History does repeat, mainly because we fail to learn it. Where has the only threat to Canadian sovereign territory ever come from? That is correct, the south, and its pursuit of "manifest destiny".
Philippe you are exactly right. It depends on priority of missions sets, the potential enemies, their capabilities and the region of operations, who your allies will be, how you will integrate with them and what your military and political end objectives are. There is no 'perfect' fighter, helicopter, patrol plane, ship, submarine. There are always compromises to any design and its implementation.
This very public debate sees numerous inconsistencies, assumptions and biases being bandied about, including people who formerly served and bring with them their own perceptions based on their experiences.
Ultimately Canada will hopefully get a fighter(s) in the near term to replace the aging CF-18 (though still capable 'depending' on the assigned mission). The fighter will include more advanced capabilities than what we currently have, and its 'degree of perfection' will depend on perspective against numerous perceptions of what was the ideal. There is no perfect aircraft, but almost always there are aircraft that are good enough depending on the conditions of employment and the outcomes desired.
Finally, a piece that sets out fact that there is no definitive best answer….and that decision-makers have a super hard assignment coming to the ‘right’ answer. BZ Philippe.
Sovereignty includes technological independence. We gave it away in February 1959 in return for defence production sharing jobs, but just parts, no "systems" like the CF105, no IP, bad deal.
Instead of debating "which" fighter jet, should we not be asking what we need a "fighter" jet for? The age of AI and drones (RPAS) may have ended the fighter jock. It happened to "navigators", now we man the land based control centres!
And the next question would be how do we make sure we are in the 6th generation ecosystem as a contributor not just a client, we have expertise in AI and drones. There are a number of 6th generation consortiums out there but we are a little late to the game in joining most (and of course the US will never treat us as more than a parts supplier) but there is a good opportunity to join the Swedes in their 6th generation program, a partnership with Saab should include this, I would be surprised if it didn’t.
fighter "generations" were a manufacturers marketing gimmick. As long as you have a mach 2 platform with range and endurance, generation will be next iteration of software, including the SW driving the latest AI weapon system. If I were a fighter pilot i would be more concerned with "Stand-off" versus stealth.
Totally agree with Glen here…yes a mixed fleet has extra expenses but Canada certainly has them for transport aircraft & helicopters currently. I used to be a big F35 supporter but these ongoing costs (block 4)& everything else make them far from ideal.
This is what the plans were. We have a limited view of the results, but I’ll see if I can find analysis’ that speak to the results of the defense policies.
More light reading: Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision For Canada’s Defence. A 2024 policy document that followed up 2017’s Strong, Secure, Engaged. Enjoy!
Great write-up, Philippe. I have been a proponent for a mixed fleet mostly because of the sentiments expressed in this article. Whenever ex RCAF members chime in and declare with absolute certainty "trust me as an expert, there is no other choice than the F-35, PERIOD", that makes we immediately discount that opinion. I am not too stupid to understand nuance or "we came to this opinion for these reasons". At least I then have a basis for thought. Trust me gives me nothing.
The article above shows how F-35s, Gripens and AEW&C work together flawlessly. Each contributing based on their strength. This is what I would expect from a mixed fleet.
Globaleye - AEW&C
Gripen - High flight availability, rugged, cheap to operate, primary role is patrol and EW
F-35 - Stealth, heavy hitter, sensors, expensive to operate and repair, medium availability, use as needed, not as patrol arircraft.
Derrin, as a former aerospace industry program person, I respect the experience and expertise of the RCAF members. NCM's who do the "hands-on" maintenance often differ from the jet jocks, as new toys are generally HELL to get airborne for one reason or other. Gripen shares a LOT of similar positives with the Hornets - a robust SYSTEM incrementally improved over time. Like the CF-18, it's a stronger more robust aircraft than the requirements of the USAF... who enjoy 10,000 ft. runways and 10-12 ground crew per aircraft.
It depends - we need flexibility and independence (sovereignty and industrial) thanks much for your balanced response to the balanced article
Sorry if I came off harsh on RCAF members. I respect their expertise and service. I just wished we got information from them more than it is the F-35 and only the F-35. Even if they said we feel this is our only procurement chance for the next 30 years so we need to ask for the most cutting edge thing available right now. I could respect that, at least it lets me know why they are pushing so hard for the F-35. Instead they make statements that are so obviously half-truths and wishy-washy that it negates a lot of what they say.
We can't have interoperability with NORAD on a mixed fleet - bitch please. The US base in alaska operates a mixed fleet of everything from F-16s to F-35s.
My biggest concern right now is the F-35 availability numbers. Depending on the source, the US has an availability rating of 40% to 50%. So is that we need 88 F-35s. So hopefully we can 44 that can operate at any given time. I would rather have a mixed fleet, keep the hours low on the F-35s for patrols and use them when we really need them.
