Ottawa set to spend $9-billion on 65 U.S. fighter jets

It wobbles the mind. What will be the other costs, Mr. McKay, of retraining pilots and ground crews to work on the new platforms? Would the Super Hornet be not close enough to reduce a great deal of that cost? Does the F-18 already not fit the bill?

Bah.

I bet they don't deliver or cancel half way through, seems to be the way they do military spending. Btw, what ever happened to the 20 other projects you promised to buy the forces?

I think 65 fighters is an embarrasment. Sounds like we are in a race to have the smallest air force in the world.

lol love the google add under Caleb's post "Aircraft F16 find great deals and save! compare products, prices & stores www.shopping.com" maybe the government should look there before going to the states, might save some money.

Crysis))

Sure we need the best of the best fighter aircraft to kick some Taliban but. But C'mon F-35 !!!! is really overkill and over price for what the Canadian military need and can afford. The Conservative are more reckless with Canadian public money than the Liberal ever was. And BTW that is another no bid contract!

I tend to agree that the F-35 is overkill, and we probably could have got more Superhornets for the price, or a few more F-22's. However.....for us to have an advanced fighter such as the F-35, in concert with the Navy's new Cyclone choppers that enter service this year, we'll have some pretty impressive air power.

As for only getting 65....it costs major $$$$ to maintain these things. The U.S. might order hundreds, but has to maintain them as well. Factor in training hours and everything else, why would we (Canada) want to put ourselves in debt like the U.S. just to have hundreds of attack planes?

-J.

Of cource it's better, and more expensive sure. Pilots are testing once on two weeks because of cost of planes that they are flying by.

F-18's are on their way out. F-35's are newest things on the market. Sure we can get more F-18's, but we tend to keep our kit or a long time (Sea Kings anyone?). Parts for the F-35 will be easier to get in 15 years than they will for the F-18. Plus since this is the way the Yanks are going interoperability will be easier if we try and keep up with them.

The F35 is a good bit of kit and should last 30 years. I like the Super-Hornet too but it has a much shorter shelf-life than the F35.

Before we all poo-poo the decision, think about buying a bit of kit that will last 30 years. Oh and 65 aircraft is a potent strike force. This is a very capable combat aircraft. You don't need 200 of these to defend Canada or it's interests.

Are you talking about the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Because it's only entered US operational service about 10 years ago.

The Super Hornet isn't a bad bit of kit. The Aussies have bought it as an interim aircraft prior to them getting the F35.

If there is a nation that is worth emulating on procurement and military structure/robustness it's Australia.

On the surface, it does seem excessive given the current missions of the CF. Our CF 18s are not getting use in Afghanistan and therefore, one may wonder why we would buy top of the line to replace them.

Fortunately, planners are preparing for the conflcit of tomorrow and are not blinded by the events of today. Fighting tribes in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan will not likely be the only conflict the world sees in the next 35 years.

What happened to the "need" to have a twin engine fighter?