The only serious reason to go with the Gripen or any other alternative to the F-35 is if we seriously believe that there's been an actual realignment in the outlook of the USA. Carney asserts this is fact, as does Trump, but US liberals obviously believe they'll take power and "normalize" things again in 2026 and 2028.
And if they do so, it will look very foolish to have have pursued an aerospace program which provides less value for money.
If US politics and economics remains in this crisis state for an extended period of time, then I would see sticking with F-35 as a missed opportunity to realign Canada's economic-political-military relationships for the second half of the century.
My personal opinion is that we should cautiously move forward with the F-35 and either way start moving to diversify future orders long-term.
The Gripen is wrong for Canada unless we actually do think we'll be invaded by the US and need to operate away from runways (and even then let's be honest, we will only repel an invasion from the United States if we go full-on gorilla warfare and insurgency). For the North we need planes with the range for expanses of the north and ideally two engines (though single engine planes are much more reliable enough now). We may want to consider acquiring AWACS capabilities, especially if China starts mucking around up there (they claim to be serious about doing that).
If money were no object and Trump wasn't ruining everything, ideally we'd have F-35s for force projection and a side order of new F-18 Super Hornets (and maybe a few F-18G Growlers - though the latest block of Gripens do have a respectable electronic warfare suite) to keep up patrols in the North.
The only practical alternatives are the Rafael and Eurofighter which are fine planes in their own right for their generations, but have supply lines across an ocean and have some compromises that are not ideal for Canada (the F-18 is larger and has a more powerful radar, which is better suited for long-range interception). Canada should seriously look at joining Europe's next-gen fighter project, though.
All of this is just for planes, too. We need to start taking the north seriously and that means more naval capability, which is a whole other story. At the time I thought Harper's announcements on it were a waste of time, but he was right - the tragedy is they were only paying it lip service failed to deliver.
the tragedy is they were only paying it lip service failed to deliver.
That about sums up the last 25 years of Canadian economic/political/military "planning" generally.
It's time to get serious. I don't so much care about the military per-se, but industrial capacity, manufacturing, etc. generally.
And of course the problem with "taking the North seriously" in the context of what Harper was suggesting is what this was almost entirely purely about from an exploitative POV (military and resources) rather than recognizing that people live there (and lived there first) and that qualify of life for the people that live there needs to be improved.
A few mines, some pipelines, and a military base doesn't make that happen. Taking the north seriously also means providing services.
I 100% agree. We can't do everything ourselves, but we need to be serious about things.
It's also going to mean several very hard decisions. There's going to need to be some choices between [tax cuts if you're from the right | social programs if you're from the left] and spending on these kinds of things. I also have some very nervous feelings about long-term planning with all the partisanship in the current environment.
And if they do so, it will look very foolish to have have pursued an aerospace program which provides less value for money.
If US politics and economics remains in this crisis state for an extended period of time, then I would see sticking with F-35 as a missed opportunity to realign Canada's economic-political-military relationships for the second half of the century.