274
Europe and Canada Are Finally Saying No to the U.S. F-35 Stealth Fighter, Motivated By a Desire For “Strategic Autonomy” (nationalsecurityjournal.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived link

  • European nations and Canada are “pushing away” from the F-35, motivated by a desire for “strategic autonomy” and political friction with the Trump administration

  • Spain officially canceled its F-35 purchase in August 2025, opting for European-built alternatives. Switzerland is now also reviewing its 36-jet deal after being hit with a “shocking” $1.3 billion price hike and new 39% U.S. tariffs, and recent reports suggest that Portugal has not opted to purchase the U.S. jets

  • Instead of the F-35, they are increasingly looking to European alternatives, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

  • Canada’s 88-jet deal is also in “limbo,” as PM Mark Carney, angered by Trump’s “51st state” comments and trade disputes, ordered a review of the 72 un-committed jets

  • Technological and industrial sovereignty are significant reasons why some countries are opting not to purchase the F-35. Some European nations prioritize developing their own defense industries and technological bases. Buying American-made F-35s would make them dependent on US supply chains and could suppress the development of their own next-generation aircraft programs. ...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

It's understandable that the RCAF still wants it; There's literally no other option with the same capabilities. The Gripen is an excellent plane, but it's not a fifth gen fighter. Unless we want to start buying planes from China, we're SOL if we want another fifth gen option. I'm not personally advocating to continue with the purchase, I think we should go ahead and build the Gripen here in Canada and use that as a stopgap while we get on board with one of the European sixth gen fighter programs. But I can absolutely see why the RCAF doesn't feel the same way. They're a small air force and they need every advantage they can get. Based on its performance against F-16s I have no doubt the Gripen could shoot down Russian fighters at a ten to one rate, but I also have no doubt that the F-35 would be closer to a hundred to one rate (in Fermi approximation terms), and one could certainly argue that we need that if we end up on the front lines of a war with Russia.

I still lean towards the Gripen, but I'll admit I go back and forth on this. It's not a cut and dry decision either way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Most people don't really understand the problem. It's either make a deal with an ally run by lunatics, or suffer a decade long capability gap that your military may not be able to overcome.

    There are no other 5th gen options, and 4++ are becoming more vulnerable with the proliferation of effective air defense. The first available 6th gen outside of US export controls will be on the wrong side of 2030.

    This is an incredibly difficult choice for Canada with no perfect options.

    Both China and Russia are expanding their arctic presence. The US is electing nationalist demagogues on a platform of betraying our allies. It's possible Canada may have a peer to peer conflict in the next 5 to 10 years. Canada possibly can't afford that big of a capability gap if that's the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You've hit the nail on the head here.

    I don't know what the right answer is on this one. On balance, I lean towards getting the Gripen as a stopgap and prioritizing access to those European sixth gen projects. Select the one that looks the best suited for our needs and go in hard on collaborating on it.

    This is part of why I think the Gripen makes sense; we can build it here, which opens up the possibility of being able to build a sixth gen later, instead of having to wait in line for our order to ship. The F-35 gives us better capabilities now, but doesn't solve the underlying problems down the road.

    There is, I think, a version of events where we sign a deal with Saab to build Gripens in Canada to export to buyers like Ukraine, and then go ahead and take the F-35 order anyway. Most likely, we use this to extract concessions in other areas from the Americans, pointing at our new domestic fighter plane industry as a very credible threat to walk away from the F-35 deal. Then, if we're smart about this, we continue to build up our ability to domestically produce fighter craft, with an eye on that sixth gen project. This would make a lot of sense in the context of Carney's stated goal of making Canada a defence supplier to the EU, while still leaving us with an interim platform that can handle anything the Russians throw at us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I agree, I think that's a likely route for Canada. A small F-35 order, supplemented by continually upgraded 4++ aircraft that can be built in country is a good strategy to mitigate all risk factors. It doesn't give Canada the best option for really any scenario, but it gives them a good option for every one. With loyal wingman aircraft, and drones proliferating in general. Its likely 4 gen aircraft will have more usable roles countering and supplementing new air tactics as nations adapt to technologies. So even if 4 gen aircraft lose the ability to be front line strike and intercepter aircraft, they likely can still be productive members of the system. Saab commitment to the Gripen platform likely means Canada can continue integrating high level electronics for a long time. With proper investment in air defense systems, I think this strategy could get Canada to a 6th gen replacement from Europe while still maintaining a credible deterrent posture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The F35 is primarily a air to ground strike aircraft. Gen 5 is mainly semi stealth benefits. It is disadvantaged relative to air to air specialized planes who are faster (lighter) and more maneuverable.

    The only possible role for Canadian F35 is as force amplification to US bombing campaign. The kill switch, or permission to turn on switch, makes it a useless weapon against the US. It is an extremely overpriced plane with low reliability, and flight hours. If RCAF wants the plane it is because they are more loyal to US empire force amplification than Canadian defense needs, and anyone who holds that view needs to be convicted of treason. No trial whatsoever is needed, as long as they are proven to not be functionally full tropic thunder.

    We need to not just cancel the contract first, and negotiate later, Demand refund for existing planes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The F35 is primarily a air to ground strike aircraft. Gen 5 is mainly semi stealth benefits. It is disadvantaged relative to air to air specialized planes who are faster (lighter) and more maneuverable.

    This is something you'll hear a lot, often from seemingly respectable sources, but it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern air combat works.

    Manueverability is meaningless. Dog fighting is a thing of the past. Stealth is not a disadvantage in air-to-air combat, it's the only thing that matters in air-to-air combat. The model has fundamentally changed; it's submarine / tank combat now. The winner is the person who sees their opponent first.

    The people who describe the F-35 as unsuited to air combat are speaking from an entirely outdated understanding of how air combat works. Some of those people are even experts in that model of air combat, but that's like being an expert on vacuum tubes in a world of microchips.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    There's still a role for air to air planes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You're entirely misunderstanding what I'm saying. The F-35 is an air-to-air plane. In the same way the Gripen, The Eurofighter Typhoon, the F-16 and the F/A-18 are. They are all capable of filling both ground attack and air-to-air roles. And the F-35 fills an air-to-air role incredibly well - better than almost any other plane on Earth - because it has an almost unbeatable advantage over any other air-to-air platform; stealth.

    Think of modern air-to-air combat as a sniper duel in the sky. The goal is to remain unobserved by your target while you line up a shot on them. By the time they detect the incoming missile, it's already too late. And even if they defeat that missile with countermeasures, you haven't given away your own position and can quickly relocate and fire again while remaining undetected. Eventually, you'll get the kill. The person who fires first, wins.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    one could certainly argue that we need that if we end up on the front lines of a war with Russia.

    The idea that Canada could last until lunch against Russia, China, or the USA is ignorant and delusional. We cannot bankrupt the country preparing for an attack from Goldstein.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent