Other Choices...

Eurofighter Typhoon (top) and Dassault Rafale (bottom).

So what else is there?  Some say that the neither the Gripen nor the F-35 would be right for Canada.  Single engine jets might make some people nervous at the thought of an engine failure somewhere over the Canadian Arctic.  Canada certainly had trouble with the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, and the F-18 was chosen over the F-16 mainly for its twin engines.  Jet engine reliability has come a long way in the near 50 years since the CF-104, but there certainly is a case to be made for a twin engine successor to the CF-18.

Here are some other options, keep in mind that, in today's uncertain political climate, these options may not only end up being potential allies, but adversaries as well.

The Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet

The Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet.

Many would suggest that Canada simply upgrade its fleet of CF-18 Hornets to the upgraded "Super Hornet" used by the U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).  Since it is basically an oversized Hornet, the Super Hornet would have a low learning curve for training pilots and technicians.  Equipped with an AESA radar and other advanced avionics, the Super Hornet can be considered a true 4.5th generation fighter.  It has a longer range than the CF-18.  It's a combat proven design, having flown over Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.  Its purchase price would be very affordable.

Trouble is, the Super Hornet is still a 1970s era design.  It offers little performance advantage over the CF-18.  Unlike more modern jets, it can't supercruise and it's not as agile either.  Being a twin engine, it would require more maintenance and fuel than a Gripen.  Possibly the biggest strike against it, the U.S. Navy has already started a replacement process for the Super Hornet, known as the F/A-XX.

Boeing F-15SE "Silent Eagle" 

The stealthy Eagle, Boeing F-15SE

Boeing recently showed off the interesting F-15SE "Silent Eagle".  Building off the legendary prowess of the F-15 Eagle, the Silent Eagle promises similar performance in a stealthier package with modernized avionics. With a combat record of over 100 wins with no losses, the F-15 makes a tempting choice.

At an estimated $100 million a piece, the Silent Eagle wouldn't be cheap.  The F-15 was never a cheap plane to fly, and adding stealthier materials and more advanced avionics certainly wouldn't make it any cheaper.  There's also the fact that, so far, the Silent Eagle exists only as a concept, existing only as a mock-up.  Until it receives some actual customers, it's likely to stay that way.

Eurofighter Typhoon

The Eurofighter Typhoon.

Billed by some as the second deadliest (next to the F-22) fighter in the skies, the Eurofighter Typhoon certainly presents itself as a fine choice.  Capable of extreme agility and supercruise, its the preeminent jet fighter for the U.K, Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, and has recently been announced for Saudi Arabia.  Its been proven in combat over Libya, and its compatible with pretty much any weapon in the NATO arsenal.  

As high budget product of an international consortium, the Typhoon has seen more than its share of controversy, budget overruns, and funding troubles.  It lacks a more modern AESA radar and a few other features needed to keep it at the top of its game.  With current European Union austerity measures, funding for Typhoon upgrades may be hard to come by.  There's also the rather large price tag attached to the Typhoon, with the current Tranche 3 versions said to cost close to $200 million per copy.

Dassault Rafale

The Dassault Rafale

Occupying the middle ground between the pricey Typhoon and the bargain Gripen is the Dassault Rafale.  Unhappy with the way Typhoon development was going, France decided to develop its own multi-role fighter with less emphasis on air superiority and more focus on ground attack and a carrier launched version. The Rafale is capable of supercruise, and will be available with cutting edge avionics and a much admired SPECTRA electronic counter measures suite.  Designed to withstand carrier landings, the Rafale shouldn't have problems operating in less than ideal conditions.  Recently, the Rafale has made headlines both for its service over Libya, and its selection by India as the winner of its MMRCA fighter selection competition.  

Despite heavy marketing, the Rafale has yet to be operated by any other country than France.  India may still decide on another jet, depending on how negotiations go.  Historically, French fighter planes are built around French weapon systems and French engines, this may limit future options.  At around $90 million per copy, the Rafale is cheaper than the Typhoon, but more expensive than the Gripen.

Sukhoi Su-35

Big 'n Nasty:  The Su-35 Flanker.

