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.
I like the idea both for its statement to Europe of our NATO commitment and desire for closer European ties, and for the reduced reliance on the US support network and control that the F35 represents.
If indeed it is workable the big question is whether our leadership has the foresight and courage to step up.
I think this idea has a lot of merit. Have you thought about sending it in formally or informally through any of your contacts in the CAF? It makes sense, especially for holding two squadrons forward in Europe. This would make us more attractive to NATO and the EU in terms of them coming to our defense over here, should Russia and the US attack us in the arctic. If we don't make huge top-ups to our budget/procurements immediately and show that we're on track to defend ourselves as well as the EU, we're not going to be anything but a liability for NATO. Also, the recruitment halo for pilots, knowing that they have a chance to fly out of Europe, would be huge. Much more "romantic" than Bagotville and Cold Lake.
If we actually get to 2% (or higher) a larger fighter fleet must be made a priority. & 2-type fleet at that... There is a reason even the US continues to acquire gen 4/4.5 aircraft alongside the F-35. 2 fighter types provides a more versatile total fleet, and protection from political or technical risks. If we have only F-35s, what happens when (not if) they get grounded due to a software glitch? Are we really willing to accept periods of time with 0 safe to operate fighter jets?
As for numbers... 88 was never a sufficient number. It was the politically acceptable number given the current size & investment of the CAF. 120+ total fighter aircraft is more likely the minimal sustainable number in the long term (in the 80s, we bought 132 CF-18s in addition to a fleet of CF-5s.
I would posit an ideal solution for RCAF would be 48-60 CF-35s, for NORAD & for the SEAD/DEAD role in high intensity conflict, & 60-80 Gripens or Rafales for NORAD & NATO air policing, & high speed missile trucks working alongside the CF35s in a conflict. I would forward deploy the non-F35 fleet to Latvia (12-24 A/C), & place 6-12 in a FoL in the Arctic (say Iqaluit) - for Sovereignty messaging.
No, I’ve argued for years against what we have *always* done since the mid-60s - cut our fleet numbers to cut costs. Everything is a shadow of what it once was, across all three Services. This would address some of that.
I suspect the RCAF already has people - who are so intertwined with the USAF that they can’t picture any other way of doing business - gnashing their teeth at losing some F-35s and running two aircraft. They’re not disloyal; it’s just that it’s a massive shift in the usual way of doing business and old habits and relationships die hard.
I think we're on the exact same page on this (& wider fleet reductions across the CAF).
Buying fleets decreasing #s of vehicles based on our reduced size/budget (or sometimes... The # of platforms left of the previous fleet due to attrition etc...) - it opens us up to a ton of risk. We have no depth anymore... Attrition of even a couple key platforms (ARVs, FARs, AEVs... & even our logistics fleets) will have an outsize negative impact on our capabilities across the CAF.
For RCAF, we need to hedge our bets with more total platforms, across 2 fleets of fighters - at the cost of paying whatever we need to to grow the RCAF & the number of pilots.
& the grounding risk... It is very real. Fighters are complex, & the new crop of US aircraft has shown significant teething issues... Which will never really go away. & it doesn't take much to have a new software glitch cause major safety issues. If we don't want to get into a situation where 100% of our fighters are grounded (or at least severely limited), potentially for months at a time, due to a safety or other issue... We NEED 2 dissimilar fleets.
Portugal is cancelling their F35s in favour of Typhoons or Gripens depending on the source. Really unsure if there's anyone in government who still cares about defence being part of the national security policy these days. Justin Trudeau allegedly felt it was backwards and not progressive.
Must confess the "contractually bound" phrase made me burst out laughing thinking "Yeah riiiiggggghhht" given the Orange Toilet Tornado's bellicose tariff /annexation BS. A more bloody minded take is to buy a single F-35 and committee-ponder the purchase of any more of 'em to death. Gripens all the way. I'd have none of those IP concerns either, if 'tear it apart, measure it and build an identical copy' works for the Chinese, that's fine with me. We are getting really close to be really past such niceties.
