• Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Do it Canada! Purchase the SAAB and your pilots will have more seat time. The F-35 is a maintenance pig.

  • engene@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s what happens when you harm and betray a peaceful ally. Let’s do this! 🍁

    • phx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Yeah, that’s kinda like asking your mechanic neighbor “why don’t you design and build your own car”. Sure with enough time and money somebody could do this but it’s likely to cost more, take longer, and have issues that an experienced producer has already come across and accounted for.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It requires a massive investment in research and development of advanced aerodynamics, material science, supply chain, skilled mechanics, etc. You just don’t pop out a plane from a group of engineers like we did during WW1. Creating a fighter jet that is capable enough to defend against today’s adversaries will require a couple decades of investment to start from scratch. And yes I know you probably think that we can just use the knowledge already available from previous fighter jet programs like older American jets but even if they had de-classified designs they still don’t have the supply chain and technical experts to pull it off in a few years.

      • commander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I don’t think 20 years is enough especially for countries without the experience to fall back on. Not counting licensed builds. Engines and materials science. Also all the software. Digital and analog instruments. Modern fighters operate in connection with ground data links, satellite data links, other partner aircraft data links. All incredibly expensive and time consuming to develop

        Countries with experience in Europe are all trying to partner up because of the financial costs and different part specialities for a 6th gen fighter and mockups make them look more like they’d be a gen 5.5 and they’re pretty much all targeting ~2035 operationally when serious planning started between 2015-2020. I would not bet on any of the european gen 5+ being operationally ready for serial production by 2035.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think I can understate just how ridiculously expensive it is to start up your own jet fighting industry from basically scratch.

      In the entire world, there are only 5 countries that produce fighter jets. USA, Sweden, France, China, Russia.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Look at Sweden over here punching above its weight class!

        (going strictly by population size)

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Why redesign the wheel when we can build the wheels our allies designed? And I don’t mean our former allies to the south. I wouldn’t want to import Gripens, but it would be fantastic if we started building them here

      • Pogbom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        We should bring back the program! And in the name of true Canadian patriotism, I vote we call it the Avro Lavigne.

    • treesquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Giant waste of money. Much smarter to buy a product someone else already wasted all the money to develop. Current-generation fighter jets are incredibly complex, Russia can’t even figure out how to mass-produce one at all, even before the sanctions, and they’re a very militarized state. Why spend 5x as much to develop something worse than what they can just buy?

    • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      What Canada really needs is a massive drone program. Drones from the size of a 747 to the size of a dime, and everything inbetween. The entire Russia-Ukraine war is a drone war.

    • mrdown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Will require a lot of research and developement and spending and i am not ready to sacrifice services for it

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Why dump more resources into something, that you don’t need to, because there’s a very serviceable option already prepped for sale?

  • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 days ago

    Try searching Google with “f-35 sales before:2024-11-01”. Countries were lining up to buy them. Boeing had a years long manufacturing backlog.

    No matter how you, personally, feel about the F-35 and the US military-industrial complex, Trump wants to both increase exports in general and tout US military strength. Most of NATO running with the F-35 would have been great for both of those. He could have succeeded at it by doing nothing. Complete failure of his own goals.

    • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      2 days ago

      To be fair, we’ve manufactured a lot of parts for other country’s F35s so far. That’s quite standard for defense contracts. Still, if Saab commits to bringing more guaranteed manufacturing jobs than the F35 program, it could be worth it. If this gives us a leg up in F35 manufacturing bids, that could also be worth it. Feels like a strong play regardless of outcome.

      • mirshafie@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        As a Linköping native, I can tell you right now how this is going to go down.

        Saab will offer a really sweet deal including Canadian factories that can produce everything that Sweden makes for the Gripen. It will be on a short timeline and a good price. Canada will be locked in to help co-design the next generation of Swedish fighters.

        Canada will use this as leverage against the USA. Then the USA will finally set their foot down and tell Canada in no uncertain terms that if they buy Gripen they’ll get locked out of various US weapons systems indefinitely and end up on the US’s shit list. But if they stop their ridiculous outburst they can get on the shortlist for some really cool destructive toys.

        Also, aren’t we all supposed to be one team America, you me and Mexico, guy?

        Canada will most likely cave and Gripen will have fulfilled its role as a bargaining chip. I wouldn’t even blame Canada, this is how it’s gone down almost every time in the past 30 years and Canada has much better reasons than most to keep on the US’s good side.

          • Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            We might not lose any jobs with dropping the F35. Canada is just allowed to bid on contracts to build parts for all the F35 production, not just our own.

            • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Yeah, we might not. We could still bid on F35 production runs. I think the specifics will be quite important to determining what’s a good outcome.

