The American Government Accountability Office released another report on F-35 availability. It's fallen to 25% for the full mission capability rate and 44% for the (single) mission capability rate. For me this has always been the main reason for wanting Canada to invest in the Gripen. It's never been the stupid "kill switch" or "sticking it to the Americans" or wanting to move away from American weapon systems. It's always been the dismal availability rate of the F-35.
Those numbers are terrible. Agreed… this is the number 1 reason for Gripen. Also gives Carney some wiggle room when he finally makes his case for expanding the Canadian fleet with Gripens. “Mr.president …are we supposed to run our Air Force with like 30 mission ready planes?? And don’t get me started on sustainment costs”.
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
Canadian procurement is a joke. Always has been. Always will be.
There is a paragraph about the Cyclones here. The Navy doesn't want them now!? After all the foot dragging and angst to get them in the first place and they don't want them? Ffs! This will be the fate of almost all the current procurement plans. Too little.Too late. With the least amount of military utility. And the maximum amount of political interference. And lots of companies and lobbyists making tons of money to provide almost nothing that contributes to our national security.
Nothing is as depressing as the CH -148 Cyclone debacle. Poster child for how we’ve done procurement in the past. TOTAL disaster. Well…the world has changed and we better change with it. Gary I think we can do it.
As much as I would love to see the RCAF having a much larger force of fighter jets ... QUANTITY DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN QUALITY!!! Especially if we acquire 4th gen Gripens when others countries are already investing heavily on 5th and even 6th gen fighters!!! If Canada is to go with a mixed fighter fleet, it should be a mixed fleet of 5th gen F-35s & 6th gen GCAP fighters!!!
Sweden continues to develop the Gripen. It has already been flown under control of Helsing’s Centaur AI agent. Saab is planning an unmanned fighter flight in 2027. We can be on the inside of this technology development as Saab’s partner or continue to hope for some parts work on the F35 (or go with a mixed fleet and do both).
GCAP sounds great and is hoping to have a demonstration plane ready in 2027. Very little development work is available as it has already been allocated to UK, Italian and Japanese firms.
Ideal scenario….reaffirm commitment for up to 88 f35’s and commit to larger force structure with 60-72 Gripens Accept Saabs offer to develop 6th Gen as partner (maybe Airbus jumps in) and keep ip here. Goal for program: design the most affordable (not cheap tho )6th Gen platform that can scale thru innovative manufacturing. This can be our next Arrow program that will instil national pride and provide the most cost effective Gen 6 solution available. Timeline: 20 years to first production aircraft. This country needs some big swings.
Hey buds , i understand why you think that way and frankly it makes sense if your #1 goal is to win 1v1 fights and/or keep your Soldiers alive . The Unfortunately Blunt fact of Warfare is , your main goal is to accomplish your mission state AT ALL COST ( ie Take a peice of ground , protect a convoy , provide Air space denial to OpFor et etc ), you will not Fight 1v1 unless everything has gone to hell , your main job is NOT keeping yourself alive , this go's against Natural Human instinct , that's why Troops are drilled and drilled and drilled , Unlimited liability is a B!tch but its effective ).
Historically it is a Military Fact that QUANTITY beats QUALITY , what wins Fights/Battles/Operations/Campaigns is Overwhelming Force initiated with Speed , Aggression and finished with Merciless Violence of Action. 9 out of 10 Conflicts the side with MORE QUANTITY beats the side with HIGHER QUALITY . Battles are often won with Quality in Soldiers training , Soldiers experience , the Soldiers Equipment quality and the quality of there supplies and communications . War's on won by the Side with the most Soldiers who have the most equipment with the most supplies .
I just ram off a few examples :
WW1 - Allies - more Men , MORE ARTILLERY , more Tanks , more Ammo , more supplies
The Allies could not go anywhere on the battlefield once the statement set in , 1915 /1916 we where at parity or outnumbered and outgunned . 1917 - We where are around troop strength parity with the Germans but we outgunned them in rillery for the first time..
The Battle of Vimy Ridge (April 1917): The British and Canadian forces deployed 983 artillery pieces and mortars to target roughly 250 German guns, giving the Allies nearly a (4:1) advantage in localized firepower. By the end of World War I in November 1918, the Allies had significantly out-produced and overtaken Germany in firepower. On the Western Front alone, the Allies possessed 21,668 artillery pieces, compared to Germany's 16,181 pieces. This gave the Allies a staggering advantage of roughly 5,487 more guns at the front lines.
WW2 - The German had QUALITY - Pz 4 , Stug 3's , Panthers , Tigers , King Tigers , Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190
Allies had more men , meat for the grinder , more equipment , more vehicles . We could replace our dead and wounded the same day with fresh FNG's same thing with equipment , supplies ,vehicles etc ....The Germans COULD NOT .
Vietnam - U.S. won every battle , had a 10-1 kill ratio or higher , LOST THE WAR . VC/NVA had more Warm bodies and where willing to use them .
Current Iran conflict , Iran has stopped the U.S. and devastated the region with mass cheap drones and Thousands upon thousand of Ballistic Missiles which saturate the area . The U.S. had 3 Carrier Strike groups plus every ground based Aircraft in the Euro zone flying missions ....its not enough ...not enough Aircraft and not enough munitions . Iran has more munitions and 90 Million Warm bodies .
