Letter to the Prime Minister F-35
I have to preface my recent correspondence (pasted below with his assistant's response) with the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence by saying that I think the F-35 is a very cool jet and would give my right hand to fly in one (it's ok i'm left handed). I also appreciate that many jobs are supported by the manufacture of components for this jet and do not wish to jeopardize the opportunities this project brings to Canada- I just don't think this jet is the logical choice for Canada. In an age when even the United States airforce is now training the majority of it's new pilots to fly remote control planes (over 300 new R/C pilots in 2010 and in 2012, 2 years after I wrote this, more UAV pilots were being trained annually than conventional aircraft), success in dogfighting scenarios seems to becoming less and less relevant as a measure of who will have air superiority. And stealth technology is very cool, but I've spoken with plenty of air traffic controllers in the past while flying my RV-4 and no one could see me on their radar in my considerably less expensive, non-stealth aircraft (anybody see where MH-370 went to?). Frankly, when a Russian bomber enters Canadian airspace and we scramble a jet to meet it, I WANT them to know a jet fighter is on it's way to show them the door, not some Stealth plane that they can't see-that's technology for sneaking into someone's backyard not chasing them out. Just give me an air to air missile and a kick-ass radar that sees the other guy first and shoots him down farther away than he can do the same to me. And when Canada participates in a joint NATO operation, guys with the stealth planes go in first and take care of knocking out the radar defenses-after that, all that is required is a combat capable aircraft like the F-18 Super Hornet (which incidentally, is good enough for the US airforce to buy), not a stealth fighter. That's the way I see it. My correspondence with the Prime Minister's office follows below......
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
I am writing this letter to express my concern over our government's plan to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets, a decision which I believe is not best-suited for our country's needs. As a pilot for over 25 years and avid aviation buff (see canadianaerospace.weebly.com), it is my strong conviction that acquiring and enhancing our current fleet of F-18 jets would be a more reasonable purchase both in terms of overall value and in fulfilling the various roles which we require of an air combat jet.
This aircraft is widely considered to be an underachiever within the aviation community: 'US defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and airplane designer Pierre Sprey who called the F-35 'heavy and sluggish' as well as having a 'pitifully small load for all that money', and went on to criticize the value for money of the stealth measures as well as lacking fire safety measures. His final conclusion was that any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s compared to buying into the F-35 program.'
We could purchase at least two top of the line F-18's for the price of one of these aircraft with the advantage of already having experienced pilots and groudcrew for the F-18. The F-35 is also a short range fighter and since we have one of the largest land masses in the world to defend, it only makes sense that we maintain a fleet of aircraft capable of covering the large distances.
I appreciate the value this program has created for Canada as an informed partner in the development program of this aircraft, but to commit to purchase them is a poor decision.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to support your party if the decision is made to proceed with this purchase.
Best regards,
Edward Das
ps. As always, my invitation for a barbeque at my Kitchener residence is still open pending your availability.
August 17, 2010
Edward Das
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Das:
On behalf of the Prime Minister, thank you for your e-mail of July 26 regarding our Government's decision to acquire the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft. Our office has noted your concerns. Rest assured your comments have been carefully reviewed.
