CBC: Ottawa's mixed fleet of F-35s and Gripens could total more than 100 aircraft.

Noah Note

I wasn't gonna talk about this at first, but enough of you asked and I am getting tired of copying and pasting. My poor fingys can only tap so much. So, I have decided to do this quick.

The CBC is reporting that Canada might be looking at not only keeping a 70-strong F-35 fleet but also adding another 70 Gripen-Es on top of that for a 140-fighter force, a return (more or less) to the New Fighter Aircraft Project numbers seen with the Hornet.

I'm gonna be blunt. This is coming, what, a week after the 30/60 split numbers were also lavishly paraded around? Also after the 40/60 rumors as well, the 50/70 rumors, the 30/80… Notice how there are new numbers here like every few weeks. Almost like someone, or some group, is intentionally throwing competing numbers out to the public.

I have not heard of any fleet expansion, and if there was, I would hope the RCAF would have large warning. You can see the Q&A for my answer on this, but it remains. Large fleet expansions like this don't exist in a vacuum.

If the number of fighters, for years, has been 88, then everything else—infrastructure, pilots, ground crew, techs, etc.—is also tied to that number. I would love to see a 140-fighter fleet, but that isn't easy, especially trying to onboard two 70+ hypothetical fighter fleets.

“But Noah, what if we wait for the F-35 to be done delivering and then transition? That would give enough time?”

Ignoring that transitions don't stop at delivery, that pushes our first Gripen out nearly a decade, and still doesn't suddenly compensate for the fact that there is no plan for a dual track of training for techs, pilots, etc., that will need to compete with the F-35 for capacity in that timeframe.

At the same time, fighter numbers have a purpose. They have reason, and they form the foundation for almost everything else tied to them. There is NOTHING on the RCAF side that I have heard and seen, and I have dug deep, to indicate a massive fleet expansion.

If the RCAF knew it was a possibility they were leaning for? There would hopefully be signs and you would notice the work being done. It would not be quiet or subtle, because suddenly doubling the fleet would be a panic button scenario. There are no plans for a 140-fighter fleet.

There is no framework. There is no serious concept. It would essentially throw the RCAF into the deep end while screaming at them to figure it out. Cutting significant F-35 numbers here creates more wiggle room, yes. Keeping the full fleet, basically, and adding ANOTHER on top?

And yes, it could be done with proper planning and such, but that doesn't exist now, and starting after the choice is made is destined to cause problems and delays as the RCAF starts from near scratch. Is that on the RCAF? Yeah, a bit perhaps. Perhaps they should be more proactive, perhaps there should be better communication.

Maybe there is a plan so secret I don't know, nor does anyone else. However, in the current state? I don't think RCAF leadership is ready for such a massive upscale. I don't think that we're going to wait a decade to be Gripen ready. This isn't me going after platforms; these are the kind of questions you need to ask when suddenly throwing doubling numbers out there.

That's why I just can't believe this. Not without a plan, a commitment to funding, and actual effort put into making this concept work. Outside of it? If this were to happen, it would be a sudden political decision, one we would be writing about for the next thirty years at how it came about and its consequences, because lord knows I don't think the RCAF could handle this as they are.

There is institutional failure there, but only so much. It also again isn't impossible, but there are a lot of questions that would need to be asked. There are many willing to handwave today as “They'll figure it out” and be done.

Let this also be a lesson on why I don't report numbers. I'm disappointed CBC would. We've had two very different spectrums the last week, and I feel it's being clearly done to gauge responses and public perception. I truly believe the Feds don't know what they actually want, and any number exists only as an idea/concept as to what could be done.

So, I am sad to see so many outlets jump on numbers just to be put out there, especially when throwing so many different numbers can both confuse and annoy the general public, who will treat what they see as gospel and accept it, further making it difficult when you have to backtrack and explain the actual numbers that come.

I expect more out of people, and wish there was some basic acknowledgement that throwing random numbers out can be damaging both to public perception but also on defense education. This year alone, I have heard maybe four or five different numbers. I would trust zero of them you see, and for good reason. It just ain't credible in my mind to be tossing things out right now.