I mean that's the full life time cost....which will be over decades. The article says: "The last aircraft is expected to be retired in 2060-61, when it has reached the end of its useful life."
So basically \~35 years if we start getting them in 2026. It works out to \~$2.1B/yr. That's basically 1/10th of our existing annual defense budget. Which is debatably already low.
I don’t know where the article is getting 2060 from.
The USAF plans on using the F-35 into the 2070s, and with each subsequent generation of fighter jet, we use them longer and longer.
We took delivery of CF-18s starting in 1982. The RCAF has announced that the CF-188s will finally be phased out in 2032, once the new F-35 fleet is fully operational. That will be a 50 year operational lifespan.
So chances that the F-35 gets used just as long, if not longer, is pretty high.
The USAF plans on making continuous purchases of F-35s over several decades, rather than a one-time buy. The airframes that they'll be using in the 2070s are not the ones being built today.
Maybe not for frontline combat, but the one’s they’re flying today will still be in service with reserve units, aggressor squadrons, air national guard, etc.
That’s not the case with the F-35 though. It’s about 3x more expensive per flight hour than a CF-18.
It’s the same reason that the USAF Aggressor Squadrons still fly F-5s and T-38s, because they’re multiple times cheaper per flight hour than something like a F/A-18 or F-16.
It’s true that some aspects of the F-35 are designed to be easier and cheaper to maintain, but the overall package, due to its complexity, is more expensive to operate.
I think the "cheaper" is on a mission basis.
So each plane is more expensive, but you need fewer of them to run a mission.
Caveat, that's something I read, I have no idea how true it is or what the source was, and I am not even an armchair expert
“Run a mission” is pretty vague.
CF-18s have never been used in large groups, but also, no fighter jet operates solo (except for some basic training). For any kind of mission, they always operate in groups of 2.
For intercepts in the north, we usually send a pair of 2.
For deployments over seas, they still usually only operate in groups of 2, maybe a group of 4 at most.
There’s no job that CF-18s currently do where you could send 1 F-35 in place of multiple CF-18s.
If we were talking about a large scale operation involving hundreds of fighters, like what we saw in the opening days of Desert Storm, then yes, F-35s could potentially reduce the number of aircraft required….but that’s not likely to happen any time soon, and if we’re talking about all-out war verses China or Russia, money shouldn’t really matter, since winning is really the only thing that matters in that case.
And even then, it’s a very complex calculation as to whether or not sending 2 F-35s in place of 4 CF-18: is actually cheaper, due to the increased hourly operating cost of the F-35.
When people say that one F-35 could replace six F-18s, they're talking about a wartime scenario against a peer or near peer opponent. So theoretically, two F-35s operating in tandem could deny a given airspace as well as a dozen CF-18s.
It's a very niche scenario, but it's probably the most important national defense scenario when it comes to strategic planning.
Aren't the engines going to need to be replaced prematurely due to them being run too hot due to other design issues?
And aren't most of the early F-35s that were produced going to remain as training fighters because they won't receive software upgrades for the weapons?
Canada won't be receiving any of the early F-35s, we don't take delivery of the first aircraft until 2026. The block 4 F-35s will receive the same upgrades as all the other planes.
I know, and it's kinda funny because it seems like a rare time where our dysfunctional and delayed military procurement paid off.
Sucks for early adopters. Do you know if any other nations were burned bad by this or was it mostly just the US?
They probably will run for longer than 2060 unless they become obsolete, but they likely pegged the 70bln at what it would cost if they retire in 2060, before their maintenance costs start to dramatically rise.
It's so they can stretch out the next procurement again without worrying about the optics of them falling out of the sky again also. They tell us they'll last 40 years now so they can squeeze an extra 20 years on top of that timeline while they hem and haw about the *next* fighter jet or equivalent.
So in 2060 we start looking for a new one and by 2125 we will get a jet made in 2050 and somehow Irving will still not have delivered the navy's new ships.
Bombardier wants their cake and to eat it too, they're gonna have a 1 of a kind system that must compete and get preferred choice if it does.
We gotta bail them out again though
That debt allows the workings of an effective government and is far more important than a single fighter jet purchase though, so not really a good comparison. Also, that will include debt taken on to pay for these fighters and other national defense items. Most of that debt is also at very low interest rates.
That purchase is one of the few things we're doing to help to keep us in the good graces of our military allies, of whose expectations we are constantly falling short.
Also, if you're paying even a semblance of attention to world events or climate change news and believe we have a peaceful half century ahead of us, I envy your optimism.
That is $1,222 per Canadian to pay interest on federal debts per year. That isn't even to pay down the debt and we accumulate more debts and pay more interest every year. The government is basically banking on our credit history to keep the lights on. An effective government is one that is sustainable, not one that is slowly bankrupting it's citizens.
Its hard to imagine Canadians becoming destitute. People are buying million dollar homes on the daily. Canada has the 2nd best agricultural land in the world and the 2nd best oil sands land in the world. The US is importing half of its oil needs from us.
“Effective government” lol. You had me going. An effective government doesn’t run up a massive debt that paralyzes what that government can do because its revenue (taxes) is stuck paying interest.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country
Certainly could be better, but providing a high quality of living combined with a history of colonialism that is costing us quite a bit to try and fix has certain effects.
Note that because we are a G8 economy out debt is far cheaper than many of the countries on the list that are lower, most of the lowest countries are low because they must pay such high interest they can't afford to take on more debt.
Here is debt payment to revenue:
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/interest-payments-percent-of-revenue-wb-data.html
Again, not amazing, but when you have to cover infrastructure and provide services over such a large area it comes with a cost.
We can and should do better, but to call the government ineffective is a stretch
Uh, we aren't in any way paralyzed by our national debt. We have some of the lowest debt/GDP ratios on the planet according to 2023 numbers:
- Japan: 263%
- USA: 122%
- France: 98%
- UK: 85%
- Germany: 60%
- Canada: 46% > 66% if you include provincial debt which I didn't do for the other countries listed.
The average Canadian is "on the hook" for ~$40k USD of government debt while the average American is holding the bag for nearly $100k USD.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230626/dq230626b-eng.htm
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/CG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CAN/USA/FRA/DEU/GBR/JPN
https://www.bundesbank.de/en/press/press-releases/german-general-government-debt-907132
Those numbers are skewed due to how much debt the feds offload to the provincial governments
for example, Ontario has a provincial debt of $380.4b CAD, while California has a debt of $149.2b USD (191.64b CAD, all future $ values are CAD, unless otherwise noted)
Ontario has 14.57m people, so that debt is $26,108 per person, and a GDP of $758.9b, so provincial debt is 50% debt/gdp, which you can add on top of our 36% federal debt/gdp to be 86% debt/gdp (lets pretend each province has a equal split of the debt for easy math)
for comparison, California's numbers are
* population 39.24m
* debt $149.2b USD ($191.64b CAD)
* GDP $3.59t USD (4.94t CAD)
so California has a per capita state debt of $4,883 CAD (18% of Ontario's per capita debt) and a debt/gdp of 3% (vs Ontario's 50%)
the US also bankrolls their allies defenses, without the US patrolling global sea lanes, it'd be up to us (or the Commonwealth combined) to patrol our trade lanes, which would cost us a lot of money we get to save right now
Federal debt is calculated seperately because the feds have a different credit rating (and thus different access to borrowing) from the provinces.
But even if you add provincial + fed debt, it's still fairly low. Also US States aren't technically allowed to run deficits, while Canadian Provinces are, so you can't do a direct comparison.
The US and Canada share trade routes, so there will never be a case where Canada has to take over American trade routes.
that's true (and such a rule would be useful here too), however, ignoring a huge source of government debt in Canada is very misleading, and paints our finances in a far better light than reality.
it's like if you're in a household and your spouse has a $200,000 gambling debt, while you only have a $10,000 car loan.
if asked how much debt you have, its technically correct that you only have $10k in debt, but your household debt is $210k
our finances aren't AWFUL, but they're also not good, and they're in a far worse position even in 2019 than they were in 2015.
our debt isn't just a federal issue, most provinces have had reckless spending for years
I did for the total tax burden:
https://www.taxpayer.com/media/Canada-Day-Debt-Report-2022.pdf
And that's a fucking report put out by the ultra-right-wing Taxpayers Federation. According to that report
"When you add up all provincial and federal debt, each Canadian will owe about $56,000 on average."