On another note , The Gripen is designed , employed and deployed as a Fighter / Interceptor and has more weapon systems / weapon mounting then the F35 .I think it can hold 10 Air to Air Missiles with a Drop fuel tank on the center line.
The F 35 is a Stealth Recon / HVT Strike Aircraft , its the best one in the world to boot BUT IT IS NOT a Fighter / Interceptor . Can it be deployed as one ? sure if you want lol . In its standard stealth configuration it can hold 4 Air to Air Missiles , no drop tank so limited range . If you start adding Drop tanks to the wings ( Cant go center line due to munitions bay ) and more munitions to the wings you no longer have your stealth characteristics and your heavier and slower then the Gripen and even in the base configuration the Gripen is more maneuverable then the F35 . So if you employ it in this role and deploy it in an AO you have a worse gripen that is much more expensive lol
1v1 ? Ya the F 35 takes it for sure , 10 v 10 ? toss up id day , If the F35's fire and do not Kill Right off the bat , they will be Out of ammo and the Gripens carry a lot of fire power .
10 v 10 with Ground based Rader ( low Freq ) and AEW&C ? Gripens will win , F35 can be spotted Thousands of KM off by Low Freq then pin pointed by the AEW&C , the Gripens can dump all there Ammo down range and have it guided by the other assets .
If it was me , neither of these choices would be my first pick , they are both single engine and thats BAD for patrolling Canadas vast Arctic id go :
If i had to drop one it would be the F35 , Its the best Aircraft in the world at its job but its Job should not be the RCAF 1st or 2nd or 3rd priority , thous should be Air to Air Combat / Long Range Patrol / Heavy Ground Strike . The Single most important thing the RCAF needs is the ABILITY to Produce the Aircraft in CANADA , at speed and at scale ..because that's what will win a conflict .
If the navy agrees this is the absolute baseline on a 5 billion plus ship, do the right thing and drop the destroyer tag, it is a frigate. If the navy on other batches makes the rivers something more, rather than less in armament than a stock type 26, it should only then reconsider the designation. This is the direction they chose. Stop using the designation of destroyer to rationalize the cost.
The American Government Accountability Office released another report on F-35 availability. It's fallen to 25% for the full mission capability rate and 44% for the (single) mission capability rate. For me this has always been the main reason for wanting Canada to invest in the Gripen. It's never been the stupid "kill switch" or "sticking it to the Americans" or wanting to move away from American weapon systems. It's always been the dismal availability rate of the F-35.
Those numbers are terrible. Agreed… this is the number 1 reason for Gripen. Also gives Carney some wiggle room when he finally makes his case for expanding the Canadian fleet with Gripens. “Mr.president …are we supposed to run our Air Force with like 30 mission ready planes?? And don’t get me started on sustainment costs”.
Repost
Brad B
19h
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
Canadian procurement is a joke. Always has been. Always will be.
There is a paragraph about the Cyclones here. The Navy doesn't want them now!? After all the foot dragging and angst to get them in the first place and they don't want them? Ffs! This will be the fate of almost all the current procurement plans. Too little.Too late. With the least amount of military utility. And the maximum amount of political interference. And lots of companies and lobbyists making tons of money to provide almost nothing that contributes to our national security.
Nothing is as depressing as the CH -148 Cyclone debacle. Poster child for how we’ve done procurement in the past. TOTAL disaster. Well…the world has changed and we better change with it. Gary I think we can do it.
As much as I would love to see the RCAF having a much larger force of fighter jets ... QUANTITY DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN QUALITY!!! Especially if we acquire 4th gen Gripens when others countries are already investing heavily on 5th and even 6th gen fighters!!! If Canada is to go with a mixed fighter fleet, it should be a mixed fleet of 5th gen F-35s & 6th gen GCAP fighters!!!
Sweden continues to develop the Gripen. It has already been flown under control of Helsing’s Centaur AI agent. Saab is planning an unmanned fighter flight in 2027. We can be on the inside of this technology development as Saab’s partner or continue to hope for some parts work on the F35 (or go with a mixed fleet and do both).
GCAP sounds great and is hoping to have a demonstration plane ready in 2027. Very little development work is available as it has already been allocated to UK, Italian and Japanese firms.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2026-02-24/saab-fly-fighter-sized-uncrewed-aircraft-next-year
Ideal scenario….reaffirm commitment for up to 88 f35’s and commit to larger force structure with 60-72 Gripens Accept Saabs offer to develop 6th Gen as partner (maybe Airbus jumps in) and keep ip here. Goal for program: design the most affordable (not cheap tho )6th Gen platform that can scale thru innovative manufacturing. This can be our next Arrow program that will instil national pride and provide the most cost effective Gen 6 solution available. Timeline: 20 years to first production aircraft. This country needs some big swings.
Oh yeah…maybe Norway, Finland and Denmark join as junior partners too.
