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
I think you nailed it on Canadian support for defence spending. The F35/Gripen has become a symbol of that diversification battle for them, and NOT going with the Gripen at least in part, would be seen as an act of capitulation by the general public.
The government might say “well we went with the global eye, that’s diversifying!” Except that 95% of average Canadians have never heard of that aircraft; the F35/Gripen is the one that they all know and matters to them.
I don’t understand how the Air Force would see this as something being inflicted upon them, rather than something to be more relevant and return to what it use to be in terms of both numbers and capabilities. Yes we need to build up infrastructure but the fleet isn’t getting 140 over night. This provides opportunities such as fielding a squadron in Europe again as part of our NATO commitment, provide air support to our troops in Europe and potentially have air assets provide support in Middle East conflicts. With the US drawing down assets, us providing a squadron of 16 f35 could fill some of those draw downs and potentially make use of the infrastructure already in place there. This would be a good thing all around.
That would reduce f35 assets from 70 to 54, providing 27 based in both cold lake and baggotville. This would be all f35 accounted for, and since each base accommodates 44, 17 Gripen could be based at each and account for almost half the gripen fleet. So in the mid term there is plenty of infrastructure to accommodate the forces, while derisking the fleet.
So where do the rest go, I would suggest a dedicated 12 in Yellowknife. Based here makes more sense for monitoring and responding to arctic passage. The Gripens don’t need special landing strips etc, so rather then building to accommodate the f35 in the North, some gripens in summer fall could be posted to inuvik, Cambridge bay and Iqaluit to properly monitor the shipping routes and rapidly respond to intrusions etc. I would then suggest if North Bay is going to be developed as a command for radar etc, the base also be built to accommodate a squadron of 24, that can better monitor the Great Lakes, rapid response to cities and reduce pressure on baggotville that can then spend more asset on monitoring the east coast.
This would have only 2 more bases built in Canada, provide more assets and better distribution of those assets and when responding to a conflict outside our borders, better able to provide assets while not compromising our ability to protect ourselves. Under ideal circumstances I would love to see a dedicated 12 on both coast, central and North to better support our Navy, Arctic and provide better rapid response to places like central Canada. But non of the above seems like inflicting a wound on our Air Force but provides exciting opportunity. Having supply and production here also allows us to add to Gripen numbers if needed over time, and given sixth Gen issues with UK/Japan and Eu projects, Canada working with Saab and from the sounds of it potentially airbus presents a chance to design/build a 6th Gen and have the manufacturing capabilities to build them here which would do much for our ability to diversify and build up our industry. If the Air Force can’t see that, then find people with greater vision to build it.
We cannot put all our fighter eggs in the American F-35 basket. The Trump Administration has made it clear that they are no longer our ally or Europe's ally. The F-35 is so dependent on American parts and software upgrades to remain flying that it more or less becomes the equivalent of a kill switch. I would rather we buy no F-35, but we will have to accept the 30 under order. The United States of America will be out of NATO by the end of 2027, if not sooner. I don't want Canada to be part of NORAD anymore. We need to be self-sufficient, and that will require more than 88 fighters.
Yes we can Luc and we will. Before we signed on to NORAD in 1958 Canada maintained 25, fighter squadrons of 18 aircraft each all across Canada. 450 frontline ac to go along with our 12, 24 ac fighter squadrons in Europe. No Canadian hates Trump that much to replicate that commitment.
The USAF trust us implicitly to guard our Canadian airspace as we have delivered since 1958. What the fuck Trump crowd are willing to do is throw that trust away for a fuck Trump gesture but North America WILL be protected. We are either trusted partners or untrusted vassels that watch American jets use Baggotville and Cold Lake with rotational US F 35’ s . Forever.
Lots of great points all around and not a lot of agreement. I guess that kinda sums up the situation with strong feelings all around. I have my own too with a list of what I want to happen to go with it but reality bites. I keep coming back to that little thing no one has enough of…..MONEY$$. Budgets have limits. Planning takes time. Carney must balance all these factors. Dave says the USAF trusts us implicitly to guard the north….great…but U.S leadership withdraws troops from Germany, refuses to sell them tomohawks, undercuts Ukraine every way they can, and says we’re the 51st state. I mean holy shit would it surprise anyone if Trump declared NORAD dead and Canada a national security risk even if we ordered 200 Gripens. This is uncharted territory. Some would say give the Air Force the funding for 130 jets and get on with all the hard work and planning required(if it hasn’t started already). I’m down with 70 f35s and 60 or so Gripens phased in over the next 10 years so we actually start the hard work of manufacturing stuff again. Gotta start somewhere and the Gripen seems like a fantastic place to start rebuilding our industrial capacity for the future.
Good point, that Canada owes a certain number of fighter aircraft for its NORAD commitment.
We still have a dilemma of how to provide a combat effective force in all weather and in all regions. An F-35 isn’t going to make many takeoffs and landings from a field built airstrip on Baffin Island. It is a hangar queen.
If the leadership at NDHQ can’t get that idea through the egg salad on their forage caps, they need to get out of their offices and go walk the ground they are charged with defending.
The leadership has to look at the lifetime of the weapons systems we have used. CF-18 pilots are in airframes older than they are. And not to single out the RCAF, but my first FN rifle issued at bootcamp was 9 years older than I was.
Even if the first squadrons of Gripens would be only rated as 4.5 gen fighters, their capabilities will be improved at first with external modules, for EW, AI assistance, and satellite comms. When these technology improve, they get incorporated into the airframe’s avionics. I would expect each successive mark or batch to improve on the previous one. As problems are identified, a solution is found.
And we still have a logistics and manufacturing problem if we were to drop the F-35 and Gripen entirely and field UAVs with AI’s doing the flying and a Weapons Officer holding the trigger. And if we can build them small, fast, cheap and by the hundreds, we will more than meet our defence goals and obligations. But we need expertise and facilities to do that. At this point only a paid agent for the Americans would push for relying solely on them to provide a 6th gen+ system for export, and based on all the other new advanced weapons systems the Pentagon has invested in, it looks like the US MIC won’t get those built for another 20 years.
So a mixed fleet of 120 fighter aircraft with production lines in Canada is the long term strategy that will meet our current and future needs. We are in the ‘Phony War’ period like 1939-1940, and we do not have time to build a new Avro Arrow.
If Saab is willing to let us build their aircraft here, we should take the opportunity. We need aircraft on the field, so let’s get the job started and move with a sense of purpose.
Here is how it works boys and girls. Canada has a legal obligation to NORAD to provide 36 armed,fuelled,trained pilot jets on the tarmac ready to fly 24/7, 365 per year. You need 65 jets to deliver that capability.
It’s the 80/70% rule.
One in five of your fleet are in parts and pieces being rebuilt leaving 80 % at the fighter bases. Dailey snags and minor repairs reduces availability to 70% of those jets.
65x 80%=52 x 70%= 36.
The 2017 Senate defence committee recommended a fleet of 120 new fighters. Of one model.