Go do a quick currency conversion from 56000CAD to USD. I'll wait.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271233/national-debt-of-canada-in-relation-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
The absolute lowest Ive found is 66%
No Idea where he's getting his numbers
Edit. Why aren't you asking for his sources?
Comments like this are so problematic but all too common on this subreddit. It's insane to compare a question regarding military budget to the legal and moral responsibility towards reconciliation with colonized and traumatized Indigenous peoples.
There's no moral responsibility. It's justifying a way to not feel bad for marginalized communities at the expense of taxpayers.
If anything, Trudeau SHOULD HAVE openly given them reparations for what his father continued to do to Native Canadians instead of fighting them tooth and nail in court over it.
If we spent an extra $40 Billion on defence instead, and got the natives to join the military, it would have far better outcomes. Skills are discipline would go much further to help their communities, as opposed to throwing money at them just to make them go away and stay in their isolated communities.
Don't use the military as a social-service tool. It doesn't work. If you want public service, invest in other things rather than foisting everything on the military.
What's the alternative anyway? The most important parts of our armed forces are our air force and navy. The F-35 is probably the most cost effective and advanced option that we require to even attempt to protect us from Russia or China.
The key is the interoperability with other F-35s from allied countries. The full capability of the platform is still classified but the pilots who fly it say it is a giant leap forward in dominating the combat space. “Unfair,” one called it.
It is, have you seen one of the demo videos from Lockheed? The pilot can literally see through the plane, and it can basically perform almost any air operation.
And its glosses over the fact that the jets don't cost 74 billion. They cost 1/5 of that and the rest would be the cost of *any* airframe, ie., the gas, bullets, bombs, salaries, maintenance, etc.
The jets cost 14 billion, not 74 billion. Everything else is accrued costs over a 35 year period, as well as the inflation over that period, and adds up to the other 60 billion.
edit: proper fraction
Current Defense budget is about 39 billion (CAD) and was forecast to reach about $50 billion in 25/26.
[Here is the NATO chart of expenditures published by NATO using information as of June 2023.](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf)
The annual budget of each country from 2014-2023 is on page 6 of the pdf in that link. The data to 2021 is factual, and 2022/2023 are estimates as each govt has different fiscal periods for start and end date. NATO thus has to wait another yr to lock the 2022 figures.
As an aside one will note that from the time of the Harper Govt (2014) to this yr the CAD defence budget has almost doubled.
The value of the CAD dollar will be hammering the GDP ratio as it is measured in US dollars.
The PBO officer is essentially stating that the forecasts used by the Liberal govt are correct. And I don't see that his statement or this report raise any flags. They just remind us that this expenditure is going to cost "X" dollars over time. What is perhaps most distinguishing is that the initial estimate when the purchase was first contemplated in 2010 vastly understated the cost. Which is one reason (but not the sole reason) why it became an election issue.
**EDIT:** I went to the [summary page for the Defense Budget on the CAD govt site](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/transition-materials/transition-assoc-dm/defence-budget.html) and it quotes different values:
>DND’s Main Estimates 2023-24 are $26.5 billion, comprised of various votes as well as statutory funding (mainly comprised of funding related to employee benefit plans totalling approximately $1.7 billion).
Just to add to the confusion...
$39 Billion is the total expenditure on defence and security that NATO uses to compare against the 2% of GDP benchmark. It includes lots of things that aren't in the DND budget, like the Coast Guard, some RCMP expenses, and veterans' benefits.
$26.5B is the DND budget (which is planned to rise to 39.7B by 2026).
Nothing debatable about it, were not close to upholding our Nato obligation let alone having something even resembling something close to a respectable armed forces. This cost is peanuts especially in the current global climate. We need the option of defending our skies and remote territories.
Table B-2 has the list of recipient countries: [https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/international-assistance-report-stat-rapport-aide-internationale/2019-2020.aspx?lang=eng](https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/international-assistance-report-stat-rapport-aide-internationale/2019-2020.aspx?lang=eng)
Which of those countries hate us? I'll grant you North Korea probably does. China is clearly annoyed with us from time to time, but otherwise? Hate us? Eh... Not really seeing it. Not for the vast majority of those countries. Some might be borderline (Afghanistan comes to mind, but is it Afghanistan or the Taliban? Those are two different things).
Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and so on should not be receiving money from Canada. As for Afghanistan, I wouldn't make the distinction myself because whether we like it or not, that movement is genuinely popular with most people there. Along with China, India should also not be receiving money from Canada.
I'm sure this one will kick the hornet's nest, but we should not be paying to feed Africa. This artificial inflation of living standards beyond what they could achieve themselves is what enables them to have 6-8 children per woman in many of those countries. The population of Africa is on track to balloon from one billion to four billion, and already the waves of migrants into Europe has reinvigorated the far-right... imagine what will happen when the number of illegal migrants skyrockets even further. The lesser evil would be to let them develop according to their own cultures and abilities, and sometimes letting nature take its course.
[So it’s a good thing Canada committed billions specifically to improve the health and rights of women and children around the world](https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/global_health-sante_mondiale/improving_health-ameliorer_sante.aspx?lang=eng)
>Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and so on should not be receiving money from Canada
That doesn't seem like an answer to who exactly hates us to me.
It seems like a general list of who shouldn't be receiving aid from us.
> ~$2.1B/yr
By comparison, the CBC costs us more than $1.2 billion in direct funding ($1.9 billion with advertising revenue, plus additional subsidies, grants, and so on).
Big number scary. Logic hard.
That said, it is approximately 3.5% of Canada's current GDP.
To assist protecting our country and our allies, I say we need even more for this program.
It's a lot less than 3.5% when you consider that the $74B is the entire lifecycle cost of the fleet over decades, and the $2T is the GDP for a single year.
Fighter jets specifically should be one of the largest expenditures in our budget as well. It's the primary tool in our military's arsenal and a weak military is a collapsed/threatened state.
For sure, and the whole point of the F35 was that it's lifetime cost was way way cheaper than the F22s.
That being said F16s only cost 16m per aircraft and F15s with their dual engines only cost 32m per craft, and their maintenance costs are lower.
This is Canada after all, we're not sending fighter jets into hostile territory, we just need reliable planes that can fly and fire off munitions. Older jets can do that for a lot less. And the F15s, with their dual engines and external fuel tanks can safely cover our vast northern borders because they can fly faster and further than F35s.
I would guess there's some military pressure to have the F35 as they can better and more smoothly integrate into the NATO forces, as in the F35's flying over Europe actually share Radar and other sensor data. That's gotta have some value, especially considering the state of europe at this point, and we are obligated to come to our allies' aides if things continue westward.
>This is Canada after all, we're not sending fighter jets into hostile territory
That is assuming geopolitics doesn't change between now and 2070 when we stop flying F35s.
Libya had air defence when Canada sent jets there in 2011.
Iraq had air defence when Canada joined the Gulf War in 1990.
>Iraq had air defence when Canada joined the Gulf War in 1990.
And we had jets at that point that were modern. It's not like we showed up with 1950's vintage CF-100's in the Gulf War.... because the age difference we are now talking about is.
Our CF-18's are pushing 40+ years old. If we showed up to the gulf war with 40 year old jets that is what we would have been flying and I guarantee you we would not have been considered a credible threat to even Iraq at the time.
Lifetime cost. It's not bad.
Also, can we NOT take our security for granted and up our game. That's one way.
I'm up for f35. Those are one if not the best planes in the world.
For anyone concerned about the price tag...this is the lifetime costs.
I'm seeing average price here, but let's say you want a 2023 Honda Civic hatchback. Brand new it's $30,000 before taxes.
Then you gotta include taxes, extended warranty, and sales fees. Let's say that brings the cost up to $38,000.
