If you want the best option, it's the F-35. But don't take my word for it. The Finns began a program to replace their F-18s back in 2018. They brought in the major competitors: Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-35 and Saab Gripen. They looked at total capability, including the weapons, system support, everything. They didn't just choose a platform and ask if they could buy it- they brought all the competitors in and said "show us what your best capability looks like."
F-35 (with its weapons systems/sensor platforms) was the best option, hands down. You can look up the program (the Finns called in the HX program, H for hävittäjä (fighter) in Finnish).
I'll be honest, I'm still a fan of the Mixed Fleet of Jets idea. I've never bought the argument that it's "too expensive" or "a mixed-fleet is too logistically difficult". Like, what are they talking about? The Air Force already runs a mixed fleet of like 20 different aircraft, each with their own supply/training chains. If we can't possibly add a second fighter jet, then I can't see how we could handle any new platforms. New drones? That's another supply chain, too complicated. New AW&Cs? Thats another supply chain, too complicated for us.
That being said, I think if we were to go the mixed fleet route and build them in Canada, that we should sole source that to Bombardier. This would de-risk the project insomuch as the manufacturing line wouldn't be an orphan line by a company who has no other lines of business. Plus, Bombardier building a jet could be a springboard for having the competence to build our own Loyal Wingman drones that we could export as well. Both of those would also make Bombardier a company capable of possibly contributing to the European 6th Gen fighter program.
Its all starts with building jets here, even if not our own design, exactly how the Shipbuilding Strategy started off, and now it's maturing to build our own Canadian designed ships.
I for one would like to see a mixed fleet of 40-ish F35s, and 60-80 Gripens.
I wanna give people some benefit. I dont wanna say anything is Impossible. I just have a lot of worries lol, to many unknowns, to much about the review I dont like, especially with how the plans were before with IMP, and seeing the Embraer saga. I admire your optimism in the face of my constant worrying about things!
I do have an abundance of optimism, not always to my benefit lol. I can totally appreciate that, and clearly we don't have a strong track record with political involvement in defence procurement/industry; but to me this time feels... different? Like the Carney government genuinely sees defence spending as a way to lift the economy, much like the US, and I don't disagree. But that leaves a lot of space for things to get very, very badly.
For example, another opportunity I think we're absolutely sleeping on, is some sort of Next Generation Strategic Airlift project. Imho, we should task Bombardier (I like doubling down on existing companies, its how you get economies of scale) with designing the Next-Gen airlift to replace the C130s and C17s, and have them be Blended Wing design. The tech is maturing rapidly, and offers huge performance improvements to classic designs, and Bombardier has been working on a Blended Wing concept for years (the EcoJet). So far the companies leading the charge on this are startups, and the larger companies seem to be on the sidelines waiting to see how it pans out. But by building these for the military, bombardier would have a ready platform able to be converted for Civilian Cargo or Passenger, that is on the bleeding edge of airline tech, and that almost no one else offers. There are over 40,000 commercial aircraft out there today, how many airlines do you think would jump at replacing their current fleet with ones that carry 30% more, fly 20% further, and are 20% more fuel efficient? All of them.
I like the idea of using the military to push innovation in a way that benefits both the Military (a new, improved capability), and something that the private sector can market.
Good comment…i too am a fan of a mixed fleet. With Eurofighter & Dassault you have to look at how full there production slots are right now…both appeared to be 5 year plus. With the Gripen it isn’t so much the work…hasn’t trump also said he wants those f35 jobs back as well.
So forgetting the work….the Gripen can base up north, the F35’s just cold lake & Bagottville…so forgetting policing less travel time. The flight hr cost is appealing which is worth noting….also how soon & how much extra to get the F35 to the mythical block 4 status. And because I trust the US not at all any more…i like the fact the Gripens can base off a highway. I too would like to see a 6th gen buy in & drones.
The numbers of what plane (if any) are going to fall to the cabinet….lastly I wonder how soon till someone breaks the stealth secret….so all the eggs in one basket don’t think is a good idea. If you listen to all the experts writing out there how many are American & given you see the same line spouted all the time from some if them…i have to wonder who are bought & paid for by LM.
