Hi,
I think it's a very bad argument to make that an economy is bad, therefore don't buy fighter jets. One simple counterargument is that fighter jets last 30-50 years and recessions or depressions much shorter. Why not wait until that's over? Because that's not how military procurement works. It will be years and years before we have a F-35, and maybe by then Ontario isn't in recession anymore. This is coming from one of those so-called new grads you want to protect with 50k debt, who lives in Toronto, Ontario.
There is another reason why saying that "economy sucks, don't buy fighter jets" is a bad argument. Government budgets do not work the same way personal finances do. Taking money away from the military does not guarantee money for other spending. Parliamentary and Senate committees never say, if we don't buy this we can buy that instead. It is not even the way business works, since budget for the IT department is completely separate from budget for the HR department. With this kind of logic America should get 0 F-22s because it is deep in debt and deep in recession (much worse than Canada) and will go bankrupt. The reality is, what matters is the kit and assets, because governments can A. print money B. hold onto debt for generations and C. get loans and financing due to being an economy of large scale impossible for companies or individuals.
Next, are fighter jets necessary? I would have to say yes. First, the Americans do not agree with Canadian claims to the Northwest passage. In international law, if you don't protect it you lose it. So simply by having fighter jets that means in minutes we can fly fighter jets over our territory, and strengthen territorial claim. Secondly, there is the need to shoot down civilian airliners should there be another 9/11. Americans will come to help if Canada is ever invaded yes, but certainly they would defend US territory first and unless we seriously want long term American bases inside Canada (not a good idea) there has to be a Canadian airforce. Even a token airforce. It does not matter that the USA has thousands of planes and we'll only have 65. By having that 65, we are asserting our sovereignty and independence from the USA. For example, we could deny entry to our airspace with only one squadron of fighters, and another country not willing to provoke an international incident (like USA) would back off.
Thirdly (and the most likely scenario) is should Canadian national interests be threatened and Canada deploy fighter jets, I want Canadian pilots to have the best possible fighter jet. Now what is the most likely scenario? A Yugoslavia-like mission, mandated by NATO, where Canadian fighters do bombing runs. Every single consideration (payload, dual/single engine, even cost) is secondary to me to survivability. Because, I want Canadian pilots to come home safe. Now in 30-50 years, what if another Rwanda happens? And what if that dictator is armed to the teeth with S-300 and PAK FA and the latest SU-30 models and other high end Russian equipment? Super hornet would be slaughtered in that kind of environment, while F-35 has a chance to come out alive especially with USA support. Now it is entirely true that the USA could do it alone, without Canadians. But the entire point is that Canada can be in the fight, be part of an international coalition if it wants. If a genocide was happening in Haiti, Canadians would demand we be there, even if it was just a token amount of fighters and the Americans were doing the heavy lifting.
So in summary,
1. Fighter jets are essential and F-35 is the only true Western choice (F-22 not being exportable).
2. Giving up fighter jets means not only giving up domestic needs (future 9/11, sovereign airspace, northwest passage) but also international commitments (commitments to NATO, Canadian commitments like to prevent genocide etc.)
3. You cannot make a realistic argument that a country does not need fighter jets based on economy for many reasons.
4. If you are going to have a fighter jet, for a country like Canada the main concern is to have the best fighter jet possible (within other constraints like interoperability with Western allies) because you want the Canadian pilot to be the best protected.
