98

Canadian military unable to refuel new jets in mid-air

Cost of F-35 purchase likely to include additional costs


 

Canada’s new F-35 fighter jets, purchased at an estimated cost of between $16 billion and $21 billion, cannot be refueled while airborne using equipment the military has on hand, meaning Ottawa may have to spend several hundred million more dollars on additional equipment and modifications. The F-35 purchase was touted by the Conservatives as a necessary step in modernizing Canada’s military capacity. But the current Polaris transport aircraft that handles the refueling of the existing CF-18 fighters are not equipped to handle the new F-35s. As a result, Canada may have to buy a new fleet of tanker aircraft that can fuel the new jets in the air, in addition to installing drag chutes, as the F-35 cannot land on the shorter runways in Canada’s north. The purchase of the new planes was the biggest military procurement in Canada’s history. But the opposition has accused the Conservative government of entering a non-competitive bidding process with the Pentagon, and as a result has ignored a number of questions about the development, capabilities and overall cost of the purchase.

Ottawa Citizen


 
Filed under:

Canadian military unable to refuel new jets in mid-air

  1. Finally, someone is doing their homework. The top reasons to hate the F-35 are Canadian reasons: short range, constant need for air-to-air refueling, high cost of operational maintenance. These planes are supposed to defend the north according to PMO frat boys, yet they barely have the range to get to our forward air bases there, let alone to actually deflect a long range intrusion.

  2. Finally, someone is doing their homework. The top reasons to hate the F-35 are Canadian reasons: short range, constant need for air-to-air refueling, high cost of operational maintenance. These planes are supposed to defend the north according to PMO frat boys, yet they barely have the range to get to our forward air bases there, let alone to actually deflect a long range intrusion.

    • One may call it a "sad state of affairs".

  3. Is it possible to feel sorry for an airplane? Especially one with missiles and bombs? 'Cause it's been a while since the F35 has had a good news day, on either side of the border.

  4. Is it possible to feel sorry for an airplane? Especially one with missiles and bombs? 'Cause it's been a while since the F35 has had a good news day, on either side of the border.

  5. I support the Military of Canada ! Exellent well trained pilots with the latest tech aircraft will be defending our natural resources against grasping hands that pose an ever growing threat to what is ours. We connot do this with outdated equipment in our Vast North…I will vote for the Conservative government because it`s apparent that political party supports the Military….and the Liberal party does NOT !

  6. I support the Military of Canada ! Exellent well trained pilots with the latest tech aircraft will be defending our natural resources against grasping hands that pose an ever growing threat to what is ours. We connot do this with outdated equipment in our Vast North…I will vote for the Conservative government because it`s apparent that political party supports the Military….and the Liberal party does NOT !

    • Then you haven't been paying attention.
      Vets pensions reduced and benefits gutted.
      Vets having their medical records passed around the office for everyone's merriment.
      Buying a plane that will not do the job that we need it to do. It's not a long range interceptor it's a bit of everything and master at none of them. It will put more military lives at risk in conducting its operations than the alternatives, this now includes the extra tanker crews. Buying a Rolls Royce and asking it to travel cross country when what was needed was a truck does our pilots no favours at all.
      That is just scratching the surface of Conservative support for our armed forces, don't get me started on the use of our military to try and cover for illegal governmental actions.
      Judging by your post your research appears limited to regurgitating PMO faxes and e-mails.

      • I live a few miles from CFB Petawawa, being retired I drive cab to subsidise my "Pension" . Soldiers currently in service NEVER offer any comment on the equipment or arms they currently are issued with,…however….when you get to talk to a vets at the local Legion Halls ,you get it straight from the horses mouth without any BS. They tell it like it is. Pensions ARE woefully lacking in gratitude "for time served", not to mention the clubs and spears they got to do their job with ! Times require advanced (expensive) tech gadgets our youth seem to adapt to like ducks to water,they are our future ,and we`ve got to give them the best to do their job right ….so that you have the right to complain about your pension !

        • Not at the pension receiving stage just yet. My memory of soldiers offering comment is different, it may never be public comment but it was always a soldiers place to call a piece of crap a piece of crap. That is why it is interesting that the politicians are sending the brass out on sales trips throughout Canada pushing the F35 in PR junkets.
          When all a weapon is is a gadget then it is useless, it gives a false sense of security.
          The F35 is a limo, expensive with all the accessories and heavy on fuel. What is needed is an interceptor, a long range fast and reliable fighter if you like. The F35 is not that and it appears that it won't be delivered in a usable manner on time. We should be using tried and tested equipment that does what we want.
          The F35 will be a white elephant that will cost billions, lives and not do what we need it to do. The Super Hornet is much more suitable for our purposes.