Not harsh at ALL. Billy Flynn and his buddies have done an excellent job, shilling for Lockheed Martin. F-35 does a lot of things, some of them rather well. BUT, in my semi-educated view, Canada needs diversity and a bit of independence from Big Brother Yank. The IB that the Swedes are offering us appear to be a re-evigoration of the Canadian aerospace industry. I'm hopeful that we DO diversify, and go for a two-aircraft model - Sabres and Clunks; Voodoos and Starfighters. CF-5's 😳 and CF-18's - LOTS of precedence. We shall see.
This makes a lot of sense. If government officials of the day could be a little clearer on what the country's objectives are, then we, the tax-paying public, would have a better time settling on our own opinions, and possibly be more willing to face the financial sacrifices ahead. I think a mixed fleet of fighters may be essential to support certain goals. I'll be proud of the decision makers no matter what the final choice will be. It is a gruelling process and they can be commended for working hard on our behalf. I wouldn't feel so confident if I lived in a country where party politics has taken over essential analytical, critical thinking in service of the public good.
"It depends" explains so much about why our military procurement process is broken. Not having agreed on final requirements is a sure way to never decide.
Trump's extreme hostility to Canada is a personal idiosyncrasy, which won't at outlast him. But he's only 79, so he could be in power for another 20 years. And, when he goes, whether replaced by more Trumpism or as a result of regime collapse, there will be no return to pre-Trump normaliity. Canada needs to break with the US, carefully but as fast as possible.
I mean, yes, it’s important not to be so caught up in wishing to be seen as confidant and decisive as to dismiss nuance. OTOH —nuance! 😉 — it’s also important to make a decision. Too many government initiatives involve drawn-out analysis stages.
Successful projects begin with clear objectives and guidelines, which you allude to but could be more clearly stated. How could an advisory council make a recommendation without knowing if the government wants a decision based on technical capability alone, a political alliance strategy, an industrial strategy, or a specific combination and weighting of each?
I am dubious that buying a Corvette will actually work out better than a buying a Civic. I agree that we need to balance a number of factors (not the least of which is political) before making the final call. I am not all sure that everything will improve after Trump is out of office (and even if the next administration is better, we should not let ourselves become as vulnerable to the Americans again as we have). Also, it would seem to me that drone aircraft are going to be the future of air combat. Might it not be foolish to invest billions in a technology that might suddenly be obsolete?
History does repeat, mainly because we fail to learn it. Where has the only threat to Canadian sovereign territory ever come from? That is correct, the south, and its pursuit of "manifest destiny".
Well said!!
Philippe you are exactly right. It depends on priority of missions sets, the potential enemies, their capabilities and the region of operations, who your allies will be, how you will integrate with them and what your military and political end objectives are. There is no 'perfect' fighter, helicopter, patrol plane, ship, submarine. There are always compromises to any design and its implementation.
This very public debate sees numerous inconsistencies, assumptions and biases being bandied about, including people who formerly served and bring with them their own perceptions based on their experiences.
Ultimately Canada will hopefully get a fighter(s) in the near term to replace the aging CF-18 (though still capable 'depending' on the assigned mission). The fighter will include more advanced capabilities than what we currently have, and its 'degree of perfection' will depend on perspective against numerous perceptions of what was the ideal. There is no perfect aircraft, but almost always there are aircraft that are good enough depending on the conditions of employment and the outcomes desired.
These observations take me back to Geoffrey Vickers and Freedom in à Rocking Boat.
Finally, a piece that sets out fact that there is no definitive best answer….and that decision-makers have a super hard assignment coming to the ‘right’ answer. BZ Philippe.
Sovereignty includes technological independence. We gave it away in February 1959 in return for defence production sharing jobs, but just parts, no "systems" like the CF105, no IP, bad deal.
Instead of debating "which" fighter jet, should we not be asking what we need a "fighter" jet for? The age of AI and drones (RPAS) may have ended the fighter jock. It happened to "navigators", now we man the land based control centres!
And the next question would be how do we make sure we are in the 6th generation ecosystem as a contributor not just a client, we have expertise in AI and drones. There are a number of 6th generation consortiums out there but we are a little late to the game in joining most (and of course the US will never treat us as more than a parts supplier) but there is a good opportunity to join the Swedes in their 6th generation program, a partnership with Saab should include this, I would be surprised if it didn’t.
fighter "generations" were a manufacturers marketing gimmick. As long as you have a mach 2 platform with range and endurance, generation will be next iteration of software, including the SW driving the latest AI weapon system. If I were a fighter pilot i would be more concerned with "Stand-off" versus stealth.
Totally agree with Glen here…yes a mixed fleet has extra expenses but Canada certainly has them for transport aircraft & helicopters currently. I used to be a big F35 supporter but these ongoing costs (block 4)& everything else make them far from ideal.
For us ‘Armchair Strategists’ here are some light reading suggestions.
https://hillnotes.ca/2022/09/22/canadas-defence-policy-statements-change-and-continuity/
This is what the plans were. We have a limited view of the results, but I’ll see if I can find analysis’ that speak to the results of the defense policies.
Wish me luck: it looks like a deep rabbit hole.
More light reading: Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision For Canada’s Defence. A 2024 policy document that followed up 2017’s Strong, Secure, Engaged. Enjoy!
