We're not the jet set

We're not the jet set

We don't need pricey F-35s — let's spend defence dollars in better way

By Peter Worthington, QMI Agency

Last Updated: April 4, 2011 2:00am

Now that the federal election campaign is underway, it’s inevitable the issue of new F-35 stealth fighter-bombers will become more contentious.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has already plunged in by dredging up the spectre of Canada’s “sovereignty” being threatened by lack of competitiveness in the bidding — $16 billion earmarked for 65 F-35 planes.
This may sound impudent, even arrogant, but on this issue Ignatieff — who is smarter than most of us — doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s echoing the party line for political points.
His criticisms are enhanced by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which challenges the Tory (and DND) claim of $16 billion in costs for the new aircraft, and says over 30 years it’ll cost more like $30 billion.
Considering that the government estimate is for over 20 years, and the revised estimate is for over 30 years, there’s not a hell of a lot of difference. But $30 billion sounds a lot worse that $16 billion.
The reality is — and you can take this to the bank — that whatever the estimate is, the actual costs will be higher than predicted or estimated. Probably at least 50% higher.
The question should be, does Canada need what is billed as the world’s best fighter-bomber? An attack aircraft with awesome capabilities that likely will never be used, or needed — rather as the present CF-18 has never been “needed,” although it’s now being used to attack tanks in Libya.
The CF-18 was also used, briefly, in the air war against Kosovo. But again, it wasn’t needed. The air force wants the F-35 — but doesn’t need it. Wanting and needing are two different things.
It’s mindful of our navy wanting submarines a while back. They are prestige items. Not exactly toys, but a case can always be made to justify what one wants. But are they needed? The answer is no.
Proponents of the F-35s will argue that they are insurance — and like insurance, it’s best when it isn’t needed. Insurance is precautionary and peace of mind is worth the cost.
The only situation in which F-35s would ever be needed would be if Canada is attacked or joins a real war. We don’t need F-35s to secure our northern frontier from snooping Russian aircraft. The CF-18s can do that, unless there’s a new policy to shoot down interlopers.
The days of aircraft dogfights are over. No more Second World War Spitfires vs. Messerschmitts over London. Missiles are now the vogue.
For wars such as Afghanistan and Libya, allied aircraft dominate the skies. When you think of it, the air forces of the U.S., France, Britain, Italy and even Qatar can handle Libya — a country of six million with an army capable of beating up civilians, and not much more.
Ignatieff would have a point if he urged that the $16 billion slated for F-35s be used instead to replace the mechanized equipment that has been worn out in Afghanistan.
Probably the wisest investment would be state-of-the-art helicopters, which the Chretien government cancelled, sticking the navy with Sea Kings that were at the end of their life expectancy nearly 20 years ago, but are still being used.
The U.S. is to get some 2,500 F-35s, but it’s a country that goes to war. Canada isn’t. We tag along. There are better ways to spend the defence dollar.

---