I'm hopeful that the Liberal government will use the GCAP news as political cover to get the full f-35 order finally done and avoid the Gripen distraction. ie: US fighter for now GCAP for the future where we are more valued partner. Put efforts into being a strong GCAP partner for components that feed into the GCAP ecosystem. We don't need to do final assembly to get meaningful & advanced economic benefits from GCAP.
Gripen E is not a distraction. It's a viable option and preferable for Canada.
- Saab wants to expand GripenE production.
Sweden is a small country (10 million), SaabAB has a small workforce (27,000). SaabAB needs to add capacity and Canada can provide that. Saab wants to _build GripenE under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
- Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past.
Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CT-133, CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the F-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
And Canadair built those jets for others, besides the RCAF. Canadair went on to build those jets for other countries that did not have the capacities: Belgium, WestGermany, Netherlands,Turkey, etc.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Throughout the cold war, Sweden was steadfast in making its own jets. Partnering with Saab on GripenE puts Canada in position to help develop the next generation of jets for both Sweden and Canada, jets which can then be built once the final GripenE rolls off the line.
Part of me thinks they might, but I don't think they will allow the Gripen option out of the public eye until it has at served its purpose during trade negotiations. Carney doesn't have a lot of attention grabbing threats, and he is smart enough to realize that he needs something flashy to get the attention of Trump. He is also pragmatic enough to realize that if Trump tries to call his bluff, the alternative needs to work, even if it's not ideal. So the mixed fleet will work, at least in the short to medium term. And it would have the advantage of proving to everybody on the world stage that he can stick with his guns and keep going. Because as much as Carney is pumping up our defense sector, he is also rehabilitating our image on the world stage, and right now that depends on managing or surviving what ever Trump can throw at us. If we come out looking like we won something, that will open a lot of doors, politically and economically. Time will tell. Thinking about it gives me chills up my spine.
That's really interesting! Though the rest of the article is unnecessarily derisive of CAF leadership. Before I encountered Noah's writing, David Pugliese was one of the few writers in mainstream Canadian media to actually look below the surface of the defense file, so I lapped it up, but I've noticed he likes to cast military leadership in Canada in a poor light, even while making it sound like he is boosting Canadian capabilities. It really feels like he has a personal grudge against CAF leadership at times, which makes me hesitant to consider his opinions on things like that Gripen option as unbiased.
While he probably isn't wrong about how close RCAF leadership is to their USAF counterparts, to dismiss their opinions as irrelevant because of it seems childish and short sighted. Some of the discussion I have seen in the comments here, as well as Noah's writing, have been much nuanced. If a wing is 25-30 planes, 40 f35 seems like it's too few. Should be 50 to 60, and maybe 60 gripens. If Canada is going to be contributing to more allied exercises in northern europe, that's where we are going to be needing F35s, even if we can largely use gripens for NORAD.
And I am really glad to hear a NORAD commander make a statement like that, and I completely agree with the other fellow who described Hoekstra as "babbling nonsense" (I believe that is his default setting), I am worried about his comments being impolitic by the powers that be south of the boarder, and him being shoved out on his ass for saying something so disloyal... But I guess we will see. Both sides are trying to play 4 dimensional chess, and while am pretty confident that Carney can think rings around the orangatang, we are starting with a tenth of the pieces on the board. And the other side has a tendency to flip the game board when it looks they are losing, so I'm not going to confidently predict anything.
On the lighter side, if PM Carney can keep up with his Japanese, given the recent encouraging reaction by the Japanese PM to Carney’s delivery in Japaneses, I’d say would have a shot at joining.
On the more pragmatic side, I would think that CAE would have an excellent shot at providing the training systems and simulators up front. That wouldn’t get us into the airframe production, but would be a lead-in to the sensors, computers, and AI. These are components that could be produced here and shipped for the production and integration plants. Would some of that migrate to Canada? Time will tell. Of that we have plenty of time. A cut back to the original 66 F-35s, enough to meet minimum NORAD numbers, should allow Canada to meet that requirement, then gradually phase in the GCAP, the first squadrons augmenting the numbers we really require, then replacing the F-35s. In parallel with that effort, combat drone tech can be completely indigenous, so the emphasis on having the capability to build a fighter on home soil would be somewhat diminished toward mid century. The advantage of accepting later GCAPs is that the design and technology will be more advanced and the overall programme more mature. Japan would be happy to receive new jets earliest while we would be in a position to wait in line while benefitting from our share of production.
