Today's commentary: the F-35 v Gripen decision, and Carney's role in the world now

First up tonight, the fighter jet decision - F-35 v. Gripen - has become a Canadian loyalty test and rightfully so. The idea of spending our millions on American jets right now just sticks in Canada's craw.

Sweden's Gripen is a mostly-viable alternative. 

That Trump will be furious is a feature, not a bug, as far as Canadians are concerned -- though of course our government cannot be so cavalier about the decision when US tariffs are affecting the livelihoods of so many.
Here are some tweets about the issues, and some interesting commentary about the pros and cons of the purchase decision.

Looks like Trump's loss may become another win for #Sweden as more allies shun the F-35 for SAAB Gripens & Eurofighters. The #TrumpRegime is losing on Trade and in Military Contracts Canada "didn't get enough" out of F-35 deals with Lockheed Martin, looking at Saab's Gripen: Joly search.app/339kk

[image or embed]

— Prairiesunshine (@scottishox2.bsky.social) November 19, 2025 at 1:59 PM

Of course the American ambassador Pete Hoekstra has to stick his nose into it and start issuing threats:

Looks who's back? MAGA Pete Hoekstra. Working with the Swedes on building Gripen fighter jets looks better all the time. BTW Pete could you tell us if you have any knowledge of the $500 Mil slush fund offered to Alberta separatists? #foreigninterference www.cbc.ca/news/politic...

[image or embed]

— Charlie Angus (@charlieangus104.bsky.social) November 19, 2025 at 3:44 PM

Which is enough to make every red-blooded Canadian want to give the entire contract to Sweden immediately.
And personally, I don't think Carney would have invited such a large Swedish delegation to Canada and entertained them at a state dinner, if Canada ultimately intends to stiff them.

#Sweden and #Canada signed a major security and trade deal yesterday. Have you noticed any far-right idiots attacking Canada's Prime Minister, Carney, or the Swedish King? No? That's the difference: countries that sticks to sound values and openly turn away from the cesspool that the MAGA US is.

[image or embed]

— julibluesky (@julibluesky.bsky.social) November 19, 2025 at 12:48 PM

And Sweden says it doesn't threaten people into a deal.

There's Meat On Them Swedish Meatballs Dept. #Saab #Gripen

[image or embed]

— Scott in Montreal🇨🇦 (@scottinmontreal.ca) November 19, 2025 at 9:12 PM

On CBC, Philippe Lagassé discussed the tough decision about fighter jets facing the Canadian government. I understand the many, good reasons to buy the F-35. But the idea of the Royal Canadian Air Force exclusively flying an American-made plane gives me hives. These jets are flying computers. They need constant updating to operate in top form. Who will do that if we buy the F-35? The Americans. Maybe. This is an era when at least half the American political spectrum has made it very clear that the old “friends and allies” model is dead and they prefer something between “ruthless transactionalism” and “vassal state” for the future relationship between the US and Canada. In that world, we need much greater strategic autonomy and stronger ties with our European allies. The Gripen will give us both. There’s only one way to split the difference: Buy both jets. Operate a mixed fleet. That’s damned expensive and operationally challenging. But we know we can do it: We did it in the past. Let’s just be sure to go into this with eyes wide open. By the way, @Philippe Lagassé is on Substack. If you want to hear from an extremely well-informed Canadian observer of military affairs who is (as this interview demonstrates) determinedly objective, you should subscribe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=oDszjKXDtws&list=PLeyJPHbRnGaZ1LGEJXLVGF87go3CuPlWo&index=2

- Dan Gardner

Read on Substack

In a later Note, Gardner also reminds us about this:

Interesting fact for Canadians: Not only did the RCAF operate more than one combat plane in the past, there was a period between the late 1960s and the early 1980s when it operated four different fleets simultaneously — the Canuck, the Voodoo, the Starfighter, and the CF-5. Aside from the Voodoo (bought from the US) each was built in Canada; the Canuck was designed and built in Canada.