  7. One may call it a "sad state of affairs".

  8. Then you haven't been paying attention.
    Vets pensions reduced and benefits gutted.
    Vets having their medical records passed around the office for everyone's merriment.
    Buying a plane that will not do the job that we need it to do. It's not a long range interceptor it's a bit of everything and master at none of them. It will put more military lives at risk in conducting its operations than the alternatives, this now includes the extra tanker crews. Buying a Rolls Royce and asking it to travel cross country when what was needed was a truck does our pilots no favours at all.
    That is just scratching the surface of Conservative support for our armed forces, don't get me started on the use of our military to try and cover for illegal governmental actions.
    Judging by your post your research appears limited to regurgitating PMO faxes and e-mails.

  9. What about the icebreaker?

  10. What about the icebreaker?

  11. Surely this cannot come as news to the people assessing the future equipment needs of our air force. What made this spring up now?

  12. Surely this cannot come as news to the people assessing the future equipment needs of our air force. What made this spring up now?

    • I guess that's the problem when the tendering process is secondary to the photo ops and talking tough in sound bites.
      Reality has a nasty habit of insisting folk pay attention to it.

    • I guess Lockheed Martin left that out of the sales brochure.

  13. I guess that's the problem when the tendering process is secondary to the photo ops and talking tough in sound bites.
    Reality has a nasty habit of insisting folk pay attention to it.

  14. I live a few miles from CFB Petawawa, being retired I drive cab to subsidise my "Pension" . Soldiers currently in service NEVER offer any comment on the equipment or arms they currently are issued with,…however….when you get to talk to a vets at the local Legion Halls ,you get it straight from the horses mouth without any BS. They tell it like it is. Pensions ARE woefully lacking in gratitude "for time served", not to mention the clubs and spears they got to do their job with ! Times require advanced (expensive) tech gadgets our youth seem to adapt to like ducks to water,they are our future ,and we`ve got to give them the best to do their job right ….so that you have the right to complain about your pension !

  15. For use in North America, the F-35 stealth fighter is ill suited for our needs by design.
    Let's be clear about what this plane has been developed for: it is a first strike fighter-bomber intended for use in "shock and awe" attacks. Its stealth and weapons systems are designed to be used in the first wave of aircraft screaming over the beaches to bomb cities and military bases on the first night of war. It is a first strike aircraft not defense. Harper will assist in whatever invasion the pentagon deems appropriate.
    Canada will never need this capability and Canadians should not be asked to pay for it.

  16. For use in North America, the F-35 stealth fighter is ill suited for our needs by design.
    Let's be clear about what this plane has been developed for: it is a first strike fighter-bomber intended for use in "shock and awe" attacks. Its stealth and weapons systems are designed to be used in the first wave of aircraft screaming over the beaches to bomb cities and military bases on the first night of war. It is a first strike aircraft not defense. Harper will assist in whatever invasion the pentagon deems appropriate.
    Canada will never need this capability and Canadians should not be asked to pay for it.

    • "It is a first strike aircraft not defense. Harper will assist in whatever invasion the pentagon deems appropriate."
      Agreed.

      • So, Canada has never before participated in a first strike, offensive war? The purpose in buying this type of aircraft is to be prepared for future wars. Unless of course you think Canada will never be in another war since the world is so peaceful and secure right now with no potential wars in the making (Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Jordan, N.Korea, etc)

  17. "It is a first strike aircraft not defense. Harper will assist in whatever invasion the pentagon deems appropriate."
    Agreed.

  18. The refueling issue is recent but it's been well known that the F-35 is ill equipped to meet our needs for Arctic Canada.

  19. The refueling issue is recent but it's been well known that the F-35 is ill equipped to meet our needs for Arctic Canada.

    • How So?

  20. Wait.. these jets can't even land at our runways in the area they're supposed to be protecting to get refueled?

    So… our soldiers are expected to what? Pull them by snow-mobile?

    I somehow expect that'll lower the "stealth" ability considerably.

  21. Wait.. these jets can't even land at our runways in the area they're supposed to be protecting to get refueled?

    So… our soldiers are expected to what? Pull them by snow-mobile?

