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

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 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 21 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 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 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 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 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 16 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

Even when you already know where the target is, you still have to get within range to lock on and attack them. Generally speaking, if you're close enough to fire your missiles at them, they're close enough to fire their missiles at you. That means you still need to remain undetected until after your missiles away if you want the biggest possible advantage in air to air engagements.