Does Canada need 60 F-35's?

I dont know if this has been posted in other places but Canada is gonna spend something like 18billion to purchase 60 F-35's to replace its aging CF-18 fleet. While happy to see that we are finally getting around to pump some fresh blood into the antiquated air squadrons, I must raise doubts on whether it is worth the cost. from what I know 18bn is only acquisition cost, other costs attached to it such as training and logistics will simply add to the burden...not to mention that these fighter units might go up in price by the time they are delivered.

Of course my primary concern is that with the Afghan mission coming to an end land forces might end up getting less money as the government shifts its security concerns elsewhere. I am worried that this might just be the first step in that direction. I see the reason to get new fighter jets...but 60 of them to me does not make sense. and as a member of the land element I am obviously concerned about further budgetary cuts to fund these expensive toys...

Sixty sounds a bit excessive. What immediate threats are there to Cannada?

pla101prc said:

I dont know if this has been posted in other places but Canada is gonna spend something like 18billion to purchase 60 F-35's to replace its aging CF-18 fleet. While happy to see that we are finally getting around to pump some fresh blood into the antiquated air squadrons, I must raise doubts on whether it is worth the cost. from what I know 18bn is only acquisition cost, other costs attached to it such as training and logistics will simply add to the burden...not to mention that these fighter units might go up in price by the time they are delivered.

Of course my primary concern is that with the Afghan mission coming to an end land forces might end up getting less money as the government shifts its security concerns elsewhere. I am worried that this might just be the first step in that direction. I see the reason to get new fighter jets...but 60 of them to me does not make sense. and as a member of the land element I am obviously concerned about further budgetary cuts to fund these expensive toys...

Click to expand...

No Canada don't need 60 F35's,hell do they even need 1? the US don't need any more C-17's or most of the other stuff they will procure and Saudi Arabia don't need to spend $60Billion plus on arms .It's not about need,it's money and politics and kowtowing to the MIC.The whole world is arming itself to the teeth but who are we gonna fight? If we are sensible we won't fight at all and the arms race will be futile but hey, we can't be sensible otherwise there wouldn't be an arms race at all.

i am guessing that the arctic dispute could call for a need of new jets...but definitely dont need 60 of them. i say money is better spent elsewhere...

zoom said:

No Canada don't need 60 F35's,hell do they even need 1? the US don't need any more C-17's or most of the other stuff they will procure and Saudi Arabia don't need to spend $60Billion plus on arms .It's not about need,it's money and politics and kowtowing to the MIC.The whole world is arming itself to the teeth but who are we gonna fight? If we are sensible we won't fight at all and the arms race will be futile but hey, we can't be sensible otherwise there wouldn't be an arms race at all.

Click to expand...

Well, Canada obviously needs fighters. A country that cannot provide for its own security must therefore allow some of its own sovereignty to be eroded by another. In addition this is an international world we live and and with that there are obligations, NATO obligations, peace keeping obligations, Arctic sovereignty obligations etc. etc.

The question though if Canada needs the F-35 specifically though is different. Canada is a Tier 3 partner, in the same tier as Denmark, Turkey, Australia etc. and has invested about $475 million towards the F-35 over 10 years over the course, that's more than double the second most invested tier 3 partner, Turkey has invested. Personally, I'm conflicted, by operating a single aircraft fighter fleet, overall it would be cheaper to maintain and refurbish them in the long run yet on the other hand, operating a 'hi-low' combination of two different aircraft, would be cheaper to procure yet at the same time would be more expensive to maintain either. Any air force that isn't France who have operated the Mirage 2000 can vouch for this example. It would also give the Canadian air force mission flexibility for domestic and foriegn involvement.

I personally think a smaller purchase of any of the Eurocanards or Superhornets would be a cheaper and wiser decision -- I don't expect the canadian air force to be doing any deep penetration attacks in the near future so there's no need for the expensive stealth, and having two engines would be more reliable than one (Rafale, typhoon, superhornet at least).

It's prolly just politics at work; the US is pushing the F-35 for all its partners like they did with the F-16 and F-18 but the difference is that the F-35 is ridiculously expensive and (imho) a bit overhyped.

I am a Canadian and I don't think we need one F-35s let alone 60. Especially if this is done through a sole source contract that not open to competition.

I agree with Bltizo that dual engine aircraft would work much better for Canada.

jwangyue said:

I am a Canadian and I don't think we need one F-35s let alone 60. Especially if this is done through a sole source contract that not open to competition.

I agree with Bltizo that dual engine aircraft would work much better for Canada.

Click to expand...

Indeed, operating over the Arctic is an extremely taxing and dangerous, also Canada is a very large country and having longer legs for the aircraft is a major plus. Both the CF-18 and the CF-5 were twin engine aircraft and I highly doubt the Canadian Forces Air Command would consider changing this.

But another thing to consider is that Canada doesn't buy new aircraft often. Once purchased a new fighter will have to be used plausibly for about two or three decades, at least. The F-35 is enough of a generational technology jump that it can be used in the medium to long term future, even with further technological innovations in newer fighters to come out in that same period.

So while I agree that the price tag is steep and possibly will be even steeper and there are concerns about the single engine operating in a huge expanse of Canada (especially in the frigidly cold northern territories), I can also see why the government decided to procure this fighter as opposed to some of the more practical and cheaper European varieties.

pla101prc said:

i am guessing that the arctic dispute could call for a need of new jets...but definitely dont need 60 of them. i say money is better spent elsewhere...

Click to expand...

The arctic dispute, right now, is somewhat "theoretical". This is a job mostly for the next generation, when the F-35 will already have been superseded. Right now, money would be better invested in technological development and economic growth, so that Canada in a decade or two has the money to buy 60 of the follow-on planes.