Yes, We Are Getting More Than 16 F-35

Noah Note

Well, here we are again. Another day, another debate on fighter jets and the yelling that comes with it. I have made my peace on the fighter review, and as many of you know, it’s a topic I grow tired of discussing all the time in life. Same can be said for subs, but fighters was the OG here. However, it’s my job, so I must sometimes jump in.

The CBC is reporting, to their credit, that Canada has committed funding to the procurement of Long-Lead items for the next 14 F-35s. This of course isn’t terribly surprising considering we knew that another order would be forthcoming to keep with the necessary timelines and ensure we kept our future production slots.

Under the current review, both the RCAF and Federal government are operating under the assumption that a full order is being done until such time as a choice is made. This has been a fairly established fact since the beginning, and one that is fairly obvious in its reasoning. Stopping all we’re doing to ensure that the review can take place would necessitate both multi-year delays and losing our established production slots, pushing us back down the already very tight line.

Further to that, the sixteen number was never going to be the final one. Its existence is entirely based off the number of aircraft under order as of now, and not a final number that the Federal government is considering in earnest. Keep in mind that sixteen aircraft is not even a single functional squadron.

Always remember that when determining how many aircraft one needs to operate a single squadron, the number of aircraft includes more than just your standard combat-coded fighters, but also inventory for training, testing, backup, and attrition. This isn’t an insignificant number either. It can represent upwards of a 50-60% increase in airframes compared to merely focusing on combat-coded fighters.

For a squadron of twelve combat-coded aircraft, as a generic example, your total number of airframes would be around eighteen to twenty when considering these additional needs. And while sure, you could maybe skip some or skimp on the number of aircraft, it risks the long-term functionality and stability of the fleet.

The sixteen number was never based off of having a functional squadron. It was merely based off the existing order, itself a product of slowly paying for the total eighty-eight F-35s. Thirty itself isn’t an accurate number in itself with this assessment, as you can probably imagine. However, thirty does present a large, but at least functional squadron in this regard. It is weird, it is a bit off; however, it does present a viable, single squadron of F-35s.

I apologize if it sounds like I’m yelling. I’m not. I am just trying to give a quick rundown as best I can to why the sixteen number isn’t necessarily a good way to look at things, and why the number was almost always going to end up higher no matter what the review said. It just isn’t a practical, functional number to support a squadron of F-35s.

And of course, I’m using generic numbers. I am using the American way of doing things, and others do play around a bit with percentages and numbers. That of course is natural. Everyone is a bit different to what is deemed acceptable. However, it does provide you a general idea of the backend numbers that oftentimes get missed when discussing squadron sizes. You can’t base it off just the aircraft you plan to fly in combat. There is an entire, significant backend of airframes needed for other roles and as future hedging against things like maintenance issues and airframe losses that needs to be considered.

So yes, this isn’t surprising. It is to be expected under this assumption that we would be taking the time to order Long-Lead items, especially just ahead of Canada’s first delivery to Luke. We can hold out for a long while on actually ordering the aircraft, for sure, but we can’t delay on the long-lead items necessary for their manufacturing, especially when Canada maintains tight timelines and production slots for the F-35 are so pressed and valuable.

Missing out is years-long delays to the current plan, one that in the end will likely include at least 30 aircraft when all is said and done. Almost everyone accepts that reality. Not many in government expected sixteen to be the final number even if a cut does happen. So why hold out and drag at the risk of losing our place?

As of now, the review continues. I expect a mixed fleet these days. I admit that now. That isn’t based off rumors or anything, just my own gut feeling because every week the circus down south manages to do something else to show they are untrustworthy. Add on our rumors from yesterday… If they wanted to hurt the likes of Lockheed and Boeing, then this administration is succeeding with flying colours.

So yeah, definitely getting more than sixteen, how many I don’t know but I don’t think it’ll be eighty-eight. I will have to send Alex McColl a cake. He deserves it for keeping the fight alive. (Although I have never shipped a cake across the country. How does that even work?)