Thanks for your highly readable and clear-eyed perspective on these major purchases. I've been following this topic with interest and appreciate your analysis. I find myself in full agreement with your views.
As always thank you for you well explained insight.
I have no technical insight here but I have two concerns , one of which , is obvious .
My first is a notion that the ties the Canadian Military command have to the Americans due to operational exposure in recent years. This may have created a sense of false security. Is their opinion somewhat tainted and therefore American leaning.
A more salient concern is that Canada can never again assume our allegiance to the USA can be trusted to include Canada’s best interest. We cannot ever again give absolute control to any foreign power. The diversification of supply in this issue may be worth the price that has to be paid.
My concern is that there is a possibility that USA is capable of "bricking" their jets, thus rendering them to very expensive hunk of metals. What guarantee Canadian Air Force has that this will not happen? USA under Trump has becoming increasingly (in my view) volatile and aggressive towards people and countries he doesn't like (ex. Venezuela). I am not saying this will happen, but in the worst possible event where skirmishes happen, does USA will actually let us defend ourselves using their jets against them?
Gripen may not be as advance but ATM I trust Sweden more not to stab us in the back.
1. The entire spare parts chain is predicated on “just in time” delivery from a centralized facility. This was fine pre-Trump, but is an issue now.
2. The US can withhold software updates that reduce the effectiveness of the aircraft and eliminates bug fixes.
So, that’s the “bricking” everyone talks about. But to be honest, we have to remember what the aircraft are for: they’re partially to defend the *United States* through NORAD. Creating issues with Canadian F-35s damages US national security. There are hints that Trump is planning to export a “reduced capability” aircraft, but I’m not sure that applies here.
“they’re partially to defend the *United States* through NORAD. Creating issues with Canadian F-35s damages US national security”
There’s the rub. The current US Administration doesn’t think that way: they are stupid enough to actually lessen their defenses by crippling an ally’s equipment.
The three main opponents we need to prepare for are:
1. Russia
2. China
3. United States
With that in mind, relying on the latest and greatest flying computers to defend against US F-22’s and F-35’s is a nightmare scenario, but if the politics go sideways even more that they have, we may not even get delivery on an F-35 order, and if we do, they will be lesser quality coding models. They need some 7-10 million lines of code to run, and if ours were denied updates, or worse given a poisoned update, they are just so much scrap. Based current politics, yes, the POTUS would gladly authorize it, laughing all the way to collect his cut of the procurement contract.
The Grippen option would suit our commitment to NATO. a couple of squadrons deployed to Germany and Poland. Another pair of squadrons could be based at Cold Lake and Bagotville for Actic Support. For coastal patrol and marking the 49th Parallel, the F-35 could work, but I suspect the readiness ratings are somewhere between a Sea King helicopter, and your typical winter beater that wasn’t plugged in on a January night.
Even the submarines easily follow into a two part order: the Norwegian and German model for the East Coast and NATO, and the Korean model on the West Coast.
Having separate supply chains to support may be an initial problem, it can be managed.
The only requirement I would see as totally necessary would be common ammunition, and fuel. Everything else should be set up to have spare parts and consumables produced here. Given the current economy, it would take time to get the manufacturing in place, but it is possible. In the long term, it would make the most sense that we can repair what we have here.
We need to modify our strategic thinking to take into account that the US may not be our ally in the future. We did it in 1939, so we know it can be done. For two years, the US was dragging it’s feet and had invasion plans ready to seize Canada. Until Japan forced the issue, Canada could have been Britains only friend capable of fighting against Nazi Germany. The US did the right thing in the end, after having tried doing everything else first.
I agree with Jim. "Defending USA thru NORAD", yet we have to pay for it?
The way I see it:
Against Russia, Grippen will do just fine.
Against China - I am not sure China wants war. China wants to do business. But in case China wants to fight a NATO country, Grippen will suffice.
Against USA - USA will never let us use F-35 against them, so in any skirmishes with USA, our new, shiny, billion dollars jets become new, shiny billion dollars door stopper. So the only jets available to us will be Grippen.
It has to be said: US army will put USA and its corporations' interest first and foremost.
As a civilian, all I ask is for Canadian Army to consider and plan a long term strategy for the worst possible outcome: our closest ally becomes our greatest enemy.
Agreed, UAV’s will be taking over allot of roles that manned aircraft currently do, but there is no substitute for having eyeballs on a target. And all three potential enemy forces do have aircraft carriers for force projection.
The P-8 Poseidon is a spotter and will need protection in the face of UAVs equipped with AAMs’ or contact warheads. Even with its own drones flying in support, a combined team with subs, surface ships and interceptors like the F-35 or Grippen will keep our people alive, and let intruders know they will always be challenged.
