Canadian Defence News

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

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.  

Well, I'm rooting for ya but (coward that I am), I would be dumping one or the other. I think both will prove challenging especially given other pending acquisitions.

I'm not an HR wiz or a fighter guy either but based on previous training and standards experience in other roles, I think you will be parking airplanes... maybe more of them than you might think. That's based only on manning BTW, we've barely scratched the surface of interoperability... I think deliberately creating challenges in that regard is worthy of sober reflection (see the video below).

It's great to be optimistic and inclusive but pilots in general and fighter pilots in particular are a pretty small slice of the recruitable demographic in Canada. Keeping recruitment and training ahead of attrition is likely going to be a bigger challenge than I think you think it will.

I'm looking forward to watching this, someone has their work cut out for them and I'm sure glad it's not me. 

Here's an F35 cockpit demo for those interested... if you watch it think shared data fusion (from multiple sources), interoperability and stealth. 

 

Edited November 22, 2025 by Venandi

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

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....

Serious question, whatever happened to the old better dead than red strategy?

This talk of 5th, 6th, 7th Gen this that and the next thing because of the threat of endless invasions forever is for the birds. If you want funding and a mandate to go put these fùckers down permanently I'm all ears.

Doesn't anyone ever plan for victory?

 

 

[John Stone]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

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....

This........

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...

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

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...

All NATO countries prioritize US interoperability they still build and design their own aircraft. You don’t have to have the exact same aircraft as the USA to be interoperable. Even the countries that bought the F35 are developing their own 6th generation aircraft, not one but TWO 6th gen designs are underway in Europe rather than joining the US NGAD program, that ought to tell you something.

 

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

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....

They share a landmass with Russia. Russia cannot and will not invade North America, it’s logistically impossible. Even if they somehow magically figured out the massively resource intensive invasion of Canada they would have to do so while winning a war on their western front in Europe as well. That’s not realistic look how they’re struggling with Ukraine alone. The Russian economy is slightly smaller than Canada’s, they couldn’t possibly pull itnoff an they know it. 
 

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

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...

That’s because SuperHornet and Gripen aren’t high-end warfighters and if you could only have one aircraft it makes sense you would want the most capable. But a mixed fleet gives you options. The Canadian military leadership always wants the shiniest most expensive US kit and they always look up to their American counterparts like they’re a cool big brother they want approval from. A mixed fleet allows them to get the approval from the cool kids and without wasting money and need I remind you F35 still has a down time of 50%. 
 

 

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, Venandi said:

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.

That and the fact that the F35 is still unreliable and costly. It’s great when it works but it’s not available half the time and it’s ridiculously costly overkill for the vast majority of real-world applications we’ve seen like chasing weather balloons, private aircraft flying too close to the G8, escorting passenger jets after 9/11, bombing ISIS and Libyan rebels, etc. Even NORAD intercepts don’t USUALLY require F35 capabilities.  
 

12 hours ago, Venandi said:

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

 

No. I will admit that F35 capabilities should be a tool in the toolbox but they’re not needed all the time or even most of the time.   A mixed fleet of with no more than half being F35s, say 66 of each type would provide a total fleet size comparable to European NATO allies and to the original 138 CF-18s we originally purchased in the 1980s   It only dwindled to 88 after accidents and cannibalisation during decades of budget cuts amd so that’s what we’ve decided to replace  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2025 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

The deal was already baked and first announced by Trudeau but Canada was just supposed to wait for the Americans before officially putting it in motion. Carney took office and said no more waiting just go. It’s that simple. He spoke to the PM of Australia beforehand and then he announced it personally with much fanfare in Nunavut, on his 4th day in office so your statement that he wouldn’t have even known about it at that time is completely false and another example of how you aren’t even aware of very public events and make up your own stories. 

 

 

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

No. I will admit that F35 capabilities should be a tool in the toolbox but they’re not needed all the time or even most of the time. 
 

Fair enough...  my position on it is simply cautionary:

I fear the cost of your toolbox will actually exceed the price you paid for the tools, that none of the tradesmen you work closely with will be able to unlock it and if even if they do they'll find the contents too big for small jobs and too small for big ones. If money and personnel weren't an issue for us I'd be onboard with it.