    I somehow expect that'll lower the "stealth" ability considerably.

    • Good one!

  22. <Facepalm>

  23. <Facepalm>

  24. Not at the pension receiving stage just yet. My memory of soldiers offering comment is different, it may never be public comment but it was always a soldiers place to call a piece of crap a piece of crap. That is why it is interesting that the politicians are sending the brass out on sales trips throughout Canada pushing the F35 in PR junkets.
    When all a weapon is is a gadget then it is useless, it gives a false sense of security.
    The F35 is a limo, expensive with all the accessories and heavy on fuel. What is needed is an interceptor, a long range fast and reliable fighter if you like. The F35 is not that and it appears that it won't be delivered in a usable manner on time. We should be using tried and tested equipment that does what we want.
    The F35 will be a white elephant that will cost billions, lives and not do what we need it to do. The Super Hornet is much more suitable for our purposes.

  25. 1. For years (thanks to the Liberals) Canada had exactly zero mid-air refuelling capability.
    2. MAY HAVE TO, is not have to. If we bought some other fighter…like Eurofighter…we'd probably have to modify or replace our current refueling aircraft anyways
    3. Maybe they'll have to extend a runway or two by 100 yards…so?

    Sorry to bring facts and common sense into the Ottawa citizen/Macleans two minute military/conservative hate.

  26. 1. For years (thanks to the Liberals) Canada had exactly zero mid-air refuelling capability.
    2. MAY HAVE TO, is not have to. If we bought some other fighter…like Eurofighter…we'd probably have to modify or replace our current refueling aircraft anyways
    3. Maybe they'll have to extend a runway or two by 100 yards…so?

    Sorry to bring facts and common sense into the Ottawa citizen/Macleans two minute military/conservative hate.

    • So it's ok for the Conservatives to be as stupid and more wasteful than the Liberals?

    • 1. Did we need it then? Or did our planes have the requisite range?

      2. Of course it doesn't mean that any other plane would work better. I'm sure the CPC could make an equally boneheaded decision and purchase some other plane that's completely unsuitable as well.

      3. So it's another expense that needs to be added into the consideration of these aircraft. How many runways? How far will they have to be extended? Just how expensive a job is that up north? I'm not a construction engineer or geologist, so I don't know the details, but I do know enough to know that a runway just isn't slap down a sheet of tarmac like your local city street.

      You haven't brought any facts. You've brought excuses and red-herrings.

    • "If we bought some other fighter…like Eurofighter…we'd probably have to modify or replace our current refueling aircraft anyways"

      Well, it's kind of tough to know whether or not that's the case, since there was no tender or bidding process used to select the F-35. That's why responsible governments use a tendering process; it sorts out the "probablys" and "maybes" so that you can make an informed, intelligent decision.

      Maybe this government just doesn't like informed, intelligent decisions, though. There is some evidence to that effect already.

  27. I guess a fuel range after take-off, on or about 1000 km, is cutting edge for Harper and his clueless caucus. They continuously wrap themselves in our flag and stand on ice floes with rhetorical bluster of the Canada First initiative of protecting our North; all a fool's fantasy.

    The hypocrisy of this PM shines neon when he dares to speak of supporting the troops while using them as props; the best being his handing out of canned food to Veterans at a food bank. When are we going to learn.

  28. I guess a fuel range after take-off, on or about 1000 km, is cutting edge for Harper and his clueless caucus. They continuously wrap themselves in our flag and stand on ice floes with rhetorical bluster of the Canada First initiative of protecting our North; all a fool's fantasy.

    The hypocrisy of this PM shines neon when he dares to speak of supporting the troops while using them as props; the best being his handing out of canned food to Veterans at a food bank. When are we going to learn.

  29. So it's ok for the Conservatives to be as stupid and more wasteful than the Liberals?

  30. I guess Lockheed Martin left that out of the sales brochure.

  31. Good one!

    • Sadly, that website offers no other alternative than the poorly dreamed ideas of Stephen Staples and the Toronto Star.

      Why am I not surprised.

