Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[brihard]

The Gripen does appeal to me, I value broad utility in things. If we bought 65+ F-35 and another 80+ Gripens, I’d be good with that. But Canada’s fleet keeps getting smaller. If we’re going to have a small fleet we should have the most capable aircraft available.

For the record, and i’v sId it before, due to Canada’s vast size and coastlines, we should have a top tier airforce and Navy. Im a fortress North America guy, but those two elements can also project with significance.
We’ll not likely ever deploy a division of troops again.

That’s a pretty reasonable take. I largely agree.

 

[Maxman1]

Worn out 4th gen fighters with new 4th gen fighters.

Gen 4 is obsolete. It's time to upgrade.

The Gripen is also very cheap to run in comparison to the F35, which for a country like Canada matters. Some estimates are over 33k a hour for the F35 vs 8k per hour for the Gripen. That type of price difference is huge. I would rather more of a less technologically advanced equipment we can actually run with more quantity than less of a more technologically advanced equipment that we aren't going to use due to costs.

It's not cheaper. Saab's claims are nonsense. That $8,000 per hour won't even fill the tank.

If we want something cheap for low intensity, friendly skies COIN op missions, there are better options. We can add guns and bombs to trainers, like the AT-6 Wolverine, the light attack version of our Harvard II. The T-7 and T-50 also both have light attack variants.

 

[Furniture]

They ordered it in 2014, and have had ten delivered since then, and that's with a domestic aerospace industry cooperating. Saab promised 14,000 jobs, about 200 have materialized. The costs keep rising because of the delays.

Brazil is a basket case? Quell surprise?

I heard rumours that America once made an IFV that sucked when it came out, we should cut ties with them too... The Bradley is the worst thing since the Bradley.

SAAB is promising work, America is promising killing our auto industry as well as our steel, aluminum, and lumber industries. We should definitely choose the people who are promising to destroy our industries over those promising to expand them.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The Gripen does appeal to me, I value broad utility in things. If we bought 65+ F-35 and another 80+ Gripens, I’d be good with that. But Canada’s fleet keeps getting smaller. If we’re going to have a small fleet we should have the most capable aircraft available.

For the record, and i’v sId it before, due to Canada’s vast size and coastlines, we should have a top tier airforce and Navy. Im a fortress North America guy, but those two elements can also project with significance.
We’ll not likely ever deploy a division of troops again.

I agree with every single aspect of this post.....

For some missions you need a Lambo - for many you need an F150. We have a tendency to buy Lambos for F150 missions....even though one can buy quite a few F150s for the cost of one Lambo.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Gripen does appeal to me, I value broad utility in things. If we bought 65+ F-35 and another 80+ Gripens, I’d be good with that. But Canada’s fleet keeps getting smaller. If we’re going to have a small fleet we should have the most capable aircraft available.

For the record, and i’v sId it before, due to Canada’s vast size and coastlines, we should have a top tier airforce and Navy. Im a fortress North America guy, but those two elements can also project with significance.
We’ll not likely ever deploy a division of troops again.

Excellent post. Right on the money. Every point.

And we very much are aligned on the fortress NA thing.

 

[Remius]

The Gripen does appeal to me, I value broad utility in things. If we bought 65+ F-35 and another 80+ Gripens, I’d be good with that. But Canada’s fleet keeps getting smaller. If we’re going to have a small fleet we should have the most capable aircraft available.

This is where I land. Reduce the F35 order (to whatever is reasonable to be effective as 16 might as well be 0) and order Grippens with an eye to go well beyond 88 airframes total.

 

[ArmyRick]

On the Gripen E/F models vs F35. The Gripon, even the newest version is late 80s overall design. Its like selecting the super hornet IMO. Just to point out, if we buy the Gripon, the Swedes in the meantime hope to have their Flygsystem 2020 flying by the 2030s. So we buy Gripons, the best timeline, everything perfect, we get some flying by 2028-2030? And then fully operational by 2033-2035? Meanwhile, even the Swedes will have moved on.

The F35 growth potential is what? We will probably have to fly whatever we buy until 2045-2050 at the very least.

We haven't even talked the actual capabilities (any fighter pilots here discussing?). My understanding is the F35 can detect a target at much longer ranges and engage before it even produces a radar signature, hence its design.

The F35 should be a sound best choice military decision not an economic or political shoving match decision. But we are Canada. Politics reigns supreme over every sound decision here (and yes both parties that have governed are guilty of it).

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is where I land. Reduce the F35 order (to whatever is reasonable to be effective as 16 might as well be 0) and order Grippens with an eye to go well beyond 88 airframes total.

I think one thing people seem to be forgetting is that fact that I believe the F35, under US law or terms of being allowed to purchase the F35, requires certain standards in the type of hangar it can be stored it and such.
So, does that mean the F35 can’t be stationed in say Latvia because the quality of hangars available in Latvia aren’t up to the F35 needs? Whereas the Gripen could easily be stored in Latvia.
If the US dictates where a F35 can’t be stationed, outside of its home country, because of the lack of proper hangars then that means that the closest we could position our airforce to support our troops in Latvia would be in Poland or Finland.