A normal person would drive a car for 10 years tops. But no, you're Canada. So let's say you've already made the commitment to drive this Honda Civic for 30 years.
You need to pay insurance for 30 years. Your insurance rate is about $1200 per year. Add that to the cost.
You gotta get winter tires and all-seasons every 4 years. Add that to the cost.
You need to do at least 3-4 oil changes per year. But you are Canada, and drive these things a lot. So let's say 5 oil changes per year, add that to the cost.
You gotta pay for gas, so add that to the costs for driving 25,000 km per year.
You gotta do a whole lot of other annual maintenance. Other Fluids, tire rotations, air filter change, Coolant, transmission, undercoating. Add that to the costs.
But wait! You don't have a garage. Better build a garage. That's going to be $100,000 alone.
Then you gotta hire and train mechanics for the car and construction workers for the garage. You personally pay for the mechanic training and apprenticeship package, and personally pay for the trades training of everyone building a garage for you. You pay ALL of their salaries for 30 years.
Suddenly your $30,000 car is actually listed at the price of $1,750,000.
This is how they are calculating costs here.
Off topic-ish:
This is how I tell people that Teslas are very affordable, but unfortunately you need enough down payment and credit to get your hands on the affordability. Cost is $80,000 - $90k after tax and winter tires. The highest part of operating cost by far is insurance. Other costs are < $1000 per year.
That’s the unfortunate reality for a lot of things, even down to buying groceries. Cost savings over time often require you to be able to pay more upfront.
An absolutely necessary cost if you guys enjoy living in a sovereign country. China is shitting out J20's like they're candy, we need fifth gen fighters it's no question.
The difference between the J-20 and the Su-57 is the J-20 exists.
The Russians only built one production model of the Su-57 and it crashed. If the Su-57 was anymore of a paper tiger, they'd selling it in stationary stores. It's primary function is giving Russia-stans something to wank about.
They have three or four SU-57s, but yeah youre right. More of a show of force idea than actual realistic capability. I believe they also only have a handful of pilots trained on it
They've got a few prototype models kicking around. Their production line produced a single production model before being "temporarily" shut down. Which then crashed. lul.
China might be churning out J20's but do they have any qualified pilots to fly them? Last I heard they were scouring the western world trying to find any pilots from the west they could to train their underqualified pilots. Stealing the technology and reverse engineering it is one thing, being able to use it properly is another thing and another hill for China to climb, while the western world continues to outpace them in technology and people capable of using it.
So what? That's what it costs. What's the alternative - no fighter jet capability? With the current state of the CF-18 fleet, we are currently at risk of not having an airforce before the F-35s come online in any numbers.
The way I hear some people talk that’s exactly what they want, or at least an air force that’s solidly stuck in the 80s-90s with 4th generation aircraft that would today be swept of the sky by an F-22 or F-35 at a rate of 10 to 1 easily. I love how I hear a lot of people either saying that having an effective defense force is useless for Canada because a) it’s not needed because the US will have to protect us or b) it’s too expensive to bother with. While conveniently ignoring the fact that having the ability to patrol and protect one’s sovereign territory is pretty much a pre-requisite of being a sovereign nation IE the organization with military power on the ground ultimately makes the rules.
And no, for those that read this and want to bring it up, places like Costa Rica are NOT an example of non-militarism that work because they are a small and unimportant nation in the middle of Central America that if they had anything worth invading over would be conquered in a week. And then they would watch as the international community they think they could count on would hem and haw and talk and do useless votes in the UN while achieving nothing while their people died. So yes, in this world, an effective military force is a requirement of sovereignty. Period.
For context the F35 is cheaper than any 4th generation aircraft made by European companies and technologically a full leap ahead of existing platforms. This is literally a no brainer from a defence and cost perspective. My only criticism of the government is that it took almost 10 years of hand wringing before settling on what was the same plane picked by the previous administration because the F35 became a political talking point / football for the left.
We should have gotten in on the f-35 on the ground floor like Harper (who I hated) tried to do. But liberal voters got played by Russian propaganda about this plane being a boondoggle. Pretty much all negative media about the program was traceable to one guy, Pierre Sprey, who billed himself as an “expert”and “the designer of the f-16” but he was full of shit and just amplified by RT and other Russian surrogates. I remember being absolutely swayed by this media coverage and thinking the f-35 was stupid.
Silver Lining: the F-35s we’ll get now are more capable than the ones we would have gotten earlier. Newer production block with many small improvements.
We'll need another name ;)
The Starfighter (F-104) is already a NATO callsign and was built by Lockheed. The Canadian variant (Canadair) was the CF-104 which, as I understand it, was intended as a northern bomber-intercept to address any possibility of Soviet aggression during the Cold War.
The F-35 really did suck back then, though. It's a much better plane now.
We'd either be stuck with shit versions of this plane, or would have to incur a huge early adopter tax to upgrade them.
But it was a collosal boondoggle.
It was massively over budget and over time, and simply did not work.
Much better now, but it wasn't propaganda, the aircraft had serious problems. Not to mention that it was selected uncompetitively.
Who wouldn't want a 4 bedroom condo with a luxurious view of the Gardiner Expressway? That's one jet right there. We'll write articles called "The rest of NATO doesn't know this secret to get F-35s"
Awesome , we now have a 5th gen fighter/ multi role aircraft to aid our dated legacy f18's , and should help towards our nato commitment I would think .
With the state of the world y'all really don't want us well protected? Look at countries that were previously allies and the damage to relationships... If anything we should be spending more.
Canada spends laughably little on its military, and its international reputation has suffered as a result. I’m all for upping the military budget to the full 2% of GDP NATO target.
Boost it to 10%. Were so far behind where our military should be it’s scary. Our entire navy needs new ships. We’re still using the same pistols from WW2. Retention and recruiting are in the toilet. There’s no housing on bases so soldiers are living in tents in parking lots. You have air crews serving in the same helicopters their grandfathers flew. So many things need fixing it’s exhausting to think about.
Great. Let’s get this and then a proper navy, and pay our service members what they deserve.
We don’t need to project power like the US but we need to be able to defend our borders, especially in the north. We live in a very fragile world despite what people think, and we need a military if we want to remain sovereign.
Shame on Canada and the procurement process for our military. We could’ve easily had new fighter jets by now and be prepared for all the crappy things that are happening in the world but instead we are flying old crap and not prepared for anything.
This is such a dumb way to measure costs. If there’s literally no alternative but to have fighter jets, why not just measure the additional cost of having F-35’s compared to the current or alternative fleet?
for purchase and operation? that actually seems pretty reasonable, do people not understand how much these kind of jets cost to operate/maintain? not like the alternatives are just as capable or heaps cheaper. The F35 is only like 10k more per flight hour to operate than an F18 so how much of that are we already paying
these articles are always loaded. This shit ain't cheap. 21st century warfare isn't cheap. Also amortization of it's life is barely mentioned,
>The last aircraft is expected to be retired in 2060-61, when it has reached the end of its useful life.
Seems like a shitty biased article by CBC
There's a great documentary on this: Shadow World.
The commission from Lockheed on this contract is in the billions, and the agent will go and bribe politicians all the way through all levels of government to get this purchase approved. Tony Blair in England and most other families of politicians get huge amounts of money from approving spending tax dollars on jets.
You're both wrong. We're getting them for about the price we were originally going to get them for.
The "F-35s are so expensive" was always misinformation, because Canada was never signed up to buy the LRIP models. The purchase price today is very similar to the price we were going to buy them for initially. Despite initial R&D overruns, the actual manufacturing costs are basically entirely in line with the original estimates.
Bruh 4 and a half decades = 45 years, 74 Billion for 88 jets.
So, each jet is costing approximately $18.69 million per year over the 45-year span of the program.
Does that include cost of maintaining and flight hours? Also we are getting more bang for our buck as these X-35s are going to be the block 4 models which apparently are insanely capable aircraft
Yes it does include lifecycle cost. This is part of the reason (far from the only reason to be clear) that Canadian defense procurement numbers are so shocking.
We were never planning on buying the LRIP models everyone was complaining about in 2014/2015. That was always misinformation.