Big.  Powerful.  Bristling with missiles.  The Sukhoi Su-35 certainly is intimidating.  Developed from the Soviet era Su-27, the Su-35 equips cutting edge radar and avionic technology, powerful vectored thrust engines, and lightweight materials.  With its long range, supercruise, super-maneuverability, and super sensors; the Su-35 can certainly hold its own against anything else in the air.  Designed for service over Siberia, the Flanker is no stranger to cold weather or rough runways.  At $65 million per copy, it offers an incredible bargain and will undoubtedly be a sales hit with other (some potentially hostile) countries.  

As a Soviet era design, the Flanker is notoriously high maintenance.   Its weapon systems and data links would be completely incompatible with NATO standards.  The airframe itself makes no concession to stealth.  There is also the extreme political stigma with being a Soviet era design.  Realistically, the Flanker has little chance of ever entering Canadian service.  It should be highly regarded as a potential adversary however, and any Canadian fighter entering service should be able to at least match the Su-35 in combat.

  

Chengdu J-10

Made in China:  The Chengdu J-10

There was a time when the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) could be dismissed as flying either knock-off Russian fighters or outdated Chinese domestic designs.  That time is over and China is quickly developing modern aircraft with its deep pool of financial resources. The single-engine J-10 is proof that China has become a force to be reckoned with in the jet fighter business.  Although much about the J-10 is still unknown, it should be considered to be at least equal to the fourth generation F-16. China has been very aggressive with developing it further, with an upcoming version integrating an AESA radar and stealth enhancements.  With Pakistan scheduled to receive 36 J-10s later this year, it is safe to assume that the J-10 may soon find its way into service around the world, making it another potential adversary. 

Why the Saab Gripen NG is right for Canada

The Saab Gripen NG, capable and affordable.

 If we consider the F-35 not suitable for Canada's needs, what is the alternative?  Despite the argument to the contrary, there are plenty of options available.  Of course, each of those options offers different capability, cost, and political considerations.

Before announcing its selection of the Lockheed F-35, the Canadian powers-that-be briefly considered other fighter designs.  Whether they were given serious consideration or merely paid lip service is for others to debate.  One of those fighter designs was the Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripen (Griffon) NG.

Is the Saab Gripen right for Canada?  Not really...  But the Gripen NG (the NG stands for "Next Generation") is.

Earlier versions of the Gripen flown by the Swedish Air Force.

Designed during the last throes of the Cold War to replace Sweden's aging Draken and Viggen fighters, the Gripen was designed from the outset to be an affordable, easily maintained, easily deployed, multi-role fighter capable of   "JAS", which stands for Jakt (air-to-air), Attack (air-to-surface), and Spaning (reconnaissance).  Despite the availability of off-the-shelf multi-role fighters like the F-16 and MiG-29, Sweden made the choice to keep its proud tradition of self-reliance and neutrality.  It also chose to enter the international fighter sales market, as many countries looked to replace their aging Cold War eqiupment.

Although a perfect fit for Sweden, early JAS 39A/B versions of the Gripen proved to be ill suited for other country's needs.  Short ranged, with no mid-air refueling capability, and a limited weapon selection made it unpopular compared to other heavily marketed fighters.  Later versions, the JAS 39C/D allowed mid-air refueling and ability to mount any NATO weapon or electronics.

Saab Gripen NG technology demonstrator.

No longer content to play second fiddle to other manufacturers, in 2009, Saab introduced a new technology demonstrator.  Addressing the concerns of previous versions of the Gripen, this version was equipped with a more powerful engine, increased fuel capacity, AESA radar, helmet mounted optics, and an increased weapon payload.  The Gipen NG appears to be a formidable fighter, but has the unwelcome challenge of facing off against the massive marketing and political might promoting sales of the Lockheed F-35.

Is it fast?

The GE414 engine, as used in the Gripen NG and F/A-18

With an upgraded engine producing 20% more power than previous versions, the Saab Gripen NG will easily match previous versions' top speed of mach 2.  This makes it faster than Canada's current CF-18 (mach 1.8), and way faster than the F-35 (mach 1.6).  Although not as fast as fighters like the Su-35 or F-22, the Gripen should definitely be considered fast enough.  

Rendering of a Gripen carrying two massive belly tanks, four cruise missiles,  infrared tracking pod, two Meteor medium range missiles and two IRIS-T short range missiles.