We are looking at a far more complicated threat environment that previous generations have had to plan around. We need to be able to support the systems we purchase, and relying on US supplied systems is not the best strategy: we need to diversify, just like with our economy and trade.
I see tremendous benefits to the grippen. Most of these come from the long term benefits of establishing a potent Canadian aerospace industrial sector capable of building designing and selling 6th generation planes in progressive joint ventures with our true allies. No decisions should be made that don't generate a made un Canada capability. In future speak potent ai enables drone rather than manned planes. Why buy F35 which is already old tech when they will be made obsolete by 6th generation drone planes in 20 years or less. The drones will be faster lighter far more maneuverable as they won't be constrained by the g forces that restrict maneuverability of manned planes. Improvements in ai and visionary insights to the what is the near future should guide our investment and industrial capability to control our own future is the only framework that makes sense in making the correct decisions on military equipment. Not what's the best here and now because it won't be the best for long. Technology is advancing at breakneck speed Quantum computing and ai will be the backbone of gen 6 I'd rather we position Xanada to be a player in this arena
I agree with your list of top three, but not necessarily in that order. Not to nit-pick, though, especially as Trump and Putin, at least, are not mutually exclusive threats.
The problem with the F-35 has been outlined by the US Congressional Budget Office analysis. The availability of the F-35 is well under benchmarks and gets worse as the jets get older. They specifically mention that the average availability of a 7 year old F-35 is comparable to a 36 year old F-16 and 17 year old F-22. Canada is spending an obscene amount of money on these jets and if this is the level of availability we can expect that's not sustainable for an air force our size. I think it's too many eggs in one basket.
That's a fair question. From what I could find on the internet the availability of the Gripen C/D is 85% or better. The Gripen E is practically a new aircraft from the ground up and there doesn't appear to be good availability numbers yet...but there is really northing to suggest the numbers would be worse than the C/D.
1) Don’t overestimate the networking that is required to make an effective contribution to NORAD. This isn’t the 1960s, and there won’t be masses of Russian bombers coming over the pole to bomb our cities. The military threat in 2025 is hypersonic cruise missiles and ICBMs - both of which the F-35 and Gripen are equally helpless against.
NORAD’s primary focus these days is on tracking anything entering North American airspace and preventing another 9/11, and you don’t need an F-35’s capabilities to escort an airliner.
If we do acquire more than 16 F-35s (and I agree with you that we should), they should be used where their stealth gives them an advantage - Europe or, in future, Asia. We should also consider acquiring the VTOL version to allow their deployment at sea.
2) The RCN: agree with you 100% on the crewing issue, but disagree about the number of subs - we need 12 to keep 6-8 seaworthy at any time, and I’d place the submarines as a higher priority than surface ships. You send a surface ship to show the flag, and you send submarines to win a war.
Also, the Navy should forget any ideas about Corvettes because they’ll be a useless drain of resources. They should also immediately decommission and give all of the AOPS to the Coast Guard, because while they’re well enough armed for the CCG to use for their new security mandate they are not nearly well-enough armed for a warship and would be nothing more than missile sponges in a real fight.
The new destroyers should go ahead, but on their own they can do nothing other than defend themselves and maybe someone else’s high value unit. Thus, we should also acquire additional tankers and at least two flat-decked amphibious assault ships to facilitate power projection away from our own shores, which will allow us to act independently of any other ally when necessary.
And getting back to the subs, we should buy the South Korean ones because they have a vertical launch system and the German-Norwegian boats do not. Being able to sail right up to an enemy’s coast is only useful if we can do something to them besides take pictures once we arrive there.
1. You’re right about NORAD. The threat hasn’t been from manned bombers in decades, but you still need aircraft in a bunch of scenarios, not just all out war. The ghost of 9/11 looms large. Defending against ICBMs means Trump’s ridiculous Golden Dome, with all that brings. Nothing says that aircraft for NORAD can’t be used for expeditionary ops and vice versa.
2. I think you’ve dramatically oversimplified the RCN piece. You do not need a “double” fleet of submarines to cater for maintenance and I think you’re overestimating the effectiveness of subs and severely underestimating the surface fleet. You need both and the River class promises to be extremely useful. We have no need for and will never acquire amphibs.
3. The politicians will *hate* the VLS; it’ll be described as “too offensive”.
I have watched 2 separate interviews with ex CAF leaders that are claiming that there is no way you can operate both F-35s and Gripens for the defense of Canada and especially in a NORAD framework. It just can't be done and anyone who suggests otherwise just doesn't understand aerial warfare. I am not a genius but this just seems dismissive with no back up info. Gripen is fully capable of operating along side F-35s, sharing data, comms, etc. Both are fully NATO compliant.
