Canada shouldn't buy the F35. The Saab is a less capable plane, for sure, but it doesn't leave Canada (and it's defense) dependent on the US at a time when the president is openly floating the idea of "acquiring" Canada.
The very suggestion of Canada being able to defend itself without the United States is a laughable one. It's so patently ridiculous it's hard to tell if you're serious.
The strategic adversary their fighters are likely to encounter, Russia, flies propeller-driven subsonic bombers for the most part. Any modern fighter is adequate to the task.
(it's beyond the scope of the current conversation but Canada's more pressing problem is having enough pilots and getting them enough flight hours)
Let's be real, it really doesn't matter what jets Canada buys if US wants to annex Canada. For NORAD duties, US can sortie F35s out of Alaska, Canada on paper better off with some Gripens for cheap performative arctic patrols. But F35s cooler than Gripens for airshows, which US provides anyway.
Look just buy some F35s and park it in the Eaton Center for the gram.
Canada's air bases are very far apart, and the Arctic is very remote, so F-35's range advantage makes it particularly well-suited to performing longer patrols (though it's still only a single-engine fighter). Additionally, the F-35's stealth means that an adversary can never be confident of when or how often patrols take place.
Gripens with external tanks outrange F35 with external tanks flying dirty, and since 4th gen, stealth hardly matters. Spaced based ISR is proliferating, in 10 years F35s will be picked up through SAR from space if not already... well depending on adversary. PRC and US, stealth broadly not meaningful. IMO RU hardly relevant.
And to be blunt, RU/PRC is MORE aligned with Canadian position on Northwest Passage sovereignty. Which really only leaves US... i.e. the only actual on paper threat to NWP is US, which makes F35s terminally stupid acquisition for CAN arctic. But broad IMO is Canada simply doesn't need a strong air game because it won't survive vs adversaries operating in the north anyway. Geopolitically, Canada needs F35 to NORDAD dues/ransom more than it needs F35 for tactical/operational needs. Cue CAN buys f35, find them ruinously expensive to operate, and US will end simply "patrolling" Canadian airspace anyways.
Canada announced an intent to purchase F-35 in 2010, at which point their F-18 were old and worn-out. The current government has been delaying a purchase for over 10 years now, and just needs to do something. The F-18 are too old to be useful, and there is still no clarity on what the intended mission is. Canada needs to either buy something now, or just abandon the idea of maintaining a tactical air force.
Who's the adversary? That's the main question. If the US is, then a better choice of fighters won't make much difference. Most likely it's russia, and it's arctic warfare.
The smart move, both for canada and EU nations isn't to build up conventional military (although nothing wrong with that, if done in parallel), but to build up a nuclear force. First strike capabilities. ICBMs, ICBM deterrents, submarines and trans-continental bombers.
France and the UK have nuclear capability already, it will cost a lot, but it isn't impossible to achieve in less time than it would take to bootstrap military force that can conventionally take on either the US, China or even Russia.
The problem is, unlike Iran and North Korea, Europe and Canada don't yet see themselves as vulnerable as they really are. If a madman like current madman decided to attack the US's allies, nukes are not off the table. Matter of fact, not only do the insane people in the US with power crave such levels of carnage, they crave it. And in their minds, taking out a small city in europe or canada will save lives in the long run and is a quick way to achieve victory.
There is a reason the current dictator in the US is trying to bring the 'golden dome' and "dominating our hemisphere". I suspect in the long run, these people will really want to invade europe and "purify it" from those "pesky" brown people, after they're done with the US. ICBM capable (and by the numbers too) Europe and Canada is the most peaceful outcome for everyone involved. If denmark had nukes, there wouldn't have been any talk of invading greenland.
Currently, the US provides nuclear capability for nato to the most part. but if self-defense against the US and Russia is the priority for europe, preparing for land and aerial attacks makes little sense. A standing continental military for europe, or even a capable military for canada costs a lot of money, the US spends $800B, and China like $300B on military, that's going to hurt!
