A full order of the F35 would be the end of the Gripen option for Canada. The RCAF would have gotten what appears to be their preference - to continue as a fully integrated subsidiary of the USAF - and they would have no motivation to work towards developing sovereign capabilities. While the Gripen project may continue, the RCAF would bring up training, personnel and infrastructure barriers - real issues but not insurmountable. As we would have what was previously our “full order” without any pressure to change the project would not move forward.
If Carney believes the economic benefits and sovereign control are worthwhile look for 2 squadrons of F35 (40 or so) and Gripens filling in other roles - thus putting pressure on RCAF to make it work.
Not going with a mixed fleet would also mark the beginning of the end of this time of widespread support for increased defence spending. Canadians would soon realize despite the rhetoric (assisted by some good marketing by Saab) when push comes to shove the government and CAF leadership will not be brave, bold etc but will continue the status quo of outsourcing our sovereignty and sending our tax dollars south of the border.
You bring up the MASSIVE elephant in the room , Canadians will pull all support for Military spending , FULL STOP . Like it or not we FEW who follow this , care about this are a SMALL % of the Canadian electorate ( most of us are Vets ) . Continuing to send $ south and not buying weapons to use against the U.S. and instead buying weapons to work with the U.S. will be Fatal for this Government and Military spending , it's also the quickest way to get a Fr Left or Far Right Government elected in this country , basically who ever is more Anti U.S. (CHP , PPC , NDP , Green) . Like it or not the vast majority of the Canadian electorate is anti U.S. Government, for a Valid reason to boot , so continuing down this Pro U.S. road the libs are taking is BAD NEWS for all of us
This was a sobering write up. I have to admit, I have been fantizing about a 140 fighter fleet for months now, and wagging my yap at my friends about the idea too. Noah's answer to the let's talk question took me a a back a bit, and gave me food for thought. This is more of the same, and it's a bit of a bitter pill to swallow. It has popped the unrealistic bubble I've been living happily in, and now I have to worry about someone making a political decision that will sow chaos in the RCAF for years to come. I still think 140 would be a nice number, and I was willing to be optimistic about future recruiting and training, but the points about long lead time items like basic infrastructure is a lot harder to habdwave. And I have a feeling my optimistic hand waving when it comes to pilot training was just as unrealistic.
If I'm going to be honest, it makes the whole idea of a split fleet much less attractive. When I could fool myself into thinking buying any Gripens was just getting our foot in the door to expand the fleet at a later date, it was super attractive. A 60/30 or 30/60 split is a lot less attractive if thats all we are getting for a decade or more.
Well, thank you for raining on my parade. I probably needed it.
When I saw two different set of numbers appear from credible sources in one week it became obvious the whole thing was orchestrated. In my mind the question is why. Does the government really think the public understands (cares about) the difference between a 30/60 fleet and a 70/70 fleet? Or is the real question between a 88/00 fleet and a mixed fleet?
As much as I would love to see the RCAF to have over 100 fighter jets ... QUANTITY DOESN'T MEAN QUALITY ... especially when part of that quantity has outdated 4.5th gen Gripen fighters in a 5th & 6th gen fighter world!!!
In a Fighter Role / Squadron vs Squadron ( 20 vs 20 ) the Gripen is superior . The F35 is a Stealth Strike / Recon Aircraft NOT a Fighter Aircraft , IT DOES NOT carry a heavy payload of munitions , IT DOES NOT have long range patrol capability under combat conditions with a combat payload . It's main advantage is its stealth and the minute it fire , it will light up like a Christmas tree and it carry's a smaller offensive and defensive payload then the Gripen . 1 vs 1 depending on the Mission and AO you can make argument that either the F35 or the Gripen is superior , 20 vs 20 with out of sight munitions the Gripen will beat the f35 due to having the ability to put more FIRE DOWN RANGE , within sight going guns the Gripen wins because its built as a fighter FULL STOP . THE U.S. DOES NOT USE the f35 as an AIR SUPIROIRITY fighter aircraft ....because ITS NOT AN FIGHTER JET lol . That's the F22 , they are two different Aircraft BUILT for TWO DIFFERENET MISSIONS . Personally i think we should have 30 F35 , 60 F 15 Strike Eagles , 60 Gripens . That would Cover Stealth Recon , Heavy Strike Aircraft and Fighters but thats probably to complicated for the Government to figure out , cheers .