Again, top speed is of little use if it can only be obtained for short periods of time.  Interception duties require a marathon runner, not a sprinter.  With that new, more powerful engine, the Gripen NG has been proven to supercruise, capable of achieving mach 1.2 with air-to-air missiles needed for interception duties.  

Saab has also developed massive 450 gallon external fuel tanks extending its range even further.  This gives the Gripen a combat radius of 1,300km as opposed to the F-35's 1,100km.  The F-35 has the option of external tanks, but again, this spoils its stealth.

All said, the Gripen would be much more suitable for interception duties than the F-35.  It would be able to reach its target much faster, and at a longer range.

Is it Fierce?

Gripen with air-to-air missiles.

In a word:  Yup.

Despite lacking a stealth design, the Gripen does have a rather small frontal radar cross section (RCS) compared to Canada's current CF-18.  Its use of  non radar reflective materials combined with its smaller size give it a RCS of 1/5th the size of the CF-18.  This doesn't even come close to the F-35 however, but the F-35 needs to make some serious trade-offs for its stealth, like internal weapon storage, higher maintenance, etc.

The Gripen NG's AESA radar

Enemy detection shouldn't be a problem for the Gripen NG, equipped with an AESA radar, infrared search and track system (IRST), forward looking infrared (FLIR), and a helmet mounted display similar to the F-35's.

The Gripen's IR OTIS IRST (infrared search and track) visible  at the base of the canopy.  

What about the F-35's data link?  Well...  Turns out Saab actually pioneered the use of data links in the 60's with the Saab Draken.  Newer Saab jets have continued to update its use, and currently the Saab Gripen is compatible with the LINK 16 standard used in NATO.  Information can be instantly exchanged between the Gripen and all friendly units.

Enemy detection shouldn't be a problem, but what about bite?  While not in the same league as the super-expensive F-22, the Gripen should be able to handle itself in combat.  Being a small, lightweight fighter with plenty of power, canard-delta configuration and a low wing loading, the Gripen is more than capable in a tight turning dogfight.  Modern air combat strategy prefers to stay away from dog-fighting however.  Emphasis is placed on using powerful radars and accuarate, long range missiles to engage the enemy from a safe distance.

Gripen weapon selection.

If modern air combat dictates using advanced, long range missiles, then logic dictates we should equip the very best.  Oddly enough, the F-35 doesn't.  Designed around the American AMRAAM medium range missiles, the F-35 doesn't have much "wiggle room" for mounting larger, longer range missiles.  The Gripen, which mounts its missiles externally, doesn't have this problem,  Its compatible with just about any weapon or bomb used by NATO countries, and should continue to be so.

The MBDA Meteor Air-to-air missile.  We want this.  Trust me.

Possibly the most advanced air-to-air missile available in the western armory is the MBDA Meteor BVR (beyond visual range) air-to-air radar guided missile.  Not only does it use modern active radar guidance ike the AMRAAM, but it swaps out the traditional solid rocket engine for a ramjet.  This allows it to alter its speed, allowing it to increase its range and offer more flexibility.  Best of all, since the Meteor is such a new design, there is plenty of room for further advancement.  Currently, the Meteor is cleared for use on the Gripen, Typhoon, and Rafale.  There was discussion about a modified version to work the F-35, but this has been put on hold.  A proposed ramjet powered AMRAAM successor, the Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) is expected to be cancelled in the 2013 U.S. Defense budget, leaving the Meteor as the most advanced NATO compatible missile.

Weapon options for the Gripen NG.

Capable of carrying anything from a short range infrared missile to a standoff range cruise missile, with a 27mm cannon as backup, the Gripen offers similar firepower to the F-35.   Unlike the F-35, the Gripen offers much more flexibility and the ability to mount cutting edge current or future weapons like the Meteor.  

Is it Flexible?

Yes.  Ridiculously so.

Throughout the 20th century, Swedish military doctrine was one of self reliance, deterrence, and peacekeeping.  Knowing that it would stand little chance of fending off a superpower like the nearby Soviet Union, all Swedish military units were expected to perform while the country was under active occupation.  This meant that that Swedish aircraft were designed to operate, if need be, without the luxury of a proper airbase.

Airbase or cul-de-sac?  Yes.

