Cancellation of the F-35 contract is now a necessity: when and how, not if

[Army Guy]

On 3/10/2025 at 5:54 PM, Michael Hardner said:

This also makes sense.

A cancellation would send a clear message though.

So we should cancel the order and not order anymore? 🤔

Somehow Michael i don't think trump gets messages...he is good at sending them, just not receiving....his mailbox is full.

[Army Guy]

On 3/10/2025 at 3:46 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

You live in Canada, right? Saying it’s about not ‘liking’ Trump does not in any way describe the crisis he has caused between our two states and the lack of trust that has resulted. Are you even going to address Trump’s outrageous recent behaviour? 

 

 

It is not about addressing trump's behavior, this is about giving Canadian pilots the best aircraft for our tax dollars, who are  currently driving 40 year plus aircraft...let politician's fondle themselves, and fight over the political stuff....and lets give our military pilots a running chance the next time our country calls upon them to put their lives on the line...the gulf war was a prime example of that, we did not have the right comms to talk to other nato aircraft, nor did we have smart munitions, all we had was basic dumb bombs, and air to air missiles....it was embarrassing..The F-35 is the best aircraft for the best price, canceling this would be cutting off your nose despite your face...the Euro fighter is the only non american fighter with any merit but is way more expensive to purchase ,by more than 40 mil a copy more...

Along with that F-35 most air weapons are made in America do we cancel them as well, to make a point that in 3 and a bit years this guy is going to be gone....and we will have these aircraft for 40 plus years...

[myata]

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

this is about giving Canadian pilots the best aircraft for our tax dollars, who are  currently driving 40 year plus aircraft...let politician's fondle themselves, and fight over the political stuff..

I can't figure out, is it just dumb, or watching Fox news non-stop making irreversible changes in the brain?

Do you see/understand:

1. He keeps talking about making Canada his "51 state", just yesterday and again.

2. They can disable them in a matter of days, by withholding critical updates (fait accompli, a factual precedent)

Can you (still) add 1 and 1 together, for the obvious result?

Or can one really lie like this, bold face, right into the eyes of the country and the reality? Or what is it, else?

 

[myata]

"He will be gone in ... years", the new lying cliche to distract from obvious questions they won't answer. And then, what? They can guarantee it? In three years, sure they can but not now no chance. Makes sense?

Edited March 12 by myata

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, myata said:

I can't figure out, is it just dumb, or watching Fox news non-stop making irreversible changes in the brain?

Do you see/understand:

1. He keeps talking about making Canada his "51 state", just yesterday and again.

2. They can disable them in a matter of days, by withholding critical updates (fait accompli, a factual precedent)

Can you (still) add 1 and 1 together, for the obvious result?

Or can one really lie like this, bold face, right into the eyes of the country and the reality? Or what is it, else?

 

Should i hide under the same bed as you are, we will never become the 51 st state....unless people like you give up...

Try again, that is not the main issue, the main issue is with the planning module, which does not make the plane inoperable, does not stop it from flying, and there is a manual option, stop making stuff up...many different manufactures do the same thing withhold rights to software, do you honestly think the Canadian air force has not thought this through, do you think it would but an aircraft that could be shut down...by anyone....really...you grasping straws here...do some research FFS. 

not sure what your problem is, are you having a stroke are you off your meds, 

[Army Guy]

Statement from lockheed martin, about kill switches...Note what they say about software upgrades, the jets work fine with current software applications, and don't need constant upgrades to remain effective...In other words no kill switches... 

 

Lockheed Martin

In response to Swiss media reports of similar kill switch concerns, Lockheed Martin published a post on their website on Monday titled 'Switzerland can use their F-35s independently'. 

The company says that blocking the F-35A fighter jets, through external interventions in the electronics, is not possible. 

 

"Switzerland does not need consent if it wants to use its weapon systems or guided missiles for its defence," the post reads. "It can do this autonomously, independently, and at any time".  

Countries like Switzerland can also decide when they want to upgrade the software of the fighter jets or not, and the missiles remain operational without these upgrades. 

If a country does want to upgrade, Lockheed said it sends a "mobile team" to carry out the updates with the respective government.

Can the US turn off European weapons? Experts weigh in on 'kill switch' fears

[myata]

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Try again, that is not the main issue, the main issue is with the planning module, which does not make the plane inoperable, does not stop it from flying, and there is a manual option, stop making stuff up...many different manufactures do the same thing withhold rights to software, do you honestly think the Canadian air force has not thought this through, do you think it would but an aircraft that could be shut down...by anyone....really...you grasping straws here...do some research FFS.

This is a lot of words except there's the reality: yes, it's been done already. In Ukraine. Critical support for electronic warfare component was halted or paused, resulting in an operational vulnerability. What other functions are vulnerable? To what extent, could it extend all the way to disabling the plane for example if one or more of critical updates were missing? We need to have good, solid answers and certainly not from hurray-patriots" of your kind, just believe me nothing bad could happen we were such cool buddies years back.

Edited March 13 by myata

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Statement from lockheed martin, about kill switches...Note what they say about software upgrades, the jets work fine with current software applications, and don't need constant upgrades to remain effective...In other words no kill switches... 

 

Lockheed Martin

In response to Swiss media reports of similar kill switch concerns, Lockheed Martin published a post on their website on Monday titled 'Switzerland can use their F-35s independently'. 

The company says that blocking the F-35A fighter jets, through external interventions in the electronics, is not possible. 

 

"Switzerland does not need consent if it wants to use its weapon systems or guided missiles for its defence," the post reads. "It can do this autonomously, independently, and at any time".  

Countries like Switzerland can also decide when they want to upgrade the software of the fighter jets or not, and the missiles remain operational without these upgrades. 

If a country does want to upgrade, Lockheed said it sends a "mobile team" to carry out the updates with the respective government.

Can the US turn off European weapons? Experts weigh in on 'kill switch' fears

none the less, the F-35 is totally dependant upon America for logistics ;

maintenance, parts & software,

if that was cut off, the fleet wouldn't become unusable overnight,

but it wouldn't be long before most of the fleet was severely degraded / non serviceable

[Dougie93]

On 3/11/2025 at 5:41 PM, Aristides said:

 None would match the F-35's stealth for strike.

but if Canada is becoming an adversary of America ; strike is less of a requirement,

since the whole purpose of F-35 is to join the Americans in bombing other countries,

it's not like the F-35 is the right platform for the Defence of Canada,

if all you are doing is defending Canadian airspace, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the better option;

you don't need stealth in the defensive role

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, myata said:

This is a lot of words except there's the reality: yes, it's been done already. In Ukraine. Critical support for electronic warfare component was halted or paused, resulting in an operational vulnerability. What other functions are vulnerable? To what extent, could it extend all the way to disabling the plane for example if one or more of critical updates were missing? We need to have good, solid answers and certainly not from hurray-patriots" of your kind, just believe me nothing bad could happen we were such cool buddies years back.

I gave you a source from lockheed, what more do you need, just recently a British air marshal said it was all false news....You can't turn off any capabilities remotely...Let me ask you does your computer still work before you update it...It will operate regardless if you update it or not, does it run better with an update sure, but you don't lose any operational networks if you don't...

ONCE again you can not control anything or any system on a fighter jet remotely , you can't turn it on or off from the states... Those F-16 are from europe not the states and YOU don't know what programs have been installed for what weapons....and if you did not have that update for that certain weapon then you can't use that certain weapon....but you can still use all the weapons it has been programed for....Again do some research yourself, if you don't trust me or my sources....instead of putting our false news...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

but if Canada is becoming an adversary of America ; strike is less of a requirement,

since the whole purpose of F-35 is to join the Americans in bombing other countries,

it's not like the F-35 is the right platform for the Defence of Canada,

if all you are doing is defending Canadian airspace, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the better option;

you don't need stealth in the defensive role

True but you can't shoot down something you can't see...F-35 has that capability, it can not win a knife fight, it was designed to kill from distance. 

[myata]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

instead of putting our false news...

Look honestly I've been growing at tad disappointed with this kind of "argument" lately. Let's see: I gave a reference to a directly related story from a reputable world-level media company. And you, a brief statement from the manufacturer, obviously with the strongest vested interest possible, that doesn't address the specific incident in any way. So what is it, again? A cognitive disability? Or could it be the fox (news) syndrome?

