While contracts to procure 65 F-35 fighter jets have yet to be signed, Canada has more reason that ever to back out, argue Michael Byers and Stewart Webb in the peer-reviewed Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, and in a related article published on iPolitics today.
Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. His co-author Webb is a research associate with the Salt Spring Forum.
Among the reasons Byers and Webb list to bail out of the F-35s are these:
Ballooning costs: Prime Minister Harper has said the planes would cost no more than $75 million a piece, but "Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page estimates the per-plane cost at more than US $128 million. The Pentagon has earmarked $151 million per plane and, in April 2011, the US Government Accounting Office's cost-estimate was $156 million."
Delays: Glitches and cost-overruns keep pushing back the delivery date, now already "years after" the date when the CF-18 jets the stealth fighters are meant to replace are set to be retired.
Better alternatives: Byers and Webb argue the F-35's stealth capacity makes it slower and heavier than what Canada is likely to need for future missions. The better alternative, they say, are Boeing's F/A-18E Super Hornets, which "already fly for the U.S. and Australia and cost only about $55 million each. As the latest version of the CF-18 series, they would also offer greatly reduced maintenance and training costs.
"The twin-engine Super Hornets are also more suitable for use in the Arctic than the single-engine F-35s.
"Although the F-35 offers stealth technology, the deployment history of the CF-18s calls into question whether Canada needs covert attack planes," argue Byers and Webb. "The CF-18s have only occasionally served overseas: a small number were based in Germany until 1990; 24 served in the 1991 Gulf War; 18 were involved in Kosovo in 1999; and seven served in action over Libya last year.
"In the three latter 'hot conflicts', Canadian aircraft were sent into action only after our allies had destroyed the enemy's air defences. In Libya, this initial phase was conducted using British and American cruise missiles as well as American B-2 bombers -- and not the five year-old F-22 stealth fighters that the U.S. possesses but did not deploy."
Read the entire iPolitics article here.
David Beers is editor of The Tyee.
9
Login or register to post comments
Frank
1 year ago
So...
A country with millions of people mired in poverty has the money to buy 65 airplanes at $156 million each?
I realize politicians don't count military spending as actual "government spending" because "government spending" is bad and military spending is good, but I'd like to know why the Right thinks every other department has to do with less yet we need expensive white elephants.
George Smith
1 year ago
And the JSF is no match for Chinese Radar or the Sukoi T-50
Aside from the fact we have no need for "strike fighters" unless we feel obliged to attack foreign nations, these fighters are already obsolete. Check out this article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/jsf-no-match-for-latest-russian-fighters-or-chinese-radar/story-e6frg8yo-1226265180090 The psychopathic losers running our country seem to have an affinity for losers. If Harper wants to attack other countries he should buy a squadron of Russian Sukhoi PAK-FA's at a fraction of the price of the JSF jokes and take over Yankee Land.
alive
1 year ago
Drones my boy!
The USA depends more and more on drones these days.
Unmanned aircrafts that cost little and can do practically anything a manned plane could do.
Why buy stuff that is going out of style and replaced with cheaper and more effecient units?
They shoot down a drone and there is not a pilot killed,only money down the drain -- which is what war is all about anyway!
wiley
1 year ago
Meddling petrostates always need these things
How can Canada orchestrate regime change in "unconventional" Venezuela without these F-35's? The Royal Air Farce wore the current fleet out liberating Libya from it's nationalized oil and gas, but that wont last very long, will it?
DPL
1 year ago
Harper and gang need to be
Harper and gang need to be reigned in. Sure the military brass likes new stuff, sure some of the senior brass support the conservatives, and sure, when they retire they end up as consultants for aerospace companies. But this rather large sized country sure doesn't need the F35 to patrol the area. Good god, our supposed enemy is using "Bears" to check out the northern real estate. Just consider, a flame out north of 60 on one engine. She or he gets out of it and we are down huge amounts of money. Give your head a shake Harper and back down. Everyone should be person enough to change their mind. I did a fair amount of flying all over the place up to and including the North Pole and sure felt better seeing those four engines churning away on the Herc. One wonders if Steve Harper ever gets into a one engined aircraft and heads out on even a short trip.
Van Isle
1 year ago
Yer right Alive. Drones are
Yer right Alive. Drones are the way to go and especially for the Arctic. These babies can stay aloft for days and with the monitoring equipment onboard they will be able to see and detect everything. Wonder how many drones that can be bought verses one F 35?
igbymac
1 year ago
wiley
Libya is yesterday's news. We have moved onto Syria now.
gsarahs
1 year ago
Drones are most likely the best solution.
I wonder why Harper is so doggedly for these single-engined F-35s? Payola? Their range is supposedly small, they are having major delays and technical difficulties, and who knows what the total price will be. Harper seems to be more and more a little man with big man ideas. He wants to spend so much of our money on his own little brain farts, and yet wants to hit our pensioners with cuts. Harper and his lap dogs are just so disingenuous, and drunk on power.
jeffc
1 year ago
the point of the F35s
The real reason the F35s remain on the table despite all the costs and concerns is that the planes' technology integrates them into the US force structure. In a conflict, the Canadian F35s would be automatically linked to, receiving information from, and sending information to the US air force, and would therefore act as an adjunct to the US military. This is what the Conservatives, and the section of the Canadian establishment they represent, want. Future conflict is very much on the agenda and, unless these trends are reversed, a permanent war footing will replace a reliance on multilateral institutions such as the UN.