That committee had access to FAR more information than we knuckleheads on this forum.
3.5% would pay for that and would help protect N/A for decades after the soon to be 80 year old leaves the stage,
Except the readiness on the F-35 is only 53% so more would be required just to meet the 36. Buying 30 of any type would be useless and never even field a full squadron of 12, so more is definitely better.
Except if you are the Israeli airforce. The Americans apparently scoured other F-35 fleets to make the availability of the Israeli’s less than fifty aircraft mission ready for about a year before last Junes Iran raids.
An orchestrated real World combat debut. The Lightnings worked better than planned. The worlds fleets don’t have enough spare parts yet as the complexities of the new tech is not fully appreciated.
The C-17 when introduced in the nineties took about 5 years to find its stride. The Yanks always overload their new tech and the F 35 is a perfect example. The Gripen is nearing the end of its design life. The F-35 just starting.
I think it will take much longer than that for parts to be available in quantity world wide similiar to what Isreal had. Don't get me wrong, I prefer a much larger fleet of F-35s which is what I was stating we needed. I was also just pointing out the 30/60 split would be disastrous as 30 of any fighter would be useless especially in regards to the F-35A. The 70/70 split fleet would be the best option for a credible split fleet if they could pull it off with all the challenges of operating it. Aside from that, going with the full order or even more of the F-35 while looking at the future GCAP for any future increase would be my preference.
I maintain the best option politically & militarily is the full f-35 order, leveraged with a CUSMA agreement and signing on as a formal partner with GCAP.
It was actually when Noah discussed the timeline for 6th gen fighters that I first began to realize that the Gripen might add unnecessary complexity without justification. If we are looking at just replacing our current fleet of f18s, a mixed fleet has some interesting possibilities. I can easily imagine the Gripens being the reliable workhorses of domestic air patrols and NORAD, and the F35s as the temperamental thoroughbloods that are deployed overseas to meet NATO commitments. But when you realize that we need to be considering the rollout of a 3 fighter airframe in the next 10 to 15 years as 6th gen platforms become the norm, it starts to look like a bad idea. I can easily see a decision on 6th gen procurement being postponed due to the RCAF struggling to manage 2 airframes, and the all the bandwidth being taken up by what we are already trying to accomplish, leaving no room for what we need to do in the future.
It's a far more complex logistically than most people are aware of. And there are layers. You can dive deeper, and deeper, and there always seems to be additional layers of complexity beneath you. Fingers crossed!
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.
Sorry, I like the optimistic side of your vision. I . . think . . that the CAF with new blood and enough money could rise to the occasion. The political will is there and there is enough enthusiasm about the mission that this will be hard but successful. It's time we as a nation face some adversity that can be overcome by our own effort. As Noah says, there are lots of other moving parts to work on, but how do you not do that without people - that get paid by the government and recycle money back into taxes, housing, food, and military pundits. I'm an optimist and will stay that way.
Of course Canada can not manage 2 fleets at once. We must outsource our defence to Uncle and mind our manners. The fact that Sweden with only 12 million pop is a tech powerhouse should not encourage Canadians to reach beyond their grasp.
So when I heard that some former senior RCAF leadership were complaining about the 100+ fleet, as well as the GlobalEye, and a few exchanges with M. Lagasse’, I did some more AI digging. It appears that the information is there. Just have to ask the right questions. My experience in fighters and EW has helped me.
Let’s look at the Gripen first. To be able to fight with the F-35 it needs to be able to communicate with the Lightening II using datalink. The Gripen uses the 1980s standard NATO Link 16, which uses an omnidirectional antenna. The F-35 uses MADL, transmitting and receiving via very narrow beams to avoid detection.
The E-7 also uses MADL. Moreover the E-7 can also communicate with the Gripen via MADL, which has the capacity to downlink and translate to and from Link 16. However, the Gripen will communicate with an E-7 using its omnidirectional antenna.
More on the GlobalEye/E-7. GlobalEye has a blind spot in its 6 o’clock. Moreover, when the Global 6500 banks to turn, the radar antenna beam tilts with the aircraft, obscuring the radar picture.
So, the Gripen and GlobalEye together, have a datalink issue when working with the F-35 and E-7. The shortcomings I’ve just described that are inherent to the Saab systems are not apparent in the F-35 or the E-7.
Finally, the RCAF wants its AEWC aircraft to have an in-flight refuelling capability. That’s another shortcoming of the Global 6500 and of which the E-7 is capable, a capability which needs to be in place as we thrust our Air Force’s into the Arctic. Moreover, we will finally have the in-flight refuelling fleet we’ve always needed, so it’s a modification of the Global 6500 that Bombardier must complete.
I was honestly disappointed to find these shortcomings. Some of them could be overcome in due time. At this time it would be politically difficult to convince the U.S. to permit Saab to have the security and IP access to modify their GlobalEye and.or the Gripen with MADL and directional antennas. Perhaps this is where Canada can step in using its 5 eyes status and build the requisite modifications here in Canada. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
To build Gripens here…..CEO of Saab has said that it would take 5 years to build and ramp up a Gripen production facility in Canada. That would dovetail with the F-35 acquisition nicely as the F-35s will be in place by then and the CF-18s will be retired. So we avoid the need to be supporting 3 fighter fleets at the same time.
A challenge for sure, but let’s harken back to the ‘50s and ‘60s when we had a population of about 15 million. We built 1,815 Sabre Jets, 700 CF-100s, 340 Starfighters, 140 CF-5s…and of course, there was the Arrow. The plan was to build 300. Half would be flown by reserve Sqns. That was 300 for the defence of Canada until the GoC of the time was convinced that a CANUS continental defence system with aircraft supplied by the USA would make their political life so much easier. What value did the engineers and technicians really have anyway?
The CAF is aware of these issues and hence their preference for the E-7. Saab has done work already on adding radars on the fuselage fore and aft to clean up the blind spot and provide full 360 coverage. In flight refuelling is must and will be added as well. Of course these are all additional mods so will take time to certify and such.
All the datalink stuff is tied into how the negotiations go re: f35 and CUSMA. I suspect maintaining a large portion of our existing f35 order will go a long way in smoothing out some of these issues. Anyways, the U.S can really screw us and kill any Gripen deal bc of the GE engines. Carney will have to make the case that a larger fleet including Gripens provides Canada with the airframes they need to cover our vast territory. The f35s readiness rates are a problem as are escalating costs and maintenance issues. Perhaps an order for 2 E-7s is thrown in.
Infrastructure is a challenge... But then, we have recent designs for secure, high quality (albeit expensive) hangars. Or cheaper hangars that didn't pass the US security exigencies apparently. That is a solvable problem, on the timelines we need.
The bigger issue - training pipelines / throughput - remains an issue. A very valid issue. But also... The sort of issue we just should not have. To hear the RCAF folks tell it, it takes 10 years & 100 pilot candidates to develop 1 effectige CF-18 pilot. & All our training capacity is occupied maintaining our current pilots (& mechanics)... & Strained by a gradual changeover to a new type.