I have heard CAF leadership claim stuff like this again and again. I understand they want the newest shiny and F-35 is very capable but to dismiss all other options in favor of shiny with no reasoning just seems crazy. I even heard one say that all the things that the F-35 will be able to do by the 2035s - 2040s just makes it the obvious choice. WTF???? So what is this thing going to do in the future? Or is it also likely that the F-XX will be in testing by 2040 and the F-35 will be a frozen design with limited upgrades. Both scenarios are equally plausible.
So am I just missing something because I am not in the air force or a pilot?? If anyone could explain this to me in crayons I would love to be better educated on the subject.
Derrin, do you remember who you heard speaking? There are several ex CAF leaders who currently or have worked for Lockheed Martin who are speaking in support of a F35 only purchase.
It isn’t that. It’s that the RCAF has been conditioned by years and years of experience to think of itself as an extension of the US Air Force. It cannot conceive of buying a non-US aircraft. And this isn’t their fault; it was the established position of the Government since the 1960s.
As always thank you for your well explained insight.
I have no technical insight here but I have two concerns , one of which , is obvious .
My first is a notion that the ties the Canadian Military command have to the Americans due to operational exposure in recent years. This may have created a sense of false security. Is their opinion somewhat tainted and therefore American leaning.
A more salient concern is that Canada can never again assume our allegiance to the USA can be trusted to include Canada’s best interest. We cannot ever again give absolute control to any foreign power. The diversification of supply in this issue may be worth the price that has to be paid.
You’re not wrong, especially with the RCAF. Canada - as in all of us - pushed the RCAF to become more and more assimilated with the Americans after about 1955-60. At first, this was for operational reasons. We were heavy players with NORAD and the whole continent’s air defence was integrated under one umbrella - in Colorado Springs.
Canada - civilian Canada - also decided that our aircraft would be bought from the US and we deliberately decided not to manufacture fighter jets anymore.
So, we have (as I’ve written elsewhere) an Army that isn’t very American at all, a Navy that is very Canadian, but an Air Force that has - by virtue of years of conditioning and deliberate policy decisions - become a virtual extension of the USAF (some parts more so than others).
It’s telling that when we reverted to three separate services a while ago, the RCAF retained “American-style” ranks.
I think the discussion about the F-35 tends to miss a few issues. When it works, it seems pretty amazing, but normally only about half or fewer of F-35s can actually fly at any given time. It is also hideously expensive and relies on the US to keep it operating properly. Given the current relationship, I think assuming any functioning working relationship in the future is optimistic.
Regarding the navy, while everyone is currently excited about having functional submarines, I am not exactly sure what we need them for. We are unlikely to fight an opponent with a big merchant fleet, and I thought warships and aircraft mostly killed submarines. As well, in terms of securing coastline, a submarine is not optimal for patrolling, doing search and rescue and enforcing fishing laws.
Finally, while the Ukraine-Russia war may not be completely applicable to anything the CF might have to deal with, it seems like we may want to prepare for a war of drones, which seem to have a big impact on controlling the ground battlefield.
Thank you for the updates and views that have clarity and provide a deeper sense of mission than most.
I continue to be surprised by the importance of logistics and manufacturing in the overall capability and reach of an armed forces. Canada's now parlous auto sector could be of great benefit to defense production in the forming of metal, procurement, and mass delivery of systems and components as a start.
I saw one estimate that if Canada were to fully build out it's military, there could be up to 10% of the population directly in the forces. Of course, not all would be in combat roles, military families are just like the rest of us and need kindergarten teachers, housing, doctors, supermarkets, lawyers, libraries, and psychologists. Unemployment would sink, if done correctly, to near zero and stay that way.
I'm a waning fan of civilian or military national service but still believe there is a role for changing the stilted career paths that we now have settled into over the last 60 years. How could the CAF and the current government create an attractive way to convince all age groups that military service is a great employer and way to advance your career? The commercials only show combat or combat adjacent roles. What are the impediments of having a mid-career professional person, at say 40 to 50, joining and being of real benefit to the forces? Someone in project management, cybersecurity, logistics, engineering or teaching would seem to be a great thing for the military to have, especially if they were proven leaders of people. Honest question, are the military cultural dynamics such that this could not work or is it that no one has ever tried recently (except the Ukrainians, and they must have learned a thing or 2)? What are the disruptions that would take place for someone who decides to pack it in after 5-8 years? Private industry does this all the time, even pushing good people out the door.
Please keep up the great commentary and insights, it is sincerely appreciated.
The issue is that the entire point of the CAF is combat. It is, by definition, a no fail institution and, because of this it’s very risk adverse.
If we take this as a given (and we should), it means that all leaders should be more or less capable of leading in a combat situation. This is quite different than leading in the civilian world. Even a CEO of a very large company would not be capable of taking over leadership of a combat unit without extensive additional training.
