-
While 16 F-35 fighters remain contractually committed for delivery starting this year, the full 88-jet procurement is stalled amidst trade friction with the Trump administration.
-
Rising program costs—now estimated at $30 billion—have reopened the door for Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen E.
-
The Gripen offers superior industrial benefits, including 12,600 domestic jobs and Arctic-optimized maintenance.
-
Ottawa must now balance the F-35’s unmatched NORAD interoperability against the Gripen’s economic sovereignty as the aging CF-18 Hornet fleet reaches its structur
The Iranians shooting down an F-35 is a game changer. The F-35 is almost invisible to AMERICAN technology, but they never tested it against FOREIGN technology. And if the Iranians have technology to track it, guaranteed the Russians and Chinese have the technology.
The TLDR: it is now official - the F-35 is obsolete.
The 12600 jobs should be the only number the government should take into account.
I will never understand what the hell went through Trudeau’s mind when he thought going through with the F-35 deal was a good move.
He literally told Canadians that the Liberals would never go ahead with buying F-35s, and then trapped us into this predicament by going back on his word when it was clear as day how hilariously unreliable the aircraft were.
I understand the whole Norad interoperability, but I truly agree with your thought.
100% Gripen
Buying F35, at this point, is a bribe to appease impetulent Trump
Imagine being dumb enough to invest into the military industrial complex of a country that’s actively threatening to invade you.
Imagine being dumb enough to invest into the military industrial complex of a country that’s actively threatening to invade you.
And to buy defensive weapons that can be summarily and remotely shut down by that invading country.
That would be the most moronic decision possible.
The Gripen may not be a 1:1 match with the F-35, but neither was the Sherman a 1:1 match with the Nazi Tiger tank. It took an average of 8 Shermans being KO’d to take out a single Tiger. But when 10, 20, or even more Shermans could be fielded for every Tiger that hit the field, victory came down to numbers, not technological superiority. As has been copiously demonstrated across nearly every conflict of the 20th and 21st centuries.
And instead of 88 F-35 aircraft, that exact same dollar value could buy us 420 Gripen aircraft, at even less on-going maintenance costs on an overall basis.
True, even with 420 Gripens we don’t stand any chance of defending ourselves. But effective defense is not the goal… the goal is to make any invasion as prohibitively expensive for America as possible. And 420 Gripens that cannot be remotely shut down is that answer.
If Ukraine had 420 Gripens and the trained pilots to fly them, their war would be a totally different scenario.
As we’re seeing in Iran, you don’t actually need jets to take on F-35s at all. You just need a lot of missiles and targeting systems that home on the giant heat signature.
And the appeasement will only last a few weeks Max, before he gets distracted by something else
Gripen!
A mixed fleet is probably optimal. The Grippens are far more pragmatic to form the bulk of our fighter capability. A stealth fighter has unique benefits so keeping the 16 already committed to isn’t unreasonable until 6th gen and beyond can be procured from actual allies.
The big mistake here is going all in on 88 F-35, when the future of aerospace defense is AI drone and missile/counter-missile defense. Not just because of American backstabbing. It’s costs far exceeds its strategic value and in true Canadian fashion our defense paradigms are always one to three steps behind.
Edit: Militaries win with effective + cheap + scale. Not ultra-expensive showpieces (heh) with critical flaws that do not scale.
It’d be way more expensive to split the order. Canada needs arctic recon and interception. That’s all it has ever needed. Gripen was built to do that mission. Going with Gripen would both put Canada with a cheaper platform that fulfills the mission, and it sticks a thumb in the eye of Trump’s war machine.
That’s all it has ever needed.
I appreciate the truth of your comment, but respectfully disagree.
-
You don’t build a defense force and strategy for the conflict you hope happens.
-
Our needs include all of NATO’s needs, and to a far far smaller degree, any UN peacekeeking or similar function.
A 5th gen stealth fighter presents desirable attributes for specific purposes, but to your point they aren’t the bulk of the work to be done.
The cost saving of a single fleet of F-35 also inject various fragilities of their own. Not the least of which is the catastrophic losses from a single plane going down from anything ranging from enemy action to training accident to supply chains fuckery.
I won’t shed a single tear for the F-35 if we cancel the whole lot. But having some 5th gen makes sense. We should be going with the Brit or French led consortiums of middle powers, not US, Russia or China.
-
Exactly, there may be times a topline fighter is needed, but most missions for air superiority aren’t going to be best plane vs. best plane.
We’ve seen in WWII, and we see in the asymmetric age of Ukraine and Iran wars, that a horde of thousand dollar problems wear down a million dollar problem solver.
The f-35s have kill switches in them. A fusible link that bricks them. Do not buy them.
I wanna say the Danish have already jail broken theirs, not saying we should get them and jail brake them just saying it is possible.
I’m also not convinced their stealth capability is that great.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the US knew of flaws and that’s why they’re fine selling them.
Have the Iranians shot down a Gripen yet?
Have they ever had a Gripen within missile range?
Grippens flying over Canadian airspace are outside of Iran’s range, so we should be fine there.
