TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2026-03-03 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029471

CANADIAN MILITARY THE GRIPEN ADVANTAGES ... Maple States Canada’s Gripen Deal Just Got a Massive Rolls-Royce Boost PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UmvdtLhzXw
JUST IN: Canada’s Gripen Deal Just Got a Massive Rolls-Royce Boost Maple States 4.26K subscribers ... 7,550 views ... 132 likes Jan 8, 2026 Canada’s fighter jet decision was never just about choosing an aircraft. Beneath the headlines and technical specifications lies a much larger story about power, control, and national sovereignty. As Ottawa weighs its options between the F-35 and Sweden’s Gripen E, a quiet but significant development has begun to reshape the debate. Rolls-Royce’s potential involvement introduces a new variable—one that could reduce long-term dependence on American engines, software restrictions, and export approvals. This isn’t merely an upgrade in hardware. It’s a shift in who controls the system. For decades, advanced fighter jets have tied allied nations into tightly managed supply chains governed by U.S. export laws and centralized maintenance frameworks. Engines, software updates, and lifecycle support have become tools of strategic influence. A Gripen powered by a non-American engine challenges that model. In this video, we examine how a Rolls-Royce partnership could alter Canada’s defense calculus, what it means for Arctic operations, long-term costs, and domestic industry, and why this decision matters far beyond Canada’s borders. From NATO allies to emerging defense markets, the implications reach into the future of alliance politics and military independence. This analysis is based on publicly available information and expert commentary. It does not represent official positions of any government or defense organization. The goal is to explore how modern defense choices increasingly shape geopolitical power, not just military capability. If you’re interested in deeper, system-level analysis of global power shifts and the technologies that enable them, consider subscribing for more content like this. A fair use disclaimer is a statement that says you are using copyrighted material under a legal exception of Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. Under this section and act, copyrighted material may be used for purposes of education, research, commentary, criticism, news reporting or teaching. This disclaimer will help limit your legal liability if you do use copyrighted material for a fair use purpose. Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 US weapons manufacturer Loheed Martin is reportedly pitching new jobs for Canada, but that offer depends on Ottawa sticking to its plan to buy Loheed's seven or F-35 fighter jets. So last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of Canada's contract to buy 88 F-35 fighter jets says he looks to build new security relationships that are outside of our relationship with the US. A source is telling the Globe and Mail that Loheed Martin is pledging to create jobs that'll stay here in Canada, but only if that review is called off. Imagine buying the most advanced fighter jet in the world, painting your national flag on it, deploying it from your own air bases, yet still needing another country's permission to upgrade it, resell it, or even decide how it's maintained. On paper, the aircraft is yours. In reality, control belongs elsewhere. This is the uncomfortable reality behind Canada's fighter jet debate. On the surface, it looks like a straightforward procurement decision whether to finalize the purchase of the Americanmade F-35 or pivot toward an 1:00 alternative like Sweden's Griffin E. But beneath the headlines and technical comparisons lies a far more consequential story, one about power, dependency, and how modern alliances are quietly enforced through technology. When it comes to the Griffin, of course, we're really interested in seeing what can be done. We have to look at what our military capabilities need and at the same time what are the number of jobs created across the country. For decades the United States has dominated allied air forces not only through superior aircraft but through something far more subtle. Control of engines, software and supply chains. Weapon systems today are no longer just hardware. They are ecosystems. And whoever controls the ecosystem controls the user. Canada's dilemma exposes this reality with unusual clarity. Ottawa's original plan to acquire the F-35 came with familiar promises, unmatched stealth, deep NATO integration, and seamless interoperability with US forces. But it also came with escalating 2:02 costs, complex maintenance requirements, and strict oversight from Washington. Every software update, every system modification, every major maintenance cycle is governed by rules set not in Ottawa, but in the Pentagon and at Loheed Martin. This is not accidental. The F-35 program was designed as a centralized system. Participating countries don't just buy jets, they plug into a tightly controlled global network. Logistics, software updates, spare parts, and even mission data are managed through systems that ultimately answer to the United States. The result is unprecedented cohesion within the alliance, but also unprecedented dependency. After a rigorous and thorough competition between some of America's top aerospace companies, the Air Force is going to be awarding the contract for the next generation air dominance platform to Boeing. For Canada, that dependency has become increasingly uncomfortable. This is why the Gripen E 3:02 entered the conversation. On paper, the Swedish aircraft fits Canada's unique operational needs unusually well. It was designed for harsh climates, dispersed operations, and rapid turnaround. We designed the system for is actually to be able to withstand the extreme max in terms of cold. So, -40 - 45. We should be able to land on a road on full packed with ice, be able to turn around in 10 minutes. It can operate from short runways and even highways, making it well suited for Canada's vast geography and Arctic conditions. Its operating costs are among the lowest of any modern fighter jet, and its readiness rates are significantly higher than those reported for the F-35. But there was always a catch. At the heart of the Grippen E sits the General Electric F414 engine, an Americanmade component, and