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.
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.
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.
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.