As a former CF-18 pilot myself, I am also concerned about the current shortage of both trained fighter pilots and technicians. It is true to say two fleets would come with a personnel cost beyond that required for a single fleet, even if the total number of new fighters was the same. Two thoughts:
1). The Armed Forces, including the Airforce and fighter force must be rebuilt. We have heard discussion in the news recently related to increasing the size of the Supp and Primary Reserves to a combined 400,000 personnel. To date, there has been nothing said about the size of the regular force. To my mind, given the uncertain geopolitical circumstances and anticipated 5% GDP spending, the Government is long overdue telling Canadians how big (in numbers) an Armed Forces our annual $150B expenditure will buy. To my mind the service needs to expand from the 65,000 currently authorized today to at least 130,000 or better 200,000. In this scenario, the fighter force would consist of at least 10-12 front line squadrons in addition to training squadron(s). This force structure would require a fleet of 150-200 fighter aircraft and about 225 - 300 fighter pilots. This should be the goal. To achieve the numbers stated above, the Armed Forces will need to become an ‘employer of choice’. Pay, benefits, opportunity. Definitely challenging given the ‘hole’ we are starting in.
2) Your article does a good job highlighting the connection between annual CF-18 flight hours available with the number of pilots that the existing fleet can support. You based your figures on total flight time available per airframe and the time the CF-18 must remain in service (as the RCAF did recently when deciding how many aircraft to upgrade). With a new fleet of aircraft however, the constraints affecting flying time for training changes; the limiting factor becomes aircraft ‘availability’ (serviceability rate), cost per flight hour and budget allocated. As I see it, a real issue with the F35 is its stubbornly low availability rate (35%) and its shockingly high cost per flight hour ($49,000 CAD). To put these figures in perspective, this is an availability rate lower and a cost per flight hour much higher than the that of our tired old CF-18. Based on standard ‘rules of thumb’ these numbers suggest that our brand new fleet of F35s could only support the training of about 100 pilots - sufficient for today, but well short of what our future force requires. The exact number would depend on how many hours you wished to allocate to each pilot for training annually.
A few final thoughts…. A real advantage of the Gripen E over the F35 is its high historical serviceability rate (70-90% based on Gripen A&C) and low cost per flight hour ($14,000 CAD per flight hour). With 88 jets, a fleet of Gripen E’s could generate enough flying time to support the training of up to 200 pilots!
My feeling is that we need a mixed fleet to be able to grow the fighter force. Growing in this context means training, and training requires the ability to generate a lot of flying. Without the Grioen E in the mix, with its high availability and low cost per flight hour, we will never generate enough flying to even properly man the number of F35 squadrons currently envisaged.
More shockingly the latest CBO reports that F35A availability is about 30% FMC and about US$60,000/hr. These figures don’t include things like a new engine upgrade and ongoing Tr & Blk incremental improvements to get the jet with capabilities promised in the 2021 evaluation.
When senior USAF commanders and program officers worried in the late 2010s about the ‘F35 being the program that bankrupts the USAF’ they may not have been misguided.
An excellent article! As an advocate for a mixed fleet of fighters and having read numerous articles about same I had not even considered the challenges of pilot training and retention, required flight hours and the unsung dedication of ground crew technicians for current and future aircraft fleets.
Thanks for the interesting article, and the comments are really insightful too. The article did a great job outlining how difficult it really is to maintain an air combat capability by nicely reminding us that its not just about the equipment! Thanks.
Insightful. If a mixed fleet is chosen, would it feasible to leverage the Swedish trainng pipeline to help build the initial cadres of gripen operators and technicians? That could alleviate some of the valid personnel concerns noted.
Any fighter we get will rely on the manufacturer, and probably an existing operator, to train our initial cadre. That's just par for the course.
The central issue is that the people trained by Saab/LockMart, that initial cadre, need to leave their existing units several years before the new aircraft will be ready to deliver any new capability. That means that the CF-18 units need to retain the capacity to deliver capability during that time... and there's a not-very-high number of people where, if they're removed, those units will no longer be able to do that.
Other countries' can't really solve that for us. Not unless those countries are going to send people here to actually do the stand-up of the unit, and then be gradually displaced by people from the CF-18 units. But that's a big ask, kinda undermines our sovereignty, and isn't something I think has been done anywhere in contemporary times.