I think this needs to happen 'just-now' not 'just soon'. I am watching all political parties right now to see a sense of urgency at the ever changing downturn in comity and fellowship viz the US.
My mood going into the next Federal election is to countenance no shillyshallying at all. There is tremendous opportunity for a party to get out front of Canadian public opinion, rather than tepidly follow. They must deliver as well.
I'd like to see the tabling of a 'National Service' construct in Canada - much like the Swiss or the Danes.
I’m not going to go down the route of asking about other platforms, mainly because I wouldn’t actually know what I’m talking about (a level of self-awareness absent in any of the armchair strategists I drank with down in the Jr. Ranks’ mess 35 years ago…) - but I will ask this: what are the risks of either developing software or other modifications to F-35s (should we acquire them) which would lessen the impact of US fuckery should that fancy strike them, or buying such mods off the shelf from a third party who already has a robust defence technology industry and a track record of doing whatever the hell they feel like doing (Israel, I’m looking in your direction…)?
This is a great point. Israel apparently has much more control over their F-35s. I suspect part of this is because the whole “network enabled” piece is less important T to them.
I agree, why buy planes from the enemy. Aluminum will soon be more expensive in the US and will lead to increased prices for aircraft - bottom line shop in Europe where aluminum prices are more stable.
When it comes to commercial aircraft we should buy airbus - cheaper and the US doesn’t need anything from Canada.
I have felt for some years that our government's commitment to our military has been an embarrassment. I like this suggestion for the CAF. Next we need to fund the Navy!
We cannot continue to rely on the US to countenance Canada in NORAD IMHO. Buy some F35 quantities that would suffice for reverse engineering and park them or fly them to assess vulnerabilities. Gripens for all the rest up to 150+. If Sweden doesn't have the industrial capability, we can manufacture in Quebec, Alberta, and Nova Scotia. For that matter, let's look at Australia and Japan for assistance. There are lots of reasons the faerie thinkers will have the upper hand now. We need speed, capability, and capacity. Land, sea and air. Political leaders would do well to really listen to on the street interviews now. We are ready to come together as a community more than any time in the 40 years I have been here. We have something worth saving, and we are ready to spend to get it.
My understanding was that Canada has no guaranteed IB's, just the ability of Cdn firms to bid on being part of the F-35 supply chain. I am doubting this will survive long under Trump 2, in any scenario. With the Saab option, Canada was going to build them at a location near the Halifax airport.
It was explained to me that the magic sauce of the F-35 was the ability to get close to the enemy undetected because of some stealth ability and interconnectivity including constant updates from the US on adversarial sensors. However it would not survive long in air superiority or ground attack environments, two missions that the RCAF seems to take on a lot. Coincidentally the Grippen is good at those things and has something the F-35 does not - super cruise (mach1+ cruising without afterburner).
All to say, I like the idea of a small number of F-35's for NORAD duties, and the rest Grippens for combat duty. Throw in that there are two European gen-6 programs expected to start first production in 11-12 years (best intentions anyway).
I don’t know anything about the IBs, which is why I couldn’t get into them. I’d be out of my depth.
Yes, stealth was a big selling point for the F-35, but I believe a bigger focus was on its sensors and networking capabilities. It plugs right into NORAD and, for our branch plant armed forces, into the US Air Force. Gripen may have been able to do so, with much messing around.
I’m on record as opposing “build in Canada” programs that purport to create a defence industry from the ground up. Too much risk and our track record is absolutely abysmal.
This caught my eye from the CBC article you linked:
“The notion of Canada flying a mixed fleet of fighter jets is something the air force has long resisted, even though it did so up until the 1980s when the current CF-18s were purchased. It would mean two different training regimes, separate hangars and infrastructure and a different supply chain — all of which defence planners have insisted for decades is too expensive.”