    • Staples is a lefist stooge who would be happy to have no military, or at least one with no weapons. The guy probably wouldn't know the business end of a rifle let alone a Strike Fighter. To give any credance to any of his work on the military would be way too generous, he has no more credit as a military analyst or expert than a 14 year-old playing a shooter on a xbox 360

  32. So, Canada has never before participated in a first strike, offensive war? The purpose in buying this type of aircraft is to be prepared for future wars. Unless of course you think Canada will never be in another war since the world is so peaceful and secure right now with no potential wars in the making (Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Jordan, N.Korea, etc)

  33. I've just watched a you tube video showing the F-35 using the Probe and Drogue air to air refuelling metheod, the same system the CF-18 uses.
    I would be more concerned about using a single engined fighter in this vast country of ours. In the '70s the mantra was "dual engine" for the CF-101 and 104 replacements hencethe purchase of the -18 over the f-16

  34. I've just watched a you tube video showing the F-35 using the Probe and Drogue air to air refuelling metheod, the same system the CF-18 uses.
    I would be more concerned about using a single engined fighter in this vast country of ours. In the '70s the mantra was "dual engine" for the CF-101 and 104 replacements hencethe purchase of the -18 over the f-16

    • When we were relying on 1950's-designed engines it made sense to require dual engines. Curren technology has improved reliability to the point that redundancy in engines is not a safety requirement. Having two engines, on the other hand, does increase the maintenance demands on any aircraft.
      The USAF is pretty much the only major air force to use the "flying boom" technology for air-to-air refuelling. Everyone else, including the US Navy and Canada, uses the probe and drogue method. If the test planes for the F-35 were built for USAF specifications they will rely on the boom technology. But, as you point out, there is a version, already tested, that uses the probe and drogue technology.
      This story is simply another piece of misinformation spread, most likely, but Boeing's competitors who would like nothing more than to have the F-35 sale cancelled and who will, if we can go by past practice, do pretty much anything, legal or illegal, to achieve that goal.

      • I assume you mean Lockheed Martin's competitors. But this is why we need an open bid where these dueling manufacturers can have at it.

        • Sorry, yes, I meant Louckheed Martin – it is Boeing that is making the biggest push for a "competition" and appears to be the most likely source of the disinformation campaign being waged against the F-35.
          There is no point in an "open" competition if there is only one possible choice – and in this case the air force and government defined their requirements a decade ago and the F-35 is the only reasonable choice for the air force.

          • The problem is that Boeing isn't offering anything as an alternative to the JSF. The F-22 isn't allowed for export, despite many allied countries asking for it, and its JSF prototype was rejected during the competition.

      • Engine serviceability is pretty good, until you hit a bird or ingest anything else and the engine stops. You need that second engine strictly for safety. I know as I've worked on these things for 35 years and seen the pro and cons of the single vs the dual engine question in action.

  35. 1. Did we need it then? Or did our planes have the requisite range?

    2. Of course it doesn't mean that any other plane would work better. I'm sure the CPC could make an equally boneheaded decision and purchase some other plane that's completely unsuitable as well.

    3. So it's another expense that needs to be added into the consideration of these aircraft. How many runways? How far will they have to be extended? Just how expensive a job is that up north? I'm not a construction engineer or geologist, so I don't know the details, but I do know enough to know that a runway just isn't slap down a sheet of tarmac like your local city street.

    You haven't brought any facts. You've brought excuses and red-herrings.

  36. "If we bought some other fighter…like Eurofighter…we'd probably have to modify or replace our current refueling aircraft anyways"

    Well, it's kind of tough to know whether or not that's the case, since there was no tender or bidding process used to select the F-35. That's why responsible governments use a tendering process; it sorts out the "probablys" and "maybes" so that you can make an informed, intelligent decision.

    Maybe this government just doesn't like informed, intelligent decisions, though. There is some evidence to that effect already.

  37. How So?

  38. I still want drones. Brazil has a scramjet UAV.

  39. I still want drones. Brazil has a scramjet UAV.

  40. When we were relying on 1950's-designed engines it made sense to require dual engines. Curren technology has improved reliability to the point that redundancy in engines is not a safety requirement. Having two engines, on the other hand, does increase the maintenance demands on any aircraft.
    The USAF is pretty much the only major air force to use the "flying boom" technology for air-to-air refuelling. Everyone else, including the US Navy and Canada, uses the probe and drogue method. If the test planes for the F-35 were built for USAF specifications they will rely on the boom technology. But, as you point out, there is a version, already tested, that uses the probe and drogue technology.
    This story is simply another piece of misinformation spread, most likely, but Boeing's competitors who would like nothing more than to have the F-35 sale cancelled and who will, if we can go by past practice, do pretty much anything, legal or illegal, to achieve that goal.

