BEST FIGHTER FOR CANADA

'Ugh..." A whopping 79% of you believe that Canada would be much better off with a "good enough" fighter provided in greater numbers than a flagship model.  Since Canada would not be expected to do the heavy lifting in any armed conflict, this would seem to make the most sense.  (In other words, let the other nations blow their wallets on fancy toys!) Seeing as how we now in the midst of an (extended) election campaign, it is now time to ask the obvious question:  Which political party is best for Canada's military? I have asked the question before (just not in poll form).  Since that time, none of the major political parties have gone into much detail on how they would fix the DND's current procurement woes. While all the parties have released generalized statements that they will support Canada's military as well as our veterans , they are so far silent on what they will do to replace aging equipment in a timely and affordable fashion. Why

VS. ( Sorry about the haphazard updates lately.  Summer is here, the weather is too nice, and great outdoors beckons. ) My last Question of the Week (or so) looked at the potential for using a bomber platform as an air-superiority asset.  A resounding 64% of you think I might need mental health counseling for even asking the question Fair enough. This week (or so)'s question revolves around the need to balance numbers with capability. In most cases with fighter aircraft, you get what you pay for.  Top-notch fighters like the F-22 earn their "air-superiority" classification thanks to their speed, agility, and powerful sensor suite.  The ability to out-run, out-maneuver, and out-shoot an opponent does not come cheap, however.  The F-22 was an incredibly expensive aircraft to develop and build, and it has more than triple the cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) of the F-16C . Needless to say, during the post-Cold War era of declining defense budgets, purchasin