Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked for a review of Canada’s plan to purchase a fleet of F-35 fighter jets.

The deal with Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government is for 88 planes at a cost of about US$85 million each.

A spokesperson for Defence Minister Bill Blair said Carney has asked Blair to look into whether the F-35 contract is the best investment for Canada, or if there are better options.

“We need to do our homework given the changing environment, and make sure that the contract in its current form is in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces,” Blair’s press secretary Laurent de Casanove said.

  • brax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    2 months ago

    Seems stupid to buy defense resources from a country that could become hostile. Do any European companies have anything to offer? I get that GOS and a lot of resources are still probably going to come from the USA but right now, the less the better.

    • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      Me personally? I’d love to say yes, but I’m a bit skint atm…could I get it on IOU?

    • Frostbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Tbf. The F35 owns the sky. The Typhoon wins in a dog fight, but the way the F35 operates it eliminates the threat long before the dog fight. I would love for a European fifth generation replacing the F35 tho’

      • Pixel@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dogfights aren’t a thing anymore in modern aviation. There’s a reason it was barely considered in the procurement process that led to the F-35 acquisition. Sure hope other countries step up to the plate to build viable exportable alternatives to the F-35.

        • drop_table_username@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They said this before Vietnam and it was wrong. Ironically if truly stealth fighters with low radar and ir profiles were to engage each other in the air they would probably end up using guns primarily again as radar/ir guided missiles wouldn’t be reliable in this event.

  • Tm12@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    Something we can train on and maintain within our borders please.

  • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    He’s keeping up decorum but yeah these jets are done. You can’t buy military equipment from an enemy and the jets would have to be serviced in the USA over their lifetime.

  • nao@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    maybe don’t rely on fighter jets than can possibly be disabled remotely by someone talking about invading you

  • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    It always seemed strange that Canada would agree (how much arm twisting?) to buy a plane that won’t work well in our Arctic. We are committed to buying 16 jets but it would probably be better to buy the rest elsewhere or put our money into homegrown solutions. Maybe drones or other machines.

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 months ago

      Excuse me sir, may I interest you in Gripen? Cold weather tested, fascist free, and oh so stylish. Book your test flight today!

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe we should be looking at what we need for city close quarters defenses and guerilla fighting.

      • LostWon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        If they do plan on invading, it will probably involve them coming from the North as well, and not just the South-- especially if they were to occupy Greenland first.

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    Messing with the military industrial complex is not the smartest move for Trump. All that will do is turn the military against him.

  • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lockheed Martin”We specialize in destroying the lives of brown people, come fly with us”

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Prime Minister Carney, I have several better solutions. Cancel the F-35 and examine the Saab JAS-39 Gripen, Dassault Rafael, or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

  • xye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m glad you’re doing this, but ultimately sad because love is irrational and I love the F-35.

  • kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    For the $70 billion it would apparently cost in total to have these super fancy fighter jets, they could instead build a million new low-cost housing units and still have some money left over to work on inventing innovative air defence systems that aren’t so expensive…

      • kbal@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re underestimating the size of $70 billion. It’s more like high-speed rail to every major city in the country.

        • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Nah, $70 billion is about right, and that’s a conservative estimate. If it turns out anything like california high speed rail then it could definitely go into $100 billion territory.

          Common law countries like the u.s., Canada and u.k. are really inefficient at building hsr due to property rights issues. California is still struggling to build its hsr even though it’s scope has been reduced, its budget keeps ballooning. Similarly, the hs2 project in England to connect London to Manchester has also been cut back to just Birmingham, and it’s also over budget ringing in £ 50 billion for just that section.

          If this were china then yeah you could probably get a Vancouver to Quebec line for $70 billion, but the Canadian central government isnt that strong and would have to deal with a lot more regulations.

          • kbal@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            California is the textbook case of paying way to much for that sort of thing, isn’t it? It’s always the one they go to when they want to make a crazy inflated budget look reasonable by comparison. But yeah, I was seriously underestimating the cost anyway. Maybe we should just go with medium-speed rail.