I dont wanna dig on Saab. I actually quite like the Company and a lot of their products lol. However I do have concerns with how the review has been done, especially with the current comments. I dont like how things have been done, especially on something so major.
There are to many questions, and while I appreciate the fun desire of a production line, there is very heavy risk Involved and I worry about the high risk of the line either failing or a future where we are spending millions upon millions to prop it up without a proper plan.
NSS you could argue has these Issues, but those yards all have twenty years of garaunteed contracts, which will also align with first rounds of replacements down the line. This fighter line? Potentially not so much...
Im not saying its impossible, but the risks and how things have been run, and all the questions I have leave me feeling very off about everything. It gives me a bad feeling. I dont like how this review has been conducted. I dont like the back and forths going around. I dont like the idea of possibly making these major decisions in the backroom over a few months.
I dont know... something just feels off. I get these red alert feelings in my brain.
Read an interesting article in Canadian Defence Review from October 9 about IMP saying that they face “a temporary but significant downturn in domestic ISS activity caused by the simultaneous retirement of two major aircraft fleets: the CP-140 Aurora (P-3 Orion) and the CC-130H Hercules” and the “real consequences. It’s not just about financial impacts — it’s also about the livelihoods of highly skilled aerospace technicians, engineers, and support staff who form the backbone of Canada’s defence industrial workforce and the sovereign capability.”
Building the Gripen could be an opportunity to maintain and upskill workforce capability.
Finns will be using F-35s on road bases above the Arctic Circle. Norwegian F-35s have been exercising this with the Finns since 2023. Land, hot pump, pilot swap, re arm, back in the air. Only way to operate inside missile range of the enemy. You can find some videos on YouTube, here’s one reference article:
Peter, the major difference for Finland & Norway is they are much small countries. (They can fly stealth with full weapon internal loads without the extra fuel for the fins in any case) The Canadian north (let alone the country) is significantly larger & having to get anywhere from our two bases involves a high speed run & much fuel…probably negating the stealth part, with the drop tanks. On checking it appears an F35 A version requires an 8000’ runway or straight paved road. Not a nothern expert but I don’t believe we have runways of that length up north…. Or many straight 2.4 km paved & flat roads (leaving the issue of any snow & ice aside). I gather the gripen E only requires about 1850-1970 feet….runways which we do have up there.
End of the day none of us here make this decision (fortunately) on the final outcome….which I will hazard a guess…gets rolled up into part of any trade deal with the US….which is again political just in a different direction.
I think it's not necessarily the country's size, but rather its proximity to the enemy. Finns sometimes need to do long range intercept, but that's typically North to South for peacetime intercepts of Russian aircraft veering off the tiny corridor of international airspace over the Baltic. Not the same as a high speed distance run from two fixed bases.
With regards to runway length, I remember that being a specific Finnish concern because of their need for distributed operations, as they assume every fixed position will be gone within the first few hours of a war with Russia. (I was working in the US DAO in Helsinki at the time).
L-M was working at the time with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and from that came the drag chute, proven to work in icy conditions on shorter road strips. That met the need (although I don't know the new runway length requirement and can't seem to find it. It might not be public).
This is stupid and really hope that is the last we hear from her.
Politicians sticking their fingers in places they shouldn’t. This is why we have the cyclone.
And let’s say they do push forward with Gripen then what? We fulfil our orders and we’re caught with our pants down with a small workforce that will proportionally get laid off and got trained up in a decade hoping for more work orders.
This Gripen deal just sounds like Arrow all over again and I guess history does like to repeat itself.
As I mention in my post here, having a company like Bombardier build the jets solves both those problems. First, it would be built by company who's survival isn't dependent on selling the next jet. Bombardier has other profitable lines of production. Second, with regard to "then what", is that the company that builds the Gripen would then have the fighter expertise to build a generation of Loyal Wingman fighter drones, that's what's next.
I feel the similarities here with the Avro stop at the politicians being involved? The Avro was on pace to be a raving success and was shut down by politicians. In this case it's the politicians advocating for us to build a jet.
Lastly, we talk about diversifying our partners. I've spend a lot of time in the defence community, and that will never happen without political involvement to pry American gear from the cold addicted hands of the CAF leadership. We have 60 years worth of soldiers who have idolized the US military and strove to be closer, more integrated, emulate it, and looked starry eye'd at all their gear. Left to their own devices, the CAF would almost certainly never abandon their addiction for US military hardware.
