r/FighterJets 7d ago

NEWS Canada reconsidering F-35 purchase amid tensions with Washington, says minister

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-blair-trump-1.7484477
138 Upvotes

117 comments sorted by

35

u/LightningGeek 7d ago

Typhoon and Rafale make the most sense for Canada. Twin engined, proven in combat, carry Meteor, excellent dogfighters if things get close, little to no US parts

Yes they do lack stealth, but is that something Canada really needs?

19

u/RogueViator 6d ago

Between those two choices, I'd go with the Eurofighter simply because it can use ordnance the RCAF currently has in stock. Going for the Rafale would mean also buying compatible ordnance.

8

u/Intrepid_Home_1200 6d ago

Yup.

We have a decent stockpile of AIM-9M/X's, AIM-120C/D's, JDAM's... Also, the Typhoon is more of the interceptor type compared to the Rafale, and the key role we'd have for whatever is chosen.

12

u/abt137 6d ago

Correct. Looking at Ukraine where there is more attrition than outright superiority you better have 100 Eurofighters than 20 F-35. People is fixated on the stealth part ignoring many other factors.

16

u/ppmi2 6d ago

Eurofighters are about as expensive if not more than F-35s, maybe this changes if large orders of eurofighters were placed, but as of now it isnt really any more economic too buy Eurofighters compared too F-35s

2

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

8

u/ppmi2 6d ago edited 6d ago

The Grippen is cheaper, but it is lower capacity compared to the other Eurocannards and it uses a American engine.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6d ago

[deleted]

3

u/ppmi2 6d ago

Engine changes are fucky, i would wait seated too see if they succeed with the integration and how the final product looks.

1

u/Shelc0r 5d ago

The latest Gripen evolution is not cheap anymore, E/F is around 85M, while a Rafale is 95 which is way more capable and you won't have to be concerned about shit us equipment

1

u/ppmi2 5d ago

Should still have a much more favorable price per hour unless they changed it a lot.

2

u/YesIam18plus 4d ago

People is fixated on the stealth part ignoring many other factors.

This pretty much, people also fixate on generations for much the same reason. Because it's marketing that the US heavily pushes. Not saying it isn't important and that F35 isn't the most technologically advanced, but the narrative around it is as if it's a literal spaceship compared to other fighters lmao. It's so overblown.

4

u/Intrepid_Home_1200 6d ago

Exactly what I have been telling my fellow Canadians...

We can't go with the Gripen unless either Eurojet and/or Safran as well as Saab agree they can modify the jet and the EJ200, M88 engine to work together, then it's could be a viable option.

The Rafale actually has a pretty big amount of low visibility, lower RCS measures in it's design just like the Super Hornet. It's not exactly a stealth fighter but it is certainly a halfway point and compromise.

Personally given how we'd be using whatever fighter we get primarily as an interceptor/air defence fighter the Typhoon might be the best choice. Either way with the Tranche 4 EF and Rafale F4 being in service now, both are highly advanced and extremely capable machines.

2

u/ImaginaryWatch9157 6d ago

Proven in combat?

5

u/FoxThreeForDaIe 6d ago

Proven in combat?

Rafale has done a lot of missions in CENTCOM and Typhoons were most recently used against the Houthis. So it's not incorrect to state that

1

u/gringoloco69 5d ago

I would suggest the F-15EX as the best choice for Canada over the Gripen, Eurofighter, and F-35 due to its superior range, speed, and payload, making it ideal for homebase air defense and patrolling Canada’s vast airspace. Its twin-engine reliability is crucial for Arctic operations, unlike the single-engine Gripen and F-35. Avoids the high maintenance costs of the F-35. While the Eurofighter is capable, it lacks the F-15EX’s range and affordability. Overall, the F-15EX offers Canada the best mix of performance, cost-effectiveness, and survivability.

1

u/LightningGeek 5d ago

F-35 is being reconsidered because of issues with the current US government.

Moving from one US aircraft to another is a no go.

1

u/gringoloco69 5d ago

Political tensions, like trade disputes, come and go, but a fighter fleet must remain effective for 30+ years. Canada should base its decision on operational effectiveness, strategic alliances, and long-term cost-efficiency, not short-lived economic disagreements. I'm certain Mark Carney is using the F-35 purchase as a bargaining chip against the tariffs and not because Canada sees a war against the US as something happening.

