If we are at the mercy of the US not “allowing” us to integrate what capabilities we have into the NORTH AMERICAN defence grid, can we really say we are an independent (sovereign) partner?
I’m not naive enough to think that we are equal partners - at least from a contribution perspective - but if we have to run and say “pretty please” every time we make a decision, we should probably reconsider some more fundamental issues.
While I agree that a F35 order closer to 88 than 30 is preferable, I fail to see how delaying a Gripen decision helps. As you must well know, putting off that decision will almost certainly kill any chance of serious investment in a Canadian based capability.
We're definitely the junior partner. If we want access to the systems that the US developed and pays for, we have to get their permission. That's the rub.
We can move on Gripen when we want. Knowing the F-35s are coming online gives us far more room to consider whether we want to do it and at what cost.
A rub to this 'acquiescence to a 88 F-35 order' logic implied as a hedge to facilitate a future acquisition, is that it doesn't stop the US from denying ITAR, etc further down the road?
Philosophically, the US should respect our decision on the capabilities we acquire and in accordance with Art 2.e of the NORAD agreement (2006) "include such forces as are specifically made available to it by the Parties to fulfill its missions", or then there is a deeper discussion that needs to happen surrounding NORAD and what one could colloquially call coercion.
In addition, while Canada is the junior partner, We also need to remember that the US benefits significantly from the integrated I&W that the NORAD architecture provides, including defence in depth (geographic separation along the threat vector) from 10-2 o'clock, in which to cooperatively engage threats in times of conflict before those threats get to continental US territory.
Further, the ITAR bogeyman needs to be tempered by the integrated nature of military programs that also sees key technology in a number of US programs (T-7 RedHawk, US Army synthetic training environment tactical simulation systems, etc) that emanate from Saab. The US mused about blocking Gripen E sales to Columbia (supposedly to coerce an advanced F-16 option) but ultimately never did because they decided this was not in their best interest. One would think that the CAN-US relationship is of at least equal and a great deal more value to the US. After all, we are currently buying HIMARS, multiple systems for the River Class, and numerous other projects on stream (MQ-9, P-8, etc) , and if prognostication is correct H-60, CH-47 and Apache will be front runners for a multi-year multi-billion acquisition to meet the RCAF/CA next Tactical Aviation Capability (nTACS) which is valued at ~$18B plus sustainment.
What is it that would be needed to integrate the F-39 into NORAD? Not the engine. It’s a big ticket item but could be worked around to avoid ITAR. The key to integrating into the new NORAD is the ability to receive and transmit data. Aircraft data, radar data and associated target data. Secure comms. The F-39 must be able to talk to the F-35, AEWC, Sector control. So if there is a host of F-39s flying around, there is no way the U.S. F-35s, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, AWACS and ground control will not want to know where they are. Fortunately this is being worked out in NATO. Swede Gripens are flying with F-35s in the Arctic. And in time the Nato Arctic forces will be working with NORAD forces. In fact that has already occurred in Greenland. So interoperability is doable. The weakness is that in future scenarios, the F-39 will face stealth fighters, making the pilots very vulnerable.
I can recall when our CF-18s arrived. No datalink. No way to update NCTR or EW MDFs. As an EW adversary, they were all too easy to deceive. The EW MDFs were contracted out to the American OEM so that they were finally updated after the first Gulf War was over. The lack of interoperability that the Americans insist upon cost them 3 F-15s in Kuwait. The Kuwait F-18 pilot would not know, could not ID the F-15s at night because the Americans can’t trust their allies (not sure if they have any now). Did the F-15s even know there was a Kuwait F-18 targeting them? Three times? I should hope they have relearned the lesson. Exercises within NATO and NORAD should be able to sort out their myopia. The Americans are not infallible. I’ve personally shut down a complete Copper Flag exercise. A colleague sent an AWACS back to Tinker AFB from a Maple Flag, whose crew was met upon landing by a 3 star general.
I had this discussion with friend who works at CAE (in health and safety, so take with a grain of salt) who insisted that the Gripens would not be able to integrate into NORAD. There is a lot of mixed information floating around about the about the Gripen's capabilities and limitations. I would love it if someone more knowledgeable could clarify a few things.
My understanding was that the Gripens use an open architecture, and end users can load what ever software they want. As far as I understand, it's not a limitation of the Gripens that prevents link 20 and any other form of communication that is used in NORAD operations from functioning, but I would love to have that confirmed or denied by someone more knowledgeable than me.
So, the real limiting factor is American willingness to let us play in their sandbox if we bring our own toys. I understand that their are legitimate security concerns with connecting other people's hardware to a closed system, but I haven't heard anything that makes it sound like it's in any way technically insurmountable. Those legitimate security concerns have reasonable solutions that only require time and effort (and money), not sacrificed sovereignty and obsequency.
But that is my understanding, and other sources and people have stated or implied there is some technical barrier to the Gripens being part of NORAD. Is this just a misunderstanding based on an oversimplification of reality, or is there more too it?
There are historical examples of the US applying pressure on Canada to coerce us into aligning procurement closer to their agenda and priorities. Some times that was for economic reasons, sometimes for geopolitical or diplomatic reasons. So we can't dismiss the possibility that the US will jerk us around on this, even after the current administration departs. But I want to be clear on what is possible, as apposed to what is allowed.
The full order of 88 F35’s commits us to another generation of the RCAF being a subsidiary of the USAF. RCAF personnel would have no inclination to move forward with the Gripen.
It’s a choice.
My prediction is Carney will go with more than 30 but won’t put in the full order, not only for the economic benefits the Gripen brings to Canada, but to put some pressure on the RCAF to move to a more sovereign approach, something they have no intention or interest in doing presently.
You have it. PM Carney and the brain trust at NDHQ will be looking 30-40 yeara down range if they are doing their jobs properly. The CF-18 has been in service for over 40 years. We need to plan for that lifespan.
The F-35 is a deeply flawed aircraft design, from the engine (and only one in a country the size of Canada) that relies on so much software that it will never work to its full potential. Combine that with maintenance requirements approaching the old Sea Kings and it is a lame duck. It’s use will be nothing more than a gussied up F-117, unable to meet the high intensity combat pace at which modern warfare is conducted.
Now a pair of squadrons of F-35’s would be good for supporting the Brigade in Latvia, they wouldn’t last more than a couple of days out in the wilds. This is where the Gripen would shine. It doesn’t have to have all the software gimmicks, it just needs to be able to pull 8-10 sorties from a suitable length of road, always finding its way home. I trust Swedish engineering more in -45C on a cold winter’s morn than anything designed in Dallas or Wichita. And if you are expecting to loose aircraft to manpads and ground fire, the Gripen is an easier loss to swallow.
Now add to the utility of an aircraft the creation of a production line and maintenance programs for other nations like Ukraine, and we have a far better deal. No US sources fighter is going to come with admin level access to the software (at least not without asking the Chinese spies for it first) so our ability to keep the F-35 in the air over the next 4 decades will be next to nil.
Sweden is offering an open source approach, so if Canadian software engineers come up with something good, we get to share it. And Canadians are still really good at tinkering with shiny toys.
What we need to do is stop worrying about the objects in the procurement pool, and start looking at capabilities. What roles do we need to fill? What are the expected threats? What are the resources that will be needed to keep a system in the fight? Who will be the people making the system work?
We have two international competitors looking to set the RCN up with submarines. My choice would be to order 8-12 of each. The German-Norwegian boat for the East Coast and NATO roles, and the Korean boat for the West Coast. Both have strengths that recommend them to those specific environments. The differences in the supply chains will be to our benefit so we can be good neighbours on both oceans, while having a say over the Arctic. (And we will need to make sure we have a sub pen built at Churchill or nearby.
In the past, Canada flew a wide variety of jet fighters, from our version of the F-86, the CF-100, the CF-104, CF-5, the Voodoo, and we managed to keep a respectable readiness level. For a while in the 1960’s, the CF-100 was the only all weather fighter protecting NATO skies when the skies were stormy.
