European nations and Canada are “pushing away” from the F-35, motivated by a desire for “strategic autonomy” and political friction with the Trump administration
Spain officially canceled its F-35 purchase in August 2025, opting for European-built alternatives. Switzerland is now also reviewing its 36-jet deal after being hit with a “shocking” $1.3 billion price hike and new 39% U.S. tariffs, and recent reports suggest that Portugal has not opted to purchase the U.S. jets
Instead of the F-35, they are increasingly looking to European alternatives, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Future Combat Air System (FCAS).
Canada’s 88-jet deal is also in “limbo,” as PM Mark Carney, angered by Trump’s “51st state” comments and trade disputes, ordered a review of the 72 un-committed jets
Technological and industrial sovereignty are significant reasons why some countries are opting not to purchase the F-35. Some European nations prioritize developing their own defense industries and technological bases. Buying American-made F-35s would make them dependent on US supply chains and could suppress the development of their own next-generation aircraft programs. ...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sunshine@piefed.social 46 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fucking finally!

[–] mintiefresh@piefed.social 22 points 1 day ago

I find it wild that we are still considering buying military planes from a country that is threatening our sovereignty lol. I'm sure it's more complex but ..... also, it doesn't have to be. Just buy from somewhere else.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I think as of now RCAF still wants them and the deal isn't off yet. I imagine it's also a card that's used in the negotiations with the US. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up staying with the F35s.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

It's understandable that the RCAF still wants it; There's literally no other option with the same capabilities. The Gripen is an excellent plane, but it's not a fifth gen fighter. Unless we want to start buying planes from China, we're SOL if we want another fifth gen option. I'm not personally advocating to continue with the purchase, I think we should go ahead and build the Gripen here in Canada and use that as a stopgap while we get on board with one of the European sixth gen fighter programs. But I can absolutely see why the RCAF doesn't feel the same way. They're a small air force and they need every advantage they can get. Based on its performance against F-16s I have no doubt the Gripen could shoot down Russian fighters at a ten to one rate, but I also have no doubt that the F-35 would be closer to a hundred to one rate (in Fermi approximation terms), and one could certainly argue that we need that if we end up on the front lines of a war with Russia.

I still lean towards the Gripen, but I'll admit I go back and forth on this. It's not a cut and dry decision either way.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The F35 is primarily a air to ground strike aircraft. Gen 5 is mainly semi stealth benefits. It is disadvantaged relative to air to air specialized planes who are faster (lighter) and more maneuverable.

The only possible role for Canadian F35 is as force amplification to US bombing campaign. The kill switch, or permission to turn on switch, makes it a useless weapon against the US. It is an extremely overpriced plane with low reliability, and flight hours. If RCAF wants the plane it is because they are more loyal to US empire force amplification than Canadian defense needs, and anyone who holds that view needs to be convicted of treason. No trial whatsoever is needed, as long as they are proven to not be functionally full tropic thunder.

We need to not just cancel the contract first, and negotiate later, Demand refund for existing planes.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

The F35 is primarily a air to ground strike aircraft. Gen 5 is mainly semi stealth benefits. It is disadvantaged relative to air to air specialized planes who are faster (lighter) and more maneuverable.

This is something you'll hear a lot, often from seemingly respectable sources, but it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern air combat works.

Manueverability is meaningless. Dog fighting is a thing of the past. Stealth is not a disadvantage in air-to-air combat, it's the only thing that matters in air-to-air combat. The model has fundamentally changed; it's submarine / tank combat now. The winner is the person who sees their opponent first.

The people who describe the F-35 as unsuited to air combat are speaking from an entirely outdated understanding of how air combat works. Some of those people are even experts in that model of air combat, but that's like being an expert on vacuum tubes in a world of microchips.

[–] TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Most people don't really understand the problem. It's either make a deal with an ally run by lunatics, or suffer a decade long capability gap that your military may not be able to overcome.

There are no other 5th gen options, and 4++ are becoming more vulnerable with the proliferation of effective air defense. The first available 6th gen outside of US export controls will be on the wrong side of 2030.

This is an incredibly difficult choice for Canada with no perfect options.

Both China and Russia are expanding their arctic presence. The US is electing nationalist demagogues on a platform of betraying our allies. It's possible Canada may have a peer to peer conflict in the next 5 to 10 years. Canada possibly can't afford that big of a capability gap if that's the case.

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I imagine they will stall as long as they can to see if MAGA loses their grip. 0% chance of agreeing to the rest of the F-35s if MAGA is still in power.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

I hope you're right and I do think that's likely what's happening but I'm not certain.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

I imagine it's also a card that's used in the negotiations with the US.

I have no doubt that it is.

A smart negotiator doesn't play all their cards at the start. They gradually bring out their various pressure points over time when it is strategic to do so. And they hold back the "nuclear option" until it becomes necessary.