Would direct entry of civilian experts work? Yes, but only in part. Many of the roles they would perform are found in the Department, not the CAF itself. You could, I suppose, create a special type of service where such folks don’t have command authority, but that creates an us vs. them situation, especially if you’re paying technical people more money to attract them. After all, even military doctors train to defend their patients.
It’s not easy. The CAF has no use for partially or untrained people. One of its major strengths is that it is a professional military grounded in long service officers and NCOs. It’s something very few countries on the planet have.
Thanks for the feedback, I am really trying to test assumptions to become more informed. It would be great to see more material on the human dimension for both the CAF as well as the DND. I did not really understand that there was a differentiation.
Several articles about Ukraine drone operations point out that the lack of qualified operations teams is gating the use of now plentiful hardware. You have pointed this out on several articles on the hardware debates. I absolutely see what you are saying about long service leaders and agree this should be the standard. What might help is much earlier introduction of the Forces as a valid career path, even to the point of being included in children's books and educational curriculums.
What I do surmise from various sources is that high intensity careers typically require a similar trajectory of joining young and gaining institutional and technical experience with greater responsibilities. Think doctors, nurses, paramedics, police, and some entrepreneurs. What appears to be happening is that the increased demands that come with increased roles and responsibilities also leads to departures from the profession at or near peak capability due to stress, exhaustion, or even that last crappy boss. There is a similar problem in the private sector that has much greater ability to move more easily between industries. The loss of this human capital seems profoundly sad to organizations, society, and the individual. How to keep good talent should also be a priority.
Anyway, Thanks for listening and responding in your respectful way. Hoping to learn more.
I don’t understand the fixation on the Gripen E. The Swedes are struggling to find customers. Only three countries have ordered them. That includes Thailand buying a whopping 3 planes.
Meanwhile, 19 countries, including most of our NATO allies, have bought the F-35.
There are already 1,200 F-35s operational with more than a million hours of flight time.
Only one Gripen E is operational. Just one.
There is also the basic problem that the RCAF doesn’t have enough people for a two-plane fleet. It doesn’t even have enough people for the CF-18s.
Look, if you are still going to argue for a two-plane fleet, we would need an open competition. Odds are, the Gripen E would not win.
Great write up BC6, balanced and unemotional, unlike most of the internet’s approach to defence matters.
I had a read through the comments, and without getting into the F35 vs Gripen debate, I have 3 points.
1. CAF must be able to deter adversaries. That means Canada has to have the capabilities to cause an adversary pause - thinking todays’s not the day I’m going to attack. The aircraft/ships/subs have to be able to fight and win to deter, and not just against the threats of today. Having capability to fight and win gives the government of the day the ability to choose when and where it might use force to defend its interests. Without a capable military (jets, subs, pick a capability), it has fewer choices.
2. On NORAD, even at the highest alert levels, half of the fighters assigned to defend Canada are US fighters. Canada needs to be able to do more for itself.
3. Canadians need to demand more facts and transparency from their government. I am certain the RCAF could easily explain its rationale if only it were allowed to talk about it, even at the unclassified level. The RCN is free(ish) to talk about subs. The RCAF is not free to talk about fighters right now.
Would the Swedish offer of building in Canada create an advantage in terms of maintenance? It seems to me that if the planes are constructed here, there would be a better availability of parts and expertise… not to mention more motivation to keep up with inventory of more.
From what I've seen of the evolving fight in Ukraine, a few dozen F-35s is such an inadequate, over-priced defense when the core NORAD threat is large numbers of cheap drones that all Canada is doing by operating any is enabling US profit-mongering stupidity. Anyone old enough to remember the role the F-35 was actually designed to fill knows it was breaking into hostile airspace. How is that relevant in the NORAD context ever?
It's so irritating that thirty years of Lockheed marketing and USAF propaganda about itself has led to a complete inability to comprehend scale. If you're serious about protecting the Arctic or homeland, you want cheap and everywhere. But because US defense industries have made bank on this profit-guaranteeing paradigm of big, expensive do-everything jets, all discussions start with faulty assumptions.
The inability to dump the F-35 is a litmus test for how serious Canada is about its own sovereignty. Can't take a stand on this, the appeasement will never end. I get how everyone wants to hold open the possibility of everything magically being fixed in 2029 when Team Blue wins everything, but hope is what got us all into this mess in the first place.
The question is not wether the Grifpen is as good but if it is good enough. But I am skeptical we won't go with F35, as said it is better and we're signed on and a small fleet is untenable. But I don't know enough to have a useful opinion
Thanks for your highly readable and clear-eyed perspective on these major purchases. I've been following this topic with interest and appreciate your analysis. I find myself in full agreement with your views.
As always thank you for you well explained insight.
