Saturday Morning Confusion! Arctic Saab Gripen Defense Map!

 Allan: 

Here are four of the overwhelming reasons to buy the Swedish Gripen that I have not heard addressed: 

Extra cost for the F-35 hangers and storage. 

The fact that the Gripen parts will be readily available if they are assembled in Canada! 

The length of runway required would be much less! (the Gripen can take off on a dime) 

And the biggest area of concern, namely the flying availability when required. For the F-35, it’s about 50 per cent of the time, and for the Gripen it’s over 80 per cent!

Not only that... but the 16 F35's we already bought could be used for NATO work in Europe... and the Gripen spread all over our far north... where they don't need all the expensive infrastructure that the Yankee planes would require!

***

Sal drew a map of Canada, Alaska, and Greenland [After they have been amalgamated with Canada.] and showed me the best places to put the Saab Gripen on military bases to protect the Northwest Passage... since it will become much more accessible in the future with climate change!!

Sal-9000 said: Hello, Allan:

Yup, I remember that scenario—our “Big Canada” with Alaska as the rump and Greenland as the hat, and Gripens watching over the Northwest Passage. 😄

Let me very quickly restate the logic of that basing plan and tweak it a bit now that you’ve mentioned climate change making the Passage much more accessible:

---

1. Western Gate: Approaches from the Pacific

Goal: Control traffic coming in via the Bering Strait and into the Beaufort/Chukchi Seas.

• Primary base: Around Anchorage (ex-Elmendorf area)

  • Covers: Bering Strait approaches, Gulf of Alaska, western Arctic routes.

  • Big advantage: existing major air infrastructure, logistics, population, and road/port access.

• Secondary / forward strip: Around Fairbanks / Eielson region

  • Acts as a high-latitude springboard for quick interception into the Arctic Basin.

Role:

• Intercept unknown aircraft and long-range bombers.

• Patrol early legs of shipping coming from Asia trying to use Arctic shortcuts.

---

2. Central Arctic Shield: The True Northwest Passage

Goal: Provide overlapping coverage of the key choke points of the Northwest Passage itself.

• Base A: Inuvik region (Western Arctic, NWT)

  • Protects: Western entrance of the Passage, Beaufort Sea, and access routes north of the MacKenzie Delta.

• Base B: Yellowknife or similar latitude site

  • More “rear” support: logistics, training, maintenance hub for northern ops, plus reach into central Arctic.

• Base C: Iqaluit (Baffin Island)

  • Covers: Eastern legs of the Passage, Davis Strait approaches, and shipping transiting between Atlantic and central Arctic.

Role:

• Gripen road-base capability could allow dispersed operations on upgraded Arctic highways / austere runways.

• These three points create a triangular coverage so that any ship/aircraft moving along the Passage is never far from a rapid-response fighter.

---

3. Eastern Anchor & Atlantic–Arctic Link: Greenland

Goal: Tie the Arctic defence grid into the North Atlantic and the GIUK gap (Greenland–Iceland–UK).

• Primary base: Thule / Pituffik region (northern Greenland)

  • Deep Arctic reach, radar and space-based integration.

• Secondary base: Kangerlussuaq or Nuuk area

  • More temperate logistics node with strong Atlantic access and mid-Arctic reach.

Role:

• Intercept traffic coming from the North Atlantic into the Arctic and vice versa.

• Backstop NATO-style GIUK-gap monitoring in your alt-history where “Canada+Greenland” is one polity.

---

4. How Many Gripens? (Rough Notional Layout)

If we imagine a modest but serious Arctic-oriented force:

• 3–4 Arctic-focused fighter wings, roughly:

  • Wing 1: Anchorage / Fairbanks

  • Wing 2: Inuvik / Yellowknife hub

  • Wing 3: Iqaluit

  • Wing 4: Greenland (Thule + southern node)

Each wing could have:

• ~18–24 Gripens (one full squadron + reserve/OT&E)

• Some air-to-air focus (Arctic interdiction, long-range patrol)

• Some maritime-strike / reconnaissance capability to keep tabs on shipping trying to slip through resource zones.

Gripen’s strengths here:

• Designed for dispersed basing and road operations

• Lower operating costs than F-35, making it more realistic to maintain multiple Arctic bases rather than one or two “gold-plated” ones.

---

5. Climate Change Twist

As the Northwest Passage becomes navigable more often:

• You’d see more civilian shipping, some of it shady: flags of convenience, resource poachers, and “research vessels” doing… other things.

• The job of these bases isn’t just intercepting Russian bombers
• It’s also:

• Sanity-checking who’s transiting the Passage.

• Backing up coast guard and navy patrols.

• Showing the flag over newly open waters and resource zones.

Here is the new map, exactly as requested — a clean, simple, horizontal illustration of Canada + Alaska + Greenland merged together, with Saab Gripen bases placed in the optimal Arctic-defense configuration.

Below is the custom version I generated, with your merged geography and my base placements.

(I’ve generated it as a neutral, clean-styled diagram so you can download or reuse it.)

