The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- American F35 or Swedish Gripen

Episode Date: December 4, 2025

The emails coming into The Bridge this week were humming. You wanted your say on the debate about which fighter jet Canada should buy and you didn't hold back with what you had to say. Emails came from across the country and at least by the ones we received your choice is clear. The random Ranter is here as well and he has a very different take on the MOA signed between Alberta and Ottawa last week. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday. It's your turn. And lots of answers from you on the simple question, F-35 or Grippin. That's coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. It's your turn.

And the random ranter, it's Thursday. and that's what that means. And we've got quite the show for you today. You know, it is a big question that the Canadian government has to make a decision on. And that is this question of, what's the next phase of fighter jets for Canada? Should it be, as has been expected for the last couple of years,

the American-made F-35, highly expensive, highly technical, well-regarded, at least by the Americans. Many other countries have bought the F-35 as well. We're already into them for 16 F-35s, but the question is, will we spend billions and billions of dollars on as many as a total of 88 F-35s?

Or will we look at, as we have been this year, the Swedish-made Gripen fighter jet, far less expensive, not as well regarded as an aircraft as the F-35 by the so-called aircraft experts, the fighter jet experts. However, it's still a pretty good plane being used in a number of places in the world, nowhere near as many as the F-35. But could it make a good addition to the Canadian fleet instead of those extra F-35?

So that becomes the question. All this is set against the backdrop of the difficult relationship that it now exists between Canada and the United States. So when asked the question this week, it was put kind of like this. No matter which is the better plane, how do you feel about the situation between F-35s and Grypins, which should Canada go for in terms of the main portion of its fighter jet fleet? And I can tell you this, there have been lots of answers.

Quite possibly more than any other question we've asked, and we've asked some pretty good questions that have provoked a lot of answers. We have a lot of new writers this week. We have some of our regulars have written in. But we have a lot of new writers. So let's get to it. Let's see what people have to say. Keep in mind, nobody here is an aircraft expert, fighter jet expert.

We try to fact check as much as we can. But that is an issue. And I think most people concede that point. And as you're going to see, a lot of the answers are based not on facts, but they're based on emotion. So keep that in mind as we go along here. Starting off with Lazan, Donnelly, and Sutton, Quebec. My understanding is that the U.S. President can direct Lockheed Martin

to make Canada's F-35s inoperable. He can do this on a whim. Partnering with both Sweden and the USA creates operational challenges, but gives Canada invaluable strategic options. Okay, fact check. According to the most reliable aviation sources, there is no kill switch that the U.S. government could use to shut down F-35s flown by other nations. But the F-35 is a software-defined weapon system.

It has more than 8 million lines of code that is highly networked and reliant on American computer systems. Also, United States government security rules require that only U.S. citizens perform specific functions in order to protect critical U.S. technology. Kenneth Steggles in Toronto. The American supertanker is foundering politically, socially, and economically with our own ship

straining under the taut chains that bind us together. To decrease our vulnerability in all realms to extortion from the increasing unreliable hulk, I believe it is essential for, Canadian independence to build up domestic advanced industrial capabilities to offset American dominance. Hello, sob. Goodbye, Lockheed Martin. Jamie Rothenberger in Calgary. My choice, the Avroaero. Cancelling that program was an epic mistake, as was destroying all functioning and nearly complete prototypes. The challenges before us are a direct result of that decision.

Imagine if things were different. The King of Canada, wooing Sweden to buy out sixth generation aircraft. Instead, our engineers went to NASA, putting people on the moon, and we lost the opportunity for true Arctic sovereignty and a homegrown aviation industry. We had several letters, actually, that referenced the Avroaero. Here's another one from Pat Ryan in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Bring back the arrow before taking a knee to the mad king.

The Swedish fighter is my choice. The backlash from our ally will hurt, but this is the only language the American administration understands. And Sebastian Mostovac, writing from the RAF Museum in London. Victory aircraft built Lancaster's that helped win the war, a legacy that became Avro. The Avro Arrow flew 13 years later, then was cancelled and with it a Canadian renaissance.

Our engineers left. They built Gemini, Apollo, and the Concord abroad. The boom happened, just not in Canada. The Grippin isn't a weaker plane. It's an answer to our what-if a chance to replant that forest so our children can grow up in its shade. And one more. Glenn McLaughlin in Regina.