Hey buds , i understand why you think that way and frankly it makes sense if your #1 goal is to win 1v1 fights and/or keep your Soldiers alive . The Unfortunately Blunt fact of Warfare is , your main goal is to accomplish your mission state AT ALL COST ( ie Take a peice of ground , protect a convoy , provide Air space denial to OpFor et etc ), you will not Fight 1v1 unless everything has gone to hell , your main job is NOT keeping yourself alive , this go's against Natural Human instinct , that's why Troops are drilled and drilled and drilled , Unlimited liability is a B!tch but its effective ).
Historically it is a Military Fact that QUANTITY beats QUALITY , what wins Fights/Battles/Operations/Campaigns is Overwhelming Force initiated with Speed , Aggression and finished with Merciless Violence of Action. 9 out of 10 Conflicts the side with MORE QUANTITY beats the side with HIGHER QUALITY . Battles are often won with Quality in Soldiers training , Soldiers experience , the Soldiers Equipment quality and the quality of there supplies and communications . War's on won by the Side with the most Soldiers who have the most equipment with the most supplies .
I just ram off a few examples :
WW1 - Allies - more Men , MORE ARTILLERY , more Tanks , more Ammo , more supplies
The Allies could not go anywhere on the battlefield once the statement set in , 1915 /1916 we where at parity or outnumbered and outgunned . 1917 - We where are around troop strength parity with the Germans but we outgunned them in rillery for the first time..
The Battle of Vimy Ridge (April 1917): The British and Canadian forces deployed 983 artillery pieces and mortars to target roughly 250 German guns, giving the Allies nearly a (4:1) advantage in localized firepower. By the end of World War I in November 1918, the Allies had significantly out-produced and overtaken Germany in firepower. On the Western Front alone, the Allies possessed 21,668 artillery pieces, compared to Germany's 16,181 pieces. This gave the Allies a staggering advantage of roughly 5,487 more guns at the front lines.
WW2 - The German had QUALITY - Pz 4 , Stug 3's , Panthers , Tigers , King Tigers , Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190
The Allies had QUANTITY - Lee's/Grants , Shermans , Churchills , T34 , KVI , Yakovlev Yak-9 , P-47 Thunderbolt , Hawker Hurricane
Allies had more men , meat for the grinder , more equipment , more vehicles . We could replace our dead and wounded the same day with fresh FNG's same thing with equipment , supplies ,vehicles etc ....The Germans COULD NOT .
Vietnam - U.S. won every battle , had a 10-1 kill ratio or higher , LOST THE WAR . VC/NVA had more Warm bodies and where willing to use them .
Current Iran conflict , Iran has stopped the U.S. and devastated the region with mass cheap drones and Thousands upon thousand of Ballistic Missiles which saturate the area . The U.S. had 3 Carrier Strike groups plus every ground based Aircraft in the Euro zone flying missions ....its not enough ...not enough Aircraft and not enough munitions . Iran has more munitions and 90 Million Warm bodies .
On another note , The Gripen is designed , employed and deployed as a Fighter / Interceptor and has more weapon systems / weapon mounting then the F35 .I think it can hold 10 Air to Air Missiles with a Drop fuel tank on the center line.
The F 35 is a Stealth Recon / HVT Strike Aircraft , its the best one in the world to boot BUT IT IS NOT a Fighter / Interceptor . Can it be deployed as one ? sure if you want lol . In its standard stealth configuration it can hold 4 Air to Air Missiles , no drop tank so limited range . If you start adding Drop tanks to the wings ( Cant go center line due to munitions bay ) and more munitions to the wings you no longer have your stealth characteristics and your heavier and slower then the Gripen and even in the base configuration the Gripen is more maneuverable then the F35 . So if you employ it in this role and deploy it in an AO you have a worse gripen that is much more expensive lol
1v1 ? Ya the F 35 takes it for sure , 10 v 10 ? toss up id day , If the F35's fire and do not Kill Right off the bat , they will be Out of ammo and the Gripens carry a lot of fire power .
10 v 10 with Ground based Rader ( low Freq ) and AEW&C ? Gripens will win , F35 can be spotted Thousands of KM off by Low Freq then pin pointed by the AEW&C , the Gripens can dump all there Ammo down range and have it guided by the other assets .
If it was me , neither of these choices would be my first pick , they are both single engine and thats BAD for patrolling Canadas vast Arctic id go :
60- F15 Strike Eagles - Heavy ground Strike / Arctic Patrol
60- Gripens - Air to Air fighter / Interceptor
20ish - F35's - Stealth Recon / HVT Strike .
If i had to drop one it would be the F35 , Its the best Aircraft in the world at its job but its Job should not be the RCAF 1st or 2nd or 3rd priority , thous should be Air to Air Combat / Long Range Patrol / Heavy Ground Strike . The Single most important thing the RCAF needs is the ABILITY to Produce the Aircraft in CANADA , at speed and at scale ..because that's what will win a conflict .
Cheers .
If the navy agrees this is the absolute baseline on a 5 billion plus ship, do the right thing and drop the destroyer tag, it is a frigate. If the navy on other batches makes the rivers something more, rather than less in armament than a stock type 26, it should only then reconsider the designation. This is the direction they chose. Stop using the designation of destroyer to rationalize the cost.