Thanks Noah! Just for fun, played with Chat GTP 4o for some options and costing. "Potential" total costs saving of $11B with a mixed fleet (below). Which could be spent on enhancing Support Enablers e.g. AAR/AEW&C/UAV/Space to fill critical coverage gaps, especially in remote and contested environments:
Note: MQ-28 Ghost Bat Loyal wingman could cover up Gripen short comings, enhance F-35 effectiveness and is "relatively cheap" to operate.
Interesting perspective. I think saying it publicly was the very point of it. I hope that’s all it is. It’s shameful to think we would want to give our armed forces sub par equipment for political reasons.
Appreciate the more fulsome explanation. I suggest two more major reasons the Prime Minister asked so publicly. He wants Canadian citizens to hear it - there is a lot of momentum in the public to diverge from the Americans. He also wanted Americans to hear it - Lockheed Martin CEO, citizens, defense industry, and of course the American President. I understand that RCAF has laid out their requirements but the ultimate decision lies with the government.
Everything you say makes perfect sense, but as we've seen in the past, political decisions in Canada are less about sense and more about sticking your finger in the wind and figuring out which way it's blowing. The government could still pull the plug on this buy if the cancellation idea gains traction among the (generally uninformed) public. Maybe even more so with an upcoming election.
Just take the min order needed for our NORAD commitments and get involved in GCAP or FCAS for an additional 48 airframes, then plan on another 48 to replace the F-35. We need to stop thinking in 5 year windows.
You have, for the last 2 weeks, been a voice of reason when people have been detracting and advocating for a certain fighter airframe that simply isn’t going to fly (haha see what I did there). The notion that the RCAF would fly a dual fleet is not with in the realm of reality until forced to by govt.
And it was a great mention to remember that this is a US admin that will only be in power for less than 4 years and our CF-35’s will be flying allot longer than there mandate.
Sensible arguments in favour of the F-35, but politicians have been known to make decisions for short-term gain which we end up regretting for years. I hope I'm wrong.
Thanks Noah! Just for fun, played with Chat GTP 4o for some options and costing. "Potential" total costs saving of $11B with a mixed fleet (below). Which could be spent on enhancing Support Enablers e.g. AAR/AEW&C/UAV/Space to fill critical coverage gaps, especially in remote and contested environments:
Note: MQ-28 Ghost Bat Loyal wingman could cover up Gripen short comings, enhance F-35 effectiveness and is "relatively cheap" to operate.
Comparison: 88 F-35A vs. Mixed Fighter Fleet
Fleet Option Acquisition Cost (B CAD) Lifecycle OPEX (B CAD) Total Cost (B CAD)
88 F-35A Lightning II $10.15 $35.59 $45.74
48 F-35A + 48 Gripen + 24 MQ-28 $10.38 $24.29 $34.67
Deployment Concepts: Mixed Fighter Fleet (2025-2055)
1. Mission Prioritization
Primary Roles F-35A (48) Gripen E/F (48) MQ-28 Ghost Bat (24)
Stealth Penetration/SEAD Primary Support (post-SEAD) Loyal wingman for SEAD/strike
Air Superiority Primary Secondary (defensive, NORAD) Force multiplier
NORAD QRA & Arctic Patrol Secondary (high-end QRA) Primary (day-to-day sovereignty ops) ISR/loyal wingman on patrol
NATO Expeditionary Ops Primary high threat Primary Loyal wingman for NATO
Persistent ISR & Recon Secondary (tactical ISR) Primary (persistent ISR)
Electronic Warfare Secondary (passive sensors/ESM) Primary (future EW pod)
2. Deployment Overview
Base/Region Primary Assets Operational Roles
Cold Lake, Alberta 24 F-35A + 8 MQ-28 NORAD QRA, Arctic penetration ops, NATO deployment staging, stealth strike readiness
Bagotville, Quebec 24 F-35A + 8 MQ-28 NORAD QRA, Atlantic approaches defense, NATO rapid response, NATO SEAD package deployment
Yellowknife, NWT (Forward) 24 Gripen E/F + 8 MQ-28 (Forward deploy) Arctic sovereignty patrols, high readiness QRA, distributed operations (highway/remote airstrips)
Goose Bay, Labrador 24 Gripen E/F + MQ-9B SkyGuardian (ISR) Maritime patrol, Arctic ISR, NATO training deployments
Trenton/Winnipeg (Support Ops) A330 MRTT, GlobalEye AEW&C, C2 nodes Aerial refueling (NORAD/NATO ops), AEW&C, command & control hub for Arctic/NATO missions
3. NORAD/Arctic Sovereignty Deployment Concept