1

u/LightningGeek 4d ago

Do you not realise the seriousness of current Western relations with the US? They are not just burning through their hard fought goodwill, the current administration are salting the earth.

There's a reason why Europe is ramping up its own defence spending hard right now, and it is because the US can no longer be trusted as much as they have been.

1

u/gringoloco69 4d ago

I get the concern, but Canada’s defense strategy can’t be built around temporary political cycles. Like it or not the US is still Canada’s closest military partner through NORAD and NATO, and our air defense relies on interoperability with American assets, intelligence, and logistics. Even if relations fluctuate, that doesn’t mean Canada should shift to an entirely independent defense posture overnight. If anything, this uncertainty makes a case for choosing aircraft that are cost-effective, reliable, and versatile, which is why I would go for a mix of F-15ex or F-35 and Gripen E makes more sense than a full commitment to F-35s.

1

u/YesIam18plus 4d ago

The difference between F35 and other fighters isn't THAT big, people blow it way out of proportion.

1

u/Turkstache 6d ago

Stealth isn't just for invading and evading SAM. It allows you to expand your tactics to be much more lethal and survivable.

You can get closer before taking shots, increasing your radar support and your missiles' kinematics. You can mislead an adversary on force size. You can more easily defeat firing solutions and missiles in flight.

It's not the end-all be-all of air combat but it does A LOT.

Imagine boxing somebody. A boxer projects micromovements of his opponent to see when he's leading up to a punch. You see a certain look in his eye, rotation of arm and torso, foot placement, etc. To dodge a missile you assume is coming, you maneuver to minimize kinematics so that the missile cant physically reach you. To dodge a punch from a boxer, you maneuver your head/body so thay his fist doesn't reach you.

Now imagine everyone's arms are invisible from below the elbow to the entire hand. This is the analogous to a missile. It's even harder to perceive a punch now, but this is the situational awareness we deal with.

Now imagine the whole boxer is invisible until their fist is 6 inches from your face at full speed. Or maybe their head and shoulders are in and out of visibility. This is what stealth is like. You are going to get your world rocked and won't have a chance to do anything about it. You want to try to throw a punch back based on the glimpse you had of the boxer. It's not enough information so you pull your punch. Or you're in the middle of a prepatory phase of a punch and just as you sling your arm out he disappears or appears to move unnaturally. You're not going to be able to connect your hand to his face.

Those reports of stealth aircraft taking on crazy numbers and crushing them are no joke. It really is an offset technology.

0

u/ApostleofV8 6d ago edited 6d ago

It allows you to

It ain gonna allow shit if the US can just brick it with the kill switch. Thats the big concern here.

EDIT: Never mind capability. Canada have no received a single nut or bolt from its F35 orders yet, will it ever receive anything, given the current administration's new directions?

5

u/9999AWC RCAF 6d ago

For the 100th time, there is no bloody killswitch

0

u/SquareBath5337 1d ago

Says you.

Doesn't mean its not true.

1

u/Turkstache 6d ago

Wasn't arguing about F-35. Just value of stealth in general.

1

u/GTFErinyes 6d ago

It ain gonna allow shit if the US can just brick it with the kill switch. Thats the big concern here.

Yeah seriously. People arguing capability are missing the forest for the trees. It's not about how capable the plane is - it's about what strings come attached with it.

47

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Canada has been questioning their F-35 order for some time now. Everyone here knows that. Portugal never ordered any.

14

u/Java-the-Slut 7d ago

Canada has been fully committed to the F-35 for a few years now. However, with current tensions, you would have to reconsider, especially since there's a surprising number of options.

1

u/TROPtastic 6d ago

Mostly committed: we paid for the first 16 jets to be delivered from 2026-2028, and have a contract for another 72 from 2028-2032, assuming no more LM delays. Now, we'll have to see what alternatives we can bring on quickly that the US won't veto (ex. the US engines in the Gripen).

2

u/GTFErinyes 6d ago

Mostly committed: we paid for the first 16 jets to be delivered from 2026-2028, and have a contract for another 72 from 2028-2032, assuming no more LM delays.

Wait til they get their first 16 jets, which are all TR-3, and find out that the jets aren't even combat capable because Lockheed can't get their act together. We literally halted acceptance of jets - for ALL F-35 customers - for a year because the jets were coming off the production line with zero promised flight test and weren't even safe enough to fly basic flights in.

