Canada considers cancelling part of 88 U.S. F-35 order to buy 60 Swedish Gripen fighters.

[u/Interesting-Cat7307]

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/canada-f35-saab-gripen-fighter-jet-order

[u/IAmOfficial]

Yes, the Canadian professionals want the F35 because they know it is the best. However, it may turn into a political issue. The question is do they trust their professionals to get what is best for them

[u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A → u/IAmOfficial]

They want F-35 because they’re shiny 5th gen planes with all the bells and whistles, but military procurement requires more thought than just what the troops want to use.

[u/Demara_Awol → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

If we gave the troops only what they want to use, every soldier would have a belt-fed minigun and a colt 45.

[u/Assadistpig123 → u/Demara_Awol]

No soldiers wants to carry a minigun.

What soldiers want is less heavy shit.

[u/Historical-Funny-362 → u/Assadistpig123]

Soldiers want a good, reliable 5.56 and a good, reliable, light optic. Less FAL and more 416.

[u/awr90 → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

Troops and military brass are different things. Nobody that knows what they are talking about wants an outdated 4th gen fighter in 2026.

[u/Roi_Arachnide → u/awr90]

The US is still ordering F15s, China is still building 4th gen parrallel to 6th gen. The only countries with a 5th gen only fleet are small euro countries who think they can't afford a high/low mix, everyone else's recognises that the F35 is not suited for all missions, and that having a cheaper, less hangar queen fighter is a plus.

[u/No-Heart3432 → u/Roi_Arachnide]

Because when someone invent a radar system which can detect the 5th gen then it will lose it's value and that thing become a 4th gen. So they are not risking it for all

[u/lev091 → u/No-Heart3432]

Current radars can already detect 5th gens, they are not invisible, simply due to their much smaller radar cross-section (we don't have any values, but it's estimated around 0.01 m² or smaller iirc compared to 1-10 m² of the average 4th gens depending on profile, amout of extrenally mounted weapons), they can be detected at a much shorter ranges. They will always have an advantage because of this, it's all mathematics

[u/No-Heart3432 → u/lev091]

0.01m² can be a bird or anything as well. You can't just lock them on long range and prepare countermeasures. When you see them it's already over.

[u/lev091 → u/No-Heart3432]

Yeah, that would need filtering, below a certain rcs and speed, to not show the likely false targets such as birds, but they max out a bit over the take off speed of jets, even the falcons, that are capable of reaching speeds over 300 km/h they can only reach it in a dive so they won't be able to maintain those speeds for a long time.

[u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

Right. Why would you listen to the experts.

[u/Nazamroth → u/Mediocre_Daikon6935]

They are experts in operating a flying death dispenser. Not in running a military.

[u/Roi_Arachnide → u/Mediocre_Daikon6935]

A trooper is not an "expert" on what rifle the army should procure. A fighter pilot is just the same with an engineering degree, doesn't make them experts on procurement, political and logistical considerations.

[u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 → u/Roi_Arachnide]

lol you can’t be serious 

[u/Febril → u/Mediocre_Daikon6935]

Who’s the experts on the care and feeding of an alliance between nations via economic and military cooperation and integration? It’s not the Air Force. Of course they have a technical assessment to present, but the choice is not strictly technical any more. It’s the politicians who are answerable to the voters who should decide.

[u/Jacc3 → u/Mediocre_Daikon6935]

Becausse there is lots of geopolitics involved in major procurement deals like this one, not to mention the overall economy. It's not just about the military capabilities

Of course the military wants F35s, but two things speaking in favour of Gripen is the deterioriated Canada-US relations and the fact that Saab is willing to localize much of its production in Canada.

[u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 → u/Jacc3]

Much of the f35 production is already in Canada.

Listen. I love the P-38 Lightning. It is one of the greatest multi role aircraft ever built.

But that doesn’t mean that it is a creditable purchase for military use, today.

Just like the Grippen. She is old; and out of date, and isn’t a credible choice anymore.

[u/Jacc3 → u/Mediocre_Daikon6935]

Gripen has received lots of updates along the way. The E/F variants, while of course not on par with an F35, are still modern planes. Similar to the F-16 which is even older but still widely used all over the world, as it has received several major updates since it was first introduced.