We have this window in which to prepare for a much more dangerous world, and the US is moving from being an ally to being a potential invader. So if we buy, we buy smart and no put all of our eggs in one basket, lest some twit like Hegseth tries to kick it and connects.
From the day Brazil signed a contract until the first Gripen rolled off their production line was 12 years, and it's not like the Brazilians are unfamiliar with building sophisticated aircraft. Now consider all the things that would need to happen to avoid any ITAR issues, and ensure the Americans are, as the article describes, comfortable that no NORAD data is shared elsewhere. So, Gripens for the RCAF in 2040? Maybe.... if all goes well.
We get our first F-35s this year, and could very possibly have all of them before a single Canadian built Gripen could be delivered.
That would be useful, for the RCAF to have some aircraft to use and abuse. The CF-18 has served a long time and needs to be retired.
Now the challenge for the RCAF will be the long term planning. Lockheed Martin isn’t going to set up a manufacturing plant at Dorval to help speed up delivery and maintenance.
In the long term, we will need to be able to produce our own fighter aircraft like the Gripen, if only to get the technology down for producing the next generation UAVs that will make the F-35 obsolete.
Not Dorval, but Lockheed Martin has already partnered with L3Harris to establish a major F-35 maintenance depot in Mirabel. It is in the same place as L3Harris’s existing facility that currently does depot level maintenance for the CF-18 fleet. Senior executives from Lockheed Martin confirmed the plans in April of this year, and have designated the site as a regional hub for heavy maintenance, repair, overhaul, and upgrades for both Canadian and U.S. F-35s.
And you know who produces their own fighter aircraft without partners? Countries willing to throw massive amounts of money at the problem, like the US, or countries that have no other choice, like Russia and China. Everyone else does it in partnerships as much as they can.
Thank you Cameron. I’m too often working from outdated information, and I find precious little new information at my location. It is good to see that there will be work in Canada for supporting the F-35s.
I still think they are hangar queens and their effectiveness is seriously oversold. And the long term politics are still a serious concern. Let’s hope Lockheed Martin lives up to their contracts and commitments, in spite of the current political situation in the US.
There is a bunch of misinformation being generated on the NORAD front by adherents. True that the US would prefer we use one of their products - it’s easy and good for their business. Yes it is complex, but as others posters have indicated the complexity is being worked out (and long has been) in NATO that mostly knits together the Air Defence and other Joint Integrated Air Operations through Link-16 and uses NATO standards agreements to do this.
Does the US have unique data they do not share with NATO - Absolutely. Do they share more with Canada - Yes as part of the 5Eyes. Do they segregate data sharing within the 5Eyes in some areas - Yes. Do they share unique data with Canada in relation to NORAD - yes. But they don’t share everything, even as we operate a US F18, yet we can still operate.
The real question is what does Canada need to do? Well it likely roughly looks like this in order of importance:
1 Defend Canada
2 Participate in Defence of North America through NORAD
3 Contribute to NATO
4 Collaborate with INDO-Pacific Allies.
F35s/5th Gen are not required to defend North America - Gen Guilliot, the Commander of NORAD has publically stated this. Further the NORAD agreement (2006) states “shall include such forces as are specifically made available to it by the Parties to fulfill its missions”. This doesn’t require interchangeability, US made, etc, etc.
So Canada can bring what it chooses and NORAD will utilize. This happens now in both air and maritime missions. The question is what is the ‘better way’ to achieve missions 1 and 2 which we have chosen to intertwine through NORAD ? Also how many fully mission capable aircraft meets a credible level of contribution? What does this cost and what are the opportunities for Canadian industry (economy) to benefit in providing suitable aircraft to do this?
I think when the analysis is done the solution will favour many more Gripen than F35 in the mix, more than 6 GlobalEye and bolstered by the Arctic-OTH radar.
I have to jump in here, if you read the full quote it is perfectly clear that what Gen. Guilliot said was basically “the USAF should buy more F-15EXs.” He was playing his part in a budget battle in the US that has little to do with Canada.
The Gripen is about as far from the F-15EX as it is possible to buy. It’s a real stretch to say he’s indifferent between the F-35 and the Gripen because he’s a big fan of the F-15EX.
Now he might be, especially if it comes with Meteor which has some useful capabilities. But he didn’t say that either.
As quoted in numerous media reports here is exactly what he said: “Frankly, we don’t need 5th [generation] to defend our borders,” Guillot said. “Those capabilities are better used overseas where their stealth, air-to-ground weapons, and penetration capability are needed.”
And he went on to talk about the threat being interception of bombers (which do not have an air-air capability) and air launched cruise missiles (conventional and hypersonic) as well as routine airspace security.
Fortunately, we don't need to rely on the excessively truncated media reports. This was testimony at a public Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, and the transcript is available here: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-19-2026_full_transcript.pdf - I'll excerpt the full exchange and then comment below.
Senator Cotton: Thank you.
I think your appointment reflects, in part, that Southern Command is a combatant command, not a training command, and certainly not a diplomatic command. And I think the budget needs to reflect that as well. General Guillot, as the commander of NORAD, one of your central missions is the defense of American and Canadian
airspace. That depends on a robust fighter force, but today's Air Force fleet is the smallest and the oldest it'sever been. The Air Force also struggles with low readiness rates for its fighters. Do you believe that NORTHCOM and NORAD would benefit from an expanded fighter force?
General Guillot: Yes, Senator, we would. I would like to see continued modernization of fourth-generation fighter fleet. Frankly, sir, we don't need fifth-gen to defend our borders. Those capabilities are better used overseas, where their stealth air to ground weapons and penetration capability are needed. So, revamped and modernized fourth-gen to include F-15EX in select locations would meet all of our requirements.
Senator Cotton: I'm glad you said that. I think we need more fourth-generation fighters as well, like at the F- 15EX, and for that matter, they can be pretty useful overseas once those fifth-generation fighters and bombers plow the road and knock out the air defenses as we're seeing right now in Iran. Thank you, gentlemen.
Now, I understand why the Canadian instinct is to link this to the Gripen debate, but not everything is about Canada. Canada's role in and contribution to NORAD is discussed elsewhere in the testimony, and that is illuminating, but it not address the Gripen/F-35 issue directly.
What is actually going on here is another round in an American debate specifically about the F-15EX. Inside the Air Force are two groups, one that would like to see more F-15EXs procured, and another that thinks that would be a distraction from next generation aircraft. This debate has been going on for about a decade, and got supercharged in the last 5 years. Inside the Air Force, the pro-F-15EX group keeps losing out, but they have had success in going to Congress to get them to add additional aircraft purchases above the DOD budget request.
In the US budget process there's this dance they do, where DoD submits a budget request and then Congress modifies is. Sometimes things are omitted because they're not wanted, and Congress adds them back as pork. Other times, they're left out because they know Congress will add them back (e.g., the E-7 debate recently) so they get more than they requested. It's a little hard to tell where the F-15EX debate falls on that spectrum (probably some of both, Cotton in particular has been a booster).
So while it is potentially relevant to the Gripen, that is absolutely not what they're talking about. In context, it reads more like a pre-planed question to get a request for more F-15EXs. To be clear, I have no idea if the Senator and the General ever discussed it before, if the Senator asked knowing what the General was likely to say, or if he was genuinely curious to hear his opinion. But given the politics around this in the DoD and Congress, I submit that the first two options are a lot more likely.
I understand the budget dance. That aside he is definitive in his statements on need - specifically that Fifth Gen is not required for the NORAD mission. Otherwise he could have phrased it any number of ways to highlight a need fo 5th Gen but augmented by F-15EX as a matter of economics, the 'paired bomb/missile truck' concept etc. He didn't though.
