I am by no means an expert, I just listen to Perun, William Spaniel and Ryan McCabe a lot (and War Fronts et al). Probably the most pressing need for newer more reliable fighters are as interceptors. Russia has historically flown missions to "buzz" the airspace of NATO countries. I think the Baltics are more of a hotspot, and Alaska, but I would assume that Russia will likely do the same to ours more in the future as well. Especially considering we have already banned Russian civilian aircraft from Canadian airspace since 2022.

Second to that would be in support of NATO allies. Canada has routinely used our CF-18's in support of overseas operations of our allies. I would expect we would like to continue to do so. This is one of those things where if you want allies you probably need to pull your own weight… or surrender something else. I'm certain we could avoid this necessity and just accept increased US concessions. I can't remember who said it, but I've found it useful to consider the US as a "security exporter". They are getting something in return for their defence spending. Which is also what's so concerning, the current administration seems completely ignorant of even the cold Realpolitik calculus of US defence spending.

As to the second part, I would expect our NATO allies would appreciate some Canadian F-35s stationed in Poland say.

The third is straight up national defence. Having the equipment means that anyone actually attacking us needs to deal with the equipment. The old adage is that defence capability is built capability. You have the equipment you already have, not the equipment you are buying and will have soon. This 3rd requirement is where F-35 gets really dodgy. We have an ocean and the longest undefended border, what threats do we really face on the home front? Really? Well, even though I think it's unlikely, it is undeniable that it is vastly less unlikely than it was last year that we could be defending ourselves against US attacks. This could be from US freedom of navigation patrols of the Northwest Passage to an actual land invasion. Don't forget the best scenario is that nothing happens because it's not worth it to start anything.

The F-35 is a finicky and high maintenance race horse. It is highly capable but not rugged. That's fine for the first two requirements, but not great for the 3rd if airbases are targets. This is another reason why Gripen as a stopgap to GCAP seems like a better and better idea. Add in that the US could withhold parts and software updates to further degrade F-35 capability and it becomes less capable in this (currently) unlikely but absolutely devastating scenario.

I'm probably missing a lot, that's just my impressions as a non-expert. As a non-expert I think we should probably stick with 22 or maybe even 44 F-35s. We can take delivery of them soonest, they are very capable, and they absolutely rock for the first two requirements. The money saved should probably go to Gripen (or Typhoon) since we could order and take delivery in parallel, meaning more fighters faster (see requirement 3). Finally, we should use some of the increase in defence spending to join GCAP. Once our defence aerospace industry is a bit healthier than we can explore further capabilities.

Probably a difference in risk assessment. I'd say I'm 99% certain the US won't invade Canada in the next 4 years. Granted I was 99.99% certain, so that's a hundred fold increase in risk.

Also consider the risk of F-35 being sabotaged. It's not 100%. Lockheed-Martin did not build in a kill switch. The risk is realistically more one of maintenance which does include software. More likely F-35 would be degraded rather than dead on the tarmac. I also discount this risk because in an actual US invasion scenario I don't think we can buy enough F-35 or Gripen fast enough to make much of a difference and what little defence production we have is close to the border. A US invasion scenario would mostly be an insurgency.

Still F-35 is what everyone is buying for a reason. It's also what everyone is concerned about for a reason. Like I said, 16 or 22 F-35 should be a no-brainer. They're already paid for. They are the most capable fighter currently, and they are good for everything we are likely to need them for.

How much more than that makes sense is where I get very uncertain. Arguably the best way to spend more on defence and get nothing in return is analysis paralysis. The other is gold-plating your procurement, and F-35 is already kind of the gold-plated option but it's also got the best economies of scale so that's probably not really here nor there.

I think Canada needs to build our armed forces, and we need to be quick and efficient about it. We are already on the waitlist for F-35, and they will support objectives such as supporting allies and arctic patrol. The only thing they aren't good at is defending against US invasion, but that is mostly because they are maintenance intensive (there is a reason I keep coming back to Gripen).

I also really like the GCAP program. I think it's a great way to reinvigorate our domestic aerospace industry. Gripen and Typhoon would also help reinvigorate domestic aerospace.