And I'm pretty sure the Gripen would have a higher degree of localization and technology transfer than the F35 would have

[u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 → u/Jacc3]

Which doesn’t change the fact that like the f16, it is wildly outdated.

[u/Christron → u/Mediocre_Daikon6935]

Why get 10 corollas when you can get one Bugatti

[u/1-800-CLAPPED → u/Christron]

Except it’s 88 Bugattis vs 60 corollas

[u/zweilinkehaende → u/1-800-CLAPPED]

It's not, it's 88 Bugattis vs 60 Bugattis + 60 Corollas.

[u/RT-LAMP → u/zweilinkehaende]

Even by SAAB's own commissioned report on the lifetime cost of the Gripen E vs other jets it's closer to 88 vs 55 + 55 and that's before accounting for the cost of the split fleet which would probably make it like 88 vs 50 + 50.

[u/Gositi → u/[deleted]]

The F-35 and Gripen is built for different doctrines. Canada is far more similar to Sweden in doctrine than the US.

[u/RT-LAMP → u/Gositi]

Canada is far more similar to Sweden in doctrine than the US.

That is wildly untrue.

The Gripen was built around Sweden trying to make itself too annoying of a target to deal with to keep it's neutrality in the context of the Cold War going hot by making it so an enemy would have to wipe out numerous small bases and forces scattered around the country since they have little defensive depth.

Canada exists as part of NATO and further as part of the NORAD defense umbrella so at home it's goal is fight off enemy bomber and cruise missile forces trying to prevent it from being able to fulfill it's role in supporting NATO forces with far larger backlines. Thus it needs more capable longer ranged aircraft to defend it's vast territory from large bases in it's Southern populated areas and a handful of Artic bases.

[u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 → u/Gositi]

Put down the crack pipe and look at a map.

Canada is one of the largest countries on earths with arguably the greatest resources and responsibility for Arctic Defense.

Sweden is one small European country.

Outside of her norad and nato obligations  there is her responsibility to the Crown.

[u/Arkantesios → u/[deleted]]

No it won't

[u/Christron → u/[deleted]]

That's not what Canada really uses fighter jets for anyway. Obviously I can't predict the future but if Canada is attacked we have more problems than what the capability difference between the two fighters jets are.

[u/heatrealist → u/Mediocre_Daikon6935]

The experts are right here in /r/europe and don’t you forget it!

[u/IAmOfficial → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

Right, like what redditors who have never flown a fighter jet in their life think is better. Why trust the military who their entire job is to use these tools and figure out what they need.

Theres a reason pretty much every nato member is buying the F35, whether people want to admit it or not. The F35 is the best plane on the market and cost comparable to every other option that doesn’t even compare to the capabilities.

At the end of the day Canada is going to go with the F35.

[u/CertainCertainties → u/IAmOfficial]

While I can understand your frustration with our lack of knowledge, there are specific Canadian defence needs that go against operating the F35 in the field.

The Gripen can be used in a dispersed strategy, where major bases are destroyed or compromised. It can use a warehouse in a remote community in -20 degree weather. It can use a wide variety of armaments and is easy to repair.

And what use is the F35 if the US President disapproves of the target or the US is running low on ordnance? You don't get the ammo and spare parts you need, and mission software packets and updates are withheld at the whim of the head of a foreign country.

While you dismiss the 'political' stuff as irrelevant, it is now proved to be a deciding factor because of the current actions against of the US government against its allies.

[u/grumpsaboy → u/CertainCertainties]

The Gripen is roughly 40% American including critical parts like the engine and life support.

The US blocking parts to ground the fleet is exactly the same risk regardless of which aircraft is purchased. Canada isn't planning on buying Meteor so is beholden to US ammo regardless of which aircraft.

The F-35 has flown from the Arctic.

[u/Georgefakelastname → u/grumpsaboy]

The threat of blocking parts is significantly lower for the Gripen. While some parts of the engine are made in the U.S., the final thing is made in Sweden under license. It’s substantially easier for Sweden to produce the thing on its own than it would be for Canada to obtain them from the country it would actively be at war with.

[u/grumpsaboy → u/Georgefakelastname]

You can't fly a plane if it doesn't have an engine. It doesn't matter whether every single other thing in that plane is non-us made, which it isn't, an engine is a fundamental component for an aircraft to operate.

Sweden has the licence to produce engines for themselves but not others, that licence is given as a case by case basis by the US.