In 1959, Canada's defense budget was four, point four percent of GDP. That year we canceled the Avroaero and bought the U.S. made bowmark missile, a decision that killed most of our defense industry. The U.S. now pressures us to increase our defense budget and support their defense industry. Sorry, but if we're going to wind the clock back to the 1950s defense spending, we should also repatriate our defense industry. Gripen seems to do that. Malcolm Bromley in Toronto Canada's best five-year strategy is a hybrid air power model

maintain a limited fleet of advanced manned fighters to meet NORAD and NATO obligations and ensure high-end deterrence while rapidly expanding unmanned aircraft capabilities for surveillance. Arctic patrol and routine missions this approach lowers long-term costs reduces personnel risk, strengthens sovereignty in the north.

Buying a few F-35s would keep Trump's ire at bay while we grow our drone fleet. Craig Hosea in Brandon, Manitoba. What good is the better plane if your supposed ally can withhold the necessary software and hardware upgrades needed for continued operations? Can anyone honestly say the Americans have done anything to prove themselves as trustworthy under this factless administration.

Go Sweden, please. Stephen Ross in Hamilton, Ontario. Here are the reasons I think to go with Sweden. One, integration and alignment with European defense. Two, high-skilled employment in Canada to replace the lost auto jobs. Three, working with a reliable defense partner. And four, strengthening and demonstrating our sovereignty. Josh Baker in Washington, D.C., formerly from Calgary.

Canada should buy the F-35. The only fighter jet on the market that can survive in a modern combat environment is the F-35. Anyone who disputes the effectiveness and survivability of the F-35 should first check with their anti-Americanism, or excuse me, should first check their anti-Americanism at the door, and second, look at what Israeli and American F-35s did against Iran's modern air defense networks over the past two years. Buying any other aircraft will only place RCAF pilots at risk. Scott Jansen and New Westminster, BC.

Canada is asking the wrong question, and instead of choosing between F-35s and Grypins, we should shift to what actually defends our country, drones. Fighter jets need carriers and foreign bases we don't have. Canada needs a national drone network, air, sea, and underwater, powered by northern electrification, and run with indigenous communities. Ukraine has shown how to build drones quickly and affordably. That's the future of Canadian defense, not fighter jets. Matt McDonald and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. As Canadians, are we going to make another stupid,

decision and purchase old military hardware? Did we not learn from the submarines purchased from the UK? That was in 1998. And the F-18s purchased from Australia. That was in 2017. This anti-American sentiment has gone way too far, but leave it to Canada to buy outdated military hardware. I myself have served 25 years for this country and deployed many times abroad. The equipment we have used in the past many decades, was outdated when it was put into active service. Why do we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot? The F-35s are generations ahead of the Gripon fighter. Ken Pelalshawk in New Stad, Ontario.

We should buy Grypins. Canada's needs are defensive. We need quick response over a vast airspace. Better a handful of rugged, nimble airframes over a single cutting-edge, six-generation fighter. I only make one request. The Bombardier-made Gripens are obviously called Skydos. I can keep your sense of humor.

Peter Spurr in Denman Island, B.C. That's off the coast of Vancouver Island, East Coast. Canada should buy the Gippin, not the F-35, for greater effectiveness in our Arctic, for effectiveness in varied functions, including ground support, for its second-seat pilot training. The Gripin costs less, and buying it would produce far more Canadian jobs

and even generate income. I will say from the reading that I've done, the independent analysis that I've seen, the Grippen is really made for Arctic conditions. F-35, not so much. Julia Ferguson in Vancouver, BC The country with the world's most advanced military has threatened Canadian sovereignty

and seeks to weaken our economy. Sweden shares our values, and Gripin production could create jobs for Canadians. With drone warfare dominating with the future, we don't need F-35s. Grypins are an excellent option and would strengthen our economic and geopolitical ties with Scandinavia.