The Saab Gripen can take off and land on 800 meters of two lane, snow covered highway.  It can be serviced from a transport truck.  Within ten minutes, five recruits and one technician can get it refueled, rearmed, and ready to fly again.  This means that a Canadian Gripen would be able to land at any Canadian airbase, even during lousy weather.  In a pinch, a Gripen could land at small civilian airports throughout the country.  In a real pinch, Ontario's 401 or a stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway would be enough.

Sweden, like Canada get's it fair share of snow.  No problem for the Gripen.

For foreign deployments as part of NATO peacekeeping forces, a group of ten Gripens can be supported by single C-130 Hercules, with room to spare in the Herc.

The Gripen doesn't just promise to be low maintenance, it is low maintenance.  Flown for years by Sweden, South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and other countries, the Gripen has a proven track record for being a safe, economical platform.  The Gripen NG uses the same engine as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, making it a well proven and well supported engine.

Is it frugal?

During the last Canadian federal election, the cost of 65 F-35A Gripens was reported to be $9 billion.  This has since been scrutinized and clarified to anywhere between $13 biillion to $30 billion.  The truth is, we don't know how expensive the F-35A will be, and probably won't until it has finished development.

What we do know, is that Saab has offered to sell 65 Gripen NGs to Canada, with 40 years worth of maintenance costs for under $6 billion. Saab has also offered that, if Canada wishes, Gripen production could take place in Canada under contract with Bombardier.

The Canadair CF-5.  American design, built in Canada, then sold to other countries.

This offer has some historic significance for Canada.  In 1968, the RCAF began acquiring copies of the Northrop designed CF-5.  Designed as a low cost, low maintenance fighter (sound familiar?), the F-5 was intended for air forces that didn't have the budget for the cutting edge fighters of the day.  Instead of merely purchasing them, Canadian CF-5s were built by Canadair under license.  These Canadian made F-5s weren't strictly purchased by RCAF either.  Canadian CF-5s were purchased by Turkey, Greece, Venezuela, Botswana, and the Netherlands.

Instead of the mere promise of spread out military contracts building minor components, Canada would be find itself back in the fighter business.  Fielding a fighter made on Canadian soil, by Canadians would be a great source of national pride, regardless of where the fighter was designed.  Better still, if Saab is successful at marketing the Gripen to other countries, those fighters may just come off a Canadian assembly line, just like the CF-5 did years ago.

What to buy with the money saved:  The stealthy X-47A UCAV.

Even if Saab's promise of $6 billion turns out to be off, it would still be highly unlikely that a Gripen purchase would even come close to the price of an equal F-35A purchase.   With the money it saves, Canada could buy more than the minimum 65 jets required, perhaps even enough to replace the aging CT-114 Tutors used by a certain Canadian air acrobatics team.

If stealth is such a "must have" for certain missions, perhaps the money saved by procuring the Gripen over the F-35 would be wisely spent on stealthy unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) like the Northrup X-47A (which uses a Pratt & Whitney Canada engine) or the Dassault nEUROn, which was 25% developed by Saab.  UCAVs make much more sense for deployment to the high threat environments stealth designs are meant to counter.  Also, since they are much cheaper and require less time to develop, they can be more easily replaced as detection technology advances.

Conclusion:

Some assembly may be required:  The Ikea jokes would be everywhere!

Faster than the F-35, more fierce, more flexible, more frugal, and the option of building our own Gripens on our own soil.  Heck, we might even convince Saab to call the Canadian made Gripens Arrow IIs instead.  Sure, we might disappoint the American military industrial complex, and a few DND higher-ups may lose their chance at a future high paying lobbyist job for Lockheed Martin, but that seems like a small price to pay.  

In the end, we should be looking at getting the best fighter investment for our money.  If money was no object, we would have convinced the U.S. to sell us F-22s.  If all we need are new planes to fly, we can strap machine-guns to Cessnas.  What Canada needs is "bang-for-the-buck".  The Saab Gripen NG is the clear choice.

Is the F-35 right for Canada?

An F-35 mock-up in Canadian colors.

We will disregard the rather controversial Canadian purchase of the F-35.  As with any big budget project, there are plenty of opportunities for partisan finger-pointing and bickering of petty details.  What really matters is:  Does the F-35 meet Canada's needs?  Is it truly right aircraft for Canada?  Is it the best equipment for our men and women in uniform?  Does it represent value to the overburdened Canadian taxpayer?

The answer, to all these questions, to put it simply is "No."

