this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
73 points (97.4% liked)

Canada

11499 readers
568 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ottawa has started to make payments for key components for 14 additional U.S.-built F-35s, even as the Carney government has been reviewing future fighter-jet purchases in the context of trade tensions with Washington, sources have told CBC News.

The money for these 14 aircraft is in addition to the contract for a first order of 16 F-35s, which will start being delivered to the Canadian Armed Forces at the end of the year.

According to sources, the new expenses are related to the purchase of so-called “long-lead items,” which are parts that must be ordered well in advance of the delivery of a fully assembled aircraft.

Canada had to make these expenditures to maintain its place in the long-term delivery schedule and avoid being replaced by other buyers in the queue, sources said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 15 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Rumours are we're planning to split the difference; buy around 40 F-35s and 80 Gripens. This way we have a top of the line 5th Gen when we need it, and still get all the domestic and trade advantages that come with the Gripen, as well as building up our local defence capabilities. And down the line we can switch out to the 6th Gen fighter that Saab is working on, and build it right here in Canada.

It's certainly the plan that makes the most sense. The RCAF really wants the F-35. The Carney government really wants the Gripen. We need to expand our military so upping our total fleet size is a good call anyway. And with how much lower the TCO on the Gripen is, we're probably actually spending less in total over the next decade.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

top of the line 5th gen

How many flight hours before a service requiring parts only sourced in USA? Aka the “not a killswitch” that just consists of making a hangar queen that needs a steady supply of unobtainable parts.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

There are no F-35 parts only sourced in the US. Every country in the F-35 program has the ability to manufacture parts. The only thing the US controls is the firmware. The US can't lock us out of buying or building replacement components, they can only lock us out of getting newer firmware updates (eg, we can still use the firmware we have, just can't get anything past the point where they decide to cut us off).

Now that's a completely valid concern; being cut off from firmware updates would seriously degrade the capability of that part of our fleet over a long enough time horizon, which is one of the reasons why we're considering taking on a large order of Gripens as well. But it's not a "Stop your planes from flying" scenario. Even without the latest firmware we'd still be able to put an F-35 in the air and have it engage and destroy targets.

[–] how_we_burned@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 minutes ago

Now that's a completely valid concern; being cut off from firmware updates would seriously degrade the capability of that part of our fleet over a long enough time horizon, which is one of the reasons why we're considering taking on a large order of Gripens as well. But it's not a "Stop your planes from flying" scenario. Even without the latest firmware we'd still be able to put an F-35 in the air and have it engage and destroy targets.

Also if the US refused to provide firmware their f-35 fleet would eventually become completely grounded and useless as a large amount of the f-35s parts are made across the world.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 11 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Considering the greatest risk to Canada is from the US, anyone who thinks it's a good idea to continue investing in US tech, especially military tech, is either a complete fucking idiot, or a traitor.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Have you noticed the very large, very aggressive expansionist autocracy on the other side of the arctic circle from us? Do you consider that maybe they might also be a potential threat?

Having a plane that massively outclasses everything in Russia's fleet is not a bad idea, no matter what is happening to the south of us. A mixed fleet hedges our bets, giving us responses to both of the biggest threats we're facing right now.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 1 points 7 hours ago

Sure buddy, keep drinking the US kool aid, I'm sure it won't have any poison in it.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

It's all a waste of money. US has over 5,500 fighter jets and a full parts supply chain. If we buy 100, or zero, exactly the same effect.

Just cut back on services and pile on more debt to pretend it will make any difference,

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

It's a waste of money if your primary goal is defending against the US, yes. Which is another reason why all the handwringing about how the US could potentially compromise the F-35 is really kind of silly. Truth is, if they wanted to attack us, they wouldn't need any kind of magical "Kill switch", they could just rely on old fashioned air superiority.

I'm still a huge advocate for signing a deal for the Gripen anyway (as stated above, I like the mixed fleet idea the best), because it gives us a lot of economic advantages, allows us to become an exporter of fighter aircraft to the rest of NATO and numerous other countries, and starts building up domestic air production that can then be converted to putting out Saab's new 6th Gen fighter when that's finally ready for prime time.

But if we consider our biggest realistic air threat to be Russia - Note that I said "biggest", not "only", trust me I am in no way dismissing the threat of a potential US invasion (in such an eventuality I'm on the list of people who die or get arrested in the first 8 hours, I do not fucking need to hear it) - then yes we absolutely do need the ability to patrol our own skies, especially if we end up in what is still the more likely geopolitical scenario right now, which is that the US abandons any notion of defence obligations to their allies as they grow increasingly isolationist.

A contingent of, say, 40 F-35s doesn't sound like a lot, but when those 40 planes have the ability to shoot down anything Russia can field without even being seen, that actually makes a massive difference in their ability to operate in our airspace. Right now Russia barely has 4th gen craft. The Felon is a lie wrapped up in a cool video package; it's radar signature is fucking massive, and we've seen from Ukraine that Russia's own radar capabilities are mediocre at best. And they have, optimistically, 6 of them. Anything else they have is so far outclassed by the F-35 that it would be like Challenger 2s going up against T-55s in Iraq. That's a hell of a lot of deterrence for comparatively little cost really.

[–] bitwize01@reddthat.com 2 points 10 hours ago

Its a long, long border, mostly undefended in the west. A lot of infrastructure undefended, and a very brittle supply chain when it comes to civilian logistics and power. A handful of fighter jets would be a nightmare for rail lines and oil depots.