Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

 

Lockheed Martin Canada’s CMS 330 Selected by German Navy

Lockheed Martin Canada joined theCanadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) and Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defence (BVMg) in celebrating the selection of its Canadian-developed Combat Management System 330 (CMS 330) for the German Navy Surface Fleet.  

The government-to-government contract, projected to exceed a value of $1 billion,reinforces defence procurement cooperation between Canada and Germany and highlights Canada’s leadership in naval systems innovation. Through their common use of CMS 330, German and Canadian navies will achieve an enhanced level of collaboration that will strengthen the security of both countries.

“This landmark agreement between Canada and Germany showcases the strength of Canadian innovation, as well as our commitment to global security. The selection of Lockheed Martin Canada’s CMS 330 by the German Navy is a testament to our world-class defence technologies and the value of government-to-government partnerships. Canada is committed to supporting Canadian companies as they diversify their markets—strengthening the Canadian defence industrial base—and to keeping well-paid jobs in Canada,” said Maninder Sidhu, Minister of International Trade.

Developed in Canada and trusted by the Royal Canadian Navy and allies for more than 25 years, CMS 330 integrates shipboard sensors, weapons and communications to provide real-time situational awareness and coordinated decision-making. The system’s open architecture ensures it remains adaptable to evolving operational requirements in a complex global security environment. The use of CMS 330 across allied navies enhances interoperability and reduces training and sustainment costs.

“We are honoured that CMS 330 has been selected by the German Navy, and we appreciate the trust that the German Ministry of Defence has placed in Canadian expertise,” said Glenn Copeland, General Manager, Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems. “This milestone demonstrates the global export potential of Canadian technology and showcases how our team continues to deliver on decades of Canadian innovation that enhances customer mission effectiveness and allied cooperation.”

This new contract will create economic opportunities for both Canadian and German suppliers, industry partners, and defence and technology firms. Lockheed Martin Canada will work closely with German industry, beginning with prime subcontractor Hensoldt, to integrate the system into the German fleet, and will collaborate with Canadian and German academic and research institutions to foster innovation and skills development in both countries.

https://canadiandefencereview.com/lockheed-martin-canadas-cms-330-selected-by-german-navy/

[John Stone]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

A mixed fighter fleet with more than 88 total fighters and with non-US engines in the Gripen is probably the best option in the short term. The RCAF currently operates about dozen different aircraft types not including trainers and with the exception of the CF-18 era always operated a mixed fighter fleet. Many NATO allies and countries much poorer than us do also. 
 

Lets look at most of the operational taskings our fighters have been assigned recently 

- Chasing suspicious balloons 

- Chasing a dumbass cessna pilot who flew too close to the G8 summit 

- Guarding Canadian cities against hijacked airliners 

- Overflying sporting events and doing airshow demonstrations 

-Even routine NORAD intercepts don’t really require “high end” fighter capabilities …..CURRENTLY….

The Gripen could easily do these at a fraction of the operating cost of the F-35 and with a much higher readiness rate. F35 has an available rate of 50% due to unresolved bugs and maintenance complexity, some of which can only be done in USA while Gripen is 85% available. 

But a mixed fleet is only a short term solution as the Gripen doesn’t have a long future ahead of it being a 4.5 gen fighter. We need to get on board a non-US 6th generation project like FCAS or GCAP

Most would likely agree that a purchase of this nature and judging from history, is most definitely NOT a short term decision.  Look at the Navy - 35 y/o ships as an example. 

Canada needs to get this decision right.  

[BeaverFever]

15 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Most would likely agree that a purchase of this nature and judging from history, is most definitely NOT a short term decision.  Look at the Navy - 35 y/o ships as an example. 

Canada needs to get this decision right.  