Gripen E/F Focused
Primary NORAD QRA Aircraft
Distributed operations: short/rough runways, highway strips (in Yellowknife, Inuvik, Rankin Inlet)
Persistent patrols: Gripen’s low cost/hour allows routine Arctic coverage
MQ-28 Ghost Bat Support
UAV ISR patrols in unmanned-patrolled Arctic corridors
Partnered with Gripen E/F as loyal wingman to extend detection/strike envelope
SEAD decoys and electronic attack role in escalated conflict scenarios
4. NATO Expeditionary Deployment Concept
F-35A Focused
Primary role in high-threat NATO deployments (Baltics, Black Sea, Middle East)
12-16 F-35As deployed in expeditionary squadrons, supported by A330 MRTT and AEW&C
MQ-28s deployed alongside F-35s to serve as SEAD/strike wingmen, extending survivability
Gripen E/F handles Baltic Air Policing and air defense reinforcement, freeing F-35As for offensive missions
5. Force Readiness / Availability Planning
Fighter Type Total Fleet Available for Ops (75%) Deployment Model
F-35A Lightning II 48 36 24 active NORAD/NATO roles
Gripen E/F 48 36 24 NORAD/Arctic patrol, 12 NATO
MQ-28 Ghost Bat 24 18 12 paired with F-35, 6 paired with Gripen
6. Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) Concept
F-35A & MQ-28 Ghost Bat
SEAD package: MQ-28s probe enemy air defenses, jam, and strike; F-35s control remotely
ISR support: MQ-28 provides forward ISR, relays data to F-35 and NORAD C2
Attritable missions: MQ-28 acts as high-risk sensor/shooter, sparing F-35 exposure
Gripen E/F & MQ-28 Ghost Bat
Gripens control loyal wingman MQ-28 for air defense, ISR, and extended patrol radius
MQ-28 offers persistent eyes-on while Gripens conserve fuel or cover multiple sectors
Distributed command: Ground C2 nodes or AEW&C can assume MQ-28 control in contested EM spectrum
8. Support Enablers Integration
Platform Role
A330 MRTT (2-4) Refueling for F-35A, Gripen E/F, MQ-28 ferry and deployments
Saab GlobalEye AEW&C (3-5) ISR, C2 over Arctic/NORAD, battle management
MQ-9B SkyGuardian (12-18) Persistent ISR over Arctic/NORAD boundaries
Arctic SATCOM (Telesat Lightspeed + Allies) Encrypted comms, MUM-T C2 across Arctic zones
Summary
This deployment concept leverages Canada’s geography and strategic partnerships:
✅ F-35A for NATO strike & SEAD
✅ Gripen E/F for Arctic/NORAD defense
✅ MQ-28 Ghost Bat as loyal wingman, ISR extension, and SEAD decoy
✅ Force enablers (AAR/AEW&C/UAV/Space) fill critical coverage gaps, especially in remote and contested environments.
Interesting perspective. I think saying it publicly was the very point of it. I hope that’s all it is. It’s shameful to think we would want to give our armed forces sub par equipment for political reasons.
Appreciate the more fulsome explanation. I suggest two more major reasons the Prime Minister asked so publicly. He wants Canadian citizens to hear it - there is a lot of momentum in the public to diverge from the Americans. He also wanted Americans to hear it - Lockheed Martin CEO, citizens, defense industry, and of course the American President. I understand that RCAF has laid out their requirements but the ultimate decision lies with the government.
Everything you say makes perfect sense, but as we've seen in the past, political decisions in Canada are less about sense and more about sticking your finger in the wind and figuring out which way it's blowing. The government could still pull the plug on this buy if the cancellation idea gains traction among the (generally uninformed) public. Maybe even more so with an upcoming election.
Just take the min order needed for our NORAD commitments and get involved in GCAP or FCAS for an additional 48 airframes, then plan on another 48 to replace the F-35. We need to stop thinking in 5 year windows.
You have, for the last 2 weeks, been a voice of reason when people have been detracting and advocating for a certain fighter airframe that simply isn’t going to fly (haha see what I did there). The notion that the RCAF would fly a dual fleet is not with in the realm of reality until forced to by govt.
And it was a great mention to remember that this is a US admin that will only be in power for less than 4 years and our CF-35’s will be flying allot longer than there mandate.
Sensible arguments in favour of the F-35, but politicians have been known to make decisions for short-term gain which we end up regretting for years. I hope I'm wrong.
You are not wrong, but I think the era of de railing national defence is over….. for now hopefully