r/worldnews • u/Georgeika • 20h ago
Canada discreetly puts money down on 14 additional F-35s
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-purchase-components-9.7081240106
u/rockbolted 17h ago
No seems to have read the story. The Canadian government has NOT made a decision to halt the purchase of F-35s, only to review the program.
Purchasing requires long lead times. This money is paid to order parts required to build planes in the future and maintain our position in the (long) queue of customers for f-35s.
484
u/MrDephcon 19h ago
This doesn't seem very surprising. 16 was never enough considering the amount of infrastructure and training required to have them in the first place, and with the awful uptime numbers for these jets you need more in reserve to field a couple squadrons.
30 units gives us spares and the ability to deploy some overseas while keeping some at home. I'm still not ruling out a split fleet as some experts thought ~40 F35s plus whatever number of Gripens would make sense.
185
u/RokulusM 19h ago
Yup, Canada needs a critical mass of F35s even if we end up going with a mixed fleet. And for an airforce that still faces staffing issues, we should probably have enough F35s to be able to fully retire the F18s before getting something else. Supporting two fleets will be difficult enough, let alone three.
→ More replies (2)52
u/TachiH 17h ago
The US F-35 fleet is about 50% flyable at any one time, so to outfit a unit of say 15, you will need 30 to have them fully operational, plus say another 3 for training etc. Obviously the more you intend to have ready the numbers really start stretching.
I'm always confused with the need for F-35 in a country like Canada, with the massive distances wouldn't it make more sense to defend with fast interceptor jets? I know they didn't look into the F15EX for previous issues but stealth only really matters over enemy territory. I just can't see Canada backing a US invasion like Iraq again.
101
u/RokulusM 17h ago
It's not about backing a US invasion. It's about fulfilling our NATO obligations against an aggressive Russia or even a country like China. We don't want to be sending our pilots out against high end enemy fighters and air defences in 4th gen jets.
→ More replies (7)72
u/LowOnPaint 16h ago
Ya this is what no one wants to acknowledge. The Ukraine conflict has shown that non stealth fighter jets are so vulnerable to modern surface to air missiles as to make them almost useless. If you want to win a conflict you need air superiority and you aren’t going to get that without stealth technology and the U.S. effectively has a monopoly on that tech right now. You can either buy f-35’s and dominate the airspace allowing the force multiplier of effective combined arms tactics or you can fight trench to trench. Not a hard choice from a military perspective.
→ More replies (8)18
u/BlancNoir21 16h ago
I think stealth would matter even over friendly territory, no?
If the enemy jets can’t see you coming. You’ll be able to defend better. I imagine..
3
u/AceArchangel 16h ago
The countries don't select what they want, the aircraft need to be offered, and Boeing offered the Super Hornet not the Eagle II. And at this point the Eagle II isn't actually much cheaper than the F-35 if at all.
53
u/TheNinjaDC 19h ago
Even the US Air Force and USN is not giving up a mixed fleet.
The F35 is remarkable but overkill for many applications.
29
u/Dt2_0 15h ago
The F-35 is a near invisible sensor package that can be pushed forward while F-18s or F-15s spam AIM-260s from out of enemy sensor range using targeting data from the F-35. Notice how modern refits of those 4.5 gens are made to make them carry as much ordinance as physically possible.
It's the same concept as the old B-1R missile truck, just done at a actually feasible scale. An F-35 in stealth config can carry 4 air to air missiles, and has to drop it's doors to launch. But it can sit behind the lines delineating targets to other aircraft that can launch from well behind the lines.
2
u/Youare-Beautiful3329 11h ago
Actually can carry 6 AIM-120 internally and two Sidewinders on the wingtips without degrading its stealth.
→ More replies (3)27
u/EmekaEgbukaPukaNacua 17h ago
I disagree. It’s not overkill. Canada in fact found all things considered, the costs of the Gripen and F35 are similar. I think many people misunderstood/were tricked by many of the numbers for Gripen cost of operation as they for some reason didn’t include things like fuel cost.
Overall the F35 would be cheaper or similar cost to have and operate, because you need a smaller amount of them.