Well we can’t guarantee ehat a future government will do decades in the future anyway but as long as there is a transition to 6th generation fighters at some point we will be ok. We don’t HAVE to send top-tier fighters to a foreign war and the need for them in the arctic is really mostly just to maximize “US interoperability” 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

A mixed fighter fleet with more than 88 total fighters and with non-US engines in the Gripen is probably the best option in the short term. The RCAF currently operates about dozen different aircraft types not including trainers and with the exception of the CF-18 era always operated a mixed fighter fleet. Many NATO allies and countries much poorer than us do also. 
 

Lets look at most of the operational taskings our fighters have been assigned recently 

- Chasing suspicious balloons 

- Chasing a dumbass cessna pilot who flew too close to the G8 summit 

- Guarding Canadian cities against hijacked airliners 

- Overflying sporting events and doing airshow demonstrations 

-Even routine NORAD intercepts don’t really require “high end” fighter capabilities …..CURRENTLY….

The Gripen could easily do these at a fraction of the operating cost of the F-35 and with a much higher readiness rate. F35 has an available rate of 50% due to unresolved bugs and maintenance complexity, some of which can only be done in USA while Gripen is 85% available. 

But a mixed fleet is only a short term solution as the Gripen doesn’t have a long future ahead of it being a 4.5 gen fighter. We need to get on board a non-US 6th generation project like FCAS or GCAP

Nobody within the forces is recommending a mixed fleet , it is mentioned why they are not in several of the U tubes i posted....it offers no advantages at all at this point in time, with no funding for training , lack of pilots, not to mention they are already constructing infra structure tailored for the F-35...

Can ANYONE in Canada guarantee what these aircraft are used for....What you leave out is what our F-18's have ben used for, Part of NATO's European defense, doing combat air patrols over Iraq, and the gulf, attacking Iraqi naval ships, participating in operations in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Kosovo and many more....

Lets talk about what combat operations the gripen has taken part off.. playing a role in NATO defence....

The F-35 has done multiple combat sorties against Iran, one of the world most heavily defended countries in the world, Iraq, Syria, Not including any of the US operations....And not one combat loss recorded....I ask you which one would you want your children or grand kids to strap up in....

Canada has a long history of keeping equipment well past it's due date, F-18 is a prime example and is coming up on 50 years before being fully replaced....Gen 4.5 aircraft are already outdated with Gen 6 aircraft coming on line....even with so many gen 5 aircraft...Canada might get in on a gen 6 aircraft, but like the f-35 it will be very mature before we buy in, and then other nations will be getting a gen 7 aircraft...

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Well we can’t guarantee ehat a future government will do decades in the future anyway but as long as there is a transition to 6th generation fighters at some point we will be ok. We don’t HAVE to send top-tier fighters to a foreign war and the need for them in the arctic is really mostly just to maximize “US interoperability” 

Your 100 % RIGHT, we don't have to buy the any aircraft really, we could just upgrade our F-18 fleet once again.........I mean it would fit in with Canada's long held look at its military, it is cheaper to bury them than it is to buy modern equipment...

I mean look back through history we have purchased most of it is not top tier....and yet our politicians have never taken that into account when sending our troops over seas...the result is dead military members....If lives do matter then spend the extra dollar and bring our men and women home....

if your as cheap as Canada is you get a highway of hero's.....Our government has continued to send our troops into danger without even considering the equipment they do it in.....and Canadians don't give a f**** either...or we would not be allowing our government to send our troops any where with out the proper equipment...

[taxme]

On 11/18/2025 at 7:15 PM, Army Guy said:

More about the gripen...and what the Air command feels like about these aircraft...

 

 

Canada should just become a neutral country. Just saying. 

[taxme]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Sorry you’re a putin-supporting anti-vax chemtrail conspiracy whackjob, quit polluting this thread with your ignorance 

The Russian or communist Chinese air forces can wipe out our Canadian air force in probably one hour. We would be a lot better off if we would put more money towards getting rid of all of the so called tens of thousands of illegal refugees that we have here in Canada today. Canada should just become a neutral no war country. Just saying. 😁

 

[ExFlyer]

23 hours ago, Army Guy said:

What we have to date is a lot of words and promises...but i agree this is a the first time in decades the military has a hope in getting fixed, but we are still full of a lot of promises...

