Hi, Canadian here and first time poster. I came across this forum looking for more information because of the massive attention the F35 JSF is receiving in our press. I am a layman and certainly not an expert. Hopefully some folks here can help explain some of the issues with this plane. Basically the way it has been presented to me in the media comes down to the following points:
1) Massively underestimated cost. The purchase was originally sold to us as around $16 billion, and more recently estimates have put this at $30 billion (parliamentary budget officer) and most recently $45 billion (report out recently). The government is being accused of knowing the cost all along but claiming otherwise in order to sell the purchase to Canadians. This is by far, the biggest issue and for most probably the only issue. Whether or not the original number was realistic or appropriate or not, the fact that it has now massively changed is the issue. It is a political issue, but one with a lot of traction because Canadian hate learning that they are spending many billions more in tax money on something than they thought.
2) Production problems, cost problems otherwise. We have heard various reports from US officials and lawmakers that there are many problems and cost overruns on the project. Not sure how much of that is true.
3) Arctic. We have been told the plane dose not perform well in the Arctic (major issue in the future will be sovereignty over the arctic vs Russia), and that it does not have the appropriate range to patrol our whole nation properly, especially in areas very northern and remote where there is next to no civilization. I have heard variously that this is because of the cold weather or because it is single-engine and this is a range problem.
4) General opposition to sole-sourcing. We have a predisposition against sole-sourcing because of the perception of the growing confluence of American military and private military contractors and the perception of high levels of nepotism and crony capitalism involved with the so call 'military-industrial complex'.
5) We don't understand the role for a multi-role fighter in the context of modern conflicts which do not involve inter-state conflicts requiring 5th generation planes. Our role will always be supportive or in concert with the US or NATO, and its unclear what possible conflicts would require such an advanced fighter since we are mostly involved in conflicts in third-world or developing nations where fighters from 30-40 years ago are probably better than any type of anti-air defence held by the enemy. Conversely, in the event of some other conflict, it's hard to imagine 65 JSF's would be enough against any modern actor anyway.
So again I need to emphasize I'm mostly ignorant on the technical aspects of things. By far, by far, #1 is the issue in our press. Maybe some informed person can help clarify some of this for me.