I like your idea. Maybe we could licence building the Volvo engines in Canada. However I don't think that we would be operational under either proposes within 12 to 18 months. I chose that time frame because I believe that there will be some kind of military incursion into Canada within that time period, not a complete invasion but a demonstration. To that end I would suggest adding drones to the defence. We could licence the Ukrainian and Turkish drones and build them in Canada. Drones have been very successfully used by the Ukrainians and we could have them train Canadians. American military operates under the assumption of having complete air superiority, hence our air force would be the first thing they take out. Having drones creates a difficult problem for the Americans. Their troop columns would be prime targets for drone attacks; this might make them think twice for doing something rash.
When I said an incursion,my bet is that it will occur in southern Ontario. Why? Because Trump has repeatedly said that he wants our water. By taking southern Ontario he would gain control of all the Great Lakes. Plus he gets most of the factories that are tied to the auto industry.
It is indeed correct that the Canadian public is ready for bold ideas, including yhe strategy you advance here. The government has nothing to lose and everything to gain by virtually going for broke, lest Canada simply ends up broken.
I’m with you on F35 cancellation (as far as we’re able at this point!) and replacement with Gripens. Here’s another consideration: given our situation with the US, how long will NORAD last? We’re buying equipment from an enemy (arguably) and how do we ensure the supply of parts, weapons and software going forward? It’s like buying from Russia! We must plan for the worst-case scenario!
Of course this would mean an increase in the strength of the CAF/RCAF. Time for the blinders to come off and the government to get serious about defence. Yes, we all want health care, housing, etc., but the first duty of a national government is maintaining the independent sovereignty and strategic national interests of the country. Absent that, sorry to say that we’re not a country. Time for us to get off the fence and stand up for ourselves and not rely upon others to do our bidding.
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.
I like the idea both for its statement to Europe of our NATO commitment and desire for closer European ties, and for the reduced reliance on the US support network and control that the F35 represents.
If indeed it is workable the big question is whether our leadership has the foresight and courage to step up.
I think this idea has a lot of merit. Have you thought about sending it in formally or informally through any of your contacts in the CAF? It makes sense, especially for holding two squadrons forward in Europe. This would make us more attractive to NATO and the EU in terms of them coming to our defense over here, should Russia and the US attack us in the arctic. If we don't make huge top-ups to our budget/procurements immediately and show that we're on track to defend ourselves as well as the EU, we're not going to be anything but a liability for NATO. Also, the recruitment halo for pilots, knowing that they have a chance to fly out of Europe, would be huge. Much more "romantic" than Bagotville and Cold Lake.
Looks like others have been thinking in the same direction…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-blair-trump-1.7484477
If we actually get to 2% (or higher) a larger fighter fleet must be made a priority. & 2-type fleet at that... There is a reason even the US continues to acquire gen 4/4.5 aircraft alongside the F-35. 2 fighter types provides a more versatile total fleet, and protection from political or technical risks. If we have only F-35s, what happens when (not if) they get grounded due to a software glitch? Are we really willing to accept periods of time with 0 safe to operate fighter jets?
As for numbers... 88 was never a sufficient number. It was the politically acceptable number given the current size & investment of the CAF. 120+ total fighter aircraft is more likely the minimal sustainable number in the long term (in the 80s, we bought 132 CF-18s in addition to a fleet of CF-5s.
I would posit an ideal solution for RCAF would be 48-60 CF-35s, for NORAD & for the SEAD/DEAD role in high intensity conflict, & 60-80 Gripens or Rafales for NORAD & NATO air policing, & high speed missile trucks working alongside the CF35s in a conflict. I would forward deploy the non-F35 fleet to Latvia (12-24 A/C), & place 6-12 in a FoL in the Arctic (say Iqaluit) - for Sovereignty messaging.
So, kinda what I suggest? 😉
No, I’ve argued for years against what we have *always* done since the mid-60s - cut our fleet numbers to cut costs. Everything is a shadow of what it once was, across all three Services. This would address some of that.
