Just curious as to why you think Ottawa (Canada) now faces two bad choices while mentioning the Gripen My morning without my coffee yet brain is confused.
Hi Claire... totally fair question (and you’re not alone, this one trips a lot of people up before caffeine ☕).
When I say Ottawa is facing two bad choices, I’m talking about this bind...
Option 1: Stay locked into the F-35 path
→ extremely expensive, long delays, deep dependency on the U.S. for parts, software, and permissions.
Option 2: Reopen or pivot to something like the Gripen
→ faster, cheaper, more sovereign control but politically messy after years of mixed signals and sunk costs.
The Gripen gets mentioned not as a perfect solution, but as a contrast... it shows Canada does have alternatives, even if Ottawa has painted itself into a corner where every exit now comes with a penalty.
So it’s less “Gripen good / F-35 bad” and more...
how did we end up in a position where none of the remaining options are clean anymore?
Hope that helps... and no shame in rereading after coffee. ☕🙂
That’s a sharp read... and you’re zeroing in on the part that actually matters.
Cost overruns are rarely just about money. They’re the moment when the spell breaks. As long as prices behave, lock-in gets tolerated. The second a supplier moves the goalposts mid-contract, everyone suddenly remembers there were alternatives all along.
You’re right about the Gripen angle too. The aircraft itself almost becomes secondary. What changes the equation is manufacturing transfer... who controls the tooling, the maintenance, the upgrades, and the decision-making when geopolitics gets messy.
Economic sovereignty and military autonomy do move together. Once you give up one, the other quietly follows. And clawing them back later is always more expensive than people expect.
That’s why this debate matters beyond jets. It’s really about how comfortable a country is being permanently dependent... and how much pain it’s willing to absorb before questioning that arrangement.
F-35 Fighter Jet. Buy Now, Pay Later!
Just curious as to why you think Ottawa (Canada) now faces two bad choices while mentioning the Gripen My morning without my coffee yet brain is confused.
Hi Claire... totally fair question (and you’re not alone, this one trips a lot of people up before caffeine ☕).
When I say Ottawa is facing two bad choices, I’m talking about this bind...
Option 1: Stay locked into the F-35 path
→ extremely expensive, long delays, deep dependency on the U.S. for parts, software, and permissions.
Option 2: Reopen or pivot to something like the Gripen
→ faster, cheaper, more sovereign control but politically messy after years of mixed signals and sunk costs.
The Gripen gets mentioned not as a perfect solution, but as a contrast... it shows Canada does have alternatives, even if Ottawa has painted itself into a corner where every exit now comes with a penalty.
So it’s less “Gripen good / F-35 bad” and more...
how did we end up in a position where none of the remaining options are clean anymore?
Hope that helps... and no shame in rereading after coffee. ☕🙂
That’s a sharp read... and you’re zeroing in on the part that actually matters.
Cost overruns are rarely just about money. They’re the moment when the spell breaks. As long as prices behave, lock-in gets tolerated. The second a supplier moves the goalposts mid-contract, everyone suddenly remembers there were alternatives all along.
You’re right about the Gripen angle too. The aircraft itself almost becomes secondary. What changes the equation is manufacturing transfer... who controls the tooling, the maintenance, the upgrades, and the decision-making when geopolitics gets messy.
Economic sovereignty and military autonomy do move together. Once you give up one, the other quietly follows. And clawing them back later is always more expensive than people expect.
That’s why this debate matters beyond jets. It’s really about how comfortable a country is being permanently dependent... and how much pain it’s willing to absorb before questioning that arrangement.