You already have a network of Canadian companies building parts of the F-35 in Canada through JSF. Why add another supply chain that doesn’t guarantee the workload that JSF will give compared to Gripen. Bombardier wouldn’t be the contractor to build Gripens in Canada, it’s IMP aerospace in Nova Scotia (or whoever they choose) which yeah I’m all for Canadian aerospace but only where it makes sense. This still runs into the same issue of a trained workforce that’s only useful for a certain amount of time that then can’t really do anything else because it is nowhere near our aerospace sector bases like BC, ON, AB, and QC.
Saab hasn’t even started a single thing when it comes to Loyal Wingman development (yeah don’t give me “yeah they have look at XYZ article when we haven’t even seen produced results). Also why invest in an area that seems to be dominated by American aerospace companies already when we can compete in other defence sectors when it comes to emerging technologies like surface to subsurface autonomous vessels.
My analogy of the Arrow fits perfectly as its cancellation by politicians in the day seemed more assured especially since it couldn’t secure any foreign exports. We tried to sell it to our close allies and none of them dared to even consider. A factor in which made it more possible to scrap that entire project all together.
You seem to have this notion that CAF leadership is addicted to American hardware which it isn’t. End of the day from the lowliest Private to the CDS I’m pretty sure they can all come to an agreement that we want what’s best for our troops. And if that’s something we can make at home perfect! If ain’t… well shit out of luck guess will have to buy and ship it from overseas.
Disappointing that this is even being considered. It is all about politics and nothing to do with the needs of our military.
You want to diversify your sources of equipment from the US? Fine, but let's do that for projects which are just starting, not pull the rug out from under our forces on stuff which is getting ready for delivery. We are just setting ourselves up for further delays in fighter replacement which we can ill afford.
So far all the talk about strengthening defence is not very convincing when they pull political stunts like this.
Every analysis points to F35. The doubt comes from the report that RCAF/gov is basing the number of aircraft on NORAD/NATO demands without any redundancy for losses. A full order of F35 plus an undetermined number of Gripens solves the combat redundancy and lower end of the missions profile both.
I have definitely mentioned such a thing! We used bought 138 CF-18S to meet NORAD & NATO obligations... In addition to the 200ish CF-5s we had. Given our realities, if we want to grow the CAF, I'd add 2000 more folks to RCAF & hedge bets with a second fighter fleet. 66 ish CF35S, and 66ish Gripens to bring the total to 130-140 to meet our obligations & have capacity to spare (& absorb some attrition).
I would go for Gripens over betting on 6th gen... Because until a nation has a 6th gen fighter that is OPERATIONAL... 6th gen is vaporware. We need growth & equipment now. We can swap Gripen (or F-35... Whichever we like less!) for a 6th gen option, once there are 1-2 actually operational... In 20 years.
As for the industrial portion... The we have tonnes of contracts participating in F-35 sure. Supplying parts. Not the critical IP & the parts qith high value that define the capability. We need to get into that, if we want to participate at a high level in gen 6 /future programs (manned or UCAV). Contracted manufacture is a way to start back down that path. It is after all what Canadair did F 86s, CF-104s, CF-5s...Canadianised aircraft, Engine development from Orenda, etc...)....
Yeah, options. I said above that a full F35 order plus Gripen solved the redundancy issue, not th at it made sense on any other level. Deterrence is compromised when the adversary is aware that you don't have any back up. Gripen, flown by mostly reservist crews makes a casefor deterrence in depth.
We have multiple missions with very difference needs/costs and also "big-picture" a rapidly changing air warfare paradigm. A mixed fleet makes the most sense to spread our risks and resources and tap into where tech is going - not where it’s been.
Auditor-General report said to meet ALL missions the RCAF needs 60 servable aircraft available on an average day. So even if we stuck with 88 F-35s that will not cut it, as they are hanger queens. With a serviceability rate of 55%, we would need to buy 110 of them!
Further, at approx. $830M total lifetime cost (30 years) per unit ($110K/per flight hour) that is way too much resource concentrated in one platform, that will soon be an outdated fighter paradigm.