I have no technical insight here but I have two concerns , one of which , is obvious .
My first is a notion that the ties the Canadian Military command have to the Americans due to operational exposure in recent years. This may have created a sense of false security. Is their opinion somewhat tainted and therefore American leaning.
A more salient concern is that Canada can never again assume our allegiance to the USA can be trusted to include Canada’s best interest. We cannot ever again give absolute control to any foreign power. The diversification of supply in this issue may be worth the price that has to be paid.
My concern is that there is a possibility that USA is capable of "bricking" their jets, thus rendering them to very expensive hunk of metals. What guarantee Canadian Air Force has that this will not happen? USA under Trump has becoming increasingly (in my view) volatile and aggressive towards people and countries he doesn't like (ex. Venezuela). I am not saying this will happen, but in the worst possible event where skirmishes happen, does USA will actually let us defend ourselves using their jets against them?
Gripen may not be as advance but ATM I trust Sweden more not to stab us in the back.
The issue is actually two-fold.
1. The entire spare parts chain is predicated on “just in time” delivery from a centralized facility. This was fine pre-Trump, but is an issue now.
2. The US can withhold software updates that reduce the effectiveness of the aircraft and eliminates bug fixes.
So, that’s the “bricking” everyone talks about. But to be honest, we have to remember what the aircraft are for: they’re partially to defend the *United States* through NORAD. Creating issues with Canadian F-35s damages US national security. There are hints that Trump is planning to export a “reduced capability” aircraft, but I’m not sure that applies here.
“they’re partially to defend the *United States* through NORAD. Creating issues with Canadian F-35s damages US national security”
There’s the rub. The current US Administration doesn’t think that way: they are stupid enough to actually lessen their defenses by crippling an ally’s equipment.
The three main opponents we need to prepare for are:
1. Russia
2. China
3. United States
With that in mind, relying on the latest and greatest flying computers to defend against US F-22’s and F-35’s is a nightmare scenario, but if the politics go sideways even more that they have, we may not even get delivery on an F-35 order, and if we do, they will be lesser quality coding models. They need some 7-10 million lines of code to run, and if ours were denied updates, or worse given a poisoned update, they are just so much scrap. Based current politics, yes, the POTUS would gladly authorize it, laughing all the way to collect his cut of the procurement contract.
The Grippen option would suit our commitment to NATO. a couple of squadrons deployed to Germany and Poland. Another pair of squadrons could be based at Cold Lake and Bagotville for Actic Support. For coastal patrol and marking the 49th Parallel, the F-35 could work, but I suspect the readiness ratings are somewhere between a Sea King helicopter, and your typical winter beater that wasn’t plugged in on a January night.
Even the submarines easily follow into a two part order: the Norwegian and German model for the East Coast and NATO, and the Korean model on the West Coast.
Having separate supply chains to support may be an initial problem, it can be managed.
The only requirement I would see as totally necessary would be common ammunition, and fuel. Everything else should be set up to have spare parts and consumables produced here. Given the current economy, it would take time to get the manufacturing in place, but it is possible. In the long term, it would make the most sense that we can repair what we have here.
We need to modify our strategic thinking to take into account that the US may not be our ally in the future. We did it in 1939, so we know it can be done. For two years, the US was dragging it’s feet and had invasion plans ready to seize Canada. Until Japan forced the issue, Canada could have been Britains only friend capable of fighting against Nazi Germany. The US did the right thing in the end, after having tried doing everything else first.
I agree with Jim. "Defending USA thru NORAD", yet we have to pay for it?
The way I see it:
Against Russia, Grippen will do just fine.
Against China - I am not sure China wants war. China wants to do business. But in case China wants to fight a NATO country, Grippen will suffice.
Against USA - USA will never let us use F-35 against them, so in any skirmishes with USA, our new, shiny, billion dollars jets become new, shiny billion dollars door stopper. So the only jets available to us will be Grippen.
It has to be said: US army will put USA and its corporations' interest first and foremost.
As a civilian, all I ask is for Canadian Army to consider and plan a long term strategy for the worst possible outcome: our closest ally becomes our greatest enemy.
Nobody ia going to do "coastal patrol" with F-35s. That's what the P-8s ans some future UCAVs are for.
Agreed, UAV’s will be taking over allot of roles that manned aircraft currently do, but there is no substitute for having eyeballs on a target. And all three potential enemy forces do have aircraft carriers for force projection.
The P-8 Poseidon is a spotter and will need protection in the face of UAVs equipped with AAMs’ or contact warheads. Even with its own drones flying in support, a combined team with subs, surface ships and interceptors like the F-35 or Grippen will keep our people alive, and let intruders know they will always be challenged.