I suspect the RCAF already has people - who are so intertwined with the USAF that they can’t picture any other way of doing business - gnashing their teeth at losing some F-35s and running two aircraft. They’re not disloyal; it’s just that it’s a massive shift in the usual way of doing business and old habits and relationships die hard.
Yeah, I could've summed it up as "like he said".
I think we're on the exact same page on this (& wider fleet reductions across the CAF).
Buying fleets decreasing #s of vehicles based on our reduced size/budget (or sometimes... The # of platforms left of the previous fleet due to attrition etc...) - it opens us up to a ton of risk. We have no depth anymore... Attrition of even a couple key platforms (ARVs, FARs, AEVs... & even our logistics fleets) will have an outsize negative impact on our capabilities across the CAF.
For RCAF, we need to hedge our bets with more total platforms, across 2 fleets of fighters - at the cost of paying whatever we need to to grow the RCAF & the number of pilots.
& the grounding risk... It is very real. Fighters are complex, & the new crop of US aircraft has shown significant teething issues... Which will never really go away. & it doesn't take much to have a new software glitch cause major safety issues. If we don't want to get into a situation where 100% of our fighters are grounded (or at least severely limited), potentially for months at a time, due to a safety or other issue... We NEED 2 dissimilar fleets.
I was around when we couldn’t unload aircraft on operations because we lacked the appropriate forklifts. What you say is 100% accurate.
80ish tanks does not equal a real armoured combat capability. Quantity has a quality all its own, after all.
Portugal is cancelling their F35s in favour of Typhoons or Gripens depending on the source. Really unsure if there's anyone in government who still cares about defence being part of the national security policy these days. Justin Trudeau allegedly felt it was backwards and not progressive.
A very compelling idea.
Must confess the "contractually bound" phrase made me burst out laughing thinking "Yeah riiiiggggghhht" given the Orange Toilet Tornado's bellicose tariff /annexation BS. A more bloody minded take is to buy a single F-35 and committee-ponder the purchase of any more of 'em to death. Gripens all the way. I'd have none of those IP concerns either, if 'tear it apart, measure it and build an identical copy' works for the Chinese, that's fine with me. We are getting really close to be really past such niceties.
I think this needs to happen 'just-now' not 'just soon'. I am watching all political parties right now to see a sense of urgency at the ever changing downturn in comity and fellowship viz the US.
My mood going into the next Federal election is to countenance no shillyshallying at all. There is tremendous opportunity for a party to get out front of Canadian public opinion, rather than tepidly follow. They must deliver as well.
I'd like to see the tabling of a 'National Service' construct in Canada - much like the Swiss or the Danes.
I’m not going to go down the route of asking about other platforms, mainly because I wouldn’t actually know what I’m talking about (a level of self-awareness absent in any of the armchair strategists I drank with down in the Jr. Ranks’ mess 35 years ago…) - but I will ask this: what are the risks of either developing software or other modifications to F-35s (should we acquire them) which would lessen the impact of US fuckery should that fancy strike them, or buying such mods off the shelf from a third party who already has a robust defence technology industry and a track record of doing whatever the hell they feel like doing (Israel, I’m looking in your direction…)?
This is a great point. Israel apparently has much more control over their F-35s. I suspect part of this is because the whole “network enabled” piece is less important T to them.
I agree, why buy planes from the enemy. Aluminum will soon be more expensive in the US and will lead to increased prices for aircraft - bottom line shop in Europe where aluminum prices are more stable.
When it comes to commercial aircraft we should buy airbus - cheaper and the US doesn’t need anything from Canada.
I have felt for some years that our government's commitment to our military has been an embarrassment. I like this suggestion for the CAF. Next we need to fund the Navy!
We cannot continue to rely on the US to countenance Canada in NORAD IMHO. Buy some F35 quantities that would suffice for reverse engineering and park them or fly them to assess vulnerabilities. Gripens for all the rest up to 150+. If Sweden doesn't have the industrial capability, we can manufacture in Quebec, Alberta, and Nova Scotia. For that matter, let's look at Australia and Japan for assistance. There are lots of reasons the faerie thinkers will have the upper hand now. We need speed, capability, and capacity. Land, sea and air. Political leaders would do well to really listen to on the street interviews now. We are ready to come together as a community more than any time in the 40 years I have been here. We have something worth saving, and we are ready to spend to get it.