The fact remains that (among other things) fighters protect airspace, airspace is the domain of the rest of your Air Force, and it takes far less F35s to do that (and do it more effectively) than Gripens. That isn't dissing the Gripen either... it's a just a choice that we will have to live with for a long time. 

On the plus side, I have a shopping list of other needful things if voters ever decide to extend "new math" thinking beyond the fighter stovepipe.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

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/

Any edge of the world technology will have problems and over runs. That is what you pay to have the latest and greatest in any product. If you want to play, you have to pay.

A mixed fleet is absurd. The cost of setting up 2 airforces makes absolutely no sense at all.

That has been the major drawback with Canadian military procurement (or any government procurement). Getting the cheapest does not , in any way, satisfy the requirement, the needs and the usage of anything. You get what you pay for and cheap has never lasted or benefited us. 

 

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Serious question, whatever happened to the old better dead than red strategy?

This talk of 5th, 6th, 7th Gen this that and the next thing because of the threat of endless invasions forever is for the birds. If you want funding and a mandate to go put these fùckers down permanently I'm all ears.

Doesn't anyone ever plan for victory?

 

 

There is no "red" anymore so, "the old" makes no sense anymore.

8th, 9th 10th and so on and so on and so on. Thing is, what ever you want to call it, technology evolves quicker than we can manufacture.

Yes, both sides plan for victory but...can victory be achieved? 

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

There is no "red" anymore so, "the old" makes no sense anymore.

8th, 9th 10th and so on and so on and so on. Thing is, what ever you want to call it, technology evolves quicker than we can manufacture.

Yes, both sides plan for victory but...can victory be achieved? 

Depends on what you consider victory ............... and what you're willing to pay for it. 

Ukraine is a prime example ............... what do they want?

Freedom, sovereignty, security ....... is it worth it?

To them, obviously, yes. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The deal was already baked and first announced by Trudeau but Canada was just supposed to wait for the Americans before officially putting it in motion. Carney took office and said no more waiting

 

 

No he didn't. I doubt he'd even heard of it.  Staffers would have said "this is what we're doing btw' and he'd have said 'er ok'.  

THis is right up there with him creating an office to announce a bunch of major projects which were already happening regardless then trying to take credit for it 

He did nothing 

Edited November 22, 2025 by CdnFox

[SpankyMcFarland]

So to people with military knowledge here: F-35 only or with the Gripen? What criteria should be looked at? The cost of keeping them airborne seems to favour the Gripen. After the many threats from Trump, can we trust the Americans to support our F-35 planes and keep them working through the minor squabbles all neighbours have? I know that question would not arise with the Swedes. On the other hand, the charming US ambassador seems to be saying that the F-35s are an option we can’t refuse if we want a trade deal. 

Edited November 22, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[ExFlyer]

24 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So to people with military knowledge here: F-35 only or with the Gripen? What criteria should be looked at? The cost of keeping them airborne seems to favour the Gripen. After the many threats from Trump, can we trust the Americans to support our F-35 planes and keep them working through the minor squabbles all neighbours have? I know that question would not arise with the Swedes. On the other hand, the charming US ambassador seems to be saying that the F-35s are an option we can’t refuse if we want a trade deal. 

Canada has been in involved with the F35 development for decades. It has cost us $10 million or year every year. 

Our primary interest is Canada, and by that, North America. Yes we deploy sometimes but, we are mainly a stay at home Air Force.  

Economically, it also makes sense to buy from the US. Not just the aircraft but the maintenance and the repair and overhaul.  Having been involved in buying European aircraft and now knowing the costs and issues with shipping parts across the pong and getting engineering info from them, I would caution buying from Europpe.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

There is no "red" anymore so, "the old" makes no sense anymore.

8th, 9th 10th and so on and so on and so on. Thing is, what ever you want to call it, technology evolves quicker than we can manufacture.

The reasons for needing to evolve remains the same.