My arm-chair general’s opinion is we should proceed with a limited number (50) of F-35’s, because they are available in the near-term (before 3032). With the money saved we can order a limited number of Gripen’s (50) AND invest in stealth unmanned CAA’s (120 units) - and still have money left over!
This is an interim step to get up to the 2nd half of the 2030’s when stealth autonomous swarm fighter (ITAR-free hopefully) units will be fully operational.
Stephen Fuhr also mentioned we are “trapped outside the technology cycle” and the F35 gives no path in, we are merely parts manufacturer, whereas we may have a route with Saab and their work with loyal wingman and AI integration.
I guess there is no possibility of LM setting up an F-35 production line in Canada like they did in Japan? Iirc, there are about 100 Canadian companies that supply some part of the F-35 parts chain. As much as I like the idea of a Gripen production line in Canada, I wonder if it would be more advantageous to keep working with the Koreans (Assuming they get the contracts for the subs and howitzers) and ask if they would work with Bombardier and set up a production line for T-50s (or TA-50s) in Canada, as I believe the next aircraft that need to be lifecycled are RCAF trainers. Maybe they could even change the design to use Pratt & Whitney Canada engines?
When I first listened to this interview as a non-pilot, non-fighter non expert - I came away with a good feeling about the gripens chance against f35. Not that I want to delve on turkey eve..., but for cost and capability and thru life, and the entire portfolio of economic benefits to canada, I actually thought was that it was a no brainer. We need to retire the CF18s, and the snowbirds... just an opinion.... why dont we just ask Elon, or heck go for broke and ask the psych version of grok for that matter...
If you want the best option, it's the F-35. But don't take my word for it. The Finns began a program to replace their F-18s back in 2018. They brought in the major competitors: Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-35 and Saab Gripen. They looked at total capability, including the weapons, system support, everything. They didn't just choose a platform and ask if they could buy it- they brought all the competitors in and said "show us what your best capability looks like."
F-35 (with its weapons systems/sensor platforms) was the best option, hands down. You can look up the program (the Finns called in the HX program, H for hävittäjä (fighter) in Finnish).
Here's just one article about Finland's process:
https://www.twz.com/43458/heres-how-finland-justified-its-decision-to-buy-64-f-35-stealth-fighters
I'll be honest, I'm still a fan of the Mixed Fleet of Jets idea. I've never bought the argument that it's "too expensive" or "a mixed-fleet is too logistically difficult". Like, what are they talking about? The Air Force already runs a mixed fleet of like 20 different aircraft, each with their own supply/training chains. If we can't possibly add a second fighter jet, then I can't see how we could handle any new platforms. New drones? That's another supply chain, too complicated. New AW&Cs? Thats another supply chain, too complicated for us.
That being said, I think if we were to go the mixed fleet route and build them in Canada, that we should sole source that to Bombardier. This would de-risk the project insomuch as the manufacturing line wouldn't be an orphan line by a company who has no other lines of business. Plus, Bombardier building a jet could be a springboard for having the competence to build our own Loyal Wingman drones that we could export as well. Both of those would also make Bombardier a company capable of possibly contributing to the European 6th Gen fighter program.
Its all starts with building jets here, even if not our own design, exactly how the Shipbuilding Strategy started off, and now it's maturing to build our own Canadian designed ships.
I for one would like to see a mixed fleet of 40-ish F35s, and 60-80 Gripens.
I wanna give people some benefit. I dont wanna say anything is Impossible. I just have a lot of worries lol, to many unknowns, to much about the review I dont like, especially with how the plans were before with IMP, and seeing the Embraer saga. I admire your optimism in the face of my constant worrying about things!
I do have an abundance of optimism, not always to my benefit lol. I can totally appreciate that, and clearly we don't have a strong track record with political involvement in defence procurement/industry; but to me this time feels... different? Like the Carney government genuinely sees defence spending as a way to lift the economy, much like the US, and I don't disagree. But that leaves a lot of space for things to get very, very badly.
