ExFlyer Posted November 24, 2025 Report Posted November 24, 2025 (edited) 11 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said: In the interests of debate I include this link. I don’t know who CL is and whether they know anything but writing from an Institute sounds a little better. They favour the both approach. https://mackenzieinstitute.com/2025/07/why-not-both-the-question-of-canadas-next-fighter-aircraft-the-f35-or-gripen/ I read the article. The thing is, to say it is cheaper is absolutely false. Once infrastructure is built, once logistics are established, once all training aircrew and ground crew are finished, once parts and overhaul facilitates are incorporated, ... then maybe the Grippen could be, but not a given. The other thing is what the aircraft primary objective is and it is not the European theatre. The "institute" does not take any of that into consideration. EDIT...to add, the only ones talking about merged or 2 fleets is social media. No military persons want this. Military realizes the best fighter for Canada and it, requirements and missions and service is the F35. Edited November 24, 2025 by ExFlyer 2 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 24, 2025 Report Posted November 24, 2025 (edited) The only strong opinion I have on this is the trust issue. The next time Ambassador Hoekstra speaks about the F-35 and why we have no choice in the matter he should be just as bluntly confronted by somebody present on the credibility problem which has arisen between us and the US that is not of our making. One other opinion: let’s make our mind up soon and carry it through. Ditto all the other equipment we need to defend this country. All the major political parties should make such matters above politics and publicly support whatever decisions are advised by the experts. We have had too many political footballs along the way in defence procurement. Edited November 24, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland 1 Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
CdnFox Posted November 24, 2025 Report Posted November 24, 2025 8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said: I was going to post a piece essentially by Saab but they put it behind a bloomin’ paywall! That’s not the way to get your point across. Archive.ph is your friend Lets you post links too. I have to say the one thing I haven't really heard in this entire debate online or in the media is it clear definition of the role that our air force is supposed to play. Like, what's its mission specifically? What are we expecting to encounter in the next 20 years that these fighters, whatever we buy, will be expected to address? It kind of feels like what we're looking for is canada protection and the ability to intercept and patrol on one hand and the ability to operate jointly with Americans in conflict away from our country on the other. And honestly if that's the case it just really seems to me like a two plane solution makes the most sense. For patrol, intercept, protecting our own country it would seem to me that we don't need the latest and greatest fighter, but we definitely need a decent number of them. We were talking about buying 50 or 60 at 35, it doesn't seem possible that you could cover all of Canada with that few. It would be better if we went with something less sophisticated but we had enough of them to guard our country. I haven't seen any actual analysis saying exactly how many we need to do a good job of patrolling and protecting our own borders against incursion. Currently we can't even shoot down a balloon It also would make sense based on that that we had a small group of f-35s so that if we have to participate in a conflict with NATO or the Americans we can do so seamlessly. The away team if you will. And we do have to consider the other elements as well. Politically it makes no sense to be dependent on America anymore. Even if it's the best fighter it doesn't make sense. China might have the best fighter but I wouldn't suggest we would buy it from them. We just have to accept that reality And there's the jobs. SOB is offering to bring a hell of a lot of jobs to Canada. A stronger economy means more revenue and money to buy more military systems and provide more training and hire more pilots. The military does not exist in a vacuum. Maybe we would see less cuts to military in the future if it employed more people. But at the end of the day I just have never heard any military or other expert sit down and say this is how many fighters we need, this is what we're expecting those fighters to do for us, this is the threat we want to eliminate, and therefore this is why we think this fighter or that fighter or a combination of them are the best 1 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Venandi Posted November 24, 2025 Report Posted November 24, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: This guy is paid by Lockheed-Martin. 😂 If that was directed at me it's certainly not a revelation... He was a test pilot on the F35 (retired now) and is also ex RCAF... I deliberately sought out his website. Anyway, here's his bio for those who are interested: https://billieflynn.com/about/ If you think his integrity is tarnished by his occupation and background then ignore what he has to say and proceed on course. Personally, I think people who have one foot in each generation of fighters are worth listening to. If you really want a mixed fleet then go for it but most people steeped in the standards and training realm are urging caution. I'm being kind there, virtually all of them are fundamentally opposed to the idea, and with good reason IMO. If you are set on doing this I'd compare the cost of the F35 cancelation fees with the projected cost of a mixed fleet and see what comes of it. If price is the issue, maybe it's cheeper to dump the F35s altogether assuming you are ready to commit fully to the Gripen. Got nothing else for ya sir, I'll leave you to it and watch the show now Best wishes. Edited November 24, 2025 by Venandi 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted November 25, 2025 Report Posted November 25, 2025 17 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 1...They do keep it from combat operations half the time. Being worked on with no ETA for completion how come you accept that answer here do easily but not when it comes to any other government projects that are way behind schedule and way over budget? 2....Yep but still 4.5 generation and still overpriced overkill for things like chasing weather balloons and flying over the grey cup which is a big % of the job 3....No, my point is in the 2 examples you provided above there is no US option so your point isn’t valid. 4....The F35 has a huge logistical tail compared to Gripen also. And while I can’t prove it right now I believe the decision for Leos over Abrams came from politicians. The Air Force always buys American, Kingfisher and Cormorant are probably the only exceptions, with Lockheed having quickly withdrawn its c130 in the FWSAR option and Cormorant being highly politicized (and US not having a SAR helicopter in the desired size). 5. Of course they have their favourites and try to shape the outcome towards those through persuasive arguments. They want the fanciest high end warfighter naturally but i 90% of the real world applications during its service life….maybe 100%….the aircraft is not going to be doing that kind of work. I’ll say it yet again: A MIXED FLEET If this war comes the F-35s can be used. For chasing weather balloons, the Gripen is more than fine. 6.....Yeah European NATO is expanding precisely because Trump and MAGAs have hinted they may abandon Europe to its fate or at least extract a very high tribute for continued American protection. People like Tucker Carslon are openly rooting for Putin which may make it politically difficult for America to intervene in a future conflict. Right now Trump is pressuring Ukraine to accept a “peace plan” that is a Xmas gift for Putin basically demanding Ukraine’s unconditional surrender. 7....It only works half the time so just buy twice as many LOL quite the sales pitch, especially for the world’s most expensive jet. Again what I am proposing is not to replace the f35 with Gripen but to backstop it with an aircraft that can actually fly and do what we actually need it to do day to day in every situation other than a near-peer war, until a 6th generation option is available. 8....Wedgetail is dead now that USAF cancelled its order. They were supposed to be the anchor customer with 26+ aircraft. Now Australia and Korea are stuck with tiny orphaned fleets and all the costs associated just like how we ended up with an orphaned Cyclone fleet. They don’t even make the 737NG airframe anymore for commercial airlines, Boeing has just one production line to run off the existing P8 orders. Regarding P8 there was no counterpart on the 6500 airframe as an alternative to P8. Bombardier was trying to propose a preliminary design - basically just a CONCEPT - that only existed on paper and was still years away from full development much less production. Furthermore all of our allies were buying P8s and we didn’t want to be the ones operating an orphaned aircraft However this is different, now the wedgetail is the orphan and our allies are buying GlobalEyes which are or soon will be in production for Sweden, UAE, France and the NATO joint AWACS program, with Germany also likely to place an order To your question, the civilian government has final say on what gets bought, the military brass have their own preferences and interests, which they try to advocate for. Yep 1...Current CF-18 availability rates are 40 % and below....f-35 availability rates are between 50 and 60 % US wide ....Canada is waiting for block 4 upgrades which were suppose to be completed by 2026, and have been delayed which would solve a lot of the problems they are having now.. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-contract-royal-canadian-air-force-1.7487233 With Block 3F as the final build for SDD, the first major upgrade program is Block 4 which began development in 2019 and was initially captured under the Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2) program. Block 4 is expected to enter service in incremental steps from the late 2020s to early 2030s and integrates additional weapons, including those unique to international customers, improved sensor capabilities including the new AN/APG-85 AESA radar and additional ESM bandwidth, and adds Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) support.[74][75] C2D2 also places greater emphasis on agile software development to enable quicker releases.[76] The key enabler of Block 4 is Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) avionics hardware, which consists of new display, core processor, and memory modules to support increased processing requirements, as well as engine upgrade that increases the amount of cooling available to support the additional mission systems. The engine upgrade effort explored both improvements to the F135 as well as significantly more power and efficient adaptive cycle engines. In 2018, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney were awarded contracts to develop adaptive cycle engines for potential application in the F-35,[N 9] and in 2022, the F-35 Adaptive Engine Replacement program was launched to integrate them.