Thank you for this. It’s the most helpful and constructive piece I’ve read on this debate to-date. There is a lot to like about it. As you say, the personnel issue is the critical point few are talking about — other than to oppose a dual fleet — and it’s Forces wide, not just RCAF. So reducing platform count, replacing two obsolete aircraft (Hawk & Tutor) while leveraging the existing F404 experience and supply chain personnel sounds like a win-win-win instead of the typical short sighted and costly compromise we (Canada) often land on. It’s not completely independent, but nothing is (sorry, Arrow 2 dreamers). And Snowbird pilots get to fly something younger than their fathers. :)
I also think this would be more politically palatable. Harder for the F-35 only jocks to argue against. It leaves capacity & space to develop drone capabilities (the future). And starts building a defence relationship with Korea, especially if we choose European subs.
Huh, that’s definitely not an option I had been expecting; I frankly don’t hate it lol.
I’m definitely hard in the pro-duel fighter fleet camp, mostly for the long term industrial benefits if I’m being honest with myself; but I hadn’t considered this possibility. I like that it can also fill the role of a trainer and stunt plane, it’s a nice perk.
A refreshing break from the usual drudgery. I wish the government would just make a damn decision so I can stop dreaming about it and put it to rest haha.
Yeah, sure, let Canada replace direct dependency on the US with dependency on an Asian country that's totally, utterly, completely dependent on the US for its security...
While I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should stop developing weapons of war, it is an unfortunate reality that we can’t stop the world’s psychopaths from waging war. If we instead take the perspective that we are buying weapons of “defence” instead, then I think that it becomes the sensible thing to do. It also reframes the F35/Gripen debate. Many have pointed out that the F35 is a weapon to project power, i.e. a weapon of war. Likewise, the Gripen is more like a weapon that one would employ in a guérilla war (the ability to operate widely dispersed across a large area independently of large complex airfield services) or, in other words, a weapon of defence.
But what if the F-35 is also a weapon of defence, has SEAD capability what’s to say one day that ability saves allied lives or humanitarian flights in a contested airspace to get people out and back into safety?
Humanity has only ever known war and it’ll continue for millennia to come.
It’s really ignorant to suggest we should just roll over for our own security but then again I bet you protest places like the Toronto airshow to no avail anyway.
First, I’m English (as in England). Second, I don’t protest anything anywhere. Third, if we don’t make some sort of effort to evolve and stop killing each other the “distant” future is grim indeed.
So, are you volunteering to fight in the next war? Or, is that just for “the other guy”, while you watch from the comfort of your armchair? Why not at least consider that another way forward is a possibility? Perhaps you’re American. The Yanks seem to be in love with violence and their gun culture. If you’re Canadian then you are a poor ambassador for your more peace loving country.
Im a proudly serving 🇨🇦 and no one wants a war, I’m just well adjusted to the reality that conflict is inevitable but can still be avoided, as long as that possibility isn’t appeasement like Neville Chamberlain.
And I don’t know if u know but I would open up a history book and read from the North West Rebellion to Afghanistan the swaths of excerpts of how we are in conflict (it’s not so naively peace loving as you’d think it is and whatever other preconceived notions you have of other countries)
Don’t matter what your nationality is, human nature can be very bloody in war.
Sadly, this dictum still holds very true. I support Field Enjoyer in this sentiment. If Europe /the west had no military force to dissuade aggression, other nations auccumbing to base instincts would have brought them war decades ago. Heck, the same thing holds true for Canada in the 19th century against the US. No one in Canada wants a war... But we must be prepared to fight to defend ourselves & our friends, because not everyone has learned to look past imperialist 0-sum thinking. & Issues like Climate change & other destabilising factors just make war & conflict more likely - desperate people / nations will do stupid & violent things if they think it will make it better for themselves.