Anyway, I’ve been beating the drum in support of joining GCAP for some time. If this can come about, BZ!
Honestly, considering the complexities and still-nascent technology that will be incorporated into the GCAP airframe, I don't see this being developed until mid-2040s at the earliest. It took 26 years to get the F-35 from initial concept to first production run, and that was a 5th-gen aircraft, not 6th-gen.
I'd say go with the Gripen now, use them to 2050, then transition to the GCAP. (Or transition from the F-35, if it has poor availability.) I think there is a benefit to have two airframes despite the added logistical chain, but three is too much.
There are no easy answers on a fighter jet for Canada. I am very bullish on GCAP. The demand for a next generation (non-American) fighter jet could be huge and I don’t see competitors. The timeline has always been ambitious. The biggest challenges are economics. A 6th gen fighter program is one of the most technologically complex and expensive projects in the world. The UK, Japan and Italy have committed to 350+ air frames but that is still punishing. Add Canada and Australia as customers/partners and things start to look much better. If you can involve Germany or add other European/Gulf customers, you change the math. I don’t think anyone doubts the ability of BAE, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo, and Mitsubishi to build a world class product. Canada and the UK know they can trust each other and Japan is quickly becoming a very close friend.
While I've been a fan of the Gripen for a while, the idea of managing the logistical and training complexities of a 3 airfram fleet is daunting, and does a lot more to persuade me than any amount of ooh-raw about f35 capabilities. I've always hoped we could still get a majority of our f35 order, plus a useful amount of gripens, both for their complimentary abilities (lower maintenance costs, easier to fly (apparently), ability to function with less infrastructure for northern sovereignty patrols, and sovereign control of the IP and software in case US goes completely tits up) as well as some of the enticing economic possibilities (even if some people think they are overrated), plus an opportunity to increase our connections to Saab and our Nordic allies (I think Saab is just a cool company, and I would love if we became more involved in lots of their projects). So if we have a useful fleet of F35s (65+), a similar amount of gripens, and an in on ground floor of GCAP for deliveries starting in 2040s or 2050s (being more realistic), what would we do with the Gripens? Maybe make them into tainers for f35s and GCAP? Sell them off to allies in south America in the Pacific to build alliances? Use them for air force reserves (there's a whole interesting ball of worms wrapped up in that idea...)? It really depends on where Canada is in 25, 30 years. If we are leading a coalition of middle powers, and our defense industry is thriving, things will look dramatically different than they currently do, with us fighting to just get out of the shadow of the USA. There are so many possibilities. And part of me thinks that the Gripen option is just being left on the table to give us ammo in trade negotiations, and there is no way Canada will actually make that big of a pivot away from the US, and all the media noise is Carney's way of making it a really convincing threat... But the possibility exists, and the optimist in me wants to see all the best possiblities in any future. Time will tell.
Yes, it seems obvious to me (and probably everyone else 😊) that the fighter review is waiting on how well the trade talks progress. I guess this is understandable given that we don't have as many cards to play if the talks don't go well but I'm bummed that we could be sacrificing the Gripen (and maybe the GlobalEye too) to the needs of free trade with the US. I've always thought that Sweden was a great country to partner with in defense matters for many reasons and I would hate to see us lose that partnership. If Carney is really serious about the coalition of middle powers (and it seems that he is) then partnering with a country like Sweden would be a great initial step. And while I'm at it, I'm gong to put South Korea in that same category.