We are looking at a far more complicated threat environment that previous generations have had to plan around. We need to be able to support the systems we purchase, and relying on US supplied systems is not the best strategy: we need to diversify, just like with our economy and trade.
Nous nous souviendrons.
We are Canadian.
I see tremendous benefits to the grippen. Most of these come from the long term benefits of establishing a potent Canadian aerospace industrial sector capable of building designing and selling 6th generation planes in progressive joint ventures with our true allies. No decisions should be made that don't generate a made un Canada capability. In future speak potent ai enables drone rather than manned planes. Why buy F35 which is already old tech when they will be made obsolete by 6th generation drone planes in 20 years or less. The drones will be faster lighter far more maneuverable as they won't be constrained by the g forces that restrict maneuverability of manned planes. Improvements in ai and visionary insights to the what is the near future should guide our investment and industrial capability to control our own future is the only framework that makes sense in making the correct decisions on military equipment. Not what's the best here and now because it won't be the best for long. Technology is advancing at breakneck speed Quantum computing and ai will be the backbone of gen 6 I'd rather we position Xanada to be a player in this arena
I agree with your list of top three, but not necessarily in that order. Not to nit-pick, though, especially as Trump and Putin, at least, are not mutually exclusive threats.
The problem with the F-35 has been outlined by the US Congressional Budget Office analysis. The availability of the F-35 is well under benchmarks and gets worse as the jets get older. They specifically mention that the average availability of a 7 year old F-35 is comparable to a 36 year old F-16 and 17 year old F-22. Canada is spending an obscene amount of money on these jets and if this is the level of availability we can expect that's not sustainable for an air force our size. I think it's too many eggs in one basket.
What’s the availability rate of a Gripen? Do we know?
That's a fair question. From what I could find on the internet the availability of the Gripen C/D is 85% or better. The Gripen E is practically a new aircraft from the ground up and there doesn't appear to be good availability numbers yet...but there is really northing to suggest the numbers would be worse than the C/D.
A couple of things:
1) Don’t overestimate the networking that is required to make an effective contribution to NORAD. This isn’t the 1960s, and there won’t be masses of Russian bombers coming over the pole to bomb our cities. The military threat in 2025 is hypersonic cruise missiles and ICBMs - both of which the F-35 and Gripen are equally helpless against.
NORAD’s primary focus these days is on tracking anything entering North American airspace and preventing another 9/11, and you don’t need an F-35’s capabilities to escort an airliner.
If we do acquire more than 16 F-35s (and I agree with you that we should), they should be used where their stealth gives them an advantage - Europe or, in future, Asia. We should also consider acquiring the VTOL version to allow their deployment at sea.
2) The RCN: agree with you 100% on the crewing issue, but disagree about the number of subs - we need 12 to keep 6-8 seaworthy at any time, and I’d place the submarines as a higher priority than surface ships. You send a surface ship to show the flag, and you send submarines to win a war.
Also, the Navy should forget any ideas about Corvettes because they’ll be a useless drain of resources. They should also immediately decommission and give all of the AOPS to the Coast Guard, because while they’re well enough armed for the CCG to use for their new security mandate they are not nearly well-enough armed for a warship and would be nothing more than missile sponges in a real fight.
The new destroyers should go ahead, but on their own they can do nothing other than defend themselves and maybe someone else’s high value unit. Thus, we should also acquire additional tankers and at least two flat-decked amphibious assault ships to facilitate power projection away from our own shores, which will allow us to act independently of any other ally when necessary.
And getting back to the subs, we should buy the South Korean ones because they have a vertical launch system and the German-Norwegian boats do not. Being able to sail right up to an enemy’s coast is only useful if we can do something to them besides take pictures once we arrive there.
1. You’re right about NORAD. The threat hasn’t been from manned bombers in decades, but you still need aircraft in a bunch of scenarios, not just all out war. The ghost of 9/11 looms large. Defending against ICBMs means Trump’s ridiculous Golden Dome, with all that brings. Nothing says that aircraft for NORAD can’t be used for expeditionary ops and vice versa.
2. I think you’ve dramatically oversimplified the RCN piece. You do not need a “double” fleet of submarines to cater for maintenance and I think you’re overestimating the effectiveness of subs and severely underestimating the surface fleet. You need both and the River class promises to be extremely useful. We have no need for and will never acquire amphibs.
3. The politicians will *hate* the VLS; it’ll be described as “too offensive”.
I have watched 2 separate interviews with ex CAF leaders that are claiming that there is no way you can operate both F-35s and Gripens for the defense of Canada and especially in a NORAD framework. It just can't be done and anyone who suggests otherwise just doesn't understand aerial warfare. I am not a genius but this just seems dismissive with no back up info. Gripen is fully capable of operating along side F-35s, sharing data, comms, etc. Both are fully NATO compliant.
