Them costs, them costs:
White House Commission: Kill The F-35B
…
A draft document issued by the White House commission on reducing the federal deficit recommends scrapping the F-35B short-take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) fighter outright…The proposals, contained in a supplement to a $3.8 trillion plan unveiled today, are not final and do not have any legislative force…
The F-35B is not the only Joint Strike Fighter version to be hit. The commission calls for production of the USAF F-35A and Navy F-35C to be cut in half in the years up to FY2015 [emphasis added], with the cancelled buys to be replaced by F-16s and F/A-18s…
I wonder if poor Peter thinks these might be just more glitches. And that we will start receiving our F-35As in 2016 with an average production cost of $74.5-million each.
Update: So we pay all that stealthy money for six expeditionary fighters? Even if twelve, such a contribution hardly seems worth it in any rational Canadian strategic military perspective; and will surely add very little practically to any serious coalition endeavour to which Canada might contribute against what is currently called a “peer” opponent. Please think about it seriously.
Upperdate: The Canadian Air Force eventually deployed 18 CF-18s for the Kosovo/Serbia campaign–from a fighter strength far greater than 65. Interoperable enough it would seem, even though the USAF and NATO allies (with one exception) have never flown Hornets.
Mark
Ottawa


The traditional fighter model A is not behind schedule. The aircraft carrier (short takeoff) and vertical model are having delays?
We did not order those models.
Did our military exclude our needs in the earlier competition for the selection of the JSF between Boeing and Lockheed?
The other models everyone is clamoring about were already discounted and the winner going forward was from the JSF program?
[...] to this post, The F-35 may take a bit of US budget [...]