And when one looks at the NORAD mission set, wrt fighters, it is about deterrence and in times of conflict killing Bombers and air breathing missiles post launch. This does not require a VLO platform (5th Gen). F15EX, F16 Blk70+, Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F18E/F Blk2 and even HEP2CF18 all have very capable radars and are paired with relatively similar, very capable A-A weapons (METEOR may be the best amongst them) and very capable datalinks. All except the CF-18 also have significant sensor fusion/data management capabilities with advanced-distributed targeting functionality; despite LM marketing they do not have the corner on that market.
So to the point - 5th Gen brings no step change advantage to the NORAD game as confirmed by Gen Guillot. The real question on the mixed fleet split remains mission priority, and numbers to meet those priorities, with cost differential and economic factors accurately considered in and biases from various lobbies on both sides removed. Right now a lot of cherry picking seems to be going on by some professional lobbyists hawking this debate.
I agree broadly that the Gripen could manage the mission well, and I imagine based on his testimony Gen. Guillot does too. But frankly none of us are the ones that need to be convinced, as this isn't really a capabilities decision. If it were about capabilities, the answer at least for this specific mission, is any of the above. The issue is fundamentally political and either waiting for a change of administration, or convincing this one to approve the sale.
If we are talking capabilities though, the F-15EX has a much longer range and much larger payload than any of the other options. Elsewhere in Gen. Guillot's testimony he expresses concern about the effort involved in multiple in-flight refueling on these missions. So there is a tangible benefit to that compared to other 5th gen options, and one on which the F-35 won't help either.
Meteor of course is, at least according to all the public data, superior to AMRAAM-D. I don't imagine US NORAD units, let alone foreign sales, of AIM-260 or AIM-174B will be coming anytime this decade, so that certainly is a tangible benefit too.
I don't really think there's much question about the costs in terms of a mixed fleet. Most other air forces have gone for a mixed Hi/Lo model, and while I'm sure the devil is in the details, I'm also sure the mix of capabilities and economics are there. The question I have though is, if we can't get Gripens until the middle of the next decade - and I see no evidence we can - does that make sense? Or should we by buying F-35s now with the plan that the eventual duel fleet with be F-35 with FCAS or GCAP?
If this rumour is confirmed, then we can think of a NORAD and combined with US focused jet fighter fleet using F-35, and a NATO and multinational focused jet fighter fleet using Gripens. This rumour is echoing another persistent rumour that Canada will buy both the South Korean and German subs, with the South Korean sub fleet deployed within the Pacific Fleet, and the German ones with the Atlantic Fleet. This would a significant change in how Canada is doing procurement. One thing for sure, in 25 years of dealing with senior CAF officers, it is the first time I see such a sense of urgency in acquiring military equipment.
This is absurd. 24 F 35's which ise stealtg as an offendive weapon. Canada does not need offensive weapons especially ones that are frequently undrgoing expensive maintenance and for whi the US holds a kill switch. So you have to br just damned stupid to grow thus boat anchor larger than a minimum commitnent. As a sovereign country having maker capabilities are invaluable. The Gripen as a defensive weapon is goid enough even the US head of Norad said so. They are cheaper to vuild operate and service. Plus as a manufacturer Xabada can export them and participate in the gen 6 build out. But most importantly and not often considered us the built in obsolescense of manned airframes. With hmp weapons and ai driven drones that can turn on a dime manned planes are all but obsolete in the next 15 to 20 years. The 40 year expected life ofvthe F35 airframe is not realistic. Also the US is trying to destriy Canada's industrial capacity and turn us into a vassak state. So find some real friends snd true partners as a prerequisite for military equipment. The YS no longer qualifies. Canada Strong means independence not being a subordinate of the US.
It's also useful to look at what Carney will be up against at election time if he doesn't limit the F35 order AND order some number of Gripens. He will be rightly accused of being soft on Trump by the left and the right with a high likelihood of losing a majority. This does no one any favors except the Americans. The Concis has offered an approachable option similar to that presented here that would have Canada offer to build a Gripen factory here asap and meet some of the Ukrainian fleet requirements from here. We could make the Gripen decision later. What is beginning to make me perturbed is that the government is slipping back into dither mode. As a voter, I don't care where the friction is coming from, it needs to be eliminated, and fast. Lackluster MPs are not the only bunch that will be feeling the sharp end of Mr Carney's tongue if we miss the Gripen opportunity. If I read him right, there is only one direction: forward; one speed: with purpose; and one voice: together. Any other option chosen by those that are responsible for delivering what we need will not be a wise career move. And Canada will be better for it.
[Shamelessly re-posting my comment from True North Strategic Review...]
Here's my handful of change (my two cents, several times over) on this topic:
1. The F-35 is an objectively better aircraft than the J-39 Gripen. Full stop. That doesn't mean the Gripen, or any 4.5-gen multi-role is inherently bad or without purpose, but the F-35 is simply a more advanced and capable aircraft. This is why NATO nations, largely, have adopted the F-35 as the 'high' end of various nations’ 'high-low' fleets. Cumulatively, the growing European F-35 fleet represents NATO's strongest conventional deterrent on the continent and, objectively, the more the better when it comes to alliance adoption of the platform.
2. J-39 Gripen was designed to implement Sweden's BAS-60/90 national defense plan. It was laser focused on enabling:
(a) Rapid, pre-emptive dispersal prior to the commencement of hostilities to a distributed network of austere operating bases (Sweden's famous highway runways);
(b) Achieving local air superiority against Warsaw Pact/Russian air forces over Sweden and in its neighbourhood of the Baltic in all weather conditions and all seasons;
(c) Land- and maritime strike capabilities as an important but secondary capability, whereas air superiority is its primary role;
(d) Rapid sortie generation from the distributed austere operating bases by permitting a small four-man crew of maintainers and armourers (an enlisted NCO and three conscripts) to refuel and re-arm the aircraft in <10 minutes while exposed to the elements (enabled by modular equipment bays and a 'don't fix it - swap it out' design philosophy and a low-slung aircraft that allows most servicing and rearming to be done at standing height without ladders, cranes, or work platforms); and,
(e) Long-term platform evolution to incorporate new capabilities over time through the use of an open design software architecture and flexible electronics bay design.
The result of this is a platform that was designed to be the next iteration of Sweden's frontline aircraft that provided the capabilities needed for the country to maintain its (pre-NATO) armed neutrality. It joined an unusually capable series of frontline fighters and multi-role platforms (Lansen, Drakken, and Viggen), all of which were designed to implement the BAS-60/90 strategy within a sovereign aircraft design and production ecosystem. The mania for self-sufficiency arguably began at the outbreak of WW2 when the Swedish order for hundreds of modern fighters from the US was abruptly cancelled by the US, leaving Sweden woefully unprepared to defend its airspace. Sweden vowed never to let that happen again.
3. The J-39 Gripen has the *potential* to be a good fit for the RCAF, but not necessarily for the reasons many people believe. There is no scenario, none whatsoever, where an RCAF Gripen would be operating from austere runways and camouflaged highway landing strips nestled in the forests. They would be operated from full-capability RCAF bases. The maintainers will be professional RCAF personnel, not 18-year-old conscripts who Sweden depended on to be the backbone of Gripen ground handling.
The platform's aptitude for rapid sortie generation is a moot point for NORAD service, since the transit distance to a patrol area will be significant, compared to taking off from a forest highway, hitting Russian bombers within minutes, then landing to refuel and rearm for the next sortie. For the RCAF, in a hot war with Russia or China, Gripens wouldn't be rising from Cold Lake to swat down tactical aviation, but rather to parry ALCMs and SLCMs relatively close to their continental targets.
None the less, the simple ground handling processes and forgiving ergonomics of the Gripen, a platform meant to be maintained by gloved hands at night in a blizzard, will still provide benefits to the RCAF, alongside comparatively affordable flight hour costs. The aircraft's integral Infrared Search and Track capability and AESA radar, coupled with a growing detection complex (JORN, AEWC, space-based moving target tracking), are also well-suited for air policing and cruise missile intercept in the vast Canadian landscape and maritime approaches.