For example, another opportunity I think we're absolutely sleeping on, is some sort of Next Generation Strategic Airlift project. Imho, we should task Bombardier (I like doubling down on existing companies, its how you get economies of scale) with designing the Next-Gen airlift to replace the C130s and C17s, and have them be Blended Wing design. The tech is maturing rapidly, and offers huge performance improvements to classic designs, and Bombardier has been working on a Blended Wing concept for years (the EcoJet). So far the companies leading the charge on this are startups, and the larger companies seem to be on the sidelines waiting to see how it pans out. But by building these for the military, bombardier would have a ready platform able to be converted for Civilian Cargo or Passenger, that is on the bleeding edge of airline tech, and that almost no one else offers. There are over 40,000 commercial aircraft out there today, how many airlines do you think would jump at replacing their current fleet with ones that carry 30% more, fly 20% further, and are 20% more fuel efficient? All of them.
I like the idea of using the military to push innovation in a way that benefits both the Military (a new, improved capability), and something that the private sector can market.
Good comment…i too am a fan of a mixed fleet. With Eurofighter & Dassault you have to look at how full there production slots are right now…both appeared to be 5 year plus. With the Gripen it isn’t so much the work…hasn’t trump also said he wants those f35 jobs back as well.
So forgetting the work….the Gripen can base up north, the F35’s just cold lake & Bagottville…so forgetting policing less travel time. The flight hr cost is appealing which is worth noting….also how soon & how much extra to get the F35 to the mythical block 4 status. And because I trust the US not at all any more…i like the fact the Gripens can base off a highway. I too would like to see a 6th gen buy in & drones.
The numbers of what plane (if any) are going to fall to the cabinet….lastly I wonder how soon till someone breaks the stealth secret….so all the eggs in one basket don’t think is a good idea. If you listen to all the experts writing out there how many are American & given you see the same line spouted all the time from some if them…i have to wonder who are bought & paid for by LM.
I dont wanna dig on Saab. I actually quite like the Company and a lot of their products lol. However I do have concerns with how the review has been done, especially with the current comments. I dont like how things have been done, especially on something so major.
There are to many questions, and while I appreciate the fun desire of a production line, there is very heavy risk Involved and I worry about the high risk of the line either failing or a future where we are spending millions upon millions to prop it up without a proper plan.
NSS you could argue has these Issues, but those yards all have twenty years of garaunteed contracts, which will also align with first rounds of replacements down the line. This fighter line? Potentially not so much...
Im not saying its impossible, but the risks and how things have been run, and all the questions I have leave me feeling very off about everything. It gives me a bad feeling. I dont like how this review has been conducted. I dont like the back and forths going around. I dont like the idea of possibly making these major decisions in the backroom over a few months.
I dont know... something just feels off. I get these red alert feelings in my brain.
Read an interesting article in Canadian Defence Review from October 9 about IMP saying that they face “a temporary but significant downturn in domestic ISS activity caused by the simultaneous retirement of two major aircraft fleets: the CP-140 Aurora (P-3 Orion) and the CC-130H Hercules” and the “real consequences. It’s not just about financial impacts — it’s also about the livelihoods of highly skilled aerospace technicians, engineers, and support staff who form the backbone of Canada’s defence industrial workforce and the sovereign capability.”
Building the Gripen could be an opportunity to maintain and upskill workforce capability.
https://canadiandefencereview.com/in-service-support-imp-turbulence-ahead-navigating-the-gap-between-fleets/
Finns will be using F-35s on road bases above the Arctic Circle. Norwegian F-35s have been exercising this with the Finns since 2023. Land, hot pump, pilot swap, re arm, back in the air. Only way to operate inside missile range of the enemy. You can find some videos on YouTube, here’s one reference article:
https://ac.nato.int/archive/2023/f35a-touch-down-on-highway-demonstrating-agility-and-flexibility
Peter, the major difference for Finland & Norway is they are much small countries. (They can fly stealth with full weapon internal loads without the extra fuel for the fins in any case) The Canadian north (let alone the country) is significantly larger & having to get anywhere from our two bases involves a high speed run & much fuel…probably negating the stealth part, with the drop tanks. On checking it appears an F35 A version requires an 8000’ runway or straight paved road. Not a nothern expert but I don’t believe we have runways of that length up north…. Or many straight 2.4 km paved & flat roads (leaving the issue of any snow & ice aside). I gather the gripen E only requires about 1850-1970 feet….runways which we do have up there.
End of the day none of us here make this decision (fortunately) on the final outcome….which I will hazard a guess…gets rolled up into part of any trade deal with the US….which is again political just in a different direction.
