OTTAWA -- The F-35 stealth fighter jets could cost Canada $29.3 billion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office -- a sum nearly double the government's initial estimate of $16 billion.
The PBO released a report Thursday about the purchase of the planes.
It estimates each F-35 could cost $149 million plus $300 million in annual service costs over 30 years.
The government, though, has maintained the costs of $70-75 million per aircraft and $250 million for service are firm.
Full story: F-35 purchase could cost double: PBO
You should start a political party and make the above its plank. Be prepared to walk it. BTW, the life the aboriginals deserve is largely now gone forever...it is the life they had.
And: "We could give the entire defense budget to the United States with the understanding the money be used to establish North American defenses across Canada and the United States."
Our military budget would hardly pay for a bag of popcorn and a movie for U.S. troops. BUT, if they did accept the proposition would that mean we could borrow some of their military toys to play with if we promise to wash and buff them all shiny before we return them?
Not_the_Daddy, 2011-03-25 09:55:49
They are overpaying for less capabilities. For half the price you can get Super Hornets or the new F-15 Silent Eagles. No, they are not as stealthy as the f-35, but they are the next best thing to the F-22 for air superority.
david, 2011-03-18 14:32:28
Havingsaid this there is much we could do to defend this land.
We could give the entire defense budget to the United States with the understanding the money be used to establish North American defenses across Canada and the United States.
Or we could do a much more contraversal thing. Turn all land north of the ten provinces to the United Nations to Gaurd , Lease to world corporations with all profits utilised for the good of the world , and give aboriginal peoples the life they deserve.
By ourselves we are just the proverbial sitting duck for anyone who wishes to move in and take as they please. The United States is already doing as they please under the Arctic ice and within world courts where they imply that we do not have sovergn rights to any arctic lands. All lands including Russia,s arctic and Alaska need be turned over to the United nations touse for the common good of all members. Having said this then all lands of the world need become members with NO veto for anyone. Equality for all nations and a great sourse of monies to do the needed work of this great group.
Ron Glyn, 2011-03-17 20:49:03
But here's a little snippet on the history of Canada's debt. (www.debtclock.ca)
Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975 when it began to explode; growing for the next 12 years at more than 20% per year. It broke the $100-billion mark in 1981 and the $200-billion mark in 1985. While the growth slowed in 1988, our federal debt continued to climb, breaking $300-billion in 1988, $400-billion 1992, and $500-billion in 1994. It peaked in 1997 at $563-billion.
Gee whiz, look at that. The total debt EXPLODED, growing at 20% per year during the TRUDEAU years...and then look again and see the debt PEAKING at 563 Billion during the CRETIAN years.
ooohooo hahaha. Now come back on that! (to put that in perspective for you, if Harper were to increase our debt today by 20% per year, like Trudeau did, he would need to run an annual deficit of $100 Billion, year after year after year)
The Crusher, 2011-03-17 13:18:22
When you educate yourself as to the meaning of deficit versus debt and figure out how to convert your "modest" deficit into 2011 dollars, putting it in proper perspective in relation to the country's current GDP, get back to me. Otherwise stop wasting cyber space.
Oh, and you really need to work on your math too. The figures for debt and deficit for all PMs from Trudeau to present are all available for everyone to see (and UNDERSTAND). Your ignorant quips do nothing but hilite your denial and ignorance!
The Crusher, 2011-03-17 12:54:14
As is often the case where Jay? Certainly not in Canada. You would do well to review exactly how many Canadaian Ministers of National Defence actually had military experience. For an even more alarming figure (at least from your stated perspective) review how many within the last 30 years have had any military experience. It is rather amusing however that when it suits you you don't hesitate to reference the Great Satan to try and support of your position.
"...but to drive my argument to fictitious lengths..."
There is nothing about the response provided to your statements that does anything of the sort. The response in fact merely provides a logical extension of said statements.
"Can I interest you in a little moral highground ?"
You might be able to if anyone actually believed you were capable of providing it. Unfortunately the totality of your posts would indicate otherwise.
As it is quite apparent you have no military experience allow me to enlighten you (unfortunately wikipedia is no substitution for actual experience). Individuals who reach the rank of General/Flag officer (as with Gordon O'Connor)are already politicians. They have to be in order to reach that rank. All too often this means (as it does with politicians) that they have spent more time and energy worrying about being promoted than they have worrying about the welfare of those who they serve (and those they command). Hence there is no guarantee that simply by virtue of military experience an indivdual will make a better Minister of National Defence. And while having spent time in the miltary will necessarily provide a certain level of understanding of the organization, it does not guarantee an indepth knowledge of all aspects military operations.
crash, 2011-03-16 19:44:08