Edited March 13 by myata

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

Look honestly I've been growing at tad disappointed with this kind of "argument" lately. Let's see: I gave a reference to a directly related story from a reputable world-level media company. And you, a brief statement from the manufacturer, obviously with the strongest vested interest possible, that doesn't address the specific incident in any way. So what is it, again? A cognitive disability? Or could it be the fox (news) syndrome?

Look your right , believe whatever you want to , if you don't want to do your own research then that's fine. I guess our Air force does not have the smarts enough to buy an aircraft that can be shut down according to you and your source...

It is the best Aircraft on the market today that is available to Canada, we have already invested billions within our partnership with other nations, YOU want to throw that away because you don't like trump...you have no concern over our own service members that will be flying a second rate aircraft that does not have half the capabilities as the f-35....

What you don't know is most if not all our aircraft Weapons' are purchased from the americans, Most of the combat systems on our new Frigates are american, including all the radars, missiles, etc...our Chinook fleet is american bought, same as C-130, C-17, P-8....lots more do we get rid of all that i mean we still need parts and weapons to fly all those aircraft...because you don't like the President....Good reason...

[Dougie93]

23 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

True but you can't shoot down something you can't see...F-35 has that capability, it can not win a knife fight, it was designed to kill from distance. 

the F-35 is optimized for interdiction,

that is destroying ground forces prior to them making contact,

secondary role is air support of friendly ground forces in contact in a non stealth configuration,

but air to air, it is not an superiority fighter,

yes, the F-35 can execute high angle of attack manoeuvre, to defend itself air to air,

but that would bleed off all its energy, leaving it vulnerable to secondary attacks,

by all reports the F-35 is fast, but as soon as you pull hard into a turning fight, it slows down to a crawl,

F-35 is for penetrating Integrated Air & Missile Defence Systems to strike ground targets,

but it's not actually worth the price if all you are doing is air defence / air policing

[myata]

55 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Look your right , believe whatever you want to , if you don't want to do your own research then that's fine. I guess our Air force does not have the smarts enough to buy an aircraft that can be shut down according to you and your source...

Yes that is a possibility if on the other end of the story we have a confirmed, objective fact. Either someone has to explain, in full detail, for each essential and critical function why it couldn't happen here. Or your claim is just bogus, wishful thinking let's hope for the best... as the basis of national security?

Edited March 13 by myata

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Yes that is a possibility if on the other end of the story we have a confirmed, objective fact. Either someone has to explain, in full detail, for each essential and critical function why it couldn't happen here. Or your claim is just bogus, wishful thinking let's hope for the best... as the basis of national security?

It is not my claim, do some research on your own...At most the US could hold back on upgrades, spare parts, but there has never been any kill switches it is false news...I'm sorry i can't hold your hand on this one...I guess you don't think much of our air force or their abilities to pick one of the best aircraft in the world....

Their is rumor that the US air force may be divesting away from the F-35....rumors from the American media, they are not purchasing as many , and waiting on fixes for some problems...

https://simpleflying.com/us-air-force-f-35-inventory-plan-analysis/

[myata]

We have the first confirmed fact now: Portugal will not be proceeding with the F-35 purchase because of Trump. They must have done some research on what can and cannot be done.

[Aristides]

Seems we are revisiting the F-35 purchase. Looks like Portugal is not going to buy it citing US unpredictability. They will be going with a European aircraft.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-blair-trump-1.7484477

https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/13/portugal-f-35-plans/

Typhoon might be the best option but it also has the highest flyaway cost, although operating costs might be lower. We could buy 4 Gripen for the price of 3 F-35's and operating costs would be quite a bit lower. There must be some interesting conversations going on between the airforce and politicians.

I believe we have already paid for the first 16 F-35's plus spares and tooling for most of the fleet so I imagine we will wind up with at least some of them.

