Feds told truth on F-35: Opposition really about clipping air force wings
by Brian Lilley
You are being lied to about the cost of fighter jets except that the lying isn’t being done by the government.
If you’ve paid attention to the news at all lately you’ve heard about the “rising costs” of replacing Canada’s aging fleet of F-18 fighter jets with the new F-35. Initial government costs to buy the plane came in at $9 billion but this week headline screamed about the cost being $46 billion.
What a load of garbage.
A report from auditing firm KPMG, commissioned by the government, said the full cost of the plane from development through operating and on to decommissioning was $45.8 billion. That estimate includes fuel, pilots and maintenance – all things that would need to be paid for regardless of which plane is purchased.
It is a strange form of accounting that says we need to account for every shoelace and jug of windshield washer fluid that might come near the planes. Can you imagine what the cost of your car would be if you calculated its cost over decades including estimates of every brake job, oil change and fill-up?
We don’t do this for other government programs or purchases yet the opposition and the media demand that this is the only true way to account for military purchases.
When a previous Liberal government promised a new national daycare program no one asked what it would cost over 40 years. In fact the F-35 program was signed onto by the Liberals and no one asked back then how much this would cost over 40 years.
Here is something remarkable you haven’t seen in the headlines, the report from KPMG found that the government had been telling the truth from the beginning, the cost to just buy the planes was less than $9 billion.
There are plenty of areas to criticize this government when it comes to spending but fighter jets that we haven’t purchased just isn’t one of them. The money hasn’t been spent and even if we do buy the F-35 it will be money well spent compared to other budget items.
National defence is actually a responsibility of the federal government under the constitution unlike say running a television network or giving out corporate welfare under the guise of “economic development.” If we accounted for the cost of CBC and economic development the same way the opposition and media demand we account for the F-35 both would cost more over the next 40 years than the fighter jets.
What this is really all about is an attempt to make sure that Canada does not have a suitable military.
There is a significant segment of the population that thinks the military should just do peacekeeping, search and rescue and snow removal in Toronto. This part of Canada doesn’t want us to have fighter jets or a military capable of going into battle if need be.
Unfortunately a large part of the media and both opposition parties fall into this camp.
Sure they will tell you they are worried about the cost but then will say we need to look at other fighter jets other than the f-35. We did on my show Byline and found that the alternatives to the F-35 cost as much or more than the plane we should apparently avoid.
This fight of the last few months isn’t about whether we should buy the F-35 it is about whether we should have a properly equipped military.
Categories: Contributor Columns
Brian.
From a political point of view, I think your logic is solid. For my part I oppose the F 35 deal for military reasons. Any fighter we buy will indeed be expensive. But what do we get for our money? In the case of the lightning, we get 65 brand new aircraft. That would seem to be a good thing, until you break the unit numbers down. We have two fighter bases in Canada. One at CFB Bagotville, and the other at CFB Cold Lake. So split the 65 number in half, and then remove a further half dozen or so for training. Now consider that some will always be “in the shop” and we are going to los a few to accidents and or [ God forbid ] combat. To get to my point, that is no where near enough airframes. Even at 110 F 18′s we are stretched to the limit. How does 65 improve that problem?
Another consideration. The money being spent here, is money sorley needed by our senior service, the RCN. Our two refuelling and replenishment ships are nearly 50 years old. They are steam powered, and single hulled. They cannot enter certain ports because of the lack of a double bottom, and they are just plain worn out. The Tribal class command and control/air defense destroyers are likewise pushing 50 years and need replacing, and even the Frigates are now middle aged. We could stand to buy an additional two submarines as well. The Navy is our most important service branch. It guards not only our trade routes, but can project our foreign policy when required in a way the other two branches simply cannot. We need to concentrate on the Navy now.
To put this into pespective, we can buy the sexy fighter that make great photo ops for our Defense minister, or we can concentrate on rebuilding our Navy properly. Unfortunately, we can’t do both. So buy the superhornet, and lets focus on the military’s most important, but at the moment weakest link.
There is a significant segment of the population that thinks the military should just do peacekeeping, search and rescue and snow removal in Toronto
Question. What’s the percentage, is this a fact the you can quantify or just unsupported partisan blather
Unfortunately a large part of the media and both opposition parties fall into this camp.
Question. again names and media as specific dates and who said this.
We did on my show Byline and found that the alternatives to the F-35 cost as much or more than the plane we should apparently avoid.
Question. What alternatives did you look at and what were the comparision factors.
Once again another lazy piece of off the top, pants on fire, non supported hyperbolie.
The Libs and NDP have never been friends of the Military. They continually obfuscate and misinform in order to advance their partisan political games usually to the detriment of Cdn support for the CF. Just once I would like to see them promote initiatives that would enhance the CF equipment and conditions.
One would think that the military should be the source of information with respect to what they need. The job of the elcted government is to budget appropriately, and even if unable to meet all the demands, try to get as close to it is possible. I was loughing last night seeing Mr. Mulcair pontificating about the inadequacy of the F35 – fighter bombers in Arctic conditions. I can’t believe that there are Canadians who believe that the Canadian military is completely passive in this debate, or that an elected Canadian government, regardless of its position on the political spectrum, would ignore the military experts’ recomendations and go shopping for fighter planes on a whim. To believe something like this, one has to be really dumb.
One would think that the military should be the source of information with respect to what they actually need. The job of the elcted government is to budget appropriately, and even if unable to meet all the demands, try to get as close to it is possible. I was loughing last night seeing Mr. Mulcair pontificating about the inadequacy of the F35 – fighter bombers in Arctic conditions. I can’t believe that there are Canadians who believe that the Canadian military is completely passive in this debate, or that an elected Canadian government, regardless of its position on the political spectrum, would ignore the military experts’ recomendations and go shopping for fighter planes on a whim. To believe something like this, one has to be really dumb.
“‘For my part I oppose the F 35 deal for military reasons. Any fighter we buy will indeed be expensive. But what do we get for our money? In the case of the lightning, we get 65 brand new aircraft.”
Nick I appreciate your comments regarding the F35, however, If you look at the price of the F18 Super Hornet is 88 million per plane the same as the F35 lightning which means Canada will still only afford to buy 65 aircraft; although the Super Hornet is compatible with the current F18 in the RCAF the F35 has more 21 century technology. Secondly, the Government of Canada has already awarded a huge contract to the Irving shipyard to build new destroyers and support ships at a cost of 25 billion dollars; and, an additional 8 billion dollars to a Vancouver shipyard to build new state of art coast guard vessels able to maneuver in the Arctic.
Third the diesel electric submarines that are being used were purchased by the Chretien government in the 1990′s they were obsolete subs purchased from Great Britain that mostly sat in dry dock because they were not seaworthy, it was the Conservative government that had to spend millions of dollars on bringing them up to military preparedness. Other military purchases that the Conservative Government had to make was in combat helicopters, tanks, small arms, kevlar vests and one of the largest purchase the C17 Globemaster transport which allowed the military to respond to crises around the world like the earthquake in Haiti within 24 hours. Previously under subsequent Liberal governments Canada’s DART team had to wait and borrow a large transport plane from Russia and could not respond for two weeks
I agree totally with Rich, this Govt. is constantly berated for spending but they are the first ones in a long time to invest in our military the libs just let it decay.
Lets use the same accounting formula on the bilingulism project that would put it in perspective!
There is a saying , you will always have a military in your country it just may not be yours!!!!