1- " Trying to sell a very expensive sixth-generation fighter jet that holds little initial industrial or economic benefit? That will be tough to go to the Canadian public "
Tell the Canadian people the truth : " The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) is being engineered to contain virtually zero U.S. components, explicitly targeting a "100% ITAR-free" (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) architecture. The core objective of the trilateral partnership between the UK, Japan, and Italy is to completely bypass U.S. export controls and technology vetoes. This design choice guarantees complete sovereign autonomy over how the aircraft is modified, upgraded, and exported. "
This was a decision was made by U.K. , Japan and Italy Pre Trump 2.0 , which makes 100% sense for any Nation to do for its own National Interest . Now the U.S. is a National Security Concern , they are unreliable and NOT STABLE , the U.S. is risk for investment and LONG TERM PARTNERSHIP .
Tell Canadian the Truth they already know , ** For OUR OWN NATIONAL INTREST Canada must get weapons and weapons systems that are NON U.S. ** you don't even need to get into the " why " ...WE ALL KNOW WHY . Canadian will gladly support this decision if the 3 founding Nations will have us .
Buy Anything But American .
2- " Of course, as many of you know, I have been highly supportive of Canada establishing a pathway to a sixth-generation platform. How this balances with the fighter review remains to be seen. At the least, running a three-fighter fleet is an exceptional challenge, and unlikely to be seriously discussed. "
So if Canada has a full fleet of F35's , Canada will have a total of 0 Air Superiority Fighter aircraft lol . If Canada gets 20-40 F35's , 80-100 Gripens ...Canada will have 80-100 4.5 Gen Air Superiority Fighter Aircraft and 20- 40 5th Ge Stealth Strike aircraft lol . Your Right " running a three-fighter fleet is an exceptional challenge " and Nowhere is that being discussed . What's being discussed is finally filling Canadian Military capability gaps by having a fleet of Aircraft that has Air to Air Fighters and a Stealth Strike / Medium Strike Recon Aircraft . Russia has a smaller GDP then Canada and they field everything up to strategic bombers lol . If having proper capability's for different mission sets is " to difficult " for RCAF leadership , demote them to PVT and post them to 2 VP in CFB Shilo , they will no longer be a problem .
Regardless of the urgency of Japan's needs, given the typical development cycle of a modern combat aircraft, the time to start looking at a replacement for the F-35 (and anything else we might use alongside it) is now. We're not in on the ground floor, but this is one of those times where close is probably good enough.
Well ....Canada invested approximately $613 million $820 million ( U.S. ) in the Joint Strike Fighter program / Air superiority Program (F35/F22) ** On The Ground Floor ** in 1996/1997 as a partner Nation , at this point and time it only consisted of the U.S. , U.K. and Canada . This funding was used for R&D ( research and development ) as a partner country and participate in the aircraft's global development rather than being a direct purchase of jets at that time.
Concept Demonstration Phase (1999–2001) - Canada spent about another $100 Million (U.S.)
System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase (2001–2018): Canada invested roughly US $100 million (U.S.) for this phase, along with an additional $50 million (U.S.) contributed through federally funded Canadian technology programs .
Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development Phase (2006 onward): Canada has made continuous, staggered annual payments—often ranging between $30 million (U.S.) and US $70 million (U.S.) annually—to remain at the " partner table "
Canada was ONE of only 3 Countries to be in the program from the ground up lol , still has 0 Aircraft 30 Years later , the Aircraft that was designed has ONE ENGINE , very very LOW RANGE , VERY SMALL weapons load out , extremely HIGH operating cost etc . Canada got absolutely nothing it needed in an Aircraft from this program well paying AND STILL PAYING annually ( getting hosed down ) . Canada needed and INVESTED from the ground up with the reequipments of TWO Engines , MAX range and Endurance and most importantly an Aircraft that is an AIR superiority Fight Aircraft .
On paper Canada got an : Stealth HVT ( High value Target ) Strike Air Craft with excellent Air RECON potential , electronics / radar / weapons systems that are foreign controlled . It's an Aircraft that is built NOT TO USE DROP TANKS but it can , if it does it throws out its stealth characteristics which is working AGAINST the Aircraft strengths . Given the F35 is NOT A Air superiority Fighter Aircraft , its SLOW and not maneuverable in comparison to every other modern aircraft and even OLDER Aircraft ( Like the F16 and F18 ) and it carried very few munitions if it wants to maintain its stealth so only 4 Air to Air missiles in its internal bays ..... This all comes out to ....If its spotter , it dies . The F 35 is the world best Stealth Strike Aircraft , HVT Strike Aircraft, Recon Aircraft and would be a GREAT ** ADDITION ** to any Country's Airforce .
IT IS NOT AN AIR Support Fighter Aircraft , ONLY AN IDIOT would build its Air forces around the F35 ...The F35 its a complimentary aircraft NOT A BACKBONE Aircraft .
In Air to Air Combat , every single Modern ( and even a large number of OLDER aircraft ) will SHIT STOMP the F35 , because the F35 IS NOT BUILT FOR THAT MISSION .
In reality what Canada got : Nothing ....0 capability....0 capacity lol
...Oh, except for a massive bill paid for by Canadian Tax payers to subsidies the U.S. Air Force lol ...that's what being in from the ground floor got Canada . At this rate , we should just take a header off the top floor from day 1 , same outcome , much cheaper .
Canada has "zero F-35s after thirty years" because we didn't order any until 2023.
More than 30 Canadian companies build parts and sub-assemblies for the F-35. The industrial benefit has, and will continue, to outstrip what we've spent to be part of the program.
As to range, you might have noticed that the RCAF is getting 9 Multi Role Tanker/Transport aircraft specifically equipped to provide air to air refueling for the F-35. No external tanks required.
I could go on, but it's more effort than it's worth to deal with a set of complaints that are largely counter factual.