To be honest... This sxares the crap out of me. This is a failure of our entire system. We have downsized the pipeline so much to find efficiencies, that we can barely sustain our steady state in time of peace. What happens if we get into a conflict & lose 10 pilots? Would our system get into an unrecoverable tail spin? If we have 0 spare capacity & it takes 10 years to train 1 pilot... How long will it take to grow? Are we willing to wait 10 years after the start of a conflict to be able to grow the force? In this sort of timeline, starting BCATP in 1939 would've started feeding trained piilots to squadrons in 1949.
We need a system that has capacity & flexibility to grow to meet challenges (including things as "simple" as unexpected retirements/releases). We need to find ways to condense that timeline so that we can get trained & effective pilots to squadrons much faster in an emergency. & We need to start thinking of the current geopolitical situation as an emergency worthy of kicking off that expedited & expanded pipeline.
If we need help figuring it out... I would propose we talk to the Ukrainians, who are growing the Air Force & onboarding multiple new types at a speed not seen in the west since... A long time ago.
I don't know if this will get seen, but an article just came out from Aviation Week about how the Danes had an audit that found they significantly underestimated the operational costs of the F-35 and the UK has found operational costs are 25% higher than estimated. They also have another couple of articles about Gripen purchases in Sweden, Brazil and Ukraine and what looks like might be a production bottleneck. It's starting to look like that for a given number of F-35s for operational cost and availability, you can have almost twice the number of Gripens operate for the same lifetime So operating 44 F-35 and 88 Gripens for 30 years will cost the same as 88 F-35s. The accountant in me sees this as almost a no-brainer, even with the logistical extras this entails.
A lot of good comments and thoughts here and I would normally join the fray. However, after reading this and to be honest feeling a little dejected about it looking like we are just going to send 100% of our dollars down to the US again to make RCAF happy, I read a Wes O’Donnell article here on substack that I thought everyone here may find interesting. I did. Great case for dual fleet was made. Even with the challenges.
Here's my handful of change (my two cents, several times over) on this topic.
PART 1
1. The F-35 is an objectively better aircraft than the J-39 Gripen. Full stop. That doesn't mean the Gripen, or any 4.5-gen multi-role is inherently bad or without purpose, but the F-35 is simply a more advanced and capable aircraft. This is why NATO nations, largely, have adopted the F-35 as the 'high' end of various nations’ 'high-low' fleets. Cumulatively, the growing European F-35 fleet represents NATO's strongest conventional deterrent on the continent and, objectively, the more the better when it comes to alliance adoption of the platform.
2. J-39 Gripen was designed to implement Sweden's BAS-60/90 national defense plan. It was laser focused on enabling:
(a) Rapid, pre-emptive dispersal prior to the commencement of hostilities to a distributed network of austere operating bases (Sweden's famous highway runways);
(b) Achieving local air superiority against Warsaw Pact/Russian air forces over Sweden and in its neighbourhood of the Baltic in all weather conditions and all seasons;
(c) Land- and maritime strike capabilities as an important but secondary capability, whereas air superiority is its primary role;
(d) Rapid sortie generation from the distributed austere operating bases by permitting a small four-man crew of maintainers and armourers (an enlisted NCO and three conscripts) to refuel and re-arm the aircraft in <10 minutes while exposed to the elements (enabled by modular equipment bays and a 'don't fix it - swap it out' design philosophy and a low-slung aircraft that allows most servicing and rearming to be done at standing height without ladders, cranes, or work platforms); and,
(e) Long-term platform evolution to incorporate new capabilities over time through the use of an open design software architecture and flexible electronics bay design.
The result of this is a platform that was designed to be the next iteration of Sweden's frontline aircraft that provided the capabilities needed for the country to maintain its (pre-NATO) armed neutrality. It joined an unusually capable series of frontline fighters and multi-role platforms (Lansen, Drakken, and Viggen), all of which were designed to implement the BAS-60/90 strategy within a sovereign aircraft design and production ecosystem. The mania for self-sufficiency arguably began at the outbreak of WW2 when the Swedish order for hundreds of modern fighters from the US was abruptly cancelled by the US, leaving Sweden woefully unprepared to defend its airspace. Sweden vowed never to let that happen again.
3. The J-39 Gripen has the *potential* to be a good fit for the RCAF, but not necessarily for the reasons many people believe. There is no scenario, none whatsoever, where an RCAF Gripen would be operating from austere runways and camouflaged highway landing strips nestled in the forests. They would be operated from full-capability RCAF bases. The maintainers will be professional RCAF personnel, not 18-year-old conscripts who Sweden depended on to be the backbone of Gripen ground handling.
The platform's aptitude for rapid sortie generation is a moot point for NORAD service, since the transit distance to a patrol area will be significant, compared to taking off from a forest highway, hitting Russian bombers within minutes, then landing to refuel and rearm for the next sortie. For the RCAF, in a hot war with Russia or China, Gripens wouldn't be rising from Cold Lake to swat down tactical aviation, but rather to parry ALCMs and SLCMs relatively close to their continental targets.
None the less, the simple ground handling processes and forgiving ergonomics of the Gripen, a platform meant to be maintained by gloved hands at night in a blizzard, will still provide benefits to the RCAF, alongside comparatively affordable flight hour costs. The aircraft's integral Infrared Search and Track capability and AESA radar, coupled with a growing detection complex (JORN, AEWC, space-based moving target tracking), are also well-suited for air policing and cruise missile intercept in the vast Canadian landscape and maritime approaches.
4. The 88-tail F-35 fleet size is not an arbitrary number pulled out of the air. It represents a direct minimum baseline replacement of the CF-18 fleet and is the foundation upon which the doctrine, training strategy, capital investment program, and command and control protocols have been premised and executed upon. As Noah said, there are currently no plans for more F-35s and or plans for a second platform.
5. With that said, the political allure for Canada to reacquire the capability for the domestic assembly of multi-role fighters and grow direct and indirect employment in the defense industrial sector is going to be simply too great an opportunity for the government to pass up. I fully expect Canada is going to roll the dice and accept some form of the SAAB proposal for 60+ Gripens. I just can't see them not doing so in the current political and economic environment.
6. I also expect that government will take pains to emphasize that the acquisition is about creating new partnerships with Europe writ-large and Sweden specifically, leveraging unprecedented investment in the CAF to maximize Canadian economic benefits and domestic capabilities, and that the range of benefits from the promised technology transfer create the opportunity to co-develop new capabilities for the platform in the future, along with gaining invaluable manufacturing and integration experience that would enable Canada to explore potential future teaming opportunities for 6-gen aircraft.
7. I would expect the government to be cagey about what the order means for the F-35, while reiterating that Canada is still adopting this platform and was a founding member of the multi-national coalition that helped support its development (notwithstanding that our contribution was a drop in the bucket, our flag was still on the plane when it was unveiled). It couldn't hurt to mention how many European NATO allies have ordered and already operate the F-35. The average Canadian has no idea whatsoever that it has become the de facto NATO-standard fighter for the next half-century.
