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?
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.