Hold on , are you telling me the F35's Canada wants to get WILL NOT be getting external fuel tanks ? We should have that choice as an option , don't you think ? flying a Multi Role Tanker/Transport aircraft specifically equipped to provide air to air refueling for the F-35 into contested air space seems like a " bad " Life choice and a worse idea then drop tanks . With the drop tanks if the AWACS spots hostiles at least the F35 can drop and burn , go dark and let the AWACS be its eyes , ears and if needs be targeting system . Don't get me wrong , Air to Air refueling is a MUST for any and all RCAF Aircraft in my opinion but so is the ability to use drop tanks on Air superiority aircraft , Strike Aircraft , Long Range Patrol Aircraft , Stealth Recon Aircraft etc When and if we choose / need to . Its another tool working in the favor of any weapons platform we purchase .
I would appreciate if you could pass me the link to where you have got the information on " 9 Multi Role Tanker/Transport aircraft specifically equipped to provide air to air refueling for the F-35. " ?
I will be Blunt , im 100 % against U.S. weapons , tech , weapons platform purchases...So i can understand and appreciate where you are coming from with your criticism BUT...and this is a BIG BUT ....The U.S. does not use the F35 in the role in which Canada is buying the F35 for , if the host nation will not use it in this role , why WOULD CANADA ? its built for a completely different mission then what we are employing it for .
take the U.S. out of it , I'm not against the F35 being employed with the RCAF , I am 100% against the F35 being used as the BACKBONE of the RCAF and employed by the RCAF in a role IT WAS NOT DESIGNED to FILL . I have been against the F35 since it has been announced as the ONE and ONLY purchase for the RCAF . It make no sense , we give up the ability to defend our Air Space with it .
No, I didn't tell you we will not be getting external tanks.
No one anywhere flies tankers into contested airspace, nor did I suggest we should. Tankers still extend the range though.
A link is easy to find. The MRTTs are being built or converted to include a USAF style boom refueling system. The only fighter on the table for the RCAF that needs that is the F-35. (The MRTTs will also be capable of probe and drogue refueling.) I should note only 8 of the 9 are getting the refueling systems. It's still quite a few more tankers than we have ever had.
The US does use the F-35 in the air defence role. Hence why it is stationed in Alaska and regularly intercepts Russian aircraft approaching North American airspace. They just don't use it as much as we would because they have a plethora of options for that role. The Norwegians use it that way too.
And yes, the F-35 design did include that role. It's why the airplane is equipped with datalink information sharing, the AIM 9X, the AIM 120 AMRAAM, and is in the process of being cleared for the MBDA Meteor.
I like a lot of what your saying. I agree, domestic production of the Gripen is bound to expand the aerospace industrial base in Canada, especially when it comes to a trained workforce, but I think Noah, and others, are saying that that is only a token gesture towards 6th industrial capability. I think you are right, it should not be dismissed, but I suspect they are right, and it's a LARGE step from 4.5gen tech and industry to meaningful 6th gen tech and industry. And the real risk in investing in domestic Gripen production is one we have seen before. Build the industry, train the workforce, only for it to collapse without a customer base, and see all those invests suffer economic fallout. Don't forget, Ukraine buying 150 Gripens is still an aspiration at this point. They have put in an order for 16. A lot can happen before the rest of those orders are filled. And without a massive order from Ukraine, and a significant order from Canada, domestic production would not be good for us in the long run. Even if it produces an industry that we desire, if there is no business plan, the businesses that invest in it will be left swinging in the wind if things dont work out just right. That is not how you build trust.
So, while there is a path to awesome with domestic Gripen production, it's lined with big pit falls, and the increase in risk means that we can't rely on the private sector to take it and run. It's going to take a lot of taxpayer dollars to get it up and running and keep it running, and there is a real chance of it turning into a economic pit trap that will be seared into Canadian collective memory for generations to come... Ok, that might be a bit hyperbolic, but the possibility exists, and that is going to limit growth rate and investment to the hawks and the dreamers. So I would rather be cautious before I get my hopes up over domestic production of the Gripen and the future figher concept.
As for taking our time to achieve 6th gen, and following Sweden's example with CCAs and Gripens, I think that is not what we want. You can't just coast. If we are going to be taken seriously, by European allies and Indo Pacific allies, we can't just say "we will wait and see". The reason that a Gripen only fleet is not realistic is that Gripens are, at best, a defensive option. They can't project force, which is an important part of carrying our own weight in NATO. Nobody is expecting us to be the USA, but if we are going to be a leader in a new more European NATO, we can't build a purely defensive fleet. We need to at the fore of technological development, not trailing along in the rear.
But, as usual, I have wrote way more than I needed to or perhaps should have. All I wanted to do was caution you of too enthusiasticly embracing Saab as a silver bullet. It has potential, but also major risks, and if GCAP is successful, it will have its own advantages, with far fewer risks of abject failure.
Just for clarification, Substacks interface appears to have attached this comment in the wrong place. I suspect because I was trying to read Dominion and dissents previous comment in the middle of writing on it, and I tapped another comment while trying to scroll or somethings. It's happened before, and it's irritating, but I'm not deleting and starting over this time, too much work. Substack, do better!
I think it's a great thing that we're starting to move forward with a relationship for a 6th Generation Fighter; but I can't help but think it's the wrong one. There's already a match made in heaven... and it's the one many people seem to hate talking about... Saab.
I mean, it feels like a No Brainer to me. We already have a growing partnership with Saab through the GlobalEye. Then let's say we bought the Gripens and made them here. If we joined the Saab Program, we could be in a position not just to roll that Gripen production line right into the Future Fighter, but also potentially the CCA's along with it. The Airforce would then exist in a common ecosystem; GlobalEye, Gripen, and Saab Future Fighter/CCA; all also built and maintained here, with shared IP. Event Saab has said there's a place for Canada in their fighter program, which is WAY more than we'd ever contribute to the British/Japanese/Italian one because it's already largely set. Why would we NOT want to join into a program that we can both influence the design of, help build it, and operate it as part of an ecosystem? Another benefit? The Saab one has more runway still, it's a bit further out, allowing us to absorb all the other new aircraft that we're getting.