We have taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Peter MacKay. As this matter falls under the Minister's responsibilities, his office is best equipped to address your concerns. Should you have any additional questions or comments, we would encourage you to dialogue with the Minister.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Salpie Stepanian
Assistant to the Prime Minister
cc The Hon. Peter MacKay, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence
/jtd
>>> From : Edward Das [email protected] Received : 26 Jul 2010 01:03:59 PM >>>
>>> Subject : F-35 fighter jet >>>>
I have to preface my recent correspondence (pasted below with his assistant's response) with the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence by saying that I think the F-35 is a very cool jet and would give my right hand to fly in one (it's ok i'm left handed). I also appreciate that many jobs are supported by the manufacture of components for this jet and do not wish to jeopardize the opportunities this project brings to Canada- I just don't think this jet is the logical choice for Canada. In an age when even the United States airforce is now training the majority of it's new pilots to fly remote control planes (over 300 new R/C pilots in 2010 and in 2012, 2 years after I wrote this, more UAV pilots were being trained annually than conventional aircraft), success in dogfighting scenarios seems to becoming less and less relevant as a measure of who will have air superiority. And stealth technology is very cool, but I've spoken with plenty of air traffic controllers in the past while flying my RV-4 and no one could see me on their radar in my considerably less expensive, non-stealth aircraft (anybody see where MH-370 went to?). Frankly, when a Russian bomber enters Canadian airspace and we scramble a jet to meet it, I WANT them to know a jet fighter is on it's way to show them the door, not some Stealth plane that they can't see-that's technology for sneaking into someone's backyard not chasing them out. Just give me an air to air missile and a kick-ass radar that sees the other guy first and shoots him down farther away than he can do the same to me. And when Canada participates in a joint NATO operation, guys with the stealth planes go in first and take care of knocking out the radar defenses-after that, all that is required is a combat capable aircraft like the F-18 Super Hornet (which incidentally, is good enough for the US airforce to buy), not a stealth fighter. That's the way I see it. My correspondence with the Prime Minister's office follows below......
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
I am writing this letter to express my concern over our government's plan to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets, a decision which I believe is not best-suited for our country's needs. As a pilot for over 25 years and avid aviation buff (see canadianaerospace.weebly.com), it is my strong conviction that acquiring and enhancing our current fleet of F-18 jets would be a more reasonable purchase both in terms of overall value and in fulfilling the various roles which we require of an air combat jet.
This aircraft is widely considered to be an underachiever within the aviation community: 'US defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and airplane designer Pierre Sprey who called the F-35 'heavy and sluggish' as well as having a 'pitifully small load for all that money', and went on to criticize the value for money of the stealth measures as well as lacking fire safety measures. His final conclusion was that any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s compared to buying into the F-35 program.'
We could purchase at least two top of the line F-18's for the price of one of these aircraft with the advantage of already having experienced pilots and groudcrew for the F-18. The F-35 is also a short range fighter and since we have one of the largest land masses in the world to defend, it only makes sense that we maintain a fleet of aircraft capable of covering the large distances.
I appreciate the value this program has created for Canada as an informed partner in the development program of this aircraft, but to commit to purchase them is a poor decision.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to support your party if the decision is made to proceed with this purchase.
Best regards,
Edward Das
ps. As always, my invitation for a barbeque at my Kitchener residence is still open pending your availability.
August 17, 2010
Edward Das
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Das:
On behalf of the Prime Minister, thank you for your e-mail of July 26 regarding our Government's decision to acquire the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft. Our office has noted your concerns. Rest assured your comments have been carefully reviewed.
We have taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Peter MacKay. As this matter falls under the Minister's responsibilities, his office is best equipped to address your concerns. Should you have any additional questions or comments, we would encourage you to dialogue with the Minister.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Salpie Stepanian
Assistant to the Prime Minister
cc The Hon. Peter MacKay, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence
/jtd
>>> From : Edward Das [email protected] Received : 26 Jul 2010 01:03:59 PM >>>
>>> Subject : F-35 fighter jet >>>>
Sept 19, 2010 follow-up letter to Defence Minister Peter McKay after not receiving a response from my earlier correspondence which was forwarded to him.
Dear Honourable Mr McKay,
I'm writing this letter to express my frustration with our government's plan to purchase the F-35 fighter jet. The last time my government bought new fighters I was still in public school but I clearly remember that a fair competition was held to decide which aircraft best suited our needs. The criteria were clearly laid out as to what was required and a number of aircraft manufacturers showed off their best aircraft with the Hornet ultimately being decided the winner. Fast forward to today and suddenly we're buying a new replacement with no open competition in a market where there are some very good alternatives including the updated Super Hornet and Eurofighter and my government decides to simply spend my tax dollars on the most expensive and least proven aircraft available. As a pilot, I acknowledge that the F-35 is a really neat plane with it's ability to vector thrust and hide it's bombs inside so that it has a better stealth profile but as I mentioned to the Prime Minister (and which his office apparently neglected to pass onto yours since I've been waiting for a reply for some time), I do not want my country involved in any war requiring stealth intrusions into foreign airspace-I want a fighter to protect Canadian airspace and I WANT intruding aircraft to see my kick-ass fighter coming to escort them out the door when our airspace is violated. P:lease reconsider purchasing this aircraft- I think there are better and more suitable aircraft available to fulfil our nation's air defence requirements Than the F-35. At the very least, we should hold an open competition with defined requirements of what it is that we need rather than picking the jet with the coolest options. sincerely Ed Das ps. I have a long outstanding invitation to the Prime Minister to join me for a backyard BBQ at my house in Kitchener which you are also welcome to attend should you care to drop by. Most days are fine except Mondays.