In public-facing statements, the government will underscore that the acquisition of F-35 was always going to be undertaken in steps. The first 16 F-35s have been purchased and are under construction and our pilots are training as we speak. The purchase of the next 14 F-35s is now supported through long-lead time purchases, while future tranches will be negotiated in due time as per the acquisition plan and Lockheed Martin's production schedule dictates.
In bilateral statements to the US, the government can say that its fighter review process has concluded and Canada has decided to acquire and operate a second type and grow the size of the RCAF. This larger fleet, coupled with the country’s many active investments in NORAD-supporting infrastructure and new platform capabilities, will genuinely let Canada shoulder more and (finally) do its part for NORAD commensurate with the size of our economy and benefits from collective continental security. The US wants Canada to spend more of defense and provide more teeth to NORAD and NATO: Guys, we’re doing it.
8. Most significantly, I do *not* expect the government will engage in speculation or be forced into a binding statement about how many F-35s will ultimately be acquired. Revisiting the RCAF force structure would be the natural result of the decision to operate a second type. It’s simply too early to say what the final number of squadrons and mix of type will be. The RCAF will grow overall and in the meantime, the F-35 acquisition process and standing up its squadrons will continue as-planned. The government’s habitual use of “up to X” in its messaging for new procurement mean that the plan to acquire 88 F-35s should be understood as being up to 88, as the River Class is up to 15, the subs are up to 12, GlobalEyes are up to 6, etc. With that said, we should still buy the full 88-tail fleet and I expect Canada will ultimately do this.
9. My last thought, thanks for hanging in, is that for the RCAF planning, force structure, and personnel, and training program, the plans can change. The RCAF had not planned to operate two types and maintain two dissimilar supply chains when it recommended the F-35 and an 88-plane fleet. Obviously not. The F-35 program was also planned when Canada was in a sub-2% defense spending reality.
Similarly, at the time, the RCN never planned to acquire the CDC platform, a larger 12-submarine replacement fleet for the Victorias, the Arctic Mobile Base, etc., when it wrote its 2017-2022 strategic plan and set in motion its long-term force structure and capital planning. Rhetorically, the same hand-wringing about the RCAF operating two types and a larger fleet could be echoed by the RCN, and then some. Where will the CDCs be based? How will we have enough crew and trained specialists? Etc.
The dimension of time is the answer. The last River Class won’t be delivered for nearly two decades. Its future inaugural crew and officers are in diapers right now, if born at all. I appreciate that training fighter pilots is essentially the most complex military training task and you need a decade to get someone trained up and experienced enough to be a flight leader. But most of our future F-35 fighter pilots are also in diapers.
I’m not waiving away the challenges, but I think Canada has the ability to operate a two-type air force if we put our mind to it, as we have in the past and nearly all of our allies do today. *We’re the outlier* when it comes the larger NATO member countries.
10. Actual last thought. The government needs to thread a *very* tight needle when it comes to growing and maintaining support for the historic reinvestment in the CAF that we have only just embarked upon. The current simmering emergency in our relationship with the US will eventually cool, but the psychological damage that it has done to the average citizen’s perception of our neighbour to the south is real and will last a very long time.
The government has backed itself into a corner by reopening the F-35 purchase (again), but, remarkably, it has managed to create the conditions for a net-positive outcome. A landmark announcement of acquiring the Gripen and growing the RCAF, reversing the long-standing decline in its size, capabilities, and prestige, strengthening our ties to non-US allies and Europe, and creating potentially a lot of jobs and spin-off benefits in Canada will be a *huge* political win. It’ll be a home run. We don’t know all the answers right now and it isn’t the best-possible scenario, but it will unquestionably be a win for strengthening Canada and diversifying our defense industrial base. Is the Gripen the best fighter going? No. It’s pretty damn good for a 4.5-generation platform, but, no, it is not the best fighter in the sky today. That’s the F-35, which we’re still buying and will make up the backbone of the RCAF for the next 50 years (I’m being realistically pessimistic here).
In this context, I believe the government will not announce any change to the F-35 order, while publicly expressing a serious desire to continue exploring greater economic benefits for Canada as the program goes forward, perhaps reminding the US that at 88 planes, Canada currently has the largest acquisition plan for the type outside of the US military.
Yikes…these reports have struck a nerve. The politics of this procurement are not normal…like at all. On the one hand Carney can just take the bare minimum which is 30 f35s and shift the rest to 60 or 70 Gripens keeping the force b/t 90 or a 100 airframes which should be workable given the years of planning that Noah has so kindly reminded us. This has its own set of problems as Gripens aren’t gonna just show up but hey gives us some time. Saabs gonna be a great partner for the next 40 years potentially building all sorts of cool stuff (loyal wingman comes to mind). Hell this might be the last generation of manned fighters anyways. This would keep his diversify suppliers mantra alive with the public… you know… “do what I say and not as I do” and let NATO know that Canada is serious and won’t be pushed around. There will be a price for this perceived belligerence. How high a price ? Wide range of outcomes here I think. The easiest option is just go with the full f35 order but I think this decision goes well beyond what the military planners want and represents a perceived pivot point which will tell Canadians and the world who we are and where we are going. It’s really Trump I think creating this upside down universe. The old way no longer makes sense and we are writing the new way in real time while trying to keep the economy going while our largest trading partner toys with us. Every choice has a consequence and Carney must choose wisely. This ain’t easy. And don’t forget as Noah has said many times this spending bonanza ain’t gonna last forever. We have tons of other defence needs that you could argue are more important than fighters. Just cause I’ve been thinking about. What are the chances that we award the Koreans the sub deal with a twist. Firm order for 8 subs and then join them as a partner for their recent announcement to produce nuclear subs. Hey maybe this gets them off our back for the f35s. Just a thought.
6th gen manned fighters are already being built with 7th gen in discussions. It will be a very long time before manned fighters can securely be replaced by AI UAVs. They will be required at minimum to be flying in the command chain for communications and order changes in the fly to reduce EW and jamming of the UAVs probably for decades to come.
Kevin.. you are right of course about 6th Gen fighters. I was only pointing out that unmanned fighters are on the horizon but my wording implied that ai fighters were right around the corner. They are not but they might be coming faster than we think. I still think an order of 60 or so Gripens allows us to build up our industrial capacity while providing a good fighter with much better readiness rates to offset the extremely poor rates that come with the f35. 72 f35s seems to be the minimum which gets us about 40 or so mission ready fighters with Gripens rounding out the fleet. I think the politics may demand a meaningful number so it’s not a joke like 30 and so we have enough to provide all the benefits that the f35 brings to the table.
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
I think you nailed it on Canadian support for defence spending. The F35/Gripen has become a symbol of that diversification battle for them, and NOT going with the Gripen at least in part, would be seen as an act of capitulation by the general public.