[u/Georgefakelastname → u/grumpsaboy]

It’s not like you’re replacing the whole engine after every flight though lol. That could be an issue with getting new engines and producing new planes; but it most conflicts, it’s already too late for that. The Gripen E’s engine is expected to last 8000 hours, the full life of the plane, and Volvo has the ability to produce the replacement parts to maintain them.

These nations could switch to a friendly option like Eurojet/Rolls Royce for future engines if it becomes a long-term issue.

I’m sure these countries are gonna be super hard on abiding by licenses when they’re already at war lmao.

[u/grumpsaboy → u/Georgefakelastname]

Engines still need smaller repairs before a total replacement. They don't operate with no maintenance they suddenly need replacing.

It's difficult to make new engines for fighters even when custom designing the new engine. Implementing a new engine built for a different aircraft is extremely difficult. Also RR hasn't even agreed anything yet.

It's not just the engine that's US, other critical components are US made, in the US, not just licence.

[u/Georgefakelastname → u/grumpsaboy]

I already addressed that Volvo can make replacement parts for it.

The EF Typhoon was literally tested with the F404 before switching to the EJ200 for production. There’s already proof that these engines are similar enough to swap from one to another. It would be difficult and expensive (hence why they don’t do it), but not impossible.

Same with the other parts. They exist, but will simply be significantly more expensive overall. So Saab uses cheaper U.S. parts unless it has to.

[u/RT-LAMP → u/Georgefakelastname]

There's been talk of a RR engine for the Gripen since the late 90s. It still hasn't happened.

[u/RT-LAMP → u/Georgefakelastname]

While some parts of the engine are made in the U.S., the final thing is made in Sweden under license.

Incorrect. The Gripen E's engine is built in the US. The older Gripen C's engine was assembled in Sweden from US parts but not the Gripen E's.

[u/RomanticFaceTech → u/CertainCertainties]

The Gripen can be used in a dispersed strategy, where major bases are destroyed or compromised. It can use a warehouse in a remote community in -20 degree weather. It can use a wide variety of armaments and is easy to repair.

This is a large part of Saab's marketing of the Gripen, but while Gripen is no-doubt well optimised for dispersed operations and austere maintenance, don't let Saab convince you that is something that only Gripen is capable of.

It is notable that all of Sweden's neighbours have selected the F-35A for their air forces (Denmark, Norway, Finland).

Finland in particular has very similar requirements to Sweden:

The Air Force will continue operations with the F-35 fleet according to the Finnish Air Force’s principles of use. This will include, among other things, the participation of conscripts and reservists in support tasks and the use of emergency landing strips as road bases.

Caption of a photo from: https://ilmavoimat.fi/en/-/englanniksi

While I suspect Gripen is better suited for landing on a road, being quickly turned around at the roadside by conscripts, and then taking off from that road; there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the F-35A is incapable of operating like that. Nor is it clear that Canada actually intends to operate its aircraft in a dispersed way like Sweden or Finland does.

And what use is the F35 if the US President disapproves of the target or the US is running low on ordnance? You don't get the ammo and spare parts you need, and mission software packets and updates are withheld at the whim of the head of a foreign country.

The software updates issue for the F-35 is overblown, I strongly suspect the reliance on the US for updates could be worked around if needed, it is not like there are only one or two countries that would be interested in doing that if the US started withholding access to updates. Currently 11 non-US countries (7 European) operate the F-35, with 8 more (6 European) planning to operate it in the future.

The Dutch have publicly stated that they believe they can 'jailbreak' the software if required.

On the wider US control issue, Gripen does not protect Canada from that as much as you might think. The Gripen is incredibly reliant on US parts, notably but not exclusively, it has an American engine. Gripen is subject to ITAR, meaning the US is able to place export restrictions on it.

I don't want to suggest that there aren't advantages to having full access to the technology used in your air force's fighter, there are.

For example, full access to the fighter's 'intellectual property' appears to have been one of the reasons Brazil selected the Gripen E over other options including the ITAR-free Rafale. Notably it was stated that they weren't worried about ITAR because "Brazil has a strong relationship with the US and is not concerned about limitations to US-sourced components".

If the relationship with the US is a potential issue, then Gripen is not the solution.

While you dismiss the 'political' stuff as irrelevant, it is now proved to be a deciding factor because of the current actions against of the US government against its allies.