Noah has stated emphatically before, and addresses it indirectly here, but he does not believe that a Gripen production line would materially contribute to any sort of industrial capacity to contribute to a 5th gen production line. I believe he is referring to the advanced materials that are necessary components of a 6th gen airframe, both as a part of their structure, and their skin.
While I too am a fan of Saab, and would love to see additional cooperation, I hear a lot of skepticism from people I respect, including Noah, about how far Saab might be from a true 6th gen platform. Sweden is a small country, and several things I've read imply they are going to focus on advanced CCAs controlled from Gripens for the foreseeable future, and true 6th gen airframes are a distant want. What makes FCAS so interesting is that Japan thinks they can start replacing their F2s by 2035... Thats seriously ambitious, but also a sign of how much further along they are than Saab, who is still in the blue sky idea phase.
Choosing Saab over FCAS is a lot riskier than us Saab fans would like to admit, and it pretty much guarantees that we would be much later to the 6th gen table than some of our other allies. I'm all for collaborating on things like CCAs, but a Saab/Canada 6th gen project is pretty speculative, and is sort of wishful thinking. Something to keep in our back pocket, if everything else falls through, before we go back to the US with hat in hand, but not an ideal first choice solution
"Noah has stated emphatically before, and addresses it indirectly here, but he does not believe that a Gripen production line would materially contribute to any sort of industrial capacity to contribute to a 5th gen production line." - And he's entitled to. I emphatically disagree. I find it hard to believe that between the building of a fighter assembly facility and transfer of IP for said fighter; would contribute NOTHING. It contributes a skillset to Canadian workers, it delivers familiarity with how constructing a fighter work to canadian companies, it deliveries a facility that could assemble fighters in, it would also contribute commonality to a Saab based 6th-Gen fighter. Anti-Saab proponents always raise supply chain as a problem; this solves that, etc. It's literally a stepping stone. You learn how to assemble something before you learn how to design it yourself.
You're entirely right, even Sweden hasn't fully committed to building a 6th Gen fighter; which would leave us exactly where we are anyways; jumping in with the GCAP. So, personally, i see it as a gamble worth taking, the chance to be part of building an entire air combat ecosystem is a HUGE addition to the Canadian Economy. At most, we'd be a token contribution to the GCAP at this point, hardly an economic selling point; like the "economic contributions" of the F35 participation is basically a rounding error to our economy and doesn't provide us an IP, or chances for our companies to grow and export.
"Sweden is a small country, and several things I've read imply they are going to focus on advanced CCAs controlled from Gripens for the foreseeable future, and true 6th gen airframes are a distant want. " - I actually don't take that as a bad thing at all; i'd in fact say it's perfect. Like, what war are we racing towards that requires us to buy 6th Gen fighters right away? War with China? That's anticipated in the next 2-5 years, we'll barely have F35s by then! Additionally, even if we don't go with the Gripens, we're in the midst of buying F35's anyways; I'd be shocked if it's much earlier than 2040 before we seriously look at buying a 6th generation fighter from anyone because our F35's will still be brand new. On the flip side, with the Gripens focusing on CCA's we could get in on the ground level of that technology, and even use it for export; because everyone is going to start employing CCAs alongside whatever type of aircraft they have today; and lord knows whatever Saab builds will be more compatible globally than whatever the US builds to export.
Fantastic. CAE and CCAs! With a slightly smaller F-35 fleet, augmented by CCAs, the latter being the bridge to GCAP. The CCAs would become part of the GCAP fleet as we retire the F-35. Note: the Gripen is dead. Some day….
A stepwise approach to joining a 6th-gen program makes sense to me, notwithstanding us being too late to the party to realistically secure significant workshare or responsibility for key systems. With that said, at *some* point we are going to acquire a 6-gen platform and it would be preferable to be part of the program than simply a customer. It may not feel like it, but we have benefitted from being part of the JSF program through preferential production slots (which we declined) and not-insignificant workshare and securing the future sustainment hub.
GCAP appears to be the non-US 6th-gen program that is furthest along. FCAS is dead (for now) and Saab is still at the internal study stage for its aspirational 6th-gen concept, or so it would seem. With Japan apparently looking to field the aircraft in less than a decade(!), this urgency should bring some much-needed discipline to the program and keep it focused on delivery.
A potential expanded GCAP program that includes Canada as a Tier II partner would make for a truly global team and simultaneously let Canada deepen ties with Europe, strengthen NATO, and meaningfully grow our industrial and defense partnerships in Asia. What joining the program would mean for the RCAF is truly up in the air (pun intended).
You note the herculean investment in F-35 infrastructure we have undertaken not necessarily having transferability to a 6th-gen platform. I take your point, but imagine there would still be broad utility to us having built modern climate-controlled hanger infrastructure and gaining experience with maintaining such an advanced aircraft and its finicky RAM, not to mention working within a challenging multinational supply chain. But the RCAF operating a three-type, three-generation fleet seems deeply unlikely, assuming Gripen happens. Maybe we figure out some grand bargain where we sell the whole lot to Ukraine in the late 2030s while they still have lots of airframe life and offer up its assembly line to the GCAP program (assuming it's Crown-owned and not a Saab facility and there being any merit to retooling)?
The dilemma of what to do with a 4.5-gen fleet and assembly line (and sunk costs) in a 6th-gen world on Japan's GCAP timeline should give pause to us accepting to the Saab pitch.
"The dilemma of what to do with a 4.5-gen fleet and assembly line (and sunk costs) in a 6th-gen world on Japan's GCAP timeline should give pause to us accepting to the Saab pitch." - So, why not just jump on the Saab Future Fighter then? it has a longer timeline to fruition, and I don't see a particular need to sprint to a 6th Generation fighter? We could easily build up a whole domestic industry around the progression of partnering with Saab: GlobalEye > Gripen > Future Fighter > CCAs. And off them would be compatible with each other at that.