The government might say “well we went with the global eye, that’s diversifying!” Except that 95% of average Canadians have never heard of that aircraft; the F35/Gripen is the one that they all know and matters to them.
I don’t understand how the Air Force would see this as something being inflicted upon them, rather than something to be more relevant and return to what it use to be in terms of both numbers and capabilities. Yes we need to build up infrastructure but the fleet isn’t getting 140 over night. This provides opportunities such as fielding a squadron in Europe again as part of our NATO commitment, provide air support to our troops in Europe and potentially have air assets provide support in Middle East conflicts. With the US drawing down assets, us providing a squadron of 16 f35 could fill some of those draw downs and potentially make use of the infrastructure already in place there. This would be a good thing all around.
That would reduce f35 assets from 70 to 54, providing 27 based in both cold lake and baggotville. This would be all f35 accounted for, and since each base accommodates 44, 17 Gripen could be based at each and account for almost half the gripen fleet. So in the mid term there is plenty of infrastructure to accommodate the forces, while derisking the fleet.
So where do the rest go, I would suggest a dedicated 12 in Yellowknife. Based here makes more sense for monitoring and responding to arctic passage. The Gripens don’t need special landing strips etc, so rather then building to accommodate the f35 in the North, some gripens in summer fall could be posted to inuvik, Cambridge bay and Iqaluit to properly monitor the shipping routes and rapidly respond to intrusions etc. I would then suggest if North Bay is going to be developed as a command for radar etc, the base also be built to accommodate a squadron of 24, that can better monitor the Great Lakes, rapid response to cities and reduce pressure on baggotville that can then spend more asset on monitoring the east coast.
This would have only 2 more bases built in Canada, provide more assets and better distribution of those assets and when responding to a conflict outside our borders, better able to provide assets while not compromising our ability to protect ourselves. Under ideal circumstances I would love to see a dedicated 12 on both coast, central and North to better support our Navy, Arctic and provide better rapid response to places like central Canada. But non of the above seems like inflicting a wound on our Air Force but provides exciting opportunity. Having supply and production here also allows us to add to Gripen numbers if needed over time, and given sixth Gen issues with UK/Japan and Eu projects, Canada working with Saab and from the sounds of it potentially airbus presents a chance to design/build a 6th Gen and have the manufacturing capabilities to build them here which would do much for our ability to diversify and build up our industry. If the Air Force can’t see that, then find people with greater vision to build it.
We cannot put all our fighter eggs in the American F-35 basket. The Trump Administration has made it clear that they are no longer our ally or Europe's ally. The F-35 is so dependent on American parts and software upgrades to remain flying that it more or less becomes the equivalent of a kill switch. I would rather we buy no F-35, but we will have to accept the 30 under order. The United States of America will be out of NATO by the end of 2027, if not sooner. I don't want Canada to be part of NORAD anymore. We need to be self-sufficient, and that will require more than 88 fighters.
Yes we can Luc and we will. Before we signed on to NORAD in 1958 Canada maintained 25, fighter squadrons of 18 aircraft each all across Canada. 450 frontline ac to go along with our 12, 24 ac fighter squadrons in Europe. No Canadian hates Trump that much to replicate that commitment.
The USAF trust us implicitly to guard our Canadian airspace as we have delivered since 1958. What the fuck Trump crowd are willing to do is throw that trust away for a fuck Trump gesture but North America WILL be protected. We are either trusted partners or untrusted vassels that watch American jets use Baggotville and Cold Lake with rotational US F 35’ s . Forever.
Lots of great points all around and not a lot of agreement. I guess that kinda sums up the situation with strong feelings all around. I have my own too with a list of what I want to happen to go with it but reality bites. I keep coming back to that little thing no one has enough of…..MONEY$$. Budgets have limits. Planning takes time. Carney must balance all these factors. Dave says the USAF trusts us implicitly to guard the north….great…but U.S leadership withdraws troops from Germany, refuses to sell them tomohawks, undercuts Ukraine every way they can, and says we’re the 51st state. I mean holy shit would it surprise anyone if Trump declared NORAD dead and Canada a national security risk even if we ordered 200 Gripens. This is uncharted territory. Some would say give the Air Force the funding for 130 jets and get on with all the hard work and planning required(if it hasn’t started already). I’m down with 70 f35s and 60 or so Gripens phased in over the next 10 years so we actually start the hard work of manufacturing stuff again. Gotta start somewhere and the Gripen seems like a fantastic place to start rebuilding our industrial capacity for the future.
Good point, that Canada owes a certain number of fighter aircraft for its NORAD commitment.
We still have a dilemma of how to provide a combat effective force in all weather and in all regions. An F-35 isn’t going to make many takeoffs and landings from a field built airstrip on Baffin Island. It is a hangar queen.
If the leadership at NDHQ can’t get that idea through the egg salad on their forage caps, they need to get out of their offices and go walk the ground they are charged with defending.
The leadership has to look at the lifetime of the weapons systems we have used. CF-18 pilots are in airframes older than they are. And not to single out the RCAF, but my first FN rifle issued at bootcamp was 9 years older than I was.
Even if the first squadrons of Gripens would be only rated as 4.5 gen fighters, their capabilities will be improved at first with external modules, for EW, AI assistance, and satellite comms. When these technology improve, they get incorporated into the airframe’s avionics. I would expect each successive mark or batch to improve on the previous one. As problems are identified, a solution is found.
And we still have a logistics and manufacturing problem if we were to drop the F-35 and Gripen entirely and field UAVs with AI’s doing the flying and a Weapons Officer holding the trigger. And if we can build them small, fast, cheap and by the hundreds, we will more than meet our defence goals and obligations. But we need expertise and facilities to do that. At this point only a paid agent for the Americans would push for relying solely on them to provide a 6th gen+ system for export, and based on all the other new advanced weapons systems the Pentagon has invested in, it looks like the US MIC won’t get those built for another 20 years.
So a mixed fleet of 120 fighter aircraft with production lines in Canada is the long term strategy that will meet our current and future needs. We are in the ‘Phony War’ period like 1939-1940, and we do not have time to build a new Avro Arrow.
If Saab is willing to let us build their aircraft here, we should take the opportunity. We need aircraft on the field, so let’s get the job started and move with a sense of purpose.
Here is how it works boys and girls. Canada has a legal obligation to NORAD to provide 36 armed,fuelled,trained pilot jets on the tarmac ready to fly 24/7, 365 per year. You need 65 jets to deliver that capability.
It’s the 80/70% rule.
One in five of your fleet are in parts and pieces being rebuilt leaving 80 % at the fighter bases. Dailey snags and minor repairs reduces availability to 70% of those jets.
65x 80%=52 x 70%= 36.
The 2017 Senate defence committee recommended a fleet of 120 new fighters. Of one model.
That committee had access to FAR more information than we knuckleheads on this forum.
3.5% would pay for that and would help protect N/A for decades after the soon to be 80 year old leaves the stage,
Except the readiness on the F-35 is only 53% so more would be required just to meet the 36. Buying 30 of any type would be useless and never even field a full squadron of 12, so more is definitely better.