Barry Gander / BARRY’s Substack

Meanwhile, Trouble Is Brewing Over The Borders
...Canada and Sweden are quietly creating a $21-billion defence ecosystem that links equipment, strategy and production into a single entity. It’s about moving part of Sweden’s defence infrastructure into Canada at exactly the time that Sweden prepares to equip Ukraine with new capacity.
It is setting up the West’s new “Northern Wall”, and the US is being ignored.
King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden are dropping into Ottawa for a three-day visit.
They have brought with them Sweden’s Deputy PM and minister of Energy Ms. Ebba Busch and the Minister for Defense Dr Pål Jonson.
So they are not going to be exchanging pleasantries about the weather (“still cold, eh?”).
Some 30 Swedish companies have also sent representatives.
One of their first activities was for Canada and Sweden to reaffirm their joint support for Ukraine.
The Swedes have been open about their goal: they are coming in order to form a new defence partnership with Canada.
Canada is poised to spend $150-billion on Defence in the coming years.
The immediate prize for Sweden would be a piece of the Canadian search for a new fighter aircraft.
...The Gripens would fit better with Canada’s European commitments anyway. If the US continues to drift away from Europe, then Canada becomes a key anchor in European strategies. Ukraine has decided to buy 100 to 140 Gripens. Canadian production would fit right in.
And that is what Saab is really after: production. Canada would boost Sweden’s industrial base and together the two countries would OWN the Arctic.
Saab says 10,000 manufacturing and research jobs could land in Canada if the Gripen is chosen.
Saab President and CEO Micael Johansson says companies including Bombardier and CAE, which are both headquartered in Montreal, as well as Nova Scotia-based IMP Aerospace and Defence, could be part of a deal.
“If Canada wants to create sovereign capabilities and to do their own upgrades, to build parts of it, to do final assembly and test, we are prepared to do that,” said Johansson. “We could do a technology transfer to Canada and support that build up.”
The partnership could include either building a new facility or converting an existing one, with the first Canadian-made Gripen potentially flying off the assembly line within three to five years.
Sweden, a country of roughly 10 million people, has a limited number of engineers and people who can work on production. Johansson calls it a win-win to partner with another country, especially one which is like-minded and shares concerns about Arctic sovereignty. Saab also offered an extensive industrial package that included setting up new aerospace research and development centres in Canada.
Saab and Bombardier are already partnered on Global Eye early warning surveillance aircraft, which are manufactured in Canada and sent to Sweden to have their sensor equipment installed. Saab said recently it wants to do more of that work in Canada.
Canada and Sweden are quietly reshaping Arctic geopolitics anyway, by focusing on defense autonomy, digital sovereignty, and sustainable infrastructure. Other joint spheres of interest include nuclear energy and innovation.
Canada would effectively become part of Europe, and Saab would plug in to the North American economy.
Despite the barriers being thrown up by the Trump administration, Canada is on a bit of a roll right now economically, with job numbers that continue to go up and a GDP that has not slowed as much as America’s. It would be good right now to tap into the European market in a solid way...

Barry goes on to talk about what is happening with Mexico and with the Caribbean - very interesting piece.