Better dead than whatever - Putin is just as bad or worse isn't he?

Oh well, if we ever invent the technology that would give us superiority I'd use it if I thought it would put an end to being on this stupid hamster wheel.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, both sides plan for victory but...can victory be achieved? 

Like John Stone says it depends on what you mean by victory. Being trapped on a endless militarization loop and with climate change threatening us it feels more like we're circling around a drain as opposed to ascending a staircase.

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The reasons for needing to evolve remains the same.

Better dead than whatever - Putin is just as bad or worse isn't he?

Oh well, if we ever invent the technology that would give us superiority I'd use it if I thought it would put an end to being on this stupid hamster wheel.

Like John Stone says it depends on what you mean by victory. Being trapped on a endless militarization loop and with climate change threatening us it feels more like we're circling around a drain as opposed to ascending a staircase.

War or armed conflict will have casualties...both sides.

Point was and is both side plan for victories. If John Stone thinks a Trump plan is victory, well so be it. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Canada has been in involved with the F35 development for decades. It has cost us $10 million or year every year. 

Our primary interest is Canada, and by that, North America. Yes we deploy sometimes but, we are mainly a stay at home Air Force.  

Economically, it also makes sense to buy from the US. Not just the aircraft but the maintenance and the repair and overhaul.  Having been involved in buying European aircraft and now knowing the costs and issues with shipping parts across the pong and getting engineering info from them, I would caution buying from Europpe.

Can we still put our faith in the Americans after Trump, though? Would a President Vance be any easier on us? I would trust the Swedes ahead of the Americans at the moment. Apparently, the Gripen is a lot cheaper to keep in the air too? Not that I know the first thing about this. 

Edited November 22, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[John Stone]

43 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

War or armed conflict will have casualties...both sides.

Point was and is both side plan for victories. If John Stone thinks a Trump plan is victory, well so be it. 

Trump is correct in stating  he can end the Ukraine-Russo war in a week - but not with his so-called Peace Proposal which is simply capitulation. 

Wonder what George Washington and the Continental Army would have thought. 

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Can we still put our faith in the Americans after Trump, though? Would a President Vance be any easier on us? I would trust the Swedes ahead of the Americans at the moment. Apparently, the Gripen is a lot cheaper to keep in the air too? Not that I know the first thing about this. 

The unfortunate thing is no one can put faith in Trump.  The fortunate thing is that Trump will be gone in 3 years.

President Vance...does that not make you quiver? LOL

The Gripen may seem cheaper but, once modifications and additions to make it North American compatible...will it really be cheaper? There are a lot of components in an aircraft, especially in the avionics but also the mechanical parts of it. The logistics of maintain the aircraft is huge and the bits ill not be made for maintained in Canada. If we only own 60 or so aircraft, it makes no sense financially or logistically to build facilities her.

The cost of Cormorant (our SAR aircraft) logistics is outrageous.  Many parts have to go back to Europe for repair, overhaul and maintenance. And the Cormorant is not anywhere near as technologically complex as a fighter aircraft. 

I am not pro American, especially in to days political climate but, I am realistic and fully understand our immediate (and in the near future) needs and that is to protect us and our sovereignty. We rarely send out fighter aircraft out of country. I think less than a dozen on our 50 year ownership.

[ExFlyer]

Just now, John Stone said:

Trump is correct in stating  he can end the Ukraine-Russo war in a week - but not with his so-called Peace Proposal which is simply capitulation. 

Wonder what George Washington and the Continental Army would have thought. 

Has he not been saying that since he became president (and even before)?   

And here we are...still no peace.

I think Putin is laughing at him every time he says that. He knows Trump is full of hot air when saying that.

[John Stone]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Has he not been saying that since he became president (and even before)?   

And here we are...still no peace.

I think Putin is laughing at him every time he says that. He knows Trump is full of hot air when saying that.

Threaten to give Ukraine 'teeth' ............. Russia will fold very quickly - at the least an Armistice.

Additionally threaten to use the 1/4 trillion $$$ frozen assets to aid / rebuild / rearm Ukraine.

