I doubt we will hear anything until there is some trade resolution with the US. Even if PM/cabinet have made the decision to stick with the F-35, there is no reason to preemptively announce that, while it can be used as leverage in the ongoing negotiations.
I also doubt we will at this time. Tbey have no incentive to rush this. They have time to take, one reason why I didn't like the Sumemr deadline. Why limit yourself when you have ample time in the world?
Yeah, good points..... when would we have to order the next tranche of fighters? Unless in combination with trade deals, no reason to order more until after the midterms next year.
I am not a fan of this government, I had hopes after the disaster of the Trudeau government, but all that aside, all the economics aside, what could the operational benefits of a mixed f-35 & gripes fleet be? I have heard that the gripens can be landed on remote runways are less maintenance intense, which if true is all good. Are there tactical advantages to running a
Mixed fleet? Gripens up front running ewar, Saab global 6500’s & f-35s in the back? Anything the military can take away from this blatently political work?
So there are absolutely a myriad of tactical and strategic benefits running these two fighters in tandem, in part because they offset each others' capabilities. Full disclosure, I'm very much in the "pro-mixed fleet" camp. I've always thought most of the arguments against a mixed fleet is are crap, because any Airforce worth its salt actually AIMS to have a mixed fleet because a specialized aircraft doing a specialized mission beats a generalist any day of the week. But, i digress, here's my argument:
1. Operational cost - one the reasons cited for pilots leaving the CAF is not getting enough flight hours to stay current because the CF18 is expensive to fly, so they get moved to administrative roles and eventually quit to actually go fly elsewhere. Guess what, the F35 is WAY more expensive than the CF18 is, and the Gripen is WAY cheaper to fly per hour. More hours = happier pilots.
2. On the tactical side of things, there are simply missions that the F35 isn't suited for, but the Gripen is. The F35, is a stealth first strike aircraft, it's really a bomber. Its really, really good at SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses), penetrating enemy lines, etc. Because of it's cost, its also very, very NOT efficient at missions like a Combat Air Patrol (just flying circles waiting for something to happen), or a Presence Patrol (flying because you can). The Gripen is GREAT for the latter of those. Take Ukraine for example, you would want your F35 flying missions into russia, not doing circles of Kyiv to shoot down incoming drones. The F35 attacks Russia, the Gripen does the cheap stuff. Hunting terrorists is the same example. Do you want the jet that costs 35K per hour dropping bombs on a terrorist who can't shoot back? or the one that costs 9k per hour? There are more examples, but I'm not an air force vet, those are the ones I know..
3. There's also an argument for flying both at the same time. The Gripen is like the hound in hunting, it fast and flushes out the target, and the F35 who's sitting hiding takes the shot. Likewise, you could accomplish similar in the future with Stealth Loyal Wingman drones for a Gripen.
4. Ukraine has shown us that Quantity is once again a Quality all its own. Something i don't think the western world has grappled with yet. We're still on the "fewer, but more technical" train. An F35 is great in the sky, and a target on the ground. With 88 F35s, foreign powers able to drive a truck full of DJI mavics near a base, or ballistic missiles that can reach across the pacific, it wouldn't take many hits to functionally make our fleet a bunch of very, very expensive scrap; and we don't exactly have bomb hardened shelters. The Gripen is quite literally designed for this exact fight.
I won't get too deeply into the industrial benefits, because I think those are MYRIAD and worth every complaint the CAF has in this case (although, having been on the receiving end, I generally loath political interference in the procurement process, this is one I'll make an exception for). Having the expertise within a large company like Bombardier springboards us to be able to build our own drones and export them; opens and entire new WORLD of opportunity. Given that we hardly own the F35, I don't think we'd ever be allowed to build our own drone that can integrate with it; we'll be even more of captive.
The argument around the cost of a mixed fleet is compelling, but not insurmountable. So I don't see that as valid reason not to do it. Same with the "it creates new supply and training pipelines that are difficult to manage". So did adding the Kingfisher. Or the P8. How about the Predator? If we choose to buy an AW&C, guess what? That comes with it's own unique supply chain and training pipeline too; guess we shouldn't do that if we're worried about adding new supply chains right? The fact is, that the supply chain argument is bogus, because the RCAF is already a mixed fleet of 20+ air platforms, each with their own supply/training pipelines.
Lastly, as someone with many years in the CAF, the RCAF is addicted to USAF equipment. After 40 years of integrate, integrate, integrate; they HATE and are terrified of using non-US made stuff. They're by far the worst of the branches for this, mostly because of NORAD. So if we really want them to diversify, I don't believe for a second they'd do it on it's own, and it will NEED to be a political decision that rips off the bandage; like this one.
Thanks for the write up, lots to think about. I''d have to guess that the Gripens would be more suited to northern / remote airbases with more modest maintenance capabilities too. I can be sold.. :)
Excellent comments! Imagine forward operating locations for CAF Gripens in the Arctic region. Leave the milder temperature F35’s at Cold Lake and Bagotville…unless the aircraft are out of service for US authorized software updates.
Nicely said! I’m also pro mixed f-35/gripen fleet, for your reasons and also it’s Canada’s only credible shot to get into the sovereign combat aircraft game! First step is to partner with someone like Saab and produce planes while building R&D capabilities for CCA’s etc. We sovereign production capabilities because it’s critical to our survival as a country in a hot war. Also, if we are lucky it may lead to economic prosperity and with that further enhance our sovereignty.
I doubt we will hear anything until there is some trade resolution with the US. Even if PM/cabinet have made the decision to stick with the F-35, there is no reason to preemptively announce that, while it can be used as leverage in the ongoing negotiations.