Major Canadian military contracts this year include

a new combat management system for the German navy, the second phase of the Counter Uncrewed Aircraft System (CUAS) project, and a trilateral icebreaker collaboration with the US and Finland. Additionally, the government launched the Defence Investment Agency to manage procurement, and a $100 million night-vision contract for the Canadian Forces is being restarted due to an alleged bias against U.S. firms. 

 

 

Recent and ongoing major contracts

 

• Counter Uncrewed Aircraft System (CUAS) Project: A contract worth over $169 million was awarded to CACI, Inc. – FEDERAL for the second phase of this project. It will equip Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members on Operation REASSURANCE with technology to counter drones, integrated onto new light armoured tactical vehicles.
• Combat Management System (CMS 330): Canada is a party to a deal with Germany for the sale of its CMS 330 combat management system, which is projected to exceed $1 billion. The agreement will strengthen military cooperation and allow both navies to share technology and data.
• Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE Pact): Canada signed a statement of intent with the United States and Finland to collaborate on Arctic and polar vessels. This includes sharing resources and technology to design, build, and market these vessels.
• Submarine Procurement: Canada has sent bidding instructions to ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) of Germany and Hanwha Ocean Co. Ltd. of South Korea for the construction of the navy's new submarines.
• F-35 Fighter Jets: Canada aims to acquire new fighter jets to replace its aging CF-18 fleet. The program is still in development, but potential suppliers are pitching their services and technologies to Ottawa. 

•  

 

Other relevant announcements

 

• Defence Investment Agency (DIA): A new agency was launched in October 2025 to manage defense procurement, with a focus on bringing Canadian industry into the process.
• Night-Vision Binoculars: The Canadian government was told to re-bid a $100 million contract for military night-vision binoculars after an earlier contract was reportedly biased against U.S. firms. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Major Canadian military contracts this year include

a new combat management system for the German navy, the second phase of the Counter Uncrewed Aircraft System (CUAS) project, and a trilateral icebreaker collaboration with the US and Finland. Additionally, the government launched the Defence Investment Agency to manage procurement, and a $100 million night-vision contract for the Canadian Forces is being restarted due to an alleged bias against U.S. firms. 

 

 

Recent and ongoing major contracts

 

• Counter Uncrewed Aircraft System (CUAS) Project: A contract worth over $169 million was awarded to CACI, Inc. – FEDERAL for the second phase of this project. It will equip Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members on Operation REASSURANCE with technology to counter drones, integrated onto new light armoured tactical vehicles.
• Combat Management System (CMS 330): Canada is a party to a deal with Germany for the sale of its CMS 330 combat management system, which is projected to exceed $1 billion. The agreement will strengthen military cooperation and allow both navies to share technology and data.
• Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE Pact): Canada signed a statement of intent with the United States and Finland to collaborate on Arctic and polar vessels. This includes sharing resources and technology to design, build, and market these vessels.
• Submarine Procurement: Canada has sent bidding instructions to ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) of Germany and Hanwha Ocean Co. Ltd. of South Korea for the construction of the navy's new submarines.
• F-35 Fighter Jets: Canada aims to acquire new fighter jets to replace its aging CF-18 fleet. The program is still in development, but potential suppliers are pitching their services and technologies to Ottawa. 

•  

 

Other relevant announcements

 

• Defence Investment Agency (DIA): A new agency was launched in October 2025 to manage defense procurement, with a focus on bringing Canadian industry into the process.
• Night-Vision Binoculars: The Canadian government was told to re-bid a $100 million contract for military night-vision binoculars after an earlier contract was reportedly biased against U.S. firms. 

Correction on that last one, the tribunal found t the NVG bid was biased TOWARDS US firms. 
 