[77][78] However, in 2023 the USAF chose an improved F135 under the Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) program over an adaptive cycle engine due to cost as well as concerns over risk of integrating the new engine, initially designed for the F-35A, on the B and C.[79] Difficulties with the new TR-3 hardware, including regression testing, have caused delays to Block 4 as well as a halt in aircraft deliveries from July 2023 to July 2024.[80][81] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II 2... then you should be a big fan of just keeping the CF-18 now and save the extra billions we spend on fighters....I mean if most of it's time will be chasing weather balloons and flying over the grey cup which is a big % of the job...and as for the weather balloons we had to use a F-22 to down it...because the F-18 was not up to the task.... And in case you did not comprehend some of my early posts " Most of Europe is preparing for the next war, estimated to be here in 5 years...And since we are Part of NATO that would include Canada, but wait China has told the world it will retake Taiwan within the next 5 years....and we are also part of that defensive pact....So we are not buying aircraft because the Air force only does occasional fly pasts and air shows.... it buys aircraft to Defend Canada, and it's foreign policy and despite our conversation, and our governments opinions, the pilots want to strap into an aircraft that would have the best chances of coming back home to their comrades and families not sure why that does not resonates with Canadians...knowing it was the cheapest bidder does not instill confidence in your equipment which reflects on your fighting abilities.... 3.... Thats not true, Americans had a frigate design of their own, as part of the Frigate replacement program, also had New Destroyers , which in reality our new frigate of choice is as large as most Destroyers...Not to mention we could have chosen Nuclear subs....which really is what we truly needed to fully patrol our artic waters...and for a country busy trying to justify spending 5 % of GDP nuclear subs would not be out of our price range... 4....There are literally thousands of aircraft flying today....by a good portion of NATO countries....so the logistical tail gets smaller because there are more spares, weapons available...Leopard tanks would have had to been approved by the government it is how the process works...Not sure what your point is here, but i'll concede the tank purchase to you, even a broken clock gets it right twice a day....both of us could give a huge list of political purchases gone wrong... Canadian air force has a long history and most of it's aircraft are not US....i would say in recent times yes, but look at these aircraft and tell me there was a better choice.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_Canada's_air_forces As for Helos US had the MV-22, CH-47F, or even the UH-60 L or M , US did not want to live up to Canada's demands for off sets....remember these are all about what the politicians want not what the military wants... 5....You keep thinking that some general only wants the shiniest equipment...for their own enjoyment....And while this may be a foreign concept but these people p[ick this equipment because they know LIVES depend on it...they are not buying construction equipment or a few new cars... they are buying Combat equipment, and they pray that it will only be used on parades and fly pasts.... But our Government has sent soldiers, airmen and naval pers into situations that put their lives in danger if you could guarantee that in the future sure F-18 are fine....but you and i can not, and young Canadians will be strapping themselves into this equipment, where the world that is at it's peak for self destruction.... The next conflict is come as you are....if you think 16 F-35 is going to make the grade in the next conflict, your mistaken...Airmen in Germany would tell us when they launched the complete fighter wing, only a 1/3 would return to be rearmed and resent out on additional missions...none were expected to return after the third sortie... those where brand new CF-18....Modern warfare is even more deadly....4.5 Gen aircraft are not going to last long with gen 5 and 6 aircraft in the skys....Don't rely on what i say, ask a fighter pilot.... 6.... Americans were tired of paying for most of the bills...there is a point that Europe took advantage of that fact including Canada...trumps actions have turn that around, Europe is investing big time, had not been for trumps actions they would still be relaxing by the pool.....look at what Trump has done for Canada, do you think we would ever exceed 2 %, let alone 5 %....and yet here we are ... 7....reliabilities rates are between 50 and 60 %, Block 4 upgrades are expected to bring those numbers way up....and it is not the worlds most expensive fighter, it sells for 80 million a copy or less....dropping even lower...Gripen cost more...and offers much less..NO what your proposing is kill the purchase of the remaining F-35 and fill those numbers with much less capable aircraft to do fly pasts, and chase balloons...And yet the Airforce is screaming to anyone that will listen NO we don not want a mixed fleet, we want a single F-35 fleet...The government wants Canadian jobs, it wants to produce and aircraft here, it wants off sets, which really is a politically charged word for kick backs...See the difference you and the government are all about saving money, while the air force is all about saving lives... 