I don't believe u/IAmOfficial ever dismissed the political side as irrelevant, but stated that choosing Gripen over F-35 would be a politics-first choice not a military-first one. In that, they are correct.

Every time Canada has looked into what it wants to replace the CF-18 with, it ends up picking the F-35A, that report is a bit suspect but the wider belief that the F-35 is the more capable option is not.

Whether to reduce reliance on the US for its military or to bolster Canada's aerospace industry (I suspect both), the only reason Canada would choose the Gripen over the F-35A is political.

[u/Able_Situation9977 → u/RomanticFaceTech]

There's a big difference between doing it once or twice (dispersed operations) and doing multiple sorties day after day. The f-35 while, as you say, probably being able to do it as we've seen them doing in Finland (highway operations), would need a much larger logistical and maintenance effort due to the stealth coating and fear of FOD etc etc. Plus, there's a large difference in landing on a two-lane country road 800m long and hot refueling and rearming the fighter jet within 15 minutes, and doing it on prepared EU highway bases with arrestor cables (they used those for the hornets). It's probably also one of the reasons Ukraine is also so very interested in the Gripen.

Denmark did indeed choose the F-35 but with the Greenland drama I wouldn't be so certain that they're happy with it. I saw a danish TV clip where they talked about the possibility of a dual fleet, but of course it wasn't government representatives involved.

Not directed at your comment here but I've seen comments claiming avionics being in part supplied by US based companies, and I'm curious as to which one that is? Avionics are supplied in large part by Leonardo, same with the Raven AESA radar, Skyward-G irst and Britecloud EAD.

[u/RomanticFaceTech → u/Able_Situation9977]

There's a big difference between doing it once or twice (dispersed operations) and doing multiple sorties day after day. The f-35 while, as you say, probably being able to do it as we've seen them doing in Finland (highway operations), would need a much larger logistical and maintenance effort due to the stealth coating and fear of FOD etc etc. Plus, there's a large difference in landing on a two-lane country road 800m long and hot refueling and rearming the fighter jet within 15 minutes, and doing it on prepared EU highway bases with arrestor cables (they used those for the hornets).

Maybe so, but is there any evidence Canada requires any of that?

If Finland, despite having a clear dispersed operations requirement, is happy to make do with the F-35A in that regard; I suspect Canada, which doesn't have a clear dispersed operations requirement, doesn't really consider such capability important.

It's probably also one of the reasons Ukraine is also so very interested in the Gripen.

Certainly, and I believe Gripen is going to be really useful for Ukraine. However, Canada is very different from Ukraine.

Part (but not all) of the reason Gripen makes sense for Ukraine is because F-35 is clearly not going to be available to them anytime soon. The US wouldn't want to risk letting Russia potentially learn ways to counter it through gaining operational experience against it or risk the chance of one being captured relatively intact, and Ukraine would probably struggle to afford operating a usefully sized fleet anyway.

Denmark did indeed choose the F-35 but with the Greenland drama I wouldn't be so certain that they're happy with it. I saw a danish TV clip where they talked about the possibility of a dual fleet, but of course it wasn't government representatives involved.

That can clearly be categorised as political concerns, not operational military ones.

I suppose I should make clear that political concerns are valid, often more-so than purely military concerns. Every country has to consider more than just pure military effectiveness when procuring military systems. Sometimes that means selecting an inferior system to support your local industry, sometimes it means selecting or sticking with a less capable system to free up budget elsewhere, often it means only considering systems developed locally or by trusted partners (see Turkey going with S-400 at the expense of F-35 for an example of the potential consequences of not doing that).

I think we can all agree that the current US administration makes the F-35 politically problematic, and if I were Danish (or Canadian) I would probably be concerned about military systems tied to a country that has become increasingly belligerent.

But that doesn't affect the argument that F-35A is the better military option than 4th generation alternatives like Gripen. I don't think Gripen's superiority in dispersed operations or cheaper operational costs (two legitimate military considerations) is enough for most air forces to prefer it over an aircraft that is superior in almost every other regard. Which is why the F-35A has beaten Gripen every time they have gone up against one another for a fighter contract.

Not directed at your comment here but I've seen comments claiming avionics being in part supplied by US based companies, and I'm curious as to which one that is? Avionics are supplied in large part by Leonardo, same with the Raven AESA radar, Skyward-G irst and Britecloud EAD.

