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

  • Binzy_Boi@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      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.

    • Smaile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • rekabis@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          13 hours ago

          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.

          • matlag@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 hours ago

            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.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 minutes ago

              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.

        • DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          If Ukraine had 420 Gripens and the trained pilots to fly them, their war would be a totally different scenario.

  • DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

    • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

  • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    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.

    • anachronist@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours 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.

      • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

      • Reannlegge@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 hours 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.

    • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • Ariselas@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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.