The map of North America could have looked very different today.
Many U.S. states nearly flew the Canadian flag instead of the stars and stripes due to border fights, land deals, and political battles that happened long ago.
Maine:
The map of North America could have looked very different today.
Many U.S. states nearly flew the Canadian flag instead of the stars and stripes due to border fights, land deals, and political battles that happened long ago.
The shared border between the United States and Canada wasn’t always clear, and both countries fought over land for years.
These States were caught in the middle of these fights and almost ended up on the Canadian side of history, changing what both countries would look like forever.
Maine:
Certainly, Allan. Here's a comprehensive three-way comparison of the Saab Gripen E, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon, specifically tailored to Canada's defense, financial, industrial, and political needs in 2025. I’ve broken this down by major factors that Canada must consider when selecting a fighter platform.
Before diving in, let’s remind ourselves of Canada's unique defense profile:
NORAD obligations require long-range patrol and interoperability with the U.S.
NATO commitments require multirole flexibility and combat-readiness.
Sovereignty enforcement over vast Arctic and maritime zones.
Budget sensitivity and industrial offsets (jobs, tech transfer).
Desire to reduce U.S. dependency under current trade/political strains.
Jet | Origin | Cost | Multirole? | NATO-Interoperable? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Saab Gripen E | Sweden | $85–95M CAD | Yes | Fully NATO-capable | |
Dassault Rafale F4 | France | $100–120M CAD | Yes | Yes | |
Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4/5 | Germany/UK/Italy/Spain | $130–150M CAD | Yes | Yes |
Category | Gripen E | Rafale F4 | Eurofighter Typhoon T4/5 |
---|---|---|---|
Range (combat) | ~1,500 km | ~1,800 km | ~1,390 km |
Max Speed | Mach 2 | Mach 1.8 | Mach 2 |
Payload | 7.2 tons | 9.5 tons | 9.0 tons |
Radar | AESA (Raven ES-05) + IRST | AESA (RBE2-AA) + IRST | AESA (Captor-E) + IRST |
Stealth / RCS | Low RCS, small frame | Moderate stealth | Larger RCS, no stealth shaping |
Suitability for Arctic Ops | Excellent | Good | Moderate (cold weather upgrades exist but limited field use) |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen E is ideal for cold-weather, dispersed operations. Rafale leads in payload and versatility. Typhoon is the fastest but was originally designed for air dominance, not strike flexibility (improved since Tranche 3/4).
Category | Gripen E | Rafale | Eurofighter |
---|---|---|---|
Tech Transfer | High – Sweden offers full IP transfer | Medium – France offers partial transfer | Low – Euro consortium unlikely to share deep tech |
Domestic Assembly | Possible (Brazil & Czech deals had local assembly) | Limited – Dassault resists foreign assembly | Unlikely – complex supply chain across Europe |
Canadian Jobs Potential | High – Saab committed to local production | Medium – Dassault offers offsets | Low – Mostly European jobs |
Export Collaboration | Yes (Saab promotes joint export deals) | Possible, but France retains control | No – tight European export control |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen E is the best option if Canada wants domestic production and long-term tech independence. The Rafale is decent but more centralized. Eurofighter is European-centric and less flexible industrially.
Category | Gripen E | Rafale | Typhoon |
---|---|---|---|
Acquisition Cost (fleet of 88) | ~$8–9B CAD | ~$10–11B CAD | ~$12–13B CAD |
Operating Cost/hr | ~$7,500 CAD | ~$17,000 CAD | ~$20,000+ CAD |
Maintenance Footprint | Low (single engine, modular design) | Medium (twin-engine, complex avionics) | High (expensive parts, complex logistics) |
Lifecycle Cost (30 years) | Lowest | Mid | Highest |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen E wins on affordability and ease of maintenance. Rafale is acceptable but costly. Typhoon is expensive both upfront and over time.
Factor | Gripen E | Rafale | Typhoon |
---|---|---|---|
U.S. Independence | High | High | Medium (UK is a U.S. ally) |
Five Eyes Compatibility | Medium – improving | Medium – independent systems | High – UK is Five Eyes |
NATO Interoperability | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent |
Export Freedom | High – Sweden rarely restricts buyers | High – France acts independently | Medium – EU consortium restrictions |
Diplomatic Leverage | Moderate | High (France is assertive) | Complicated (multi-country consortium) |
➡️ Verdict: Rafale and Gripen give Canada independent leverage. Typhoon is too politically entangled for a truly sovereign Canadian procurement.
Factor | Gripen E | Rafale F4 | Typhoon T4/T5 |
---|---|---|---|
Open Architecture | Yes – easy to integrate 3rd party systems | Somewhat open | Closed – heavily Euro-standardized |
AI/Autonomy Features | Yes (future-proofed for drone teaming) | Yes (F5 roadmap) | Improving with Project Centurion, but slower |
Sensor Fusion | Very good | Excellent | Good |
NATO Data Link / Interop | Full | Full | Full |
Upgrades Timeline | Rapid (Saab has agile dev cycles) | On track for F5 | Slow – needs consortium approval |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen offers flexibility and agility. Rafale is well-integrated but slower to adapt. Typhoon suffers from bureaucratic inertia.
Criteria | Best Choice |
---|---|
Cost | Gripen E |
Industrial Benefits | Gripen E |
Multirole Combat Performance | Rafale |
Range and Payload | Rafale |
Sovereignty / Arctic Ops | Gripen E |
Future Growth / Modularity | Gripen E |
Political Independence | Tie: Gripen / Rafale |
Ease of Integration into NORAD/NATO | Rafale / Typhoon |
🇸🇪 Saab Gripen E – Best for sovereignty, cost-efficiency, cold-weather readiness, and local industrial impact. A pragmatic choice for an independent and cost-sensitive Canada.