Going an all-Saab route does have considerable merit. My concern, broadly, is that we're likely only going to end up with two financially viable western 6th-gen platforms (F-47 + ???). Notwithstanding the likelihood of France going it alone, and a policy reversal by the US opening up F-47 for export, I don't think there will necessarily be sufficient demand for manned 6th-gen platforms to sustain several programs. Heavy NATO investment in 5th-gen (F-35) and the advent of operational CCAs will simply limit the potential addressable market for an exquisite high-end air dominance platform. GCAP could still fall apart like FCAS, but to a layperson, it seems to be the most likely candidate for a non-US western 6th-gen around which Euro NATO ultimately coalesces going into the 2050s.
If I’m being honest the reason I’ve always liked the Gripen is simply because I think Sweden/Saab would be great partners. The Gripen is a fine 4.5 Gen fighter and would have real utility for Continental/arctic defence. It also has vastly superior readiness rates over the f35. Not to mention that we get to claw our way back into manufacturing fighter jets again and begin the long process of reclaiming this lost skill set. This is why the all-Saab approach has always appealed to me.
Conceptually it all sounds great but I’m pretty sure I’m underestimating what such a path would actually look like. Are we prepared to fully fund the development of a sixth Gen fighter? Let alone that we don’t exactly have a deep well to draw from to contribute technical know-how. There’s a reason multi-country consortiums are formed to deal with the demands such a program requires.
Is it possible? Sure with unlimited $$$ and decades of effort.
Matthew and others I think have called it with the JSM procurement giving it away. As much I’d love it to happen I think it’s time to get real about what our options actually are.
Joining GCAP as an observer state gives us a foot in the door and allows us to evaluate the program from the inside out. And I think that’s where we want to be with the optionality that comes with it.
Not to mention the Gripen would be ideal NORAD interceptors as they are faster to scramble with supercruise and you don't have to worry about any 5th gen hardware for the opposition to scout.
That’s a reasonable approach. However, the GCAP will be around for a long time. Japan needs to have them enter service by 2035 in order to retire their F-2s. With our fleet of F-35s, we won’t need to replace them until the GCAP has matured and is probably in its 2nd or 3rd iteration. Also by this time we could have made a decidedly significant contribution to the overall development and production. New technologies will be forthcoming, which will give Canadian manufacturers the opportunity to leap frog into the programme in due time. And don’t forget, a CCA will be part of the system of systems…another door to open.
A German/airbus, Sweden/Saab, Canada/bombardier partnership starts to get interesting but as you say Saab is still in the exploration phase. Throw in Norway,Finland and maybe Spain and we’re starting to cook. But do we really need 3 six gen European programs ? I’ve speculated before that perhaps we could if the programs solved different problems. If the Canada/Sweden/german program was shooting for a scaled down six gen fighter rather than extreme capabilities with goal of affordability similar to what the f35 promised. Could replace majority of current 4.5 gen fleets across Nato with goal to develop extremely advanced manufacturing to produce at scale. Things like combat cloud would be jointly developed across all programs / partners. I don’t know…just a random thought.
I really like the idea of an agreement that would see Ukraine or another ally buying our Gripens as we transition to a 6th gen, but I realize that is pretty speculative, and there would have to be a firm commitment before anyone in the government would even look at the concept. Plus, that might undermine one of the underlying planks of domestic production of the Gripen. If Ukraine was going to buy our slightly used airframes, that would decrease the number of new airframes they would need to buy, shrinking the numbers of planes that would get built... Cool idea, but it would only work if people on both sides got interested and ran with it. Plus, it only addresses the actual airframes, and not all the extra work that would go into training 2 separate pipelines of pilots and technicians, plus 2 separate supply chains. I bet if you figured in all the extra costs with sustaining a split fleet, selling off our lightly used Gripens would make less financial sense...
I used to pray for times like this. Now we are here 🥹 Can't wait for the official announcement. My question is, who is going to be Canada's main champion on this project?I guess the obvious answer is Bombardier Defense, or maybe Canada will play more of a component supplier role for elements of the fighter, much like with the F-35. Either way, I'm excited to see where this goes.
The Gripen could give us a fighter jet industrial base, but it is obsolete: the reason why all RCAF fighter pilots want nothing to do with the Gripen as a front line fighter. As a complimentary development, a CCA could be produced in relatively short order. The numbers? Would they be completely autonomous? Or would a pair or a flight of 4 need to be paired with a crewed fighter? If the latter, when a fighter goes down, you may lose the control of the CCAs…but I don’t know that. Something to consider when putting together a system. In our particular challenge, the vast Arctic, a long range missile (500NM+), connected via satellite links, could be carried and launched from a “bomber”, a modified civvy aircraft, but that’s for another day.
I really hate this. This feels like the government forcing f35s down our throats and then exclaiming…but GCAP. If there is no industrial benefits to this then this is just a distraction. This will be used as an excuse to plow ahead with US investments while claiming we will break free someday, even if it provides no benefits. I mean what happened to the arguments about gripen not being compatible with f35 for NORAD, how will GCAP somehow be different? Are we going to cut the shelf life of the f35 in half. Why buy a 5th Gen only to replace it in 10 years or so. I would gladly support a Saab/Airbus/Bombardier collaboration over this. I look forward to how the government tries to sell BS.
So we get another few decades with the RCAF functioning as a subsidiary of the USAF? Meanwhile we are paying billions to be hostage to their technology as we have no control over software, upgrades or even own any spare parts.
Perhaps we could save some money by outsourcing directly and cut out a lot unnecessary bureaucracy at DND.
Yes. This seems like a move to let them cram f35s down our throats and tell us next Gen will maybe…possibly…not be American. This feels more like optics and counter arguments rather than solutions.
1- " Trying to sell a very expensive sixth-generation fighter jet that holds little initial industrial or economic benefit? That will be tough to go to the Canadian public "
Tell the Canadian people the truth : " The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) is being engineered to contain virtually zero U.S. components, explicitly targeting a "100% ITAR-free" (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) architecture. The core objective of the trilateral partnership between the UK, Japan, and Italy is to completely bypass U.S. export controls and technology vetoes. This design choice guarantees complete sovereign autonomy over how the aircraft is modified, upgraded, and exported. "
This was a decision was made by U.K. , Japan and Italy Pre Trump 2.0 , which makes 100% sense for any Nation to do for its own National Interest . Now the U.S. is a National Security Concern , they are unreliable and NOT STABLE , the U.S. is risk for investment and LONG TERM PARTNERSHIP .