4. The 88-tail F-35 fleet size is not an arbitrary number pulled out of the air. It represents a direct minimum baseline replacement of the CF-18 fleet and is the foundation upon which the doctrine, training strategy, capital investment program, and command and control protocols have been premised and executed upon. There are currently no plans for more F-35s and or plans for a second platform.
5. With that said, the political allure for Canada to reacquire the capability for the domestic assembly of multi-role fighters and grow direct and indirect employment in the defense industrial sector is going to be simply too great an opportunity for the government to pass up. I fully expect Canada is going to roll the dice and accept some form of the SAAB proposal for 60+ Gripens. I just can't see them not doing so in the current political and economic environment.
6. I also expect that government will take pains to emphasize that the acquisition is about creating new partnerships with Europe writ-large and Sweden specifically, leveraging unprecedented investment in the CAF to maximize Canadian economic benefits and domestic capabilities, and that the range of benefits from the promised technology transfer create the opportunity to co-develop new capabilities for the platform in the future, along with gaining invaluable manufacturing and integration experience that would enable Canada to explore potential future teaming opportunities for 6-gen aircraft.
7. I would expect the government to be cagey about what the order means for the F-35, while reiterating that Canada is still adopting this platform and was a founding member of the multi-national coalition that helped support its development (notwithstanding that our contribution was a drop in the bucket, our flag was still on the plane when it was unveiled). It couldn't hurt to mention how many European NATO allies have ordered and already operate the F-35. The average Canadian has no idea whatsoever that it has become the de facto NATO-standard fighter for the next half-century.
In public-facing statements, the government will underscore that the acquisition of F-35 was always going to be undertaken in steps. The first 16 F-35s have been purchased and are under construction and our pilots are training as we speak. The purchase of the next 14 F-35s is now supported through long-lead time purchases, while future tranches will be negotiated in due time as per the acquisition plan and Lockheed Martin's production schedule dictates.
In bilateral statements to the US, the government can say that its fighter review process has concluded and Canada has decided to acquire and operate a second type and grow the size of the RCAF. This larger fleet, coupled with the country’s many active investments in NORAD-supporting infrastructure and new platform capabilities, will genuinely let Canada shoulder more and (finally) do its part for NORAD commensurate with the size of our economy and benefits from collective continental security. The US wants Canada to spend more of defense and provide more teeth to NORAD and NATO: Guys, we’re doing it.
8. Most significantly, I do *not* expect the government will engage in speculation or be forced into a binding statement about how many F-35s will ultimately be acquired. Revisiting the RCAF force structure would be the natural result of the decision to operate a second type. It’s simply too early to say what the final number of squadrons and mix of type will be. The RCAF will grow overall and in the meantime, the F-35 acquisition process and standing up its squadrons will continue as-planned. The government’s habitual use of “up to X” in its messaging for new procurement mean that the plan to acquire 88 F-35s should be understood as being up to 88, as the River Class is up to 15, the subs are up to 12, GlobalEyes are up to 6, etc. With that said, we should still buy the full 88-tail fleet and I expect Canada will ultimately do this.
9. My last thought, thanks for hanging in, is that for the RCAF planning, force structure, personnel, and training pipeline, the plans can change. The RCAF had not planned to operate two types and maintain two dissimilar supply chains when it recommended the F-35 and an 88-plane fleet. Obviously not. The F-35 program was also planned when Canada was in a sub-2% defense spending reality.
Similarly, at the time, the RCN never planned to acquire the CDC platform, a larger 12-submarine replacement fleet for the Victorias, the Arctic Mobile Base, etc., when it wrote its 2017-2022 strategic plan and set in motion its long-term force structure and capital planning. Rhetorically, the same hand-wringing about the RCAF operating two types and a larger fleet could be echoed by the RCN, and then some. Where will the CDCs be based? How will we have enough crew and trained specialists? Etc.
The dimension of time is the answer. The last River Class won’t be delivered for nearly two decades. Its future inaugural crew and officers are in diapers right now, if born at all. I appreciate that training fighter pilots is essentially the most complex military training task and you need a decade to get someone trained up and experienced enough to be a flight leader. But most of our future F-35 fighter pilots are also in diapers.
I’m not waiving away the challenges, but I think Canada has the ability to operate a two-type air force if we put our mind to it, as we have in the past and nearly all of our allies do today. *We’re the outlier* when it comes the larger NATO member countries.
10. Actual last thought. The government needs to thread a *very* tight needle when it comes to growing and maintaining support for the historic reinvestment in the CAF that we have only just embarked upon. The current simmering emergency in our relationship with the US will eventually cool, but the psychological damage that it has done to the average citizen’s perception of our neighbour to the south is real and will last a very long time.
The government has backed itself into a corner by reopening the F-35 purchase (again), but, remarkably, it has managed to create the conditions for a net-positive outcome. A landmark announcement of acquiring the Gripen and growing the RCAF, reversing the long-standing decline in its size, capabilities, and prestige, strengthening our ties to non-US allies and Europe, and creating potentially a lot of jobs and spin-off benefits in Canada will be a *huge* political win. It’ll be a home run. We don’t know all the answers right now and it isn’t the best-possible scenario, but it will unquestionably be a win for strengthening Canada and diversifying our defense industrial base. Is the Gripen the best fighter going? No. It’s pretty damn good for a 4.5-generation platform, but, no, it is not the best fighter in the sky today. That’s the F-35, which we’re still buying and will make up the backbone of the RCAF for the next 50 years (I’m being realistically pessimistic here).
In this context, I believe the government will not announce any change to the F-35 order, while publicly expressing a serious desire to continue exploring greater economic benefits for Canada as the program goes forward, perhaps reminding the US that at 88 planes, Canada currently has the largest acquisition plan for the type outside of the US military.
I believe this is what will happen. Carney operates in the real world, not some magical world where we can turn on a dime. Canada has contributed billions to the F-35 development and already committed to buying 16 of them. A rump fleet of 16 F-35s would be useless. Adding the F-35s now, and a similar number of Grippens later will give us the quickest path to upgrading the RCAF while working toward a more sovereign national defence long term. And no, there’s no “kill switch” that can be flipped from Washington.
I'm of a different opinion. I disregard the integration aspect, many non-US warplanes from NATO partners use a Link16 option (given by the US) if they want to integrate data to the US command and control systems. You don't need the F-35 to do it, even if it might be easier.
Canada needs to decide why they want their combat air fleet, what is its core mission. The F-35 is for penetrating defended battlespace and is not 1st-rate once it is quickly detected. That's more of a NATO role, not a NORAD role.
If the goal is air sovereignty, national or continental, then the F-22, Gripen, Rafale are what's needed. Since the optimal F-22 is off the table, (haven't been built in years) then the Gripen is likely it. The US would have to put multiple squadrons of F-22's in both Alaska and Greenland to even pretend to protect the arctic access to North America, which seems unlikely.
Just keep focus - this is all about forcing Canada to be a crutch to the failing F-35 program, a program that even the Republican-controlled Congress doesn't believe in anymore, that the US doesn't seem capable of supplying or maintaining.
US and Canadian warplanes already cross each other's border for NORAD responses.
The "failing" F-35 program has 1,500 aircraft in service, with 160 to 190 built annually, and has been used in combat with notable success penetrating some fairly sophisticated air defences. Roughly three hundred Gripen have been built, with another 12 being produced annually, and it may have been used during a border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand, although Thailand hasn't confirmed that.
The Swedes continue to move forward with their fighter technology, planning an unmanned fighter flight in 2027. Seems like a good partner to work with.
If we are at the mercy of the US not “allowing” us to integrate what capabilities we have into the NORTH AMERICAN defence grid, can we really say we are an independent (sovereign) partner?