Except if you are the Israeli airforce. The Americans apparently scoured other F-35 fleets to make the availability of the Israeli’s less than fifty aircraft mission ready for about a year before last Junes Iran raids.
An orchestrated real World combat debut. The Lightnings worked better than planned. The worlds fleets don’t have enough spare parts yet as the complexities of the new tech is not fully appreciated.
The C-17 when introduced in the nineties took about 5 years to find its stride. The Yanks always overload their new tech and the F 35 is a perfect example. The Gripen is nearing the end of its design life. The F-35 just starting.
I think it will take much longer than that for parts to be available in quantity world wide similiar to what Isreal had. Don't get me wrong, I prefer a much larger fleet of F-35s which is what I was stating we needed. I was also just pointing out the 30/60 split would be disastrous as 30 of any fighter would be useless especially in regards to the F-35A. The 70/70 split fleet would be the best option for a credible split fleet if they could pull it off with all the challenges of operating it. Aside from that, going with the full order or even more of the F-35 while looking at the future GCAP for any future increase would be my preference.
I maintain the best option politically & militarily is the full f-35 order, leveraged with a CUSMA agreement and signing on as a formal partner with GCAP.
It was actually when Noah discussed the timeline for 6th gen fighters that I first began to realize that the Gripen might add unnecessary complexity without justification. If we are looking at just replacing our current fleet of f18s, a mixed fleet has some interesting possibilities. I can easily imagine the Gripens being the reliable workhorses of domestic air patrols and NORAD, and the F35s as the temperamental thoroughbloods that are deployed overseas to meet NATO commitments. But when you realize that we need to be considering the rollout of a 3 fighter airframe in the next 10 to 15 years as 6th gen platforms become the norm, it starts to look like a bad idea. I can easily see a decision on 6th gen procurement being postponed due to the RCAF struggling to manage 2 airframes, and the all the bandwidth being taken up by what we are already trying to accomplish, leaving no room for what we need to do in the future.
It's a far more complex logistically than most people are aware of. And there are layers. You can dive deeper, and deeper, and there always seems to be additional layers of complexity beneath you. Fingers crossed!
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.
Sorry, I like the optimistic side of your vision. I . . think . . that the CAF with new blood and enough money could rise to the occasion. The political will is there and there is enough enthusiasm about the mission that this will be hard but successful. It's time we as a nation face some adversity that can be overcome by our own effort. As Noah says, there are lots of other moving parts to work on, but how do you not do that without people - that get paid by the government and recycle money back into taxes, housing, food, and military pundits. I'm an optimist and will stay that way.
Of course Canada can not manage 2 fleets at once. We must outsource our defence to Uncle and mind our manners. The fact that Sweden with only 12 million pop is a tech powerhouse should not encourage Canadians to reach beyond their grasp.
So when I heard that some former senior RCAF leadership were complaining about the 100+ fleet, as well as the GlobalEye, and a few exchanges with M. Lagasse’, I did some more AI digging. It appears that the information is there. Just have to ask the right questions. My experience in fighters and EW has helped me.
Let’s look at the Gripen first. To be able to fight with the F-35 it needs to be able to communicate with the Lightening II using datalink. The Gripen uses the 1980s standard NATO Link 16, which uses an omnidirectional antenna. The F-35 uses MADL, transmitting and receiving via very narrow beams to avoid detection.
The E-7 also uses MADL. Moreover the E-7 can also communicate with the Gripen via MADL, which has the capacity to downlink and translate to and from Link 16. However, the Gripen will communicate with an E-7 using its omnidirectional antenna.
More on the GlobalEye/E-7. GlobalEye has a blind spot in its 6 o’clock. Moreover, when the Global 6500 banks to turn, the radar antenna beam tilts with the aircraft, obscuring the radar picture.
So, the Gripen and GlobalEye together, have a datalink issue when working with the F-35 and E-7. The shortcomings I’ve just described that are inherent to the Saab systems are not apparent in the F-35 or the E-7.
Finally, the RCAF wants its AEWC aircraft to have an in-flight refuelling capability. That’s another shortcoming of the Global 6500 and of which the E-7 is capable, a capability which needs to be in place as we thrust our Air Force’s into the Arctic. Moreover, we will finally have the in-flight refuelling fleet we’ve always needed, so it’s a modification of the Global 6500 that Bombardier must complete.
I was honestly disappointed to find these shortcomings. Some of them could be overcome in due time. At this time it would be politically difficult to convince the U.S. to permit Saab to have the security and IP access to modify their GlobalEye and.or the Gripen with MADL and directional antennas. Perhaps this is where Canada can step in using its 5 eyes status and build the requisite modifications here in Canada. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
To build Gripens here…..CEO of Saab has said that it would take 5 years to build and ramp up a Gripen production facility in Canada. That would dovetail with the F-35 acquisition nicely as the F-35s will be in place by then and the CF-18s will be retired. So we avoid the need to be supporting 3 fighter fleets at the same time.
A challenge for sure, but let’s harken back to the ‘50s and ‘60s when we had a population of about 15 million. We built 1,815 Sabre Jets, 700 CF-100s, 340 Starfighters, 140 CF-5s…and of course, there was the Arrow. The plan was to build 300. Half would be flown by reserve Sqns. That was 300 for the defence of Canada until the GoC of the time was convinced that a CANUS continental defence system with aircraft supplied by the USA would make their political life so much easier. What value did the engineers and technicians really have anyway?
The CAF is aware of these issues and hence their preference for the E-7. Saab has done work already on adding radars on the fuselage fore and aft to clean up the blind spot and provide full 360 coverage. In flight refuelling is must and will be added as well. Of course these are all additional mods so will take time to certify and such.
All the datalink stuff is tied into how the negotiations go re: f35 and CUSMA. I suspect maintaining a large portion of our existing f35 order will go a long way in smoothing out some of these issues. Anyways, the U.S can really screw us and kill any Gripen deal bc of the GE engines. Carney will have to make the case that a larger fleet including Gripens provides Canada with the airframes they need to cover our vast territory. The f35s readiness rates are a problem as are escalating costs and maintenance issues. Perhaps an order for 2 E-7s is thrown in.
Infrastructure is a challenge... But then, we have recent designs for secure, high quality (albeit expensive) hangars. Or cheaper hangars that didn't pass the US security exigencies apparently. That is a solvable problem, on the timelines we need.
The bigger issue - training pipelines / throughput - remains an issue. A very valid issue. But also... The sort of issue we just should not have. To hear the RCAF folks tell it, it takes 10 years & 100 pilot candidates to develop 1 effectige CF-18 pilot. & All our training capacity is occupied maintaining our current pilots (& mechanics)... & Strained by a gradual changeover to a new type.
