Stephen Fuhr was mocked for opposing the purchase of F-35s. Now he's in charge of Canada's defence procurement
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-fuhr-canada-defence-procurement-rcaf-f35-9.7333073
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-fuhr-canada-defence-procurement-rcaf-f35-9.7333073
31 Comments
obvs@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 2d
Buying "smart" weapons from the US is a suicide plan.
Sunshine@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 2d
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
*The Taliban has entered the chat
ohshit604@lemmy.halstead.host · 2 pts · 2d
There must be an open source, self hostable, version out there!
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 2d
If we're worried about them, anyway.
The tricky thing is that, if we're fighting someone else, like Russia, the F-35 just is the best all-around plane. Heck, "all-around" might not even be needed, there.
wirebeads@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 2d
The only one threatening us is the country trying to sell us their weapons.
Russias is in too deep in Ukraine and trying to push into other nato nations. For Russia to get to Canada, they pretty much need to go through Alaska anyways. I’m sure Trumpkin would allow it. I don’t know that the rest of the U.S. military would. At this point though, who knows.
I’m worried about the fascist ugly Americans more so than Russia.
And also, hasn’t Iran proved that they can knock down the f-35s?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/19/politics/f-35-damage-iran-war
Again, the only single country on the planet threatening Canada is the country trying to sell us the weapons.
Fuck America.
mosaic09@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
I'd anticipate in the future with the arctic conflict Russia will be a problem, but yes the more imminent is just the US
alsimoneau@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 17m
Aren't the Gripen better in the Arctic?
Einskjaldi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Every stealth plane can be targeted if you have an actual visual on it and can send out heat seekers. The point is that they typically can operate much farther away and don't get seen. But if you have thousands of flights you can just randomly get lucky and spot one. Losing a single plane doesn't mean anything.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · -3 pts · 2d
They hit one, out of how many that have been openly flying over Iran, day in and day out.
Probably, it managed to fly low over the one tiny patch of land that had a shoulder launched missile operator on it, and did so in broad daylight. That day, remove any of those variables, and the survivability goes from 99.9% to 100%, without even being careful.
wampus@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 2d
IF the USA allows those weapons to be used against Russia.
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 1d
Iran shot an F35.
https://www.trtworld.com/article/98473554ec5e
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/23/has-iran-brought-down-an-unkillable-us-f-35-jet
The whole point of the F35 was "youre dead before you even detect it". The fact that the US hasn't refuted the loss indicates to me that it did happen and it wasn't a fluke.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 1d
Since I already got a reply about this, I'll just copy-paste.
It has a radar section like a large ball bearing, which is tiny, but not nothing, and not as small as a more "devoted" stealth aircraft. And, it's not fucking invisible, you can still see it with your naked eyes! Literally impossible to shoot down was never the bar anyone set. Close to impossible, it achieves.
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
Agreed. Dunno why you're arguing that.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 0 pts · 17h
What, aren't those two mutually exclusive? It sees you first, or you see it first.
If it always kills you before you see it, regardless of any measure of luck on your part, you can't shoot it down. So, another way to put this, is it only kills you before you see it most of the time. And, almost all of the time vs. Iran specifically.
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 16h
Something could be impossible to shoot down because its too fast/maneuverable. Or impervious to damage. That same thing could also be completely incapable of killing you. Maybe don't lazily copy and paste replies when you don't understand the point you're replying to.
If your stance is that an F35 getting shot down doesn't matter; you can go ahead and have that opinion. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 14h
I thought about including an aside about deep bunkers (impervious to damage (that's a single F-35 can dish out, since you're pretending you don't understand context)), but that's not really relevant if you're planning to shoot back.
Too fast to hit straight up doesn't exist; even hypersonics can be intercepted, and they're already at the materials limit of what can push through air without breaking up. Higher up, satellite vs. satellite is of course a thing, as well. The advantage of speed is just getting where you're going faster.
This speed vs. detection vs. firepower logic determines military tactics in every era, BTW. Right now, most things can be easily detected, and basically everything can be destroyed. It's the things that are still hard to detect that are winning the day, like the F-35 or drones. Or maybe the Gripen, if it's in and out of the air fast and unpredictably enough.
Yes, I guess the F-35 could be completely empty and unloaded. That was even in the comment at first, but I edited it out, because anyone would get that's not typically how you go into battle. And no, getting the same question responding to the same comment, and then giving the same answer, is not lazy. What, does your highness require it hand-typed? (FWIW, not checking if the question has been asked and answered isn't high effort)
Rentlar@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 2d
So much for the American pearl-clutching suggesting that 9-11 wouldn't be called terrorist attacks from CBC's reporting policy.
Anyway, this guy seems to be the one who can give us more Gripens than F-35s. I think it is Carney and cabinet that are holding off, keeping the cards close because it is something valuable to pull out in response to further American economic aggression, rather than à-propos of nothing.
concerned@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Two very different jets with two very different roles.
grey_maniac@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 2d
If there's a kill switch it can be hacked. If we want to fight someone the fascists don't want us to, they can use the kill switch. On top of that more money to an enemy, and the US is most certainly currently that, is tactically stupid.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website · 12 pts · 2d
I don't believe there is a kill switch, but the basic truth is that they don't need one - the Americans control the maintenance pipeline, which is just as effective.