8...Yes there is a design , a Canadian one, that was a competitor for the P-8 contract and we shut it down.....of course that was before trump but that contract is already signed....and the P-8 are going to be reality.... https://www.iai.co.il/p/eli-3360-mpa https://bombardier.com/en/media/news/bombardier-defense-and-general-dynamics-mission-systems-canada-are-collaborating-deliver Yes the military is going to have their say, they will focus on what they want in they're presentations....which is in a written report....which will be read by politicians , who will be reading what offsets they will be getting and how many votes can they buy.....and in most cases they fail to provide the best equipment for the military....and occasionally they get it right, C-17, C-130, CH-47, and a few more but i could list dozens they got wrong... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted November 25, 2025 Report Posted November 25, 2025 On 11/23/2025 at 10:29 AM, BeaverFever said: Also, we’re not going to have fully operational F35s in that timeframe anyways, currently F-35 has a 50% availability rate due to glitches and extensive maintenance requirements. . Gripen is the only one who said they could start delivering fully operational aircraft in 3-5 years. Nobody knows when the F35s current glitches and reliability issues will be solved. It would take 3 to 5 years just to build the plant here in Canada, THATS a huge part of the proposal..... then there is training the staff to build it, tooling, Then they can start building aircraft, slowly at first because the work force is not experienced...and your right nobody knows today when the F-35 is going to fix all of its problems....but one thing we do know is the F-35 is 100 % more aircraft than the gripen, and while it is chasing balloons maybe....the F-35 will be another opportunity we missed out on... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted November 25, 2025 Report Posted November 25, 2025 7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: We may have a lot more years of Trumpism or Trump-flavoured policies than that. It has been deeply unnerving to watch the US turn on its allies. Being a friend close by has made us more vulnerable, not less, something unthinkable a few years ago. I get it, most Canadians feel betrayed, by the trump...But what has he really done that we as a nation did to our selves...trump has pointed a lot of problem areas out to us....and for the most part we shrugged and did the minimum necessary, increased 1000 border guards, did the same to the RCMP...Border services has said many times they are 2000 people short, the RCMP has said 3 thousand short so we really did not fix the issue , we just put another band aid on it...Our military well we all know the story there....we have starved them of funding to the point they can't buy spare parts for it's equipment....PMQ's or married housing was built inn 1957, some of them don't have working bathrooms, or clean drinking water, and the rent is the same as those on civy street....Some Infra structure is CONDEMNED....not fit for use, and still military persons working in them.... His threats are meaningless...off the deep end, meant to scare us into doing something , anything....I mean every US president has asked Canada to get it's military in order for decades...and we smile , and under our breaths say FU charlie brown... well trump is telling us, not asking us and that what got so many pi$$ed off, but some times you need to kick someone in the a$$....to get them moving....Why do you think Justin father purchased Leopard tanks, and CF-18 he was threaten to do so or pack his bags in Germany... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BeaverFever Posted November 25, 2025 Author Report Posted November 25, 2025 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: 1...Current CF-18 availability rates are 40 % and below....f-35 availability rates are between 50 and 60 % US wide ....Canada is waiting for block 4 upgrades which were suppose to be completed by 2026, and have been delayed which would solve a lot of the problems they are having now.. That’s outdated. Block 4 has been delayed a couple of times since then and is now delayed until at least 2031 with some capabilities not delivered until 2033. It is already $6Bn over budget and counting and planned capabilities are being removed. F-35 Block 4 upgrade delayed until at least 2031: GAO The long awaited F-35 modernization effort is delayed at least another two years since the congressional watchdog's last estimate, and a total of at least five years from its original timeline. WASHINGTON — The Pentagon now anticipates the F-35’s Block 4 modernization won’t be complete until 2031 at the earliest, a five-year delay from its original timeline, even as the department rescopes the effort to include fewer capabilities than originally envisioned, according to a new report by a congressional watchdog. The latest estimate, published in a Government Accountability Office reporttoday, is two years later than the last published projection of 2029 in May 2024. The F-35 Joint Program Office is currently reorganizing the F-35’s Block 4 modernization and Technology Refresh 3 into