I’m not a policy maker, but what if we did things differently?
Like, rather than pull experience pers now for training, why not pull freshly trained folks and post them to Sweden on OUTCAN to live and work with the jets for a few years while things get set up here?
I asked this of spouse a while back (cause I also thought it could be sensible)… in addition to Hawks comments, there are cohesion/integration issues on how units work, specifics of how paperwork/mandatory oversight is done per Regs & safety, they follow specific Canada regs/Mil orders for maintenance, and most of this is a learning curve built into early level training.
It becomes a disruption in inter-generational handover of expertise (incl that not specific to a single plane type) and potential safety risks would be there.
- Terms and conditions for F-35 reads like a lease, not a purchase.
- Florida felon got Stellantis to fold like a cheap suit so how secure are any _Canadian jobs that depend on LockheedMartin?
Florida felon was elected not once but _Twice so US has some unresolved issues. It will be a while before US returns to past benevolence. Best to steer clear until then.
- F-35 seems to take 10 times more effort to keep flying than Gripen.
Ask pilots if they'd rather be up in the air gaining flight hours or if they'd be happy sitting on their hands waiting for their jet to come out of the shop.
- F-35 has "gee whiz" features but Gripen does the job well enough.
Canadian taxpayers drive inexpensive, reliable Civics and RAV4s that get the job done just fine so why ask them to pay for the jet equivalent of Ferraris or Lamborghinis? Also, Civics and RAV4s are built _in Canada.
- Building jets under license in Canada has been a multiplier in the past.
Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets under license _in _Canada. Canadair then also built the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ and the waterbomber that is now in so much demand these days to fight forest fires and wild fires.
Hmmm...seems Canada once had this exact same dilemma before. And we had pilots, navigators, air gunners/wireless operators being trained on a huge both variety of aircraft and ground crews to maintain them. And we built a large number of the aircraft. Often as quickly being shot down as soon as they became operational. So the old saying "we seldom learn from history" comes to mind.
If the Ukrainians, a much smaller population compared to Canada can manage to have Soviet era aircraft in the air, F 16s, Mirage's, and now Grippen's, train pilots and ground crew AND FIGHT A WAR at the same time either look at and dust off the Commonwealth Air Training Plan or adopt yet another "new" battle proven methodology from the Ukrainians. We build the Grippen's for them. They send us a training cadre of current battle tested training staff. And yes I firmly agree pay, benefits etc are also key to get today's high school kids thinking about tomorrow's F35 or Grippen pilots.
In this closing summation, there are several colleges in Canada training pilots. Give them more money to hire more staff and buy aircraftand simulators. Students get free education in exchange for a number of years RCAF service and a number of years in the RCAF reserve. Certainly cuts the basic flight training bottle neck down.
Second World War I had cousins flying Farly Battles (shot down in April 1940). A second flew Blenheim's/Boufighters/Hudson and got yanked back to Canada after commanding an anti shipping sqd in Malta. Ventures out of New Bruinswick training four engine pilots before finally retiring from Air Canada as VP of pilot standards in the 1970s or some such title. Another flew the inglorious Lysanders. As for second cousins, cousins in law Tempests, Hurricanes, Spits and Lancasters. But of course we had both the political will and a motivated population. Not a bunch of lobbyists getting pay packets in the Monday mail.
As always I greatly enjoyed reading the initial review leading to this discussion.
Um did you miss the rapid increase in recruiting and the purchase of flight training units. Oh ya what's the average age of existing pilots and the insanely long delivery time of American jets. Our guys will be gone before delivery. Pure nonsense.
The personnel issue is paramount. It’s the reason the Snowbirds are going into hibernation. And its more than just a fighter issue. Every fleet that is bringing on new aircraft faces a similar problem.
Think of the CP-140 to P-8. At least there they have a large cadre on exchange with the USN, RAF and RAAF who will return as our P-8s arrive.
We’re still transitioning from Hercs to the Kingfisher. Aircrew and techs are affected. The instructors are in place.
We’re transitioning from Hercs and Polaris to Husky MRTTs.