Thanks for the perspective.
I think it's not necessarily the country's size, but rather its proximity to the enemy. Finns sometimes need to do long range intercept, but that's typically North to South for peacetime intercepts of Russian aircraft veering off the tiny corridor of international airspace over the Baltic. Not the same as a high speed distance run from two fixed bases.
With regards to runway length, I remember that being a specific Finnish concern because of their need for distributed operations, as they assume every fixed position will be gone within the first few hours of a war with Russia. (I was working in the US DAO in Helsinki at the time).
L-M was working at the time with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and from that came the drag chute, proven to work in icy conditions on shorter road strips. That met the need (although I don't know the new runway length requirement and can't seem to find it. It might not be public).
https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/the-f35a-drag-chute-system.html
This is stupid and really hope that is the last we hear from her.
Politicians sticking their fingers in places they shouldn’t. This is why we have the cyclone.
And let’s say they do push forward with Gripen then what? We fulfil our orders and we’re caught with our pants down with a small workforce that will proportionally get laid off and got trained up in a decade hoping for more work orders.
This Gripen deal just sounds like Arrow all over again and I guess history does like to repeat itself.
As I mention in my post here, having a company like Bombardier build the jets solves both those problems. First, it would be built by company who's survival isn't dependent on selling the next jet. Bombardier has other profitable lines of production. Second, with regard to "then what", is that the company that builds the Gripen would then have the fighter expertise to build a generation of Loyal Wingman fighter drones, that's what's next.
I feel the similarities here with the Avro stop at the politicians being involved? The Avro was on pace to be a raving success and was shut down by politicians. In this case it's the politicians advocating for us to build a jet.
Lastly, we talk about diversifying our partners. I've spend a lot of time in the defence community, and that will never happen without political involvement to pry American gear from the cold addicted hands of the CAF leadership. We have 60 years worth of soldiers who have idolized the US military and strove to be closer, more integrated, emulate it, and looked starry eye'd at all their gear. Left to their own devices, the CAF would almost certainly never abandon their addiction for US military hardware.
You already have a network of Canadian companies building parts of the F-35 in Canada through JSF. Why add another supply chain that doesn’t guarantee the workload that JSF will give compared to Gripen. Bombardier wouldn’t be the contractor to build Gripens in Canada, it’s IMP aerospace in Nova Scotia (or whoever they choose) which yeah I’m all for Canadian aerospace but only where it makes sense. This still runs into the same issue of a trained workforce that’s only useful for a certain amount of time that then can’t really do anything else because it is nowhere near our aerospace sector bases like BC, ON, AB, and QC.
Saab hasn’t even started a single thing when it comes to Loyal Wingman development (yeah don’t give me “yeah they have look at XYZ article when we haven’t even seen produced results). Also why invest in an area that seems to be dominated by American aerospace companies already when we can compete in other defence sectors when it comes to emerging technologies like surface to subsurface autonomous vessels.
My analogy of the Arrow fits perfectly as its cancellation by politicians in the day seemed more assured especially since it couldn’t secure any foreign exports. We tried to sell it to our close allies and none of them dared to even consider. A factor in which made it more possible to scrap that entire project all together.
You seem to have this notion that CAF leadership is addicted to American hardware which it isn’t. End of the day from the lowliest Private to the CDS I’m pretty sure they can all come to an agreement that we want what’s best for our troops. And if that’s something we can make at home perfect! If ain’t… well shit out of luck guess will have to buy and ship it from overseas.
Disappointing that this is even being considered. It is all about politics and nothing to do with the needs of our military.
You want to diversify your sources of equipment from the US? Fine, but let's do that for projects which are just starting, not pull the rug out from under our forces on stuff which is getting ready for delivery. We are just setting ourselves up for further delays in fighter replacement which we can ill afford.
So far all the talk about strengthening defence is not very convincing when they pull political stunts like this.
Every analysis points to F35. The doubt comes from the report that RCAF/gov is basing the number of aircraft on NORAD/NATO demands without any redundancy for losses. A full order of F35 plus an undetermined number of Gripens solves the combat redundancy and lower end of the missions profile both.