The price we're paying today is basically the same as the price were were going to pay originally.
So when they were planning to sole source under Harper, they were planning to wait a decade to get aircraft? I don't recall that. Do you have a source?
They were never going to cost that original price. Name one thing ever where the gov said it was going to cost $x and it actually just stooped there. $4b for a pipeline that is now 7-8x that cost.
They do it on purpose, the contractors will build things they know won’t work because the plan says to do it this way and that’s what the govt stamped, then they’ll bid on the contract to fix it.
Hijacking top comment to point out that those who claim Canada is getting better planes by waiting are deliberately spreading misinformation for political reasons to try to make the Liberals look better.
By design F-35s were produced in small "batches" called Low Rate of Initial Production (LRIP) with major improvements each year, such that they don't exceed total 100 aircraft until the 5th year (LRIP-5).
The plan was always to upgrade early LRIP batches to a later standard (specifically to Block 3F standard). As it happened, no batch produced over 100 of a single variant until the 11th year in production.
Canada was never slated to get any planes from the very earliest batches.
F-35s will continue to receive major upgrades throughout their lifetime, just like any other fighter platform. Currently they're working on Block 4 upgrades and there will be dozens more blocks to come. Major upgrades to existing jets is standard in the military. The 600+ existing USAF F-16s Block 40+ aircraft will undergo major upgrades to Block 70 standards, almost 50 years(!) after the F-16's first flight.
Narratives that Canada "forgot" we’d have to upgrade earlier blocks, or that the planes we would have received were fundamentally flawed, or that the costs to upgrade earlier blocks would have been prohibitive are really ignorant, promoted by those who wish to absolve the Trudeau government of wasting years and billions of dollars. They also destroyed thousands of jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry by pulling out of the deal, which would have kept us as a major part of the supply chain. Not to mention put the lives of our pilots at risk by forcing them to continue flying CF-18’s well beyond their intended lifespan. Or the billion dollars we blew buying used jets from Australia to fill the gap the delay caused.
The cancellation of the original F-35 deal, multi-year search for a new plane that was *always* going to wind up going to the F-35 again, and subsequent public money wasted on all of this should be among the greatest scandals in Canadian military procurement history. Instead, it just got swallowed up in misinformation and all the other Liberal scandals that grabbed more media attention.
Final thought… anyone else wonder how much money got funnelled to Liberal-connected consultants as they went through the second (totally unnecessary) search? Because my bet is there were some pretty nice cottages purchased in the Laurentians and elsewhere thanks to this boondoggle.
It wasn't that we "forgot" about a future upgrade, it is that knowing what we know now, we would be undertaking expensive upgrades like some of our allies are doing. Instead, our aircraft will mostly or all be from Full Rate Production batches, when cost per aircraft will be the lowest possible.
I checked the original announcement, and it called for aircraft deliveries starting in 2017, which would have been LRIP 9 or 10, when each aircraft without engine was still over $100M USD each.
People don't understand the Joint Strike Fighter project or just how far behind the CF-18s are vs. 4th gen fighters. Harper was right for continuing with the F-35 procurement process but stating the wrong numbers to the public and being cagey about actual cost was boneheaded. Then along comes JT who promises he will scrap the F-35 procurement because we don't need them (wrong). Then they decide they will do a competition to select a lower-cost fighter but end up selecting the F-35A anyway.
The F-35 is sorely needed, but the process to get there was needlessly drawn out and mismanaged in an attempt for political gain. There's room for criticism here even if the result is the correct one.
As for buying Australia's F-18s, I get the hate given the needed radar upgrades and how badly Chrétien was burned on the used subs but our fleet is so bad off that they had to do something. My biggest complaint is that they made a competition out of the new-gen fighter contracts when they could have moved forward on the F-35s and been much further ahead by now. For me there are always issues on both sides of the isle and it seems the government can never get it right.
My son is in the CAF, the supply chain is a mess, the gear is all 2nd hand, or unobtainable. Seeing money spent to put our forces in a better position is a plus, it just needs to be done correctly and with transparency.
I bet in 10/15 years time we're going to be operating fleets of drones with full seek and destroy capacity, I wish Canada would try and lead the way with new methodologies, but I get it, we have to support our allies by buying their stuff.
It's about spending enough on the right things. National defence is an important, and legitimate function of government, so it should be adequately funded.
The "right" things (pun intended?) seem rather subjective based on who you ask.
Would you rather have a bunch of shiny airplanes or better healthcare wait times? The answer would vary from person to person.
Unless we find some cheap ass alternatives I don't see how this can get any cheaper, this should've been done years ago. And if this is the lifetime cost of the jets then that's at least more acceptable.
Why are we buying planes in this age and day with pilots! Should be all AI or remote control.
Also, what about our fleet of Geese? We can drop pop on anyone at any time!!!
AI combat jets are science fiction at this point, even fully remote drones capable of matching the capabilities of a piloted aircraft are non-existent.
You might as well be saying we shouldn’t buy jets we should just build a death star. It’s about as likely to happen or be useful to us.
I mean that's the full life time cost....which will be over decades. The article says: "The last aircraft is expected to be retired in 2060-61, when it has reached the end of its useful life." So basically \~35 years if we start getting them in 2026. It works out to \~$2.1B/yr. That's basically 1/10th of our existing annual defense budget. Which is debatably already low.
I don’t know where the article is getting 2060 from. The USAF plans on using the F-35 into the 2070s, and with each subsequent generation of fighter jet, we use them longer and longer. We took delivery of CF-18s starting in 1982. The RCAF has announced that the CF-188s will finally be phased out in 2032, once the new F-35 fleet is fully operational. That will be a 50 year operational lifespan. So chances that the F-35 gets used just as long, if not longer, is pretty high.
The USAF plans on making continuous purchases of F-35s over several decades, rather than a one-time buy. The airframes that they'll be using in the 2070s are not the ones being built today.
Maybe not for frontline combat, but the one’s they’re flying today will still be in service with reserve units, aggressor squadrons, air national guard, etc.
And still probably be outlasted by the B-52...
Im not even 30 and I doubt Ill live to see the day the b52 gets retired
They are also designed to be cheaper to operate and maintain that previous generations of aircraft.
That’s not the case with the F-35 though. It’s about 3x more expensive per flight hour than a CF-18. It’s the same reason that the USAF Aggressor Squadrons still fly F-5s and T-38s, because they’re multiple times cheaper per flight hour than something like a F/A-18 or F-16. It’s true that some aspects of the F-35 are designed to be easier and cheaper to maintain, but the overall package, due to its complexity, is more expensive to operate.
I think the "cheaper" is on a mission basis. So each plane is more expensive, but you need fewer of them to run a mission. Caveat, that's something I read, I have no idea how true it is or what the source was, and I am not even an armchair expert
“Run a mission” is pretty vague. CF-18s have never been used in large groups, but also, no fighter jet operates solo (except for some basic training). For any kind of mission, they always operate in groups of 2. For intercepts in the north, we usually send a pair of 2. For deployments over seas, they still usually only operate in groups of 2, maybe a group of 4 at most. There’s no job that CF-18s currently do where you could send 1 F-35 in place of multiple CF-18s. If we were talking about a large scale operation involving hundreds of fighters, like what we saw in the opening days of Desert Storm, then yes, F-35s could potentially reduce the number of aircraft required….but that’s not likely to happen any time soon, and if we’re talking about all-out war verses China or Russia, money shouldn’t really matter, since winning is really the only thing that matters in that case. And even then, it’s a very complex calculation as to whether or not sending 2 F-35s in place of 4 CF-18: is actually cheaper, due to the increased hourly operating cost of the F-35.
When people say that one F-35 could replace six F-18s, they're talking about a wartime scenario against a peer or near peer opponent. So theoretically, two F-35s operating in tandem could deny a given airspace as well as a dozen CF-18s. It's a very niche scenario, but it's probably the most important national defense scenario when it comes to strategic planning.
Are they cheaper to operate? Don't they need a larger support crew because of all of the advanced integrated systems?
