Letter to the Editor by Gary W Samler of Cornwall Ontario – Elections and Choices: The Federal issues – April 27, 2011

The F 35 Stealth fighter bomber purchase is allegedly at $16 billion but in reality is likely higher in cost overruns .

That $16 billion:
-would build 80,000 homes for Canadians at $200,000 each
-would feed 32 million African children for 10 years
-would provide four years free post secondary education for 400,000 Canadians
-would provide $365 / month for every man, woman and child in poverty in Canada for one year
Why on earth do we need 65 more, aggressive stealth fighter bombers?

Gary W. Samler  Cornwall Ontario

Bobs Vac



  1. Gary
    Teha answer to that is quite simple.

    First of all it is not more agressive bombers but replacing outdated equipment. If you were a pilot would you like to use out dated planes to do your job in times of war?

    Just take a look at all the controvesy over the Sea King Helicopters. The sea kings weere falling out of the air.

    Not to mention this is not a done deal and is only planned for five years in the future.

    I can assure you the main reason this is so front and center has to do with Bombardier not being the sole source on this deal. That is a big hit for Quebec industry and Quebec doesn’t like not controlling our government.

    I would love to have an additional $365/yr as would most people, but how would it be spent in general?

    32 million fed in Africa, only in a perfect world, I think you should visit the places effected. I can assure you most of the 32 million would end up in the hands of the people causing trouble in Africa. Contrary to poular belief money isn’t the problem there.

    “would build 80,000 homes for Canadians at $200,000 each”, even with $365 extra how can people afford the mortgage?

  2. Gary: Spoken like a true humanitarian.

    What could all that money do for poverty, including child poverty, and homelessness in Canada—an out-and-out scandal in a leading developed country?

    Besides, no one, not even the Pentagon, knows how much these jets are going to cost both out of the show room and to maintain long term. The estimates shoot up by the day.

    No one, that is, except for Harper, who has an answer for everything and continues to deceive the Canadian people.

  3. The reason behind Bombardier not getting the fighter deal is that you have to speak french to fly them or work on them. Thank God we got by that one!

  4. If we are looking at security and cost it would be cheaper to send every adult Canadian a two hundred dollar handgun with a gun course. That would settle any potential foreign invasion threat. Or do you think we should expand our territory? Is that what this is about? Are we using the UN as a beard to build up our air force in order to dominate and enlarge the Canadian sky? Could be. Do we have Canadian hawks that clever? Go, maple leaf, go!

  5. I’m just saying, it’s nice and polite to have first strike capability.

  6. Smee thank you for your comment but here is the truth as i see it as a former member of the CanadianForces for almost 23 years and a Gulf War Vet. The F-35 IS A MORE AGRESSIVE BOMBER and not needed for our pilots. WE ARE NOT AT WAR- ‘YET’ We do not need these bombers to replace our aging CF18’s Maybe we could build cheaper planes here in Canada and build the spare parts for them too and the engines.Our pilots are the best trained and can do their job well without flying in these Caddillacs of the sky.The Liberals screwed up the Seaking deal just to override the tory mulroney decision to build EH-101’s or Cormorants. I got out of the Navy in 1994 when we were flying Seakings build in 1950 off the back of our old ships. They were in bad shape then and 17 years later we are still unbelievably flying these old choppers off our ships SCARY.Thanks to wrong government decisions. Now they want this same crap with the CF18 replacement.I visited Egypt and Somalia and 35 other countries and saw firsthand how they live so I do know what goes on there and how they live and are governed. I also see these same conditions here in Canada unfortuneately. Building 80,000 homes in Canada would create work so our people could afford their mortgages with help of the $365./ year to buy needed items necessary for life such as fuel,hydro,rent/mortgage, healthy fresh food, medicine and other essential items which people could barely afford now as our governments priorities are jets and jails and not to help those who have been tricked to keep voting in the same parties year after year. The 400,000 students with post secondary education could also work to solving this issue for cheaper planes and solving poverty in Canada as thanks for the free education given them.

  7. Gary
    We are not at war yet? Do you honestly think we should wait until we are in need of these planes to purchase them?
    Do you care for your health that way? How about clothes, do you wait until you have none then purchase them?
    In the forces perhaps while in the Gulf they should have waited until you had no rations before trying to bring some in. The same could be said for the ammunition

    We also must consider how much more it will cost if waiting until there is no choice.

    All of these other countries you visited is amazing You do know there is change happening in most of them. Do you have any idea what form of new government will be in place after the turmoil is over?

    Also do you honestly think these needy people will actually spend the money on necessities? You can see just how much work our needy and low income families’ care about what is happening in the area and support change for themselves. If you need proof ask Mark Mc Donald our poor was his focus and most of them never even voted.

  8. Reg
    Do you honestly think there is any merit to that article. WHo in their right mind would not take into account the costs will rise over time.

    So nice of you to state the obvious thinking you found a big exciting article.

  9. I agree with Gary…I have wondered from the outset why we were looking at only a still un-proven, un-costed F35 and at no other options. I have read that the F35, a “first strike” aircraft, was the bird we must have to satisfy NATO commitments and then I read that one of our new air fleet’s primary objectives was to protect our sovereignty, especially over the Arctic and that our pilots want a craft with a longer range and which has two engines in case one fails in those cruel northern conditions.

    Then I read about the EF Typhoon, an excellent state of the art fighter jet which many of our NATO allies are already purchasing and which seems to suit the needs of our air force. At a guaranteed lower cost than the F35 these jets have two engines, are very reliable and interoperable at all times and in all circumstances with NATO forces. It would be more than able,therefore, to undertake NORAD operations in concert with U.S. forces. It has two engines and a much can fly longer missions at greater distances. Oh and one last thing, the manufacturer has suggested the possibility of creating a production line for this aircraft in Canada. So why are we not at least willing to look at this jet? Hey read these two articles if your interested.



Leave a Reply