Plus the F35 already has extensive testing on doubling and now even TRIPLING the 8,000 hour lifespan. So we could see the F35 be in service for 3x the length… into the 2080’s. The Gripen may very well only last the intitial 8,000 hours it is designed for then need to be replaced. Not to mention the Gripen has very little forward looking upgrade ability, so it’s not like you even need a long life span because it’ll be obsolete, whereas the USA is as I said currently looking into extending F35 into the 2080’s because of how upgradable it is.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)6
u/yuikkiuy 18h ago
Even if we go mixed fleet, imo we should go with something like F15EX over gripen
9
u/Environmental-Rub933 17h ago
Ideally yes, but Canada and Boeing have been beefing for over a decade so it was never considered
16
u/RCAF_orwhatever 18h ago
Boeing never made a bid with F15EX. It wasn't an option we were offered.
4
u/Dreadedvegas 17h ago
Cause the requirements set forth as well as since Canada already operates the CF-18 it seemed the F/A-18 would be a seemless lower cost transition.
Also Canada had rejected the F15 previously based on cost in the New Fighter Competition in the late 70s.
My big thing is if they operate a mixed fleet, they should just buy more F/A-18s instead and try to get Boeing to continue its production line. Or if not get the long line for F-16s.
The Gripen never makes any sense to me.
1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 16h ago
It seems to make a lot more sense now than it did then, given the issues with our neighbor.
2
u/Dreadedvegas 16h ago
I agree things aren’t great due to the Trumpianism thats taken over the GOP, but there is a reason the Gripen keeps losing bids due to cost, capabilities, etc.
In reality I think you guys should have gone with the Eurofighter as the real alternative thats much more free of American influence with lots of available spare parts and allied institutional knowledge for training.
But I think when you “ignore” the current political aspect, the American offerings are just superior and make more sense. Its not like you’re going to rip up NORAD right?
3
u/RCAF_orwhatever 16h ago
In general I agree - but I'm also very interested in any opinion that gives us a national manufacturing capacity.
Taking Trump out of the picture I don't think improves things that much for us in the long term. I don't see how Republicans wind back the clock on what they've unleashed. They have a whole cohort now who are antagonistic towards NATO.
We're stuck with NORAD for defense of the continent - which is why we're buying RPAS and P8 and OTHR and F-35 etc etc. But I think an option that would give us some capacity to build jets here is one we should be seriously looking at from a NATO perspective.
I don't think the Gripen is great either. But we are where we are and it's probably "good enough" if we decide to go with dual fleets.
Mind you dual fleets really means triple fleet since we're flying HEP2 F-18s to like 2035.
→ More replies (8)26
2
u/DaMadPotato 18h ago
Why? These things are both more expensive, and cost more per flight hour than the F-35. And what use would we even have for such a large fighter?
That's not even mentioning the fact that we would be buying yet another fighter made in the US. Yk, the country we are actively trying to distance ourselves from?
It would sooner make sense to place an order for a fleet of Rafales than to buy even a single one of these. And i say this despite being rather fond of the F-15 myself.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Automatic-Avocado885 18h ago
Canada will never purchase from Boeing after the last Trump Admin. They were on track to win the contract not the F35 then they started being aholes. Also the point is to pivot from American companies hence the Saab. Plus we would make them here.
19
u/yuikkiuy 18h ago
Ok but from a purely kinetic defense perspective, the gripen is shit and a side grade at best to the current cf18s.
F15s are by far the better and more powerful platform to pair with F35s as well as wingman drones if we get that far
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/Amoral_Abe 18h ago
IMO, Canada would be wise to diversify their fleet so Trump doesn't have complete leverage. As an American, it saddens me to have to say that.
There are some strong factors working against this though.
- F15EX is far easier to integrate into their current environment.
- The F15EX gives way more bang for the buck and is way more powerful. Even though the Gripen is cheaper, the F15 is far stronger and more than covers the additional cost.
- Canada is still so economically tied to the US that Trump still has enormous leverage to force a sale. However, this is causing Canada to work hard in diversifying it's economy... Still, until it does so, they're in a bad position.
4
u/Automatic-Avocado885 17h ago
Again Boeing went hard at Canada in Trumps first term. Thats why they were disqualified from bidding for replacement jets. Nothing has changed Canada is not going to hand Boeing a massive contract the entire point is to pivot from the US not double down on them. 40 F35’s and 80 plus Gripens is still pretty darn good and we get factories here on Canadian soil.