🇫🇷 Dassault Rafale F4 – Excellent multirole capabilities and combat range, but costlier with fewer industrial concessions. Strong option if performance trumps price.
🇪🇺 Eurofighter Typhoon – Advanced but expensive and politically complicated. Less suitable for Canada's independent defense and industrial goals.
O.K. kids... I think I have this all figured out!!!!
For the benefit of both the U.S. and Canada... we here at the "Perspective Research Department" have arranged to have a "REFERENDUM" ballot in the summer... where Greenland is invited to join Canada as a Fourth "Territory" ..and Alaska and Maine become the Eleventh and Twelfth Provinces of Canada!!!!
Date to follow:
I got an e-mail question today that should be Addressed!
Q: Will Trump’s tariff wars end up doing massive damage to the US economy?
But...! Instead of answering it myself...
I will hand it over to Marci Moroz:
A: Allow me to bypass the experts on the economy and politics to answer this question from a perspective where I have some expertise. (She's a psychologist! By the way... did you notice that she used my favourite word... "Perspective!" - ed.)
Trump’s tariff war has done massive damage to the relationship between Canada and America. The damage is so severe that I am comfortable predicting that it will not be reparable. When things happen that are out of Canada’s control, something fascinating follows.
Canada is forced to examine what happened from a personal perspective. What did Canada ignore about the relationship with the United States? What made Canada so complacent about living next door to a country that creates wars that aren’t their own wars? You know, wars that kill people, destroy infrastructure, create hatred towards the United States. Why did Canada blindly trust that the USA would never turn on us? How did we get to this place of complacency and vulnerability that so many Prime Ministers had warned us about? Liken this to a marriage you trusted. A spouse that you believed had your back, would never harm or betray you. Someone you trusted was a “soft place to land”. Then suddenly and unexpectedly left you, divorced you, and tried to take all the joint assets of your life together.
Divorce trauma is a real thing, with symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress. Canada now has “Tariff Trauma”, identified by several stages- Denial (Canada has been sleeping next to an elephant and ignored the obvious risks),Bargaining (Canada added measures of border security despite illegal alien and fentanyl statistics that proved Canada was not the main source of illegal immigration or fentanyl), Anger (NO, Canada is not for sale!), and where we recently arrived, Depression (WTF happened?). The final stage will be Acceptance as Canada moves on with tough lessons learned.
To quote Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who said yesterday, “Canadians are perplexed”, I would agree, and add that perplexed does not adequately capture the multitude of other “tariff trauma”emotions Canadians are experiencing. Even if the tariffs were removed before they gained traction, it would do nothing to repair the damage already done to our relationship.
However, there is a silver lining! Canada is now awake (I said awake, Canada has always been “woke” and in Canada woke is not a dirty word). Canada knows beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is time to break the pseudo trusted alliance with America, away from the whims of a deranged president, toward economic freedom. Canada will quickly find new markets (some have identified themselves already) and will become more financially independent, even if that means allowing foreign investment that was previously denied because America doesn’t like Canadian relationships with other countries. You know, like a jealous spouse.
Canada has its own identity that eschews the USA (even more obvious when Trump floated the idea of a “51st State”). Now it is time to make new friends, open new bank accounts, apply for new credit cards, and start dating again. From that new position, Canada will watch “the ex, USA” stumble in the dark (a serious possibility that Canada will contribute to this), with no guilt or remorse. The US will get what it has coming, and Canada will witness karmic retribution from a safe place, never again having to make excuses for America’s reprehensible behaviour!
(And that's the name of that tune... )
ALLAN:
It seems to me that the American people who post on here are either totally unaware of how alien their culture is to the rest of the world... or this type of post is trolling.
For the purpose of this reply, I assume that Americans are ignorant of how they are perceived by other nations.
We often see America as a failed or failing state because:
It is run by corporations, foreign countries and religions who own the political class.
The American education system is somewhat behind the rest of the world and rather than having an enforced national curriculum, it seems each country can change what is taught at a whim.
Furthermore having school children pledge allegiance to the flag each day and teaching them “facts” about American history and achievements is much the same brainwashing technique used in North Korea. So please forgive us if we don't trust your indoctrinated “free citizens.
Americans seem to be taught that freedom is about having a gun/guns and killing people. When Trump was president he said something like everyone should carry a gun so that in the case of a shooting they can shoot the “bad guy.” (interestingly I didn't see Trump pull out a gun in the recent assassination attempt, I am sure that he will have an excuse)
My point is that the rest of the world doesn't see having armed citizens as a good thing, in fact, most of the public in the non-American world don't want the proliferation of guns among the citizens. As a result, the only people in very many countries that have access to guns are those that can prove a need for them, school shootings are not accepted as a valid reason.
In the rest of the world, we care about the lives and well-being of others both from an ethical and economic standpoint, sick people can't work and that affects the economy. Also as I mentioned we are ethically concerned about the health of others.
The American healthcare system seems based entirely on schadenfreude and profiteering.
I started by saying this is the perception of non-Americans about America. Maybe it's wrong but it is the face you chose to show the world. It's anathema to what everyone else considers civilized so you can't expect any other nation to merge with the USA if for no other reason than you seem to be a country of politically corrupt, morally bankrupt, crazy people.
Ian Ellis