 

[ArmyRick]

Some more "rage, far right spamming" (ohhhhh scary), he does take a few minutes to discuss the fighter jet drama

 

[ArmyRick]

I think one thing people seem to be forgetting is that fact that I believe the F35, under US law or terms of being allowed to purchase the F35, requires certain standards in the type of hangar it can be stored it and such.
So, does that mean the F35 can’t be stationed in say Latvia because the quality of hangars available in Latvia aren’t up to the F35 needs? Whereas the Gripen could easily be stored in Latvia.
If the US dictates where a F35 can’t be stationed, outside of its home country, because of the lack of proper hangars then that means that the closest we could position our airforce to support our troops in Latvia would be in Poland or Finland.

15 nations use the F35, including several European nations, I am guessing the RCAF planners are considering this

 

[Czech_pivo]

15 nations use the F35, including several European nations, I am guessing the RCAF planners are considering this

Yes, but the US, Brits, French, German, Italians would all be able to station planes in Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania because they maintain more than 1 type of fighter.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The Gripen does appeal to me, I value broad utility in things. If we bought 65+ F-35 and another 80+ Gripens, I’d be good with that. But Canada’s fleet keeps getting smaller. If we’re going to have a small fleet we should have the most capable aircraft available.

For the record, and i’v sId it before, due to Canada’s vast size and coastlines, we should have a top tier airforce and Navy. Im a fortress North America guy, but those two elements can also project with significance.
We’ll not likely ever deploy a division of troops again.

Largely in agreement with this as well- with the caveat that the capability gap between the 35 and Gripen is primarily focused on the underlined and seems to be not quite but almost irrelevant (Russians tanking a one way suicide strike out of Archangelsk? Chinese carrier battlegroup besting the combined US/Japanese/Australian/Canadian Navy 's to get in strike range?) to the bolded.


So what's the role we want the RCAF to play in the world, and what's the number of 35's needed to play it? The 65 number was the bare minimum for NORAD + Expeditionary, what's the number for functional expeditionary use? A lot of European Air forces in the 30-40 range

 

[Czech_pivo]

Largely in agreement with this as well- with the caveat that the capability gap between the 35 and Gripen is primarily focused on the underlined and seems to be not quite but almost irrelevant (Russians tanking a one way suicide strike out of Archangelsk? Chinese carrier battlegroup besting the combined US/Japanese/Australian/Canadian Navy 's to get in strike range?) to the bolded.


So what's the role we want the RCAF to play in the world, and what's the number of 35's needed to play it? The 65 number was the bare minimum for NORAD + Expeditionary, what's the number for functional expeditionary use? A lot of European Air forces in the 30-40 range

Please note that the Brits, Germans, French and Italians are all planning on having 2 sets of fighters going forward until their dabbling in a new 6th gen fighter hopefully pans out for them.

 

[Quirky]

Mark "you can judge me by the price of groceries" Carney is doing a bang-up job.

New report finds food costs expected to rise 3-5 per cent in Canada

Agri-Foods Analytics Lab Senior Director Sylvain Charlebois, who co-authored the paper, says meat products are expected to continue to rise.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[GR66]

Largely in agreement with this as well- with the caveat that the capability gap between the 35 and Gripen is primarily focused on the underlined and seems to be not quite but almost irrelevant (Russians tanking a one way suicide strike out of Archangelsk? Chinese carrier battlegroup besting the combined US/Japanese/Australian/Canadian Navy 's to get in strike range?) to the bolded.


So what's the role we want the RCAF to play in the world, and what's the number of 35's needed to play it? The 65 number was the bare minimum for NORAD + Expeditionary, what's the number for functional expeditionary use? A lot of European Air forces in the 30-40 range

My stab in the dark of what the RCAF fleet could possibly look like IF we were to go with a mixed F-35/Gripen fleet...

65 x F-35's in 2 x 24 aircraft squadrons focused on expeditionary missions where stealth is a key requirement (a significant increase over current NATO commitment) plus spares and a couple of aircraft to act as QB's for the Gripens in the NORAD role.

65 x Gripen's in 2 x 24 aircraft squadrons focused on the NORAD mission. Matches our original 65 aircraft requirement to cover NORAD or NATO.

12-15 x Gripen's as a lead-in fighter trainers.

12-15 x Gripens for the Snowbirds

The initial production Gripens would be used for the trainers. Existing CF-18 pilots and those currently in the training system would begin conversion training for the F-35's as they are delivered. As the Gripens for the training squadron arrive experienced pilots would begin conversion training as instructors (or contract civilian instructor pilots be hired for the role). New pilots would go through the training squadron and then fill positions in the 2 x Gripen line squadrons as these aircraft become available in new, ongoing domestic construction. F-35 pilot vacancies would be filled using pilots selected from the Gripen squadrons.

Canada would work with Saab in the development of their NextGen evolution of the Gripen and our production would switch to that model as it comes available. R&D on that platform could run in parallel with setting up our production facility so depending on the timelines (2035?) we could possibly switch to the Gripen NG for the 2 x line squadrons once the lead-in fighter trainers and Snowbird airframes are completed.