I have heard CAF leadership claim stuff like this again and again. I understand they want the newest shiny and F-35 is very capable but to dismiss all other options in favor of shiny with no reasoning just seems crazy. I even heard one say that all the things that the F-35 will be able to do by the 2035s - 2040s just makes it the obvious choice. WTF???? So what is this thing going to do in the future? Or is it also likely that the F-XX will be in testing by 2040 and the F-35 will be a frozen design with limited upgrades. Both scenarios are equally plausible.
So am I just missing something because I am not in the air force or a pilot?? If anyone could explain this to me in crayons I would love to be better educated on the subject.
Derrin, do you remember who you heard speaking? There are several ex CAF leaders who currently or have worked for Lockheed Martin who are speaking in support of a F35 only purchase.
It isn’t that. It’s that the RCAF has been conditioned by years and years of experience to think of itself as an extension of the US Air Force. It cannot conceive of buying a non-US aircraft. And this isn’t their fault; it was the established position of the Government since the 1960s.
As always thank you for your well explained insight.
I have no technical insight here but I have two concerns , one of which , is obvious .
My first is a notion that the ties the Canadian Military command have to the Americans due to operational exposure in recent years. This may have created a sense of false security. Is their opinion somewhat tainted and therefore American leaning.
A more salient concern is that Canada can never again assume our allegiance to the USA can be trusted to include Canada’s best interest. We cannot ever again give absolute control to any foreign power. The diversification of supply in this issue may be worth the price that has to be paid.
You’re not wrong, especially with the RCAF. Canada - as in all of us - pushed the RCAF to become more and more assimilated with the Americans after about 1955-60. At first, this was for operational reasons. We were heavy players with NORAD and the whole continent’s air defence was integrated under one umbrella - in Colorado Springs.
Canada - civilian Canada - also decided that our aircraft would be bought from the US and we deliberately decided not to manufacture fighter jets anymore.
So, we have (as I’ve written elsewhere) an Army that isn’t very American at all, a Navy that is very Canadian, but an Air Force that has - by virtue of years of conditioning and deliberate policy decisions - become a virtual extension of the USAF (some parts more so than others).
It’s telling that when we reverted to three separate services a while ago, the RCAF retained “American-style” ranks.
And don’t get me started on our Special Forces.
I think the discussion about the F-35 tends to miss a few issues. When it works, it seems pretty amazing, but normally only about half or fewer of F-35s can actually fly at any given time. It is also hideously expensive and relies on the US to keep it operating properly. Given the current relationship, I think assuming any functioning working relationship in the future is optimistic.
Regarding the navy, while everyone is currently excited about having functional submarines, I am not exactly sure what we need them for. We are unlikely to fight an opponent with a big merchant fleet, and I thought warships and aircraft mostly killed submarines. As well, in terms of securing coastline, a submarine is not optimal for patrolling, doing search and rescue and enforcing fishing laws.
Finally, while the Ukraine-Russia war may not be completely applicable to anything the CF might have to deal with, it seems like we may want to prepare for a war of drones, which seem to have a big impact on controlling the ground battlefield.
Thank you for the updates and views that have clarity and provide a deeper sense of mission than most.
I continue to be surprised by the importance of logistics and manufacturing in the overall capability and reach of an armed forces. Canada's now parlous auto sector could be of great benefit to defense production in the forming of metal, procurement, and mass delivery of systems and components as a start.
I saw one estimate that if Canada were to fully build out it's military, there could be up to 10% of the population directly in the forces. Of course, not all would be in combat roles, military families are just like the rest of us and need kindergarten teachers, housing, doctors, supermarkets, lawyers, libraries, and psychologists. Unemployment would sink, if done correctly, to near zero and stay that way.
I'm a waning fan of civilian or military national service but still believe there is a role for changing the stilted career paths that we now have settled into over the last 60 years. How could the CAF and the current government create an attractive way to convince all age groups that military service is a great employer and way to advance your career? The commercials only show combat or combat adjacent roles. What are the impediments of having a mid-career professional person, at say 40 to 50, joining and being of real benefit to the forces? Someone in project management, cybersecurity, logistics, engineering or teaching would seem to be a great thing for the military to have, especially if they were proven leaders of people. Honest question, are the military cultural dynamics such that this could not work or is it that no one has ever tried recently (except the Ukrainians, and they must have learned a thing or 2)? What are the disruptions that would take place for someone who decides to pack it in after 5-8 years? Private industry does this all the time, even pushing good people out the door.
Please keep up the great commentary and insights, it is sincerely appreciated.
The issue is that the entire point of the CAF is combat. It is, by definition, a no fail institution and, because of this it’s very risk adverse.
