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

[–] BinzyBoi@piefed.ca 14 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The F-35 isn't hilariously unreliable, that's Russian propaganda that they laundered through known lying fuckwad Pierre Sprey.

As for why we went with it... Because the CAF wanted it. Putting aside all other considerations, it is the better aircraft. And at the time the notion of the US completely stabbing us in the back didn't seem like a realistic possibility.

We absolutely should switch to buying the Gripen now, what Saab are offering is amazing and there are very good reasons to get away from the US. But let's not start pretending that all of that was true when we signed the deal. At the time, the arguments against the F-35 were mostly fabricated bullshit that Russia fed us because they didn't want all of NATO to be armed with a weapon system they have no effective way to counter.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I'd also argue that if all of NATO has the same aerial weapons platform, that leaves us vulnerable in a way that diversity doesn't. If the F-35 has a vulnerability that the Saab doesn't, then we're still okay. If the F-35 is ALL we have, then we're screwed.

Standards are great. Let's make sure we have commonality of ammunition and logistics. But some duplication of weapons platforms is a good idea.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

That's completely valid, but it doesn't necessarily outweigh the benefits of just how much the F-35 outclasses all the other options available.

This is, more than anything, an issue of the rest of NATO abandoning weapon development and relying on the US to do it instead. You're right that this homogeneity brings potential vulnerabilities, but that's a problem that needs long term solutions.

Saab are developing a sixth gen fighter, and when that becomes available I can absolutely see the arguments for adopting it, but right now the arguments are a lot more complicated. While there are plenty of good arguments against the F-35, none of them really address the degree to which it overmatches every competing option. That's a factor that simply cannot be ignored.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

That's fair, but I'm not fully convinced that the F-35 is so overmatching in a Canadian context. We have a lot of territory to cover, so we want planes that are able to handle rough runway conditions, rough weather, and have a long range. The F-35 is a bit of a princess, and I don't think its airframe compromises are as valuable in a Canadian defense context as they might be in an offensive context supporting the latest American adventurism abroad.

Having the ability to select lower-cost options that are Good Enough In The Context might be worth the higher cost of maintaining two supply lines. Plus, not every mission is going to need the F-35. Having to shoehorn the F-35 into every possible mission seems wasteful, if we can have a plane that costs half as much for the lighter missions, or twice as many of the cheaper plane.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Having the ability to select lower-cost options that are Good Enough In The Context might be worth the higher cost of maintaining two supply lines. Plus, not every mission is going to need the F-35. Having to shoehorn the F-35 into every possible mission seems wasteful, if we can have a plane that costs half as much for the lighter missions, or twice as many of the cheaper plane.

Yeah, I've seen this idea floated that we may go for a split fleet of about 40 F-35s and 80 Gripens (which I assume is what you're nodding at). To my mind this sounds like an excellent solution, both for the reasons you outlined above, and because it addresses both the Russian threat and our own need to be less dependent on the US, militarily and economically. It gives us a weapons platform that substantially overmatches anything in the Russian fleet, and a weapons platform that we can reliably fly and maintain in any hypothetical future conflict.

In regards to how the F-35 fares in a defensive context, there's a pernicious myth that stealth only matters for first strike. If that's what you're alluding to, the simple reality is that all warfare is about stealth. That's why our soldiers don't only wear camouflage when they're attacking. Seeing the enemy before they see you is the single biggest advantage you can possibly have in any form of warfare. That's true of infantry, tanks, ships, airplanes... It doesn't matter. Stealth wins fights, no matter the context, with very few exceptions.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago

I'd have figured that in a defensive engagement, land-based radars would provide a home-field advantage, so that stealth is not as useful as it would be on the offensive.

It's true that you don't want to be detected by an attacker either, but I believe that doesn't matter as much, since in an aerial engagement, the first one detected is the first one dead anyway.

So stealth is good, but not, like, as good over Canadian territory, as long as we're being supported by good detection.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] motogo@feddit.dk 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 2 points 1 day ago

Nice. I'm guessing the F-16 would be closer to the F-35?

And then any other stealth aircraft is going to blow both out of the water.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They're getting blasted out of the air in Iran right now. One confirmed with a second loss possible. How many F-16s has Ukraine lost in combat? I'm not saying the F-16 is a better aircraft than the F-35 but I think it does show that "stealth" isn't all that and an "old" aircraft like the F-16 or (for that matter) Gripen, with a modern sensor and weapons load-out, is actually pretty similar in capability.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Then what's dropping all the bombs straight onto Iran, lol?

Meanwhile, Ukraine keeps their F-16s well behind enemy lines fighting cheap drones.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

They are very expensive per flight hour, yes, but that's not the same thing as being unreliable. It's a high end weapon with a high end price tag.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, that's my point, you can lose a war by expenses if your equipment needs a ton of preventative maintenance to stay reliable.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, saying that any single factor is why you "lose a war" is completely ignoring how incredibly complex warfare is. No one loses a war because of one piece of equipment.

But if we were to take that framework as true, it would be just as fair to say that you can lose a war by having inferior equipment.

There are a lot of factors that go into military procurement decisions. That's a part (albeit a small one) of why they take so damn long.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yep but since Canada isn't a super power like the USA it would seem prudent to go with the cheaper jet they were reviewing.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It would, if you're not familiar with how the Canadian military operates.

We're a small country. We've always had to punch above our weight in any military conflict we're involved in. The most expensive, hard to replace, and hard to maintain element of any weapon system isn't the weapon, it's the human operator. So for our purposes, giving that human operator the best equipment possible has always been the better choice.

In air combat the better platform wins. Dogfighting is a thing of the past. You're not beating highly superior aircraft with guts and barrel rolls. We know this, because we've tested it. We've studied it. There's real hard science that goes into this stuff. If we have an aircraft that's broadly on par with everything the Russians have, that's a speed bump. They'll bury our air force in numbers and not even notice. If we have an aircraft that's vastly superior to everything the Russians have, that's a real threat. They might still have the upper hand, for sure, but if our pilots are shooting theirs down at a ten, twenty or fifty to one rate (all realistic numbers for the kind of hypothetical match ups we're talking about here) that suddenly becomes a very, very expensive war to contemplate getting yourself into.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nope, you're probably thinking of the F-22. The F-35 got it back down to reasonable hanger time and care, at the cost of a long, multi-trillion dollar development period.

Per the other commenter the Gripen is a bit cheaper yet, but that's because it's built like a car from the 70's or something. All off-the-shelf parts combined in obvious ways with lots of allowances. The cost of that is it shows up to radar like a 70's car. It's basically just a very different aircraft for doing different things.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I understand the whole Norad interoperability, but I truly agree with your thought.

[–] Smaile@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days 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.