              Regardless, I like that we’re courting other options even if it just results in leverage elsewhere.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I hope they do it. Maybe the arms manufacturers will turn on Trump when they start losing trillion dollar clients.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 days ago

    Now that the US is sending them to Saudi, how secure will they be from investigation by foreign adversaries?

    Plus, the entire supply chain system of relying on the US for software and hardware updates, having to physically send the planes to the US for maintenance, all while the US continues to talk about annexing us is completely fucking bonkers.

    Even without the annexation threats the setup would be stupid.

    I know it’s a fancy and advanced plane, but knowing how the US military industrial complex works I’m pretty sure you’re paying a high multiplier for no reason too.

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        I wanna remind everyone that THIS was one of the pictures Iran released to prove they shot down an F-35.

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        There have been no confirmed downings of F-35’s.

        While it’s fully possible that the US is lying about that, it’s equally possible that the claims from Iran are also lies, because half of military action is information and misinformation. I wouldn’t lean on foreign propaganda any more than I would domestic propaganda.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          If you want a laugh, go look up the photos Iran doctored up for this bit of propaganda. I remember one had an F35 with cockpit the size of a school bus on it. Another had the tail section on backwards. Probably AI slop, but fake photos to be sure.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          There have been no confirmed downings of F-35’s.

          Several “oops this plane just fell off the flight deck, oh well, shit happens” articles in recent memory. A great way to explain why the Navy is suddenly down a vehicle without having to explain to anyone in the general public what happened.

          I wouldn’t lean on foreign propaganda any more than I would domestic propaganda.

          Americans are putting these jets into service and a surprising number of them are failing.

          Whether Iran/Yemen have successfully struck any of them or the Navy can’t get them on and off the flight deck reliably is almost a moot point. A downed plane is a downed plane.

          • remon@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Several “oops this plane just fell off the flight deck, oh well, shit happens”

            Those were F/A-18s.

          • bobgobbler@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Oh so this is the part where we provide no sources to our claim. Then claim the sources are unreliable!

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Is this a contest to crash the most aircraft?

              Because my man, the GOAT, John “New Plane” McCain would like to have a word.

  • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    There is unfortunately a lot of nuance here.

    A Gripen does not do the same things that an F35 does.

    Europe simply does not have an answer to 5th or 6th generation fighters and I feel like wanting to be supporting of peoples respective countries and acknowledging the US being pretty awful right now is making people unwilling to acknowledge this glaring and incredibly important fault in western arms manufacturing outside of the US.

    Humans benefit greatly when people, groups etc, specialize as less resources need to be wasted reinventing the wheel, but when it comes to defence, the current situations shows how flat footed CANZUK+EU* has been left by allowing the US to basically become the single source for some of the most crucial defence items.

    Projects like FCAS need to cut the bureaucratic bullshit and speed up development as its increasingly obvious that the US is not a stable partner. CANZUK+EU* despite years of warning about these facts remained unwilling to spend, viewing it as inefficient, and with every individual state that has the capabilities holding recalcitrant attitudes, fighting over who gets to build what.

    Basically, what I am saying, is that I would love to have non US weaponry, but if that weaponry can’t compete with US weaponry, there isn’t much of a point.

    I mean, quite frankly, for us, Canada, the most important thing we could possibly do this decade, is to internally create our own ultimate strategic deterrents. Anything short of that would leave us completely defenceless to our greatest military threat, and largest neighbour. There is literally no chance we win any conventional war, so in a way, not even this fighter deal matters.

    • MrFinnbean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      I agree you on all points, but i want to add that weapon systems where manufactorer has a back door open and they can do things like remotelly lock the missile systems or other weapons, does not really sound appealing.

    • Corridor8031@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Basically, what I am saying, is that I would love to have non US weaponry, but if that weaponry can’t compete with US weaponry, there isn’t much of a point.

      the best fighter jet is still useless if it can just be disabled, and/or if the other support service can just be stopped

      • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I don’t disagree at all, hence my conclusion that if neither is effective we must do what is:

        the most important thing we could possibly do this decade, is to internally create our own ultimate strategic deterrents

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in the fact that the Americans would be fighting on two fronts - within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken. Plus there’d be international support at play. It would be a huge mess. Canada would just need to make the mess as big and as long as possible.

      That said, preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal, so the more preemptive preparation to strengthen Canada’s position and weaken America’s the better. Shifting our military supply lines to European sources is a step in that direction for many reasons. I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.

      • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken.

        Given the current trajectory, I have little faith that they would mount an effective internal resistance.

        I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in

        No matter what, conventional war is horrific and wed be losing our families, homes, friends, and more. Effective strategic deterrents make it such that we would never reach that stage and as such, is far more economical and moral.

        I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.

        You cant make nukes loudly in such a situation, but as we’ve seen, you definitely cant make them under the gun. The only time is before the circumstances that you feel would necessitate them when we are still not viewed as enemies.