Dear Honourable Mr McKay,
I'm writing this letter to express my frustration with our government's plan to purchase the F-35 fighter jet. The last time my government bought new fighters I was still in public school but I clearly remember that a fair competition was held to decide which aircraft best suited our needs. The criteria were clearly laid out as to what was required and a number of aircraft manufacturers showed off their best aircraft with the Hornet ultimately being decided the winner. Fast forward to today and suddenly we're buying a new replacement with no open competition in a market where there are some very good alternatives including the updated Super Hornet and Eurofighter and my government decides to simply spend my tax dollars on the most expensive and least proven aircraft available. As a pilot, I acknowledge that the F-35 is a really neat plane with it's ability to vector thrust and hide it's bombs inside so that it has a better stealth profile but as I mentioned to the Prime Minister (and which his office apparently neglected to pass onto yours since I've been waiting for a reply for some time), I do not want my country involved in any war requiring stealth intrusions into foreign airspace-I want a fighter to protect Canadian airspace and I WANT intruding aircraft to see my kick-ass fighter coming to escort them out the door when our airspace is violated. P:lease reconsider purchasing this aircraft- I think there are better and more suitable aircraft available to fulfil our nation's air defence requirements Than the F-35. At the very least, we should hold an open competition with defined requirements of what it is that we need rather than picking the jet with the coolest options. sincerely Ed Das ps. I have a long outstanding invitation to the Prime Minister to join me for a backyard BBQ at my house in Kitchener which you are also welcome to attend should you care to drop by. Most days are fine except Mondays.
Oct 25, 2010 response from Peter McKay about my F-35 complaint which clearly is a"one response fits all' reply to any F-35 complaints. And he didn't even RSVP my BBQ invitation.
And I still don't know what criteria were used to determine that the F-35 is the best aircraft to provide Canadians with safety and security. I can only assume no one has told him that McDonnell still plans on making the F-18 for the foreseeable future, and they seem to have a pretty good grasp of what makes an effective fighter plane.
Dear Mr. Das:
Your e-mail concerning the Joint Strike Fighter was forwarded to me by
the Office of the Prime Minister. I appreciate the opportunity to
address your concerns, and please accept my apology for this delay in
responding.
On July 16, 2010, the Government of Canada announced its decision to
acquire 65 Joint Strike Fighter F-35s, an unparalleled fighter aircraft
that will help the Canadian Forces defend the sovereignty of Canadian
airspace, remain a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North
America through NORAD, and provide Canada with an effective and modern
capability to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
As set out in the Canada First Defence Strategy, Canada requires a
fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18 Hornet and contribute to the
safety and security of Canadians while effectively supporting foreign
policy and national security objectives. The F-35 is the best aircraft
to achieve these goals.
As a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter program since 1997, Canada
participated in the extensive and rigorous competitive process, which
led to the selection of Lockheed Martin and its partners as the Joint
Strike Fighter manufacturer in 2001.
Canada's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program brings
significant benefits to Canadian industry. With a long-term investment
in this aircraft, Canada's defence industry has a unique opportunity to
be a part of the Joint Strike Fighter global supply chain, benefiting
from the sale of thousands of aircraft, as well as contracts with a
potential value of $13 billion. This will bring high-tech jobs and
sustained economic benefits to regions across Canada.