Christine MacDonald in LaSalle, Ontario. As much as I want everyone to purchase all Canadian or other friendly nation products, the safety of fellow Canadians comes first, safety first as we hold our noses. Volker Ross Arnold in Winnipeg. Sweden's offered to build Grippins in Canada, harnesses our aerospace expertise, creates thousands of jobs, and delivers a sovereign fleet of capable, flighters. While we've purchased

16 F-35s, their costly U.S. maintenance undermines our independence. Building Grippins here secures Canada's sovereignty, strengthens Arctic defense, and ensures our future is built by Canadians for

Canadians. Patrick Ben in Vancouver. Let's start with some history. Everybody loves the German Tiger Tank, a truly incredible piece of engineering. But nobody loves the Sherman tank. Yet the Sherman tank won World War II

for the Allies because it was cost effective, reliable, could be maintained easily in the field and stood up to harsh conditions. The choice between the two fighters is similar. I believe the Gripin is the best choice to do the job we need to get done.

A little background, the M4 General Sherman was used not only by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, but also by British. Canadian and free French forces. More than 49,000 Sherman tanks were produced between 1942 and 1946. Ruthie Muller in Toronto, we should definitely choose the American jet

because it will be good for Canada to get the better product. Don't let pride win over good old common sense. Why should we buy an inferior product based on politics? Plus, it's a bargaining chip, presumably in our trade time. Can Malagos in Regina I believe the questions asked in 2021 regarding the two planes has changed The war in Ukraine has changed that

Our threats come from Russia, China and even the USA We are not only protecting Europe But our southern border and our three coasts So maybe the Gripin has rewards we need to reassess Richard Wright Richard lives in Hong Kong The F-35's dependence on U.S. software and spare parts creates a sovereignty nightmare. What happens when Washington decides Canada's interests don't align?

Betting our defense on American goodwill seems naive. The Gippin costs less, flies independently, and lets us buy more aircraft. Do we want the best fighter or the most sovereign one? Rick McKendie in Gatineau, Quebec. I believe the Gippon fighter is the best fighter. choice because it helps solidify our relationship with European allies. It decreases our dependence on the U.S., which is signaling that they are not a trusted business partner. We will get the Jets faster, and they will be built in Canada.

Brian Sarty in Guelph, Ontario. Trust between two neighbors. It creates a sense of security, belonging, and is a key element of social capital within a community. We don't have that anymore. with our neighbor to the south, but there is trust just over the Atlantic. We must partner with Saab. Matthew Scalarzik in Vernon, B.C. If we're going to put our men and women in harm's way, they should get the best equipment available, full stop.

Our current feelings towards the U.S. should not compromise that decision. However, is unmanned aerial combat close enough in our future that we should reconsider the whole project? could a swarm of drones soon take down a fighter? The last confirmed Canadian air-to-air combat kill was in the Korean War. Dennis McLeod in Edmonton We should go with the Gripon as the U.S. has shown it is not our friend any longer and cannot be trusted.

It's like giving a robber the codes to your security system for your house. Matthew Garrett in Vancouver Canada should complement the F-35 purchase with Grypins. We're the only G7 country to have a single jet air force, which could make us vulnerable. The reliability of our air force is important. The friend of mine, in the Thai Navy, told me that their Air Force operates Grypins

due to the excellent reliability and low cost. What a perfect compliment to the often unreliable F-35. The F-35 has had problems through its birthing over the last 20 years or so. Jesper Work in Panticton, BC. Grippin versus F-35 is Volvo versus Maserati. Grippin is a flexible everyday workhorse while the F-35 is a specialized high-tech striker. Ryan Coombs in Hamilton. I don't want Canada to buy Gripen.

Sorry. Ryan writes, I don't want Canada to buy Grypins. The Gripon is my favorite jet, but if we go to war, it will get a lot of pilots killed. F-35s are operated by 19 allied nations, the Gripon 3.

I think we should buy the F-35s. Let's buy the weapons of today, today. Matt Kavanaugh and Kelowna, BC. Purchasing Next Generation Fighters isn't solely about performance, it's about supply chains, defense procurement, and who controls the code the aircraft runs on. Saab offers partnership, not subordination. Tim Stott in Minnesota, Manitoba.

I think it's time Canada diversified its armed forces. What's wrong with running two fighter jet platforms? The way it stands now, we are beholden to the U.S. on the F-35. Make Trump mad and he'll withhold parts. Upgrades. The list can go on. Time to put on the big boy pants in Ottawa and make a decision instead of having another study. Jeff Bonney in Vancouver Military manufacturing cooperation with Sweden will antagonize Trumpist America.