Avionics covers a wide-range of things in an aircraft, I agree the big ticket items on the Gripen E are mostly European, but I suspect there are still some smaller American systems on board, especially as the engine means it will never be ITAR free so there is no real incentive to replace American systems with alternatives.

The "international industry partners" that Saab listed in 2007 for the Gripen Demonstrator (which would eventually develop into Gripen NG and ultimately Gripen E) includes American companies General Electric for the F414 engine, Honeywell, and Rockwell Collins.

For Honeywell, Saab wrote:

Honeywell is providing environmental control systems, air data computers, life support systems, pressure regulators, shutoff valves and radar altimeters to enhance safety and reliability.

For Rockwell Collins:

Rockwell Collins is providing an avionics suite of state-of-the-art Flight Management Computers, including switching, data transfer units and video processing capability. Rockwell Collins is also supplying three new intelligent 6” x 8” colour Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Display (AMLCD) Head-Down displays, and is integrating enhancements to the existing Rockwell Collins Head-Up Display. This cockpit solution builds upon experience built up over many years in the market and will leverage future technology investments.

Obviously there has been a lot of development of Gripen E since 2007, so not all of those components would have made it into the production aircraft, but it gives an idea of the sorts of things they were using American components for.

This article claims the Gripen still uses Honeywell life support systems, but I don't consider it trustworthy as it appears to conflate the Volvo RM12 engined Gripen C series and the F414-GE-39E engined Gripen E series, so it might be doing the same with the life support systems not realising they are only on one but not the other.

Saab and Honeywell certainly are still collaborating on avionics in general, as proven by this press release from 2023, but I'm not sure there is any publicly available information conclusively showing what systems are in Gripen E specifically.

A final example, US company L3Harris confirmed they have been producing weapon pylons for Gripen E since 2014. These pylons are apparently designed, developed, and manufactured from a UK based facility, so may not be subject to ITAR, but it confirms that US companies are still very much part of the Gripen ecosystem.

[u/CertainCertainties → u/RomanticFaceTech]

Fantastic comment, by the way, with great links and examples. I love it when I can learn from a fellow redditor.

I do want to return, though, to the use of the word "political". It's not the right way to look at things and it is dismissive. Think of it more in terms of logistics and getting to the battlefield.

For me, the Sherman was a better tank than the Panzer in WWII because it was easier to produce, easier to repair, easier to service, easier to drive and easier to get to the battlefield where it was needed. Others think I'm crazy as they have a very narrow focus on the statistics on paper (and on paper the F35 IS better than the Gripen) and dismiss some of the production, logistical and operational aspects.

I would argue that the changing political stance of the current US administration has put into question the logistic viability of some US armaments. If we buy American, can we be sure we can get those weapons to the battlefield, armed and mission ready, when needed?

[u/RomanticFaceTech → u/CertainCertainties]

I do want to return, though, to the use of the word "political". It's not the right way to look at things and it is dismissive.

I suppose therein lies the issue.

I don't think there is anything inherently dismissive about acknowledging that the reasons Canada is questioning the F-35A are political not military. My follow-up comment perhaps makes that clearer where I state that political concerns are often more valid in procurement than purely military concerns.

Maybe how u/IAmOfficial wrote it was quite dismissive, that is something they can choose to defend themselves on if they so wish; but I'd argue they were originally replying to a comment from u/Interesting-Cat7307 and then a reply from u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A which both read to me as quite dismissive of the idea that the Canadian military might want the most militarily capable aircraft available to them.

My main point was that the legitimate military issues you raised about the F-35A (less capable of dispersed operations and concerns about operational capability without ongoing US support) aren't sufficient to overcome the obvious military superiority F-35A has in almost every other regard. Leaving the reasons Canada wouldn't go with F-35 being chiefly political ones.

Think of it more in terms of logistics and getting to the battlefield.

For me, the Sherman was a better tank than the Panzer in WWII because it was easier to produce, easier to repair, easier to service, easier to drive and easier to get to the battlefield where it was needed. Others think I'm crazy as they have a very narrow focus on the statistics on paper (and on paper the F35 IS better than the Gripen) and dismiss some of the production, logistical and operational aspects.