I posted a few recent defence deals with European defence firms that are the direct result of the federal government’s initiatives.
 

What the anti-liberals do in their criticism is try to take advantage of the fact an entire project plays put over time, it isn’t conceived, planned and executed in a single day.  So they go through this set of arguments : “Oh its just talking, there’s no signed agreement , oh they signed an agreement but that’s just words on paper, nothing is being done, oh somethings being done but no thanks to them, someone else must’ve made those plans before” 

The submarine project is moving at an extremely fast pace for example, we are already down to our final 2 candidates. A $6Bn Arctic OTH radar deal was signed just 4 days after Carney took office back in March. Critical minerals and energy projects are getting announced across the country left right and centre. 

On 11/19/2025 at 2:03 PM, CdnFox said:

They haven't done anything.

Not true see my post above   You also predicted in this very thread that the budget wasn’t going to have any new money for defence even though that’s all they have been talking about since March it’s literally the centrepiece of their entire platform and strategy that they’ve been traveling the country and the world to showcase. 

Edited November 21, 2025 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Not true see my post above  

Carney didn't do that. Nobody even claims he did or tries to give him credit. I'm sure some of the government offices bought Staples too but they're not saying that carney shares the credit

Quote

 You also predicted in this very thread that the budget wasn’t going to have any new money for defence

No I didn't. The hell are you talking about? Closest I came to that is saying the budget doesn't contain anything for submarines. Which it doesn't. I never said the budget wouldn't have any new money for military spending ever

But I have said is that the military spending won't go to what you think it will for the most part. For example included in that military spending is about a million dollars a year in salary for one gentleman who is a banker and never served in the military to help the military with the procurement process. Yeah, great. 

 

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Carney didn't do that. Nobody even claims he did or tries to give him credit. I'm sure some of the government offices bought Staples too but they're not saying that carney shares the credit

The $1Bn deal for the German Navy was a government-to government deal so there’s no denying the government did that.  The $6Bn Radar deal carney signed on his 4th day in office….sure that was clearly vetted and ready to launch but we were apparently supposed to wait for the US military to place their order first and follow their lead and someone decided we were going to lead. As for the other European defence deals sure they could have “just happened all on their own” but considering Carney and his cabinet have been going back and forth across Europe drumming up defence business and signing up for ReArm Europe and signing us up as front runner for ReArm Europe’s new banking headquarters,  it’s likely not a coincidence 

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

The $1Bn deal for the German Navy was a government-to government deal so there’s no denying the government did that.  

And?

This may shock you but there are more people in the government than Carney. And this will discussion will have been going on longer than carney has been in office. I assume I don't need to explain that to you that procurement of an entire military system doesn't take place in 6 months.

The fact that it was government to government doesn't mean that carney had a single thing to do with it

I thought you said you understood how military procurement worked?

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

 The $6Bn Radar deal carney signed on his 4th day in office

So you think he got into office and within 4 days he made a deal happen for a 6 billion dollar radar system.

That's how you think procurement works.

And I think I see the problem here. I had given you a decent amount of credit for understanding the basics of how government works and it appears that I was wildly optimistic

Carney didn't do any of this. Sorry to burst your bubble and very disappointed at your lack of knowledge

[Venandi]

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Nobody within the forces is recommending a mixed fleet , it is mentioned why they are not in several of the U tubes i posted....it offers no advantages at all at this point in time, with no funding for training , lack of pilots, not to mention they are already constructing infra structure tailored for the F-35...

A mixed fleet is probably the worst option possible.

I think manning the new UAV/UAS and P8 will present enough challenges without spinning up two separate fighter streams. How people don't see and acknowledge some of this stuff is one of life's little mysteries. I don't think they realize how difficult it is to out-train an existing personnel deficit whilst introducing new equipment without so much as a body of corporate knowledge on it.