Finally... Blue helmeted peacekeeping was largely a myth. Unless the fighting had already fully stopped... Peacekeepers, even Canadian peacekeepers, need to be the ones wielding the bigger stick to stop the fighting & maintain compliance.
Try being less accusatory. Ad hominem attacks are rarely useful and shows only one’s own insecurity. Calling me ignorant and implying I am some sort of a loser if I were to protest is offensive. I merely offer an alternative point of view. The American mindset has poisoned the world. We here outside of N.America are tired of their bully warring tactics. Don’t mimic them please.
Again I think we’re just trying to highlight how absurd this viewpoint is to reality. I don’t even think it’s a remotely plausible to say it’s an American mindset.
That being said I’m pretty sure of varying different political views/ opinions are already pretty tired with this current US administration. But to suggest that it’s a North American viewpoint is pretty disingenuous.
So this plan is to go with Lockheed Martin and continue lining their pockets but with a less capable plane. How does that help us to diversify our defence procurement? Might as well go with 60 F35 and then go with GCAP.
So "even a 1982-vintage CF-18 (minus forty years of wear) could still handle adequately."
I am still of the opinion that Canada needs a twin engine fighter/interceptor for patrolling our land, air and waters - like the F-18 or even the Arrow. I believe this was a key reason why the F18 was chosen over the F16 in the 80s.
A twin engine plane can with the other engine - instead of crashing or finding an emergency landing field. Europe has lots of places to land, so if we used the 16-24 F35s for foreign deployments, fine.
Which leaves us the option of buying up every F18 we can... but the F18 is going out of production.
One good thing about the Gripen is we get manufacturing and Saab is eager to build planes here for export. We need to build up our aerospace industry, and if we take a few more F35s but delay them, we can maintain some benefits.
So, why not approach Boeing about buying the rights to build the F18 here, since production is ending in the US? Maybe even a joint venture, but get enough of the IP to ensure we can keep building them and operate them without US approval, as well as exporting them.
This is not permanent - but it would let us gain jobs, have a cheaper plane, but in the longer run, we could work with Saab or Korea or Japan or the Europeans on a replacement design.
A state of the art F35 is not needed when 5th generation jets cannot make it to Canada from Russia or China unless on an aircraft carrier... having a few is good, but one way or another, we need a second airframe to work with.
Yes there is a need for a second fighter fleet. I’ve been advocating for the Gripen F-39 for some time. The roles it would assume are similar to that which you have described, but with a twist. FLIT would be a natural, and as a replacement for the Snowbird’s Tutor. Thirdly it would fulfill the adversary role that is currently provided by Top Aces. However, your assessment of its capability to meet future NORAD requirements is flawed. Joint Chinese and Russian bombers (missile carriers) have flown into the Arctic, escorted by fighters. Fighter escorts of the near and midterm future can expected to be Gen5 stealth fighters. Already those two adversaries are producing the likes of the SU-57, J-20, J-35 and J-36. Therefore the F-35 will be needed to match those capabilities. Given the numerous versions of stealth combat aircraft that have been produced by the U.S., we can assume that the F-35 will provide the edge in combat that our pilots will need to ensure their success in combat.
Returning to the F-39, I would suggest that Top Aces be responsible for the maintenance of the fleet since they already have experience with their fleet of 20 F-16s which they employ in their U.S. contract. To challenge our F-35 pilots and their systems, an upgrade in the Red Air fleet with an advanced Gen4 will be needed when their CATS contract is renewed for the F-35 training.
Thank you for this. It’s the most helpful and constructive piece I’ve read on this debate to-date. There is a lot to like about it. As you say, the personnel issue is the critical point few are talking about — other than to oppose a dual fleet — and it’s Forces wide, not just RCAF. So reducing platform count, replacing two obsolete aircraft (Hawk & Tutor) while leveraging the existing F404 experience and supply chain personnel sounds like a win-win-win instead of the typical short sighted and costly compromise we (Canada) often land on. It’s not completely independent, but nothing is (sorry, Arrow 2 dreamers). And Snowbird pilots get to fly something younger than their fathers. :)
I also think this would be more politically palatable. Harder for the F-35 only jocks to argue against. It leaves capacity & space to develop drone capabilities (the future). And starts building a defence relationship with Korea, especially if we choose European subs.
Huh, that’s definitely not an option I had been expecting; I frankly don’t hate it lol.
I’m definitely hard in the pro-duel fighter fleet camp, mostly for the long term industrial benefits if I’m being honest with myself; but I hadn’t considered this possibility. I like that it can also fill the role of a trainer and stunt plane, it’s a nice perk.
A refreshing break from the usual drudgery. I wish the government would just make a damn decision so I can stop dreaming about it and put it to rest haha.
Bang up job Hawkie. Thanks for doing justice to an idea that we've talked about inside the RCAF.
Thanks for another enjoyable and interesting take on the Canadian fighter debate. Really enjoyed reading it.
Excellent analysis. There is no perfect solution and people should be aware of the trade offs no matyer the final decision.
Yeah, sure, let Canada replace direct dependency on the US with dependency on an Asian country that's totally, utterly, completely dependent on the US for its security...
I guess that would be the definition of irony.
I have a much better 3rd option … stop buying weapons of war Canada! When is humanity ever going to grow up?
While I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should stop developing weapons of war, it is an unfortunate reality that we can’t stop the world’s psychopaths from waging war. If we instead take the perspective that we are buying weapons of “defence” instead, then I think that it becomes the sensible thing to do. It also reframes the F35/Gripen debate. Many have pointed out that the F35 is a weapon to project power, i.e. a weapon of war. Likewise, the Gripen is more like a weapon that one would employ in a guérilla war (the ability to operate widely dispersed across a large area independently of large complex airfield services) or, in other words, a weapon of defence.
But what if the F-35 is also a weapon of defence, has SEAD capability what’s to say one day that ability saves allied lives or humanitarian flights in a contested airspace to get people out and back into safety?
Yes!
Humanity has only ever known war and it’ll continue for millennia to come.
It’s really ignorant to suggest we should just roll over for our own security but then again I bet you protest places like the Toronto airshow to no avail anyway.
First, I’m English (as in England). Second, I don’t protest anything anywhere. Third, if we don’t make some sort of effort to evolve and stop killing each other the “distant” future is grim indeed.
Well… I’d say ur shit out of luck if you haven’t been watching the news and see what’s going on in all corners of the earth.
It’s very optimistic to have that viewpoint, quite frankly no one will / could even make the effort to attain what you’d want.
So, are you volunteering to fight in the next war? Or, is that just for “the other guy”, while you watch from the comfort of your armchair? Why not at least consider that another way forward is a possibility? Perhaps you’re American. The Yanks seem to be in love with violence and their gun culture. If you’re Canadian then you are a poor ambassador for your more peace loving country.
Im a proudly serving 🇨🇦 and no one wants a war, I’m just well adjusted to the reality that conflict is inevitable but can still be avoided, as long as that possibility isn’t appeasement like Neville Chamberlain.
And I don’t know if u know but I would open up a history book and read from the North West Rebellion to Afghanistan the swaths of excerpts of how we are in conflict (it’s not so naively peace loving as you’d think it is and whatever other preconceived notions you have of other countries)
Don’t matter what your nationality is, human nature can be very bloody in war.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Sadly, this dictum still holds very true. I support Field Enjoyer in this sentiment. If Europe /the west had no military force to dissuade aggression, other nations auccumbing to base instincts would have brought them war decades ago. Heck, the same thing holds true for Canada in the 19th century against the US. No one in Canada wants a war... But we must be prepared to fight to defend ourselves & our friends, because not everyone has learned to look past imperialist 0-sum thinking. & Issues like Climate change & other destabilising factors just make war & conflict more likely - desperate people / nations will do stupid & violent things if they think it will make it better for themselves.