I’m not naive enough to think that we are equal partners - at least from a contribution perspective - but if we have to run and say “pretty please” every time we make a decision, we should probably reconsider some more fundamental issues.
While I agree that a F35 order closer to 88 than 30 is preferable, I fail to see how delaying a Gripen decision helps. As you must well know, putting off that decision will almost certainly kill any chance of serious investment in a Canadian based capability.
We're definitely the junior partner. If we want access to the systems that the US developed and pays for, we have to get their permission. That's the rub.
We can move on Gripen when we want. Knowing the F-35s are coming online gives us far more room to consider whether we want to do it and at what cost.
A rub to this 'acquiescence to a 88 F-35 order' logic implied as a hedge to facilitate a future acquisition, is that it doesn't stop the US from denying ITAR, etc further down the road?
Philosophically, the US should respect our decision on the capabilities we acquire and in accordance with Art 2.e of the NORAD agreement (2006) "include such forces as are specifically made available to it by the Parties to fulfill its missions", or then there is a deeper discussion that needs to happen surrounding NORAD and what one could colloquially call coercion.
In addition, while Canada is the junior partner, We also need to remember that the US benefits significantly from the integrated I&W that the NORAD architecture provides, including defence in depth (geographic separation along the threat vector) from 10-2 o'clock, in which to cooperatively engage threats in times of conflict before those threats get to continental US territory.
Further, the ITAR bogeyman needs to be tempered by the integrated nature of military programs that also sees key technology in a number of US programs (T-7 RedHawk, US Army synthetic training environment tactical simulation systems, etc) that emanate from Saab. The US mused about blocking Gripen E sales to Columbia (supposedly to coerce an advanced F-16 option) but ultimately never did because they decided this was not in their best interest. One would think that the CAN-US relationship is of at least equal and a great deal more value to the US. After all, we are currently buying HIMARS, multiple systems for the River Class, and numerous other projects on stream (MQ-9, P-8, etc) , and if prognostication is correct H-60, CH-47 and Apache will be front runners for a multi-year multi-billion acquisition to meet the RCAF/CA next Tactical Aviation Capability (nTACS) which is valued at ~$18B plus sustainment.
What is it that would be needed to integrate the F-39 into NORAD? Not the engine. It’s a big ticket item but could be worked around to avoid ITAR. The key to integrating into the new NORAD is the ability to receive and transmit data. Aircraft data, radar data and associated target data. Secure comms. The F-39 must be able to talk to the F-35, AEWC, Sector control. So if there is a host of F-39s flying around, there is no way the U.S. F-35s, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, AWACS and ground control will not want to know where they are. Fortunately this is being worked out in NATO. Swede Gripens are flying with F-35s in the Arctic. And in time the Nato Arctic forces will be working with NORAD forces. In fact that has already occurred in Greenland. So interoperability is doable. The weakness is that in future scenarios, the F-39 will face stealth fighters, making the pilots very vulnerable.
It's not an aircraft identification problem. It's about proprietary American data and common operating pictures.
I can recall when our CF-18s arrived. No datalink. No way to update NCTR or EW MDFs. As an EW adversary, they were all too easy to deceive. The EW MDFs were contracted out to the American OEM so that they were finally updated after the first Gulf War was over. The lack of interoperability that the Americans insist upon cost them 3 F-15s in Kuwait. The Kuwait F-18 pilot would not know, could not ID the F-15s at night because the Americans can’t trust their allies (not sure if they have any now). Did the F-15s even know there was a Kuwait F-18 targeting them? Three times? I should hope they have relearned the lesson. Exercises within NATO and NORAD should be able to sort out their myopia. The Americans are not infallible. I’ve personally shut down a complete Copper Flag exercise. A colleague sent an AWACS back to Tinker AFB from a Maple Flag, whose crew was met upon landing by a 3 star general.
I had this discussion with friend who works at CAE (in health and safety, so take with a grain of salt) who insisted that the Gripens would not be able to integrate into NORAD. There is a lot of mixed information floating around about the about the Gripen's capabilities and limitations. I would love it if someone more knowledgeable could clarify a few things.
My understanding was that the Gripens use an open architecture, and end users can load what ever software they want. As far as I understand, it's not a limitation of the Gripens that prevents link 20 and any other form of communication that is used in NORAD operations from functioning, but I would love to have that confirmed or denied by someone more knowledgeable than me.
So, the real limiting factor is American willingness to let us play in their sandbox if we bring our own toys. I understand that their are legitimate security concerns with connecting other people's hardware to a closed system, but I haven't heard anything that makes it sound like it's in any way technically insurmountable. Those legitimate security concerns have reasonable solutions that only require time and effort (and money), not sacrificed sovereignty and obsequency.
But that is my understanding, and other sources and people have stated or implied there is some technical barrier to the Gripens being part of NORAD. Is this just a misunderstanding based on an oversimplification of reality, or is there more too it?
There are historical examples of the US applying pressure on Canada to coerce us into aligning procurement closer to their agenda and priorities. Some times that was for economic reasons, sometimes for geopolitical or diplomatic reasons. So we can't dismiss the possibility that the US will jerk us around on this, even after the current administration departs. But I want to be clear on what is possible, as apposed to what is allowed.
The full order of 88 F35’s commits us to another generation of the RCAF being a subsidiary of the USAF. RCAF personnel would have no inclination to move forward with the Gripen.
It’s a choice.
My prediction is Carney will go with more than 30 but won’t put in the full order, not only for the economic benefits the Gripen brings to Canada, but to put some pressure on the RCAF to move to a more sovereign approach, something they have no intention or interest in doing presently.
You have it. PM Carney and the brain trust at NDHQ will be looking 30-40 yeara down range if they are doing their jobs properly. The CF-18 has been in service for over 40 years. We need to plan for that lifespan.
The F-35 is a deeply flawed aircraft design, from the engine (and only one in a country the size of Canada) that relies on so much software that it will never work to its full potential. Combine that with maintenance requirements approaching the old Sea Kings and it is a lame duck. It’s use will be nothing more than a gussied up F-117, unable to meet the high intensity combat pace at which modern warfare is conducted.
Now a pair of squadrons of F-35’s would be good for supporting the Brigade in Latvia, they wouldn’t last more than a couple of days out in the wilds. This is where the Gripen would shine. It doesn’t have to have all the software gimmicks, it just needs to be able to pull 8-10 sorties from a suitable length of road, always finding its way home. I trust Swedish engineering more in -45C on a cold winter’s morn than anything designed in Dallas or Wichita. And if you are expecting to loose aircraft to manpads and ground fire, the Gripen is an easier loss to swallow.
Now add to the utility of an aircraft the creation of a production line and maintenance programs for other nations like Ukraine, and we have a far better deal. No US sources fighter is going to come with admin level access to the software (at least not without asking the Chinese spies for it first) so our ability to keep the F-35 in the air over the next 4 decades will be next to nil.
Sweden is offering an open source approach, so if Canadian software engineers come up with something good, we get to share it. And Canadians are still really good at tinkering with shiny toys.
What we need to do is stop worrying about the objects in the procurement pool, and start looking at capabilities. What roles do we need to fill? What are the expected threats? What are the resources that will be needed to keep a system in the fight? Who will be the people making the system work?
We have two international competitors looking to set the RCN up with submarines. My choice would be to order 8-12 of each. The German-Norwegian boat for the East Coast and NATO roles, and the Korean boat for the West Coast. Both have strengths that recommend them to those specific environments. The differences in the supply chains will be to our benefit so we can be good neighbours on both oceans, while having a say over the Arctic. (And we will need to make sure we have a sub pen built at Churchill or nearby.
In the past, Canada flew a wide variety of jet fighters, from our version of the F-86, the CF-100, the CF-104, CF-5, the Voodoo, and we managed to keep a respectable readiness level. For a while in the 1960’s, the CF-100 was the only all weather fighter protecting NATO skies when the skies were stormy.
