Canada joins Portugal in weighing alternatives to the US-made F-35 fighter jet

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Yahoo! News/Business Insider

Sat, March 15, 2025 at 8:51 AM EDT


Canada is reviewing its contract with US defense manufacturer Lockheed Martin to purchase F-35 fighter jets, its defense minister said on Friday. Speaking to CBC, Bill Blair said he had spoken with newly appointed Prime Minister Mark Carney and that they were now looking at "other alternatives" to the F-35. "It was the fighter jet identified by our air force as the platform that they required, but we are also examining other alternatives," Blair said.

"Whether we need all of those fighter jets to be F-35s or if there might be alternatives, the prime minister has asked me to go and examine those things and have discussions with other sources, particularly where there may be opportunities to assemble those fighter jets in Canada," he added.

Canada finalized a contract in 2023 to purchase 88 F-35 jets for C$19 billion (around $13.2 billion), with the first aircraft expected to be delivered to the F-35 training center at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona in 2026. The jet is set to arrive in Canada in 2028. Lockheed Martin beat out Sweden's Saab — maker of the Gripen E jet — and Boeing — which produces the F/A-18 Super Hornet — to secure the contract. Blair's comments came just a day after Portugal announced that it was also reconsidering purchasing the F-35.

Portuguese Defense Minister Nuno Melo told local outlet Público on Thursday that he was wary of replacing older US-made F-16 fighter jets with F-35s in the wake of President Donald Trump's recent policy shifts. Melo said Trump's unpredictability with regard to his stance on NATO meant Portugal had to weigh up other options, adding: "We cannot ignore the geopolitical environment in our choices."

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-joins-portugal-weighing-alternatives-125128333.html

[3825-87867]

1. Not to worry (about U.S. Fighter makers)

I'm sure the orange vermin will happily sell as many as we can make...
to Putin!

Think about that one, folk!

[moniss]

2. I have felt for a long time that

it will come to a point where we are arming Russia and giving them intelligence. I believe Crumb The 1st has been doing the intelligence part throughout his terms. I believe he is tipping them about when arms shipments are arriving in Ukraine and where as well as providing them with vulnerabilities to assist their targeting.

[IronLionZion]

7. Ugh, and then use it against US troops

Since we can always trust Russia

[LiberalLovinLug]

3. The SAAB Gripen suits Canada better

It is made for northern climates. Can fly twice as long on one fuelling. And can land in much smaller and rougher airstrips. Is more manoeuvrable in the air.

The only reason we in Canada bought the F-35 was intense pressure from the US. As well as a more compatible air defence for NORAD. But that now is in danger of being destroyed.

The F-35 can hold greater weight of firepower. Has a larger radar scope. But its a kind of jack of all trades, master of none, as its too heavy to be the quickest air fighting vehicle, and too small to hold as many bombs as a plane made for that. It has probably the most advanced technology, but the downside is that it can break down easier, and is more expensive to operate.

I am hoping they finally move back to the Gripen.

[mwooldri]

6. the Eurofighter Typhoon is also a good substitute.

Cheaper than a F35. (As is the Gripen). Less American as the Gripen uses GE jet engines and the Typhoon uses Eurojet EJ2000 engines. As such, the Typhoon could in theory be made with parts that aren't American, should push come to shove.

[turbinetree]

4. I can't wait for them to tell NORAD...............that you have to go way out into the pacific to get to Alaska......

no more crossing the Canadian border..............

[OnlinePoker]

5. Unfortunately, we've already paid for 10 of them upfront

That would be about $1.5 billion U.S. gone. I've read rumours there's a kill switch that would make them inoperable if the U.S. so chooses. Time to do like several provinces and ban U.S. suppliers from bidding on government contracts.

[artemisia1]

8. Not gone as they can be used to learn from. Then those lessons can be applied towards fighters from reliable allies. /nt

[amcgrath]

9. European weapons for a European war make more sense.

The best known example is probably the Humvee, built too wide for Europe streets and even for forests, it was bought by nobody.I believe the Euro fighter is superior in flight, the F-35 slightly superior in communications and electronic integration. If you are defending your homeland, superior flight is what you need.
I know the Saab planes are always highly rated, but what is interesting is Swedish airforce planning. Recognizing they are a smaller country - with a smaller airforce, their wartime plans include not havinig airfields. Roads are built with stretches that can be landed on, where planes can either be refuelled, rearmed and return to a mission, or can just be taken off the roads and disappear into forests or bunkers. That is something that would work exceedingly well in Canada. Military experts I have heard don't believe America could take Canada, but Canada's response would not be big battles. The military would pretty much melt away and operate more of a guerrilla style war. Which is how a lot of EU warfare is considered. They may not be so impressive in size, but an armoured car that car turn in a street or drive through a forest without having to fell trees, or a plane that can hide under the cover of a gas station or some trees, is infinitely more useful than one that needs the pristine deck of an aircraft carrier.
Too many countries have been buying machinery designed or America's idea of war. EU weapons are designed to fight to protect a town or region against a superior force - because the enemy was aways assumed to be Russia. Nuclear submarines and troop carriers designed for seizing desert oilfields have never been that useful in the EU

[BurnDoubt]

10. Kill Switch?????

Read a post several days ago discussing the notion that F-35's and likely other armaments are equipped with a "Kill Switch" to disable them in the event they "fall into the wrong hands". I don't have any back-up to support this notion. If true, I would think this would be an issue when considering these sales. Does anyone have any input regarding this?

[ToxMarz]

11. I can imagine with all the technology built into those planes

a kill switch would be one of the easier things to design an implement. It's infinitely more difficult to make them work, than to make them not work.

[markodochartaigh]

12. Obviously the US

military/industrial complex has incredible power in the US political system. Threatening their profits may well open a huge fissure in the reich-wing.

[twodogsbarking]

13. The ultimate insult. The one finger salute.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. OR

the "elbows up" one!



Of course I come from the home of -



So we know how it goes...

When they had the '74 Stanley Cup on display in some bank building downtown that doesn't exist anymore, I did actually get to go see it up close and personal. Damn, it'll be almost 50 years this year since we last got one of those. Back then we were hoping for the "three-peat", but alas.

[hunter]

15. The U.S.A. itself needs to abandon this turkey.

We're building the most advanced and expensive technology we can to fight twentieth century wars. Unfortunately this technology becomes a burden in twenty-first century wars.