F-35 Part 2 - Gripen E for Canada
I Indulge in a Bright Idea
One of my many character flaws is that I’m always thinking about stuff and occasionally have bright ideas—some of which are out in left field. Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of pondering about our F-35 purchase and its implications for Canadian defence. I got into a lot of the details in my article Canada’s Purchase of the F-35… here.
As the article indicates, there are significant dangers inherent in Canada’s purchase of an F-35 fleet to replace our increasingly ancient CF-18s. While there are calls to drop the buy entirely, I believe we’ll be stuck with the F-35, if only because the U.S. will insist on NORAD compatibility. However, I previously pointed out two options that Canada might consider: retain the entire F-35 purchase and procure additional Gripen E fighters, or cut the F-35 purchase and make up the difference with Gripen Es.
I’m increasingly convinced that the second option is the way to go, with a caveat: I believe we need to increase our overall fleet size, and there are reasons beyond NORAD for doing so. With this in mind, here are my assumptions:
Canada is contractually bound to the F-35.
The F-35 remains the most suitable for NORAD service, where the U.S. would be very unlikely to hamstring the fleet.
Eighty-eight aircraft are not enough to provide flexibility, allow for attrition, and address all our commitments.
The U.S. will remain hostile to Canada and Canadian interests but will insist on our participation in NORAD for its own defence reasons.
Canada will move closer to our other NATO and EU allies and will seek to demonstrate our commitment to collective security.
Ottawa is willing to pay penalties arising from the partial cancellation of the F-35 contract.
Sweden can produce sufficient Gripen E fighters—without a U.S. engine—on short order. This may not be possible.
Ottawa is interested in dramatic and decisive action on the defence front and wishes to use military support to bolster diplomatic efforts.
With all this in mind, here’s my modest proposal, for what it’s worth:
Cut the F-35 purchase in half to 44 aircraft.
Purchase, as expeditiously as possible, 88 Gripen E fighters with a Volvo engine.
Retain all F-35s in Canada for NORAD service.
Maintain the Gripen E fleet in Canada and Europe, divided roughly as follows:
48 in Canada for domestic and NORAD missions and expeditionary operations.
24 (two squadrons) forward-deployed in Europe.
12 in Canada for training and fleet rotation.
Co-locate the 24 aircraft in Europe at an existing airbase in Latvia or Poland (Canada has a NATO battle group in Latvia).
Reach an agreement with Sweden to support the forward squadrons.
This brings our fighter fleet back to its 1980 level of 132 aircraft.
The main purpose of forward-deploying two squadrons is essentially political: to make an additional, dramatic, and concrete contribution to the defence of Europe and NATO. It would be a significant increase to NATO’s airpower on the eastern flank and provide additional flexibility should tensions rise.
The benefits to Canada would be significant. Yes, we would have to pay penalties and might lose some industrial benefits, but these might be offset by reductions in procurement and operating costs. A quick back-of-the-envelope estimate is:
Procurement: ~$17.2B CAD
Lifetime Costs: ~$56B CAD
Total Savings: ~$14B CAD vs. the full F-35 plan
Of course, there are risks associated with such a bold strategy. The RCAF may continue to have issues recruiting pilots; a mixed fleet has a more complicated support structure; the U.S. may retaliate if it disagrees with the reduction in the F-35 contract; and SAAB may not be able to produce the aircraft in time or in the configuration we need. Further, it might be difficult to quantify the loss of industrial benefits Canada may experience. But there may be ways to mitigate these - I am not expert enough to assess this aspect.
When I was serving, I used to hate what we called “bright idea fairies”—people who always had a better plan or an addition that required a complete overhaul. Worse, I’m not an air force type, and there are likely all kinds of holes in this “bright idea.” That said, I believe the Canadian public is ready for bold, dramatic moves in light of the tectonic shifts in the geopolitical landscape. We just might be able to do something dramatic while improving our defence posture and supporting our allies in a very concrete and meaningful way.
It’s worth looking at.
I may have errored in actually naming a platform like the Gripen E. This has quite a few readers here and elsewhere pointing out that the Gripen uses a US engine or that another aircraft is, in fact, superior.
This may be true. There may be technical workarounds. It doesn’t matter. Cut and paste whatever aircraft you’d like into the piece and it doesn’t alter the basics points at all.
I chose Gripen simply because it finished second in the fighter competition, has many of the attributes we’d be after and can be adapted for a variety of missions. It’s really that simple. But when the time comes, I’ll leave it to the genuine experts to select the right aircraft.
How about we learn from this and quit keeping equipment for 50 years and not be in corner we have made for ourselves.