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/north-strong-free-2024.html
Craig, thanks. Already added it to the reading list.
Great write-up, Philippe. I have been a proponent for a mixed fleet mostly because of the sentiments expressed in this article. Whenever ex RCAF members chime in and declare with absolute certainty "trust me as an expert, there is no other choice than the F-35, PERIOD", that makes we immediately discount that opinion. I am not too stupid to understand nuance or "we came to this opinion for these reasons". At least I then have a basis for thought. Trust me gives me nothing.
https://themilitaryanalyst.com/2025/11/13/the-real-story-how-nato-ended-russias-estonian-air-incursions/
The article above shows how F-35s, Gripens and AEW&C work together flawlessly. Each contributing based on their strength. This is what I would expect from a mixed fleet.
Globaleye - AEW&C
Gripen - High flight availability, rugged, cheap to operate, primary role is patrol and EW
F-35 - Stealth, heavy hitter, sensors, expensive to operate and repair, medium availability, use as needed, not as patrol arircraft.
Just my thoughts.
Derrin, as a former aerospace industry program person, I respect the experience and expertise of the RCAF members. NCM's who do the "hands-on" maintenance often differ from the jet jocks, as new toys are generally HELL to get airborne for one reason or other. Gripen shares a LOT of similar positives with the Hornets - a robust SYSTEM incrementally improved over time. Like the CF-18, it's a stronger more robust aircraft than the requirements of the USAF... who enjoy 10,000 ft. runways and 10-12 ground crew per aircraft.
It depends - we need flexibility and independence (sovereignty and industrial) thanks much for your balanced response to the balanced article
Sorry if I came off harsh on RCAF members. I respect their expertise and service. I just wished we got information from them more than it is the F-35 and only the F-35. Even if they said we feel this is our only procurement chance for the next 30 years so we need to ask for the most cutting edge thing available right now. I could respect that, at least it lets me know why they are pushing so hard for the F-35. Instead they make statements that are so obviously half-truths and wishy-washy that it negates a lot of what they say.
We can't have interoperability with NORAD on a mixed fleet - bitch please. The US base in alaska operates a mixed fleet of everything from F-16s to F-35s.
My biggest concern right now is the F-35 availability numbers. Depending on the source, the US has an availability rating of 40% to 50%. So is that we need 88 F-35s. So hopefully we can 44 that can operate at any given time. I would rather have a mixed fleet, keep the hours low on the F-35s for patrols and use them when we really need them.
Not harsh at ALL. Billy Flynn and his buddies have done an excellent job, shilling for Lockheed Martin. F-35 does a lot of things, some of them rather well. BUT, in my semi-educated view, Canada needs diversity and a bit of independence from Big Brother Yank. The IB that the Swedes are offering us appear to be a re-evigoration of the Canadian aerospace industry. I'm hopeful that we DO diversify, and go for a two-aircraft model - Sabres and Clunks; Voodoos and Starfighters. CF-5's 😳 and CF-18's - LOTS of precedence. We shall see.
This makes a lot of sense. If government officials of the day could be a little clearer on what the country's objectives are, then we, the tax-paying public, would have a better time settling on our own opinions, and possibly be more willing to face the financial sacrifices ahead. I think a mixed fleet of fighters may be essential to support certain goals. I'll be proud of the decision makers no matter what the final choice will be. It is a gruelling process and they can be commended for working hard on our behalf. I wouldn't feel so confident if I lived in a country where party politics has taken over essential analytical, critical thinking in service of the public good.
"It depends" explains so much about why our military procurement process is broken. Not having agreed on final requirements is a sure way to never decide.
Trump's extreme hostility to Canada is a personal idiosyncrasy, which won't at outlast him. But he's only 79, so he could be in power for another 20 years. And, when he goes, whether replaced by more Trumpism or as a result of regime collapse, there will be no return to pre-Trump normaliity. Canada needs to break with the US, carefully but as fast as possible.
Hear hear. It's foolish to believe that we'll ever get back to 2024.
I mean, yes, it’s important not to be so caught up in wishing to be seen as confidant and decisive as to dismiss nuance. OTOH —nuance! 😉 — it’s also important to make a decision. Too many government initiatives involve drawn-out analysis stages.
Successful projects begin with clear objectives and guidelines, which you allude to but could be more clearly stated. How could an advisory council make a recommendation without knowing if the government wants a decision based on technical capability alone, a political alliance strategy, an industrial strategy, or a specific combination and weighting of each?
All in my admittedly inexpert opinion, of course.
I am dubious that buying a Corvette will actually work out better than a buying a Civic. I agree that we need to balance a number of factors (not the least of which is political) before making the final call. I am not all sure that everything will improve after Trump is out of office (and even if the next administration is better, we should not let ourselves become as vulnerable to the Americans again as we have). Also, it would seem to me that drone aircraft are going to be the future of air combat. Might it not be foolish to invest billions in a technology that might suddenly be obsolete?
The kill switch that the orange menace keeps bragging about?