China / NK / Iran are all contributing mightily to the Russian geo-conquest of Ukraine.......... largely goes unreported. 

 

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Wonder what George Washington and the Continental Army would have thought. 

Better dead than the bleak black future Trump and Putin have in mind is my guess.

[John Stone]

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The unfortunate thing is no one can put faith in Trump.  The fortunate thing is that Trump will be gone in 3 years.

President Vance...does that not make you quiver? LOL

The Gripen may seem cheaper but, once modifications and additions to make it North American compatible...will it really be cheaper? There are a lot of components in an aircraft, especially in the avionics but also the mechanical parts of it. The logistics of maintain the aircraft is huge and the bits ill not be made for maintained in Canada. If we only own 60 or so aircraft, it makes no sense financially or logistically to build facilities her.

The cost of Cormorant (our SAR aircraft) logistics is outrageous.  Many parts have to go back to Europe for repair, overhaul and maintenance. And the Cormorant is not anywhere near as technologically complex as a fighter aircraft. 

I am not pro American, especially in to days political climate but, I am realistic and fully understand our immediate (and in the near future) needs and that is to protect us and our sovereignty. We rarely send out fighter aircraft out of country. I think less than a dozen on our 50 year ownership.

I am not pro American, especially in to days political climate but, I am realistic and fully understand our immediate (and in the near future) needs and that is to protect us and our sovereignty. We rarely send out fighter aircraft out of country. I think less than a dozen on our 50 year ownership.

I laugh when I hear, 'punching above our weight' - which is what exactly?

Isn't it somewhat embarrassing to have global footprint the size of Canada and believe we can retain it thru goodwill to man??

Allies, baby ........... NATO (Article 5) was a godsend for a country the size of Canada.

Were we the good guys or were we  the naive? CANADA CANNOT AND NEVER (NEVER WILL)  COULD DEFEND IT's SOVERIGNTY 

Fk politics .......... lets get real and begin making a real contribution in  training, equipment, strategy. 

Which raises the next question, how do conventional forces prevent a nuclear holocaust. 

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Better dead than the bleak black future Trump and Putin have in mind is my guess.

Better the enemy dead or deterred ......... 

[TreeBeard]

NATO already uses a mix of fighter jets, so the interoperability argument is BS.  Gripens operate with F35s already.  
 

Several NATO countries use a mix of combat aircraft.  So that argument is rather silly.  
 

The retired general (Lawson) doing the rounds in the media pretending to be giving his expert opinion about how terrible the Gripon would be for Canada is paid by Lockheed as an “advisor”.  

Edited November 22, 2025 by TreeBeard

[ExFlyer]

54 minutes ago, John Stone said:

I am not pro American, especially in to days political climate but, I am realistic and fully understand our immediate (and in the near future) needs and that is to protect us and our sovereignty. We rarely send out fighter aircraft out of country. I think less than a dozen on our 50 year ownership.

I laugh when I hear, 'punching above our weight' - which is what exactly?

Isn't it somewhat embarrassing to have global footprint the size of Canada and believe we can retain it thru goodwill to man??

Allies, baby ........... NATO (Article 5) was a godsend for a country the size of Canada.

Were we the good guys or were we  the naive? CANADA CANNOT AND NEVER (NEVER WILL)  COULD DEFEND IT's SOVERIGNTY 

Fk politics .......... lets get real and begin making a real contribution in  training, equipment, strategy. 

Which raises the next question, how do conventional forces prevent a nuclear holocaust. 

Better the enemy dead or deterred ......... 

Wow...I am truly bewildered by your post.

You are reposting what i said??

I am not sure what you are saying or trying to say.

[ExFlyer]

44 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

NATO already uses a mix of fighter jets, so the interoperability argument is BS.  Gripens operate with F35s already.  
 

Several NATO countries use a mix of combat aircraft.  So that argument is rather silly.  
 

The retired general (Lawson) doing the rounds in the media pretending to be giving his expert opinion about how terrible the Gripon would be for Canada is paid by Lockheed as an “advisor”.  

Ok... believe what you wish.