If we take this as a given (and we should), it means that all leaders should be more or less capable of leading in a combat situation. This is quite different than leading in the civilian world. Even a CEO of a very large company would not be capable of taking over leadership of a combat unit without extensive additional training.
Would direct entry of civilian experts work? Yes, but only in part. Many of the roles they would perform are found in the Department, not the CAF itself. You could, I suppose, create a special type of service where such folks don’t have command authority, but that creates an us vs. them situation, especially if you’re paying technical people more money to attract them. After all, even military doctors train to defend their patients.
It’s not easy. The CAF has no use for partially or untrained people. One of its major strengths is that it is a professional military grounded in long service officers and NCOs. It’s something very few countries on the planet have.
Thanks for the feedback, I am really trying to test assumptions to become more informed. It would be great to see more material on the human dimension for both the CAF as well as the DND. I did not really understand that there was a differentiation.
Several articles about Ukraine drone operations point out that the lack of qualified operations teams is gating the use of now plentiful hardware. You have pointed this out on several articles on the hardware debates. I absolutely see what you are saying about long service leaders and agree this should be the standard. What might help is much earlier introduction of the Forces as a valid career path, even to the point of being included in children's books and educational curriculums.
What I do surmise from various sources is that high intensity careers typically require a similar trajectory of joining young and gaining institutional and technical experience with greater responsibilities. Think doctors, nurses, paramedics, police, and some entrepreneurs. What appears to be happening is that the increased demands that come with increased roles and responsibilities also leads to departures from the profession at or near peak capability due to stress, exhaustion, or even that last crappy boss. There is a similar problem in the private sector that has much greater ability to move more easily between industries. The loss of this human capital seems profoundly sad to organizations, society, and the individual. How to keep good talent should also be a priority.
Anyway, Thanks for listening and responding in your respectful way. Hoping to learn more.
I don’t understand the fixation on the Gripen E. The Swedes are struggling to find customers. Only three countries have ordered them. That includes Thailand buying a whopping 3 planes.
Meanwhile, 19 countries, including most of our NATO allies, have bought the F-35.
There are already 1,200 F-35s operational with more than a million hours of flight time.
Only one Gripen E is operational. Just one.
There is also the basic problem that the RCAF doesn’t have enough people for a two-plane fleet. It doesn’t even have enough people for the CF-18s.
Look, if you are still going to argue for a two-plane fleet, we would need an open competition. Odds are, the Gripen E would not win.
Clear-eyed and level-headed, as always! You're always the voice of reason!
Great write up BC6, balanced and unemotional, unlike most of the internet’s approach to defence matters.
I had a read through the comments, and without getting into the F35 vs Gripen debate, I have 3 points.
1. CAF must be able to deter adversaries. That means Canada has to have the capabilities to cause an adversary pause - thinking todays’s not the day I’m going to attack. The aircraft/ships/subs have to be able to fight and win to deter, and not just against the threats of today. Having capability to fight and win gives the government of the day the ability to choose when and where it might use force to defend its interests. Without a capable military (jets, subs, pick a capability), it has fewer choices.
2. On NORAD, even at the highest alert levels, half of the fighters assigned to defend Canada are US fighters. Canada needs to be able to do more for itself.
3. Canadians need to demand more facts and transparency from their government. I am certain the RCAF could easily explain its rationale if only it were allowed to talk about it, even at the unclassified level. The RCN is free(ish) to talk about subs. The RCAF is not free to talk about fighters right now.
Would the Swedish offer of building in Canada create an advantage in terms of maintenance? It seems to me that if the planes are constructed here, there would be a better availability of parts and expertise… not to mention more motivation to keep up with inventory of more.
From what I've seen of the evolving fight in Ukraine, a few dozen F-35s is such an inadequate, over-priced defense when the core NORAD threat is large numbers of cheap drones that all Canada is doing by operating any is enabling US profit-mongering stupidity. Anyone old enough to remember the role the F-35 was actually designed to fill knows it was breaking into hostile airspace. How is that relevant in the NORAD context ever?
It's so irritating that thirty years of Lockheed marketing and USAF propaganda about itself has led to a complete inability to comprehend scale. If you're serious about protecting the Arctic or homeland, you want cheap and everywhere. But because US defense industries have made bank on this profit-guaranteeing paradigm of big, expensive do-everything jets, all discussions start with faulty assumptions.
The inability to dump the F-35 is a litmus test for how serious Canada is about its own sovereignty. Can't take a stand on this, the appeasement will never end. I get how everyone wants to hold open the possibility of everything magically being fixed in 2029 when Team Blue wins everything, but hope is what got us all into this mess in the first place.
The question is not wether the Grifpen is as good but if it is good enough. But I am skeptical we won't go with F35, as said it is better and we're signed on and a small fleet is untenable. But I don't know enough to have a useful opinion
thank you for your insight