But effective military action depends on supply chain, which this America may not provide. The F-35 is the superior fighter. But what theft of sovereignty might Canada endure to keep them flying? Domestic production of the Grippin is a safer bet. Derek Dillow in Ottawa. The Grippin, 100%. Both the F-35 and the Gippin are highly sophisticated and capable,

although the F-35 may have an edge. But we simply cannot trust the American government, Trump or J.D. Vance that could follow have shown contempt for Canada. The Swedes with the added bonus of 13,000-plus jobs are friends and reliable long-term partners. Cam Befis in Edmonton. First of all, we don't need stealth for the defense of North America or most policing missions. Second, why buy a plane with low availability, high-cost overruns, and from a supplier that threatens our sovereignty? Thirdly, Gripin meets the demands of diversifying our procurement to other nations,

meets the EU safe, and finally creates jobs and industrial spinoffs in Canada. No-brainer. EU safe, by the way, stands for security, action for Europe. Last week, Canada became the first country outside of Europe allowed to formally participate in the Joint Military Procurement Initiative. The SAFE program allows partner countries to access. low-interest loans for the joint procurement of military gear and weapons. It also allows Canada companies to bid on those giant projects.

Matt Ellis in Wasaga Beach, Ontario. Fly a fleet of both planes. Our G7 allies fly mixed fleets, and Canada did too back in the day. So the argument we can't do that now is garbage. Fly the F-35 for when we need stealth capability and the Gripen for everything else. Dave Goetje in Hohin, Thailand. If we buy the Gripin, then the only fighters we are at a disadvantage with is the U.S. F-35s. And if it comes to us against the U.S., we have no chance even if we had 88 F-35s.

Grippins can give us more aircraft on less cost. You see what I mean in terms of the letters we're getting? There's lots of them. coming from everywhere. And, you know, it's, it appears overwhelmingly in favor of the Gripin, although there are still, there are still quite a few people who are saying F-35s. But look at the arguments. Are they technical?

Are they military arguments? Are they emotional arguments? It's interesting. There's lots more to come. We're going to take our break, and then we hear from the random ranter. on a unrelated topic but a good one nevertheless that we've spent a lot of time talking about

in the last couple of weeks and then we'll get back to your letters as I said there's lots more to come we'll be right back after this and welcome back and welcome back you're listening to the Thursday episode of the bridge that means of course

your turn and the random ranter you're listening to on Series XM Channel 167 Canada Talks or on your favorite podcast platform. Well, let's get to our friend The Random Ranter because he has something to talk about today. And it all relates back to our discussions last week

on the MOA, the Memorandum of Understanding, on the Pipeline deal. So let's hear what the rander has to say on that today. I just want to start today by calling the Smith-Karney Pipeline Memorandum of Understanding what I think it really is, an electricity deal. I know the pipeline portion is what everyone is all excited about, but to me, that part of the MOA is a literal pipe dream. It's political window dressing, or as I like to call it, Daniel Smith's letter to Santa Claus. It's a distraction because as far as I'm concerned, this deal is all about freeing up the generation of electricity using natural gas. It's about unleashing Saskatchewan in Alberta to generate power using the resources at their disposal.

While at the same time, investing in carbon capture to offset the resulting emissions. It's about building a power grid linking Alberta with B.C. and Saskatchewan. and it falls perfectly in line with a less-lotted energy MOA signed by Manitoba and Ontario as part of their agreement to build an east-west power corridor across the country. Now, I know a lot of folks are all up in arms about the pipelines, but they need to chill. I mean, for a new pipeline to come into being,

Smith would need BC and all the affected First Nations to sign off. And then, she'd need some private money to make it all happen, It's a near impossible ask, with the likeliest outcome being that more oil just ends up getting pumped through the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline. And really, what's wrong with that? More oil pumped through an established pipeline owned by the Canadian people? As a taxpayer, that sounds pretty chiching to me. What's the worst case scenario? Smith pulls off a miracle and gets everyone to agree to a northern pipeline and finally, some private money to pay for it?