It's taken years but we've arrived at a point where balancing the recruiting, attrition and operational tempo equation (whilst out-training deficits) is really problematic. Managing this requires a five year look ahead horizon and tweaking anticipated requirements as circumstances change. Hard to do that when you're treading water, border line hypothermic and sharks are nibbling at your toes.   

From what I hear recruiting is barely keeping up with attrition... throw in a combination of intake delays, extended OJT periods, and OTU backlogs and the time to produce a combat ready pilot is now to the point that if I could do it again.... I wouldn't.  That's pretty huge BTW so It's worth reading that last sentence twice.

At 24 I was an aircraft captain and mission commander, fast forward to now and I'd be finished university with basic training completed and doing a year long french course whilst awaiting a slot at PFS.

It can be done... but I sure wouldn't want to be in charge of fixing this.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Venandi

[John Stone]

21 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Well we can’t guarantee ehat a future government will do decades in the future anyway but as long as there is a transition to 6th generation fighters at some point we will be ok. We don’t HAVE to send top-tier fighters to a foreign war and the need for them in the arctic is really mostly just to maximize “US interoperability” 

Foreign war? The strategy should be to be seamless in the contribution to what is really important - and that is the survival of NATO. Let's cut to the chase - it is critically important for Canada to be in lock-step with the U.S. wrt to defense platforms. The ability to have a (dare I say) Continental defense policy in training, platforms and technology cannot be over emphasized. OMG! 

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This may shock you but there are more people in the government than Carney. And this will discussion will have been going on longer than carney has been in office. I assume I don't need to explain that to you that procurement of an entire military system doesn't take place in 6 months.

LOL I knew you were going to go there!   You realize that you’ve gone from “so far he hasn’t accomplished anything which means he’s a failure” to saying “he can’t possibly take credit for these accomplishments he hasn’t been in office long enough”.  Also if you’re not giving Carney credit then you’re giving Trudeau credit?  Will you pick a narrative and stick with it?  

Also billion dollar government-to government deals aren’t the product of junior bureaucrats or military officers they’re negotiated at the highest levels of political government and lonand behold Carney and his cabinet have been frequent visitors to Germany specifically over submarines, Bombardier aircraft, critical minerals and more. You’ll recall that Carney signed a partnership agreement with Germany just this summer. Germany had been looking at multiple systems for it’s naval fleet but the decision to select Canada’s system is likely a result of agreements and relations Carney has been promoting around the world.  He’s not negotiating one-off sales deals he’s negotiating comprehensive political and economic relationships that span multiple industrial sectors and political issues.  He’s not negotiating transactions he building deep relationships  

Oh look there he goes again :

 

 Oh look there’s another one just today: 

Carney secures $70-billion investment pledge from UAE as he concludes visit
 

Prime Minister Mark Carney says Ottawa is working on a $1-billion project aimed at expanding critical minerals processing capacity in Canada, while securing the equivalent of $70-billion in investment from the United Arab Emirates.

The announcements come as Carney concluded a visit to Abu Dhabi, which focused heavily on trade amid concerns about the war in Sudan.

“I’m pleased that an agreement valued over $1-billion is in the process of being finalized,” Carney said in a Friday morning speech to the Canada-UAE Business Council.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-carney-canada-uae-investment-summit-abu-dhabi/?login=true

[BeaverFever]

20 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Foreign war? The strategy should be to be seamless in the contribution to what is really important - and that is the survival of NATO. Let's cut to the chase - it is critically important for Canada to be in lock-step with the U.S. wrt to defense platforms. The ability to have a (dare I say) Continental defense policy in training, platforms and technology cannot be over emphasized. OMG! 

You can be interoperable without having to buy only US gear on US terms where US profits handsomely and has us over a barrel on how and when it can be used. Our NATO allies in Europe produce lots of quality kit that is interoperable with USA. We don’t need to be “in lock step” just to be interoperable.
 

