By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Here are a few options for the summarized version, written as if it’s part of the original article:
**Option 1:**
The Shopping Trends team operates separately from CTV News journalists. Purchases made through affiliate links provided within this content may result in a commission. Further information about the Shopping Trends team is available for readers.
**Option 2:**
Independent of CTV News journalists, the Shopping Trends team is responsible for this content. Affiliate links used for shopping may generate a commission. Readers can find more details about the team’s operations.
**Option 3:**
This article’s content is produced by the independent Shopping Trends team, distinct from CTV News journalists. A commission may be earned if readers utilize the provided shopping links. Details regarding the Shopping Trends team’s structure are accessible.
Read the original article here
The New Democratic Party (NDP) is making a strong case for Canada to scrap its agreement to purchase F-35 fighter jets from the United States and instead opt for Swedish-made Gripen aircraft. This proposal stems from significant concerns about national security and technological sovereignty, particularly in light of potential geopolitical shifts and the inherent control the U.S. maintains over the F-35’s operational capabilities. The NDP’s stance hinges on a desire for greater independence and a rejection of reliance on a potentially adversarial nation for critical defense systems.
A central argument against the F-35 revolves around the concept of the Mission Data File (MDF). While not a literal “kill switch,” the MDF acts as the F-35’s electronic battle manual, containing vital information about target characteristics, flight path planning for minimal detection, communication management, and electronic orders of battle. This data is crucial for navigating complex and modern threat environments, such as countering advanced Russian air defenses. The issue for Canada, as highlighted by expert commentary, is that these MDF updates are managed by a U.S.-based team and are described as “essential” and “rapid and frequent” during conflict. This means that without U.S. cooperation and timely updates, the combat effectiveness of Canadian F-35s could be significantly compromised, effectively limiting Canada’s operational autonomy in a crisis.
The dependency on the U.S. for these critical updates raises serious national security questions, especially considering the unpredictability of international relations. The fear is that in a scenario where Canada finds itself at odds with the United States, the U.S. could leverage its control over the MDF to cripple Canada’s F-35 fleet, leaving the nation vulnerable. This dependency is seen as a strategic vulnerability that transcends mere logistical concerns, making the F-35 a problematic choice for a country prioritizing its own independent defense capabilities. The idea of paying billions for aircraft controlled by a nation that might be perceived as an adversary is a difficult one for many to accept.
Adding another layer to this debate is the fact that the Gripen, while presented as a viable alternative, also has its own complexities, particularly concerning its engine. The Gripen is powered by the American F414 engine, which is subject to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controls. This means the U.S. retains a degree of veto power or the ability to cut off supply for these engines, introducing a similar, though perhaps less encompassing, dependency as seen with the F-35’s MDF. Furthermore, claims about the Gripen’s operational costs being as low as some suggest are contested, with estimates pointing to a significantly higher per-hour operating cost than often cited.
Concerns are also raised about the timeline for acquiring Gripens. It’s suggested that it could take a decade for the first aircraft to roll off a yet-to-be-built factory, a considerable delay for a nation in need of modern air defense capabilities. The notion of replacing the American engine with a Rolls-Royce alternative is also dismissed as a long-obsolete proposal. This points to the fact that while the Gripen might offer a political advantage by not being a U.S.-made platform, it’s not without its own set of technical and logistical hurdles that need careful consideration.
The argument for the F-35 often rests on its superior performance, with some competition data suggesting it significantly outperformed the Gripen. However, this purely performance-based assessment, according to proponents of the Gripen, fails to adequately weigh the strategic implications of the U.S. control over the F-35’s core functionality. The potential for the U.S. to disable or hinder the F-35 fleet, particularly in the context of evolving international dynamics, is a risk that the NDP believes Canada cannot afford to take.
Furthermore, the NDP emphasizes the potential for job creation and the development of Canada’s own aerospace industry through partnerships with European allies like Sweden. The offer from Saab to build Gripen fleets in Canada is seen as an opportunity to foster domestic expertise and reduce reliance on foreign defense contractors. This aligns with a broader vision of economic independence and technological self-sufficiency, which the NDP believes is a more prudent path for Canada’s future.
Ultimately, the NDP’s push to have Minister of Procurement, Jean-Yves Duclos, or even the Prime Minister, kill the F-35 contract and pursue the Gripen is a complex decision with significant national security, economic, and political ramifications. It represents a desire to steer Canada’s defense procurement away from what is perceived as an overreliance on the United States towards a more independent and diversified approach, even if that path presents its own set of challenges and requires careful navigation. The debate is framed as a choice between technological dependence and national sovereignty.