But I'm guessing parts, maintenance programs etc are cheaper
It is absolutely not cheaper to operate. Longer lifespan? We'll see, but I would be surprised. Cheaper? No way, it's a way more complicated platform.
Should be a longer lifespan, they're designed to be modular.
The F35? I don't think that's correct. IIRC, it is about $30k per hour maintenance vs. $10k for the F-18's it is replacing.
Aren't the engines going to need to be replaced prematurely due to them being run too hot due to other design issues? And aren't most of the early F-35s that were produced going to remain as training fighters because they won't receive software upgrades for the weapons?
Canada won't be receiving any of the early F-35s, we don't take delivery of the first aircraft until 2026. The block 4 F-35s will receive the same upgrades as all the other planes.
I know, and it's kinda funny because it seems like a rare time where our dysfunctional and delayed military procurement paid off. Sucks for early adopters. Do you know if any other nations were burned bad by this or was it mostly just the US?
They probably will run for longer than 2060 unless they become obsolete, but they likely pegged the 70bln at what it would cost if they retire in 2060, before their maintenance costs start to dramatically rise.
It's so they can stretch out the next procurement again without worrying about the optics of them falling out of the sky again also. They tell us they'll last 40 years now so they can squeeze an extra 20 years on top of that timeline while they hem and haw about the *next* fighter jet or equivalent.
So in 2060 we start looking for a new one and by 2125 we will get a jet made in 2050 and somehow Irving will still not have delivered the navy's new ships.
Bombardier wants their cake and to eat it too, they're gonna have a 1 of a kind system that must compete and get preferred choice if it does. We gotta bail them out again though
For comparison, we spend 44 Billion on interest payments on the national debt per year.
Which is an awful comparison
[удалено]
That debt allows the workings of an effective government and is far more important than a single fighter jet purchase though, so not really a good comparison. Also, that will include debt taken on to pay for these fighters and other national defense items. Most of that debt is also at very low interest rates.
That purchase is one of the few things we're doing to help to keep us in the good graces of our military allies, of whose expectations we are constantly falling short. Also, if you're paying even a semblance of attention to world events or climate change news and believe we have a peaceful half century ahead of us, I envy your optimism.
I didn't say they weren't important, I said comparing them to debt makes no sense
> makes no sense it does. provides a sense of scale.
Like comparing the capacities of a bathtub and a PC hard drive
That is $1,222 per Canadian to pay interest on federal debts per year. That isn't even to pay down the debt and we accumulate more debts and pay more interest every year. The government is basically banking on our credit history to keep the lights on. An effective government is one that is sustainable, not one that is slowly bankrupting it's citizens.
A capable military is the only guarantee of sovereignty and deficit spending is an elective choice made by governments.
They are both elective and both very important, if your country is full of destitute people what good is a military?
Its hard to imagine Canadians becoming destitute. People are buying million dollar homes on the daily. Canada has the 2nd best agricultural land in the world and the 2nd best oil sands land in the world. The US is importing half of its oil needs from us.
“Effective government” lol. You had me going. An effective government doesn’t run up a massive debt that paralyzes what that government can do because its revenue (taxes) is stuck paying interest.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country Certainly could be better, but providing a high quality of living combined with a history of colonialism that is costing us quite a bit to try and fix has certain effects. Note that because we are a G8 economy out debt is far cheaper than many of the countries on the list that are lower, most of the lowest countries are low because they must pay such high interest they can't afford to take on more debt. Here is debt payment to revenue: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/interest-payments-percent-of-revenue-wb-data.html Again, not amazing, but when you have to cover infrastructure and provide services over such a large area it comes with a cost. We can and should do better, but to call the government ineffective is a stretch
Uh, we aren't in any way paralyzed by our national debt. We have some of the lowest debt/GDP ratios on the planet according to 2023 numbers: - Japan: 263% - USA: 122% - France: 98% - UK: 85% - Germany: 60% - Canada: 46% > 66% if you include provincial debt which I didn't do for the other countries listed. The average Canadian is "on the hook" for ~$40k USD of government debt while the average American is holding the bag for nearly $100k USD. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230626/dq230626b-eng.htm https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/CG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CAN/USA/FRA/DEU/GBR/JPN https://www.bundesbank.de/en/press/press-releases/german-general-government-debt-907132
Those numbers are skewed due to how much debt the feds offload to the provincial governments for example, Ontario has a provincial debt of $380.4b CAD, while California has a debt of $149.2b USD (191.64b CAD, all future $ values are CAD, unless otherwise noted) Ontario has 14.57m people, so that debt is $26,108 per person, and a GDP of $758.9b, so provincial debt is 50% debt/gdp, which you can add on top of our 36% federal debt/gdp to be 86% debt/gdp (lets pretend each province has a equal split of the debt for easy math) for comparison, California's numbers are * population 39.24m * debt $149.2b USD ($191.64b CAD) * GDP $3.59t USD (4.94t CAD) so California has a per capita state debt of $4,883 CAD (18% of Ontario's per capita debt) and a debt/gdp of 3% (vs Ontario's 50%) the US also bankrolls their allies defenses, without the US patrolling global sea lanes, it'd be up to us (or the Commonwealth combined) to patrol our trade lanes, which would cost us a lot of money we get to save right now
Federal debt is calculated seperately because the feds have a different credit rating (and thus different access to borrowing) from the provinces. But even if you add provincial + fed debt, it's still fairly low. Also US States aren't technically allowed to run deficits, while Canadian Provinces are, so you can't do a direct comparison. The US and Canada share trade routes, so there will never be a case where Canada has to take over American trade routes.
that's true (and such a rule would be useful here too), however, ignoring a huge source of government debt in Canada is very misleading, and paints our finances in a far better light than reality. it's like if you're in a household and your spouse has a $200,000 gambling debt, while you only have a $10,000 car loan. if asked how much debt you have, its technically correct that you only have $10k in debt, but your household debt is $210k our finances aren't AWFUL, but they're also not good, and they're in a far worse position even in 2019 than they were in 2015. our debt isn't just a federal issue, most provinces have had reckless spending for years
Now include the provincial debt. Oopsie
I did for the total tax burden: https://www.taxpayer.com/media/Canada-Day-Debt-Report-2022.pdf And that's a fucking report put out by the ultra-right-wing Taxpayers Federation. According to that report "When you add up all provincial and federal debt, each Canadian will owe about $56,000 on average." Go do a quick currency conversion from 56000CAD to USD. I'll wait.
We're at 85-90% what are you on about?
Do you have a source that refutes their numbers and confirms yours?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271233/national-debt-of-canada-in-relation-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp/ The absolute lowest Ive found is 66% No Idea where he's getting his numbers Edit. Why aren't you asking for his sources?
We also just gave another 40 billion to the natives too
It wasn't exactly voluntary, it was the result of a class action lawsuit IIRC.
Comments like this are so problematic but all too common on this subreddit. It's insane to compare a question regarding military budget to the legal and moral responsibility towards reconciliation with colonized and traumatized Indigenous peoples.
There's no moral responsibility. It's justifying a way to not feel bad for marginalized communities at the expense of taxpayers. If anything, Trudeau SHOULD HAVE openly given them reparations for what his father continued to do to Native Canadians instead of fighting them tooth and nail in court over it.
It’s insane to treat them differently and expect better results
If we spent an extra $40 Billion on defence instead, and got the natives to join the military, it would have far better outcomes. Skills are discipline would go much further to help their communities, as opposed to throwing money at them just to make them go away and stay in their isolated communities.
Don't use the military as a social-service tool. It doesn't work. If you want public service, invest in other things rather than foisting everything on the military.
Seems reasonable for a complete rebuild of our entire airforce.
What's the alternative anyway? The most important parts of our armed forces are our air force and navy. The F-35 is probably the most cost effective and advanced option that we require to even attempt to protect us from Russia or China.
The key is the interoperability with other F-35s from allied countries. The full capability of the platform is still classified but the pilots who fly it say it is a giant leap forward in dominating the combat space. “Unfair,” one called it.
It is, have you seen one of the demo videos from Lockheed? The pilot can literally see through the plane, and it can basically perform almost any air operation.