engines matter more than most people realize. Under US export control laws, any aircraft using critical American 4:00 components remain subject to Washington's approval for resale, major upgrades, and technology transfers. In practical terms, that means veto power. So even if Canada chose a non-American jet, it would still be operating under American oversight. Independence in name only. And that's where the equation begins to change. Quietly, without dramatic announcements, Rolls-Royce has entered the picture. The British aerospace giant has signaled its willingness to provide an alternative engine solution, one that could fundamentally alter the balance of control. This is not just a technical substitution. It is a strategic shift. Canada and Sweden experiencing long momentum across areas such as defense, trade, science, climate, and energy. Rolls-Royce is not new to defense aviation. Its engines power aircraft across NATO and beyond, including platforms designed for extreme environments. More importantly, Rolls-Royce operates outside the US export control framework. A Gripen 5:01 powered by a Rolls-Royce engine would no longer be tethered to American approval chains. For Canada, that distinction is enormous. It means Ottawa could decide how its aircraft are upgraded, maintained, and potentially exported without seeking permission from Washington. It means long-term operational planning would be guided by Canadian priorities, not foreign policy calculations made elsewhere. It means sovereignty, not just ownership. This is why analysts describe the Rolls-Royce option as a gamecher. Not because it makes the Grippin faster or stealthier, but because it breaks a structural dependency that has defined Allied air forces for generations. And the implications extend far beyond Canada. Across NATO, smaller and midsized countries are watching closely. Finland, newly aligned with the alliance and sharing a long border with Russia, faces its own balancing act between integration and autonomy. The Czech Republic, operating under budget constraints, is seeking modern 6:00 capability without long-term political strings. Other nations want access to advanced technology without surrendering control over their defense decisions. The Grippen, especially if freed from American engine dependence, represents an alternative model, a modern NATO compatible fighter that does not automatically transfer strategic leverage to Washington. This challenges a system that has worked remarkably well for the United States. The F-35 is the culmination of that model, a technological masterpiece, but also a tool of alignment. Countries that operate it are deeply integrated into an American managed ecosystem. That integration brings benefits, but it also limits freedom of action. The Grippen with a Rolls-Royce engine threatens to loosen that grip. From a cost perspective, the contrast is stark. The F-35's operating cost per flight hour is estimated to be several times higher than that of the Grippen. Maintenance cycles are longer, crews are larger, and readiness rates are lower. By comparison, the Grippen was designed for 7:01 efficiency, rapid turnaround, minimal ground crew, and high availability, even in austere conditions. For Canada's Arctic missions, this matters. Extreme cold places enormous strain on aircraft systems. Rolls-Royce's experience with engines operating in polar regions gives it a technical edge that aligns closely with Canadian requirements. Reliable cold starts, stable performance at low temperatures, and simplified maintenance translate directly into operational confidence. Then there is the industrial dimension. A partnership with Rolls-Royce opens the door to domestic assembly, local maintenance hubs, and technology transfer. Canadian engineers and technicians could play a direct role in sustaining and evolving the platform. This strengthens domestic industry and builds long-term expertise, something the F-35 program with its tightly guarded production monopoly cannot fully offer. Over a 30-year life cycle, these differences add up. Independent 8:01 estimates suggest that total ownership costs for a Griffin fleet could be 40 to 60% lower than those of an equivalent F-35 Force. We need to think about those kinds of relationships in totality. Um, and also keep in mind that we have had been on a very very long and torturous path to get to the point we're at today of having made the commitment for an initial 16 airplanes. Uh, but really we should have done that a decade decade and a half ago. I think in a broader sense what Prime Minister Carney is doing is looking at kind of that entire breadth of our defense investments and looking to have a bit more uh diversity in some of those supply chains potentially. So right now we are quite reliant on the United States for a lot of those uh supply chains. Most of our major systems do come from the United States and at least my sense of what uh Prime Minister Carney is looking at is saying that we should probably get a little bit more diversity of supply in an era of tightening defense budgets. That gap is not trivial. But perhaps the most important difference is psychological. Choosing the F-35 9:00 reinforces a familiar hierarchy. Security through dependence, alignment through control. Choosing the Grippin with a non-American engine signals something else entirely. It suggests that alliance participation does not require technological submission. You could review a whole number of different things. U the economic contributions that's part of it. Um and so it certainly seems like based on the reporting that what Locky's offered is a stronger economic uh benefits package basically than have been put on the table before. Um but a review can entail a whole number of things including um I think in the more important thing given the context with the US administration about how reliably Canada can bank on actually getting access to not just the airplanes that the the supplier in Loheed would produce but really whether or not the United States government was going to fully support the sale over the next roughly 75 years that Canada would need to be able to operate those planes. So the real question Canada faces is not which fighter jet is better on paper. It is whether sovereignty in the modern age is something you declare or something you engineer. And once that question is asked, it becomes difficult for any country to ignore.

SITE COUNT