To be honest... This sxares the crap out of me. This is a failure of our entire system. We have downsized the pipeline so much to find efficiencies, that we can barely sustain our steady state in time of peace. What happens if we get into a conflict & lose 10 pilots? Would our system get into an unrecoverable tail spin? If we have 0 spare capacity & it takes 10 years to train 1 pilot... How long will it take to grow? Are we willing to wait 10 years after the start of a conflict to be able to grow the force? In this sort of timeline, starting BCATP in 1939 would've started feeding trained piilots to squadrons in 1949.
We need a system that has capacity & flexibility to grow to meet challenges (including things as "simple" as unexpected retirements/releases). We need to find ways to condense that timeline so that we can get trained & effective pilots to squadrons much faster in an emergency. & We need to start thinking of the current geopolitical situation as an emergency worthy of kicking off that expedited & expanded pipeline.
If we need help figuring it out... I would propose we talk to the Ukrainians, who are growing the Air Force & onboarding multiple new types at a speed not seen in the west since... A long time ago.
Noah laughed at me for suggesting this option, stating no one in Ottawa was aware of any talk of increasing fighter numbers
I don't know if this will get seen, but an article just came out from Aviation Week about how the Danes had an audit that found they significantly underestimated the operational costs of the F-35 and the UK has found operational costs are 25% higher than estimated. They also have another couple of articles about Gripen purchases in Sweden, Brazil and Ukraine and what looks like might be a production bottleneck. It's starting to look like that for a given number of F-35s for operational cost and availability, you can have almost twice the number of Gripens operate for the same lifetime So operating 44 F-35 and 88 Gripens for 30 years will cost the same as 88 F-35s. The accountant in me sees this as almost a no-brainer, even with the logistical extras this entails.
A lot of good comments and thoughts here and I would normally join the fray. However, after reading this and to be honest feeling a little dejected about it looking like we are just going to send 100% of our dollars down to the US again to make RCAF happy, I read a Wes O’Donnell article here on substack that I thought everyone here may find interesting. I did. Great case for dual fleet was made. Even with the challenges.
Thanks. Wes lays out a perfectly reasonable case. Fingers crossed.
Here's my handful of change (my two cents, several times over) on this topic.
PART 1
1. The F-35 is an objectively better aircraft than the J-39 Gripen. Full stop. That doesn't mean the Gripen, or any 4.5-gen multi-role is inherently bad or without purpose, but the F-35 is simply a more advanced and capable aircraft. This is why NATO nations, largely, have adopted the F-35 as the 'high' end of various nations’ 'high-low' fleets. Cumulatively, the growing European F-35 fleet represents NATO's strongest conventional deterrent on the continent and, objectively, the more the better when it comes to alliance adoption of the platform.
2. J-39 Gripen was designed to implement Sweden's BAS-60/90 national defense plan. It was laser focused on enabling:
(a) Rapid, pre-emptive dispersal prior to the commencement of hostilities to a distributed network of austere operating bases (Sweden's famous highway runways);
(b) Achieving local air superiority against Warsaw Pact/Russian air forces over Sweden and in its neighbourhood of the Baltic in all weather conditions and all seasons;
(c) Land- and maritime strike capabilities as an important but secondary capability, whereas air superiority is its primary role;
(d) Rapid sortie generation from the distributed austere operating bases by permitting a small four-man crew of maintainers and armourers (an enlisted NCO and three conscripts) to refuel and re-arm the aircraft in <10 minutes while exposed to the elements (enabled by modular equipment bays and a 'don't fix it - swap it out' design philosophy and a low-slung aircraft that allows most servicing and rearming to be done at standing height without ladders, cranes, or work platforms); and,
(e) Long-term platform evolution to incorporate new capabilities over time through the use of an open design software architecture and flexible electronics bay design.
The result of this is a platform that was designed to be the next iteration of Sweden's frontline aircraft that provided the capabilities needed for the country to maintain its (pre-NATO) armed neutrality. It joined an unusually capable series of frontline fighters and multi-role platforms (Lansen, Drakken, and Viggen), all of which were designed to implement the BAS-60/90 strategy within a sovereign aircraft design and production ecosystem. The mania for self-sufficiency arguably began at the outbreak of WW2 when the Swedish order for hundreds of modern fighters from the US was abruptly cancelled by the US, leaving Sweden woefully unprepared to defend its airspace. Sweden vowed never to let that happen again.
3. The J-39 Gripen has the *potential* to be a good fit for the RCAF, but not necessarily for the reasons many people believe. There is no scenario, none whatsoever, where an RCAF Gripen would be operating from austere runways and camouflaged highway landing strips nestled in the forests. They would be operated from full-capability RCAF bases. The maintainers will be professional RCAF personnel, not 18-year-old conscripts who Sweden depended on to be the backbone of Gripen ground handling.
The platform's aptitude for rapid sortie generation is a moot point for NORAD service, since the transit distance to a patrol area will be significant, compared to taking off from a forest highway, hitting Russian bombers within minutes, then landing to refuel and rearm for the next sortie. For the RCAF, in a hot war with Russia or China, Gripens wouldn't be rising from Cold Lake to swat down tactical aviation, but rather to parry ALCMs and SLCMs relatively close to their continental targets.
None the less, the simple ground handling processes and forgiving ergonomics of the Gripen, a platform meant to be maintained by gloved hands at night in a blizzard, will still provide benefits to the RCAF, alongside comparatively affordable flight hour costs. The aircraft's integral Infrared Search and Track capability and AESA radar, coupled with a growing detection complex (JORN, AEWC, space-based moving target tracking), are also well-suited for air policing and cruise missile intercept in the vast Canadian landscape and maritime approaches.
4. The 88-tail F-35 fleet size is not an arbitrary number pulled out of the air. It represents a direct minimum baseline replacement of the CF-18 fleet and is the foundation upon which the doctrine, training strategy, capital investment program, and command and control protocols have been premised and executed upon. As Noah said, there are currently no plans for more F-35s and or plans for a second platform.
5. With that said, the political allure for Canada to reacquire the capability for the domestic assembly of multi-role fighters and grow direct and indirect employment in the defense industrial sector is going to be simply too great an opportunity for the government to pass up. I fully expect Canada is going to roll the dice and accept some form of the SAAB proposal for 60+ Gripens. I just can't see them not doing so in the current political and economic environment.
(Part 2 to follow)
Part 2.
6. I also expect that government will take pains to emphasize that the acquisition is about creating new partnerships with Europe writ-large and Sweden specifically, leveraging unprecedented investment in the CAF to maximize Canadian economic benefits and domestic capabilities, and that the range of benefits from the promised technology transfer create the opportunity to co-develop new capabilities for the platform in the future, along with gaining invaluable manufacturing and integration experience that would enable Canada to explore potential future teaming opportunities for 6-gen aircraft.
7. I would expect the government to be cagey about what the order means for the F-35, while reiterating that Canada is still adopting this platform and was a founding member of the multi-national coalition that helped support its development (notwithstanding that our contribution was a drop in the bucket, our flag was still on the plane when it was unveiled). It couldn't hurt to mention how many European NATO allies have ordered and already operate the F-35. The average Canadian has no idea whatsoever that it has become the de facto NATO-standard fighter for the next half-century.
