And I have absolutely no problem with this argument. If you're getting into a debate on the merits of the aircraft's specs, like I know you have focused on in the past, that's fine. I can respect that argument.
It's the people who complain about the government's search for new RCAF hardware as if it will result in health care or education being left out in the cold that I take issue with. We're putting $30 billion into new war ships over the next several decades to refurbish our water-borne fleet, and $10 billion in additional funding for coast guard vessels and civilian-commanded ships. The Air Force should see similar upgrades. The problem is that some people don't view these purchases as a one-time investment that will last for decades.
They view it as a sunk cost that will continue to take away funding from other governmental departments, and that is simply factually incorrect (beyond any of the associated standard maintenance costs which are factored into the budget). If you subscribe to the notion, as I do, that the protection of national sovereignty is a fundamental pillar of defence strategy, it's acceptable to engage in modernization programs now and then to defend our borders and assist our allies in missions elsewhere.