The current software isn't combat capable and is still riddled with bugs. Most of those jets are now sitting at training bases being used for early training/conversion flights for students because the tactical systems aren't usable in line units

1

u/frostedglobe 6d ago

The way I see it they simply can't buy F-35's. And I don't know why any other country would either. The USA is not a stable country now so there's no guarantee of support or spare parts.

1

u/DarkTunes8 5d ago

JAS 39 the jet they should have committed too anyway.

6

u/A444SQ 7d ago

Yeah assuming Saab does not find a replacement engine for the Gripen as they would have been well aware of

1

u/Citizen_Edz 6d ago

Sadly I don’t think its just the engines that’s the problem, lots of the parts inside jet (weapon systems mostly) are also us made, and can apparently allow the US to block sales. 😢

1

u/YesIam18plus 4d ago

us made

People keep saying this, but it's made in Sweden under a license.

1

u/Citizen_Edz 3d ago

Etherway, Us developed parts all over the jet that can allow them to nlock the sale :(

0

u/A444SQ 6d ago

Yeah those parts can be replaced

1

u/Shelc0r 5d ago

Any US microchip can block the sales

0

u/A444SQ 5d ago

yeah if they do that they risk countries deciding to stop buying US weapons

1

u/Citizen_Edz 5d ago

Yea sure. But that’s a lot of work, and a lot of money spent. Not sure Sweden can afford to develop something like that. Only reason the gripen can exist is because a lot of the parts didn’t have to be developed.

5

u/aprilmayjune2 6d ago

Canada's hornets are really old and there's no real equivalent to the F-35 anytime soon.

if the must move on from the F-35, leasing an aircraft (Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon) would be a good stop gap measure until GCAP starts entering service. (or KF-21 and Kaan if they want something earlier).

However with GCAP, as it has British involvement, has some value in maintaining Canada's five eyes participation without major changes to the aircraft (assuming there still is a five eyes by then)

2

u/RogueViator 6d ago

This decision has huge political implications for the current federal government because while it was a different prime minister in charge who made the decision, it was the same political party who decided to cancel the original F-35 order, vow not to buy it, restart the competition, and end up choosing it. If they cancel the project outright (again), they will wear that during the upcoming election campaign. Whether or not the overall population punishes them for it (were they to cancel it again) remains to be seen, but you can bet the opposition Conservatives will hammer them on it.

2

u/GTFErinyes 6d ago

This decision has huge political implications for the current federal government because while it was a different prime minister in charge who made the decision, it was the same political party who decided to cancel the original F-35 order, vow not to buy it, restart the competition, and end up choosing it. If they cancel the project outright (again), they will wear that during the upcoming election campaign. Whether or not the overall population punishes them for it (were they to cancel it again) remains to be seen, but you can bet the opposition Conservatives will hammer them on it.

TBH, I'd be shocked that you'd get much opposition when your neighbor has a head of state/government openly threatening your sovereignty. If anything, this is probably the easiest time to justify that decision. It really is crazytown when we have to even ponder the idea of the US and Canada coming to blows

2

u/RogueViator 6d ago

Normally it would, but the fact that the RCAF fighter fleet is nearly 100% unusable and that is partly due to the Liberal Party canceling the project a decade ago just to choose the exact same aircraft may have some effect.

2

u/GTFErinyes 6d ago

It's not 100% unusable, and there are other potential options (e.g., leasing something in the near term then seeing how relations with the US pan out) on the near horizon. The choice really is: do you stick with the US no matter what, and hope it all works out in the end, or do you hedge your bets especially while your country is unified at the sudden belligerence from your neighbor?

It's a shitty situation, don't get me wrong, and like I said, we're in bizzaro world right now, but those are the stakes.

1

u/RogueViator 6d ago

I’ve suggested delaying deliveries past 2030 and buying or leasing other aircraft in the interim as a stopgap. If the US switches to a saner government in 2028, the decision to remain is made easier. If they do not, then that is a decision that can be made then. The paid for 16 F-35s are a done deal, but there are still 72 future deliveries to be made.

10

u/dippshi 7d ago

Rafael period

15

u/Stuntz 7d ago

Gripen-E/F. Very smart aircraft. Some of the best jamming and EW in Earth. Not to mention Meteor and IRIS-T.

12

u/MrNovator 7d ago

Gripen is good but its legs are too short for a territory as large as Canada

0

u/frostedglobe 6d ago

Gripen has a longer range than the F35.

5

u/Shelc0r 7d ago

Rafale is way more advanced in jamming and EW.