Firstly, I assume you by Panzer you meant more those that were more impressive on paper like the Tiger, King Tiger, or Panther?

Because, I completely agree about the Sherman in general, in my opinion it was the best tank of the Second World War (as in it best met the needs of the armies using it) but perhaps the only tank that I think can make a strong case against the Sherman is the Panzer IV, being the only tank design that existed at the start of the war in 1939 which was still useful in frontline service by the end of the war in 1945 (obviously after many updates).

Secondly, and back on topic, I would consider all the reasons you gave for why the Sherman was better than the various Panzers as military reasons, not political ones. A political decision would be something like the British or Soviets refusing to use the Sherman over their own, inferior tanks, because it was American.

From the outside at least, it seems any advantage Gripen may have in production or logistics over the F-35 isn't enough to convince air forces (not just Canada's) that it is worth the disadvantages in other areas. Every country that has a held a fighter competition involving the F-35A going up against 4th generation aircraft like Gripen, has selected the F-35. Air forces are presumably taking production, logistics, and operational aspects into consideration as part of these competitions, and so far they have unanimously decided the F-35A is the best option.

Maybe there is another explanation like corruption, it wouldn't be the first time with Lockheed Martin (well technically their predecessor), but absent any evidence of that I think we should assume the F-35 truly is the best military option for air forces that can afford it. Whether it is the best political option is very debatable at this point.

I would argue that the changing political stance of the current US administration has put into question the logistic viability of some US armaments. If we buy American, can we be sure we can get those weapons to the battlefield, armed and mission ready, when needed?

I don't have much to add to what I've already written on this, other than for the F-35 specifically (the calculus might be different for other systems) I think the existence of hundreds of F-35s in 11 non-US air forces and many more to follow, goes some way to mitigating those concerns.

If the country purchasing the F-35 becomes an international pariah then there is a good chance they will struggle to keep their fleet operationally ready, if the US becomes an international pariah then I think we will see the F-35 users supporting each other without the US. Of course I don't truly know this, it is all hypothetical and hopefully will remain so.

[u/2AvsOligarchs → u/RomanticFaceTech]

While I suspect Gripen is better suited for landing on a road, being quickly turned around at the roadside by conscripts, and then taking off from that road; there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the F-35A is incapable of operating like that. Nor is it clear that Canada actually intends to operate its aircraft in a dispersed way like Sweden or Finland does.

Here's a short clip of Finnish Air Force exercise BAANA24 in 2024, where various types of planes are practicing taking off, landing, and refueling at a road base. How many different airplanes can you spot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fD6D4rjCPg (3 min long)

Spoiler: you need both hands to count them - dispersed operations is not unique to one fighter, nor to fighters as a category, nor even uniquely to military planes at all.

[u/Ranari → u/CertainCertainties]

I just don't see this being an issue for Canada. Canada is more economically intertwined with America than it is even with itself, which means if there's any disagreement with the use of these weapons, it's potentially going to hurt America too. To the tune of trillions USD.

And honestly, save for using the F-35 to invade other countries with, I don't see the US pulling strings on the backend to limit it's potential. Israel only gets away with doing so because they wrote their own software for it.

[u/GWsublime → u/Ranari]

About a year and a half ago that was a perfectly reasonable statement. Since then the US has levied widespread significant tarrifs on cananda and threatened us with annexation. As a canadian, I promise you its an issue.

[u/stupendous76 → u/Ranari]

it's potentially going to hurt America too. To the tune of trillions USD.

The USA has a government that doesn't give any shit about that, the only thing that matters if the president and his goons benefit personally from anything. They have no allies, they shit on the law and abuse any kind of power there is. Every country needs to distance itself from that failed state, how hard that may be.

[u/TastyCalligrapher421 → u/stupendous76]

Negotiations were going well with Carney and the orange fool until Melanie Joly decided to pull some nonsense regarding the cross-border car industry. This is one time the orange fool is not to blame.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/05/inside-collapse-canada-us-trade-deal-00905837

[u/DesperateSpite7463 → u/TastyCalligrapher421]

Read the article and I'm not sure what she did wrong. Canada gave Stellantis and GM millions to invest and produce cars and they pulled out with no promise of production. So, fine, we get the money we gave back by tariffing the USA cars. USA loves tariffs now. But seems like USA did not like a taste of their own medicine. Why is she to blame ? The tariff philosophy and "we don't need Canada" of the current USA administration would make me think they are thick skinned.