Built and designed by Canada, for Canada, the Avro Arrow.

As stated in a previous post, Canada needs a fighter to display the "Four Fs".

• Fast.  For interception duties.
• Fierce.  Able to detect and engage any potential target.
• Flexible.  For deployment, within Canada and abroad.
• Frugal.  Canadian taxpayers demand value for their money.

Is the F-35 Fast?  

Not by jet fighter standards.  With maximum speed of mach 1.6, the F-35 is slower than the Canada's current CF-18 (mach 1.8), which itself was not as fast as its contemporaries, the F-16 (mach 2), F-15 (mach 2.5), and F-14 (mach 2.3).  The F-35 is also slower than potential adversaries based on the Russian Fulcrum (Mach 2.25) and Flanker (mach 2.35) designs, or the Chinese J-10 (mach 2.2).

The Chengdu J-10, capable of mach 2.2.

Top speed isn't everything of course.  What good is a blistering fast top speed if it can only be maintained for a short period before running out of fuel?  For long distance intercepts, a fast cruising speed is much more useful than supersonic dash.  Here again, the F-35 falls short.  A recent (and often touted as a "fifth generation") development in fighter aircraft is the ability to achieve supersonic speeds without the need of afterburner.  As engine technology improves, the number of fighters able to do this increases.  Sadly, the F-35 was never intended to achieve supercruise, despite the fact that many 4.5th generation do.

The Su-35, capable of supercruise, super-maneuver, and equipped with cutting edge avionics.

Without the benefit of supercruise, the F-35 may have issues intercepting invading threats before it is too late.  Hitting the afterburner will severely shorten its range, while making it easier to detect to enemy infrared.  Without a high top-speed dash, the F-35 may have troubles engaging or disengaging faster enemy fighters.  If the F-35 pilot gets in trouble, turning tail and running simply won't be much of an option.

Is It Fierce?

Sort of.

With a AESA radar, 360 degree infrared sensor, data-link capability, and massive computing power, the F-35 has one of the best sensor suites available on a jet fighter.  It is highly unlikely that enemy aircraft will get the jump on the F-35 pilot.  The F-35 is not alone in this department however, as many other fighters, like the Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Flanker, can be equipped with similar setups.

The F-35's most hyped feature, of course, is its stealth.  Stealth promises to allow the F-35 to engage enemy forces before even showing up on their screens.  The F-35 pilot then merely fires missiles or drops bombs from a safe distance, then casually flies away without incident.  On paper, anyway.

Wreckage of a F-117 stealth fighter shot down by a 60s era missile over Bosnia.

The truth is, stealth is fallible.  It requires meticulous care of the aircraft's outer skin, it only works against certain radar wavelengths, and the simple act of maneuvering can change render the aircraft visible.  It also does not render the aircraft undetectable by other means, such as infrared or the "mark I eyeball".    

Stealth also requires the internal storage of any weapons, which further limits the F-35's ferocity.  It can only carry four missiles.  Or, two missiles and two bombs while on a ground attack mission.  The F-35 can carry more munitions on optional wing pylons, but doing so compromises it's stealth to the point that it is no longer a "stealth fighter".

Two missiles, two bombs, internal weapon storage of an F-35.

Thankfully, Canada's version of the F-35, the F-35A, will also carry an additional weapon in the form of a 25mm rapid fire cannon.  Of course, if the F-35 is close enough that the cannon is a factor, something has probably gone incredibly wrong.

Graphic showing the Sukhoi Su-35's fourteen (count 'em) missile hardpoints.

Compare the F-35's four internally mounted weapons to the potential enemy, a Russian made Su-35.  Capable of mounting of total of fourteen air-to-air missiles, the Su-35 has firepower to spare.  The Su-35 pilot has the luxury of firing volleys of missiles, mixing radar guided and infrared guided tracking systems.

Stealth or firepower, but not both.  Graphic showing the F-35s external weapon stores.

To be fair, the F-35 does have the potential of storing up to ten munitions using internal and external pylons, but again, doing so removes the F-35's stealth advantage.  Even fully loaded, the F-35 cannot match the firepower of jets like the Su-35.

Is It Flexible?