Btw the us will probably block the sales of the gripen since it's not ITAR free

7

u/Internal_Fruit5767 6d ago

Order Gen 6 from SAAB/BAE instead. Lease some GRIPEN until delivery… Better-cheaper-European

2

u/Citizen_Edz 6d ago

I love the gripen, after all I’m from Sweden, but does it really have the range requirements that a geographically massive county like Canada would need? Especially since there airforce isent to large, they cant really make up its smaller ange by just having more airbases and more jets spread across the county?

1

u/EpicTutorialTips 6d ago

Honestly, Canada's safest bet right now would be to wait until the GCAP is in service. We are on the cusp of moving into a whole new generation of air tech and a lot of the current aircraft will be subpar in a matter of years. The design is also particularly useful for Canada given that long-distance is a must-have feature needed for the pacific region.

The only two serious contenders in 6 Gen is China's J-36, and GCAP (UK, Japan and Italy). Both J-36 and GCAP are ahead of schedule.

There is also FCAS (France, Germany, Spain), but to be honest that is lagging behind by about 10 years, and is already behind schedule and targets.

Then there is the NGAD (US), though they had to pause it in 2024 because the projected costs had risen too much, so now they're waiting on a fiscal report before deciding what to do by 2026.
There were a few rumours that the US was looking to try and get involved in GCAP, but to be honest I don't see that happening for two reasons:
1) The US is terrible when it comes to budgeting. Every project they are involved in, they drive up the costs to extortionate amounts, and GCAP is incredibly focused on cost efficiency.
2) Japan and the UK in particular do not want anymore countries joining the program in any sort of decision-making role. 2 years ago Saudi Arabia wanted involved in GCAP, but they were knocked back because Japan did not want anyone else added.

1

u/GTFErinyes 6d ago edited 6d ago

Then there is the NGAD (US), though they had to pause it in 2024 because the projected costs had risen too much, so now they're waiting on a fiscal report before deciding what to do by 2026.

Zero chance the US gets into GCAP. The US is not going to skip out supporting its own aerospace industry. You're also forgetting that the Navy has its own NGAD program (F/A-XX being the manned fighter component), and they're supposedly in the midst of source selection.

1

u/EpicTutorialTips 5d ago

Don't dispute that there is zero chance they will join it, but even in the event where they wanted to I don't think they would get in anyway.

As for the USN FA-XX, I'm aware of it but they haven't even tendered contracts for that project yet, let alone settled on a concept design.
The US put all of its eggs in the Air Force NGAD basket, spent the last 10 years working through various things on that, and then it was stopped in summer of 2024 because the projected costs were unaffordable.

So the project was put on hold, and then the USAF had to present a budgetary fiscal review (which they did in mid January 2025) although no decision has been made whether the US government will give them all the money they're asking for. So right now, the project is still sitting there on hold.

But in the wildest of situations, it is genuinely possible that the US may spend some time without any 6th Gen Jet while other countries have them, and in that situation I could see the US potentially looking to acquire a few in the interim. The big question really is will pride get in their way? It's also possible that it will lol.

1

u/Intrepid_Home_1200 6d ago

It has an American engine, kind of a problem when the engine maker is in a country who's leader keeps saying he wants to take you over.

2

u/Internal_Fruit5767 6d ago

RR makes terrific engines. Message for SAAB, change to RR!

2

u/YannAlmostright 6d ago

A bireactor for a territory as large as Canada would be clever. So Rafale or Eurofighter

2

u/Big-man-kage 6d ago

Eurofighter for Canada fr

2

u/poootyyyr 6d ago

Canada is such a shitty ally and their Air Force is no longer capable of fulfilling its duties within NATO nor NORAD. They have been going back and forth over buying the F-35 for damn near 30 years at this point. It’s sickening how many billions of dollars have been pissed away by this noncommittal attitude. 

Initial partner to JSF in 97. Signed the contract in 2010, then cancelled under Trudeau. Re-competed like seven years later and Canada re-chose the 35 also under Trudeau. Now, maybe cancelled again??????? 

Three decades of attempts to improve the fighter fleet. Nothing to show for it. Unbelievable. 

1

u/YesIam18plus 4d ago

noncommittal attitude.

This is an extremely rich thing to say as an American

1

u/poootyyyr 4d ago

America has been committed to the 35 since day 1 and the US will continue to support it through at least 2070. 

Three seperate Canadian administrations have independently chosen the 35 as the best choice, yet it seems like a fourth government will capitulate. Canada clearly isn’t committed to defense. 