The basic aircrew training system to wings is transitioning to all of the FAcT aircraft. They are leased so the technician challenge is taken care of.
Aircrew and techs are needed for the MQ-9 RPAS. A new capability.
On the horizon: new choppers. Griffon replacement. And possibly trashing the Cyclone. That’s TBD.
The army and navy are getting bigger. Do we have enough airlift?
All these transitions cause personnel bottlenecks, making a second fighter stream difficult to imagine.
Again, another thoughtful, thorough examination of the fighter issue, from an angle not covered yet.
I've kept up with the discussion and the various technical arguments concerning the two fighters. And a couple of thoughts occur:
If we factor in extra refresh time for pilots during maintenance cycles, could they not be kept current on the operating systems, and any software updates for each fighter model, through expanding simulator training?
And are we distinguishing between what active, serving RCAF planners are saying, versus retired brass that are now working as paid consultants to US manufacturers? It occurs to me that ex-military folks spent several years of thror careers invested in the F35 platform discussion, before our sovreignty became an issue, and the ability to brick the F35 through us-owned software became known.
It seems to me the consultant bunch have a vested interest in the more expensive, less serviceable, higher maintenance cycle F35.
This ‘article’ is a repost from November 2025. Why shouldnt Canada want Trump’s foot of our necks? CANADA needs to move away from all this pro Trump, or American propoganda and intimidation. We need to start thinking outside of the box we have been forced to live in.
Those F-35 (16), some could be used for research and development purposes in replacing American software with Canadian Software, munitions replacement .
Sounds like you might want to start actively exploring options for living somewhere else. Negativity for its own sake is a waste of time. If you can't be part of the solution, then you really are part of the problem. And I'm ready to hear any constructive, useful thoughts from you on how to go forward with our fighter disposition. If you don't have any, then perhaps this is the wrong platform for you.
As a former CF-18 pilot myself, I am also concerned about the current shortage of both trained fighter pilots and technicians. It is true to say two fleets would come with a personnel cost beyond that required for a single fleet, even if the total number of new fighters was the same. Two thoughts:
1). The Armed Forces, including the Airforce and fighter force must be rebuilt. We have heard discussion in the news recently related to increasing the size of the Supp and Primary Reserves to a combined 400,000 personnel. To date, there has been nothing said about the size of the regular force. To my mind, given the uncertain geopolitical circumstances and anticipated 5% GDP spending, the Government is long overdue telling Canadians how big (in numbers) an Armed Forces our annual $150B expenditure will buy. To my mind the service needs to expand from the 65,000 currently authorized today to at least 130,000 or better 200,000. In this scenario, the fighter force would consist of at least 10-12 front line squadrons in addition to training squadron(s). This force structure would require a fleet of 150-200 fighter aircraft and about 225 - 300 fighter pilots. This should be the goal. To achieve the numbers stated above, the Armed Forces will need to become an ‘employer of choice’. Pay, benefits, opportunity. Definitely challenging given the ‘hole’ we are starting in.
2) Your article does a good job highlighting the connection between annual CF-18 flight hours available with the number of pilots that the existing fleet can support. You based your figures on total flight time available per airframe and the time the CF-18 must remain in service (as the RCAF did recently when deciding how many aircraft to upgrade). With a new fleet of aircraft however, the constraints affecting flying time for training changes; the limiting factor becomes aircraft ‘availability’ (serviceability rate), cost per flight hour and budget allocated. As I see it, a real issue with the F35 is its stubbornly low availability rate (35%) and its shockingly high cost per flight hour ($49,000 CAD). To put these figures in perspective, this is an availability rate lower and a cost per flight hour much higher than the that of our tired old CF-18. Based on standard ‘rules of thumb’ these numbers suggest that our brand new fleet of F35s could only support the training of about 100 pilots - sufficient for today, but well short of what our future force requires. The exact number would depend on how many hours you wished to allocate to each pilot for training annually.
A few final thoughts…. A real advantage of the Gripen E over the F35 is its high historical serviceability rate (70-90% based on Gripen A&C) and low cost per flight hour ($14,000 CAD per flight hour). With 88 jets, a fleet of Gripen E’s could generate enough flying time to support the training of up to 200 pilots!