  41. I assume you mean Lockheed Martin's competitors. But this is why we need an open bid where these dueling manufacturers can have at it.

  42. like Lando said "This deal's geting worse all the time!"

  43. like Lando said "This deal's geting worse all the time!"

  44. Sorry, yes, I meant Louckheed Martin – it is Boeing that is making the biggest push for a "competition" and appears to be the most likely source of the disinformation campaign being waged against the F-35.
    There is no point in an "open" competition if there is only one possible choice – and in this case the air force and government defined their requirements a decade ago and the F-35 is the only reasonable choice for the air force.

  45. Airbus II where will the grease money go this time ?

  46. Airbus II where will the grease money go this time ?

  47. One wonders why Maclean's hasn't withdrawn this story when its basic premise is so clearly untrue? Do they have no journalistic standards any more?

  48. One wonders why Maclean's hasn't withdrawn this story when its basic premise is so clearly untrue? Do they have no journalistic standards any more?

  49. No fan of the Tories, but the Liberals are being disingenuous with their "we're not against the planes per se but it's the sole source that's no good." Lockheed makes the damn fighter! So either you want them or you don't.

  50. No fan of the Tories, but the Liberals are being disingenuous with their "we're not against the planes per se but it's the sole source that's no good." Lockheed makes the damn fighter! So either you want them or you don't.

  51. I have always found it funny that people who know nothing about aviation, are talking like they are experts. The F-35 is still in development and problems will sometimes occur during the process. The Twin Single engine debate is a moot point in this day and age as current engines are even more reliable then the ones on the hornet.

    The main issue is that we need to replace the hornets sooner rather then later and its a good idea to put a order in at least 5 years before you really need to. On the soul source bit, what else is out there that is capable other then the Super Hornets or the f-22 raptor, and is a 5th gen fighter . the answer is, there is no other aircraft that is any good, and if you think we should buy chinese or indian junk you better go make an appointment with a shrink and have a CATSCAN asap.

  52. I have always found it funny that people who know nothing about aviation, are talking like they are experts. The F-35 is still in development and problems will sometimes occur during the process. The Twin Single engine debate is a moot point in this day and age as current engines are even more reliable then the ones on the hornet.

    The main issue is that we need to replace the hornets sooner rather then later and its a good idea to put a order in at least 5 years before you really need to. On the soul source bit, what else is out there that is capable other then the Super Hornets or the f-22 raptor, and is a 5th gen fighter . the answer is, there is no other aircraft that is any good, and if you think we should buy chinese or indian junk you better go make an appointment with a shrink and have a CATSCAN asap.

    • With 35 years of engine experience in the Air Force The single vs dual engine debate is not all that moot considering we are talking about a combat aircraft that can be expected to sustain battle damage. two engines are better than one. I've seen it in action.

  53. Engine serviceability is pretty good, until you hit a bird or ingest anything else and the engine stops. You need that second engine strictly for safety. I know as I've worked on these things for 35 years and seen the pro and cons of the single vs the dual engine question in action.

  54. With 35 years of engine experience in the Air Force The single vs dual engine debate is not all that moot considering we are talking about a combat aircraft that can be expected to sustain battle damage. two engines are better than one. I've seen it in action.

  55. The problem is that Boeing isn't offering anything as an alternative to the JSF. The F-22 isn't allowed for export, despite many allied countries asking for it, and its JSF prototype was rejected during the competition.

  56. Sadly, that website offers no other alternative than the poorly dreamed ideas of Stephen Staples and the Toronto Star.

    Why am I not surprised.

  57. I find that the issue of the drag chutes interesting since they've been installed in the CF-18s for years. The runways in teh north have always been shorter due to the terrain, such as Inuvik. Additionally, those are FOBs rather than actual functioning bases or conventional airports. Even civilian aircraft need modifications to land there.

    As for the fuel, its still within range of a Cold Lake-Yellowknife flight and a Bagotville-Iqaluit on current specs for the F-35A, which is what Canada is buying.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35

    If the Liberals think there are better ideas, then they should speak out about it. It seems that they would rather cloak their dream of cancelling the deal than actually having a competition.

  58. I find that the issue of the drag chutes interesting since they've been installed in the CF-18s for years. The runways in teh north have always been shorter due to the terrain, such as Inuvik. Additionally, those are FOBs rather than actual functioning bases or conventional airports. Even civilian aircraft need modifications to land there.