We have this window in which to prepare for a much more dangerous world, and the US is moving from being an ally to being a potential invader. So if we buy, we buy smart and no put all of our eggs in one basket, lest some twit like Hegseth tries to kick it and connects.
Grippens are also single engine aircraft.
From the day Brazil signed a contract until the first Gripen rolled off their production line was 12 years, and it's not like the Brazilians are unfamiliar with building sophisticated aircraft. Now consider all the things that would need to happen to avoid any ITAR issues, and ensure the Americans are, as the article describes, comfortable that no NORAD data is shared elsewhere. So, Gripens for the RCAF in 2040? Maybe.... if all goes well.
We get our first F-35s this year, and could very possibly have all of them before a single Canadian built Gripen could be delivered.
That would be useful, for the RCAF to have some aircraft to use and abuse. The CF-18 has served a long time and needs to be retired.
Now the challenge for the RCAF will be the long term planning. Lockheed Martin isn’t going to set up a manufacturing plant at Dorval to help speed up delivery and maintenance.
In the long term, we will need to be able to produce our own fighter aircraft like the Gripen, if only to get the technology down for producing the next generation UAVs that will make the F-35 obsolete.
Not Dorval, but Lockheed Martin has already partnered with L3Harris to establish a major F-35 maintenance depot in Mirabel. It is in the same place as L3Harris’s existing facility that currently does depot level maintenance for the CF-18 fleet. Senior executives from Lockheed Martin confirmed the plans in April of this year, and have designated the site as a regional hub for heavy maintenance, repair, overhaul, and upgrades for both Canadian and U.S. F-35s.
And you know who produces their own fighter aircraft without partners? Countries willing to throw massive amounts of money at the problem, like the US, or countries that have no other choice, like Russia and China. Everyone else does it in partnerships as much as they can.
Thank you Cameron. I’m too often working from outdated information, and I find precious little new information at my location. It is good to see that there will be work in Canada for supporting the F-35s.
I still think they are hangar queens and their effectiveness is seriously oversold. And the long term politics are still a serious concern. Let’s hope Lockheed Martin lives up to their contracts and commitments, in spite of the current political situation in the US.
There is a bunch of misinformation being generated on the NORAD front by adherents. True that the US would prefer we use one of their products - it’s easy and good for their business. Yes it is complex, but as others posters have indicated the complexity is being worked out (and long has been) in NATO that mostly knits together the Air Defence and other Joint Integrated Air Operations through Link-16 and uses NATO standards agreements to do this.
Does the US have unique data they do not share with NATO - Absolutely. Do they share more with Canada - Yes as part of the 5Eyes. Do they segregate data sharing within the 5Eyes in some areas - Yes. Do they share unique data with Canada in relation to NORAD - yes. But they don’t share everything, even as we operate a US F18, yet we can still operate.
The real question is what does Canada need to do? Well it likely roughly looks like this in order of importance:
1 Defend Canada
2 Participate in Defence of North America through NORAD
3 Contribute to NATO
4 Collaborate with INDO-Pacific Allies.
F35s/5th Gen are not required to defend North America - Gen Guilliot, the Commander of NORAD has publically stated this. Further the NORAD agreement (2006) states “shall include such forces as are specifically made available to it by the Parties to fulfill its missions”. This doesn’t require interchangeability, US made, etc, etc.
So Canada can bring what it chooses and NORAD will utilize. This happens now in both air and maritime missions. The question is what is the ‘better way’ to achieve missions 1 and 2 which we have chosen to intertwine through NORAD ? Also how many fully mission capable aircraft meets a credible level of contribution? What does this cost and what are the opportunities for Canadian industry (economy) to benefit in providing suitable aircraft to do this?
I think when the analysis is done the solution will favour many more Gripen than F35 in the mix, more than 6 GlobalEye and bolstered by the Arctic-OTH radar.
I have to jump in here, if you read the full quote it is perfectly clear that what Gen. Guilliot said was basically “the USAF should buy more F-15EXs.” He was playing his part in a budget battle in the US that has little to do with Canada.
The Gripen is about as far from the F-15EX as it is possible to buy. It’s a real stretch to say he’s indifferent between the F-35 and the Gripen because he’s a big fan of the F-15EX.
Now he might be, especially if it comes with Meteor which has some useful capabilities. But he didn’t say that either.
As quoted in numerous media reports here is exactly what he said: “Frankly, we don’t need 5th [generation] to defend our borders,” Guillot said. “Those capabilities are better used overseas where their stealth, air-to-ground weapons, and penetration capability are needed.”
And he went on to talk about the threat being interception of bombers (which do not have an air-air capability) and air launched cruise missiles (conventional and hypersonic) as well as routine airspace security.
Fortunately, we don't need to rely on the excessively truncated media reports. This was testimony at a public Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, and the transcript is available here: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-19-2026_full_transcript.pdf - I'll excerpt the full exchange and then comment below.
Senator Cotton: Thank you.
I think your appointment reflects, in part, that Southern Command is a combatant command, not a training command, and certainly not a diplomatic command. And I think the budget needs to reflect that as well. General Guillot, as the commander of NORAD, one of your central missions is the defense of American and Canadian
airspace. That depends on a robust fighter force, but today's Air Force fleet is the smallest and the oldest it'sever been. The Air Force also struggles with low readiness rates for its fighters. Do you believe that NORTHCOM and NORAD would benefit from an expanded fighter force?
General Guillot: Yes, Senator, we would. I would like to see continued modernization of fourth-generation fighter fleet. Frankly, sir, we don't need fifth-gen to defend our borders. Those capabilities are better used overseas, where their stealth air to ground weapons and penetration capability are needed. So, revamped and modernized fourth-gen to include F-15EX in select locations would meet all of our requirements.
Senator Cotton: I'm glad you said that. I think we need more fourth-generation fighters as well, like at the F- 15EX, and for that matter, they can be pretty useful overseas once those fifth-generation fighters and bombers plow the road and knock out the air defenses as we're seeing right now in Iran. Thank you, gentlemen.
Now, I understand why the Canadian instinct is to link this to the Gripen debate, but not everything is about Canada. Canada's role in and contribution to NORAD is discussed elsewhere in the testimony, and that is illuminating, but it not address the Gripen/F-35 issue directly.
What is actually going on here is another round in an American debate specifically about the F-15EX. Inside the Air Force are two groups, one that would like to see more F-15EXs procured, and another that thinks that would be a distraction from next generation aircraft. This debate has been going on for about a decade, and got supercharged in the last 5 years. Inside the Air Force, the pro-F-15EX group keeps losing out, but they have had success in going to Congress to get them to add additional aircraft purchases above the DOD budget request.
In the US budget process there's this dance they do, where DoD submits a budget request and then Congress modifies is. Sometimes things are omitted because they're not wanted, and Congress adds them back as pork. Other times, they're left out because they know Congress will add them back (e.g., the E-7 debate recently) so they get more than they requested. It's a little hard to tell where the F-15EX debate falls on that spectrum (probably some of both, Cotton in particular has been a booster).
So while it is potentially relevant to the Gripen, that is absolutely not what they're talking about. In context, it reads more like a pre-planed question to get a request for more F-15EXs. To be clear, I have no idea if the Senator and the General ever discussed it before, if the Senator asked knowing what the General was likely to say, or if he was genuinely curious to hear his opinion. But given the politics around this in the DoD and Congress, I submit that the first two options are a lot more likely.
(edited for formatting)
I understand the budget dance. That aside he is definitive in his statements on need - specifically that Fifth Gen is not required for the NORAD mission. Otherwise he could have phrased it any number of ways to highlight a need fo 5th Gen but augmented by F-15EX as a matter of economics, the 'paired bomb/missile truck' concept etc. He didn't though.