I agree 100%. But I'm also think that Carney will aim to have his cake and eat it too by only negotiating to buy more or less f35s, probably aiming for 40 to 60, and plans on buying Gripens no matter what, but the amount will depend on how many f35s we end up buying. I think Carney is looking to expand the air force to 100 to 120 airframes, so there will be room to buy Gripens, even if we end up buying all 88 f35s. Saab has indicated that they can't guarantee all the economic benefits without the full order of 70 Gripens plus global eye, but I'm pretty sure that's just as much a negotiating tactic as any of Carney's moves. Not that they wouldn't love to get the full order, but I'm pretty sure they know that the odds are against a full order of Gripens. Even if we are forced to trim back our ambitions and we don't buy any Gripens, I'm pretty sure we will get Global eye, and probably some EW variants, in the long run, which was all Saab had any reason to expect before the review. Lots of people have said that 12k jobs created was probably a little high, but if they don't get the full order, they have a perfect excuse for not adding that many jobs, don't they? While I am excited by the possibility of regaining our ability to domesticly build fighter again, some of the other comments about how little 4th gen (or even 4.5 gen) manufacturing ability will actually carry over to building a 6th gen fighter are worth considering. But it might build the capacity to domestically produce loyal wingmen and large drones, beside the export potential. We don't want the factory to pump out a bunch of fighters just for Canada before shutting down, we want it to grow and build a self sustaining industry that can contribute to GDP growth for decades to come. If building jets for Ukraine is a real possibility, that's a real shot in the arm for ambitions. But that's still a bit pie and the sky. We need to survive US foreign policy for another couple years still...
Noah has reported that the government has already decided on a mixed fleet, so that is heavily influencing my opinion here. But Carney is being canny, and I'm sure he is prepared to make the best of what ever happens, and isn't leaving all his eggs in one basket. Some other nations have staked out an all or nothing position with regards to f35, and the increased costs are forcing them to scale back their fleet sizes. Switzerland is hurting particularly bad here. We are lucky that we have the Gripens as an option, but we must realize that they are clearly not a one to one replacement for the F35s. If we fall into that trap, we are screwed. I think the Gripens can compliment the F35s, and I think that the genuine and perhaps justified concern about the downsides of operating 2 airframes can be mitigated by the planed growth of the CAF. If recruitment doesn't pick up in a big way, they may be right. We will need more mechanics and pilots than we have had since ww2, and train them faster than we have since then too ... It's going to be a delicate tightrope to walk, and there will be slippage, and wastage, and in the end, we might have been better off just buying the F35s, as long as the US remains a functional democracy for another generation or two. But if it doesn't, and the pendulum continues to swing to more and more extremes in their government, we are going to need an airframe that isn't the f35, even if we arent actually flying against the Americans. And if the Gripens are as reliable and as affordable to maintain as the swedes say, that might matter a lot if there is an economic crunch where we struggle to keep the f35s in the air. I think the Gripens guard against a scenario that I genuinely hope never comes to pass, and still has enough going for it to justify its purchase in case the world continues on as it has been for so long. The Gripens are an insurance policy I hope we never need. I don't think they make sense on a purely financial basis, and only meet the current bare minimum capabilities wise. But I can see them being useful here at home for decades, even if they will be majorly outclassed in any sort of forward deployment like UNIFIER.
🤪 We haven't even replaced the ones that should have been replaced 20 years ago. Dream on. And if they got into the mix of this how many will be procured? 6?
It would be interesting to see what SAAB’s plans are for the Gripen moving forward. Has there been any movement or plans to upgrade or develop a 5th or 6th Gen fighter out of it and is there anything Canada and other allies do to move that project forward?
With the push into Canada being a player in Space, I wonder if we might join CGAP as a favor to the UK, and get ourselves involved in making Skylon a real thing.
If we were going this route, I image we would sell our F35s and get out of that business all together. I'm generally a fan of the F35 though.
Just curious, does anyone know where Sweden is on a 6th gen fighter these days? I think at some point they were in the FCAS camp. Are they signing on to GCAP or are they going it alone? Is it possible that partnering with Sweden could open up addition options for us?
I'm hopeful that the Liberal government will use the GCAP news as political cover to get the full f-35 order finally done and avoid the Gripen distraction. ie: US fighter for now GCAP for the future where we are more valued partner. Put efforts into being a strong GCAP partner for components that feed into the GCAP ecosystem. We don't need to do final assembly to get meaningful & advanced economic benefits from GCAP.
Gripen E is not a distraction. It's a viable option and preferable for Canada.
- Saab wants to expand GripenE production.
Sweden is a small country (10 million), SaabAB has a small workforce (27,000). SaabAB needs to add capacity and Canada can provide that. Saab wants to _build GripenE under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
- Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past.
Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CT-133, CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the F-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
And Canadair built those jets for others, besides the RCAF. Canadair went on to build those jets for other countries that did not have the capacities: Belgium, WestGermany, Netherlands,Turkey, etc.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Throughout the cold war, Sweden was steadfast in making its own jets. Partnering with Saab on GripenE puts Canada in position to help develop the next generation of jets for both Sweden and Canada, jets which can then be built once the final GripenE rolls off the line.
big if true!
Part of me thinks they might, but I don't think they will allow the Gripen option out of the public eye until it has at served its purpose during trade negotiations. Carney doesn't have a lot of attention grabbing threats, and he is smart enough to realize that he needs something flashy to get the attention of Trump. He is also pragmatic enough to realize that if Trump tries to call his bluff, the alternative needs to work, even if it's not ideal. So the mixed fleet will work, at least in the short to medium term. And it would have the advantage of proving to everybody on the world stage that he can stick with his guns and keep going. Because as much as Carney is pumping up our defense sector, he is also rehabilitating our image on the world stage, and right now that depends on managing or surviving what ever Trump can throw at us. If we come out looking like we won something, that will open a lot of doors, politically and economically. Time will tell. Thinking about it gives me chills up my spine.
Interesting article in the Ottawa Citizen https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/norad-f-35-figher-jet-north-america. U.S. commander of NORAD stated that the F-35 isn't required for the defense of North America. He went on to say that NORAD needs more 4th Generation jets instead. A mixed fleet seems to make more and more sense every day.
That's really interesting! Though the rest of the article is unnecessarily derisive of CAF leadership. Before I encountered Noah's writing, David Pugliese was one of the few writers in mainstream Canadian media to actually look below the surface of the defense file, so I lapped it up, but I've noticed he likes to cast military leadership in Canada in a poor light, even while making it sound like he is boosting Canadian capabilities. It really feels like he has a personal grudge against CAF leadership at times, which makes me hesitant to consider his opinions on things like that Gripen option as unbiased.
While he probably isn't wrong about how close RCAF leadership is to their USAF counterparts, to dismiss their opinions as irrelevant because of it seems childish and short sighted. Some of the discussion I have seen in the comments here, as well as Noah's writing, have been much nuanced. If a wing is 25-30 planes, 40 f35 seems like it's too few. Should be 50 to 60, and maybe 60 gripens. If Canada is going to be contributing to more allied exercises in northern europe, that's where we are going to be needing F35s, even if we can largely use gripens for NORAD.
And I am really glad to hear a NORAD commander make a statement like that, and I completely agree with the other fellow who described Hoekstra as "babbling nonsense" (I believe that is his default setting), I am worried about his comments being impolitic by the powers that be south of the boarder, and him being shoved out on his ass for saying something so disloyal... But I guess we will see. Both sides are trying to play 4 dimensional chess, and while am pretty confident that Carney can think rings around the orangatang, we are starting with a tenth of the pieces on the board. And the other side has a tendency to flip the game board when it looks they are losing, so I'm not going to confidently predict anything.
Smart move by the NORAD general -- it means NORAD avoids being examined too closely.
Because what is NORAD's purpose, these days?
Originally, NORAD was about protecting US mainland against airborne attack from USSR and Canada was just the convenient landmass buffer to the north.
USSR dissolved in 1991.
If NORAD had _required that Canada "buy" F-35s then that risked turning NORAD into a mafia-style protection racket:
"Pay me (buy my hardware) and we'll make sure nothing happens to you.
"And if you don't pay me?
" Well then ... {cracks knuckles} ... you might not like what happens ... "
Also, where was NORAD when a dozen drones swarmed a US airforce base in Louisiana earlier in March 2026?
On the lighter side, if PM Carney can keep up with his Japanese, given the recent encouraging reaction by the Japanese PM to Carney’s delivery in Japaneses, I’d say would have a shot at joining.