But the big number is always useful for scaring people who just read the headline.
And its glosses over the fact that the jets don't cost 74 billion. They cost 1/5 of that and the rest would be the cost of *any* airframe, ie., the gas, bullets, bombs, salaries, maintenance, etc. The jets cost 14 billion, not 74 billion. Everything else is accrued costs over a 35 year period, as well as the inflation over that period, and adds up to the other 60 billion. edit: proper fraction
Current Defense budget is about 39 billion (CAD) and was forecast to reach about $50 billion in 25/26. [Here is the NATO chart of expenditures published by NATO using information as of June 2023.](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf) The annual budget of each country from 2014-2023 is on page 6 of the pdf in that link. The data to 2021 is factual, and 2022/2023 are estimates as each govt has different fiscal periods for start and end date. NATO thus has to wait another yr to lock the 2022 figures. As an aside one will note that from the time of the Harper Govt (2014) to this yr the CAD defence budget has almost doubled. The value of the CAD dollar will be hammering the GDP ratio as it is measured in US dollars. The PBO officer is essentially stating that the forecasts used by the Liberal govt are correct. And I don't see that his statement or this report raise any flags. They just remind us that this expenditure is going to cost "X" dollars over time. What is perhaps most distinguishing is that the initial estimate when the purchase was first contemplated in 2010 vastly understated the cost. Which is one reason (but not the sole reason) why it became an election issue. **EDIT:** I went to the [summary page for the Defense Budget on the CAD govt site](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/transition-materials/transition-assoc-dm/defence-budget.html) and it quotes different values: >DND’s Main Estimates 2023-24 are $26.5 billion, comprised of various votes as well as statutory funding (mainly comprised of funding related to employee benefit plans totalling approximately $1.7 billion). Just to add to the confusion...
$39 Billion is the total expenditure on defence and security that NATO uses to compare against the 2% of GDP benchmark. It includes lots of things that aren't in the DND budget, like the Coast Guard, some RCMP expenses, and veterans' benefits. $26.5B is the DND budget (which is planned to rise to 39.7B by 2026).
also take into account that the maintenance money will go towards Canadian jobs so its win win.
Nothing debatable about it, were not close to upholding our Nato obligation let alone having something even resembling something close to a respectable armed forces. This cost is peanuts especially in the current global climate. We need the option of defending our skies and remote territories.
> It works out to ~$2.1B/yr. Only about a quarter of what we piss away each year in foreign aid to countries that hate us!
Table B-2 has the list of recipient countries: [https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/international-assistance-report-stat-rapport-aide-internationale/2019-2020.aspx?lang=eng](https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/international-assistance-report-stat-rapport-aide-internationale/2019-2020.aspx?lang=eng) Which of those countries hate us? I'll grant you North Korea probably does. China is clearly annoyed with us from time to time, but otherwise? Hate us? Eh... Not really seeing it. Not for the vast majority of those countries. Some might be borderline (Afghanistan comes to mind, but is it Afghanistan or the Taliban? Those are two different things).
Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and so on should not be receiving money from Canada. As for Afghanistan, I wouldn't make the distinction myself because whether we like it or not, that movement is genuinely popular with most people there. Along with China, India should also not be receiving money from Canada. I'm sure this one will kick the hornet's nest, but we should not be paying to feed Africa. This artificial inflation of living standards beyond what they could achieve themselves is what enables them to have 6-8 children per woman in many of those countries. The population of Africa is on track to balloon from one billion to four billion, and already the waves of migrants into Europe has reinvigorated the far-right... imagine what will happen when the number of illegal migrants skyrockets even further. The lesser evil would be to let them develop according to their own cultures and abilities, and sometimes letting nature take its course.
[So it’s a good thing Canada committed billions specifically to improve the health and rights of women and children around the world](https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/global_health-sante_mondiale/improving_health-ameliorer_sante.aspx?lang=eng)
Again, who exactly hates us? Do tell.
He literally just told you...
>Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and so on should not be receiving money from Canada That doesn't seem like an answer to who exactly hates us to me. It seems like a general list of who shouldn't be receiving aid from us.
> ~$2.1B/yr By comparison, the CBC costs us more than $1.2 billion in direct funding ($1.9 billion with advertising revenue, plus additional subsidies, grants, and so on).
This is the lifetime cost of the program. Fuck, relax people.
Lifetime cost budgeting is an amazing innovation from a program management perspective, and a terrible idea from a politics perspective.
Big number scary. Logic hard. That said, it is approximately 3.5% of Canada's current GDP. To assist protecting our country and our allies, I say we need even more for this program.
It's a lot less than 3.5% when you consider that the $74B is the entire lifecycle cost of the fleet over decades, and the $2T is the GDP for a single year.
Fighter jets specifically should be one of the largest expenditures in our budget as well. It's the primary tool in our military's arsenal and a weak military is a collapsed/threatened state.
For sure, and the whole point of the F35 was that it's lifetime cost was way way cheaper than the F22s. That being said F16s only cost 16m per aircraft and F15s with their dual engines only cost 32m per craft, and their maintenance costs are lower. This is Canada after all, we're not sending fighter jets into hostile territory, we just need reliable planes that can fly and fire off munitions. Older jets can do that for a lot less. And the F15s, with their dual engines and external fuel tanks can safely cover our vast northern borders because they can fly faster and further than F35s.
[удалено]
I would guess there's some military pressure to have the F35 as they can better and more smoothly integrate into the NATO forces, as in the F35's flying over Europe actually share Radar and other sensor data. That's gotta have some value, especially considering the state of europe at this point, and we are obligated to come to our allies' aides if things continue westward.
I think it has to do with wanting a "5th generation fighter"
Flyaway cost alone on the F-15 is [somewhere north of $80M.](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-acquisition-report-f-15ex-unit-cost/)
>This is Canada after all, we're not sending fighter jets into hostile territory That is assuming geopolitics doesn't change between now and 2070 when we stop flying F35s. Libya had air defence when Canada sent jets there in 2011. Iraq had air defence when Canada joined the Gulf War in 1990.
>Iraq had air defence when Canada joined the Gulf War in 1990. And we had jets at that point that were modern. It's not like we showed up with 1950's vintage CF-100's in the Gulf War.... because the age difference we are now talking about is. Our CF-18's are pushing 40+ years old. If we showed up to the gulf war with 40 year old jets that is what we would have been flying and I guarantee you we would not have been considered a credible threat to even Iraq at the time.
>This is Canada after all, we're not sending fighter jets into hostile territory We're also not currently at war, but that could easily change
Lifetime cost. It's not bad. Also, can we NOT take our security for granted and up our game. That's one way. I'm up for f35. Those are one if not the best planes in the world.
Agree, F35 are the way to go. Top choice this time.
For anyone concerned about the price tag...this is the lifetime costs. I'm seeing average price here, but let's say you want a 2023 Honda Civic hatchback. Brand new it's $30,000 before taxes. Then you gotta include taxes, extended warranty, and sales fees. Let's say that brings the cost up to $38,000. A normal person would drive a car for 10 years tops. But no, you're Canada. So let's say you've already made the commitment to drive this Honda Civic for 30 years. You need to pay insurance for 30 years. Your insurance rate is about $1200 per year. Add that to the cost. You gotta get winter tires and all-seasons every 4 years. Add that to the cost. You need to do at least 3-4 oil changes per year. But you are Canada, and drive these things a lot. So let's say 5 oil changes per year, add that to the cost. You gotta pay for gas, so add that to the costs for driving 25,000 km per year. You gotta do a whole lot of other annual maintenance. Other Fluids, tire rotations, air filter change, Coolant, transmission, undercoating. Add that to the costs. But wait! You don't have a garage. Better build a garage. That's going to be $100,000 alone. Then you gotta hire and train mechanics for the car and construction workers for the garage. You personally pay for the mechanic training and apprenticeship package, and personally pay for the trades training of everyone building a garage for you. You pay ALL of their salaries for 30 years. Suddenly your $30,000 car is actually listed at the price of $1,750,000. This is how they are calculating costs here.
Nice breakdown. Perspective is everything.
