Besides the insult in the comment at the end of David's post by a nameless-coward-internet-troll let us look at some of the issues of a drag chute re: Canada and the F-35.
The briefing at the bottom of this post is the U.S. approved Lockheed Martin sales effort to Norway in 2008.
Besides a whole bunch of unproven and misleading claims notice in the “notional” Block 4 specification: “Unique Norwegian Requirements—Icy runway capability—drag chute option.”
Chutes are not used just for icy runways. They are sometimes associated with aircraft that actually needed them as a normal part of landing because they have high approach speeds. Besides helping to shorten landing roll-outs, chutes also mean less wear on the wheel brakes. For example, the Lockheed CF-104: a single engine fighter--of which Canada lost over half of its inventory--(hint, they didn't crash as a result of enemy fire)--used a drag chute for every landing. Same for the F-105. The F-4 used a chute. Although it could have a slightly slower approach speed than an F-105 or CF-104 depending on a number of conditions. The CF-18 can get away with not using a chute in its basic design because it has a slower approach speed. Ditto with the Super Hornet.
Which makes some of the alarmist language from the “expert” in David's post sound a bit strange.
ALL runways in the interior have sufficient length and design so as to not require a drag chute, and why one is NOT on any F 35 version or any other modern fighter.
This is a modern fighter aircraft. "Combat proven" by MacKay's standards. What is that behind it?
Interesting to note: many F-16 operators did not use a drag chute.
The Royal Norwegian Air Force was the first air force to incorporate the drag chute, mainly to shorten the landing run on icy runways during our long and cold winters. As my colleagues in the RNoAF use the chute on practically every landing.
Canada does not have the number of long runways as the U.S. Also the F-35 has not been tested out in a variety of operationally relevant combat loadings. Weather/wind, the weight of the aircraft, altitude of the runway, temperature and the condition of the runway will determine how Canada decides to use a drag chute with the F-35; if it ever shows up. All of this will be clarified in writing in a procedure.
Given the huge expense of each aircraft, having a drag chute option probably is not a bad idea. Or, Canada can select the STOVL F-35B. It can do a short rolling landing or a vertical landing.
At over twice the price of a Super Hornet.