F-35 not best plane for protecting Arctic

Why are we spending this enormous sum through an untendered contract for these particular planes?

Editor, The Times:

The F-35 purchase will no doubt create high-tech jobs, but so would many other government expenditures totaling between $16 and $30 billion. But why are we spending this enormous sum through an untendered contract for these particular planes? The government has not made the case for heavily armed stealth bombers, other than that they would provide the Armed Forces with a neat recruiting tool and better integration with the U.S. military. The F-35 is an aircraft designed for ground attack that will be difficult to land in the north, presents technical problems for refueling, and whose single engine puts our pilots at risk. Is this really the best plane to protect our Arctic, as Canadians say should be a main priority? And how will this plane help with urgent humanitarian needs when natural disasters strike?

Larry Kazdan,

 

Vancouver, B.C.