I also doubt we will at this time. Tbey have no incentive to rush this. They have time to take, one reason why I didn't like the Sumemr deadline. Why limit yourself when you have ample time in the world?
Yeah, good points..... when would we have to order the next tranche of fighters? Unless in combination with trade deals, no reason to order more until after the midterms next year.
With all the lack of info about, it might be time for a historic deep dive into the procurement of the CF-5 Freedom Fighter?
And why on earth it was chosen, despite the RCAF having little to no use for it or the numbers we procured.
All the while when the RCAF wanted the joint production, with the Brits, of the RR Spey F-4 Phantoms....
Freedom Fighter/Gripen...... FRG2 Phantoms/F-35?
I mean im not against 👀
Sure! When I worked with the CF-5 Freedom Fighter, the RCAF also operated the Star Fighter and the Voodoo
I am not a fan of this government, I had hopes after the disaster of the Trudeau government, but all that aside, all the economics aside, what could the operational benefits of a mixed f-35 & gripes fleet be? I have heard that the gripens can be landed on remote runways are less maintenance intense, which if true is all good. Are there tactical advantages to running a
Mixed fleet? Gripens up front running ewar, Saab global 6500’s & f-35s in the back? Anything the military can take away from this blatently political work?
So there are absolutely a myriad of tactical and strategic benefits running these two fighters in tandem, in part because they offset each others' capabilities. Full disclosure, I'm very much in the "pro-mixed fleet" camp. I've always thought most of the arguments against a mixed fleet is are crap, because any Airforce worth its salt actually AIMS to have a mixed fleet because a specialized aircraft doing a specialized mission beats a generalist any day of the week. But, i digress, here's my argument:
1. Operational cost - one the reasons cited for pilots leaving the CAF is not getting enough flight hours to stay current because the CF18 is expensive to fly, so they get moved to administrative roles and eventually quit to actually go fly elsewhere. Guess what, the F35 is WAY more expensive than the CF18 is, and the Gripen is WAY cheaper to fly per hour. More hours = happier pilots.
2. On the tactical side of things, there are simply missions that the F35 isn't suited for, but the Gripen is. The F35, is a stealth first strike aircraft, it's really a bomber. Its really, really good at SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses), penetrating enemy lines, etc. Because of it's cost, its also very, very NOT efficient at missions like a Combat Air Patrol (just flying circles waiting for something to happen), or a Presence Patrol (flying because you can). The Gripen is GREAT for the latter of those. Take Ukraine for example, you would want your F35 flying missions into russia, not doing circles of Kyiv to shoot down incoming drones. The F35 attacks Russia, the Gripen does the cheap stuff. Hunting terrorists is the same example. Do you want the jet that costs 35K per hour dropping bombs on a terrorist who can't shoot back? or the one that costs 9k per hour? There are more examples, but I'm not an air force vet, those are the ones I know..
3. There's also an argument for flying both at the same time. The Gripen is like the hound in hunting, it fast and flushes out the target, and the F35 who's sitting hiding takes the shot. Likewise, you could accomplish similar in the future with Stealth Loyal Wingman drones for a Gripen.
4. Ukraine has shown us that Quantity is once again a Quality all its own. Something i don't think the western world has grappled with yet. We're still on the "fewer, but more technical" train. An F35 is great in the sky, and a target on the ground. With 88 F35s, foreign powers able to drive a truck full of DJI mavics near a base, or ballistic missiles that can reach across the pacific, it wouldn't take many hits to functionally make our fleet a bunch of very, very expensive scrap; and we don't exactly have bomb hardened shelters. The Gripen is quite literally designed for this exact fight.
I won't get too deeply into the industrial benefits, because I think those are MYRIAD and worth every complaint the CAF has in this case (although, having been on the receiving end, I generally loath political interference in the procurement process, this is one I'll make an exception for). Having the expertise within a large company like Bombardier springboards us to be able to build our own drones and export them; opens and entire new WORLD of opportunity. Given that we hardly own the F35, I don't think we'd ever be allowed to build our own drone that can integrate with it; we'll be even more of captive.
The argument around the cost of a mixed fleet is compelling, but not insurmountable. So I don't see that as valid reason not to do it. Same with the "it creates new supply and training pipelines that are difficult to manage". So did adding the Kingfisher. Or the P8. How about the Predator? If we choose to buy an AW&C, guess what? That comes with it's own unique supply chain and training pipeline too; guess we shouldn't do that if we're worried about adding new supply chains right? The fact is, that the supply chain argument is bogus, because the RCAF is already a mixed fleet of 20+ air platforms, each with their own supply/training pipelines.
Lastly, as someone with many years in the CAF, the RCAF is addicted to USAF equipment. After 40 years of integrate, integrate, integrate; they HATE and are terrified of using non-US made stuff. They're by far the worst of the branches for this, mostly because of NORAD. So if we really want them to diversify, I don't believe for a second they'd do it on it's own, and it will NEED to be a political decision that rips off the bandage; like this one.
/End Rant, thanks for coming to my TedTalk. lol
Thanks for the write up, lots to think about. I''d have to guess that the Gripens would be more suited to northern / remote airbases with more modest maintenance capabilities too. I can be sold.. :)
Excellent comments! Imagine forward operating locations for CAF Gripens in the Arctic region. Leave the milder temperature F35’s at Cold Lake and Bagotville…unless the aircraft are out of service for US authorized software updates.
Nicely said! I’m also pro mixed f-35/gripen fleet, for your reasons and also it’s Canada’s only credible shot to get into the sovereign combat aircraft game! First step is to partner with someone like Saab and produce planes while building R&D capabilities for CCA’s etc. We sovereign production capabilities because it’s critical to our survival as a country in a hot war. Also, if we are lucky it may lead to economic prosperity and with that further enhance our sovereignty.