Sir Charles Tupper, Bt.

The social media discourse on national defence is about as useful as anything else that random Internet accounts weigh in on...

I've seen a recent uptick in the past month or so pushing the idea that any choice other than the F-35 to replace the CF-18s would be, at best a sentimental choice, and at worst a betrayal of our Baltic allies and a reckless choice putting our own airspace at risk.

I'm not sure.

I understand there's a legitimate argument that, at a minimum, we should procure enough F-35s to support #Canada 's troops deployed with our Latvian allies. The Russians are the kind of threat that it is intended to counter.

The Swedes aren't fools. They have an interest in countering the same military in a nearby part of the world.

Is the #Gripen E really a catastrophic choice? I don't think so, and neither does the Center for National Interest, a US defence think tank. This should be a proper debate, not an empty net goal.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-gripen-canadas-fighter-jet-dilemma-explained-hk-013026

#CDNpoli #BoycottUSA

F-35 or Gripen? Canada’s Fighter Jet Dilemma, Explained

Canada was long expected to buy the F-35 Lightning II to replace its aging CF-18 fighters—but political tensions with America, and a surprising offer from Sweden, have upended these assumptions.

The National Interest
Mar 31 at 2:24amWeb
Show threadDerek19h ago

@SirCharlesTupperBt one think that made me think... We're the only country in the world currently planning an all F-35 fleet. The 88 planes we ordered can't meet the operational time of our existing CF-18 fleet.

The USAF cut their order and is still using F-15s. They're already starting an F-45 project.

The gripen could fly from a lot more places around Canada and it would be significantly less expensive per plane while reviving our aviation industry.