Total agreement? Private money? That doesn't sound like much of a problem to me, or for that matter, much of a likelihood. Either way, it's not worth getting worked up about. But if the mere whiff of a northern pipeline so incenses you that you feel a Stephen Gilbo moment coming on, relax, take a deep breath,

and look at the rest of the MOA, because that's where the meat of the matter lies. For generations, been so focused on oil, but these days, electricity is where it's at. The world needs more and more of it all the time. From advanced production and robotics to AI and EVs, the demand for electricity has never been as great as it is today. As a nation, we're in great shape. We already produce some of the cleanest and cheapest electricity in the world. Producing more of it using the natural gas of Alberta and Saskatchewan, that sounds like a win to me. And it's coming at a time where we need

every win we can get. Look, these are strange and trying days. We can't afford to lose sight of the fact that our economy, our federation, and our way of life is under threat by Trump. We need every advantage we can leverage. Having abundant cheap electricity is huge. It will help us attract investment and it will help us retain our current manufacturing. So in my opinion, it's worth using natural gas to produce power, emissions in all, especially when it comes with a big bet on carbon capture. We can't lose sight of that component. I mean, Trump may have abandoned any and all forms of climate change mitigation,

but no matter how much his crowd denies it, climate change is a real thing, and it's only getting worse. Their climate retreat is our opportunity to perfect carbon capture, and it's Alberta's opportunity to take the lead. The random ranter with his thoughts this week. And, well, it's a whole interesting area. The push for electricity is going to be one of the dominant themes over these next few years, not just in Canada, but elsewhere.

The demands, as, you know, the rancher mentioned from whether it's EVs or AI, the demands are enormous. Okay, let's get back to your letters because I want to get as many in as I can. This is on the question F-35s or the Gripen. Philip Cole and Fredericton, Frigdy Americans and the Swedes. Unmanned drones is the way to go. We can build them in those mothballed auto plant. Neil Douglas Fraser in Edmonton. Think about this for a second.

As Canadians, do we want to show the world that you can send your ambassador to bully us in our own country, impose nonsensical tariffs on our economy, and even casually threaten our sovereignty, and we will still spend billions on your military equipment anyways? Kick rocks? I'd rather go with the Swedes. At least their king showed us more respect.

Don Mitchell in Ottawa. Pilots and ground crews are already in the F-35 training program. The ICAF doesn't have an abundance of either to start a Gripen program, the end. Eric Brubay in Sudbury, Ontario. I prefer the Gripen. The biggest issue is we don't have the support staff, mechanics, and trained personnel to operate on support two platforms. I think we should sell the F-3rd.

35s we have already purchased to a third country. I think that will make a bold statement, and we can retrain all of our personnel to operate and support one platform. Eric, that's a novel idea, but it's impossible. The sale of the F-35 is restricted by international agreements in U.S. law, which do not allow for its resale by Canada. Suha Deshpandi in Ottawa. I prefer this Swedish Gripen.

President Trump has indicated the United States will still will sell less capable F-35s to other countries, so it doesn't matter how good they are on paper. The Grippen allows us to build a sovereign aerospace industry. We can improve its capabilities over time. Here's some facts. The F-35 is customized to each country. The U.S. has the most capable versions with every other.

other nation receiving a lesser fighter. Only Israel is allowed to modify its F-35s, including the ability to integrate its own weapons systems and add radar jamming capabilities and other upgrades that do not require U.S. approval. Jason Bro in Negwack, New Brunswick. It's about an hour southeast of Bathurst. Every U.S. retaliatory argument

made to stick with the F-35 shows exactly why a dual fleet makes the most sense for Canada. To be at the mercy of a clearly, ethically and emotionally compromised foreign government would be the worst position for us. Perhaps the Gripon is inferior,

but few are better at overcoming odds than the Canadian military. Brett Waters in Winnipeg. The F-35 may perform better than the Gripon, but Canada must maintain its security and sovereignty. The USA is no longer a reliable partner with a president who does not honor agreements and an ambassador who threatens Canada

if it doesn't purchase American hardware. The F-35 makes us vulnerable to extortion without certainty that parts or software will be made available. Decades of trust have been broken and Canada cannot assume that it will return. Cindy Kilpatrick in Spruce Grove, Alberta As we all should learn at some point in our lives, there is a difference between wants and needs.

It's natural that the military wants the best of the best, but if the Gripen will meet our needs, then in my opinion it's a way better purchase. We will get improved military dependence, independence, more money for drones and other military needs, jobs in our country, and a stronger relationship with a European country. Gary Westall in Picton, Ontario. Experts have deemed the F-35 to be superior. Should we sacrifice performance for lower purchase cost, added domestic economic benefits,

and the knowledge that we would be dealing with a more sensible trading partner? My head says buy quality performance, the F-35. My heart says the Gripen will likely get us by. This may be a time to follow your heart. However, if we do, hunker down to fend off more Trump vengeance. David Guy or Guy in Conception Bay, South Newfoundland. I would be happy if Canada went with the Grypins, but that is likely an emotional response,

stemming from my desire to stick it to the Americans. This is the most troubling question for me. Who can we trust for advice? Not the Americans, that's clear. Canadian military leadership, I'm not sure, given its resistance to change, plus its close ties and post-retirement consulting gigs with U.S. defense contractors. Sweden? I'm inclined to say yes.

Jane Groundry in White Rock, B.C. I support buying planes from Sweden instead of from America. If the Americans do take us over, it will be economically. Why put billions into their economy? Instead, we should support our economy with the jobs the Swedes are offering as well as supporting a NATO ally we can count on.

James Stevenson in Ottawa. This is a matter of avoiding disaster. We can't have just F-35s because we cannot maintain them unless America allows, and that becomes an ongoing vulnerability in trade and other negotiations. We cannot avoid buying,

some more F-35s without Trump retaliating in ways that broadly hurt our economy. What we need to know is the smallest number of F-35s we can get away with buying without major blowback. Adel Sit in Ottawa. You don't buy weapons from someone who has threatened to take over your territory. Richard Campbell in Toronto. Sweden all the way. What was never mentioned by anyone was the ongoing controversy about the F-35 in the U.S. As recent as late November, complaints continue to be lodged about reliability and cost transparency. Allies complain of climbing, hourly, operating costs, and sluggish deliveries. The U.S. Government Accountability Office and the National Security Journal point to technical

and managerial shortcomings and software delays. Some countries have already jumped ship. Fact check, it's true that though the cost of each plane goes down, the cost of flying the plane continues to go up because its computer systems require continuous updates. Albert Ristig, Grimsby, Ontario. I would recommend reducing the F-35 order to 75 and ordering 50 Grippins for operations in the Arctic and NATO operations in the Baltic region. which could be the next victim of the authoritarian in the Kremlin. Glenn Lucas in Lake Country, BC, that's in the Okinawagon near Colonna. This solution gives us the best of both worlds.

Renegotiate the F-35 contract to guarantee 52 planes, an option to order 36 more. Base them in Europe. Order Grippins, enough to get the assembly located at Toronto, base them in Canada. benefits lower cost of better defense strategy for Canada not offending Trump and better industrial benefits Jason Craig and Conquerel Mills Nova Scotia near Lunenburg

I support our forces and want the best for them take all the arguments about the planes you like from pilots lobbyists or generals to me this is the test of our true sovereignty I have long considered that no matter what political conversation might take place, we may never go against Lockheed Martin. I've been hoping to be proven wrong on this for about 20 years. Military industrial complex indeed. Catherine Ruskin in Nelson, BC.

I'm in the camp supporting the Swedish plane. I agree with the points made by Althea and Rob. That's just the other day on the reporter's notebook. on Tuesday. Costs, Canadian jobs, trustworthiness of the seller. Rob argued for the F-35 because we might need to defend the Arctic. Yes, but we might need to defend it against the Americans, not with them. When we do that, we'd better not be in planes that are under their control.

Still think the Gippins better in the Arctic than the F-35, but that's just one point. Frank Wang in Surrey, B.C. neither the F-35 nor the Gripon. Instead, we should go after the French Rafael de Sault. That's a French manufacturer of airplanes pulled out of our fighter competition in 2018, partly because they were frustrated with how the process seemed heavily stacked in favor of the F-35. The Rafael is a superior fighter to the Grypen and offers greater interoperability with the European allies.