Tell Canadian the Truth they already know , ** For OUR OWN NATIONAL INTREST Canada must get weapons and weapons systems that are NON U.S. ** you don't even need to get into the " why " ...WE ALL KNOW WHY . Canadian will gladly support this decision if the 3 founding Nations will have us .
Buy Anything But American .
2- " Of course, as many of you know, I have been highly supportive of Canada establishing a pathway to a sixth-generation platform. How this balances with the fighter review remains to be seen. At the least, running a three-fighter fleet is an exceptional challenge, and unlikely to be seriously discussed. "
So if Canada has a full fleet of F35's , Canada will have a total of 0 Air Superiority Fighter aircraft lol . If Canada gets 20-40 F35's , 80-100 Gripens ...Canada will have 80-100 4.5 Gen Air Superiority Fighter Aircraft and 20- 40 5th Ge Stealth Strike aircraft lol . Your Right " running a three-fighter fleet is an exceptional challenge " and Nowhere is that being discussed . What's being discussed is finally filling Canadian Military capability gaps by having a fleet of Aircraft that has Air to Air Fighters and a Stealth Strike / Medium Strike Recon Aircraft . Russia has a smaller GDP then Canada and they field everything up to strategic bombers lol . If having proper capability's for different mission sets is " to difficult " for RCAF leadership , demote them to PVT and post them to 2 VP in CFB Shilo , they will no longer be a problem .
Regardless of the urgency of Japan's needs, given the typical development cycle of a modern combat aircraft, the time to start looking at a replacement for the F-35 (and anything else we might use alongside it) is now. We're not in on the ground floor, but this is one of those times where close is probably good enough.
Well ....Canada invested approximately $613 million $820 million ( U.S. ) in the Joint Strike Fighter program / Air superiority Program (F35/F22) ** On The Ground Floor ** in 1996/1997 as a partner Nation , at this point and time it only consisted of the U.S. , U.K. and Canada . This funding was used for R&D ( research and development ) as a partner country and participate in the aircraft's global development rather than being a direct purchase of jets at that time.
Concept Demonstration Phase (1999–2001) - Canada spent about another $100 Million (U.S.)
System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase (2001–2018): Canada invested roughly US $100 million (U.S.) for this phase, along with an additional $50 million (U.S.) contributed through federally funded Canadian technology programs .
Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development Phase (2006 onward): Canada has made continuous, staggered annual payments—often ranging between $30 million (U.S.) and US $70 million (U.S.) annually—to remain at the " partner table "
Canada was ONE of only 3 Countries to be in the program from the ground up lol , still has 0 Aircraft 30 Years later , the Aircraft that was designed has ONE ENGINE , very very LOW RANGE , VERY SMALL weapons load out , extremely HIGH operating cost etc . Canada got absolutely nothing it needed in an Aircraft from this program well paying AND STILL PAYING annually ( getting hosed down ) . Canada needed and INVESTED from the ground up with the reequipments of TWO Engines , MAX range and Endurance and most importantly an Aircraft that is an AIR superiority Fight Aircraft .
On paper Canada got an : Stealth HVT ( High value Target ) Strike Air Craft with excellent Air RECON potential , electronics / radar / weapons systems that are foreign controlled . It's an Aircraft that is built NOT TO USE DROP TANKS but it can , if it does it throws out its stealth characteristics which is working AGAINST the Aircraft strengths . Given the F35 is NOT A Air superiority Fighter Aircraft , its SLOW and not maneuverable in comparison to every other modern aircraft and even OLDER Aircraft ( Like the F16 and F18 ) and it carried very few munitions if it wants to maintain its stealth so only 4 Air to Air missiles in its internal bays ..... This all comes out to ....If its spotter , it dies . The F 35 is the world best Stealth Strike Aircraft , HVT Strike Aircraft, Recon Aircraft and would be a GREAT ** ADDITION ** to any Country's Airforce .
IT IS NOT AN AIR Support Fighter Aircraft , ONLY AN IDIOT would build its Air forces around the F35 ...The F35 its a complimentary aircraft NOT A BACKBONE Aircraft .
In Air to Air Combat , every single Modern ( and even a large number of OLDER aircraft ) will SHIT STOMP the F35 , because the F35 IS NOT BUILT FOR THAT MISSION .
In reality what Canada got : Nothing ....0 capability....0 capacity lol
...Oh, except for a massive bill paid for by Canadian Tax payers to subsidies the U.S. Air Force lol ...that's what being in from the ground floor got Canada . At this rate , we should just take a header off the top floor from day 1 , same outcome , much cheaper .
Canada has "zero F-35s after thirty years" because we didn't order any until 2023.
More than 30 Canadian companies build parts and sub-assemblies for the F-35. The industrial benefit has, and will continue, to outstrip what we've spent to be part of the program.
As to range, you might have noticed that the RCAF is getting 9 Multi Role Tanker/Transport aircraft specifically equipped to provide air to air refueling for the F-35. No external tanks required.
I could go on, but it's more effort than it's worth to deal with a set of complaints that are largely counter factual.
Hold on , are you telling me the F35's Canada wants to get WILL NOT be getting external fuel tanks ? We should have that choice as an option , don't you think ? flying a Multi Role Tanker/Transport aircraft specifically equipped to provide air to air refueling for the F-35 into contested air space seems like a " bad " Life choice and a worse idea then drop tanks . With the drop tanks if the AWACS spots hostiles at least the F35 can drop and burn , go dark and let the AWACS be its eyes , ears and if needs be targeting system . Don't get me wrong , Air to Air refueling is a MUST for any and all RCAF Aircraft in my opinion but so is the ability to use drop tanks on Air superiority aircraft , Strike Aircraft , Long Range Patrol Aircraft , Stealth Recon Aircraft etc When and if we choose / need to . Its another tool working in the favor of any weapons platform we purchase .