The Government of Canada has committed $9 billion to the acquisition of
the 65 F-35 aircraft, associated weapons, infrastructure, initial
spares, training simulators, contingency funds, and project operating
costs. The Canadian Forces will receive 65 F-35 Lightning II aircraft,
and delivery is expected to start in 2016.
I trust this information is of assistance, and thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Peter MacKay
Minister of National Defence
c.c. Office of the Prime Minister
MCU2010-07875
March 22 2011 The purchase price of a single F-35 has now ballooned to 163 million per jet with an expected lifetime cost of 450 million per jet. They better not crash any. Deployment has been delayed to 2018 due to development problems hmmm....sounds like a real winner.
April 1 2011 Radio interview about the F-35 with me on 570 news: http://www.570news.com/listen/listenplayer/206336--11am-red-friday-discussion-on-f35-jets
April 1 2011 Radio interview about the F-35 with me on 570 news: http://www.570news.com/listen/listenplayer/206336--11am-red-friday-discussion-on-f35-jets
April 21 2011 SINGAPORE — Japan has issued its much-anticipated request for proposals (RFP) for a replacement of their F-4 fighters and three aircraft are in contention: the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35. So, bring it on F-35; apparently the F/A-18E/F is good enough to go toe to toe with Canada's preferred choice. It'll be interesting to see which jet comes out on top.
March 9 2011
The Harper government reports $9 billion it intends to spend on 65 of the jets is the final cost.The government won't have a firm price until the 1st delivery currently set around 2016 sometime. Then 20 years service contract is going to be an extra 7 billion according to the airforce.
The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion — a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.
The Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.
I wonder what I'll be reporting here in 2016 but I'll bet the numbers go higher when someone in the airforce finally has to acknowledge the ever increasing costs. May 2014 update: According to the Rideau Institute and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Harper Government adjusted the project cost to $45.69 billion! And that number is low because it assumed similar operating costs of aircraft they already have....ummm, did any figure the additional cost of modifying the midair refueling fleet or adding drag chutes (really? the most advanced fighter jet still needs drag chutes?). Operating costs bump everything up to $56.674 billion. And lets not forget the crummy exchange rate that has made it difficult for any company that regularly purchases American made products.
December 2016 update Considering the pricetag estimate of $45.69 billion in 2014 which was adjusted by the very reputable accounting firm, KPMG to 45.8 billion in 2012 (when Cdn dollar was at US$1.01) and readjusted to 45.8 billion by the Canadian DOD in November 2014 to 45.8 billion (when the dollar was at US$0.92), the actual cost as of December 2014 should be about 62 billion! (assuming a current exchange Cdn dollar of US $0.739)
The following is the text of an email I recently received from a fellow Canadian who shares my viewpoint on the F-35:
"Maybe your objections and many of us do have some effects, the F35 may get the boot. A turkey if I ever see one. Problem is the basic airframe are being asked to do too many jobs too early in life, and something must give. We have no more designer with clout such as Ed Heinemann, who dictated to the US Navy, once the A4 Skyhawk design were frozen, he would guarantee the performance, but for every pound of equipment the navy wanted to add on, he would subtract a pound of fuel from the tanks. Few designer of that era would have the nerve to stand up to the US navy that way and none today. The Skyhawk in it long production life, till gained a lot of weight after Ed lot control of it deign, including the famous dorsal hump,but to the end, it was still a most effective combat aircraft.
I always thought we should have talked Fairchild into re opening the production line with a large enough order of A10. That plane is cheaper than helicopters, have longer loitering time, more combat loads and heavily armored. Given the mission we normally do, which is peacekeeping, nothing deter some assholes using blue helmets for target practice more than a pair of A10's circling overhead, ready to give you a shower with 5.56 mm from their attached gun pods. Even the Vietcong learned not to shoot at those thin helicopters,(Cobras) they shoot back, worse than those fat ones (UH-1) Only the USAF are dumb enough to want to get rid of their A10's, they have not learned the lessons from Korea onwards when low and slow are better than jets.We could even buy them without the main 30 mm guns, have a much lighter 25 mm instead, since we do not meet main battle tanks so often.There are also several other cheaper choices around.