On the more pragmatic side, I would think that CAE would have an excellent shot at providing the training systems and simulators up front. That wouldn’t get us into the airframe production, but would be a lead-in to the sensors, computers, and AI. These are components that could be produced here and shipped for the production and integration plants. Would some of that migrate to Canada? Time will tell. Of that we have plenty of time. A cut back to the original 66 F-35s, enough to meet minimum NORAD numbers, should allow Canada to meet that requirement, then gradually phase in the GCAP, the first squadrons augmenting the numbers we really require, then replacing the F-35s. In parallel with that effort, combat drone tech can be completely indigenous, so the emphasis on having the capability to build a fighter on home soil would be somewhat diminished toward mid century. The advantage of accepting later GCAPs is that the design and technology will be more advanced and the overall programme more mature. Japan would be happy to receive new jets earliest while we would be in a position to wait in line while benefitting from our share of production.
Anyway, I’ve been beating the drum in support of joining GCAP for some time. If this can come about, BZ!
Honestly, considering the complexities and still-nascent technology that will be incorporated into the GCAP airframe, I don't see this being developed until mid-2040s at the earliest. It took 26 years to get the F-35 from initial concept to first production run, and that was a 5th-gen aircraft, not 6th-gen.
I'd say go with the Gripen now, use them to 2050, then transition to the GCAP. (Or transition from the F-35, if it has poor availability.) I think there is a benefit to have two airframes despite the added logistical chain, but three is too much.
There are no easy answers on a fighter jet for Canada. I am very bullish on GCAP. The demand for a next generation (non-American) fighter jet could be huge and I don’t see competitors. The timeline has always been ambitious. The biggest challenges are economics. A 6th gen fighter program is one of the most technologically complex and expensive projects in the world. The UK, Japan and Italy have committed to 350+ air frames but that is still punishing. Add Canada and Australia as customers/partners and things start to look much better. If you can involve Germany or add other European/Gulf customers, you change the math. I don’t think anyone doubts the ability of BAE, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo, and Mitsubishi to build a world class product. Canada and the UK know they can trust each other and Japan is quickly becoming a very close friend.
While I've been a fan of the Gripen for a while, the idea of managing the logistical and training complexities of a 3 airfram fleet is daunting, and does a lot more to persuade me than any amount of ooh-raw about f35 capabilities. I've always hoped we could still get a majority of our f35 order, plus a useful amount of gripens, both for their complimentary abilities (lower maintenance costs, easier to fly (apparently), ability to function with less infrastructure for northern sovereignty patrols, and sovereign control of the IP and software in case US goes completely tits up) as well as some of the enticing economic possibilities (even if some people think they are overrated), plus an opportunity to increase our connections to Saab and our Nordic allies (I think Saab is just a cool company, and I would love if we became more involved in lots of their projects). So if we have a useful fleet of F35s (65+), a similar amount of gripens, and an in on ground floor of GCAP for deliveries starting in 2040s or 2050s (being more realistic), what would we do with the Gripens? Maybe make them into tainers for f35s and GCAP? Sell them off to allies in south America in the Pacific to build alliances? Use them for air force reserves (there's a whole interesting ball of worms wrapped up in that idea...)? It really depends on where Canada is in 25, 30 years. If we are leading a coalition of middle powers, and our defense industry is thriving, things will look dramatically different than they currently do, with us fighting to just get out of the shadow of the USA. There are so many possibilities. And part of me thinks that the Gripen option is just being left on the table to give us ammo in trade negotiations, and there is no way Canada will actually make that big of a pivot away from the US, and all the media noise is Carney's way of making it a really convincing threat... But the possibility exists, and the optimist in me wants to see all the best possiblities in any future. Time will tell.
Yes, it seems obvious to me (and probably everyone else 😊) that the fighter review is waiting on how well the trade talks progress. I guess this is understandable given that we don't have as many cards to play if the talks don't go well but I'm bummed that we could be sacrificing the Gripen (and maybe the GlobalEye too) to the needs of free trade with the US. I've always thought that Sweden was a great country to partner with in defense matters for many reasons and I would hate to see us lose that partnership. If Carney is really serious about the coalition of middle powers (and it seems that he is) then partnering with a country like Sweden would be a great initial step. And while I'm at it, I'm gong to put South Korea in that same category.