My understanding was that Canada has no guaranteed IB's, just the ability of Cdn firms to bid on being part of the F-35 supply chain. I am doubting this will survive long under Trump 2, in any scenario. With the Saab option, Canada was going to build them at a location near the Halifax airport.
It was explained to me that the magic sauce of the F-35 was the ability to get close to the enemy undetected because of some stealth ability and interconnectivity including constant updates from the US on adversarial sensors. However it would not survive long in air superiority or ground attack environments, two missions that the RCAF seems to take on a lot. Coincidentally the Grippen is good at those things and has something the F-35 does not - super cruise (mach1+ cruising without afterburner).
All to say, I like the idea of a small number of F-35's for NORAD duties, and the rest Grippens for combat duty. Throw in that there are two European gen-6 programs expected to start first production in 11-12 years (best intentions anyway).
I don’t know anything about the IBs, which is why I couldn’t get into them. I’d be out of my depth.
Yes, stealth was a big selling point for the F-35, but I believe a bigger focus was on its sensors and networking capabilities. It plugs right into NORAD and, for our branch plant armed forces, into the US Air Force. Gripen may have been able to do so, with much messing around.
I’m on record as opposing “build in Canada” programs that purport to create a defence industry from the ground up. Too much risk and our track record is absolutely abysmal.
This caught my eye from the CBC article you linked:
“The notion of Canada flying a mixed fleet of fighter jets is something the air force has long resisted, even though it did so up until the 1980s when the current CF-18s were purchased. It would mean two different training regimes, separate hangars and infrastructure and a different supply chain — all of which defence planners have insisted for decades is too expensive.”
Seems there are no simple solutions.
We need to stop thinking with our wallets for once. If there’s a time when a deficit is fine, it’s now - during a crisis.
100% agree.
I like your idea. Maybe we could licence building the Volvo engines in Canada. However I don't think that we would be operational under either proposes within 12 to 18 months. I chose that time frame because I believe that there will be some kind of military incursion into Canada within that time period, not a complete invasion but a demonstration. To that end I would suggest adding drones to the defence. We could licence the Ukrainian and Turkish drones and build them in Canada. Drones have been very successfully used by the Ukrainians and we could have them train Canadians. American military operates under the assumption of having complete air superiority, hence our air force would be the first thing they take out. Having drones creates a difficult problem for the Americans. Their troop columns would be prime targets for drone attacks; this might make them think twice for doing something rash.
Just watch a video on the Gripen https://youtu.be/4Bbk-9kzMh4?si=ByR9ZgHuaIGocoy-
When I said an incursion,my bet is that it will occur in southern Ontario. Why? Because Trump has repeatedly said that he wants our water. By taking southern Ontario he would gain control of all the Great Lakes. Plus he gets most of the factories that are tied to the auto industry.
It is indeed correct that the Canadian public is ready for bold ideas, including yhe strategy you advance here. The government has nothing to lose and everything to gain by virtually going for broke, lest Canada simply ends up broken.
I’m with you on F35 cancellation (as far as we’re able at this point!) and replacement with Gripens. Here’s another consideration: given our situation with the US, how long will NORAD last? We’re buying equipment from an enemy (arguably) and how do we ensure the supply of parts, weapons and software going forward? It’s like buying from Russia! We must plan for the worst-case scenario!
Of course this would mean an increase in the strength of the CAF/RCAF. Time for the blinders to come off and the government to get serious about defence. Yes, we all want health care, housing, etc., but the first duty of a national government is maintaining the independent sovereignty and strategic national interests of the country. Absent that, sorry to say that we’re not a country. Time for us to get off the fence and stand up for ourselves and not rely upon others to do our bidding.