Per year? What length of time are you referring to?

$14,200,000,000/27,855,050[1] = $509 per tax filer (regardless of tax contribution)

Also, the bottom 40%[2] of Canadians pay $0 in income tax, so every Canadian that actually contributes to the national revenue has paid nearly $1,000 just for this purchase.

I support defence spending but let's not sugarcoat how much it really costs.

[1] # of taxfilers in Canada in 2020 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/478908/number-of-taxfile... [2] https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/trudeau-is-...

>> The full life cycle of the programme is expected to cost $52bn ($70bn Canadian)

The other article linked states that the programme lifetime is 40 years.

$70B/35M/40 = $50 / year per person

I wonder if the f-35 is a cheap way to hit the 2% number. At nearly 100 million per unit, and an existing production line - a government can just announce a purchase and hit the target.

For the kinds of conflicts nato is likely to engage in in the next 20 years, the about to project power may be more valuable than the ability to fight a protracted conflict.

F18s are ran ragged and getting hard to acquire spare frames to buy / strip. F35 unit price + operation costs came down a lot in the last few years. RCAF overdue for new jets just for retention / attracting talent. That said, after bombardier drama, if Canada wants to contribute to NATO better off spending 14B on 1200 LAV6s because at least that will go into domestic coffers. Or spin up some domestic ordnance factory. But optics of that's going to be bad since it'll end up murdering kids in MENA.

>> F35 unit price + operation costs came down a lot in the last few years

The costs are 18% higher according to the article. That is roughly equivalent to inflation over the same period. Furthermore, debt servicing costs are higher than they were in 2015. Also, we don't have any F-35s right now which is the whole point.

I don't see the 18% higher in the AJZ article, but regardless, yeah it's not going a be steal / deal with FX changes or debt servicing costs over past few years. I'm just saying lower unit costs, and lifecycle operating costs somewhat cancels it out + likely getting newish blocks with several arctic operators who can share experience. But all things considered, it's not the worst if CAN wants to maintain an airforce *.There aren't really any other fighter options anymore, at least not for another 10-15 years assumping SKR or JP + EU projects comes along, and it's doubtful they'll be very competitive 5th gen platforms. The fleet of hornets need to be replaced sooner than later, wholesale.

* Which TBH, Canada uniquely doesn't, but mid tier NATO country can't not, if only for optics considerations. For me CAN needs to "pay" for US protection anyways, tipping Lockheed to keep RCAF is one way to do it.

This is not about paying for protection. Canada can build a nuclear arsenal in a heartbeat. This is the cheap way to defend yourself against aggressors.

This is about being part of NATO. The more nations that we have with similar values, the better.

Unit frame / operating cost have come down a lot, not that running the hornets and scavenging for parts were cheap. At least we get the new blocks.

No we cannot. We should be spending that money on more pressing things, we don't need a stealth fighter.

Canada is dealing with: - High inflation - Housing Crisis - Crumbling Health system - Food security issues; in 2022 a record breaking 1.5 million visits to the food banks across Canada. It will get worse in 2023

Yet, we are spending billions on ridiculous and unnecessary jets, and policies.

Should we pull out of NATO then? That is the option.

Yes, we should. Canada's only security threat was from Russia and it turns out that Russia's army is extremely incompetent.