As far as continental defence is concerned, which is separate discussion from “survival of NATO, nobody is invading North America. There is a SECURITY and SOVEREIGNTY threat, not an invasion threat. And to be honest, USA is also part of that sovereignty threat.  A mixed fleet of F35 and Gripens can do the NORAD job just fine the vast majority of the time. 

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you think he got into office and within 4 days he made a deal happen for a 6 billion dollar radar system.

That's how you think procurement works.

And I think I see the problem here. I had given you a decent amount of credit for understanding the basics of how government works and it appears that I was wildly optimistic

Carney didn't do any of this. Sorry to burst your bubble and very disappointed at your lack of knowledge

When will you learn to read to the end of the sentence?  FFS I clearly mentioned that he did NOT make that deal in 4 days. But he jumped the queue because we were originally supposed to wait for US to sign their deal with Australia first and then piggyback off of it and the Americans were reportedly unaware of our move. Probably this move been under consideration by the Trudeau government, which Carney had been advising since September but Carney pulled the trigger on it. 

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

A mixed fleet is probably the worst option possible.

I think manning the new UAV/UAS and P8 will present enough challenges without spinning up two separate fighter streams. How people don't see and acknowledge some of this stuff is one of life's little mysteries. I don't think they realize how difficult it is to out-train an existing personnel deficit whilst introducing new equipment without so much as a body of corporate knowledge on it.

Yeah well attraction and retention is a big problem that needs to be solved regardless of whether we have 2 fighter streams or not.  While adding another stream adds to the problem it does so only incrementally and we can leverage allied training programs and private contractors for training. We can find a path forward without having to acquiesce to being America’s little biotch. 

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

You can be interoperable without having to buy only US gear on US terms where US profits handsomely and has us over a barrel on how and when it can be used. Our NATO allies in Europe produce lots of quality kit that is interoperable with USA. We don’t need to be “in lock step” just to be interoperable.
 

As far as continental defence is concerned, which is separate discussion from “survival of NATO, nobody is invading North America. There is a SECURITY and SOVEREIGNTY threat, not an invasion threat. And to be honest, USA is also part of that sovereignty threat.  A mixed fleet of F35 and Gripens can do the NORAD job just fine the vast majority of the time. 

Armies don't invade anymore - this ain't D-day WWII. 

The art of the deal is deterrence - suppose the dumb bastards could have used that before WWII began. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

When will you learn to read to the end of the sentence?  FFS I clearly mentioned that he did NOT make that deal in 4 days. But he jumped the queue because we were originally supposed to wait for US to sign their deal with Australia first and then piggyback off of it and the Americans were reportedly unaware of our move. Probably this move been under consideration by the Trudeau government, which Carney had been advising since September but Carney pulled the trigger on it. 

Anything and you credited him with the deal. So you're mad because the start of your sentence doesn't match the end of your sentence and it's somehow my fault

Carney didn't do any of that. Carney did not get into the office and decide in 4 days that he was going to be able to jump the queue etc etc. Carney would not have had any knowledge that the deal was even happening four days after he took office.

And even now you are sitting there saying that the work had been done before carney got in under Trudeau but you're trying to credit Carney for pulling the trigger on it which is absolutely not true.

Carney has actually done nothing. To be clear this deal would have been done whether carney was in power or not. Carney had no bearing on it at all. 

As we move forward through the next year there may very well be things that we can say carney did or wouldn't have happened if carney wasn't there but at this point in time that's not where we're at and certainly not over something that happened 4 days after he arrived

Give your head a shake

[Army Guy]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

You can be interoperable without having to buy only US gear on US terms where US profits handsomely and has us over a barrel on how and when it can be used. Our NATO allies in Europe produce lots of quality kit that is interoperable with USA. We don’t need to be “in lock step” just to be interoperable.
 

As far as continental defence is concerned, which is separate discussion from “survival of NATO, nobody is invading North America. There is a SECURITY and SOVEREIGNTY threat, not an invasion threat. And to be honest, USA is also part of that sovereignty threat.  A mixed fleet of F35 and Gripens can do the NORAD job just fine the vast majority of the time. 