More importantly, it would strengthen our ties with France, which aligns with Mark Carney's broader strategic vision. Kyle 80 in Peterborough, Ontario. Does Canada have no compunction procuring military equipment from the U.S. with its current administration? This question makes me think of the Canadians with flags and elbows up signs hanging from their houses while Amazon drops off their package,

unable to see that they're fueling the thing that's fueling Trump. Margaret McMaster in Kingsville, Ontario. That's Canada's southernmost town. It's on the shores of Lake Erie. Are we talking about Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jets? Because according to Lockheed Martin's CEO, in the next two or three years, the company will transition to uncrewed AI piloted F-35s,

which would mean that the bunch we order will be obsolete by the time they're delivered. The F-35 fact The F-35 currently relies heavily on AI systems, but Lockheed Martin's CEO has publicly floated the idea of a supercharged or fifth-generation plus F-35 that could eventually fly without a human pilot. And he has indeed said that testing could begin in two or three years. That's interesting.

Paul Madison, in Burford, Ontario, near Brantford. Two sides to this story, one, the fighting ability of the F-30. at a premium cost with no total control over data. The second is the ability of the Gripin to be a force protector at our northern border, which is becoming a total priority. This jet is suited for cold weather, lower and faster maintenance costs, and does not require the long runways. Canada's focus should be on protecting Arctic sea routes over the next 30 years.

I agree with that. Rick Humphreys in Cambridge, Ontario. Definitely the Gripen. We need military independence and cannot trust the U.S. As the Swedish delegation said, you must choose your friends wisely. Randy Jacque in Guelph, Ontario. Let's leverage Canada's strengths in manufacturing aerospace and education to drive investment, innovation, achieve our 5% defense spending, and grow our economy.

Saab offers a path with proven capabilities, an invitation to other innovation clusters and benefits to this and other sectors. The U.S. alone does not even, excuse me, the U.S. alone does not. Even a Swiss Army knife has different models for different jobs. Amy Known in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada should buy and manufacture the Gripon in partnership with Sweden. Jewel fleet is possible and provides leverage. More dollars stay in Canada using tariff. free inputs and supports redeploying our auto workers.

Even if Trump departs, MAGA politics and tariffs will still be Republican policy. Donna Wilson, excuse me, Donna Wilson in Coulchin Valley, B.C., Russia was the aggressor with Ukraine, but Trump does not seem to get this. What assurances does Canada have that the U.S. would support us if Russia were to decide to claim the Arctic. Canada does not want to be counting on the U.S. for anything. Mark Whitmore and Turkey Point, Ontario, it's on Lake Erie, southeast of London. The experts saying the F-35 is superior did not get the memo. The U.S. is no longer a reliable partner. While there may not be an F-35 kill switch, if the president issues an executive order instructing Lockheed Martin to

withhold software upgrades and spare parts, there effectively is one. We would not trust Russia or China to supply Canada, even if the technology was superior. Why should we buy from the U.S.? Keith Daly in Waterloo, Ontario? My wife and I each have a car. I put a lot of miles on my Mazda 3. She drives a loaded newer Honda Accord. I would really enjoy the comfort and performance of the Accord, but the Mazda is so much better on gas, less expensive to replace. A few Grippans would be a good idea. Jason Cook in St. Albert, Alberta. Canada needs the right jet for the right mission.

The Gripen was designed to beat Russia in the Arctic, operating inexpensively even from ice roads for survivability. The costly F-35 has cold weather problems, including a crash in Alaska from frozen hydraulics. About that crash, it happened in January. The U.S. Air Force F-35 pilots spent 50 minutes talking with Lockheed Martin engineers trying to solve the hydraulics problem before he gave up and safely ejected. The plane plunged into the ground. Both F-35s and the Grypen have had crashes in their lifespan, the F-35 more than the Gripon.

But they've both had them. Kenneth Phillips in Winlaw, B.C. Sweden and Canada share a common vision on humanity, justice, and cooperation on international defense and security. Buying our military equipment from a hostile neighbor that denies our validity as a nation would be ludicrous. We're not that gullible, I hope. Marie Thorne and Moncton I have a strong distrust of the Americans because they have told us that we are nothing. We must not rely on them for parts, technology, software, or intelligence.

They can turn on us. Ally with Europe. Gripen William Ross in Toronto. Let's fulfill our commitment to, for the 16 F-35s, but move forward with a deal for the Gripon fighter. The money save can be used to develop our drone capability, enough gaslighting by a partner that bargains in bad faith.

Jeff Fisher in Riverview, New Brunswick. That's on the Petticoadiac River across from Moncton. Jeff writes, have we completely lost our minds? The U.S. has given us the middle finger on everything, and yet we're still considering buying billions of dollars' worth of planes that in the end they will control. We can't trust Trump and his band of idiots any longer. Take every nickel and spend it elsewhere.

