4 ms·

F18s are ran ragged and getting hard to acquire spare frames to buy / strip. F35 unit price + operation costs came down a lot in the last few years. RCAF overdu

F18s are ran ragged and getting hard to acquire spare frames to buy / strip. F35 unit price + operation costs came down a lot in the last few years. RCAF overdue for new jets just for retention / attracting talent. That said, after bombardier drama, if Canada wants to contribute to NATO better off spending 14B on 1200 LAV6s because at least that will go into domestic coffers. Or spin up some domestic ordnance factory. But optics of that's going to be bad since it'll end up murdering kids in MENA.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
osigurdson 4y ago
>> F35 unit price + operation costs came down a lot in the last few years The costs are 18% higher according to the article. That is roughly equivalent to inflation over the same period. Furthermore, debt servicing costs are higher than they were in 2015. Also, we don't have any F-35s right now which is the whole point.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  I don't see the 18% higher in the AJZ article, but regardless, yeah it's not going a be steal / deal with FX changes or debt servicing costs over past few years. I'm just saying lower unit costs, and lifecycle operating costs somewhat cancels it out + likely getting newish blocks with several arctic operators who can share experience. But all things considered, it's not the worst if CAN wants to maintain an airforce *.There aren't really any other fighter options anymore, at least not for another 10-15 years assumping SKR or JP + EU projects comes along, and it's doubtful they'll be very competitive 5th gen platforms. The fleet of hornets need to be replaced sooner than later, wholesale. * Which TBH, Canada uniquely doesn't, but mid tier NATO country can't not, if only for optics considerations. For me CAN needs to "pay" for US protection anyways, tipping Lockheed to keep RCAF is one way to do it.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    This is not about paying for protection. Canada can build a nuclear arsenal in a heartbeat. This is the cheap way to defend yourself against aggressors. This is about being part of NATO. The more nations that we have with similar values, the better.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

osigurdson 4y ago

>> F35 unit price + operation costs came down a lot in the last few years The costs are 18% higher according to the article. That is roughly equivalent to inflation over the same period. Furthermore, debt servicing costs are higher than they were in 2015. Also, we don't have any F-35s right now which is the whole point.

dirtyid 4y ago
I don't see the 18% higher in the AJZ article, but regardless, yeah it's not going a be steal / deal with FX changes or debt servicing costs over past few years. I'm just saying lower unit costs, and lifecycle operating costs somewhat cancels it out + likely getting newish blocks with several arctic operators who can share experience. But all things considered, it's not the worst if CAN wants to maintain an airforce *.There aren't really any other fighter options anymore, at least not for another 10-15 years assumping SKR or JP + EU projects comes along, and it's doubtful they'll be very competitive 5th gen platforms. The fleet of hornets need to be replaced sooner than later, wholesale. * Which TBH, Canada uniquely doesn't, but mid tier NATO country can't not, if only for optics considerations. For me CAN needs to "pay" for US protection anyways, tipping Lockheed to keep RCAF is one way to do it.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  This is not about paying for protection. Canada can build a nuclear arsenal in a heartbeat. This is the cheap way to defend yourself against aggressors. This is about being part of NATO. The more nations that we have with similar values, the better.