Mastodawn

A mixed fleet is probably optimal. The Grippens are far more pragmatic to form the bulk of our fight capability. A stealth fighter has unique benefits so keeping the 16 already committed to isn’t unreasonable until 6th gen and beyond can be procured from actual allies.

The big mistake here is going all in on 88 F-35, when the future of aerospace defense is AI drone and missile/counter-missile defense. It’s cost far exceeds its strategic value and in true Canadian fashion our defense paradigms are always one to three steps behind.

Show thread

anachronist Mar 21

It’d be way more expensive to split the order. Canada needs arctic recon and interception. That’s all it has ever needed. Gripen was built to do that mission. Going with Gripen would both put Canada with a cheaper platform that fulfills the mission, and it sticks a thumb in the eye of Trump’s war machine.

Show thread

StinkyFingerItchyBum

That’s all it has ever needed.

I appreciate the truth of your comment, but respectfully disagree.

You don’t build a defense force and strategy for the conflict you hope happens.

Our needs include all of NATO’s needs, and to a far far smaller degree, any UN peacekeeking or similar function.

A 5th gen stealth fighter presents desirable attributes for specific purposes, but to your point they aren’t the bulk of the work to be done.

The cost saving of a single fleet also inject various fragilities of their own. Not the least of which is the catastrophic losses from a single plane going down from anything ranging from enemy action to training accident to supply chains fuckery.

I won’t shed a single tear for the F-35 if we cancel the whole lot. But having some 5th gen makes sense. We should be going with the Brit or French led consortiums of middle powers, not US, Russia or China.