I really like the Best 2010 Hombuilder calender, good looking, ready to go swimming, nice landing gear, nice color, and the Searay behind is not bad too.
I read about the homebuild Herc who flew recently in the RAA magazine. Look like a C130, but I would miss that Allison turbine wind though."
Tony Lam
YYZ
"Maybe your objections and many of us do have some effects, the F35 may get the boot. A turkey if I ever see one. Problem is the basic airframe are being asked to do too many jobs too early in life, and something must give. We have no more designer with clout such as Ed Heinemann, who dictated to the US Navy, once the A4 Skyhawk design were frozen, he would guarantee the performance, but for every pound of equipment the navy wanted to add on, he would subtract a pound of fuel from the tanks. Few designer of that era would have the nerve to stand up to the US navy that way and none today. The Skyhawk in it long production life, till gained a lot of weight after Ed lot control of it deign, including the famous dorsal hump,but to the end, it was still a most effective combat aircraft.
I always thought we should have talked Fairchild into re opening the production line with a large enough order of A10. That plane is cheaper than helicopters, have longer loitering time, more combat loads and heavily armored. Given the mission we normally do, which is peacekeeping, nothing deter some assholes using blue helmets for target practice more than a pair of A10's circling overhead, ready to give you a shower with 5.56 mm from their attached gun pods. Even the Vietcong learned not to shoot at those thin helicopters,(Cobras) they shoot back, worse than those fat ones (UH-1) Only the USAF are dumb enough to want to get rid of their A10's, they have not learned the lessons from Korea onwards when low and slow are better than jets.We could even buy them without the main 30 mm guns, have a much lighter 25 mm instead, since we do not meet main battle tanks so often.There are also several other cheaper choices around.
I really like the Best 2010 Hombuilder calender, good looking, ready to go swimming, nice landing gear, nice color, and the Searay behind is not bad too.
I read about the homebuild Herc who flew recently in the RAA magazine. Look like a C130, but I would miss that Allison turbine wind though."
Tony Lam
YYZ
February 2013 update- It seems that the F-35B variant is still struggling with development problems, the latest being a "fueldraulic hose" that wasn't crimped right. Apparently, fuel is used in the hydraulic lines instead of conventional hydraulic oil. I'm not an engineer, but this really doesn't sound like a good idea-I always thought that hydraulic fluid was supposed to resist heat among other properties. Is it a good idea to use a fluid that burns when you put heat to it? i'm just saying...
From the Times-Colonist "The cost per aircraft is expected to be US$67 million by the time Canada makes the bulk of aircraft purchases, (Lockheed VP O'Bryan) said.
O'Bryan also predicted that despite conflicting cost estimates between Canada's auditor general and the parliamentary budget officer, the multi-role fighter will be affordable to maintain and sustain.
"I read in places that the cost is increasing, dramatically increasing," O'Bryan said. "The truth of the matter is the F-35 cost is dramatically decreasing. From the first year of production to the fifth year of production we have reduced the cost by over 50 per cent. Every single year, we have reduced the cost of the aircraft."
Critics of the program have complained that software development is far behind schedule. Unlike most aircraft today, the F-35 is highly automated and runs on 9.4 million lines of software code.
But in a presentation Friday, O'Bryan said 85 per cent of that total is already at the in-flight test stage.
"We're doing well on flight tests ... and we're basically on plan," he said Friday on a conference call." Editors Note: Ba hahahahahahahahaha!
From the Times-Colonist "The cost per aircraft is expected to be US$67 million by the time Canada makes the bulk of aircraft purchases, (Lockheed VP O'Bryan) said.
O'Bryan also predicted that despite conflicting cost estimates between Canada's auditor general and the parliamentary budget officer, the multi-role fighter will be affordable to maintain and sustain.
"I read in places that the cost is increasing, dramatically increasing," O'Bryan said. "The truth of the matter is the F-35 cost is dramatically decreasing. From the first year of production to the fifth year of production we have reduced the cost by over 50 per cent. Every single year, we have reduced the cost of the aircraft."
Critics of the program have complained that software development is far behind schedule. Unlike most aircraft today, the F-35 is highly automated and runs on 9.4 million lines of software code.
But in a presentation Friday, O'Bryan said 85 per cent of that total is already at the in-flight test stage.
"We're doing well on flight tests ... and we're basically on plan," he said Friday on a conference call." Editors Note: Ba hahahahahahahahaha!
Price Comparing
Here's a price comparison by non-scientific method, mainly by searching the question "How much does and F-35 (F-18 Super Hornet) cost. My choice for Canada is the F-18 Super hornet at 55 million per plane. The F-35 costs 160-400 million but depends on the type
It was calculated to be around 70 - 80 million per plane when the project began. Due to increasingly huge problems, the plane has been delayed for more years and it still in testing stage. It has bumped the price of each plane to be around 150-400 million USD.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_the_f35_cost#ixzz2KY6f9F4Z
I'll update this comparison occasionally but a three for one deal always gets my attention.
July 2013
As part of the AGMA (American Gear Manufacturers Association), members of our team regularly attend conferences to talk about where the business is going in the near future. Manufacturers always want to stay abreast of where money is going to be spent and especially where the government is spending their money-a huge portion of it goes to defence. This year, one of the defence analysts presented a breakdown of where government dollars were projected to be spent on jet fighters from all around the world-guess which fighter jet was at the top of the list for crazy amounts of money being spent on it? See projected dollars of all the cutting edge fighters currently in development around the world on the cell phone photo (sorry for the bad angle) below and draw your own conclusions....
Next, ask yourself if any of the other jets are even remotely as good as the F-35, and if so, why the insane price discrepancy?
It was calculated to be around 70 - 80 million per plane when the project began. Due to increasingly huge problems, the plane has been delayed for more years and it still in testing stage. It has bumped the price of each plane to be around 150-400 million USD.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_the_f35_cost#ixzz2KY6f9F4Z
I'll update this comparison occasionally but a three for one deal always gets my attention.
July 2013
As part of the AGMA (American Gear Manufacturers Association), members of our team regularly attend conferences to talk about where the business is going in the near future. Manufacturers always want to stay abreast of where money is going to be spent and especially where the government is spending their money-a huge portion of it goes to defence. This year, one of the defence analysts presented a breakdown of where government dollars were projected to be spent on jet fighters from all around the world-guess which fighter jet was at the top of the list for crazy amounts of money being spent on it? See projected dollars of all the cutting edge fighters currently in development around the world on the cell phone photo (sorry for the bad angle) below and draw your own conclusions....
Next, ask yourself if any of the other jets are even remotely as good as the F-35, and if so, why the insane price discrepancy?
Jan 4 2013 In an unprecedented move, America is buying parts for the F-35 jet from the Chinese. I don't think I have to say anything more about the wisdom of this ( I call it Walmart Syndrome) but if you're interested in reading more, check out this link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-waived-laws-keep-f-35-track-204531422--sector.html
May 28 2014
Here's an interesting article where the promoters of the F-35 seem to suggest that the F-35 wins all of the competitions it enters, so therefore the Canadian government should not bother with holding a competition-what a crock!
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/rival-jet-fighter-makers-crank-hard-sell-harper-082508669.html
I guess the Eurofighter and the new upgraded F-18 should just recall all of their aircraft (which incidentally HAVE been able to perform in combat as advertised) since they don't have a chance against the F-35.
December 2016
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,
As you may be aware, I have written on previous occasions to your office regarding the purchase of military aircraft and on the eve of Christmas 2017 I thought I would share my thoughts about how Canada could really make a difference on the world stage as peacekeeper with some simple math. According to KPMG accounting, as of 2012, Canada was planning on spending 45.8 billion dollars on 95 warplanes; since then, the exchange rate has unfortunately gone in the wrong direction and the cost now would be around 62 billion! Regardless of which fighter jet Canada buys, that’s a lot of spending money, so I thought it would be interesting to consider an alternate program perhaps more in keeping with our national identity.