I would appreciate if you could pass me the link to where you have got the information on " 9 Multi Role Tanker/Transport aircraft specifically equipped to provide air to air refueling for the F-35. " ?
I will be Blunt , im 100 % against U.S. weapons , tech , weapons platform purchases...So i can understand and appreciate where you are coming from with your criticism BUT...and this is a BIG BUT ....The U.S. does not use the F35 in the role in which Canada is buying the F35 for , if the host nation will not use it in this role , why WOULD CANADA ? its built for a completely different mission then what we are employing it for .
take the U.S. out of it , I'm not against the F35 being employed with the RCAF , I am 100% against the F35 being used as the BACKBONE of the RCAF and employed by the RCAF in a role IT WAS NOT DESIGNED to FILL . I have been against the F35 since it has been announced as the ONE and ONLY purchase for the RCAF . It make no sense , we give up the ability to defend our Air Space with it .
No, I didn't tell you we will not be getting external tanks.
No one anywhere flies tankers into contested airspace, nor did I suggest we should. Tankers still extend the range though.
A link is easy to find. The MRTTs are being built or converted to include a USAF style boom refueling system. The only fighter on the table for the RCAF that needs that is the F-35. (The MRTTs will also be capable of probe and drogue refueling.) I should note only 8 of the 9 are getting the refueling systems. It's still quite a few more tankers than we have ever had.
https://skiesmag.com/news/airbus-mrtt-aircraft-canada-contracts-larger-more-flexible-refueling-fleet/
The US does use the F-35 in the air defence role. Hence why it is stationed in Alaska and regularly intercepts Russian aircraft approaching North American airspace. They just don't use it as much as we would because they have a plethora of options for that role. The Norwegians use it that way too.
https://theaviationist.com/2026/02/20/f-35-f-16-as-seen-from-tu-95/
https://www.el-balad.com/17027122
And yes, the F-35 design did include that role. It's why the airplane is equipped with datalink information sharing, the AIM 9X, the AIM 120 AMRAAM, and is in the process of being cleared for the MBDA Meteor.
Except for 20:1 air to air kill ratios I guess the F-35 is just an average DACT/ACM fighter.
I like a lot of what your saying. I agree, domestic production of the Gripen is bound to expand the aerospace industrial base in Canada, especially when it comes to a trained workforce, but I think Noah, and others, are saying that that is only a token gesture towards 6th industrial capability. I think you are right, it should not be dismissed, but I suspect they are right, and it's a LARGE step from 4.5gen tech and industry to meaningful 6th gen tech and industry. And the real risk in investing in domestic Gripen production is one we have seen before. Build the industry, train the workforce, only for it to collapse without a customer base, and see all those invests suffer economic fallout. Don't forget, Ukraine buying 150 Gripens is still an aspiration at this point. They have put in an order for 16. A lot can happen before the rest of those orders are filled. And without a massive order from Ukraine, and a significant order from Canada, domestic production would not be good for us in the long run. Even if it produces an industry that we desire, if there is no business plan, the businesses that invest in it will be left swinging in the wind if things dont work out just right. That is not how you build trust.
So, while there is a path to awesome with domestic Gripen production, it's lined with big pit falls, and the increase in risk means that we can't rely on the private sector to take it and run. It's going to take a lot of taxpayer dollars to get it up and running and keep it running, and there is a real chance of it turning into a economic pit trap that will be seared into Canadian collective memory for generations to come... Ok, that might be a bit hyperbolic, but the possibility exists, and that is going to limit growth rate and investment to the hawks and the dreamers. So I would rather be cautious before I get my hopes up over domestic production of the Gripen and the future figher concept.
As for taking our time to achieve 6th gen, and following Sweden's example with CCAs and Gripens, I think that is not what we want. You can't just coast. If we are going to be taken seriously, by European allies and Indo Pacific allies, we can't just say "we will wait and see". The reason that a Gripen only fleet is not realistic is that Gripens are, at best, a defensive option. They can't project force, which is an important part of carrying our own weight in NATO. Nobody is expecting us to be the USA, but if we are going to be a leader in a new more European NATO, we can't build a purely defensive fleet. We need to at the fore of technological development, not trailing along in the rear.
But, as usual, I have wrote way more than I needed to or perhaps should have. All I wanted to do was caution you of too enthusiasticly embracing Saab as a silver bullet. It has potential, but also major risks, and if GCAP is successful, it will have its own advantages, with far fewer risks of abject failure.
Just for clarification, Substacks interface appears to have attached this comment in the wrong place. I suspect because I was trying to read Dominion and dissents previous comment in the middle of writing on it, and I tapped another comment while trying to scroll or somethings. It's happened before, and it's irritating, but I'm not deleting and starting over this time, too much work. Substack, do better!
I think it's a great thing that we're starting to move forward with a relationship for a 6th Generation Fighter; but I can't help but think it's the wrong one. There's already a match made in heaven... and it's the one many people seem to hate talking about... Saab.
I mean, it feels like a No Brainer to me. We already have a growing partnership with Saab through the GlobalEye. Then let's say we bought the Gripens and made them here. If we joined the Saab Program, we could be in a position not just to roll that Gripen production line right into the Future Fighter, but also potentially the CCA's along with it. The Airforce would then exist in a common ecosystem; GlobalEye, Gripen, and Saab Future Fighter/CCA; all also built and maintained here, with shared IP. Event Saab has said there's a place for Canada in their fighter program, which is WAY more than we'd ever contribute to the British/Japanese/Italian one because it's already largely set. Why would we NOT want to join into a program that we can both influence the design of, help build it, and operate it as part of an ecosystem? Another benefit? The Saab one has more runway still, it's a bit further out, allowing us to absorb all the other new aircraft that we're getting.
Saab supports Canada joining the Future Fighter program: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saab-canada-fighter-jets-9.7112654
Noah has stated emphatically before, and addresses it indirectly here, but he does not believe that a Gripen production line would materially contribute to any sort of industrial capacity to contribute to a 5th gen production line. I believe he is referring to the advanced materials that are necessary components of a 6th gen airframe, both as a part of their structure, and their skin.