Black Cloud Six: Unscripted

Shiny Jets, New Subs, and Old Problems
Canada’s defence excitement doesn’t fix the fundamentals.
....By far the most excitement surrounds Canada’s purchase of new fighter aircraft. I’ve written on this subject fairly extensively and will post links at the bottom of this piece should anyone be interested. Fundamentally, the issue is that Canada’s current fighter fleet is on its last legs, despite the significant improvements made to a number of aircraft in an effort to keep them operational. I won’t go into the background here, but Canada began the process to replace the CF-18 decades ago and we are a foundational member of the international F-35 programme. After a protracted development period, the issues with the F-35 appear to have been sorted out and it is now in widespread service.
Canada has bought this aircraft. Sixteen are paid for and are on the way in the first tranche of what is ultimately a total of eighty-eight aircraft. This, of course, is before the re-entry of Trump on the world stage and the decimation of Canada–US relations. Now, there is a move to abrogate the contract and go with a different, non-US fighter: the SAAB Gripen from Sweden. Unfortunately, there are issues with this:
A shift will likely further delay the replacement of the CF-18.
A fleet of sixteen F-35s is too small to be a viable capability. Sixteen jets is barely enough to keep pilots current, let alone defend anything. They bring with them all the drama caused by the F-35 — centralized spare parts, high operating costs, and a lack of control over software — with none of the benefits. We have to cater for fleet rotation, training requirements, maintenance, and attrition, and need significantly more than sixteen aircraft to do that. Ergo, we are almost certain to contract for more F-35s — if we don’t simply break the contract.
In the frenzy over the fighters, the limitations of the Gripen are often forgotten. The F-35 is a generation ahead of the Gripen. It has full stealth capability, is fully networked with NATO systems, has superior electronics, and is in service with all of Canada’s major allies. While the Gripen does indeed offer simpler maintenance and lower costs, this — in part — reflects its lower capability. Even the Gripen’s fabled “deployability” is of limited use in the Arctic, where most airfields are gravel-based.
Today (18 Nov 25), the government began signalling that it was open to discussing the Gripen — after a huge push from Sweden, including a visit by the Swedish king. Unfortunately for defence specialists, the messaging from government isn’t based on capability or military considerations but instead is focused on industrial benefits and economic considerations. This is in keeping with PM Carney’s approach to “Canadianize” military procurement.
There will be immense US pressure to proceed with the full F-35 buy, and it is very likely — if not certain — that Trump will take it personally should Canada elect to procure something else. Moreover, for NORAD (which, in my opinion, exists almost entirely to defend the US) the F-35 is the obvious choice — and a major reason it won the competition in the first place.
With all these considerations, it’s understandable that the government has taken its time in tackling this problem. In a way, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Billions of dollars are at stake, and Canadians are in no mood to kowtow to Washington. The urge to deliver a massive snub to Trump is almost overwhelming. I understand the urge to poke Trump in the eye — believe me. But — and it’s a big but — the F-35 is a more capable aircraft by most measures, and there could be immense pressure to simply proceed with what’s been contracted.
What I hope happens is what I outline in my prior musings: that Canada sucks it up and goes with a mixed fleet, despite the myriad reasons for not doing so. I also believe we need a larger fleet and that we have an opportunity to further demonstrate our resolve to the European members of NATO. In the end, this means the F-35 for NORAD and the Gripen for everything else, including NATO tasks. It also means, in my opinion, returning to a fleet of about 140 aircraft. The cynic in me says it’ll never happen.

Black Cloud goes on to talk about the submarine purchase - also very interesting and worth reading. His piece ends:

...Much has been made of the “massive” increase in defence spending in the recent budget, and it is indeed very large. But it must be remembered that Canada has been underspending on defence for many decades. There is genuine rot that must be repaired even as we are distracted by talk of fighter aircraft and submarines. This starts with properly funding spare-parts procurement, ammunition production capacity, and addressing current capability gaps. These gaps include such basics as air defence, modernized artillery, enhanced drone capability, drone defence, sealift, proper staffing, modernized personnel administration, and many others. These don’t trend on social media, but they’re what actually win or prevent wars.
Finally, the desire to speed up procurement and move quickly is encouraging. ...Canada is — whether we like it or not — a major country with global interests and global obligations. It’s time we acted like it.