Lauren Finlinson in Cumberland, B.C. We have seen how Mr. Carney caves in to whatever Trump wants. Trump wants to sell us F-35, so Carney will fold and will be stuck with the 88 obsolescent fighters. Annie Trepanier in Montreal. Do we buy the best car there is, no matter the price? Do we buy the best computer, even if it exceeds our needs tenfold? We don't always need all the options of the latest gadget.

If the Grypins are good enough for our needs, we should buy those. And I say that one of those needs is that our fighters cannot be controlled by a potential enemy. Liam Reynolds in Sydney, Australia, he's a Canadian expan. The Canadian government should proceed with the Gripon fighters. Domestic production and parts sourcing will create jobs and ensure control over a critical defense component. Lower procurement costs allow for increasing the amount of jets we could field, or freeing up defense spending for Canadian Armed Forces plagued by decades of underinvestment.

David Le Pen in Ogden, Quebec. It's right next to the U.S. border. As a former naval officer, albeit years ago, I can attest to Canadian military subservience to the U.S. military. Most of my friends who made a career in the Canadian Armed Forces spent one or two secondments in the U.S. That is why I don't put a lot of faith in our military. total buy-in for the U.S. equipment.

That is all they know. I won't buy a green pepper grown in the U.S. Why should my tax dollars buy U.S.-made aircraft? Mark Clearhue in Mississauga, Ontario. Getting near the end here. There's a lot of letters. I'm not sure. First of all, we didn't get anywhere near all of them in

that were written, maybe half. And we're not going to get even these all in. Mark Durrhyu and Mississauga writes, imagine a large-scale conflict in Toronto with NATO forces in play. Do you want to be flying the same aircraft as the U.S. Air Force, Royal Air Force, Italy, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Greece, or the only country besides Sweden flying the Gripon. Let's get the right equipment for our military.

Actually, fact-check, the Czechs and Hungary also fly the Gripon. Matthew McKenzie in Uxbridge, Ontario 10 years ago, what I'm about to say would have been Roll on the floor laughable, but the fact is today's reality may be that we may need to use the F-35 fighter against the very people who built it.

For that reason alone, it's not worth considering. Gordon Clark and Whitehorse What this or that lobbyist or general says about our one plane versus the other is irrelevant. We cannot trust the Americans. Full stop. Jonathan Melville in Saskatoon

We are the underdog in war. Is it better to have the best fighters, but fewer of them? Or maximize the number of fighters to make a conflict as expensive as possible for an aggressor? Ukraine has shown how an aggressor can be so challenged.

So maybe the Gripen? Okay, I'm going to have to skip down to, I skip down to the last two. Sorry, maybe I wasn't reading fast enough this week, but we got a lot of letters in. Here are the last two. Jeff Lazonsky in Windsor, Ontario. Which plane would you want your son or daughter to be flying if we are in a real shooting war with Russia or China. The answer is the best plane which appears to be hands down the F-35.

I would love to tell Trump to keep his plane, but our pilots come first. And our last letter, it comes from Richard Swindells in Mono, Ontario. We should choose based on whether the plane is fit for purpose, its cost, and the number of Canadian jobs it will produce. I drive a Toyota. I don't need a Corvette. My next car might be a Volvo. There you go.

I'll tell you. I love you guys. You get into it every week. And your letters are always thoughtful. And they make us think, which is the whole object of the game here, right? On the bridge. Make us think. I don't know when this decision's coming out.

But it's just one of the many that is sitting on the desk of the prime minister in his cabinet. And so I expect we're going to find out. I don't know. I have no idea when we're going to find out. but I hope they listen to some of the things you're saying because I think these were great letters from both sides the advantage clearly tipped in favor of the grip on the Swedish fighter but you have lots of arguments both ways

and I'm glad you sent them in all right that's going to wrap it up for this day tomorrow it is of course your turn John Telle-A-Barre, Bruce Anderson. I don't know whether we'll talk fighters. We talked them a little bit last week. But there's always something to talk about with those two, and we'll do it tomorrow.

So join us on all our various platforms. Look forward to... Look forward to having you with us. Okay, I'm Peter Mansprish. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in less than 24 hours. Thank you.