 

Edited March 15 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

56 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 although operating costs might be lower.

that's the big difference,

Typhoon is $15,000 per flight hour, F-35 is $30,000

the infrastructure, software and Electronic Intelligence gathering required to maintain Stealth ;

that's where the money goes,

ultimately, the F-35 is highly specialized, it's a bomber designed to penetrate enemy air defences,

which is not that relevant to the defence of Canada,

you don't need a single engine stealth bomber to defend the Arctic,

if anything, F-35 is a liability in that role,

the most important thing to the defence of Canada, to include the Arctic ; is boots on the ground,

if Canada was serious, the navy would be going all in nuclear attack submarines,

to defend the maritime approaches and trade on the high seas,

while maintaining a large army capable of rapidly deploying to occupy Canadian territory,

in terms of air power to drop bombs, drones are becoming the arm of decision there,

neither the Russian nor Ukrainian air forces are flying over each others territory,

both sides are now relying on drones to launch bombing attacks

Edited March 15 by Dougie93

[herbie]

The Typhoon is also a twin engine fighter which Canada has always required for northern patrol. The Gripen is more than capable for defence, which is the role both are supposed to play.
We could get more fighters for the same price, from trustworthy suppliers, and maybe the handful of F35s we have to to meet contracts.

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

The Typhoon is also a twin engine fighter which Canada has always required for northern patrol. The Gripen is more than capable for defence, which is the role both are supposed to play.
We could get more fighters for the same price, from trustworthy suppliers, and maybe the handful of F35s we have to to meet contracts.

Twin engines is no longer a requirement for Canada hence the F-35 purchase...today's tech makes these engines much more reliable. And NO the Grippen does not have half the capabilities as the F-35 it is not even on the same playing field...F-35 could down several grippens before they even knew the F-35 was there, all from distance...

Yes the Grippen is cheaper, but again it comes with half the capabilities...lets not forget the Air force has tested the grippen, and typhoon and none of them beat the F-35, not even close...but what do they know about flying stuff...

As for a trustworthy supplier this is the first time in what over 100 years that we have any issues with American supplied equipment, NO ONE can guarantee any nation will be a trustworthy supplier for ever unless we built it here, and thats not going to happen........... some politicians has a knot in his ass, and wants to use this purchase for political points...

Screw what the military has done towards this project, screw how many decades this would put us back, and screw we are currently flying 40 plus year old fighters we have now, that are costing us more to maintain, to fly, and are obsolete in a modern high intensity warfare conflict. like i have said many times it is cheaper to bury our own people than give them the latest in modern equipment, and their lives mean nothing to some politicians or Canadian they don't care....

Typhoon is the best 4.5 gen fighter out there right now, but it costs 40 million more per copy....if the sticker price is not going to make you sh1t your pants then that would be the next best choice...But even the europeans are looking and very close to the next gen european aircraft, i would say in 10 years time typhoon would be starting to retire...

Edited March 15 by Army Guy

[TreeBeard]

Carney orders review of F35 purchase.  
 

Do we owe the Americans our business?  There are other alternatives, despite the claims of the pretend expert partisan hacks. 
 

The Gripen sounds ideal.  
 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-blair-trump-1.7484477

[xul]

Never underestimate the power of AI and never underestimate how low US may go:

 

[xul]

Actually, if F-35 is out of option, Canada should not buy any fighter jets right now. Europeans are seeking independence from US so they have to begin to develop their own 5G or 6G fighter jets soon.  Why not saving $90 billion now and joining the party later to get more fair share from any new project?

[Dougie93]

11 hours ago, xul said:

Actually, if F-35 is out of option, Canada should not buy any fighter jets right now. Europeans are seeking independence from US so they have to begin to develop their own 5G or 6G fighter jets soon.  Why not saving $90 billion now and joining the party later to get more fair share from any new project?

indeed, the CF-18's can be operated for time some yet,

it's not like Canada uses more than a handful of them anyways,

buying F-35 was only to appease America

but fighter jets are not actually at the top of Canada's list of military needs,

Canada's military crisis is a personnel crisis,

Canada can't get enough people recruited & trained to operate what equipment Canada has now,

the air force is actually the best equipped of the three service branches,

the army is the service which is in the most pitiful state,

if the air force does have an urgent need, it's not replacing the CF-18's

rather it is replacing the CH-146 Griffon tactical helicopters which support the army

the threats to Canada are not invasion by conventional forces,

there's very few scenarios imaginable wherein the defence of Canada requires a stealth bomber,

even Canada has to fight for NATO in Europe, that will be the army being deployed for that

Edited March 16 by Dougie93