On dead weight

It's bad enough that the Cons are pretending that the purchase of F-35s is a done deal even when there's no need to commit to them and every reason to think the cost will escalate. But perhaps the most noteworthy point to take from Winslow Wheeler's testimony is the fact that the stealth functionality in F-35s (which already makes no sense for any foreseeable use of the planes) will also result in their performing far worse than existing alternatives:

(I)n Wheeler's view, the stealth technology comes with sharp performance trade-offs:

The F-35’s stealth features build into the aircraft weight and drag so severe that a hugely powerful engine gives the F-35 less rapid acceleration than American F-18Cs or F-16Cs, according to the data I have seen. The combination of the F-35’s considerable weight and its small-ish wings means it has a “wing loading” (and as a result maneuverability) roughly equivalent to an American F-105 fighter-bomber of the Vietnam era. The F-105 “Lead Sled” was notorious for its inability to defend itself over North Vietnam during the Indochina War.

In other words, the Cons' argument amounts to declaring we have no choice but to buy a platinum-plated, future-generation Hummer for Canada's city driving needs. Which, needless to say, rings rather hollow at a time when we're being told that lifting seniors out of poverty for a fraction of the price is somehow beyond Canada's means.