If you think Canada is a nation of peace-keepers (which it really hasn't done all that much of), it doesn't need fighters at all.
If you think Canada needs to defend North American aerospace, the F-15EX (or maybe Eurofighter Typhoon) looks quite good.
If you think Canada needs to be able to support her NATO allies in an armed conflict overseas against a peer adversary, the F-35 is the best fit.
It doesn't really make sense for Canada to have fancy toys to "support NATO allies overseas". If we want to make sure our allies have sufficient armament to defend themselves it'd make more sense for us to just give them money to buy it themselves. Then they'd at least actually be where they're needed and not stuck halfway around the world unless the US decides to ferry them there.
For Canada to have projection into Europe or Australia we would just need so much more than just some fancy jets. We'd need carriers that are worth a damn to bring them there, battleships to support the carriers, bombers to support the battleships, etc. A whole whack of infrastructure we don't really have anymore, if we ever did, and that after buying the f-35s we probably couldn't afford anyways.
If the only way Canada can support NATO is by propping up the US military-industrial-complex then we probably don't belong in NATO.
Canada used to have fighters in Germany, to forestall or intercept Soviet aggression, and they were relatively well-equipped and well-trained units. I am not 'imagining scenarios', I am just laying out alternatives.
Like, other than symbolic ones where we try to pretend we're contributing in a way similar to the US with its little plots of american land in half the countries of the world even though we have neither the means nor the stomach to do so.
The main thing that kind of capability is useful for is a first strike, I'm pretty sure. And I'd argue that's not the kind of thing Canada should be involving itself in.
(Peace keeping has nothing to do with a jet fighter acquisition. The only reason you brought it up was so you could add a jab - very classy.)
Isn't that precisely what the F-35 has been criticized for? :)
So if you accept the "mission profile" of defending NA and meeting NATO commitments while having a reasonable price tag, is the F-35 still the obvious winner in your opinion?
I have an idea. How about not starting armed conflict?
I am not against having big stick just in case. That is what nukes are for.