My feeling is that we need a mixed fleet to be able to grow the fighter force. Growing in this context means training, and training requires the ability to generate a lot of flying. Without the Grioen E in the mix, with its high availability and low cost per flight hour, we will never generate enough flying to even properly man the number of F35 squadrons currently envisaged.
More shockingly the latest CBO reports that F35A availability is about 30% FMC and about US$60,000/hr. These figures don’t include things like a new engine upgrade and ongoing Tr & Blk incremental improvements to get the jet with capabilities promised in the 2021 evaluation.
When senior USAF commanders and program officers worried in the late 2010s about the ‘F35 being the program that bankrupts the USAF’ they may not have been misguided.
Thanks for your assessment
An excellent article! As an advocate for a mixed fleet of fighters and having read numerous articles about same I had not even considered the challenges of pilot training and retention, required flight hours and the unsung dedication of ground crew technicians for current and future aircraft fleets.
Thanks for the interesting article, and the comments are really insightful too. The article did a great job outlining how difficult it really is to maintain an air combat capability by nicely reminding us that its not just about the equipment! Thanks.
Insightful. If a mixed fleet is chosen, would it feasible to leverage the Swedish trainng pipeline to help build the initial cadres of gripen operators and technicians? That could alleviate some of the valid personnel concerns noted.
Any fighter we get will rely on the manufacturer, and probably an existing operator, to train our initial cadre. That's just par for the course.
The central issue is that the people trained by Saab/LockMart, that initial cadre, need to leave their existing units several years before the new aircraft will be ready to deliver any new capability. That means that the CF-18 units need to retain the capacity to deliver capability during that time... and there's a not-very-high number of people where, if they're removed, those units will no longer be able to do that.
Other countries' can't really solve that for us. Not unless those countries are going to send people here to actually do the stand-up of the unit, and then be gradually displaced by people from the CF-18 units. But that's a big ask, kinda undermines our sovereignty, and isn't something I think has been done anywhere in contemporary times.
I’m not a policy maker, but what if we did things differently?
Like, rather than pull experience pers now for training, why not pull freshly trained folks and post them to Sweden on OUTCAN to live and work with the jets for a few years while things get set up here?
Who would lead and command them when they come back?
I asked this of spouse a while back (cause I also thought it could be sensible)… in addition to Hawks comments, there are cohesion/integration issues on how units work, specifics of how paperwork/mandatory oversight is done per Regs & safety, they follow specific Canada regs/Mil orders for maintenance, and most of this is a learning curve built into early level training.
It becomes a disruption in inter-generational handover of expertise (incl that not specific to a single plane type) and potential safety risks would be there.
Points for Gripen:
- Terms and conditions for F-35 reads like a lease, not a purchase.
- Florida felon got Stellantis to fold like a cheap suit so how secure are any _Canadian jobs that depend on LockheedMartin?
Florida felon was elected not once but _Twice so US has some unresolved issues. It will be a while before US returns to past benevolence. Best to steer clear until then.
- F-35 seems to take 10 times more effort to keep flying than Gripen.
Ask pilots if they'd rather be up in the air gaining flight hours or if they'd be happy sitting on their hands waiting for their jet to come out of the shop.
- F-35 has "gee whiz" features but Gripen does the job well enough.
Canadian taxpayers drive inexpensive, reliable Civics and RAV4s that get the job done just fine so why ask them to pay for the jet equivalent of Ferraris or Lamborghinis? Also, Civics and RAV4s are built _in Canada.
- Building jets under license in Canada has been a multiplier in the past.
Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets under license _in _Canada. Canadair then also built the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ and the waterbomber that is now in so much demand these days to fight forest fires and wild fires.
I don’t think Canada can afford the per hour cost of flying the F-35s. F-35 $40,000 vs Gripen $10,000 according to published info.
Air طيزي
Great read, and appreciate the contextual analysis (as always). 🔥🔥🔥
Hmmm...seems Canada once had this exact same dilemma before. And we had pilots, navigators, air gunners/wireless operators being trained on a huge both variety of aircraft and ground crews to maintain them. And we built a large number of the aircraft. Often as quickly being shot down as soon as they became operational. So the old saying "we seldom learn from history" comes to mind.
