-
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
Cut your losses, and fuck america.
Canada needs to start building its own shit.
We had blackberry, we had Avro aero,we are capable of building things. We have good education. We should be building things and selling them. We dont uave a large population, but we are capable of that.
I fully expect Canada to go ahead with more F-35s. Not the full order, but more than just the current 16. We seem to be all-in on NORAD/Golden Dome participation and investment and the Arctic bases being invested in are being invested in with F-35 compatability in mind. Looks like a slow walk because the direction we’re headed will be politically unpopular.
its not, were not buying those fucking planes
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.
They’re exceptionally reliable, and better than anything else at what they do. He went back on this word because he was actually put into rooms with airforce experts who made that clear, and he didn’t expect the US to turn evil at the time.
I thought they said the F35s were terriblly expensive to maintain per hour of flying. Things can seem reliable in air if most of their time is on the ground getting replacement parts, and adjustments, but that quickly can lose a war by expenses.
Cost Per Flying Hour F-35A: $36,000 - $48,000 USD Gripen E/F: $7,000 - $36,200 USD Difference: ~25-75% cheaper for Gripen (varies by source) Maintenance Hours Per Sortie F-35: 20-25 man-hours Gripen: 6-8 man-hours Difference: Gripen requires ~70% less maintenance labor Operational Availability (Readiness) F-35: 70-75% Gripen: High 90% range Difference: Gripen achieves roughly 2x readiness rate Total Lifecycle Cost (8,000-hour lifespan) F-35: ~$400 million (operations only) Gripen E: ~$180 million (operations only) Difference: F-35 costs ~2.2x more to operate
Justin was neither competent nor as straight laced as he seemed, quite a few times his admin was caught doing really shady shit, stealing gov money, mispending budgets, giving friends contracts for nothing. so im not going pretend this decision was made with any real thinking in mind.
I understand the whole Norad interoperability, but I truly agree with your thought.
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.
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.
This! Swarms of FPV drones is what Russia and Ukraine use. Even at 10% target hit because of defense systems, you can inflict considerable damages.
Yeah, it looks like the whole 20th century military doctrine is obsolete now. Investing in expensive toys like jets makes little sense especially if the goal is self defense.
If Ukraine had 420 Gripens and the trained pilots to fly them, their war would be a totally different scenario.
And the appeasement will only last a few weeks max, before he gets distracted by something else
My name’s not Max, but thanks for the info.
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.
Iranians have used conventional optical tech. The promise of the F35 is to be detected late by conventional long range radar. They were never supposed to be invisible or quiet.
Granted that makes the stealth advantage very limited in terms of usage: coming from far away undetected. Then be very visible.
Besides yes, China claims they can detect them with their satellites network and a France military equipment maker is apparently developing a radar that detects stealth jets. So that advantage is apparently not going to last.
No, the Iranians haven’t discovered a kind of radio wave that the rest of us just missed. The “almost” in almost invisible means something, and there’s a variety of situations that can dramatically increase the radar signature, or that can make radar not the important consideration at all.
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.
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’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.
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.
100% Gripen
I’m not even sure that’s a good deal, honestly. They wouldn’t be any good on missions abroad, and would they actually last long if the US invaded? Hopefully the military is thinking it through carefully, and the politicians are listening.
Maybe we buy 30 billion in RBS SAMs from Sweden instead.
I don’t think our conventional military would last long if the US invaded regardless of the F35 or Gripen. The only hope in that situation is that the US sucks at occupying territory, and they would double suck in winter. That is if Daniel Smith, Scot Moe, Ford and their followers don’t just roll out the red carpet.
The neat thing about the Gripen is that it theoretically could run in a guerilla-type scenario. It takes an unskilled ground crew of IIRC five, and can take off and land on a dirt runway. If that’s enough, I have no idea.
The F-35 could be useful for hitting the US back in the very short term, but is very dependent on working airbase infrastructure and supply chains, which would be obliterated shortly.
We’ve already spent a quarter billion on the RBS-70s, which adds up to around 75 MANPADs occupiers would have to worry about when landing and taking off, maybe more if there’s more missiles in the order than launchers.
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.
The 12600 jobs should be the only number the government should take into account.
