Canada and Portugal are both considering backing out of deals to buy Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters citing geopolitical factors. One of Canada's new Prime Minister Mark Carney's first directives was to tell Defence Minister Bill Blair “to determine if the F-35 contract, as it stands, is the best investment for Canada, and if there are other options that could better meet Canada’s needs,” the Defence Department told the National Post in an email statement. Canada has already paid for 16 of the 88 F-35s it has ordered from Lockheed Martin in an initial purchase deal worth $13 billion. But Canada will pay an addition $60 billion for maintenance and upgrades over the aircraft's 30-year life span and most of that will be done by Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program has time on its side. U.S. orders alone, about 2,400 aircraft, can keep production going for nearly two decades. But politics change faster than assembly lines. So who knows.
Canada and Portugal backing away isn’t catastrophic, but it’s not a good trend either. For any company, cracks like these are rarely isolated.
One issue that should be considered is the fact that the F35 is single engine. This is not a major issue in a combat scenario I would think, but in northern Canada patrols the air bases are few and far between. A multi-engined machine will save itself and it’s pilot whilst the best outcome for a single engined fighter pilot on northern patrol would be the pilot able to share his survival rations with a curious polar bear. For N.A.T.O. commitments a bleeding edge fighter would be fine, either the Saab Gripen-E or the F35.
With the US kill switch in the F-35 system and the complex system of software upgrade - the F-35 system has big disadvantages. The Gripen has no kill switch where the Swedish government could make the system unusable pending which prime-minister we have. And the Gripen software upgrades are made in an afternoon. The F-35 software changes are calculated in weeks sometimes in months. Battle field conditions change by the day in the future. Even president Trump has stated the F-35 system is obsolete. Of course I am from Sweden so I favor the Gripen.
Not emotional. How do countries dependent on US weapons know that the current or any future administration will continue to allow shipment of parts and upgrades? Or will there be new conditions to be met?
When US policy is purely transactional and when the US is viewed as an unreliable ally, seeking weapons from reliable allies is utterly rational.
Since there are also “instabilities” and “unreliablies” in many of the NATO member states theses days, it may be for the best to back out of these old cold war alliances anyway.
The best division is to get out of that deal or don’t get into it ASAP. What is the matter of having a weapon system that your, in worst case, enemy can just by flipping a switch make useless?
And it’s also one if the most effective ways to show Trump that his nonsense if a trade war also will hit “his” people.
F-35 is outrageously expensive, takes a boatload of time to build, exceedingly complex, totally dependent upon timely software upgrades being administered by a manufacturer that has a track record of cost over runs while unable to meet company initiated deadlines. Top off this fiasco of an airplane, it has never exceeded a 35% operational daily readiness. In its baptism of fire, lack of stealthiness as demonstrated by lock on by various anti -aircraft weapons witnessed by Israeli pilots when leading a massive aerial attack on Iran. The result? The Israeli pilots prudently turned around.
Simply put, in a peer group fight, this airplane is virtually useless. However…one bright spot…the largest portion of the fleet will preserved since 6 to 7 will be not operationally available sitting on the ground… with only the 3-4 that do fly, trackable targets. Plus, we make it super easy for potential adversaries to conserve resources … once they figure out how to hack the software…our Air Force, US Navy, and USMC are all flying the same airplane.
Add to this recipe for disaster, our Congress whose personal wealth is heavily influenced by lobbyists of Lockheed-Martin makes this airplane a permanent fixture for several decades no matter who is in the White House. At least Canada, before they become the 51st state, whose aluminum is in the F-35, can make a buck to help defray the cost of Saabs. Once they are another US state, they like us, will be stuck with this super-expensive flying contraption masquerading as a fighter/bomber/interceptor/ground attack/VTOL/carrier borne one size fits all sort of aerial Swiss Army knife attempting to be jack of all trades, while master of NONE! What could possibly go wrong?
First Rule of thumb in warfare, Never buy military equipment from the enemy. The source code for F35 stealth tech is the one feature which makes the F35 unreliable for Canada. In a US vs Canada conflict the US can simply turn off the stealth making Canada’s F35 a slow moving sitting duck.
As a Canadian i say get out of the deal. It was never a good choice IMHO. I think the Gripen would be a great choice. Especially since theyre willing to assemble here. And we could afford more airframes. The twin engine and ability to use unimproved runways make it ideal.
My second choice woud be the Typhoon.
I wonder how much the tarrifs on our aluminum will increase LM’s cost per aircraft.
Donald Trump needs to understand that actions have consequences, and that people want stability - stock market down, businesses in both countries holding off on investing.
Presumably, everyone on this site is an adult. It is sad that people have to be reminded to maintain ordinary civility. Hopefully, we can disagree without insults.