While I too am a fan of Saab, and would love to see additional cooperation, I hear a lot of skepticism from people I respect, including Noah, about how far Saab might be from a true 6th gen platform. Sweden is a small country, and several things I've read imply they are going to focus on advanced CCAs controlled from Gripens for the foreseeable future, and true 6th gen airframes are a distant want. What makes FCAS so interesting is that Japan thinks they can start replacing their F2s by 2035... Thats seriously ambitious, but also a sign of how much further along they are than Saab, who is still in the blue sky idea phase.
Choosing Saab over FCAS is a lot riskier than us Saab fans would like to admit, and it pretty much guarantees that we would be much later to the 6th gen table than some of our other allies. I'm all for collaborating on things like CCAs, but a Saab/Canada 6th gen project is pretty speculative, and is sort of wishful thinking. Something to keep in our back pocket, if everything else falls through, before we go back to the US with hat in hand, but not an ideal first choice solution
"Noah has stated emphatically before, and addresses it indirectly here, but he does not believe that a Gripen production line would materially contribute to any sort of industrial capacity to contribute to a 5th gen production line." - And he's entitled to. I emphatically disagree. I find it hard to believe that between the building of a fighter assembly facility and transfer of IP for said fighter; would contribute NOTHING. It contributes a skillset to Canadian workers, it delivers familiarity with how constructing a fighter work to canadian companies, it deliveries a facility that could assemble fighters in, it would also contribute commonality to a Saab based 6th-Gen fighter. Anti-Saab proponents always raise supply chain as a problem; this solves that, etc. It's literally a stepping stone. You learn how to assemble something before you learn how to design it yourself.
You're entirely right, even Sweden hasn't fully committed to building a 6th Gen fighter; which would leave us exactly where we are anyways; jumping in with the GCAP. So, personally, i see it as a gamble worth taking, the chance to be part of building an entire air combat ecosystem is a HUGE addition to the Canadian Economy. At most, we'd be a token contribution to the GCAP at this point, hardly an economic selling point; like the "economic contributions" of the F35 participation is basically a rounding error to our economy and doesn't provide us an IP, or chances for our companies to grow and export.
"Sweden is a small country, and several things I've read imply they are going to focus on advanced CCAs controlled from Gripens for the foreseeable future, and true 6th gen airframes are a distant want. " - I actually don't take that as a bad thing at all; i'd in fact say it's perfect. Like, what war are we racing towards that requires us to buy 6th Gen fighters right away? War with China? That's anticipated in the next 2-5 years, we'll barely have F35s by then! Additionally, even if we don't go with the Gripens, we're in the midst of buying F35's anyways; I'd be shocked if it's much earlier than 2040 before we seriously look at buying a 6th generation fighter from anyone because our F35's will still be brand new. On the flip side, with the Gripens focusing on CCA's we could get in on the ground level of that technology, and even use it for export; because everyone is going to start employing CCAs alongside whatever type of aircraft they have today; and lord knows whatever Saab builds will be more compatible globally than whatever the US builds to export.
Oops, I mixed up FCAS and GCAP. My bad
So better to support a 6th Gen that will have no industrial benefits.
Why?
Fantastic. CAE and CCAs! With a slightly smaller F-35 fleet, augmented by CCAs, the latter being the bridge to GCAP. The CCAs would become part of the GCAP fleet as we retire the F-35. Note: the Gripen is dead. Some day….
Noah, I was counting the minutes until you posted about this. CBC is running with the story as the top story 'below the fold' as they say.
(https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-joining-global-fighter-jet-program-with-uk-italy-japan-9.7270838)
A stepwise approach to joining a 6th-gen program makes sense to me, notwithstanding us being too late to the party to realistically secure significant workshare or responsibility for key systems. With that said, at *some* point we are going to acquire a 6-gen platform and it would be preferable to be part of the program than simply a customer. It may not feel like it, but we have benefitted from being part of the JSF program through preferential production slots (which we declined) and not-insignificant workshare and securing the future sustainment hub.
GCAP appears to be the non-US 6th-gen program that is furthest along. FCAS is dead (for now) and Saab is still at the internal study stage for its aspirational 6th-gen concept, or so it would seem. With Japan apparently looking to field the aircraft in less than a decade(!), this urgency should bring some much-needed discipline to the program and keep it focused on delivery.
A potential expanded GCAP program that includes Canada as a Tier II partner would make for a truly global team and simultaneously let Canada deepen ties with Europe, strengthen NATO, and meaningfully grow our industrial and defense partnerships in Asia. What joining the program would mean for the RCAF is truly up in the air (pun intended).
You note the herculean investment in F-35 infrastructure we have undertaken not necessarily having transferability to a 6th-gen platform. I take your point, but imagine there would still be broad utility to us having built modern climate-controlled hanger infrastructure and gaining experience with maintaining such an advanced aircraft and its finicky RAM, not to mention working within a challenging multinational supply chain. But the RCAF operating a three-type, three-generation fleet seems deeply unlikely, assuming Gripen happens. Maybe we figure out some grand bargain where we sell the whole lot to Ukraine in the late 2030s while they still have lots of airframe life and offer up its assembly line to the GCAP program (assuming it's Crown-owned and not a Saab facility and there being any merit to retooling)?
The dilemma of what to do with a 4.5-gen fleet and assembly line (and sunk costs) in a 6th-gen world on Japan's GCAP timeline should give pause to us accepting to the Saab pitch.
"The dilemma of what to do with a 4.5-gen fleet and assembly line (and sunk costs) in a 6th-gen world on Japan's GCAP timeline should give pause to us accepting to the Saab pitch." - So, why not just jump on the Saab Future Fighter then? it has a longer timeline to fruition, and I don't see a particular need to sprint to a 6th Generation fighter? We could easily build up a whole domestic industry around the progression of partnering with Saab: GlobalEye > Gripen > Future Fighter > CCAs. And off them would be compatible with each other at that.