If the Ukrainians, a much smaller population compared to Canada can manage to have Soviet era aircraft in the air, F 16s, Mirage's, and now Grippen's, train pilots and ground crew AND FIGHT A WAR at the same time either look at and dust off the Commonwealth Air Training Plan or adopt yet another "new" battle proven methodology from the Ukrainians. We build the Grippen's for them. They send us a training cadre of current battle tested training staff. And yes I firmly agree pay, benefits etc are also key to get today's high school kids thinking about tomorrow's F35 or Grippen pilots.
In this closing summation, there are several colleges in Canada training pilots. Give them more money to hire more staff and buy aircraftand simulators. Students get free education in exchange for a number of years RCAF service and a number of years in the RCAF reserve. Certainly cuts the basic flight training bottle neck down.
Second World War I had cousins flying Farly Battles (shot down in April 1940). A second flew Blenheim's/Boufighters/Hudson and got yanked back to Canada after commanding an anti shipping sqd in Malta. Ventures out of New Bruinswick training four engine pilots before finally retiring from Air Canada as VP of pilot standards in the 1970s or some such title. Another flew the inglorious Lysanders. As for second cousins, cousins in law Tempests, Hurricanes, Spits and Lancasters. But of course we had both the political will and a motivated population. Not a bunch of lobbyists getting pay packets in the Monday mail.
As always I greatly enjoyed reading the initial review leading to this discussion.
Um did you miss the rapid increase in recruiting and the purchase of flight training units. Oh ya what's the average age of existing pilots and the insanely long delivery time of American jets. Our guys will be gone before delivery. Pure nonsense.
As well as recruiting foreign trained personnel
The personnel issue is paramount. It’s the reason the Snowbirds are going into hibernation. And its more than just a fighter issue. Every fleet that is bringing on new aircraft faces a similar problem.
Think of the CP-140 to P-8. At least there they have a large cadre on exchange with the USN, RAF and RAAF who will return as our P-8s arrive.
We’re still transitioning from Hercs to the Kingfisher. Aircrew and techs are affected. The instructors are in place.
We’re transitioning from Hercs and Polaris to Husky MRTTs.
The basic aircrew training system to wings is transitioning to all of the FAcT aircraft. They are leased so the technician challenge is taken care of.
Aircrew and techs are needed for the MQ-9 RPAS. A new capability.
On the horizon: new choppers. Griffon replacement. And possibly trashing the Cyclone. That’s TBD.
The army and navy are getting bigger. Do we have enough airlift?
All these transitions cause personnel bottlenecks, making a second fighter stream difficult to imagine.
Again, another thoughtful, thorough examination of the fighter issue, from an angle not covered yet.
I've kept up with the discussion and the various technical arguments concerning the two fighters. And a couple of thoughts occur:
If we factor in extra refresh time for pilots during maintenance cycles, could they not be kept current on the operating systems, and any software updates for each fighter model, through expanding simulator training?
And are we distinguishing between what active, serving RCAF planners are saying, versus retired brass that are now working as paid consultants to US manufacturers? It occurs to me that ex-military folks spent several years of thror careers invested in the F35 platform discussion, before our sovreignty became an issue, and the ability to brick the F35 through us-owned software became known.
It seems to me the consultant bunch have a vested interest in the more expensive, less serviceable, higher maintenance cycle F35.
This ‘article’ is a repost from November 2025. Why shouldnt Canada want Trump’s foot of our necks? CANADA needs to move away from all this pro Trump, or American propoganda and intimidation. We need to start thinking outside of the box we have been forced to live in.
ELBOWS UP, CANADA. LETS MOVE ON UNITED.
🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Those F-35 (16), some could be used for research and development purposes in replacing American software with Canadian Software, munitions replacement .
why spend in a military we don’t need. other than the US attacking who the fuck would want to take over this shit hole.
Sounds like you might want to start actively exploring options for living somewhere else. Negativity for its own sake is a waste of time. If you can't be part of the solution, then you really are part of the problem. And I'm ready to hear any constructive, useful thoughts from you on how to go forward with our fighter disposition. If you don't have any, then perhaps this is the wrong platform for you.
Perhaps Canada will also have to expand their number of pilots and training when they buy those Gripens? Takes time indeed, but can be done.