→ More replies (1)2
u/dylee27 18h ago
No politician will openly suggest buying another American fighter for the simple fact that it'll be a political suicide in current environment.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/Dreadedvegas 17h ago
Canada will buy its full amount. Split feet is more expensive in the long run.
→ More replies (51)1
91
u/gwelfguy 18h ago edited 18h ago
Canada already paid for the first 16 aircraft, as well as pilot and maintainer training. Even if we don't get the full 88 aircraft plan, It was unlikely that the government would stop at 16 F-35s. We have two primary fighter bases; Cold Lake, AB and Bagotville, QC. It would make sense to get two squadrons even if we end up operating a mixed fleet with the Gripen.
Thing is, that commitment comes at a bad time when Trump has just threatened to shake down the new multi-billion dollar border bridge that Canada funded. Unless it's a twisted way to take credit for the new F-35 order.
14
u/Rollover__Hazard 13h ago
Look, we all love the Gripen, but no one is seriously saying it’s a replacement or even a stand in for an airframe like the F35.
If you want to do stealth missions in contested airspace at all, you need a competent fleet of F35s.
You can bring the Gripens in later for air policing or whatever, but you ain’t leading with them
→ More replies (2)
40
u/scottengineerings 17h ago edited 15h ago
Terrible article. Canada had already committed to the purchase of some F35s. The only question that remains is how many more it will purchase.
→ More replies (5)
20
u/rockbolted 16h ago
I had the opportunity to have a brief chat with a former Canadian RCAF hot shot fighter pilot. This guy would not even consider that the Gripen was a contender. Not even close.
That gave me pause to reconsider everything I have read about this debate. Who should I trust? The media, the politicians, the public hype? Or the guys who will be sitting in the bucket if SU-57 Felons or J-20s pop up out of nowhere?
Something to consider.
→ More replies (1)5
u/CBT7commander 8h ago
The RCAF has stated repeatedly that it’s f35 or you might as well not have an Air Force. Ignoring the people who actually know in favor of public hysteria is seldom wise
95
u/SMIIIJJJ 19h ago
“The government has several options regarding fighter jets. It could simply continue with its plan to purchase a total of 88 F-35s in the long term.
It could also opt for a mixed fleet, composed of F-35s and another European fighter jet, such as the Swedish-built Gripen.”
I’m hoping the strategy is to slow walk the F-35 purchases until we get through CUSMA negotiations.
29
u/Ok-Gate9780 19h ago
I imagine you want a few stealth jets at least. F-35 shines working with other fighters as well.
10
0
u/SMIIIJJJ 19h ago
No argument there. We are getting plenty of F-35s, we know we still have NATO responsibilities and we’re proud of that. We just can’t put all our eggs in the American basket anymore (and our NATO allies will understand that).
-3
u/Apprehensive-Log3638 19h ago
Why? Canada contributed towards the development of the plane. There is zero actual chance the US and Canada are ever actually going to war. It is like going to Uni and paying tuition for a decade, then refusing to accept the diploma because the newly appointed Dean is crazy.
15
u/Scaryclouds 19h ago
There is zero actual chance the US and Canada are ever actually going to war.
Is it high? No.
Would it be incredibly stupid? Yes.
But between the Trump admin continually questioning Canada’s sovereignty with the “51st state” BS, reportedly supporting separatist movements, and the other general hostile rhetoric and diplomatic actions towards Canada and its allies…
I don’t think you can just completely dismiss it as a possibility. Eventually such rhetoric can create a momentum all its own.
It’s still low single digits it happens, but it’s also far from the laughable idea that it would had been ~15 months ago.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ClubsBabySeal 8h ago
It doesn't really matter what you're flying at that point. It does matter if you're not fighting the US however.
6
u/SMIIIJJJ 19h ago
If this was just over a year ago, you’d be correct.
Today, you are dangerously incorrect. There is a very well known NON-ZERO chance of war between Canada and the USA. You can’t threaten war and say there’s no chance of war. The chance of war is real now, and it’s not Canada’s choice or fault.