        Disarming yourself as to avoiding presenting as a threat clearly does not work.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          No matter what, conventional war is horrific and wed be losing our families, homes, friends, and more.

          Which is why I said “preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal”

          You cant make nukes loudly in such a situation, but ass we’ve seen, you definitely cant make them under the gun.

          Right, it would be done before the US invades, to prevent them from invading. Nuclear weapons are deterrence, you don’t want to actually use them.

          • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Right, it would be done before the US invades, to prevent them from invading. Nuclear weapons are deterrence, you don’t want to actually use them.

            I fear my point is being missed.

            My point was in response mainly to this last sentence:

            I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.

            My point is that it cant be further down, because if you are down that far, its too late. We’ve seen this was most countries that became under the gun when they would benefit dearly from having nuclear weapons of their own.

            Notably, if Ukraine did so before they would have been fine, but during, they have no chance.

            Iran similarly has a difficult time.

            Its not about the nation, its about the fact that if you are at a point where you feel the heat is on, its too late to build nukes. Now is the time to build them.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      A lot of the nuance is also one of threat assessment, and risk tolerance.

      We can prepare for a situation where we’re attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia, or is that even worth considering vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?

      There’s no way of knowing which path the world will go down, and preparing for everything simply isn’t possible, so every decision is going to be a matter of what risks to take for what potential benefits.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Defense production is the key to all of these scenarios. Russia is off the board for about a decade, and most likely they’d go after Ukraine again in a decade, and if not Ukraine it would be the Baltics. If you have defense production we can produce more weapons and munitions before they lose any conflict in Europe.

        With China they’re bottled up inside a line of islands… Philippines, Taiwan, Japan. They can’t get to Canada unless they can take Taiwan first. Again, with defense production we can supply Taiwan with what they need to repel an invasion.

        Everyone looks at army size but seemingly forgets to look at a map. Army size doesn’t matter if you can’t get that army across an ocean. So it’s all about navy, and Russia isn’t all that good at navies, never has been. China is building a large navy, but they don’t have a lot of experience, and amphibious assaults are ridiculously difficult, and it’s not likely they would succeed in taking Taiwan. China is building Aircraft carriers (which they don’t need for Taiwan since it’s within range of airfields in mainland China) but they aren’t building a lot of dedicated landing ships (though it’s supposed the could appropriate civilian RORO ships), so it seems they’re doing the typical authoritarian military that’s designed for intimidation more than actually being effective. But in any case we should be more concerned with defending Taiwan than direct conflict with China, because that has to happen first… and even that looks unlikely to anyone that hasn’t been influenced by Lockheed Martin’s propaganda.

        But the bottom line is no one is going to attack the Western Hemisphere without permission from the US. So really the only real threat is the US or a US proxy. To prevent that we don’t need to straight up win, we need to first make a war too expensive for the US to attempt. Secondly if they do make the foolish decision to invade Canada, we need to have the capability of killing a few thousand American soldiers over the course of an occupation and they will become war weary and leave.

        So we need strong alliances in terms of defense production so we’ll supply other countries if they’re attacked and they will supply us if we’re attacked.

        Submarines are great for both an invasion of Taiwan and for making a US invasion of Canada expensive. Not that we could destroy the US navy with a few submarines, but having the capability of taking out a few ships and hitting some targets on the US coast makes an invasion expensive for them. Sure they could eventually track them all down, but they are going to take some damage before they do.

        The Gripen is actually a great option too. They’re relatively low maintenance (it’s a fighter jet so still pretty high maintenance, but way less than the F-35) and they’re designed for a conflict where they’d need to potentially use regular roads as airstrips. Again it’s not about destroying the US Air Force, but just inflicting some expensive damage.

        The goal would be to have a Pentagon assessment of the cost of a war with Canada to have the highest dollar amount as possible, since that’s all that matters to the psychopaths in power down there right now.

      • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        We can prepare for a situation where we’re attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia

        Very much so. Russia is not that big a threat as they are an easy sell to alliances. China and the US would steamroll us regardless, hence, given that we have no one resembling near peers, ultimate strategic deterrents are literally the only things that can defend us should the worst come.

        vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?

        This is not happening when we don’t even have our own jets and every country with fancy jets (etc) wants to build them in house.

        There’s no way of knowing which path the world will go down, and preparing for everything simply isn’t possible, so every decision is going to be a matter of what risks to take for what potential benefits.

        A strategic deterrent program is the least expensive and most all encompassing. We generally stay out of the business of other countries so the bipolar fascist next door is the biggest threat to physical safety/sovereignty. We’re also uniquely well equipped to start one. We need to have a Can du attitude.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        We can prepare for a situation where we’re attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia, or is that even worth considering vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?

        Get real. If US, China or Russia attacks us, there is nothing we can do with 100X the military spending.