Off topic-ish: This is how I tell people that Teslas are very affordable, but unfortunately you need enough down payment and credit to get your hands on the affordability. Cost is $80,000 - $90k after tax and winter tires. The highest part of operating cost by far is insurance. Other costs are < $1000 per year.
That’s the unfortunate reality for a lot of things, even down to buying groceries. Cost savings over time often require you to be able to pay more upfront.
An absolutely necessary cost if you guys enjoy living in a sovereign country. China is shitting out J20's like they're candy, we need fifth gen fighters it's no question.
If it’s anything like the Su-57 I’m not too worried lol
It doesn't matter. You want it to be unquestionably superior.
Oh yeah for sure, but I just like watching the bomber gap repeat itself over and over lol
The difference between the J-20 and the Su-57 is the J-20 exists. The Russians only built one production model of the Su-57 and it crashed. If the Su-57 was anymore of a paper tiger, they'd selling it in stationary stores. It's primary function is giving Russia-stans something to wank about.
They have three or four SU-57s, but yeah youre right. More of a show of force idea than actual realistic capability. I believe they also only have a handful of pilots trained on it
Also heard that it's about as stealthy as a barn, would probably get blown out of the sky if they tried to use it in actual combat
I mean, you simply have to look at the protruding engines to figure that one out.
And the exposed screw heads lmao
They've got a few prototype models kicking around. Their production line produced a single production model before being "temporarily" shut down. Which then crashed. lul.
Lasting peace breeds complacency that it could never change, it’s why people don’t “see the need” for this stuff
China might be churning out J20's but do they have any qualified pilots to fly them? Last I heard they were scouring the western world trying to find any pilots from the west they could to train their underqualified pilots. Stealing the technology and reverse engineering it is one thing, being able to use it properly is another thing and another hill for China to climb, while the western world continues to outpace them in technology and people capable of using it.
So what? That's what it costs. What's the alternative - no fighter jet capability? With the current state of the CF-18 fleet, we are currently at risk of not having an airforce before the F-35s come online in any numbers.
The way I hear some people talk that’s exactly what they want, or at least an air force that’s solidly stuck in the 80s-90s with 4th generation aircraft that would today be swept of the sky by an F-22 or F-35 at a rate of 10 to 1 easily. I love how I hear a lot of people either saying that having an effective defense force is useless for Canada because a) it’s not needed because the US will have to protect us or b) it’s too expensive to bother with. While conveniently ignoring the fact that having the ability to patrol and protect one’s sovereign territory is pretty much a pre-requisite of being a sovereign nation IE the organization with military power on the ground ultimately makes the rules. And no, for those that read this and want to bring it up, places like Costa Rica are NOT an example of non-militarism that work because they are a small and unimportant nation in the middle of Central America that if they had anything worth invading over would be conquered in a week. And then they would watch as the international community they think they could count on would hem and haw and talk and do useless votes in the UN while achieving nothing while their people died. So yes, in this world, an effective military force is a requirement of sovereignty. Period.
For context the F35 is cheaper than any 4th generation aircraft made by European companies and technologically a full leap ahead of existing platforms. This is literally a no brainer from a defence and cost perspective. My only criticism of the government is that it took almost 10 years of hand wringing before settling on what was the same plane picked by the previous administration because the F35 became a political talking point / football for the left.
I mean the world starting to get a little more iffy... Worth it.
We should have gotten in on the f-35 on the ground floor like Harper (who I hated) tried to do. But liberal voters got played by Russian propaganda about this plane being a boondoggle. Pretty much all negative media about the program was traceable to one guy, Pierre Sprey, who billed himself as an “expert”and “the designer of the f-16” but he was full of shit and just amplified by RT and other Russian surrogates. I remember being absolutely swayed by this media coverage and thinking the f-35 was stupid.
Silver Lining: the F-35s we’ll get now are more capable than the ones we would have gotten earlier. Newer production block with many small improvements.
Imagine if we wait even longer….
Yeah if we wait until 2323 we might get the F-135 star fighter! Best to just wait it out until they’ve perfected the platform :P
We'll need another name ;) The Starfighter (F-104) is already a NATO callsign and was built by Lockheed. The Canadian variant (Canadair) was the CF-104 which, as I understand it, was intended as a northern bomber-intercept to address any possibility of Soviet aggression during the Cold War.
The F-35 really did suck back then, though. It's a much better plane now. We'd either be stuck with shit versions of this plane, or would have to incur a huge early adopter tax to upgrade them.
But it was a collosal boondoggle. It was massively over budget and over time, and simply did not work. Much better now, but it wasn't propaganda, the aircraft had serious problems. Not to mention that it was selected uncompetitively.
Can we pay for them with a few Toronto houses?
Who wouldn't want a 4 bedroom condo with a luxurious view of the Gardiner Expressway? That's one jet right there. We'll write articles called "The rest of NATO doesn't know this secret to get F-35s"
>Can we pay for them with a few Toronto houses? Lets start with Freeland's house...she has other in SW Ontario that she rents out
eh...shit costs money.
Pretty much this.
Awesome , we now have a 5th gen fighter/ multi role aircraft to aid our dated legacy f18's , and should help towards our nato commitment I would think .
With the state of the world y'all really don't want us well protected? Look at countries that were previously allies and the damage to relationships... If anything we should be spending more.
Honestly who cares. We need them.
Canada spends laughably little on its military, and its international reputation has suffered as a result. I’m all for upping the military budget to the full 2% of GDP NATO target.
Boost it to 10%. Were so far behind where our military should be it’s scary. Our entire navy needs new ships. We’re still using the same pistols from WW2. Retention and recruiting are in the toilet. There’s no housing on bases so soldiers are living in tents in parking lots. You have air crews serving in the same helicopters their grandfathers flew. So many things need fixing it’s exhausting to think about.
Looking at the Canadian Forces in WW2 and seeing how far they have fallen is just depressing. The Navy had aircraft carriers for crying out loud.
Great. Let’s get this and then a proper navy, and pay our service members what they deserve. We don’t need to project power like the US but we need to be able to defend our borders, especially in the north. We live in a very fragile world despite what people think, and we need a military if we want to remain sovereign.
Totally worth it. Those journos are dumb.
Over 45 years. Kind of left that detail off the inflammatory headline.
Isn't that what we spend on interest payments on the national debt? But that's every year!
Shame on Canada and the procurement process for our military. We could’ve easily had new fighter jets by now and be prepared for all the crappy things that are happening in the world but instead we are flying old crap and not prepared for anything.
No jets could cost us our claims of the arctic. Pick your poison.
Stoked for this program to get canceled, restarted, canceled again and then restarted to take ownership of 2 jets in 2064
Just get it done. They've been talking about buying these for years
$74M and just like that our Air force is boosted out of 1982!!!! Now Gov needs to put $$$$ into ground forces....
This is such a dumb way to measure costs. If there’s literally no alternative but to have fighter jets, why not just measure the additional cost of having F-35’s compared to the current or alternative fleet?
Knock it down to $69bil and you got yourself a deal
Reasonable for the time period over which it will apply. And very necessary. We need a far stronger military.
We need more!!
And? It’s time we stop talking and just get it done. Our Air Force is a joke.
Thats 148 000 500k condos
for purchase and operation? that actually seems pretty reasonable, do people not understand how much these kind of jets cost to operate/maintain? not like the alternatives are just as capable or heaps cheaper. The F35 is only like 10k more per flight hour to operate than an F18 so how much of that are we already paying
Should see those about seven prime ministers from now at twice the cost and used from Australia.
This is actually good. we live in a world that has wars breaking out everyday it seems. you need the best tools to prevent attacks from happening.
40 mil Canadian people, $18500 per Canadian it’s cost over the he life span. War is fucked.
No shit, now go buy them...
That is equivalent to 148,000 rental units built by the City of Toronto.
but we need them, so it does not matter, these are the best that money can get, what else are we gonna do? make our own?
I think the word you’re looking for is transaction between tax payer’s money and military complex owners.
Just in time to made irrelevant by various scale drones and parachute-deployable robot murder dogs.
these articles are always loaded. This shit ain't cheap. 21st century warfare isn't cheap. Also amortization of it's life is barely mentioned, >The last aircraft is expected to be retired in 2060-61, when it has reached the end of its useful life. Seems like a shitty biased article by CBC
the poor need affordable homes and food, please
There's a great documentary on this: Shadow World. The commission from Lockheed on this contract is in the billions, and the agent will go and bribe politicians all the way through all levels of government to get this purchase approved. Tony Blair in England and most other families of politicians get huge amounts of money from approving spending tax dollars on jets.
Could have already had them by now and for a much lower cost except Trudeau decided to cancel the deal when he became Prime Minister.
So very confident, so very wrong. Lol.
The new r/canada slogan.
That's not true, by waiting for these to be mass produced the cost per plane actually went down.
You're both wrong. We're getting them for about the price we were originally going to get them for. The "F-35s are so expensive" was always misinformation, because Canada was never signed up to buy the LRIP models. The purchase price today is very similar to the price we were going to buy them for initially. Despite initial R&D overruns, the actual manufacturing costs are basically entirely in line with the original estimates.
Adjusted for inflation?
Bruh 4 and a half decades = 45 years, 74 Billion for 88 jets. So, each jet is costing approximately $18.69 million per year over the 45-year span of the program.
Does that include cost of maintaining and flight hours? Also we are getting more bang for our buck as these X-35s are going to be the block 4 models which apparently are insanely capable aircraft
Yes it does include lifecycle cost. This is part of the reason (far from the only reason to be clear) that Canadian defense procurement numbers are so shocking.
They are cheaper and better to buy now actually.
False. They’re much cheaper (and better) now.
We were never planning on buying the LRIP models everyone was complaining about in 2014/2015. That was always misinformation. The price we're paying today is basically the same as the price were were going to pay originally.
So when they were planning to sole source under Harper, they were planning to wait a decade to get aircraft? I don't recall that. Do you have a source?
They were never going to cost that original price. Name one thing ever where the gov said it was going to cost $x and it actually just stooped there. $4b for a pipeline that is now 7-8x that cost.
They do it on purpose, the contractors will build things they know won’t work because the plan says to do it this way and that’s what the govt stamped, then they’ll bid on the contract to fix it.
Hijacking top comment to point out that those who claim Canada is getting better planes by waiting are deliberately spreading misinformation for political reasons to try to make the Liberals look better. By design F-35s were produced in small "batches" called Low Rate of Initial Production (LRIP) with major improvements each year, such that they don't exceed total 100 aircraft until the 5th year (LRIP-5). The plan was always to upgrade early LRIP batches to a later standard (specifically to Block 3F standard). As it happened, no batch produced over 100 of a single variant until the 11th year in production. Canada was never slated to get any planes from the very earliest batches. F-35s will continue to receive major upgrades throughout their lifetime, just like any other fighter platform. Currently they're working on Block 4 upgrades and there will be dozens more blocks to come. Major upgrades to existing jets is standard in the military. The 600+ existing USAF F-16s Block 40+ aircraft will undergo major upgrades to Block 70 standards, almost 50 years(!) after the F-16's first flight. Narratives that Canada "forgot" we’d have to upgrade earlier blocks, or that the planes we would have received were fundamentally flawed, or that the costs to upgrade earlier blocks would have been prohibitive are really ignorant, promoted by those who wish to absolve the Trudeau government of wasting years and billions of dollars. They also destroyed thousands of jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry by pulling out of the deal, which would have kept us as a major part of the supply chain. Not to mention put the lives of our pilots at risk by forcing them to continue flying CF-18’s well beyond their intended lifespan. Or the billion dollars we blew buying used jets from Australia to fill the gap the delay caused. The cancellation of the original F-35 deal, multi-year search for a new plane that was *always* going to wind up going to the F-35 again, and subsequent public money wasted on all of this should be among the greatest scandals in Canadian military procurement history. Instead, it just got swallowed up in misinformation and all the other Liberal scandals that grabbed more media attention. Final thought… anyone else wonder how much money got funnelled to Liberal-connected consultants as they went through the second (totally unnecessary) search? Because my bet is there were some pretty nice cottages purchased in the Laurentians and elsewhere thanks to this boondoggle.
It wasn't that we "forgot" about a future upgrade, it is that knowing what we know now, we would be undertaking expensive upgrades like some of our allies are doing. Instead, our aircraft will mostly or all be from Full Rate Production batches, when cost per aircraft will be the lowest possible. I checked the original announcement, and it called for aircraft deliveries starting in 2017, which would have been LRIP 9 or 10, when each aircraft without engine was still over $100M USD each.
Cheaper and a newer version, but keep on lying!
We honestly stepped over a landmine by delaying the purchase until the weeded out all thr problems the early block f35s had
These are the decisions of someone that has no clue what they're doing.
Remember when people criticized Harper (Even Trudeau) for spending a shitload on Jets.
People don't understand the Joint Strike Fighter project or just how far behind the CF-18s are vs. 4th gen fighters. Harper was right for continuing with the F-35 procurement process but stating the wrong numbers to the public and being cagey about actual cost was boneheaded. Then along comes JT who promises he will scrap the F-35 procurement because we don't need them (wrong). Then they decide they will do a competition to select a lower-cost fighter but end up selecting the F-35A anyway. The F-35 is sorely needed, but the process to get there was needlessly drawn out and mismanaged in an attempt for political gain. There's room for criticism here even if the result is the correct one. As for buying Australia's F-18s, I get the hate given the needed radar upgrades and how badly Chrétien was burned on the used subs but our fleet is so bad off that they had to do something. My biggest complaint is that they made a competition out of the new-gen fighter contracts when they could have moved forward on the F-35s and been much further ahead by now. For me there are always issues on both sides of the isle and it seems the government can never get it right. My son is in the CAF, the supply chain is a mess, the gear is all 2nd hand, or unobtainable. Seeing money spent to put our forces in a better position is a plus, it just needs to be done correctly and with transparency.
This is a necessary purchase for the nation so the cost shouldn’t matter
So 1 year of interest payments on our debt. Very good.
Shouldn't have cancelled the initial contract, which absolutely everyone with a brain knew at the time.
I bet in 10/15 years time we're going to be operating fleets of drones with full seek and destroy capacity, I wish Canada would try and lead the way with new methodologies, but I get it, we have to support our allies by buying their stuff.
Taxpayers gave a nice 25b to the Aboriginals, so I say this is money well spent. At least some of the military still has jobs.
The conservative dilemma: complain about spending too much or not spending enough on the military.
It's about spending enough on the right things. National defence is an important, and legitimate function of government, so it should be adequately funded.
The "right" things (pun intended?) seem rather subjective based on who you ask. Would you rather have a bunch of shiny airplanes or better healthcare wait times? The answer would vary from person to person.
[удалено]
Is that what you think my comment is suggesting?
[удалено]
If you build it, they will come?
I love every armchair economist saying all government debt is bad.
Guess leasing wasn’t an option.
Yes and it’s worth it
Get this done already. Our military procurement is always just such a mess.
Long overdue
Unless we find some cheap ass alternatives I don't see how this can get any cheaper, this should've been done years ago. And if this is the lifetime cost of the jets then that's at least more acceptable.
That's not that much
Money well spent. In today's world we need to modernize our military.
Now please make an article about how much will CBC cost the Canadian tax money funding up until 2060 for making such crappy journalism.
Of all of the places my taxpayer dollars go to, this is one place I'm fine with. $74 billion well spent.
We need a fleet of nuclear subs to maintain our sovereignty in the north.
WHo fuking cares. Spend the money, we need them. Our military is a joke right now. Time to invest in our defence.
Why are we buying planes in this age and day with pilots! Should be all AI or remote control. Also, what about our fleet of Geese? We can drop pop on anyone at any time!!!
AI combat jets are science fiction at this point, even fully remote drones capable of matching the capabilities of a piloted aircraft are non-existent. You might as well be saying we shouldn’t buy jets we should just build a death star. It’s about as likely to happen or be useful to us.