Before delivery, Canada's F-35As will require some changes to current design.  Not engineered for landing on short, icy, or less than optimum runways; the Canadian F-35 will need to be outfitted with a drag chute to reduce stopping distance.  This is nothing new, similar systems were needed for older jet fighters like the CF-101 Voodoo and CF-104.  The CF-18, since it was designed to land on a carrier deck, needed no such system.

Custom equipment:  Refueling probe and a drag chute.

Canadian F-35As will also require a "probe-and-drogue" type mid-air refueling system, since Canada uses that system instead of the USAF's "boom" type.  [Update:  The recently released KPMG report on Canada's F-35 procurement would instead rely on outsourcing air-to-air refuelling, relying on USAF and private tanker assets to keep the jets in the air.]

Previous stealth fighter designs have been notoriously maintenance dependent.  The F-117's stealth coating wasn't supposed to get wet, the B-2 required storage in special, climate-controlled hangers between flights.  The F-22 is said to require much less intensive measures, but still requires time consuming inspection of its outer skin between flights.  Any imperfection requires a special glue to repair that takes up to a day to dry.  Marketing for the F-35 promises that it will require even less maintenance than the F-22, but it would be naive to believe that an F-35 would have better combat readiness than a simpler, Gen 4.5 design.  During a high speed test, an F-35 had significant issues with it radar absorbent skin peeling off.  How the F-35 will fare in Canada's cold north has yet to be seen, as the F-35 has yet to undergo cold weather testing.

Any Canadian fighter better get used to the snow.

Remember those internal weapons bays needed for stealth?  They impose a rather stiff penalty when in comes to mounting potential future ordinance.  Designed around the current AMRAAM medium range missile and 2000lb JDAM guided bomb, those weapon bays only have so much space inside.  Weapons like the anti-ship Harpoon missile (currently carried by the CF-18), Storm Shadow cruise missile, and formidable Meteor air-to-air missile simply don't fit inside.  These would have to be externally mounted.

It is important to note that the F-35's Pratt & WhitneyF135 engine is still considered under development.  Developed from the F-22's F119 engine, the F135 is still an unknown as far as real world reliability is concerned.  There are no plans to add thrust vectoring or supercruise at this time. 

Being that the F-35 program is the largest military acquisition program in history, training, spare parts and support would undoubtedly be plentiful.  This would, of course, be at the convenience of the F-35's largest backer, the U.S.A.  As currently planned, all Canadian F-35s will be built in America.  Canadian F-35 pilots will receive their training in America, by Americans.  So much for sovereignty.

Is it frugal?

The numbers for the F-35 acquisition are more controversial than anything else.  Simply put, we don't know how much the F-35 program is going to cost.  Numbers ranging from $9 billion to $25 billion for 65 fighters have been stated, with nobody really getting a straight answer as to the real "sticker price".

When it comes down to it, the F-35 is still a work in progress.  Since it is still being developed, there is no way to know exactly what the final price tag will be.  The JSF project driving force was to keep costs down, but, as with any military procurement process, specifications are changed, deadlines are missed, and budgets are blown.  As it stands now, the F-35 program as a whole is estimated to be 10 years behind schedule and a half-a-trillion dollars over budget.  Canada has already spent hundreds of millions towards the project, not in exchange for jets, but simply for the opportunity of allowing Canadian firms to bid on manufacturing contracts involved with the program.

During the 2011 Federal election, it was stated that the estimated cost for each Canadian F-35 would be about $75 million.  By American estimates, their cost for an F-35A between $92 million and $135 million.  It is unlikely that Canada would receive the F-35 at such a discount.  The intended strategy would be to purchase the F-35s during "peak production" when economies of scale would be the most beneficial.  The problem is however, as F-35 development lags, so does the "peak production" timeframe, which is currently thought to be in the year 2019-2020, when Canada's CF-18s will be dangerously close to their expiration date.  

As the F-35 continues to experience development delays, many other countries involved in its procurement, including the U.S. and Great Britain, have decided to delay or reduce its orders.  This has the effect of increasing costs further.  Canada may soon have no other choice but to reconsider its position on the F-35.  It will have to choose either to buy the F-35s potentially unfinished and at a much higher cost, delay procurement forcing it to make do with antiquated CF-18s (like the similar geriatric Sea Kings), or start considering other fighter designs.

Conclusion:

Given the F-35's lackluster specs...  Maybe its time to consider something different?