I agree 100%. But I'm also think that Carney will aim to have his cake and eat it too by only negotiating to buy more or less f35s, probably aiming for 40 to 60, and plans on buying Gripens no matter what, but the amount will depend on how many f35s we end up buying. I think Carney is looking to expand the air force to 100 to 120 airframes, so there will be room to buy Gripens, even if we end up buying all 88 f35s. Saab has indicated that they can't guarantee all the economic benefits without the full order of 70 Gripens plus global eye, but I'm pretty sure that's just as much a negotiating tactic as any of Carney's moves. Not that they wouldn't love to get the full order, but I'm pretty sure they know that the odds are against a full order of Gripens. Even if we are forced to trim back our ambitions and we don't buy any Gripens, I'm pretty sure we will get Global eye, and probably some EW variants, in the long run, which was all Saab had any reason to expect before the review. Lots of people have said that 12k jobs created was probably a little high, but if they don't get the full order, they have a perfect excuse for not adding that many jobs, don't they? While I am excited by the possibility of regaining our ability to domesticly build fighter again, some of the other comments about how little 4th gen (or even 4.5 gen) manufacturing ability will actually carry over to building a 6th gen fighter are worth considering. But it might build the capacity to domestically produce loyal wingmen and large drones, beside the export potential. We don't want the factory to pump out a bunch of fighters just for Canada before shutting down, we want it to grow and build a self sustaining industry that can contribute to GDP growth for decades to come. If building jets for Ukraine is a real possibility, that's a real shot in the arm for ambitions. But that's still a bit pie and the sky. We need to survive US foreign policy for another couple years still...
Excellent points all around. I hope you're right about getting the Gripens......
Noah has reported that the government has already decided on a mixed fleet, so that is heavily influencing my opinion here. But Carney is being canny, and I'm sure he is prepared to make the best of what ever happens, and isn't leaving all his eggs in one basket. Some other nations have staked out an all or nothing position with regards to f35, and the increased costs are forcing them to scale back their fleet sizes. Switzerland is hurting particularly bad here. We are lucky that we have the Gripens as an option, but we must realize that they are clearly not a one to one replacement for the F35s. If we fall into that trap, we are screwed. I think the Gripens can compliment the F35s, and I think that the genuine and perhaps justified concern about the downsides of operating 2 airframes can be mitigated by the planed growth of the CAF. If recruitment doesn't pick up in a big way, they may be right. We will need more mechanics and pilots than we have had since ww2, and train them faster than we have since then too ... It's going to be a delicate tightrope to walk, and there will be slippage, and wastage, and in the end, we might have been better off just buying the F35s, as long as the US remains a functional democracy for another generation or two. But if it doesn't, and the pendulum continues to swing to more and more extremes in their government, we are going to need an airframe that isn't the f35, even if we arent actually flying against the Americans. And if the Gripens are as reliable and as affordable to maintain as the swedes say, that might matter a lot if there is an economic crunch where we struggle to keep the f35s in the air. I think the Gripens guard against a scenario that I genuinely hope never comes to pass, and still has enough going for it to justify its purchase in case the world continues on as it has been for so long. The Gripens are an insurance policy I hope we never need. I don't think they make sense on a purely financial basis, and only meet the current bare minimum capabilities wise. But I can see them being useful here at home for decades, even if they will be majorly outclassed in any sort of forward deployment like UNIFIER.
GCAP! YES!
SAAB = CCA
F35 = 65?
Well good news I think. better then other options looking at it from a distance. Def better then not being in any group & totally cut out of 6th gen.
Great piece and analysis!
🤪 We haven't even replaced the ones that should have been replaced 20 years ago. Dream on. And if they got into the mix of this how many will be procured? 6?
It would be interesting to see what SAAB’s plans are for the Gripen moving forward. Has there been any movement or plans to upgrade or develop a 5th or 6th Gen fighter out of it and is there anything Canada and other allies do to move that project forward?
FAKE wars invented by israel and the USA (which is israeli controlled).
With the push into Canada being a player in Space, I wonder if we might join CGAP as a favor to the UK, and get ourselves involved in making Skylon a real thing.
If we were going this route, I image we would sell our F35s and get out of that business all together. I'm generally a fan of the F35 though.
Just curious, does anyone know where Sweden is on a 6th gen fighter these days? I think at some point they were in the FCAS camp. Are they signing on to GCAP or are they going it alone? Is it possible that partnering with Sweden could open up addition options for us?
i think there going at it alone if i'm not wrong, also pitching the idea to Canada to join as a partner