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
And the training program. AKA the USA is screening our pilots.
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
We should be investing in drone tech
Meatbag jets have a super high cost both on hardware and training. If we really want direct-control air combat capability why not have drone controllers in the design of PS4 controllers. Your training expense would be drastically less, there are already thousands of people capable of wizardry with those...
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website · 2 pts · 1d
We are, but I don't think any country on Earth believes that drones are the solution to every problem. Ukraine has revolutionized drone warfare, but even they are actively working to get new planes.
wraekscadu@vargar.org · 1 pts · 2d
Sorry fellas, I did comment on this before here and again: The F35s are way way more superior than the Gripens for any conflict that doesn't involve fighting the Americans.
If we have to fight the Americans, then we ain't winning with planes (regardless of whether they are gripens or F35s). In that case, we're winning with drones (a combination of Ukraine + Iran + Afghanistan).
Quite a few folks pointed to how F35s could be grounded simply by a potential remote kill switch. Again, if we have to fight the Americans, planes aren't going to be useful in any manner. Our airstrips, maintenance facilities, fuel depots, all of it would be targeted and destroyed first. Gripens, F35s, it doesn't matter - our planes would be grounded.
Ah sure, MOVING FORWARD, we should not make the mistake of purchasing American stuff again. But for the F35 program, backing out right now would hurt us more, no?
I mean the Danes have an even bigger reason than us to not buy F35s, and even they still went ahead with it in Oct 2025.
Now yes, using "we'll buy Gripens instead of F35s" as a bargaining tool for the tariffs nonsense is definitely a good idea. Cuz uk, the US defense manufacturers and the GOP are close, and a threat to the flow of money could be useful to make the negotiations happen in our favor.
But if we're looking at this from the standpoint of pure good faith, where we only look at defense capabilities for ourselves and NATO (through our armed forces), then the F35s are just better, no?
Sure, the SAAB offer to manufacture Gripens in Canada sounds really good. Better for our economy, our pockets. But in terms of raw defense capabilities? Not that much better, is it? Imo, it would just be a bad faith act to ourselves and our NATO allies, where we write "oooh we spent on defense" on paper, but didn't actually better our capabilities.
Again, please be kind in the responses. I'm NOT a defense analyst, professional or amateur. Knowledge in this matter is low for me. I'm just looking at different opinions presented online and synthesising my own understanding/opinion.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website · 6 pts · 2d
Me neither, not by a long shot. From the various analyses I've consumed over the last few months, the suggestion is that the F35 is superior if you're attacking another country, but the Gripens just might have the edge defensively.
This arguably gives the Gripen an edge, since its most famous feature is that it can be deployed relatively easily from highways and other non-standard surfaces.
But yeah, if you set aside the issue of American relations, there are some pretty big questions of doctrine to sort out.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 2d
Under the very specific conditions where operating it out of the bush is worthwhile, maybe.
If we're fighting, I dunno, Algeria or Japan in Canadian airspace, the F-35 is still much superior. We have a good chance of defending our airfields against them, and once it's up the plane has been been compared to a soccer player that's invisible.
It's just that if we're defending ourselves (as opposed to Lithuania) against anything, it's probably against the US.
pmk@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 2d
The idea was always that the russians will destroy our airbases first and to have the ability to use a road in the middle of nowhere with a minimal crew for maintenance. Optimized for having a large hostile country invading us. Canada currently has a large hostile country nearby, so... it makes sense.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 1d
"Our" being Sweden?
Yes, no disagreement here. If it works in practice in a modern, sensor-rich environment is an open question, though, at least as far as the public knows. And, how much helping our European allies matters, is also a factor. So, there's still arguments for both sides.
It's worth mentioning there's a third option to not buy any planes, and buy more RBS-70 MANPADs (Swedish shoulder-launched missiles for hitting aircraft) with the money. Or maybe medium range SAM systems. I don't know who's talking about "none of the above" right now, but if you want maximum guerilla firepower for the cost, that's got to be up there.
pmk@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 1d
Sorry yes I meant sweden.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 4 pts · 2d
We've already paid for some of them. The question is if we should buy the rest of the 88, or cut our losses.
They also have different needs, don't forget. It's a tiny country in the heart of Europe. The Gripen's one advantage means little there, and there's no situation they would be up against the US alone.
Even that way is iffy. Drones are supposed to be expendable, so you need to build a lot to fight like Ukraine, and have an organised way to deploy them en mass across a front line. We aren't going to keep a serious American invasion out of our populated areas long enough for that.
In Iran, the US fights entirely from the air with as little risk to American lives as possible. Since we share a border, that's not really an option for them, if they invade.
Think more Afghanistan, but with unmanned suicide bombers.
The trick with the Gripen is that it doesn't need any of that. Just enough people to move it and it's bombs around, fuel in jerry cans and a dirt runway.
It still costs a lot, though, so the general point about planes being a weird tool for the job applies.
Yes.
Or, pretty close. Yes unless NATO is itself in a guerilla war, against aliens, or something.