, manufacturer etc etc??

Ian
said

Now that the report has come out, how about the Defence Minister and Prime Minister standing up and admitiing that they were WRONG. I am one who thinks the program still needs to go ahead, however let's take a second look at our overall requirements. Perhaps we can reduce the overall number of aircraft to bring things more in line during these tough times and order more at a later date if in fact the assets are required. Does anyone know how many F18's are in mothballs today because WE DON'T NEED THEM.

Today's Top Stories

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt speaks in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Monday, May 28, 2012. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Pick your location

Top Stories -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: