Do I agree that a minimum amount of Canadian gdp should be funneled towards Defense? Yes.
However, the problem at hand here is how that money will be invested and how damn secretive and seemingly incompetent the governement has been on this specific procurement process. From its inception, the F-35 program has been plagued with problems and contrarily to what's been trumpeted, there has never been any guaranties about its benefits for the Canadian aeronautic industry. The Canadian governement was sold a dream by Lockheed Martin and despite all the warning signs about the shortcomings of this aircraft, it systemingly refused to reassess its decision.
Should the Canadian forces have the best tools available to not only effectively protect its own airspace but also meet its obligations in NATO. Absolutely... reason why we shouldn't buy this plane. As I have studied this plane extensively, I could list some of its deficiencies but instead, I will quote a great article published in Foreign Policy (great publication) by Winslow Wheeler, who previously worked for 31 years on national security issues for Republican and Democratic senators on Capitol Hill and for the Government Accountability Office.
Quote:
"In discussing the F-35 with aviation and acquisition experts -- some responsible for highly successful aircraft such as the F-16 and the A-10, and others with decades of experience inside the Pentagon and years of direct observation of the F-35's early history -- I learned that the F-35's problems are built into its very DNA."
A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. Worse yet, it won't be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission -- or just as importantly, to train pilots -- because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability. The aircraft most like the F-35, the F-22, was able to get into the air on average for only 15 hours per month in 2010 when it was fully operational. (In 2011, the F-22 was grounded for almost five months and flew even less.)
This mediocrity is not overcome by the F-35's "fifth-generation" characteristics, the most prominent of which is its "stealth." Despite what many believe, "stealth" is not invisibility to radar; it is limited-detection ranges against some radar types at some angles. Put another way, certain radars, some of them quite antiquated, can see "stealthy" aircraft at quite long ranges, and even the susceptible radars can see the F-35 at certain angles. The ultimate demonstration of this shortcoming occurred in the 1999 Kosovo war, when 1960s vintage Soviet radar and missile equipment shot down a "stealthy" F-117 bomber and severely damaged a second.
The bottom line: The F-35 is not the wonder its advocates claim. It is a gigantic performance disappointment, and in some respects a step backward. The problems, integral to the design, cannot be fixed without starting from a clean sheet of paper.
|
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...tagon?page=0,1
We need new planes but like any reasonable consumer, we should assess our needs and above all, we should weight the different options against one another!!