And when one looks at the NORAD mission set, wrt fighters, it is about deterrence and in times of conflict killing Bombers and air breathing missiles post launch. This does not require a VLO platform (5th Gen). F15EX, F16 Blk70+, Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F18E/F Blk2 and even HEP2CF18 all have very capable radars and are paired with relatively similar, very capable A-A weapons (METEOR may be the best amongst them) and very capable datalinks. All except the CF-18 also have significant sensor fusion/data management capabilities with advanced-distributed targeting functionality; despite LM marketing they do not have the corner on that market.
So to the point - 5th Gen brings no step change advantage to the NORAD game as confirmed by Gen Guillot. The real question on the mixed fleet split remains mission priority, and numbers to meet those priorities, with cost differential and economic factors accurately considered in and biases from various lobbies on both sides removed. Right now a lot of cherry picking seems to be going on by some professional lobbyists hawking this debate.
I agree broadly that the Gripen could manage the mission well, and I imagine based on his testimony Gen. Guillot does too. But frankly none of us are the ones that need to be convinced, as this isn't really a capabilities decision. If it were about capabilities, the answer at least for this specific mission, is any of the above. The issue is fundamentally political and either waiting for a change of administration, or convincing this one to approve the sale.
If we are talking capabilities though, the F-15EX has a much longer range and much larger payload than any of the other options. Elsewhere in Gen. Guillot's testimony he expresses concern about the effort involved in multiple in-flight refueling on these missions. So there is a tangible benefit to that compared to other 5th gen options, and one on which the F-35 won't help either.
Meteor of course is, at least according to all the public data, superior to AMRAAM-D. I don't imagine US NORAD units, let alone foreign sales, of AIM-260 or AIM-174B will be coming anytime this decade, so that certainly is a tangible benefit too.
I don't really think there's much question about the costs in terms of a mixed fleet. Most other air forces have gone for a mixed Hi/Lo model, and while I'm sure the devil is in the details, I'm also sure the mix of capabilities and economics are there. The question I have though is, if we can't get Gripens until the middle of the next decade - and I see no evidence we can - does that make sense? Or should we by buying F-35s now with the plan that the eventual duel fleet with be F-35 with FCAS or GCAP?
If this rumour is confirmed, then we can think of a NORAD and combined with US focused jet fighter fleet using F-35, and a NATO and multinational focused jet fighter fleet using Gripens. This rumour is echoing another persistent rumour that Canada will buy both the South Korean and German subs, with the South Korean sub fleet deployed within the Pacific Fleet, and the German ones with the Atlantic Fleet. This would a significant change in how Canada is doing procurement. One thing for sure, in 25 years of dealing with senior CAF officers, it is the first time I see such a sense of urgency in acquiring military equipment.
I think that VAdm Topshee, and others put to rest the two different sub fleet rumour?
The PM put to rest the twin option.
One contract one boat.
This is absurd. 24 F 35's which ise stealtg as an offendive weapon. Canada does not need offensive weapons especially ones that are frequently undrgoing expensive maintenance and for whi the US holds a kill switch. So you have to br just damned stupid to grow thus boat anchor larger than a minimum commitnent. As a sovereign country having maker capabilities are invaluable. The Gripen as a defensive weapon is goid enough even the US head of Norad said so. They are cheaper to vuild operate and service. Plus as a manufacturer Xabada can export them and participate in the gen 6 build out. But most importantly and not often considered us the built in obsolescense of manned airframes. With hmp weapons and ai driven drones that can turn on a dime manned planes are all but obsolete in the next 15 to 20 years. The 40 year expected life ofvthe F35 airframe is not realistic. Also the US is trying to destriy Canada's industrial capacity and turn us into a vassak state. So find some real friends snd true partners as a prerequisite for military equipment. The YS no longer qualifies. Canada Strong means independence not being a subordinate of the US.
It's also useful to look at what Carney will be up against at election time if he doesn't limit the F35 order AND order some number of Gripens. He will be rightly accused of being soft on Trump by the left and the right with a high likelihood of losing a majority. This does no one any favors except the Americans. The Concis has offered an approachable option similar to that presented here that would have Canada offer to build a Gripen factory here asap and meet some of the Ukrainian fleet requirements from here. We could make the Gripen decision later. What is beginning to make me perturbed is that the government is slipping back into dither mode. As a voter, I don't care where the friction is coming from, it needs to be eliminated, and fast. Lackluster MPs are not the only bunch that will be feeling the sharp end of Mr Carney's tongue if we miss the Gripen opportunity. If I read him right, there is only one direction: forward; one speed: with purpose; and one voice: together. Any other option chosen by those that are responsible for delivering what we need will not be a wise career move. And Canada will be better for it.
[Shamelessly re-posting my comment from True North Strategic Review...]
Here's my handful of change (my two cents, several times over) on this topic:
1. The F-35 is an objectively better aircraft than the J-39 Gripen. Full stop. That doesn't mean the Gripen, or any 4.5-gen multi-role is inherently bad or without purpose, but the F-35 is simply a more advanced and capable aircraft. This is why NATO nations, largely, have adopted the F-35 as the 'high' end of various nations’ 'high-low' fleets. Cumulatively, the growing European F-35 fleet represents NATO's strongest conventional deterrent on the continent and, objectively, the more the better when it comes to alliance adoption of the platform.
2. J-39 Gripen was designed to implement Sweden's BAS-60/90 national defense plan. It was laser focused on enabling:
(a) Rapid, pre-emptive dispersal prior to the commencement of hostilities to a distributed network of austere operating bases (Sweden's famous highway runways);
(b) Achieving local air superiority against Warsaw Pact/Russian air forces over Sweden and in its neighbourhood of the Baltic in all weather conditions and all seasons;
(c) Land- and maritime strike capabilities as an important but secondary capability, whereas air superiority is its primary role;
(d) Rapid sortie generation from the distributed austere operating bases by permitting a small four-man crew of maintainers and armourers (an enlisted NCO and three conscripts) to refuel and re-arm the aircraft in <10 minutes while exposed to the elements (enabled by modular equipment bays and a 'don't fix it - swap it out' design philosophy and a low-slung aircraft that allows most servicing and rearming to be done at standing height without ladders, cranes, or work platforms); and,
(e) Long-term platform evolution to incorporate new capabilities over time through the use of an open design software architecture and flexible electronics bay design.
The result of this is a platform that was designed to be the next iteration of Sweden's frontline aircraft that provided the capabilities needed for the country to maintain its (pre-NATO) armed neutrality. It joined an unusually capable series of frontline fighters and multi-role platforms (Lansen, Drakken, and Viggen), all of which were designed to implement the BAS-60/90 strategy within a sovereign aircraft design and production ecosystem. The mania for self-sufficiency arguably began at the outbreak of WW2 when the Swedish order for hundreds of modern fighters from the US was abruptly cancelled by the US, leaving Sweden woefully unprepared to defend its airspace. Sweden vowed never to let that happen again.
3. The J-39 Gripen has the *potential* to be a good fit for the RCAF, but not necessarily for the reasons many people believe. There is no scenario, none whatsoever, where an RCAF Gripen would be operating from austere runways and camouflaged highway landing strips nestled in the forests. They would be operated from full-capability RCAF bases. The maintainers will be professional RCAF personnel, not 18-year-old conscripts who Sweden depended on to be the backbone of Gripen ground handling.
The platform's aptitude for rapid sortie generation is a moot point for NORAD service, since the transit distance to a patrol area will be significant, compared to taking off from a forest highway, hitting Russian bombers within minutes, then landing to refuel and rearm for the next sortie. For the RCAF, in a hot war with Russia or China, Gripens wouldn't be rising from Cold Lake to swat down tactical aviation, but rather to parry ALCMs and SLCMs relatively close to their continental targets.
None the less, the simple ground handling processes and forgiving ergonomics of the Gripen, a platform meant to be maintained by gloved hands at night in a blizzard, will still provide benefits to the RCAF, alongside comparatively affordable flight hour costs. The aircraft's integral Infrared Search and Track capability and AESA radar, coupled with a growing detection complex (JORN, AEWC, space-based moving target tracking), are also well-suited for air policing and cruise missile intercept in the vast Canadian landscape and maritime approaches.