No one has ever even attempted the invasion of a nuclear capable country. If canada had nukes, they hardly need ICBMs, they could probably use trebuchet from across the border and attack seattle and new york state probably (just kidding of course)
The MP representing the NDP in this matter is also the MP who represents Canada's northernmost territory (Nunavut). They are clear on who the adversary is, like almost all Canadians are, it is the US. No one else is threatening our territory, whether it's threatening Canada all at once, refusing to officially recognize our arctic territory (even while asking for permission to go through it), threatening to attempt to encircle us by taking arctic territory from an ally that we (and the US, oddly) are bound by treaty to defend, or just pretending our prime minister is a governor of a piece of the states.
Russia is an afterthought at best. They don't border us particularly directly in the arctic. They don't have a modern navy that poses us an actual threat. Even the strongest part of their army - their land army - isn't able to successfully invade a neighbouring country at this point. We don't even have a land border with them.
The Feb 2nd episode of the "The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge" podcast may be of interest to you, its title is "Should Canada Include Nuclear Weapons In Its Defence Strategy?", and offers a perspective on the subject.
at the time the US policy was that if Russia used a nuke in Ukraine, they would lose pretty much everything outside Russia.
nowadays the gremlin from the kremlin can just turn up in the US and marines will lay down the red carpet. so I'm not sure the same thing can be repeated safely.
Canada shouldn't buy the F35. The Saab is a less capable plane, for sure, but it doesn't leave Canada (and it's defense) dependent on the US at a time when the president is openly floating the idea of "acquiring" Canada.
[dead]
The very suggestion of Canada being able to defend itself without the United States is a laughable one. It's so patently ridiculous it's hard to tell if you're serious.
No way a well coordinated attack on Canada by US occurs without US fragmenting into tribal factions and fighting amongst themselves.
If we let it get that far and I am still around, will be gunning for my fellow Americans. Cause at that point, fuck them.
Even if I get got after one, will send a message to the rest not all their old neighbors are on their side.
The strategic adversary their fighters are likely to encounter, Russia, flies propeller-driven subsonic bombers for the most part. Any modern fighter is adequate to the task.
(it's beyond the scope of the current conversation but Canada's more pressing problem is having enough pilots and getting them enough flight hours)
Defend against whom?
they don't need to win against the US. they just need to be enough of a pain in the cloaca.
As a Swede I'm obviously all for this but doesn't the Gripen still use a ton of US-sourced parts they could easily deny? Like the GE engines.
As a fan of Area 88 I agree with this completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_88
Let's be real, it really doesn't matter what jets Canada buys if US wants to annex Canada. For NORAD duties, US can sortie F35s out of Alaska, Canada on paper better off with some Gripens for cheap performative arctic patrols. But F35s cooler than Gripens for airshows, which US provides anyway.
Look just buy some F35s and park it in the Eaton Center for the gram.
Canada's air bases are very far apart, and the Arctic is very remote, so F-35's range advantage makes it particularly well-suited to performing longer patrols (though it's still only a single-engine fighter). Additionally, the F-35's stealth means that an adversary can never be confident of when or how often patrols take place.
Gripens with external tanks outrange F35 with external tanks flying dirty, and since 4th gen, stealth hardly matters. Spaced based ISR is proliferating, in 10 years F35s will be picked up through SAR from space if not already... well depending on adversary. PRC and US, stealth broadly not meaningful. IMO RU hardly relevant.
And to be blunt, RU/PRC is MORE aligned with Canadian position on Northwest Passage sovereignty. Which really only leaves US... i.e. the only actual on paper threat to NWP is US, which makes F35s terminally stupid acquisition for CAN arctic. But broad IMO is Canada simply doesn't need a strong air game because it won't survive vs adversaries operating in the north anyway. Geopolitically, Canada needs F35 to NORDAD dues/ransom more than it needs F35 for tactical/operational needs. Cue CAN buys f35, find them ruinously expensive to operate, and US will end simply "patrolling" Canadian airspace anyways.