Going an all-Saab route does have considerable merit. My concern, broadly, is that we're likely only going to end up with two financially viable western 6th-gen platforms (F-47 + ???). Notwithstanding the likelihood of France going it alone, and a policy reversal by the US opening up F-47 for export, I don't think there will necessarily be sufficient demand for manned 6th-gen platforms to sustain several programs. Heavy NATO investment in 5th-gen (F-35) and the advent of operational CCAs will simply limit the potential addressable market for an exquisite high-end air dominance platform. GCAP could still fall apart like FCAS, but to a layperson, it seems to be the most likely candidate for a non-US western 6th-gen around which Euro NATO ultimately coalesces going into the 2050s.
If I’m being honest the reason I’ve always liked the Gripen is simply because I think Sweden/Saab would be great partners. The Gripen is a fine 4.5 Gen fighter and would have real utility for Continental/arctic defence. It also has vastly superior readiness rates over the f35. Not to mention that we get to claw our way back into manufacturing fighter jets again and begin the long process of reclaiming this lost skill set. This is why the all-Saab approach has always appealed to me.
Conceptually it all sounds great but I’m pretty sure I’m underestimating what such a path would actually look like. Are we prepared to fully fund the development of a sixth Gen fighter? Let alone that we don’t exactly have a deep well to draw from to contribute technical know-how. There’s a reason multi-country consortiums are formed to deal with the demands such a program requires.
Is it possible? Sure with unlimited $$$ and decades of effort.
Matthew and others I think have called it with the JSM procurement giving it away. As much I’d love it to happen I think it’s time to get real about what our options actually are.
Joining GCAP as an observer state gives us a foot in the door and allows us to evaluate the program from the inside out. And I think that’s where we want to be with the optionality that comes with it.
Not to mention the Gripen would be ideal NORAD interceptors as they are faster to scramble with supercruise and you don't have to worry about any 5th gen hardware for the opposition to scout.
That's a fair concern!
That’s a reasonable approach. However, the GCAP will be around for a long time. Japan needs to have them enter service by 2035 in order to retire their F-2s. With our fleet of F-35s, we won’t need to replace them until the GCAP has matured and is probably in its 2nd or 3rd iteration. Also by this time we could have made a decidedly significant contribution to the overall development and production. New technologies will be forthcoming, which will give Canadian manufacturers the opportunity to leap frog into the programme in due time. And don’t forget, a CCA will be part of the system of systems…another door to open.
Because even SAAB hasn't fully committed to their own project, and is currently in discussions with Airbus on a possible partnership.
A German/airbus, Sweden/Saab, Canada/bombardier partnership starts to get interesting but as you say Saab is still in the exploration phase. Throw in Norway,Finland and maybe Spain and we’re starting to cook. But do we really need 3 six gen European programs ? I’ve speculated before that perhaps we could if the programs solved different problems. If the Canada/Sweden/german program was shooting for a scaled down six gen fighter rather than extreme capabilities with goal of affordability similar to what the f35 promised. Could replace majority of current 4.5 gen fleets across Nato with goal to develop extremely advanced manufacturing to produce at scale. Things like combat cloud would be jointly developed across all programs / partners. I don’t know…just a random thought.
I really like the idea of an agreement that would see Ukraine or another ally buying our Gripens as we transition to a 6th gen, but I realize that is pretty speculative, and there would have to be a firm commitment before anyone in the government would even look at the concept. Plus, that might undermine one of the underlying planks of domestic production of the Gripen. If Ukraine was going to buy our slightly used airframes, that would decrease the number of new airframes they would need to buy, shrinking the numbers of planes that would get built... Cool idea, but it would only work if people on both sides got interested and ran with it. Plus, it only addresses the actual airframes, and not all the extra work that would go into training 2 separate pipelines of pilots and technicians, plus 2 separate supply chains. I bet if you figured in all the extra costs with sustaining a split fleet, selling off our lightly used Gripens would make less financial sense...
I used to pray for times like this. Now we are here 🥹 Can't wait for the official announcement. My question is, who is going to be Canada's main champion on this project?I guess the obvious answer is Bombardier Defense, or maybe Canada will play more of a component supplier role for elements of the fighter, much like with the F-35. Either way, I'm excited to see where this goes.
The Gripen could give us a fighter jet industrial base, but it is obsolete: the reason why all RCAF fighter pilots want nothing to do with the Gripen as a front line fighter. As a complimentary development, a CCA could be produced in relatively short order. The numbers? Would they be completely autonomous? Or would a pair or a flight of 4 need to be paired with a crewed fighter? If the latter, when a fighter goes down, you may lose the control of the CCAs…but I don’t know that. Something to consider when putting together a system. In our particular challenge, the vast Arctic, a long range missile (500NM+), connected via satellite links, could be carried and launched from a “bomber”, a modified civvy aircraft, but that’s for another day.
I really hate this. This feels like the government forcing f35s down our throats and then exclaiming…but GCAP. If there is no industrial benefits to this then this is just a distraction. This will be used as an excuse to plow ahead with US investments while claiming we will break free someday, even if it provides no benefits. I mean what happened to the arguments about gripen not being compatible with f35 for NORAD, how will GCAP somehow be different? Are we going to cut the shelf life of the f35 in half. Why buy a 5th Gen only to replace it in 10 years or so. I would gladly support a Saab/Airbus/Bombardier collaboration over this. I look forward to how the government tries to sell BS.
Yes and this and the JSM procurement signals the end of the Gripen distraction, thankfully.
So we get another few decades with the RCAF functioning as a subsidiary of the USAF? Meanwhile we are paying billions to be hostage to their technology as we have no control over software, upgrades or even own any spare parts.
Perhaps we could save some money by outsourcing directly and cut out a lot unnecessary bureaucracy at DND.
Yes. This seems like a move to let them cram f35s down our throats and tell us next Gen will maybe…possibly…not be American. This feels more like optics and counter arguments rather than solutions.
Terrible, terrible choice in my opinion if that's true.