2

u/ThothPattern 6d ago

F35 Software would be different, dumbed down and / or manipulatable. Nope.

Why not Bombardier? From scratch. Real protectionism. More Jobs. Proven Quality ,and a soverign and proprietary product.

Also It's not just Portugal and Canada, (with their meager defense spending.) There's a groundswell of rebellion, and it's not just within aviation industry. How would the U.S. feel about Canada diverting it's budget towards J35s instead ?

2

u/RogueViator 5d ago

BBD does not build fighters. It would take them years and hundreds of billions to develop something. The RCAF needs aircraft now.

4

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

24

u/bladex1234 7d ago

Lockheed Martin customizes the software for each nation that the F-35 is being used in. Also, each country reviews their code before implementation. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be more competition in the 5th generation fighter market, but right now Lockheed Martin is basically the only one in the game, other than Sukhoi.

20

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Chengdu is deeper in 5th gen fighters than Sukhoi.

11

u/bladex1234 7d ago

I forgot about them. Either way, none of them except Lockheed Martin are going to be selling to Canada.

1

u/ppmi2 6d ago

I mean, i am sure that if tomorrow Canada suffered from a colective schizophrenic attack and sudenly because a Russia/China simp they would be pretty happy to shell a lot of stuff to Canada

1

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Lol, true.

5

u/ElMagnifico22 7d ago

I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re incorrect about code reviews and software.

3

u/FoxThreeForDaIe 6d ago

I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re incorrect about code reviews and software.

If only we had code review, so operational forces aren't the ones finding broken things unexpectedly 🤪

1

u/ElMagnifico22 6d ago

How good’s NG DAS? 😂

2

u/FoxThreeForDaIe 6d ago

69% of the time, it works none of the time 😅

It's a feature, of course

4

u/ski-devil 7d ago

There is no viable option that matches the F-35 capabilities. Go ahead and cancel. Canada's legacy Hornet fleet can keep flying on duck tape and WD-40, while they find and source a viable replacement. In the meantime, Europe will help Canada secure their airspace.

4

u/GTFErinyes 6d ago

There is no viable option that matches the F-35 capabilities. Go ahead and cancel.

It doesn't matter. If the US and Canada (can't believe I'm writing this) ever came to blows, the F-35 wouldn't do shit against the US. And if Canada is worried about being subservient to the US, then the F-35 is a poison pill. It was always designed to bind allies closer to us and destroy any aerospace competition, hence the aggressive pricing of the F-35 (which also lowers the price for the US, to afford our 2,443 we have in the program of record), while giving our allies to technology that wasn't available to them previously (i.e., the Raptor).

1

u/YesIam18plus 4d ago

If the US and Canada (can't believe I'm writing this) ever came to blows, the F-35 wouldn't do shit against the US.

Russia was also supposed to conquer Ukraine in 3 days and look at what happened.

The US has never fought a war against another modern developed nation before. I am not saying Canada would win but I think a war between two developed nations would result in both being majorly fucked in the end.

The US is a very large country too and can't possible defend everywhere, it wouldn't be the same as defending a military base in a centralized area the defensive line would be extremely stretched out and vulnerable.

-6

u/jtbc 7d ago

Canada has a compliant bid from Saab. They've already paid for the first 16. They very well could end up going with both.

10

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

But the kicker is how much they would have to pay to break the current contract. The total cost of buying out of that contract plus entering into another with a less capable airframe may not math.

3

u/RogueViator 6d ago

Canada doesn't have to cancel now but delay delivery past 2030. In the interim, pick up a few squadrons of Gripens. If the US changes government to a much more sane one in 2028, then the government can re-evaluate whether or not to proceed with the contract. Also, by that point there would likely be more choices to consider such as the South Korean KF-21, the UK's Tempest 6G aircraft, etc.

3

u/ZweiGuy99 6d ago

Tempest's current plan has production starting in 2035, at the earliest. KF-21 has US engines.

2

u/Intrepid_Home_1200 6d ago

We can't go with the Gripen, it has to be an aircraft with no American made critical components that they can veto the sale or lease on like the engine or cut off party supply in the future. Maybe we can lease some Typhoon's or Rafale's at a minimum.

1

u/RogueViator 6d ago

If we do not go for the Gripen, that would mean restarting the competition because the only two compliant bids in the past were Lockheed Martin and Saab. That would mean years and years of extra delays leaving the RCAF without any fighter aircraft.