Being interoperable with the US has Always been our first priority...for lots of reasons, NATO demands it, AMMO resupply, munitions be it aircraft or ships, Spare parts, if you operate a small fleet such as the gripen parts are going to be an issue where as F-35 has thousands of aircraft in service and parts are readily available for dozens of nations. 

Our continental defense is on NATO plate and they have been trying to get Canada to keep its promises for decades now, the fact that none Artic nations within NATO are responsible for NATO's northern defense such as UK, etc....is telling...

Right now European NATO countries are preparing for the next war NOW, some have adopted conscription, massive military investments, they are telling the world within the next 5 years Russia will attack...SO you or i can not say for certain that Canada will not be attacked, in some form or another. That's not NATO trying to scare non euro countries into action they are spending and investing at levels not seen before...Out military plans for all threats including invasion....

Nobody from Air command is pushing a mixed fleet, and certainly not a gen 4.5 aircraft....if that was the case we would have went with the super hornet much more capable than the gripen....both are outdated when dozens of counties are investing in gen 5 and 6 aircraft as we speak...might as well be flying kits....Nobody from Air command is pushing the gripen....that's our politicians and others, and Canadians which have a knot on for trump....which in this case over rides what the air force wants or what pilots pick out for survival...

I have to ask do you let your wife pick out your power tools, that's what it is like when politicians pick out military equipment....

[Venandi]

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

We can find a path forward without having to acquiesce to being America’s little biotch. 

I've been struggling to understand all this.

Is your position based on the fact that you don't like Trump and/or want to keep the US at arms length or is it that you sincerely believe a mixed fleet is the best option for Canada? I get the concerns about US control of parts, logistics, software, access and the like... even though I don't like it, it's not a deal breaker for me though.

Instead of a hybrid fleet, how would you feel about Gripens across the board, ie no F35s at all?

The reason I ask is that the decision to maintain a mixed fleet should come with significant advantages that clearly offset the costs associated with doing so... especially in such a small force. We currently have about 55 active (combat ready) fighter pilots in Canada and pilot recruiting, training and retention is a huge (not to mention expensive) challenge already.

53 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I have to ask do you let your wife pick out your power tools, that's what it is like when politicians pick out military equipment....

I was going to include a different analogy but I like your's better...  

 

Edited November 22, 2025 by Venandi

[TreeBeard]

The F35 has been plagued with problems and cost overruns.  It has issues in cold weather.  We have cold weather.  It has huge maintenance costs.  We don’t need those.  

 It’s not worth having that albatross around our necks.  A mixed fleet, with limited F35s already slated for purchase, would be the way to go. 

The Gripen will be much more cost effective. 

 

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

Edited November 22, 2025 by TreeBeard

[Venandi]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

A mixed fleet, with limited F35s already slated for purchase, would be the way to go. 

I don't see how a mixed fleet could reasonably be considered "the way to go" for Canada. There are a lot of pretty swept up senior officers who have struggled to align the recruitment, retention, attrition and operational tempo equation with limited success to date IMO. They seem to be aligned with a "don't go mixed philosophy" as well.

Then again, I'm not a fighter guy and have no depth in that stovepipe. But... if we were talking about roles that I am familiar with, I would offer the same cautionary advice on mixing aircraft types.   

Are you opposed to an all Gripen fleet?

Edited November 22, 2025 by Venandi

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Venandi said:

I don't see how a mixed fleet could reasonably be considered "the way to go"

We’re stuck with a handful of F-35s.  It’s the best of a bad situation to pivot to the Gripen. 
 

3 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Are you opposed to an all Gripen fleet?

No, but I think we’re stuck with the 16 we purchased in 2023.  Maybe we could lease them out to Cuba or something, but we’re going to be getting some F-35s.