When I think about peacekeeping as part of a national strategy, I understand that to mean travelling to countries abroad, typically war torn or disaster stricken, and assisting with medical, food, engineering and building assistance. Assistance of this type requires a specific type of aircraft designed for logistical support in hard to access regions that often do not have proper airports. Canada actually has a fleet of such transport planes, about 30 planes or so currently active. But 30 planes is not that many aircraft for a country whose stated goal is to restore it’s position as world peacekeeper-currently there are over 16 official peace-keeping actions underway across the globe with over 100,000 uniformed personnel from various countries deployed in support of these operations, each of which requires significant transport to and from these countries. What if Canada decided to pursue it’s role by enhancing our ability to provide the necessary logistical support to maintain these international endeavours?
Canada has made some purchases recently to enhance our fleet of military transports that capably fit the role needed for a peace-keeping mission in the aptly named Boeing C-17 Globemaster 111. This aircraft is a heavy lift cargo plane able to carry huge amounts of supplies in difficult to access regions and has already proven itself capable as an effective humanitarian support aircraft. The GlobeMaster costs around 295 million a unit, so by my calculation, we could potentially buy 210 of these aircraft for the 62 billion we were planning on spending anyhow for stealth jets. Let’s just say for arguments sake that I’m being too liberal in my calculation (after all, I’m allocating about 61.5 billion more than Prime Minister Trudeau in my peacekeeping mission program) and say that we could only buy half that many, so 100 GlobeMaster 111’s -or the same number of state of the art transport planes as jet fighters we are considering buying. This would represent a capability to support peace-keeping missions threefold larger than our current ability. Plus, you could still buy some cheaper, capable fighter jets, hopefully with two engines instead of one, but I’m not going to get into that here.
And it’s not like we can’t use more transport aircraft for our peacekeepers. Most Canadians are aware of the support we provided a few years ago to the relief effort in Haiti, but would be surprised to learn that we did so with leased Russian transport aircraft- how will that work in the future when Canada wants to help a country that Russia would prefer we didn’t?
In August of this year, you mentioned that the UN is Canada’s “principal forum for pursuing Canada’s international objectives,” yet in an increasingly dangerous world where the spectre of war seems to loom larger , Canada ranks 65 among 193 UN member states for troop contributions in peacekeeping missions, hardly a statistic worth bragging about. If we really do want to rebuild our reputation as peacekeeper, maybe in 2017 we should reevaluate where and how we spend our money and consider alternative solutions to achieving those goals.
As always, thank you for your consideration of a concerned Canadian and as per my previous invitations, would like to remind you that you do have an outstanding invitation to join my wife and son and I for dinner anytime you are in the Kitchener area.
best regards and Merry Christmas
Edward Das
Kitchener, ON
N2P 2R9
Cost update March 2018
Currently the cost of the F-35 breaks down like this according to Winslow Wheeler a member of the US government oversight committee (US dollars): One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a 'generic' F-35 costs $178 million," Wheeler wrote.
When I started writing about this White Elephant almost 8 years ago, the cost to Canada per plane was being reported as 67 million per plane- now it comes out around CDN $229 million per plane- well over a 300% increase! Now, by the same logic, imagine having bought an average pick-up truck in 2000. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, (http://www.in2013dollars.com/New-trucks/price-inflation) the rate of increase from 2000 to 2018 was around 3.27%! Doesn't it seem strange that the rate of increase of a fighter plane cost should be almost 100 times greater than the rate of increase of anything the average North American might expect to pay more for over time? Canadians should not be spending their money on these aircraft.
Currently the cost of the F-35 breaks down like this according to Winslow Wheeler a member of the US government oversight committee (US dollars): One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a 'generic' F-35 costs $178 million," Wheeler wrote.
When I started writing about this White Elephant almost 8 years ago, the cost to Canada per plane was being reported as 67 million per plane- now it comes out around CDN $229 million per plane- well over a 300% increase! Now, by the same logic, imagine having bought an average pick-up truck in 2000. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, (http://www.in2013dollars.com/New-trucks/price-inflation) the rate of increase from 2000 to 2018 was around 3.27%! Doesn't it seem strange that the rate of increase of a fighter plane cost should be almost 100 times greater than the rate of increase of anything the average North American might expect to pay more for over time? Canadians should not be spending their money on these aircraft.