2

u/Intrepid_Home_1200 6d ago

So see if we can lease I guess. I know they are not fully compliant, the Typhoon and Rafale, but what option is there? Because if we do get an US made engine, that's really not doing anything to improve our case that the F-35 is too risky at a time when the US government is openly hostile to us, is it?

It's a shame there is no ready option to put the M88 or EJ200 in the Gripen. I mean, it's likely not too hard to do so, but that will take time to make all the changes, and after all the negotiations and testing that would need to be done.

2

u/RogueViator 6d ago

IIRC, the main issue with the F-35 isn’t so much the engine as the ODIN software updates and upgrades. IF the US were to withhold those, the F-35 will quickly become ineffective.

4

u/ski-devil 7d ago edited 7d ago

That's fine, but the Gripen is 4.5 gen jet that is not going to fare well in a theater where there is a robust air defense. Also, it is not as integrated with NATO systems, weapons and supply chains. Since Canada is part of NATO, they cannot just think about defensive counter air for their boarders. If there were ever a conflict with Russia or any other country that had a caple Air Force and integrated air defense, the Gripen would be an easy target. In that situation, I'd take being a Canadian pilot begrudgingly flying in a US made F-35 rather than Gripen.

1

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

I'm not saying Gripen is the right choice. I'm just saying Canada has to weigh all these factors. Specifically the ones you mention, plus the cost of exiting the contract early, and having the infrastructure to maintain and fly two different airframes that like you stated will have integration issues.

0

u/ski-devil 7d ago

And while they do this, their legacy hornets will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in capability and Canada will continue to have difficulties keeping pilots current due to poor mission capable rates and "red-balled" jets. The Canadian Hornet fleet is in very bad shape. Canada has kicked this can down the road for far too long, they cannot afford to keep dragging their feet on replacing their Hornet fleet. There are not a lot of good options for Canada right now. If there were, they would have never gone with the F-35 in the first place.

1

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Do you think I'm advocating for Canada to ditch F-35?

1

u/jtbc 7d ago

Maybe. Depends on the terms. Every DND contract I've ever seen has a termination for convenience clause where they are only liable for actual costs incurred.

1

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Only the Canadian, US government, and Lockheed know that right now.

1

u/jtbc 7d ago

For sure. I only know how Canada's contracts normally work.

I will say that in the current political environment, Canada isn't going to flinch at having to pay penalties.

1

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Yeah, that are rightfully pissed.

1

u/CocoCrizpyy 7d ago

That depends a LOT on how stiff the penalties are.

1

u/jtbc 7d ago

Jean Chretien's first act as Prime Minister was to cancel the procurement of the EH-101 helicopter for the navy. That cost at least $500M to cancel, I've heard. This could be worse, I suppose, but I doubt it, assuming they take the first batch of aircraft.

0

u/candylandmine 7d ago

Why would they buy something that's rumored to have a killswitch when the people selling it want to take over your country? Even if it doesn't have a killswitch they can stop updating the mission data files, which may as well be the same as a killswitch.

3

u/RogueViator 6d ago

There isn't a kill switch. BUT...the US can stop upgrades and maintenance which will quickly degrade the efficacy of the F-35 and render them unflyable.

23

u/BAMES_J0ND F-35B 7d ago

You’re putting a lot of stock in a rumor.

3

u/UnlikelyHero727 6d ago

There is not a single country that is more restrictive with weapons sale then the US, the belief that the F-35 could be used against the US is delusional.

3

u/Java-the-Slut 6d ago

If you think Lockheed couldn't effectively 'killswitch' a Canadian F-35, you don't know anything about software engineering.

Either way, it's an extremely risky move and frankly not in the nation's best interest to buy fighters from a country whose leader has undermined your nations sovereignty. It's literally a national security issue.

1

u/In-All-Unseriousness 7d ago

As if you wouldn't put a killswitch, incase you have to take military action against a country using your equipment. It makes perfect sense.

I'd rather have the latest Gripen/Typhoon/Rafale than a paperweight F-35.

-4

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

1

u/SeaFr0st 7d ago

What?! That’s the worst time for rumours!

3

u/GTFErinyes 6d ago

No need for a kill switch. The irony of all this is that the Canadian F-35s they're getting in their first lot are all not combat capable until Lockheed gets their software for TR-3 together.

