84
$30,000,000,000 Question: Canada’s F-35 Debate Seems Paralyzed (www.19fortyfive.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived link

  • 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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    That's all it has ever needed.

    I appreciate the truth of your comment, but respectfully disagree.

    1. You don't build a defense force and strategy for the conflict you hope happens. Hubris kills.

    2. 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The f-35s have kill switches in them. A fusible link that bricks them. Do not buy them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent