I’ve been saying this for months but no one listens. Now the screaming has started (looking at you, Charlie Angus) because people don’t seem to understand that 16 aircraft are functionally useless, but still terribly expensive.
If I may Noah the simple formula for front line ready to go fighters was always an 80% by 70% rule.
Whatever total number of Aircraft in the fleet one in five is in parts and pieces under refit. The remaining 80% of the fleet then delivers a 70% availability 24/7.
The Harper government was only going to buy 65 F35’s to honour the math. 65x80%=52 x70%=36.
We only owe NORAD 36 ready on the flight line,trained pilot,armed fast jets. The overwhelming sensors on the F-35 are going to
By all means expand on what I wrote lol. I just wrote this up quick as a general remainder that there is more to a squadron than the combat-coded aircraft, and sixteen was never going to make that cut. I wrote it quick, so if there is things you want to bring up? By all means!
Pretty sure availability rate on the F-35 is currently only 53%. That's the US where maintenance and parts are almost guaranteed with then having the code, IP, facilities etc... so by your math 88 x 80% = 70 x 53% = 37 so literally even with 88 only getting what NORAD requires. Maybe a split fleet of 40 and 80 isn't so bad an idea after all.
I wonder if critical parts in quantity were quietly sent to Israel for the recent real life missions that AirForce just delivered. The claim of 15,000 hours on a fleet of only 48 jets would seem to suggest that. Hopefully the Israeli lessons learned and parts life expectancy will be shared.
Apparently, the Danes weren't happy, as many of the spare parts to support Israeli Op Tempo were sent from Danish warehouses.
Countries don't own parts until installed on a plane, so the US can re-direct as they see fit, even at the cost of parts availability in allied nations.
Dave Beed has the answer on how to determine numbers. But the requirement he is describing is a peacetime commitment, just for NORAD. The 88 were justified because this was to allow us to meet both NORAD and NATO missions simultaneously. Using the same math, the additional 22 jets would allow us to field just another 12 aircraft to meet peacetime NATO deterrence operations. Remember when we bought 138 CF-18s? That would allow us to generate 28 fighters 24/7 for NATO, about the number we committed to combat in Kosovo. To be honest, the 88 F-18s are really just enough for our own defence. And that’s assuming NORAD will remain intact.
If we are serious about regenerating our fighter design and production capability, it should be on a completely separate investment. Costly, yes. But we could use a fleet of Gen 4s like the Gripen for numerous training and support missions. Start there, while joining up with the GCAP or Swedish Gen 6 project to be able to replace the F-35 and Gripen with an indigenous fighter/combat drone.
I hate seeing people suggest “64” as a fleet size which isn’t representative of what constitutes an actual squadron in NATO which is 18 to 24 aircraft, not 16.
I used 12 as an example because I have heard people make the argument that the sixteen number could work with a tiny squadron of twelve. It doesn't, but I felt the need to address some of those claims.
No I was seeing where u were going with it, it’s just these people like to claim a stake of their opinion without actually knowing or researching how much it takes to have a effective squadron at strength.
Not sure where you're getting that number. Squadron size can vary. We had the era of the supersized Hornet squadrons and then brought back the four fighter squadrons.
The USN puts 10-12 fighters in a Squadron. The USAF puts double that. Squadrons are sized based on desired capability and span of control.
Where are you getting NATO standard squadron size? Those vary substantially too. But most are generally smaller than the USAF. The RAF, for example, is routinely 10-12 frames per Squadron for fighters.
I have given up predicting an F 35 fleet size but given the US designed fancy hangers that are being built at cold lake & baggotville I suspect it will be two sqn’s worth (however you define them) so 40-40+. But I do see a mixed fleet in our future….how many of them who knows. US will no doubt threaten us no matter what we do.
A mixed fleet isn’t some shocking new idea Canada just discovered on the internet. From the 1960s through the mid-1980s we ran CF-101s for NORAD, CF-104s for NATO, and CF-5s for training and secondary roles. Different jets for different jobs, intentionally.
The takeaway isn’t nostalgia, it’s practicality. Fleet structure used to be about covering missions and avoiding capability gaps, not arguing over a single number as if it were a final answer. Fighter capability isn’t something you can pause, “review,” and then magically restart on schedule.
Whether the end state is one type or a mix, keeping procurement moving matters. History suggests the real risk isn’t how many jets we buy, it’s waiting long enough that we find ourselves short when it actually counts.
The way I see it, we will not be getting 88 F-35s. They have now, like everything else, become leverage for the upcoming CUSMA talks. The amount we get will be based on how the talks go and how many bargaining chips we use/lose. I'm guessing Trump is going to not pull out of the agreement, but only agree to extend it for another year, every year until 2028, at which point he'll can it to make it as difficult for he successor to bring America back from the brink. And each year, Canada will hold off announcing how many total F-35s it's going to buy, just slowly, incrementally increasing the number to keep their place in the production line. Likewise, I don't expect an announcement about a Gripen plant in Canada until after an agreement is reached July 1st, so Trump can't sabotage it once CUSMA has been approved for the year.
Love all the comments and they are contributing immensely to my understanding of the discussion. When I'm reviewing them and taking a step back, it sure seems like us "political decision" types are playing 20 questions with the "mission decision" experts. Is there a policy, white paper, essay, book on fighter theater ops that we can consume that would allow us to intelligently pose questions and challenges to each other? The challenge both of us have is that the decision weighting on what to buy from the USA changed from speeds, feeds, capabilities, capacities to political considerations in November 2024 when Trump was elected. BC6 and you have been exceedingly patient and tolerant in their detailed discussions when challenged by earnest people and goofs alike. Once folks like me have a better understanding, it doesn't mean that we won't push back. But at least we can be on a somewhat level playing field. Right now I'm talking just about fighters, but subs, mechanized, infantry, signals, intelligence have the same pattern. The country is heavily interested in defense and how to be sovereign in both military and political spheres. How do we bridge the gap between voters and the military and do the best we both want for Canada?
Ordering 14 is a sign they will keep dual fleet optionality. The schedule required them to order 18 per year 2029 - 2032. Ordering 14 seems to setup to ultimately buy the 50-60 needed to retire the Hornet.
I know it was tongue in cheek, but I can't help myself: you call a local bakery and have them deliver. Work from anywhere in the world.
I Still have some great memories of gaming online in college and a friend saying he was going to send pizza from Canada to Texas, and hearing the Americans loose their mind when the pizza showed up 30 minutes later...
We all know that 16 were never enough 30 is also isn't enough. I honestly wouldn't be surprised we went all 88 or even more seeing as budget increases. We need to retire the Hornets, they are done.
I’m unsure if there’s any argument to be made for a change of mission. I’m not military (personal failing…) but I am pretty well read on things geopolitical and military requirement…while I can appreciate that the CAF mission as far as fighter aircraft is concerned was and might remain a commitment to NORAD, although I would suggest we might want to consider ourselves somewhat on our own. The sensor suite on the F35 is meant to be integrated with US forces, which is great as long as they remain(?) a viable ally. Adding to the overall operational capability another aircraft, while more expensive than a single type, would enable our forces to operate without the oversight and independent of any American administration. The Gripen is capable, the sensor system is plenty adequate to our actual requirements it just doesn’t fully integrate with the US.
The adoption of a home built aircraft and the ability to add to its capabilities through open architecture of the system is an incredibly far sighted in terms of military capability. Add in several thousand high skill jobs and it looks like a pretty simple solution.
I’ve been saying this for months but no one listens. Now the screaming has started (looking at you, Charlie Angus) because people don’t seem to understand that 16 aircraft are functionally useless, but still terribly expensive.
Essentially worthless if I can be a bit harsh. Debatable by then if it is even worth the burden of having sixteen around.
If I may Noah the simple formula for front line ready to go fighters was always an 80% by 70% rule.
Whatever total number of Aircraft in the fleet one in five is in parts and pieces under refit. The remaining 80% of the fleet then delivers a 70% availability 24/7.
The Harper government was only going to buy 65 F35’s to honour the math. 65x80%=52 x70%=36.
We only owe NORAD 36 ready on the flight line,trained pilot,armed fast jets. The overwhelming sensors on the F-35 are going to
Deliver exponential capability however.
By all means expand on what I wrote lol. I just wrote this up quick as a general remainder that there is more to a squadron than the combat-coded aircraft, and sixteen was never going to make that cut. I wrote it quick, so if there is things you want to bring up? By all means!
Do these numbers still work given the U.S. is getting about a 50% availability rate?
Pretty sure availability rate on the F-35 is currently only 53%. That's the US where maintenance and parts are almost guaranteed with then having the code, IP, facilities etc... so by your math 88 x 80% = 70 x 53% = 37 so literally even with 88 only getting what NORAD requires. Maybe a split fleet of 40 and 80 isn't so bad an idea after all.
I wonder if critical parts in quantity were quietly sent to Israel for the recent real life missions that AirForce just delivered. The claim of 15,000 hours on a fleet of only 48 jets would seem to suggest that. Hopefully the Israeli lessons learned and parts life expectancy will be shared.
Apparently, the Danes weren't happy, as many of the spare parts to support Israeli Op Tempo were sent from Danish warehouses.
Countries don't own parts until installed on a plane, so the US can re-direct as they see fit, even at the cost of parts availability in allied nations.
Dave Beed has the answer on how to determine numbers. But the requirement he is describing is a peacetime commitment, just for NORAD. The 88 were justified because this was to allow us to meet both NORAD and NATO missions simultaneously. Using the same math, the additional 22 jets would allow us to field just another 12 aircraft to meet peacetime NATO deterrence operations. Remember when we bought 138 CF-18s? That would allow us to generate 28 fighters 24/7 for NATO, about the number we committed to combat in Kosovo. To be honest, the 88 F-18s are really just enough for our own defence. And that’s assuming NORAD will remain intact.
If we are serious about regenerating our fighter design and production capability, it should be on a completely separate investment. Costly, yes. But we could use a fleet of Gen 4s like the Gripen for numerous training and support missions. Start there, while joining up with the GCAP or Swedish Gen 6 project to be able to replace the F-35 and Gripen with an indigenous fighter/combat drone.
I will argue that if we are going mixed fleet then 40 is the my guess of the minimum number, 44 if you want 88 aircraft of both types.
I hate seeing people suggest “64” as a fleet size which isn’t representative of what constitutes an actual squadron in NATO which is 18 to 24 aircraft, not 16.
I used 12 as an example because I have heard people make the argument that the sixteen number could work with a tiny squadron of twelve. It doesn't, but I felt the need to address some of those claims.
No I was seeing where u were going with it, it’s just these people like to claim a stake of their opinion without actually knowing or researching how much it takes to have a effective squadron at strength.
Not sure where you're getting that number. Squadron size can vary. We had the era of the supersized Hornet squadrons and then brought back the four fighter squadrons.
The USN puts 10-12 fighters in a Squadron. The USAF puts double that. Squadrons are sized based on desired capability and span of control.
The “64” number is seen quite often on X or Twitter (however u wanna call it).
But I mean hey if a USAF sqn is double what a USN sqn is that puts it roughly in to the “NATO” standard of a sqn size.
Where are you getting NATO standard squadron size? Those vary substantially too. But most are generally smaller than the USAF. The RAF, for example, is routinely 10-12 frames per Squadron for fighters.
Upon further review I guess… I’m wrong
Seemed to have assumed it was always 18 to 24 when the case really was that is the standard USAF sizes. Damn I’ve been duped my whole life.
I have given up predicting an F 35 fleet size but given the US designed fancy hangers that are being built at cold lake & baggotville I suspect it will be two sqn’s worth (however you define them) so 40-40+. But I do see a mixed fleet in our future….how many of them who knows. US will no doubt threaten us no matter what we do.
A mixed fleet isn’t some shocking new idea Canada just discovered on the internet. From the 1960s through the mid-1980s we ran CF-101s for NORAD, CF-104s for NATO, and CF-5s for training and secondary roles. Different jets for different jobs, intentionally.
The takeaway isn’t nostalgia, it’s practicality. Fleet structure used to be about covering missions and avoiding capability gaps, not arguing over a single number as if it were a final answer. Fighter capability isn’t something you can pause, “review,” and then magically restart on schedule.
Whether the end state is one type or a mix, keeping procurement moving matters. History suggests the real risk isn’t how many jets we buy, it’s waiting long enough that we find ourselves short when it actually counts.
The way I see it, we will not be getting 88 F-35s. They have now, like everything else, become leverage for the upcoming CUSMA talks. The amount we get will be based on how the talks go and how many bargaining chips we use/lose. I'm guessing Trump is going to not pull out of the agreement, but only agree to extend it for another year, every year until 2028, at which point he'll can it to make it as difficult for he successor to bring America back from the brink. And each year, Canada will hold off announcing how many total F-35s it's going to buy, just slowly, incrementally increasing the number to keep their place in the production line. Likewise, I don't expect an announcement about a Gripen plant in Canada until after an agreement is reached July 1st, so Trump can't sabotage it once CUSMA has been approved for the year.
The 2017 Senate Defence committee recommended a fighter fleet of 120 Fighters. That of course was before Ukraine and our Southern changes.
What is either lucky or prescient is how many of those recommendations are now being implemented. Except the Fighters.
Love all the comments and they are contributing immensely to my understanding of the discussion. When I'm reviewing them and taking a step back, it sure seems like us "political decision" types are playing 20 questions with the "mission decision" experts. Is there a policy, white paper, essay, book on fighter theater ops that we can consume that would allow us to intelligently pose questions and challenges to each other? The challenge both of us have is that the decision weighting on what to buy from the USA changed from speeds, feeds, capabilities, capacities to political considerations in November 2024 when Trump was elected. BC6 and you have been exceedingly patient and tolerant in their detailed discussions when challenged by earnest people and goofs alike. Once folks like me have a better understanding, it doesn't mean that we won't push back. But at least we can be on a somewhat level playing field. Right now I'm talking just about fighters, but subs, mechanized, infantry, signals, intelligence have the same pattern. The country is heavily interested in defense and how to be sovereign in both military and political spheres. How do we bridge the gap between voters and the military and do the best we both want for Canada?
Ordering 14 is a sign they will keep dual fleet optionality. The schedule required them to order 18 per year 2029 - 2032. Ordering 14 seems to setup to ultimately buy the 50-60 needed to retire the Hornet.
I know it was tongue in cheek, but I can't help myself: you call a local bakery and have them deliver. Work from anywhere in the world.
I Still have some great memories of gaming online in college and a friend saying he was going to send pizza from Canada to Texas, and hearing the Americans loose their mind when the pizza showed up 30 minutes later...
There is a timely article in the Globe and Mail today advocating for a mixed fleet. 30 to 40 F-35s and 70-80 Gripens. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-canada-should-have-a-mixed-fleet-of-fighter-jets/
We all know that 16 were never enough 30 is also isn't enough. I honestly wouldn't be surprised we went all 88 or even more seeing as budget increases. We need to retire the Hornets, they are done.
I’m unsure if there’s any argument to be made for a change of mission. I’m not military (personal failing…) but I am pretty well read on things geopolitical and military requirement…while I can appreciate that the CAF mission as far as fighter aircraft is concerned was and might remain a commitment to NORAD, although I would suggest we might want to consider ourselves somewhat on our own. The sensor suite on the F35 is meant to be integrated with US forces, which is great as long as they remain(?) a viable ally. Adding to the overall operational capability another aircraft, while more expensive than a single type, would enable our forces to operate without the oversight and independent of any American administration. The Gripen is capable, the sensor system is plenty adequate to our actual requirements it just doesn’t fully integrate with the US.
The adoption of a home built aircraft and the ability to add to its capabilities through open architecture of the system is an incredibly far sighted in terms of military capability. Add in several thousand high skill jobs and it looks like a pretty simple solution.