I'm getting flashbacks to the C-series debacle, which made me very angry when it happened. That said, nothing available has the capabilities of the F-35. But also nothing seems to have as high-maintenance times either. Cut the number of F-35s to the 65 the Conservatives originally wanted, and get 60-80 Gripens to make up the numbers and also give a maintainable option.
Honestly, this is what I'm hoping for as well, but I understand from things Noah has written and things I've heard from pilots at the local airbase that getting pilots and ground crews for that many planes is going to be really tough, especially because the delivery rate will be faster with 2 sources of planes. We might be able to fly and maintain that many planes sometime after 2050 if our recruiting keeps picking up and training gets majorly streamlined, but even best case, it's going to be a stretch.
Of course, maybe we don't have to fly them all, especially at first. But planes need maintenance, even when they aren't flying, so I suspect that's going to be an even bigger sticking point. And you can guarantee there will be some shrieking if we spend the big bucks to buy some of each, and some of them end up sitting around for years before they get used, gobbling up maintenance dollars the whole time.
Honestly, it's catch 22, no matter which we choose. I personally think we will get better usage out of the gripens here at home, and we will need something easy to maintain while we wait for parts for the F35s 😋, but a split fleet is a major escalation in logistical complexity, both to fly and maintain. I say bite the bullet, buy them both, and enjoy the redundancy (although I think I'd lower the number of F35s to 35 to 45), but we can't see the future. Overspending and under delivering could poison the well for future defense spending in the public eye, and we will wish we had just bit the bullet and picked one or the other.
Based on availability rates, only between 32-39 of 65 F-35s will be available at any one time, and it appears that F-35 availability is dropping off rapidly after a few years of service. Assuming Canada sets up a factory to build Gripen E/Fs and estimated availability rates, 80 Gripens will have between 56-72 airframes available, depending on the operating scenario. That's not even considering the operational costs, which are estimated to be running around $35-50k for the F-35 and $8-12k for the Gripen. There might also be the option of producing Gripens for sales abroad, like we did with the Canadair Sabre. That factory could also later be retooled to build 6th-gen fighters, assuming we get on board with the GCAP Program.
Yes, Canada needs the best money can buy (F-35/RCD) to deal with peer-adversaries on an equal footing. However, Canada also needs a number of "good enough" (Gripen/CDC) that are maintainable and able to have production ramped up in case we get involved in a hot conflict and take losses. I think a high-low ratio should be about 1:2 or 1:3 depending on what annual O&M costs the RCAF can sustain.
I agree, but I still worry. But I worry less and less about pissing off the Americans by not buying their planes. It increasingly seems like that's a lost cause anyways, so we should do the most practical thing, which i think is a mixed fleet, much like you describe. But then we need to put our money where our mouth is, and hope it all works out, and that is going to cause all new worries.
I've always had a soft spot for the swedish option, so I'm probably biased, but it really does feel like they are backing us into a corner where the only way to keep our self respect is to go with the swedes. Like, there is no doubt that the f35 is more capable, but it has enough drawbacks to make the gripen competitive, if not the automatic winner of the competition. While trump and hoekstra obviously think they are adding reasons to not buy gripens, they are completely oblivious to how they are making the f35 less attractive at the same time. It's the world's most excruciating slow motion train wreck, only it's not that slow motion...
I can’t believe I read the “F” word somewhere. LOL The shit that flows out of the States administration simply needs to be flushed. BUY THIS OR ELSE. Saab sounds better and better. And I’m already an advocate of a mixed fleet. Obviously no one has told this American president that FAA gave Gulfstream some slack or carve outs. And Transport Canada is well Transport Canada and thank god. If America makes the best SHORAD then we buy it. If any other country makes a similar system. THEN BUY IT! We should now regard the US military manufacturers as the last resort for purchases.
The theory could be for the government to hold off on the fighter decision until there’s a sense of where and how well CUSMA negotiations are proceeding. To hell with that! Trump will run at us some other way. Let’s get ‘er done! That’s my rant for tonight, sorry!
The certification issue highlights a tough spot for Canadian regulators. The Standing Committee on Transport has looked at 'harmonization' (making our rules match the US) for years. Usually it works fine. But when the FAA grants an exemption (a pass on a safety rule), Canada does not have to agree. If the US bends its own rules for Gulfstream, it forces Ottawa to choose between safety and trade. It turns a boring technical review into a major political fight.
I'm getting flashbacks to the C-series debacle, which made me very angry when it happened. That said, nothing available has the capabilities of the F-35. But also nothing seems to have as high-maintenance times either. Cut the number of F-35s to the 65 the Conservatives originally wanted, and get 60-80 Gripens to make up the numbers and also give a maintainable option.
Honestly, this is what I'm hoping for as well, but I understand from things Noah has written and things I've heard from pilots at the local airbase that getting pilots and ground crews for that many planes is going to be really tough, especially because the delivery rate will be faster with 2 sources of planes. We might be able to fly and maintain that many planes sometime after 2050 if our recruiting keeps picking up and training gets majorly streamlined, but even best case, it's going to be a stretch.
Of course, maybe we don't have to fly them all, especially at first. But planes need maintenance, even when they aren't flying, so I suspect that's going to be an even bigger sticking point. And you can guarantee there will be some shrieking if we spend the big bucks to buy some of each, and some of them end up sitting around for years before they get used, gobbling up maintenance dollars the whole time.
Honestly, it's catch 22, no matter which we choose. I personally think we will get better usage out of the gripens here at home, and we will need something easy to maintain while we wait for parts for the F35s 😋, but a split fleet is a major escalation in logistical complexity, both to fly and maintain. I say bite the bullet, buy them both, and enjoy the redundancy (although I think I'd lower the number of F35s to 35 to 45), but we can't see the future. Overspending and under delivering could poison the well for future defense spending in the public eye, and we will wish we had just bit the bullet and picked one or the other.
Based on availability rates, only between 32-39 of 65 F-35s will be available at any one time, and it appears that F-35 availability is dropping off rapidly after a few years of service. Assuming Canada sets up a factory to build Gripen E/Fs and estimated availability rates, 80 Gripens will have between 56-72 airframes available, depending on the operating scenario. That's not even considering the operational costs, which are estimated to be running around $35-50k for the F-35 and $8-12k for the Gripen. There might also be the option of producing Gripens for sales abroad, like we did with the Canadair Sabre. That factory could also later be retooled to build 6th-gen fighters, assuming we get on board with the GCAP Program.
Yes, Canada needs the best money can buy (F-35/RCD) to deal with peer-adversaries on an equal footing. However, Canada also needs a number of "good enough" (Gripen/CDC) that are maintainable and able to have production ramped up in case we get involved in a hot conflict and take losses. I think a high-low ratio should be about 1:2 or 1:3 depending on what annual O&M costs the RCAF can sustain.
I agree, but I still worry. But I worry less and less about pissing off the Americans by not buying their planes. It increasingly seems like that's a lost cause anyways, so we should do the most practical thing, which i think is a mixed fleet, much like you describe. But then we need to put our money where our mouth is, and hope it all works out, and that is going to cause all new worries.
I've always had a soft spot for the swedish option, so I'm probably biased, but it really does feel like they are backing us into a corner where the only way to keep our self respect is to go with the swedes. Like, there is no doubt that the f35 is more capable, but it has enough drawbacks to make the gripen competitive, if not the automatic winner of the competition. While trump and hoekstra obviously think they are adding reasons to not buy gripens, they are completely oblivious to how they are making the f35 less attractive at the same time. It's the world's most excruciating slow motion train wreck, only it's not that slow motion...
great article but seriously start using spellcheck. Brutal
I think he is just tired and exhausted from trying to keep up with the Tweeter in Chief
I can’t believe I read the “F” word somewhere. LOL The shit that flows out of the States administration simply needs to be flushed. BUY THIS OR ELSE. Saab sounds better and better. And I’m already an advocate of a mixed fleet. Obviously no one has told this American president that FAA gave Gulfstream some slack or carve outs. And Transport Canada is well Transport Canada and thank god. If America makes the best SHORAD then we buy it. If any other country makes a similar system. THEN BUY IT! We should now regard the US military manufacturers as the last resort for purchases.
The theory could be for the government to hold off on the fighter decision until there’s a sense of where and how well CUSMA negotiations are proceeding. To hell with that! Trump will run at us some other way. Let’s get ‘er done! That’s my rant for tonight, sorry!
I think we have to learn to collectively ignore his rantings. he will get bored and go somewhere else.
F-35 ‘concern’?🤔
Of all the things to put his finger on next. Just going to bite them down the line.
I’ve reach the I’m tired boss portion of this debacle
The certification issue highlights a tough spot for Canadian regulators. The Standing Committee on Transport has looked at 'harmonization' (making our rules match the US) for years. Usually it works fine. But when the FAA grants an exemption (a pass on a safety rule), Canada does not have to agree. If the US bends its own rules for Gulfstream, it forces Ottawa to choose between safety and trade. It turns a boring technical review into a major political fight.
What’s your 20+ Global wish list? Globaleye, EA/EW, a HADES type?