In public-facing statements, the government will underscore that the acquisition of F-35 was always going to be undertaken in steps. The first 16 F-35s have been purchased and are under construction and our pilots are training as we speak. The purchase of the next 14 F-35s is now supported through long-lead time purchases, while future tranches will be negotiated in due time as per the acquisition plan and Lockheed Martin's production schedule dictates.
In bilateral statements to the US, the government can say that its fighter review process has concluded and Canada has decided to acquire and operate a second type and grow the size of the RCAF. This larger fleet, coupled with the country’s many active investments in NORAD-supporting infrastructure and new platform capabilities, will genuinely let Canada shoulder more and (finally) do its part for NORAD commensurate with the size of our economy and benefits from collective continental security. The US wants Canada to spend more of defense and provide more teeth to NORAD and NATO: Guys, we’re doing it.
8. Most significantly, I do *not* expect the government will engage in speculation or be forced into a binding statement about how many F-35s will ultimately be acquired. Revisiting the RCAF force structure would be the natural result of the decision to operate a second type. It’s simply too early to say what the final number of squadrons and mix of type will be. The RCAF will grow overall and in the meantime, the F-35 acquisition process and standing up its squadrons will continue as-planned. The government’s habitual use of “up to X” in its messaging for new procurement mean that the plan to acquire 88 F-35s should be understood as being up to 88, as the River Class is up to 15, the subs are up to 12, GlobalEyes are up to 6, etc. With that said, we should still buy the full 88-tail fleet and I expect Canada will ultimately do this.
9. My last thought, thanks for hanging in, is that for the RCAF planning, force structure, and personnel, and training program, the plans can change. The RCAF had not planned to operate two types and maintain two dissimilar supply chains when it recommended the F-35 and an 88-plane fleet. Obviously not. The F-35 program was also planned when Canada was in a sub-2% defense spending reality.
Similarly, at the time, the RCN never planned to acquire the CDC platform, a larger 12-submarine replacement fleet for the Victorias, the Arctic Mobile Base, etc., when it wrote its 2017-2022 strategic plan and set in motion its long-term force structure and capital planning. Rhetorically, the same hand-wringing about the RCAF operating two types and a larger fleet could be echoed by the RCN, and then some. Where will the CDCs be based? How will we have enough crew and trained specialists? Etc.
The dimension of time is the answer. The last River Class won’t be delivered for nearly two decades. Its future inaugural crew and officers are in diapers right now, if born at all. I appreciate that training fighter pilots is essentially the most complex military training task and you need a decade to get someone trained up and experienced enough to be a flight leader. But most of our future F-35 fighter pilots are also in diapers.
I’m not waiving away the challenges, but I think Canada has the ability to operate a two-type air force if we put our mind to it, as we have in the past and nearly all of our allies do today. *We’re the outlier* when it comes the larger NATO member countries.
10. Actual last thought. The government needs to thread a *very* tight needle when it comes to growing and maintaining support for the historic reinvestment in the CAF that we have only just embarked upon. The current simmering emergency in our relationship with the US will eventually cool, but the psychological damage that it has done to the average citizen’s perception of our neighbour to the south is real and will last a very long time.
The government has backed itself into a corner by reopening the F-35 purchase (again), but, remarkably, it has managed to create the conditions for a net-positive outcome. A landmark announcement of acquiring the Gripen and growing the RCAF, reversing the long-standing decline in its size, capabilities, and prestige, strengthening our ties to non-US allies and Europe, and creating potentially a lot of jobs and spin-off benefits in Canada will be a *huge* political win. It’ll be a home run. We don’t know all the answers right now and it isn’t the best-possible scenario, but it will unquestionably be a win for strengthening Canada and diversifying our defense industrial base. Is the Gripen the best fighter going? No. It’s pretty damn good for a 4.5-generation platform, but, no, it is not the best fighter in the sky today. That’s the F-35, which we’re still buying and will make up the backbone of the RCAF for the next 50 years (I’m being realistically pessimistic here).
In this context, I believe the government will not announce any change to the F-35 order, while publicly expressing a serious desire to continue exploring greater economic benefits for Canada as the program goes forward, perhaps reminding the US that at 88 planes, Canada currently has the largest acquisition plan for the type outside of the US military.
Well done. Now that’s a plausible scenario that I could see play out. Not bad for a cat.
That's a cheerful perspective. I can get behind that. I've been getting bogged down in an either/or mindset, so I really enjoyed this!
Yikes…these reports have struck a nerve. The politics of this procurement are not normal…like at all. On the one hand Carney can just take the bare minimum which is 30 f35s and shift the rest to 60 or 70 Gripens keeping the force b/t 90 or a 100 airframes which should be workable given the years of planning that Noah has so kindly reminded us. This has its own set of problems as Gripens aren’t gonna just show up but hey gives us some time. Saabs gonna be a great partner for the next 40 years potentially building all sorts of cool stuff (loyal wingman comes to mind). Hell this might be the last generation of manned fighters anyways. This would keep his diversify suppliers mantra alive with the public… you know… “do what I say and not as I do” and let NATO know that Canada is serious and won’t be pushed around. There will be a price for this perceived belligerence. How high a price ? Wide range of outcomes here I think. The easiest option is just go with the full f35 order but I think this decision goes well beyond what the military planners want and represents a perceived pivot point which will tell Canadians and the world who we are and where we are going. It’s really Trump I think creating this upside down universe. The old way no longer makes sense and we are writing the new way in real time while trying to keep the economy going while our largest trading partner toys with us. Every choice has a consequence and Carney must choose wisely. This ain’t easy. And don’t forget as Noah has said many times this spending bonanza ain’t gonna last forever. We have tons of other defence needs that you could argue are more important than fighters. Just cause I’ve been thinking about. What are the chances that we award the Koreans the sub deal with a twist. Firm order for 8 subs and then join them as a partner for their recent announcement to produce nuclear subs. Hey maybe this gets them off our back for the f35s. Just a thought.
6th gen manned fighters are already being built with 7th gen in discussions. It will be a very long time before manned fighters can securely be replaced by AI UAVs. They will be required at minimum to be flying in the command chain for communications and order changes in the fly to reduce EW and jamming of the UAVs probably for decades to come.
Kevin.. you are right of course about 6th Gen fighters. I was only pointing out that unmanned fighters are on the horizon but my wording implied that ai fighters were right around the corner. They are not but they might be coming faster than we think. I still think an order of 60 or so Gripens allows us to build up our industrial capacity while providing a good fighter with much better readiness rates to offset the extremely poor rates that come with the f35. 72 f35s seems to be the minimum which gets us about 40 or so mission ready fighters with Gripens rounding out the fleet. I think the politics may demand a meaningful number so it’s not a joke like 30 and so we have enough to provide all the benefits that the f35 brings to the table.