Finally... Blue helmeted peacekeeping was largely a myth. Unless the fighting had already fully stopped... Peacekeepers, even Canadian peacekeepers, need to be the ones wielding the bigger stick to stop the fighting & maintain compliance.
Well said 💯
Try being less accusatory. Ad hominem attacks are rarely useful and shows only one’s own insecurity. Calling me ignorant and implying I am some sort of a loser if I were to protest is offensive. I merely offer an alternative point of view. The American mindset has poisoned the world. We here outside of N.America are tired of their bully warring tactics. Don’t mimic them please.
Again I think we’re just trying to highlight how absurd this viewpoint is to reality. I don’t even think it’s a remotely plausible to say it’s an American mindset.
That being said I’m pretty sure of varying different political views/ opinions are already pretty tired with this current US administration. But to suggest that it’s a North American viewpoint is pretty disingenuous.
So this plan is to go with Lockheed Martin and continue lining their pockets but with a less capable plane. How does that help us to diversify our defence procurement? Might as well go with 60 F35 and then go with GCAP.
So "even a 1982-vintage CF-18 (minus forty years of wear) could still handle adequately."
I am still of the opinion that Canada needs a twin engine fighter/interceptor for patrolling our land, air and waters - like the F-18 or even the Arrow. I believe this was a key reason why the F18 was chosen over the F16 in the 80s.
A twin engine plane can with the other engine - instead of crashing or finding an emergency landing field. Europe has lots of places to land, so if we used the 16-24 F35s for foreign deployments, fine.
Which leaves us the option of buying up every F18 we can... but the F18 is going out of production.
One good thing about the Gripen is we get manufacturing and Saab is eager to build planes here for export. We need to build up our aerospace industry, and if we take a few more F35s but delay them, we can maintain some benefits.
So, why not approach Boeing about buying the rights to build the F18 here, since production is ending in the US? Maybe even a joint venture, but get enough of the IP to ensure we can keep building them and operate them without US approval, as well as exporting them.
This is not permanent - but it would let us gain jobs, have a cheaper plane, but in the longer run, we could work with Saab or Korea or Japan or the Europeans on a replacement design.
A state of the art F35 is not needed when 5th generation jets cannot make it to Canada from Russia or China unless on an aircraft carrier... having a few is good, but one way or another, we need a second airframe to work with.
rather than the golden eagle i was thinking the Kai boromae
Yes ! ask me which one !
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1C7SGFyY8i/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Yes there is a need for a second fighter fleet. I’ve been advocating for the Gripen F-39 for some time. The roles it would assume are similar to that which you have described, but with a twist. FLIT would be a natural, and as a replacement for the Snowbird’s Tutor. Thirdly it would fulfill the adversary role that is currently provided by Top Aces. However, your assessment of its capability to meet future NORAD requirements is flawed. Joint Chinese and Russian bombers (missile carriers) have flown into the Arctic, escorted by fighters. Fighter escorts of the near and midterm future can expected to be Gen5 stealth fighters. Already those two adversaries are producing the likes of the SU-57, J-20, J-35 and J-36. Therefore the F-35 will be needed to match those capabilities. Given the numerous versions of stealth combat aircraft that have been produced by the U.S., we can assume that the F-35 will provide the edge in combat that our pilots will need to ensure their success in combat.
Returning to the F-39, I would suggest that Top Aces be responsible for the maintenance of the fleet since they already have experience with their fleet of 20 F-16s which they employ in their U.S. contract. To challenge our F-35 pilots and their systems, an upgrade in the Red Air fleet with an advanced Gen4 will be needed when their CATS contract is renewed for the F-35 training.
Only if you want a mediocre military. Buy the best. Stop the mediocrity. Rebuild the kind of military Canada deserves
Yes not get involved in this war for Dollars
See CF-5
Very different aircraft under very different circumstances.