    As for the fuel, its still within range of a Cold Lake-Yellowknife flight and a Bagotville-Iqaluit on current specs for the F-35A, which is what Canada is buying.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35

    If the Liberals think there are better ideas, then they should speak out about it. It seems that they would rather cloak their dream of cancelling the deal than actually having a competition.

    • There's never been a drag chute on a -18.

  59. There's never been a drag chute on a -18.

  60. It doesn't matter. We don't need fighter jets. No one is going to attack us.

  61. It doesn't matter. We don't need fighter jets. No one is going to attack us.

    • Or any of our allies in the next forty years? That's a comforting thought.

  62. Or any of our allies in the next forty years? That's a comforting thought.

  63. I'm glad somebody can tell for certain what the future holds. So how many lottos have you won?

  64. I'm glad somebody can tell for certain what the future holds. So how many lottos have you won?

  65. Maybe we might attack somebody

  66. Maybe we might attack somebody

  67. First the one engine thing… Sure new engines are MORE reliable than older ones. So by extension, wouldn't TWO NEW engines be even MORE reliable than ONE? One engine failure and something is going to hit the fan big time if you don't have a backup. As for the whole no mid-air refuelling ability & not being able to land way up north… Are the cons TRYING to kill off our pilots on purpose? a 1000 km range is PITIFUL. Being able to refuel while in the air, more than doubles that, considering the big fuel cost is takeoff.

  68. First the one engine thing… Sure new engines are MORE reliable than older ones. So by extension, wouldn't TWO NEW engines be even MORE reliable than ONE? One engine failure and something is going to hit the fan big time if you don't have a backup. As for the whole no mid-air refuelling ability & not being able to land way up north… Are the cons TRYING to kill off our pilots on purpose? a 1000 km range is PITIFUL. Being able to refuel while in the air, more than doubles that, considering the big fuel cost is takeoff.

  69. How about taking the 9.5 billion and spending it on day care… that will create REAL SUSTAINABLE JOBS that will allow families to work harder and SPEND MORE MONEY in the economy….. 70% of mothers with young children work… 20% of those use regulated daycare ($10-$15K PER YEAR PAYED FOR BY THE FAMILY)… the other 80% don't use this service as you have to register before your child is born and even then you are put on a WAITING LIST and then when you get in it is still a $10-$15K per year cost… so the point here is obvious… why spend 9.5 billion on Jets during these troubled economic times… why not use the $$$ to create PERMANENT AND SUSTAINABLE JOBS that will EMPLOY CANADIANS and ALLOW FAMILIES TO WORK HARDER WITH LESS STRESS TO MAKE AND SPEND MORE $$$ BACK INTO THE ECONOMY?!! it would also provide an earlier integration point for maintaining our Canadian culture by breaking down the "silos" that exist in communities and allowing and enabling young Canadians to meet and mingle as parents.

  70. How about taking the 9.5 billion and spending it on day care… that will create REAL SUSTAINABLE JOBS that will allow families to work harder and SPEND MORE MONEY in the economy….. 70% of mothers with young children work… 20% of those use regulated daycare ($10-$15K PER YEAR PAYED FOR BY THE FAMILY)… the other 80% don't use this service as you have to register before your child is born and even then you are put on a WAITING LIST and then when you get in it is still a $10-$15K per year cost… so the point here is obvious… why spend 9.5 billion on Jets during these troubled economic times… why not use the $$$ to create PERMANENT AND SUSTAINABLE JOBS that will EMPLOY CANADIANS and ALLOW FAMILIES TO WORK HARDER WITH LESS STRESS TO MAKE AND SPEND MORE $$$ BACK INTO THE ECONOMY?!! it would also provide an earlier integration point for maintaining our Canadian culture by breaking down the "silos" that exist in communities and allowing and enabling young Canadians to meet and mingle as parents.

  71. Staples is a lefist stooge who would be happy to have no military, or at least one with no weapons. The guy probably wouldn't know the business end of a rifle let alone a Strike Fighter. To give any credance to any of his work on the military would be way too generous, he has no more credit as a military analyst or expert than a 14 year-old playing a shooter on a xbox 360

  72. Worldwide we spend well over a trillion dollars per year on the military. Half of this is spent by the US. We must cut down, and one good place to begin is for Canada to just say no! We don't need the F35! That's all there's to it!

  73. non-competitive bidding process? Nah .. was no process at all!

Sign in to comment.