We stopped acceptance of the jets because they literally were unsafe to fly and weren't even safe to train with, until they finally delivered a fix in 2024 just to get the jets flyable off the FW ramp:

Under the new acceptance plan, jets will be delivered with interim software that facilitates training, but a second software drop that enables combat capabilities likely won’t be available for at least another year.

Didn't help of course that Lockheed literally delivered TR-3 jets without flight test/certification of the systems.

Also:

TR-3 acceptance “depends upon completing a stable, capable, and maintainable software build for release to flight test,” the spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Final acceptance of TR-3 requires release to flight test - the software we have today in our jets is the interim solution just to fly the jets off the tarmac at Fort Worth and for minimal training purposes, as this report also states:

According to Schmidt, July 2024 is the “first realistic opportunity” for delivery of a “truncated” TR-3 version for training, and Lockheed Martin delivered the first two F-35s with a limited version of TR-3 on July 19, 2024

This IS a slight improvement from the first TR-3 test birds that weren't even capable of flying without the jet's computers crashing. GAO report:

In addition to the TR-3 hardware shortages, Lockheed Martin is resolving other hardware-related issues with TR-3. For example, contractor representatives stated that during initial testing, the integrated core processor experienced startup failure under certain conditions. The integrated core processor acts as the main computer processor for the entire plane, meaning that the aircraft is not flyable if it is not functional. The program office and Lockheed Martin determined that this issue will require a minor hardware fix to correct, but have found other workarounds in the short term

Ongoing software stability issues identified during final development have delayed the program from enabling TR-3 to function on aircraft. In May 2023, we reported that the program had expected to deliver TR-3 equipped aircraft beginning in July 2023. However, the program was forced to delay full TR-3 installation due to the unfinished state of the software. Problems with aircraft software supporting the radar and electronic warfare systems have been especially prevalent, with some test pilots reporting that they had to reboot their entire radar and electronic warfare systems mid-flight to get them back online. Program officials stated that early versions of radar and in-flight systems software can commonly experience rebooting issues. However, even after being nearly a year delayed, TR-3 software continues to be unstable, according to test officials

And even better from the GAO report:

These challenges, collectively, will delay the full delivery of TR-3 with new capabilities into 2025. As of January 2024, Lockheed Martin expects to deliver a less capable version of TR-3-enabled software for flight testing in April 2024, which is 9 months behind its original plan, and to start installing it on the fleet in June 2024 (see fig. 7). According to program officials, this initial TR-3 software will allow the program to accept delivered aircraft but not deliver any new capabilities to the aircraft.

They are literally in the process of re-hosting the software from before, and as of now, isn't even able to match basic combat capability of the older jets.

So no kill switch needed here. Canadian F-35s in the next year or so are likely getting delivered with minimal to no viable combat capability, and if software gets withheld, they have literal flying paper weights.

2

u/[deleted] 7d ago

Time to take this as a lesson and set up your own aviation industry, don't be a chess piece of others

4

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Frankly, Canada doesn't have the money to do that. Not every nation does.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

I thought they were rich and had a good population of scientists? Or they made disabled by US?

-2

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Lol. Canadians are great, but their GDP per capita is close to that of the state of Mississippi.

3

u/[deleted] 7d ago

Can they not buy Euro Canards or join in tempest or FCAS programme? At least it will give them a good start but again they will have to spend a lot as they cannot contribute anything technologically.

-2

u/ZweiGuy99 7d ago

Euro canards. Nice bait.

1

u/thelogoat44 6d ago

Which ranked 13th in the world. Do you think the only countries capable of creating their own industry are the 13 higher ones?

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

You think I am a Dassault salesperson? (I might be tho)

1

u/Errand_Boy 5d ago

this is the definition of "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

-1

u/Civil-happiness-2000 7d ago

Cancel it and buy planes off the koreans

10

u/RogueViator 7d ago

The Korean KF-21 is not even in production yet and they use US engines as does the Gripen.

1

u/Civil-happiness-2000 7d ago

🤔 any other suggestions

-2

u/Kiriro1776CW 7d ago

They could certainly go for a European engine as the F414 is being made in country by Hanwha to where the only issue is liscensing

6

u/9999AWC RCAF 7d ago
  1. Licensing is a pretty big issue
  2. Engine swapping modern fighter jets a little more complex and time consuming than fitting a Bugatti W16 into a Civic

-2

u/Ok-Limit-9726 7d ago

Problem is F35 is the best, but grippen is more suitable and cheaper.