Canada

Until someone comes up with a very compelling anti-drone countermeasure, drones are basically the ideal weapon for a battlefield. Cheap, mobile, can loiter, good recon, etc.

I've wondered about just SAMs and MANPADs as an alternative to any new fighter jet. We can't really trust the F-35 and the alternatives (the Gripen E) might not be survivable, depending on a bunch of data I don't have.

Sure, they can't be used offensively, but that's not the main thing I worry about in the near future.

drones. If Canada should sink funding into anything, it should be that.

ECM says what?

Sort of? Existing software isn't smart enough to fight a battle on it's own, and electronic warfare is a real thing that makes communications hard. In a full-blown war situation there's appeal in having a human being in a cockpit close to possible targets.

The things we worry about in Canada are more specific, though. For example, we probably don't need long-range bombers of our own.

Drones can't defend the Arctic. In fact they'd be fairly useless to most of Canada that doesn't sit within the 49th-50th parallel.

The cost isn't actually much higher for the Gripen proposal this is about, although I'm not sure if that leaves things like the actual factories out.

And time. Don't forget time.

I have seen plenty of tanks and ships crippled or destroyed by drones...

Which is why we really need to build cheap, simple, and purposeful aircraft. We need to move away from “everything AND the kitchen sink” aircraft, as multiple conflicting roles frequently reduce an aircraft’s effectiveness in any one role. Have five completely different fighter aircraft, if necessary, in order to ensure we can continue to maintain them via simplicity and ease of parts manufacturing. And to be able to drop an entire model to focus on the remaining ones, if necessary.

No more than what we're spending on the F35. We could design 10 new aircraft for that price

The money is there. The Weston family and other billionaires are all holding it.