The Planet Democracy: Unfiltered North

Canadian Generals Are Losing It: Sweden's Offer Exposes the F-35 as a Trump-Proofing Trap
Hard Pass: The $42,000/hour F-35 is a budget black hole. The Gripen is a Canadian-made escape route.
...The deepest flaw in the F-35 deal is the unspoken one: dependency. The F-35 runs on U.S. proprietary software. That means any future U.S. President, especially one like Donald Trump, holds a theoretical veto or control over our entire air force.
The urgency of this choice was highlighted when Prime Minister Carney ordered a review of the F-35 contract specifically because of Trump’s trade threats and “expansionist” political rhetoric.
Trump views us not as a strong NATO partner, but strictly as a customer, one he is free to delay, punish, or downgrade with a whim. He is currently selling the exact same “top secret” F-35s to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). This is the same prince the CIA concluded ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and who retaliated against Canada’s human rights stance by freezing trade and expelling our ambassador.
That MBS, the one who punishes Canada for daring to speak up, gets priority access to the “top secret” U.S. fighter jets. Meanwhile, Canada is treated like a bothersome roommate who forgot to pay the power bill. The message is loud and clear: if you pay Trump enough, you are part of the club. If you are Canada? You are simply a “freeloader” he will publicly scold on Truth Social.
If we purchase the F-35, we accept the role of a client, not an equal ally. Partnering with Sweden, where the technology is shared and built on our soil, establishes us as an equal partner. This choice is between genuine, shared sovereignty and becoming a disposable widget thrown into a larger trade deal.
The choice is undeniable: Do we consent to lining up behind the Saudis for a jet the former Dealmaker-in-Chief can remotely disable, or do we stand with Sweden and secure our long-term independence? This isn’t about being anti-American; it is about being fiercely pro-Canadian....

 

THE SMART STRATEGIC decision is for Canada to operate two advanced fighters in a much larger fighter fleet then we currently have within the RCAF. It’s what we used to do when we were a serious nation. In the Cold War, we operated 400+ fighters of multiple types in multiple roles. We can do it again. It’s what our serious allies, even those smaller than us, do now. Sovereignty isn’t cheap. But, without it, nothing else really matters. The F35 and the Gripen E are complementary. The Gripen is specifically designed for operations in Sweden’s north, from austere airfields, with minimal maintenance and support. Exactly what Canada needs for patrolling our massive landmass. The F35 is the most advanced fighter in the world ideally suited for contributing to the hard work of facing down peer adversaries alongside our NATO and global allies. Without supporting them, we cannot expect them to support us. Without their support, we cannot defend our sovereignty alone.

- Mark Towhey

Read on Substack

And here's a funnier take:

View on Threads

Moving on, I thought this was an interesting post describing Carney's influence in the world now:

A very interesting read. From the post … “Two political figures have quietly become structural anchors in a moment where the democratic world is being hit from multiple directions: Mark Carney in Canada and Friedrich Merz in Germany. They are not similar personalities. They don’t share the same political culture, background, or temperament. But both stepped into power at a time when the Western project is exposed from almost every axis — economically, militarily, institutionally, technologically, and politically. Carney matters because he is one of the few leaders in the G7 who can actually think in systems. He understands supply chains, capital flows, financial risk, institutional architecture, energy transitions, and the fragility of the North American industrial base. In an era of weaponised tariffs from Washington, broken global trade rules, and a Chinese slowdown that will reshape entire markets, a Canadian leader who can hold a long-term structural vision is not optional — it is stabilising. Canada sits on the world’s most important mineral endowments, and it is becoming the hinge between North America and Europe. Carney is the one leader who sees that and acts accordingly. Merz matters because Germany is the centre of gravity in Europe — industrially, fiscally, and strategically — and because Europe is under direct threat from Russia for the first time in decades. If Europe hesitates, Ukraine falls. If Ukraine falls, Europe’s entire security perimeter collapses. Merz is the only German leader in years who talks openly about rearmament, nuclear viability, strategic independence, and the need for Europe to act like a continent facing real danger rather than a museum of post–Cold War illusions. His stance breaks decades of political inertia inside Germany’s system. One leader, Carney, is rebuilding the economic and industrial backbone. The other, Merz, is forcing Europe to confront the military reality it has postponed for three decades. Both of them are dragging the democratic coalition toward safety, month by month. The process is slow, but the direction is unmistakable. And both leaders need all the support they can get, because the oligarchs will not stop. Their extraction machine will never pause on its own. It has to be stopped — or it will hollow out the democratic world entirely. In this moment, Carney and Merz are not just important figures. They are the only viable counter-force we have.”

- Anne Ward

Read on Substack