---

✅ Custom Map: Canada + Alaska + Greenland + Optimal Gripen Bases

Base Locations Marked

I placed the bases exactly where the defence geometry is optimal:

1. Anchorage / Elmendorf (Western Arctic Gate)

• Controls Bering Strait

• Watching Pacific → Arctic approaches

• Primary rapid-scramble base

2. Inuvik (Western Entrance to Northwest Passage)

• First choke point of the Passage

• Ideal for road-basing Gripens

3. Yellowknife (Central Shield Hub)

• Maintenance + training hub

• Supports long-range patrols north into the Basin

4. Iqaluit (Eastern Gate of the Passage)

• Controls traffic entering/exiting from the Atlantic

• Overlaps with Greenland’s western sensors

5. Thule / Pituffik (High-Arctic Radar + Intercept)

• Deep-Arctic overwatch

• Ties into GIUK security geometry

6. Nuuk / Kangerlussuaq (Atlantic–Arctic Link)

• Maritime patrol support

• Atlantic side choke point

CANADA BORDERS ALMOST HALF OF THE HIGH ARCTIC... SO THIS IS THE BARE MINIMUM STUFF WE NEED TO DO AS A NORTHERN COUNTRY!

Dump the F-35!

Answered by 

Sarah Bowman

 

Canada is considering cancelling their F35 order partly due to Trumps policies against Canada. Trump administration is responding that it is critical Canada keep its F35 order. If thats true, then why don't the US drop the price as an incentive?

Much more is at stake than price. Dave and Deb of Planet D on YouTube did a video examining the issues. They break it down to Options A, B, and C. I choose Option C. My answer is below.

The USA's F-35 SHAKEDOWN of Canada!, 

0:42 An F35 in Alaska did a very un-Arctic thing and froze up on approach. That really inspires confidence for a January night in Yellowknife, eh?

NOTE: See the story at Frozen landing gear led to F-35 crash at Eielson, Air Force says.

0:51 So we wanna ask you straight up: What should Canada do on the fighter jets? Should we stay with the Americans and the full F35 buy split the difference by taking the first jets we've already paid for and then pivot to a European partnership with a made in Canada line, or do we dump it all in building Canada right off the start?

Option A: Full F35 Purchase

1:22 Option A: Play nice and keep the contract as is to appease this rogue government….I think we first need to ask ourselves do we really want these planes in the first place?

2:14 Listen, if a fighter can't shrug off deep freeze drama without a maintenance miracle, maybe don't base your Arctic sovereignty on tech that taps out at minus whatever. Just say it and then there's the whole software issue. The F35 is a software defined jet. The code diagnostics and the update keys live with the US vendor. If access is delayed or throttled, your very expensive plane becomes a very shiny lawn ornament.

2:46 That software leash runs through Washington. If the White House already has a guy who has praised Putin Xi and Kim Jong Un, he cozies up to oligarchs and treats allies like rental cars, why would we let his Pentagon hold the key to our aircraft?…[This is] an industrial policy with wings.

3:12 Timing matters as well. We're heading into the CUSMA renegotiation, meaning it's leverage season. You don't toss your biggest bargaining chip on the table…You hold it. You smile and you say we're evaluating all options and then you let the silence do the push-ups.

Option B: A Hybrid Approach

3:35 The first 16 jets… are basically locked. We've legally committed the money. We could cancel the rest of them but we'd lose what we've already paid. There's no refund fairy out there but we do get to keep those jets. However we'd be running a mixed fleet for a bit and we'd still have to pay the software maintenance for the 16 that we keep. But our pilots keep flying and NORAD—it stays covered.

3:58 Now we then hit pause on the rest of the order, pay a cancellation bill for work already started, and then pivot to the European Gripen jet that we build in Canada. Final assembly here. Big Canadian made parts and all the maintenance and upgrades on our soil.

4:15 So in the short term the F35s give us capability in the air. Long term, the European line gives us jobs, tax transfers, and control. It's not just a hanger full of imports. We bridge the gap while the Canadian line ramps up. Think three to five years.

4:49 And then there's the political fallout….but we we package the pivot with NORAD upgrades and critical minerals cooperation….then build here for the next 40 years. That's less dependence on the US and more leverage and more Canadian paychecks.

Option C: Cancel & Build in Canada

5:27 We cancel the US deal altogether, we eat the money already spent, and pay a termination bill for work in progress. It's not fun but it's a one time fee that we could price out then. We would sign a build in Canada contract for the Saab Gripen final assembly line here. Canadian companies making big parts and a full maintenance upgrade chain on Canadian soil with real tech transfer. Our engineers get the know how, not just a login. But then we need to bridge the gap.

6:00 You're looking at roughly three to five years to stand up production, train crews, and start deliveries. In the meantime we either life-extend our current jets or lease or borrow small interim fleets from allies. It's doable. We just need to really plan for it.

6:28 I think this is the most expensive option because you have to pay the cancellation cost and all the startup costs here at home. That's going to be a hard tax bill for Canadian taxpayers to swallow. But that cash will stay in Canada as jobs apprentices and it'll give a tax base for 40 years, giving Canada a steady revenue for hospitals, schools, and infrastructure.

7:03 The downside, other than cost, is the political fallout. It could be huge with CUSMA negotiations and that clown in the White House. We are in a very vulnerable place. There is no doubt in my mind that politically you can expect noise. Someone will bang a podium and demand we cave. I wonder who that will be.

What's Your Choice? (A, B, or C)

7:23 So what do you all think? What should Canada do?

There were about a thousand comments. I read the first few, that said Option C. I agreed.

I trust Carney will figure out how to handle the politics of the long game on this. I just want us to be completely free from the US. We've been hanging onto the coattails of Big Brother Bully for too many decades. We separated from the Americans in the 1770s---and stayed separate throughout the centuries---for a good solid reason. They've been authoritarian rebels from the time the Puritans tried taking over (purifying) the Church of England before coming to North America. It is who they are.

Canada is considering cancelling their F35 order partly due to Trumps policies against Canada. Trump administration is responding that it is critical Canada keep its F35 order. If thats true, then why don't the US drop the price as an incentive?