 

[YZT580]

On the Gripen E/F models vs F35. The Gripon, even the newest version is late 80s overall design. Its like selecting the super hornet IMO. Just to point out, if we buy the Gripon, the Swedes in the meantime hope to have their Flygsystem 2020 flying by the 2030s. So we buy Gripons, the best timeline, everything perfect, we get some flying by 2028-2030? And then fully operational by 2033-2035? Meanwhile, even the Swedes will have moved on.

The F35 growth potential is what? We will probably have to fly whatever we buy until 2045-2050 at the very least.

We haven't even talked the actual capabilities (any fighter pilots here discussing?). My understanding is the F35 can detect a target at much longer ranges and engage before it even produces a radar signature, hence its design.

The F35 should be a sound best choice military decision not an economic or political shoving match decision. But we are Canada. Politics reigns supreme over every sound decision here (and yes both parties that have governed are guilty of it).

it can now but those advantages will slowly disappear with time. The Chinese and probably the Russians too are studying every flight they can graph to learn how to detect and defeat. When that happens, and it will, many of your advantages will be gone and you will be left with a bomb truck needing a wild weasel defense to survive.

 

[ArmyRick]

The truth straight up, whether you call it spamming or not (no opinions, just committee as it happened)

 

[Maxman1]

My stab in the dark of what the RCAF fleet could possibly look like IF we were to go with a mixed F-35/Gripen fleet...

65 x F-35's in 2 x 24 aircraft squadrons focused on expeditionary missions where stealth is a key requirement (a significant increase over current NATO commitment) plus spares and a couple of aircraft to act as QB's for the Gripens in the NORAD role.

65 x Gripen's in 2 x 24 aircraft squadrons focused on the NORAD mission. Matches our original 65 aircraft requirement to cover NORAD or NATO.

12-15 x Gripen's as a lead-in fighter trainers.

12-15 x Gripens for the Snowbirds

The initial production Gripens would be used for the trainers. Existing CF-18 pilots and those currently in the training system would begin conversion training for the F-35's as they are delivered. As the Gripens for the training squadron arrive experienced pilots would begin conversion training as instructors (or contract civilian instructor pilots be hired for the role). New pilots would go through the training squadron and then fill positions in the 2 x Gripen line squadrons as these aircraft become available in new, ongoing domestic construction. F-35 pilot vacancies would be filled using pilots selected from the Gripen squadrons.

Canada would work with Saab in the development of their NextGen evolution of the Gripen and our production would switch to that model as it comes available. R&D on that platform could run in parallel with setting up our production facility so depending on the timelines (2035?) we could possibly switch to the Gripen NG for the 2 x line squadrons once the lead-in fighter trainers and Snowbird airframes are completed.

No. A Gen 4 fighter jet as a lead-in trainer is insane and wasteful. An actual trainer like the T-7 or T-50 is far more appropriate.

 

[Cloud Cover]

On the Gripen E/F models vs F35. The Gripon, even the newest version is late 80s overall design. Its like selecting the super hornet IMO. Just to point out, if we buy the Gripon, the Swedes in the meantime hope to have their Flygsystem 2020 flying by the 2030s. So we buy Gripons, the best timeline, everything perfect, we get some flying by 2028-2030? And then fully operational by 2033-2035? Meanwhile, even the Swedes will have moved on.

The F35 growth potential is what? We will probably have to fly whatever we buy until 2045-2050 at the very least.

We haven't even talked the actual capabilities (any fighter pilots here discussing?). My understanding is the F35 can detect a target at much longer ranges and engage before it even produces a radar signature, hence its design.

The F35 should be a sound best choice military decision not an economic or political shoving match decision. But we are Canada. Politics reigns supreme over every sound decision here (and yes both parties that have governed are guilty of it).

The SaaB deal should be to produce incrementally advanced fighters Mark by Mark, firmly evolving into providing both Lambo and F150 style fighters, and trainers, for the RCAF and interested allies. But continuous, always advancing and evolving version by version production serials is what I would like to see happen. Get to the point where we shouldn’t be purchasing at scale a foreign built fighter, bomber or trainer. In terms of numbers I am talking about a total of 2-300 hundred of aircraft in various degrees of manufacture, re-manufacture, development, operational deployment or disposal due to obsolescence at all times. About 1/3 of which are in RCAF hands vice factories and modification shops.

If that is the type of plan, then go ahead and buy 88 F35 and then ditch them year by year when we can replace them with durable, effective home built replacements. The lingering problem is going to be NORAD interoperability if we still choose to cooperate. Perhaps someday we won’t.

We’ve done this before and killed it off before as well. At some point we have to learn the lessons being taught.
I’m not sure how many versions of the Sabre jet Canadair built - at least 6. Same with the Canuck and even the Arrow had a Mk 2 and I believe plans for a Mark 3.
The key here is permanent onshoring of defence production where it makes sense to military needs planning and sustainable economic development.

The flip side- forget about cost constraint, fiscally strangled defence development and expect shocking defence procurement costs for the next 30-40 years. Entrench defence like it’s healthcare, but without the lousy outcomes on pain of jail time for corruption, reckless negligence and profiteering.