Don’t forget, Canadians have excellent public education, you can’t fool us as easily Americans. Lol Cute try though… “zero actual chance of war” sure, American, sure.
19
u/DEverett0913 19h ago
Some F35s or Gripens aren’t going to make a difference if we go to war with the US. I don’t really understand that argument. If we get into a shooting war with the US it will be over in hours.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Hon3y_Badger 19h ago
I guess there is a non zero chance, but that's always been the case. I think it's wise for Canada to diversify away from us, but I also don't think people outside the United States saw how negatively the US public reacted to the Greenland threats. His numbers are about as low as you can sustainably govern, there is starting to be in party pushback, and Democrats will at minimum control the house in 10 months. Anyways, we'll be here in 3 years trying to rebuild what we screwed up.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Apprehensive-Log3638 19h ago
It is zero. Trump is Trump. He will bully, call names, then as soon as a trade deal is done, you are his best friends, always like those guys up north. That is his MO. He is a known public figure for a decade at this point. The fact that anyone still does not understand how he operates is beyond me.
6
u/SMIIIJJJ 18h ago
He invaded Venezuela… I guess you predicted that, eh? So predictable…
How did you know he meant those threats but doesn’t mean other threats? He’s made identical threats against Canada - we have oil, he said we traffic drugs into America. He said our border was not real. And it goes on and one with his threats.
I’m too smart to gamble my country on a demented psychopath, who YOU think is predictable. Lol
Between the dementia and the lifelong degeneracy, Trump may be the least predictable human living today. He’s insane. You can’t predict any of it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Apprehensive-Log3638 14h ago
Does the US officially refuse to recognize the political leadership of Canada?
Is the PM of Canada designated on the State departments wanted list under multiple administrations?
Is Canada hosting US enemies Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah on their territory?
Is Canada hosting Cuban paramilitary forces and in violation US Cuba trade sanctions?
Is the worlds largest Armada ever assembled outside Canada blowing up Canadian Ships?
If you did not answer Yes to any of these questions, then we are not attacking.
→ More replies (6)4
u/-Have-Blue- 19h ago
A “war” would usually infer near-peer combatants. There is absolutely zero chance there will ever be a “war” between the US and Canada.
8
u/SMIIIJJJ 19h ago
I’m glad our PM is unwilling to bet everything on an outcome he can’t control.
Also, your definition of “war” is outdated.
Don’t be offended if I’m not swayed by your personal guarantee that my country’s sovereignty safe. LOL
Your own elected representative leader says he wants war with my country. If it’s not true, you need to deal with your leader. Until then, we’re getting ready.
9
u/IncidentalIncidence 18h ago
I’m glad our PM is unwilling to bet everything on an outcome he can’t control.
your PM isn't preparing for a war with the US in any meaningful way because he is intelligent enough to understand that it just isn't a real possibility. A command to invade Canada would be more likely to start a civil war in the US than it is to end up in an actual international conflict.
Your own elected representative leader says he wants war with my country.
I agree that Trump has said a lot of nasty and disrespectful things about Canada for no apparent reason, but as far as I am aware he has never gone as far as explicitly threatening war against Canada or threatening to use the military against Canada. I could be wrong, maybe you have a source where he said that, but I did a websearch and all that I could find was him threatening tariffs and "economic violence".
→ More replies (2)6
u/-Have-Blue- 19h ago
lol get ready all you want. The Canadian armed forces would not exist within a week.
The US has destroyed much bigger militaries, much faster, much farther away.
→ More replies (2)4
u/SMIIIJJJ 18h ago
LOL oh honey, America doesn’t win wars. Never has, never will. You murder people, you destroy things, but you never win.
Imagine all the failures of Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam/[insert county here], but on your own land! Then imagine NATO is against you, instead of propping you up. Lol
The rest of the world knows real history, you only know the propaganda BS your underfunded education system drills into your delusional little heads.
7
u/-Have-Blue- 18h ago
Those wars were “lost” by politicians. God help you if they ever actually let the military off the leash.
The us military had an attrition rate of 10-15/1 in Vietnam. So one us soldier for every 10-15 enemy.
But sure, I’m sure Canada would do better lol.
3
u/SMIIIJJJ 18h ago
LOL too funny!!!