Finally, more money to defence industries in the US just helps the US. Walking away from fighters we've already paid for just let's them keep our money and sell those jets elsewhere. Halving (or one-quartering) our order gets us something that is still very useful, gets us that something about as fast as practical, and also messes with their economies of scale.

Put that all together I'm in the 22-44 F-35 camp, money saved into Gripen, join GCAP. Dual sourced fighters should show dual delivery. Saab is already working on a different Gripen revision replacing the US sourced engine.

You may disagree with my reasoning or conclusions, plus I'm 90% certain I put more thought into the question than 90% of the respondents to the survey. Assuming it was some basic "Should Canada cancel the F-35 contract?" question, how would you answer for me?

Depends on the question. We've already paid for 16 of the F-35s, and we'd just be throwing money away if we totally scrapped the program. Plus F-35 is the most advanced of what's available.

I think we need to de-risk our armed forces, but trying to to keep relying on CF-18s that we know are unreliable vs. F-35 that might be unreliable is pretty clearcut. What I am less unsure of is how many F-35 we should continue with. 16 seems obvious. How many more? What would we get as a substitute? Should we look at GCAP or FCAS instead of or in addition to any of the above questions? Typhoon? Gripen?

So if the question was should we buy any F-35, I would be a yes. Should we buy 88 F-35, I'm a no.

There are two things that I find soothing in the recent debacle wrt basic Canadian sovereignty.

First, executive authority resides in the PM, and the PM is selected by and must face question period in the House of Commons. The vaunted US system of checks and balances is useless when the other branches are compromised.

Second, the fundamental problem in the US isn't structural, it's that around a third of the electorate is okay with the rank corruption and self-dealing from the top. They cheer on the acts of a Presidential monarch. It doesn't matter how your democracy is structured, when around a third of your electorate no longer values democratic traditions you are in a dangerous place.

In Canada though, we've seen a fairly strong repudiation of Maple MAGA and the Qonvoy movement. It's a little weird, I've seen Qonvoyers missing the point, thinking everyone is on side with them somehow, because Canadian flags? But the ratio of pro-Qonvoy pro-Canada sentiment (where there isn't an obvious and rampant bot problem) seems to skew pretty far away from the Qonvoyers. I think we face the same dangers the US is facing, but it looks like we have a little more runway.

As to point 2, do not rely on Xitter for your news. It has turned into an algorithmically twisted bot-manipulated hellscape of discord and echo chambers. Speaking to the choir here on Lemmy.ca Canada community, but encourage Canadians to make an account on a Canadian Mastodon or Lemmy instance. I recommend dipping their toe into the Fediverse with Mastodon, and just following some Canadian news sources.

With Tulsi Gabbard as the US Director of National Intelligence, how much do we want to leak to Russia?

I'll take it. The sentiment was solid.

Chemical warfare. These bombers are carrying a chemical called "Dihydrogen Monoxide" or DHMO. What effect does adding a chemical containing Hydrogen and Oxygen to fires have?

Why isn't Trump talking about this Canadian chemical attack?

I think it was PS3 that shipped with "Other OS" functionality, and were sold a little cheaper than production costs would indicate, to make it up on games.

Only thing is, a bunch of institutions discovered you could order a pallet of PS3's, set up Linux, and have a pretty skookum cluster for cheap.

I'm pretty sure Sony dropped "Other OS" not because of vague concerns of piracy, but because they were effectively subsidizing supercomputers.

Don't know if any of those PS3 clusters made it onto Top500.

I read the article, and it seems that the YouTube channel "Street Politics Canada" is run by a company called Geek Labs, run out of Cairo, Egypt. Also, the editor, "Emily T" is presumably Emily Torjusen, an American woman who moved to Cairo and works at Geek Labs.

Of course the people forwarding these videos on Facebook don't care.

Virtualization is the key. Multiple VMs, installing, uninstalling, reinstalling.

What's more American than high rates of gun violence? I think we may have an answer…

That's because the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit. They don't need to maximize value for their shareholders™.

Thank you Netscape for setting Navigator free!

The Enshitification cycle is a feature of for profit corporations, Google was always going to turn evil at some point.