No one ever mentions doing the full order of F-35 plus Gripen. 🤣
I have seen people throw out the TF-50 though. That would be the most hilarious option.
I have definitely mentioned such a thing! We used bought 138 CF-18S to meet NORAD & NATO obligations... In addition to the 200ish CF-5s we had. Given our realities, if we want to grow the CAF, I'd add 2000 more folks to RCAF & hedge bets with a second fighter fleet. 66 ish CF35S, and 66ish Gripens to bring the total to 130-140 to meet our obligations & have capacity to spare (& absorb some attrition).
I would go for Gripens over betting on 6th gen... Because until a nation has a 6th gen fighter that is OPERATIONAL... 6th gen is vaporware. We need growth & equipment now. We can swap Gripen (or F-35... Whichever we like less!) for a 6th gen option, once there are 1-2 actually operational... In 20 years.
As for the industrial portion... The we have tonnes of contracts participating in F-35 sure. Supplying parts. Not the critical IP & the parts qith high value that define the capability. We need to get into that, if we want to participate at a high level in gen 6 /future programs (manned or UCAV). Contracted manufacture is a way to start back down that path. It is after all what Canadair did F 86s, CF-104s, CF-5s...Canadianised aircraft, Engine development from Orenda, etc...)....
Yeah, options. I said above that a full F35 order plus Gripen solved the redundancy issue, not th at it made sense on any other level. Deterrence is compromised when the adversary is aware that you don't have any back up. Gripen, flown by mostly reservist crews makes a casefor deterrence in depth.
We have multiple missions with very difference needs/costs and also "big-picture" a rapidly changing air warfare paradigm. A mixed fleet makes the most sense to spread our risks and resources and tap into where tech is going - not where it’s been.
Auditor-General report said to meet ALL missions the RCAF needs 60 servable aircraft available on an average day. So even if we stuck with 88 F-35s that will not cut it, as they are hanger queens. With a serviceability rate of 55%, we would need to buy 110 of them!
Further, at approx. $830M total lifetime cost (30 years) per unit ($110K/per flight hour) that is way too much resource concentrated in one platform, that will soon be an outdated fighter paradigm.
My arm-chair general’s opinion is we should proceed with a limited number (50) of F-35’s, because they are available in the near-term (before 3032). With the money saved we can order a limited number of Gripen’s (50) AND invest in stealth unmanned CAA’s (120 units) - and still have money left over!
This is an interim step to get up to the 2nd half of the 2030’s when stealth autonomous swarm fighter (ITAR-free hopefully) units will be fully operational.
Let’s buy and invest in where the puck is going!
This seems like a reasonable approach. Availability of the F35’s is an issue - they “need to fix alarming mission-capability rates and rising sustainment costs for the Air Force’s F-35A fighter jet, senators told the service’s chief-of-staff nominee on Thursday.” https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/10/senators-beg-air-force-chief-staff-nominee-fix-f-35s-mission-capable-rates-costs/408727/?oref=d1-homepage-river
Stephen Fuhr also mentioned we are “trapped outside the technology cycle” and the F35 gives no path in, we are merely parts manufacturer, whereas we may have a route with Saab and their work with loyal wingman and AI integration.
God help us if it’s up to her
I guess there is no possibility of LM setting up an F-35 production line in Canada like they did in Japan? Iirc, there are about 100 Canadian companies that supply some part of the F-35 parts chain. As much as I like the idea of a Gripen production line in Canada, I wonder if it would be more advantageous to keep working with the Koreans (Assuming they get the contracts for the subs and howitzers) and ask if they would work with Bombardier and set up a production line for T-50s (or TA-50s) in Canada, as I believe the next aircraft that need to be lifecycled are RCAF trainers. Maybe they could even change the design to use Pratt & Whitney Canada engines?
https://www.cgai.ca/future_fighter_capability_saabs_gripen_e
When I first listened to this interview as a non-pilot, non-fighter non expert - I came away with a good feeling about the gripens chance against f35. Not that I want to delve on turkey eve..., but for cost and capability and thru life, and the entire portfolio of economic benefits to canada, I actually thought was that it was a no brainer. We need to retire the CF18s, and the snowbirds... just an opinion.... why dont we just ask Elon, or heck go for broke and ask the psych version of grok for that matter...