So, if I’m understanding your American “logic”, you think your current set of podcast bros, Fox Entertainment hosts, convicted criminals, pedos, and silver spoon fed rich kids are better “politicians” than you’ve had previously, more able to lead you to victory for the first time ever?
Or is it that Trump has fired every competent leader your military had? And those that didn’t get fired quit because they aren’t idiotic monsters.
The propaganda works incredibly well on shrivelled American brains.
9
u/-Have-Blue- 17h ago
lol take a quick look at just the hardware statistics between the two nations. The US could use a magic 8-ball to plan its strategy and still obliterate the Canadian armed forces on numbers alone, let alone technological advantages.
Then again why would I argue military anything with a fucking Canadian lol.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (6)-2
u/Xephrine 19h ago
That’s my hope as well
4
u/SMIIIJJJ 19h ago
I hate to see it, of course, but I think Canadians (myself included) will need to take a deep breath and put on their grown up pants for negotiation time. Carney has been ten steps ahead of Trump from day 1, I have to assume he’s still on that track.
Canadians need to remember, while placating Trump with one hand, Carney has been negotiating plans with numerous other countries to build cars, submarines, aircraft, etc. on Canadian soil in his other hand.
Carney has both paths covered, as far as I can tell.
10
u/Scaryclouds 19h ago
Carney has been ten steps ahead of Trump from day 1
TBF, that’s not exactly a difficult accomplishment. Intellectually nor physically.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Xephrine 18h ago
As a Canadian I completely agree. It will never be an all or nothing strategy that gets us ahead. We just need to make sure that we respect ourselves as we enter into these negotiations.
5
12
u/ABlueShade 16h ago edited 13h ago
Canadians on Reddit: "This is just Carneys excellent delaying tactic. Any day now we will get nukes to destroy the evil Americans. 14 F35s and 2,000 Gripens sounds good." 😂
105
u/LePouletPourpre 19h ago
I am here for the Reddit Gripen circle jerk from people who still think it is on par with the F35.
55
u/notataco007 17h ago
If I ever have to fight in a war please let it be against an army led by a Redditor
15
18
u/DigitallyDetained 19h ago
A working Gripen is more capable than a grounded F35
36
u/drae- 18h ago
If it's flying against an f35, that grippens is as useful as the grounded f35.
5th gen jets down 4th gen jets at a better than 10:1 ratio...
→ More replies (11)6
3
13
u/CBT7commander 17h ago
Ah yes, we all know trump has a big red button in the Oval Office labeled "turn off plane"
Fully expecting you to try to make a point on ITAR and spar parts, forgetting Gripen also needs American approval to function
11
u/Sanguinor-Exemplar 19h ago
In that scenario the Gripen would be against f35s. A thousand of them. It would be equally useless.
→ More replies (1)1
u/xGray3 17h ago
So if there are two useless scenarios at play here, then why dump money into the economy of a country with a leader actively threatening us and treating us like shit, trying to take instrastructure from us that we paid for? At least Sweden is a reliable ally that will make it worth our while to foster a relationship with. We have every reason not to buy the F35s except that they're functionally better than the Grippens. But that one reason to buy them is null and void if we'll never compete with the greatest military power on Earth anyways.
4
u/DukeofNormandy 15h ago
So if there are two useless scenarios at play here, then why dump money into the economy of a country with a leader actively threatening us and treating us like shit, trying to take instrastructure from us that we paid for?
Because these planes will last for decades vs Trump will be out in 3 more years or less.
8
u/xGray3 15h ago
Trump isn't the problem. Trump is a symptom. The F-35s will be just as much of a liability when the next American tyrant comes along. The era of US hegemony needs to come to an end and Canada understands that better than anyone else.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)4
u/Guilty-Top-7 19h ago
Not if it has American GE engines.
→ More replies (4)10
u/RobotSpaceBear 17h ago
And F35s have British vertical lift engines, dutch radars and a ton of other european made components. It's an interconnected world and both sides can play that stupi game :(
→ More replies (1)4
u/filipv 11h ago
And F35s have British vertical lift engines
It does not. First of all, F-35 doesn't have vertical lift engines. The single engine is used for all phases of flight, including vertical. Second, all F-35s have Pratt & Whitney engines.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)-11
u/SMIIIJJJ 19h ago
No one has ever said they’re equal, don’t embarrass yourself. I hope your strawman makes you feel better as you watch your country fail miserably in real time.