4. The 88-tail F-35 fleet size is not an arbitrary number pulled out of the air. It represents a direct minimum baseline replacement of the CF-18 fleet and is the foundation upon which the doctrine, training strategy, capital investment program, and command and control protocols have been premised and executed upon. There are currently no plans for more F-35s and or plans for a second platform.
5. With that said, the political allure for Canada to reacquire the capability for the domestic assembly of multi-role fighters and grow direct and indirect employment in the defense industrial sector is going to be simply too great an opportunity for the government to pass up. I fully expect Canada is going to roll the dice and accept some form of the SAAB proposal for 60+ Gripens. I just can't see them not doing so in the current political and economic environment.
(Continued in Part 2, below.)
Part 2.
6. I also expect that government will take pains to emphasize that the acquisition is about creating new partnerships with Europe writ-large and Sweden specifically, leveraging unprecedented investment in the CAF to maximize Canadian economic benefits and domestic capabilities, and that the range of benefits from the promised technology transfer create the opportunity to co-develop new capabilities for the platform in the future, along with gaining invaluable manufacturing and integration experience that would enable Canada to explore potential future teaming opportunities for 6-gen aircraft.
7. I would expect the government to be cagey about what the order means for the F-35, while reiterating that Canada is still adopting this platform and was a founding member of the multi-national coalition that helped support its development (notwithstanding that our contribution was a drop in the bucket, our flag was still on the plane when it was unveiled). It couldn't hurt to mention how many European NATO allies have ordered and already operate the F-35. The average Canadian has no idea whatsoever that it has become the de facto NATO-standard fighter for the next half-century.
In public-facing statements, the government will underscore that the acquisition of F-35 was always going to be undertaken in steps. The first 16 F-35s have been purchased and are under construction and our pilots are training as we speak. The purchase of the next 14 F-35s is now supported through long-lead time purchases, while future tranches will be negotiated in due time as per the acquisition plan and Lockheed Martin's production schedule dictates.
In bilateral statements to the US, the government can say that its fighter review process has concluded and Canada has decided to acquire and operate a second type and grow the size of the RCAF. This larger fleet, coupled with the country’s many active investments in NORAD-supporting infrastructure and new platform capabilities, will genuinely let Canada shoulder more and (finally) do its part for NORAD commensurate with the size of our economy and benefits from collective continental security. The US wants Canada to spend more of defense and provide more teeth to NORAD and NATO: Guys, we’re doing it.
8. Most significantly, I do *not* expect the government will engage in speculation or be forced into a binding statement about how many F-35s will ultimately be acquired. Revisiting the RCAF force structure would be the natural result of the decision to operate a second type. It’s simply too early to say what the final number of squadrons and mix of type will be. The RCAF will grow overall and in the meantime, the F-35 acquisition process and standing up its squadrons will continue as-planned. The government’s habitual use of “up to X” in its messaging for new procurement mean that the plan to acquire 88 F-35s should be understood as being up to 88, as the River Class is up to 15, the subs are up to 12, GlobalEyes are up to 6, etc. With that said, we should still buy the full 88-tail fleet and I expect Canada will ultimately do this.
9. My last thought, thanks for hanging in, is that for the RCAF planning, force structure, personnel, and training pipeline, the plans can change. The RCAF had not planned to operate two types and maintain two dissimilar supply chains when it recommended the F-35 and an 88-plane fleet. Obviously not. The F-35 program was also planned when Canada was in a sub-2% defense spending reality.
Similarly, at the time, the RCN never planned to acquire the CDC platform, a larger 12-submarine replacement fleet for the Victorias, the Arctic Mobile Base, etc., when it wrote its 2017-2022 strategic plan and set in motion its long-term force structure and capital planning. Rhetorically, the same hand-wringing about the RCAF operating two types and a larger fleet could be echoed by the RCN, and then some. Where will the CDCs be based? How will we have enough crew and trained specialists? Etc.
The dimension of time is the answer. The last River Class won’t be delivered for nearly two decades. Its future inaugural crew and officers are in diapers right now, if born at all. I appreciate that training fighter pilots is essentially the most complex military training task and you need a decade to get someone trained up and experienced enough to be a flight leader. But most of our future F-35 fighter pilots are also in diapers.
I’m not waiving away the challenges, but I think Canada has the ability to operate a two-type air force if we put our mind to it, as we have in the past and nearly all of our allies do today. *We’re the outlier* when it comes the larger NATO member countries.
10. Actual last thought. The government needs to thread a *very* tight needle when it comes to growing and maintaining support for the historic reinvestment in the CAF that we have only just embarked upon. The current simmering emergency in our relationship with the US will eventually cool, but the psychological damage that it has done to the average citizen’s perception of our neighbour to the south is real and will last a very long time.
The government has backed itself into a corner by reopening the F-35 purchase (again), but, remarkably, it has managed to create the conditions for a net-positive outcome. A landmark announcement of acquiring the Gripen and growing the RCAF, reversing the long-standing decline in its size, capabilities, and prestige, strengthening our ties to non-US allies and Europe, and creating potentially a lot of jobs and spin-off benefits in Canada will be a *huge* political win. It’ll be a home run. We don’t know all the answers right now and it isn’t the best-possible scenario, but it will unquestionably be a win for strengthening Canada and diversifying our defense industrial base. Is the Gripen the best fighter going? No. It’s pretty damn good for a 4.5-generation platform, but, no, it is not the best fighter in the sky today. That’s the F-35, which we’re still buying and will make up the backbone of the RCAF for the next 50 years (I’m being realistically pessimistic here).
In this context, I believe the government will not announce any change to the F-35 order, while publicly expressing a serious desire to continue exploring greater economic benefits for Canada as the program goes forward, perhaps reminding the US that at 88 planes, Canada currently has the largest acquisition plan for the type outside of the US military.
I believe this is what will happen. Carney operates in the real world, not some magical world where we can turn on a dime. Canada has contributed billions to the F-35 development and already committed to buying 16 of them. A rump fleet of 16 F-35s would be useless. Adding the F-35s now, and a similar number of Grippens later will give us the quickest path to upgrading the RCAF while working toward a more sovereign national defence long term. And no, there’s no “kill switch” that can be flipped from Washington.
I'm of a different opinion. I disregard the integration aspect, many non-US warplanes from NATO partners use a Link16 option (given by the US) if they want to integrate data to the US command and control systems. You don't need the F-35 to do it, even if it might be easier.
Canada needs to decide why they want their combat air fleet, what is its core mission. The F-35 is for penetrating defended battlespace and is not 1st-rate once it is quickly detected. That's more of a NATO role, not a NORAD role.
If the goal is air sovereignty, national or continental, then the F-22, Gripen, Rafale are what's needed. Since the optimal F-22 is off the table, (haven't been built in years) then the Gripen is likely it. The US would have to put multiple squadrons of F-22's in both Alaska and Greenland to even pretend to protect the arctic access to North America, which seems unlikely.
Just keep focus - this is all about forcing Canada to be a crutch to the failing F-35 program, a program that even the Republican-controlled Congress doesn't believe in anymore, that the US doesn't seem capable of supplying or maintaining.
US and Canadian warplanes already cross each other's border for NORAD responses.
The "failing" F-35 program has 1,500 aircraft in service, with 160 to 190 built annually, and has been used in combat with notable success penetrating some fairly sophisticated air defences. Roughly three hundred Gripen have been built, with another 12 being produced annually, and it may have been used during a border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand, although Thailand hasn't confirmed that.
The Swedes continue to move forward with their fighter technology, planning an unmanned fighter flight in 2027. Seems like a good partner to work with.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2026-02-24/saab-fly-fighter-sized-uncrewed-aircraft-next-year