It clearly seems the right thing to do. I guess the devil is in the details?
Canada announced an intent to purchase F-35 in 2010, at which point their F-18 were old and worn-out. The current government has been delaying a purchase for over 10 years now, and just needs to do something. The F-18 are too old to be useful, and there is still no clarity on what the intended mission is. Canada needs to either buy something now, or just abandon the idea of maintaining a tactical air force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
They should buy both. Stealth is indispensable when needed, but for most tasks the Canadian Air Force performs the Gripen would be perfect.
What is ndp and who is Carney?
Carney is the prime minister of Canada. The NDP is the farther left party in Canada.
Let me guess, you're USian?
Who's the adversary? That's the main question. If the US is, then a better choice of fighters won't make much difference. Most likely it's russia, and it's arctic warfare.
The smart move, both for canada and EU nations isn't to build up conventional military (although nothing wrong with that, if done in parallel), but to build up a nuclear force. First strike capabilities. ICBMs, ICBM deterrents, submarines and trans-continental bombers.
France and the UK have nuclear capability already, it will cost a lot, but it isn't impossible to achieve in less time than it would take to bootstrap military force that can conventionally take on either the US, China or even Russia.
The problem is, unlike Iran and North Korea, Europe and Canada don't yet see themselves as vulnerable as they really are. If a madman like current madman decided to attack the US's allies, nukes are not off the table. Matter of fact, not only do the insane people in the US with power crave such levels of carnage, they crave it. And in their minds, taking out a small city in europe or canada will save lives in the long run and is a quick way to achieve victory.
There is a reason the current dictator in the US is trying to bring the 'golden dome' and "dominating our hemisphere". I suspect in the long run, these people will really want to invade europe and "purify it" from those "pesky" brown people, after they're done with the US. ICBM capable (and by the numbers too) Europe and Canada is the most peaceful outcome for everyone involved. If denmark had nukes, there wouldn't have been any talk of invading greenland.
Currently, the US provides nuclear capability for nato to the most part. but if self-defense against the US and Russia is the priority for europe, preparing for land and aerial attacks makes little sense. A standing continental military for europe, or even a capable military for canada costs a lot of money, the US spends $800B, and China like $300B on military, that's going to hurt!
No one has ever even attempted the invasion of a nuclear capable country. If canada had nukes, they hardly need ICBMs, they could probably use trebuchet from across the border and attack seattle and new york state probably (just kidding of course)
The MP representing the NDP in this matter is also the MP who represents Canada's northernmost territory (Nunavut). They are clear on who the adversary is, like almost all Canadians are, it is the US. No one else is threatening our territory, whether it's threatening Canada all at once, refusing to officially recognize our arctic territory (even while asking for permission to go through it), threatening to attempt to encircle us by taking arctic territory from an ally that we (and the US, oddly) are bound by treaty to defend, or just pretending our prime minister is a governor of a piece of the states.
Russia is an afterthought at best. They don't border us particularly directly in the arctic. They don't have a modern navy that poses us an actual threat. Even the strongest part of their army - their land army - isn't able to successfully invade a neighbouring country at this point. We don't even have a land border with them.
The Feb 2nd episode of the "The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge" podcast may be of interest to you, its title is "Should Canada Include Nuclear Weapons In Its Defence Strategy?", and offers a perspective on the subject.
Nit: Ukraine invaded and occupied hundreds of square miles of Russian territory in 2024 and Russia is nuclear capable.
at the time the US policy was that if Russia used a nuke in Ukraine, they would lose pretty much everything outside Russia.
nowadays the gremlin from the kremlin can just turn up in the US and marines will lay down the red carpet. so I'm not sure the same thing can be repeated safely.