And the problem that old, ossified, hidebound systems have is their inertia. They are obsessed with old and even obsolete metrics.

The Ukraine war has demonstrated overwhelmingly that classical militaries are wildly obsolete. That the future lies in drone warfare and well-equipped units that have the ability to operate with minimal to no direction and levels of support that make America’s military seem like a country club.

This is also where our current F-35/Gripen argument fails utterly for the F-35. Sure, it is technologically sophisticated. It has “stealth”. It can do a few things that the Gripen cannot.

But where it fails dramatically is the ability to field many units for minimal cost. To field said units with just a handful of ground crew and maintenance crew. To field units across all sorts of harsh environments, even down to short lengths of Arctic highways. And most importantly: to field units that cannot be remotely disabled by the aggressor.

By any metric that has cropped up in the Ukraine, the F-35 is a costly and counterproductive albatross around the neck of any military that doesn’t have America’s level of military spending. It is dead weight that can and will drag down any capabilities that the military wants to achieve.

Canada needs to ensure we have the most possible numbers for the fewest dollars. Every war in history has made this abundantly clear - volume trumps quality and tech sophistication each and every time. Even in WWII, where the Tiger tank was easily the match of a half-dozen Sherman tanks, that tech superiority ceased to matter when 10, 20, or even more Shermans came trundling over the hill for every Tiger tank that was fielded.

And when you can get over 420 Gripens for the same up-front cost as the original 88 F-35 contract (which has since ballooned dramatically), the choice is a no-brainer: Gripen all the way.