A full order of the F35 would be the end of the Gripen option for Canada. The RCAF would have gotten what appears to be their preference - to continue as a fully integrated subsidiary of the USAF - and they would have no motivation to work towards developing sovereign capabilities. While the Gripen project may continue, the RCAF would bring up training, personnel and infrastructure barriers - real issues but not insurmountable. As we would have what was previously our “full order” without any pressure to change the project would not move forward.
If Carney believes the economic benefits and sovereign control are worthwhile look for 2 squadrons of F35 (40 or so) and Gripens filling in other roles - thus putting pressure on RCAF to make it work.
Not going with a mixed fleet would also mark the beginning of the end of this time of widespread support for increased defence spending. Canadians would soon realize despite the rhetoric (assisted by some good marketing by Saab) when push comes to shove the government and CAF leadership will not be brave, bold etc but will continue the status quo of outsourcing our sovereignty and sending our tax dollars south of the border.
You bring up the MASSIVE elephant in the room , Canadians will pull all support for Military spending , FULL STOP . Like it or not we FEW who follow this , care about this are a SMALL % of the Canadian electorate ( most of us are Vets ) . Continuing to send $ south and not buying weapons to use against the U.S. and instead buying weapons to work with the U.S. will be Fatal for this Government and Military spending , it's also the quickest way to get a Fr Left or Far Right Government elected in this country , basically who ever is more Anti U.S. (CHP , PPC , NDP , Green) . Like it or not the vast majority of the Canadian electorate is anti U.S. Government, for a Valid reason to boot , so continuing down this Pro U.S. road the libs are taking is BAD NEWS for all of us
Noah laughed at me for suggesting this option, stating no one in Ottawa was aware of any talk of increasing fighter numbers
This was a sobering write up. I have to admit, I have been fantizing about a 140 fighter fleet for months now, and wagging my yap at my friends about the idea too. Noah's answer to the let's talk question took me a a back a bit, and gave me food for thought. This is more of the same, and it's a bit of a bitter pill to swallow. It has popped the unrealistic bubble I've been living happily in, and now I have to worry about someone making a political decision that will sow chaos in the RCAF for years to come. I still think 140 would be a nice number, and I was willing to be optimistic about future recruiting and training, but the points about long lead time items like basic infrastructure is a lot harder to habdwave. And I have a feeling my optimistic hand waving when it comes to pilot training was just as unrealistic.
If I'm going to be honest, it makes the whole idea of a split fleet much less attractive. When I could fool myself into thinking buying any Gripens was just getting our foot in the door to expand the fleet at a later date, it was super attractive. A 60/30 or 30/60 split is a lot less attractive if thats all we are getting for a decade or more.
Well, thank you for raining on my parade. I probably needed it.
When I saw two different set of numbers appear from credible sources in one week it became obvious the whole thing was orchestrated. In my mind the question is why. Does the government really think the public understands (cares about) the difference between a 30/60 fleet and a 70/70 fleet? Or is the real question between a 88/00 fleet and a mixed fleet?
As much as I would love to see the RCAF to have over 100 fighter jets ... QUANTITY DOESN'T MEAN QUALITY ... especially when part of that quantity has outdated 4.5th gen Gripen fighters in a 5th & 6th gen fighter world!!!
In a Fighter Role / Squadron vs Squadron ( 20 vs 20 ) the Gripen is superior . The F35 is a Stealth Strike / Recon Aircraft NOT a Fighter Aircraft , IT DOES NOT carry a heavy payload of munitions , IT DOES NOT have long range patrol capability under combat conditions with a combat payload . It's main advantage is its stealth and the minute it fire , it will light up like a Christmas tree and it carry's a smaller offensive and defensive payload then the Gripen . 1 vs 1 depending on the Mission and AO you can make argument that either the F35 or the Gripen is superior , 20 vs 20 with out of sight munitions the Gripen will beat the f35 due to having the ability to put more FIRE DOWN RANGE , within sight going guns the Gripen wins because its built as a fighter FULL STOP . THE U.S. DOES NOT USE the f35 as an AIR SUPIROIRITY fighter aircraft ....because ITS NOT AN FIGHTER JET lol . That's the F22 , they are two different Aircraft BUILT for TWO DIFFERENET MISSIONS . Personally i think we should have 30 F35 , 60 F 15 Strike Eagles , 60 Gripens . That would Cover Stealth Recon , Heavy Strike Aircraft and Fighters but thats probably to complicated for the Government to figure out , cheers .