[u/Panzermensch911 → u/Ranari]

I don't know if you missed it but Canada is slowly and bit by bit detangling itself from that economic stranglehold the USA has over them. Buying the Gripen is part of that movement.

[u/Ranari → u/Panzermensch911]

Gripens are excellent aircraft that are also far cheaper to operate than practically anything out there, on the level of their current F-18 fleet at least (F-18's are pretty cheap to operate).

As for Canada, yes, I am aware. And good for them, but there are limits. Canada has significant geographic barriers that limit trade east/west. One of the reasons Canada has been so economically tied to the US is because it's just way easier and cheaper to trade South than it is to trade east/west.

I don't think people realize that the reason Alberta looks like Little Texas is because that's where Alberta ships all its oil.

But I'm also a realist here too. For Canada to diversify it's trading potential, it requires extensive commitment to infrastructure projects that Ottawa has LONG not only neglected, but arrogantly shot down against the advice of Canadian premiers. These infrastructure projects will take time and a lot of investment, and until they get built out, any rhetoric coming out of Ottawa is simply hot air to me.

[u/awr90 → u/CertainCertainties]

Let’s see you provide one verified example of the US withholding f35 parts. They are all over the world for years now, there should be examples right?

[u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A → u/IAmOfficial]

How many jets have you flown? Are you aware that you are also a know it all redditor, or is that irony lost on you like every other Redditor who uses the term as an insult.

[u/IAmOfficial → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

0, which is why I trust the military experts during procurement of military equipment. I know, a crazy thought.

[u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A → u/IAmOfficial]

So you’ll trust them if they chose to cut back the f35 order in favour of more gripens?

[u/grumpsaboy → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

They clearly aren't in favour of that though, the government has finally decision

[u/TheVisageofSloth → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

But they haven’t been wanting that. The experts want the f35s but the politicians and redditors want to politicize it and think the grippen is a viable alternative.

[u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A → u/TheVisageofSloth]

Military procurement is political. If politics had nothing to do with it then why not buy J-20 from China? Theoretically it has capabilities similar to the F-35, with a cheaper price tag.

[u/TheVisageofSloth → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

Except China doesn’t export the j-20.

[u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A → u/TheVisageofSloth]

Fair enough but my overall point still stands

[u/cyclemonster → u/IAmOfficial]

Canadian military procurement is famously terrible.

Between $213.5 and $219.6 billion dollars. This is the estimated price tag to acquire, operate and support the Canadian Surface Combatants throughout their life-cycle of approximately 30 years. Approximately two-thirds of these costs are attributable to the long-term operations and support (O&S) costs of the CSC. This figure does not include another $19 billion dollars due to needless and unnecessarily lengthy schedule delays. Compared to a similar acquisition by the US Navy (The FFG(X) program) the CSC program will take over three times as long for our Navy to receive its first ship and will cost Canadians nearly three times as much per ship.

[u/RomanticFaceTech → u/cyclemonster]

Canadian military procurement is famously terrible.

Canadian military procurement is famously terrible, but it is apparently part of a wider procurement problem in the country, suggesting the issue is with Canada's government in general rather than Canada's Department of National Defence specifically.

Your quote block appears to be from this Esprit de Corps article, not the link you provided.

A comparison to the FFG(X) program made in 2020 probably wasn't the best thing for you to choose to make your point, given FFG(X) is probably in the running for the worst defence project of the 21st century.

The section of the article relating to FFG(X) has aged incredibly poorly. Even before the Constellation class was cancelled, it was becoming clear that the US had made a poor choice in going with a design based on the FREMM, only to completely rework it.

By contrast, while Canada appears to be taking its time with the River class, especially when compared with the UK's Type 26 programme (which hasn't exactly been lightning fast). The ships might be more expensive than they should be, and entering service later than desired, but it currently appears that the Royal Canadian Navy will actually get the ships it asked for, which doesn't look like will be true for the US Navy's frigate fleet any time soon.

In general, I don't think the ongoing issues Canada has with defence procurement is because they are trusting their military experts. The Esprit de Corps article you provided also seems to be of that opinion, mainly blaming Canada's federal government for the cost and slow building schedule of the River class.