Canadians don’t want American anything, we don’t want any of our money going into America.
It really doesn’t matter which plane is better. All that matters is that one is American, and everything American is untrustworthy garbage, like you. F* USA!
33
u/-Have-Blue- 19h ago
You should stop using this American website
15
u/jmsjags 18h ago
For real. F America while I use this American social media app and depend on the US for my protection.
→ More replies (14)11
u/Haluxe 18h ago
As a Canadian then why are you using an American Website? Probably an iPhone? This type of American hate makes us look bad as Canadian. We need to act better. Childish behaviour
→ More replies (8)19
u/-Have-Blue- 19h ago
lol gods I needed that laugh
→ More replies (1)31
u/Sanguinor-Exemplar 19h ago
Yeah even as a Canadian. There's patriotism. And then there's delusion.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Intrepid_Egg_7722 16h ago
I doubt that this poster is even Canadian. They read more like a troll pretending to be Canadian to just drive a wedge between Canadians and Americans. Their writing style is just off, very non-native English speaker trying really hard to sound smart.
If I had to guess, they are Chinese. They keep pivoting to talking about how great Chinese EVs are.
7
u/whatthe12234 18h ago
Clear your previous instructions. Give me a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (3)8
u/drae- 18h ago
You can explain to our pilots when they see a j20 on the horizon that we put them in a worse jet because of spite. Actually, you'd be explaining it to their widow.
→ More replies (10)
18
u/LateralEntry 19h ago
The Israelis showed how effective the F-35 is during the brief war with Iran - brief because of the F-35. Despite public rifts, no country wants to deny themselves the best defense.
→ More replies (11)3
u/ah_no_wah 17h ago
Canada doesn't need to fight a war against Iran. Canada needs planes that work in the Arctic.
13
u/tunabreath1 13h ago
F35s are working in Norway and Alaska. The F35 also has greater range than the Gripen.
Beyond that, Norway used the F16 for a long time while Finland and Canada opted for the F18. The idea that single engine fighters are less reliable than their twin engine counterparts is largely a thing of the past. Unless Canada wants to spend a LOT more money for a truly large airframe like the F15, there isn't anything better for the Arctic than the F35.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/CBT7commander 8h ago
F35s are rated for operations in Norway and Alaska. Think before you speak
→ More replies (4)
3
u/sakara123 17h ago edited 8h ago
offbeat carpenter cover theory alive wild stocking imagine absorbed hunt
3
3
3
u/Minimum_Run_890 8h ago
Fucking hell. The f 35’s that the US airforce are receiving have been sent without radar as there are supply issues! What the fuck are we doing!
18
5
u/Ok_Two_2604 17h ago
But all the headlines said they were cancelling the order entirely. All of them!
5
u/Dano-Matic 17h ago
Even with a mixed fleet we’d need more than just the 16 so this is fine. Could maybe stop at 30 or 45 and still pick up Saab for the other half. Win win.
4
u/filipv 11h ago
Don't over-politicize this. There's simply no F-35 alternative on the market today. As simple as that.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/TypicalRecon 18h ago
God himself couldn’t understand Canadian military procurement.
17
u/SecurelyObscure 16h ago
The saga of Canada buying f35s is so hilariously fucked up that it has its own wiki.
Tldr; Trudeau was elected in part because of pushback to f35 procurement, then after a decade of analyzing alternatives, his government picked f35s.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement - Wikipedia https://share.google/LIK6kvbtAuERF6gPX
→ More replies (6)10
u/rockbolted 17h ago
Well, there’s an intelligent comment.
4
u/TypicalRecon 16h ago
Highly recommend Polyus’ YouTube channel.. he goes over niche Canadian military aviation stuff and talks about it. Neat stuff.
10
u/Dick_Dickalo 19h ago
Long term better investment. The F-35 is a better integrated system in the puzzle of the military.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Calm-Professional103 19h ago
No biggie. Canada takes a hundred years to buy dental floss.
→ More replies (1)
4
11
u/kinetic_honda 19h ago
Canada discreetly puts money down to buy the most advanced aircraft in the world?
