So the auditor general thinks the F-35 is going to cost Canada about $25 billion. Now what?Do we start throwing rocks at bad guys?It may come to that.There's so much flying around right now about the replacement of Canada's CF-18 fleet, it's hard to keep track. But a few things are apparent:First, Canada must get new fighter planes, soon, before the remaining CF-18s start falling out of the sky (like the other 18 that already have for various reasons).Second, the projected cost, all in all, now looks like it will be close to what we intend on spending to replace almost our surface fleet in the navy - supply ships, frigates and coastal patrol boats. These are light, single occupant aircraft, not frigates, folks.Third, this fiasco of rising costs requires accountability, and Peter MacKay's head has to roll.There's absolutely no way ministerial responsibility can be ignored here. None. If MacKay knew the numbers the auditor general speaks of, but hid that fact, he lied. And if he didn't know, he was grossly incompetent. The heir apparent of the Conservative Party needs to take one for the team and resign.The numbers we are talking here are not trivial by any measure. The total amount can be measured as a percentage of Canada's GDP, for goodness sake. It's more than the entire annual defence budget, and twice the current annual budget of the province of Saskatchewan. With the U.S. Congress picking this program's overruns apart for years, only an idiot could not know the price was shooting into the stratosphere quicker that the plane itself is capable of flying.Now it is no longer an issue of what plane we buy, and how many, but rather who knew what when.But even after all the political drama is done, Canada still needs planes in the air.Are there other options? Yes. Are they as capable as the F-35? No. Are they as likely to bankrupt us? Probably not.The most likely alternative is the latest version of the F-18E, the Super Hornet. It's a substantially updated airframe, with larger wings, substantially more range than our current CF-18As.It's also a lot cheaper that the F-35. Instead of getting 65, we could like get 100, maybe more, for less. Remember that we lost 18 CF-18s, we are going to lose F-35s, too.The F-18 Super Hornet, like its predecessor the CF-18, also has two engines, something that was supposedly a prime consideration when the F-18 was chosen over the F-16. Two engines were touted as being important for Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols. Did someone forget that when the single-engine F-35 was considered?The Super Hornet can be purchased today. We know they work, because the U.S. Navy has been flying them for several years. The Australians couldn't wait for the F-35, so they are buying Super Hornets, too.It would mean Canada would be flying combat aircraft, the initial design of which first flew in 1978. But then again, the B-52 first flew in 1952 and the last one rolled off the line in the late '60s. It's going to be flying for a few more decades. Fighters are not bombers, but it goes to show that sometimes, older designs still work.That's especially true if the newer design is going to bankrupt you, or embarrass your government a la the Gomery Inquiry, times 50.One way or another, we are going to have to buy something. Otherwise, we're going to be reduced to throwing rocks at bad guys. Brian Zinchuk is editor of Pipeline News. He can be reached at brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net