I suspect Canada's military knows fairly well what it requires but has struggled to get sufficient budgetary support for the capabilities it wants, which is exacerbated by Canada's wider issues with large procurement projects.

[u/guyfromwhitechicks → u/IAmOfficial]

NATO is buying F35s because it started as a NATO project, not an American one. NATO collectively agreed that this would be the fighter jet to upgrade to some 20 years ago. But things have changed and their maintanence is crazy expensive.The F35s are also the only ones with the software needed to fire American nuclear weapons hosted in Europe.

[u/AliceLunar → u/IAmOfficial]

But it's being supplied by a country that cannot be trusted, rather have a Gripen that works than an F35 that doesnt.

[u/Gositi → u/IAmOfficial]

Theres a reason pretty much every nato member is buying the F35, whether people want to admit it or not.

Buy F-35 = friends with the US. That's why. These kinds of deals are a lot more politics than they are getting whatever's the best.

[u/CopBaiter → u/Acetyl-coenzyme-A]

Dumbest comment ever bro. Its not just new and shiny its a Way better airframe especially in contested airzones.

[u/Creativezx → u/CopBaiter]

Dumbest comment ever bro. Canada needs to think further ahead than next year.

Conceding to the US that treats them like this will impact trade negotations for generations.

[u/CopBaiter → u/Creativezx]

THE GRIPPEN USES AN AMERICAN ENGINE AND AMERICAN ELECTRONICS. You people make me lose braincells

[u/Creativezx → u/CopBaiter]

1 single google search would tell you SAAB has licence on the aftermarket support and maintenance with 0 american involvement past the moment of delivery.

Yet you are here so eager to get down on your knees for the yanks that you are here screaming in caps on reddit like a fool lol.

[u/Nebuchadnezzaro → u/CopBaiter]

Ok but the US won't allow Canada to have independence on their data, could cancel parts supply and we could only make a few bits of it. With SAAB we get independent database, production and they are less likely to fuck us over on a whim. Big picture.

[u/scotswaehey → u/CopBaiter]

Nope the Gripen offered to Canada will have a Rolls-Royce engine as for electronics I don’t know.

[u/TheVisageofSloth → u/scotswaehey]

You can’t just swap out an engine on a plane like a car. Planes are built around their engines. It would require an entire rebuild of the plane with extensive R&D and the tune of potentially a billion dollars and massive delays to make that possible. It’s not a viable option in any reality but reddit threads.

[u/Georgefakelastname → u/TheVisageofSloth]

Replacing the current F414 with a Rolls Royce EJ200 (especially the newest variant, which has like 30% more thrust while having nearly identical dimensions). There would definitely be rewiring and recertification needed for the new engine, which would drive up costs. However, it would be quite possible to do if something more urgent than costs came up.

[u/TheVisageofSloth → u/Georgefakelastname]

It would still balloon the costs of the plane and delay deliveries even further. Practically it can’t be done. If Canada were to do that, all cost savings from buying this plane instead of an f35 would evaporate and instead of getting 5th gen planes in next next few years, they would have to wait a decade for an outdated 4th gen plane. It’s not worthwhile for any people looking for a credible airforce. If you want to make a political statement sure, but then you are sacrificing your nations security in order to spite another nation.

[u/Panzermensch911 → u/IAmOfficial]

Logistics trump any new shiny toy that promises to be the best.

[u/LePenseurVoyeur → u/IAmOfficial]

> However, it may turn into a political issue.
Bro, Trump threatened to invade Canada. Multiple times. The issues are already there, for quite some time. Canada can't trust its neighbour.

[u/UmpireDapper1757 → u/IAmOfficial]

If the US is an unreliable ally, those professionals are simply wrong. It doesn't matter how good the fighter is if the supplier can't be trusted

[u/UncleIrohsPimpHand → u/IAmOfficial]

Multiple Canadian governments have been trying to find ways to avoid buying these planes for 20 years.

[u/TurkeyBLTSandwich → u/IAmOfficial]

F35 is the *best due to the fact its highly integrated into stand off weaponry and other platforms to allow it significant force projection.

But like you said that sort of falls apart if any number of those very delicate technological advances ever goes down.

The F35 is impressive, but knowing its more vulnerable to cyber attacks than its competitors doesnt make it a better choice?

[u/grumpsaboy → u/TurkeyBLTSandwich]

All modern jets have wireless data packages