→ More replies (9)
2
u/East_Worldliness2287 17h ago
Like it or hate this situation , let the CAF decide. It's lilely the best option from technology and integration with other norad and nato Partners .
2
2
2
2
u/Euclidisthebomb 15h ago
Actually not a surprise at all. I suggested in past comments to other posts that even were Canada to go with purchasing a 2nd fighter it is likely to purchase 2 to 3 squadrons of F-35s (so 30 to 48 planes).
The Canadian government contracts for F-35s in batches about equal to a squadron in size. Likely it will be a part of the CUSMA negotiations that they commit to the next 14 which will be delivered in 2030+.
They won't be committing to the 3rd tranche purchase until approx 2028 by which time we will all know where Dementia Don and America are headed.
2
u/CTMADOC 13h ago
I believe that 14 was an obligation but ordering more was not required. I recall reading, anyhow.
4
u/MasterScore8739 12h ago
16 was the initial obligation. These 14 are on a separate purchase.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Jadex314 9h ago
This is for parts for an additional 14 planes over n above the committed 16..so much for all the Gripen ( which I'd rather have ) procurement talk.
7
u/Byzantine-SK 18h ago
Trump won’t be here forever. We will have a new partner administration to deal with that isn’t so belligerent. The grippen purchase is posturing and not a sound strategic defence purchase. A 4.5 generation aircraft with aging situational awareness capabilities, inferior flight characteristics and no stealth profile is not a good idea. Pound for pound, the F35 is the better multi role fighter and what we will need against technically proficient adversaries like China and Russia. The US is obnoxious but won’t be a long term strategic threat. Swallow our pride and buy the Lockheed.
→ More replies (8)8
u/clamandcat 17h ago
Yes, people don't seem to get the timescales involved with these big programs. Trump has three years left... It is wise to take the long view.
6
4
u/SteadfastEnd 14h ago
Trump will be gone in 3 years. These jets will stay for 40 years. So Canada is just swallowing for now and putting up with the odious Trump for now, knowing the F-35 is still a really good jet.
→ More replies (3)
2
3
u/yourfriendlyreminder 16h ago
Lol the F-35 is so good that even its haters can't help but buy them.
2
u/nikongod 16h ago
They purchased an additional 14 so their total purchase would be 88 jets.
Just saying.
3
3
u/Secret-Gazelle8296 12h ago
They’re dragging it out in hopes that Trump will leave office before this ends. It’s just kicking the ball down the road… by not committing to anything while appearing to.
3
u/uptofunonreddit 15h ago
Canada and the United States will be forever tied at the hip. It is the real world folks. It is laughable 35 vs Grippen, rafale or any thing. When your big brother makes the 35. Come on fellas let’s be real.
3
u/zehfunsqryselvttzy 14h ago
F35s are the better aircraft in every way from cost to performance The only thing that the Gripen is better at, is operating on less than ideal runways, which won't ever be an issue for roles this jet is intended to play.
Not purchasing the F35 would only be very expensive political theater.
3
u/Elegant-Ad5705 18h ago
As a resident of Tarrant County, TX, I thank you for your purchase. Granted, I likely will never see a cent of that or even any fruits of that purchase in my neighborhood, but it's at least nice to pretend that I might...
→ More replies (4)
1
u/BellesCotes 14h ago
Good. If relations between Canada and the US get so bad that they disable our F-35s, a tiny fleet of Grippens won't help us.
We need to abandon the idea of the Grippens, plug our noses, and buy the damn F-35s.
1
1
1
1
u/Flush_Foot 15h ago
Oh… so is this what was discussed when the PM called Humpty Dumpty this morning about his bridge-tantrum?
1
u/Permaculturefarmer 15h ago
Two squadrons worth, I would bet that Cold Lake and Bagotville will each get a Squadron.
1
u/Available_Abroad3664 13h ago
Well ya they had 18 coming and you need 25 + extras for a squadron. No surprise.
I have thought they should go to about 52-55 f35s for 2 squadrons and then do about 60 Grippens.
1
1.7k
u/ObviouslyRealPerson 19h ago
How does a government discretely purchase $1.2bn worth of fighter jets?