255
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2026
255 points (100.0% liked)
World News
56275 readers
1512 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Gripen is next. With a factory coming to Canada to produce them, under the wise guidance of our Swedish friends. Win-win for Canada, although buying war machines is a lose-lose for humanity.
I agree with you friend, that buying war machines is a lose-lose, but I also think is necessary, to avoid situations like the invasion from greedy old men, like what Russia attempted with Ukraine
It isn't strategic for Canada to invest in its airforce, because it is mostly useless for the types of wars Canada may find itself into:
A foreign (non-American) adversary attacks Canada: won't be necessary since the United States will intervene automatically as it doesn't want to have a (probably nuclear capable) enemy at its border.
The United States attacks Canada: The airforce will probably be destroyed on the ground as they did with Iran. Asymmetrical warfare will be Canada's best leverage here.
Canada attacks a foreign nation for some reason: This is just going to fail abysmally. Reminder that Canada doesn't even operate an aircraft carrier. If it attacks as part of a coalition, the CAF won't be the determining factor in victory or defeat.
Strong fences make good neighbours
If Canada buys the Gripen, it's basically an admission that they have no plans of using them on a modern battlefield, as their survivability would be extremely low. The same goes for any sub 5th generation platform.
And you know what? That's probably okay. The only modern war Canada would be likely to engage in, is one where they're fighting alongside the United States, and that doesn't seem like it would happen anytime soon either.
Correct, we don't.
What I should have said, is that buying the Gripen is an admission that they are voluntarily forfeiting their ability to fight a modern war.
And i'm not saying that's a bad thing. What I am saying is that an acquisition program for a 4th generation fighter in the year 2026 is an incredible waste of resources.
Might as well hold out and wait to acquire a 6th gen European platform, which should be available in the early 2040s.
I should have put it differently as well; what I meant was that Canada simply doesn't have the capability to fight a modern war, and it never will. There's too great of a differential between our main adversaries ( historically the USA, more recently Russia, and in a more far-fetched way China and India) and Canada; the metrics will never match up.
Come to think of it, Canada has never fought a war per se. It has only assisted in wars, usually as part some sort of Anglo-American coalition. I argue that we shouldn't get involved in British or American wars (like we recently declined with Iran) and hence we wouldn't really need any fighter capability. But in any case, even as part of an allied coalition, Canada will not be able to be the difference maker in the fight. We cannot determine the outcome of a war, that will be up to what our allies can make happen.
And therefore, we will not be starting any war; we might begrudgingly join one, in which case our allies will have to carry the day. None of these cases requires a powerful fighter fleet.
Relying on the Europeans to achieve anything is basically a waste of time. Sure they may be able to do it, after long delays, but as I mentioned, 6th gen isn't the point. The recon planes are a better asset that will actually see practical use; I would have preferred to see the E-3 Sentry get selected over this radar mounted on a business jet thing, but no one is going to cry over Boeing missing a contract. Maybe the Americans could put some duct tape on the ones they "damaged" in Iran and call it refurbished?
You shouldn't. But you should have the capability to fight a modern war in case you or your allies come under attack. Neither Russia nor America look all too friendly right now, having a capable defensive military seems less and less optional.
It will do just fine against anything Russia has, and not as much of a money pit as the Fail-35. Unless Canada goes back to requiring a twin engine the Gripen was always the best choice, otherwise it's down to the Rafale, Eurofighter, or Super Hornet. Then the Super Hornet has an advantage that it should be familiar to RCAF pilots and cost of training should initially be lower.
Against anything it has left.
Ukraine just bought a shit load of them today. Can't be all bad.
That's because they don't have a choice.
The Gripen is a good 4.5 generation platform, but we're almost at the dawn of 6th generation fighters.
Building your modern first air force around 4th generation platforms is generally a bad idea, which is why Canada abandoned that idea previously.
But understandably, when your only option for 5th gen fighters is now openly antagonistic towards you, that changes the calculations.
That's not entirely true; we have the Chinese option. Although I doubt any politician would have the courage to even consider it.
China would not sell a NATO country their 5th generation airframes for the same reason why Turkey was booted from the F-35 program for purchasing S-400s from Russia.
Probably correct; although we will never know until an offer is made. That's why it will just remain a hypothetical.
Gripen is good at what it's designed for.
It was designed very intentionally around the challenges of defending Sweden during the Cold War.