[Ottawa – December 17, 2025] As the debate over Canada’s next-generation fighter jet continues, Canadians are leaning decisively away from an all-F-35 future.
  • skozzii@lemmy.caEnglish
    4·
    2 天前

    Only 40% of F-35 planes are currently operational during non war times.

    Now imagine how difficult it would be to keep this in the air during war when US keeps the parts for their own planes.

    Now even further, imagine a world when the US is either a neutral party or an enemy, and zero of those planes are flying.

  • ModCen@feddit.ukEnglish
    3·
    2 天前

    Interesting. I wonder why they’re considering the Gripen instead of the Eurofighter Typhoon (German/British/Italian/Spanish) or Dassault Rafale (French). To be honest I really don’t know what the differences would be.

    • HansGruber@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      1 天前

      The interesting feature of the gripen is it’s ability to land on rural roads. Sweden has many of those and Canada also. Another interesting feature is it’s maintainability, just 6 man crew, fuel and ammo on a road between nowhere is enough for the gripen.

      • ModCen@feddit.ukEnglish
        3·
        1 天前

        I see, thanks for the info. Anyway it’s good to see Canada wanting to buy defence equipment from Europe instead of the now unreliable US.

  • MolochHorridus@lemmy.mlEnglish
    8·
    2 天前

    Of course they do. They don’t want to be the 51st state of the USA. Chances of that becoming true increase the more they have planes that can be disabled remotely by the imperialistic Trump war machine.

  • Eiri@lemmy.caEnglish
    81·
    2 天前

    I’m kinda shocked people have strong opinions on fighter planes of all things. I barely know those two models of plane exist. I would answer “don’t know”.

    • cyberwolfie@lemmy.mlEnglish
      15·
      2 天前

      The question isn’t as much “Which of the two fighter jets are better suited for service” as it is “Do you want our military to be dependent on the US military-industrial complex or on the European?”

    • cabbage@piefed.socialEnglish
      6·
      2 天前

      Big investments like this are often very politicized-even before Trump and all-because it’s to a large degree just geopolitics. Gripen is in all likelihood the better alternative, but F35 has been considered an excellent choice for countries wishing to suck up to America. Until recently sucking up to America was considered good defense policy among parts of the political spectrum.

    • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
      5·
      2 天前

      Do you know that the aircraft need servicing after every flight, otherwise it’s grounded, and that supplies would come from the country of origin? US for F35. Sweden for Grippen.

      Does that change your outlook?

        • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
          2·
          2 天前

          It’s not about money. It’s about which country you trust to keep supplying you and not use your dependency to control how and when you use your planes.

      • Eiri@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        2 天前

        I guess, but I still wouldn’t feel qualified enough to offer a confident answer. There are lots of factors.

        • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
          3·
          2 天前

          So in Europe there was a desire to send F35s into conflict in Ukraine. US said no by saying that servicing supplies would not be made available.

          Sovereign nations are unable to use their planes how they want to.

          Now with Gripen it might be a similar situation, but Sweden has been trustworthy thus far.

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.orgEnglish
      8·
      2 天前

      The question was not only about the fighter jets themself. The participants got the necessary information in the question, see the caption in the graphics.

  • klairman@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    2 天前

    This is the way! Not as technologically advanced as the F-35, but much better than a switched-off F-35 anyway.