a new subprogram due to a 2023 congressional mandate, which sought to improve execution of those efforts in light of continued cost increases and schedule delays. (Technology Refresh 3 includes a package of hardware and software upgrades necessary to support Block 4, which include upgrades to weapons, communications equipment and electronic warfare systems, among other technologies.) “According to program officials, the new Block 4 major subprogram will have fewer capabilities, will experience schedule delays, and will have unknown costs until the program office finishes developing its cost estimate,” the GAO stated. … While the program office told the GAO it could not lay out exactly which technologies would be part of Block 4, any change that would rely on a separate upgrade to the F-35’s engine and power management system will be deferred to a later date, as the F135 engine core upgrade will not be in production until at least 2031. “While the Block 4 subprogram will not be dependent on upgrading the engine, engine core upgrade delays would likely contribute to more delays with delivering post–Block 4 capabilities,” the GAO said. “In May 2024, we reported that post–Block 4 capabilities and mission systems that the program expected to deliver in 2029 would need the new engine upgrades. Since then, the program revised its time frames for delivering those post–Block 4 capabilities that are dependent on these upgrades to 2033.” https://breakingdefense.com/2025/09/f-35-block-4-upgrade-delayed-until-at-least-2031-gao/ 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: 2... then you should be a big fan of just keeping the CF-18 now and save the extra billions we spend on fighters....I mean if most of it's time will be chasing weather balloons and flying over the grey cup which is a big % of the job...and as for the weather balloons we had to use a F-22 to down it...because the F-18 was not up to the task.... No because I’m not a fan of fighters that unavailable half the time, as the F-35 also is. 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: And in case you did not comprehend some of my early posts " Most of Europe is preparing for the next war, estimated to be here in 5 years...And since we are Part of NATO that would include Canada, but wait China has told the world it will retake Taiwan within the next 5 years....and we are also part of that defensive pact....So we are not buying aircraft because the Air force only does occasional fly pasts and air shows.... Again, a MIXED FLEET means we could contribute some F35s to a high end conflict while recognizing that even then we will still have fighters at home to chase weather balloons that don’t need to be F35s. We actually don’t have a defensive pact with Taiwan and while I don’t want to see China invade it, I wouldn’t spend Canadian blood or treasure to fight China over it. Even USA doesn’t recognize Taiwan as an independent country, the west is in an awkward position there, it was recognized as part of China until the communists took over on the mainland and we didn’t want them to conquer that island because it theoretically threatens the nearby islands USA had conquered in its own military campaigns. But China has a more legitimate claim to Taiwan than USA does to Guam. But I digress. 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: 3.... Thats not true, Americans had a frigate design of their own, as part of the Frigate replacement program, also had New Destroyers , which in reality our new frigate of choice is as large as most Destroyers...Not to mention we could have chosen Nuclear subs....which really is what we truly needed to fully patrol our artic waters...and for a country busy trying to justify spending 5 % of GDP nuclear subs would not be out of our price range... The US Constellation Class Frigate program you’re referring to is based on the highly successful French-Italian FREMM design, it is not a US design. And Nuclear subs were not on offer from anyone and are out of our price range even at 5% defence budget. Not to mention the Canadian Patrol Submarine project was already well underway before Carney made the recent 5% pledge The last time Canada considered nuclear submarines from UK, US sabotaged the deal 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: 4....There are literally thousands of aircraft flying today....by a good portion of NATO countries....so the logistical tail gets smaller because there are more spares, weapons available. From what I can tell the worldwide F35 fleet is numbers 1,230, of which most are American. About 200-300 are non-American which would grow to as high as 500 on future orders including Canada. That is still a big fleet but my point is that the F35 is a hangar queen that requires a lot of high end maintenance with sophisticated equipment. That’s a big tail. And we don’t get stockpile our own spares. USA controls and distributes the spare parts and decides who gets them and how many they can have. So we have to kneel at America’s feet and say “please sir may I have some more?” Same with access to the critical flight data files that can only be stored on US controlled servers and software updates and depot level maintenance which can only be performed in US facilities. Now imagine that in a scenario where Trump or his successor have decided Putin can “do whatever the hell he wants” with a European country and forbids anyone from getting in the way by cutting off their F35s. F35 is a vehicle for US domination of its allies disguised as a gift. It’s a trojan horse 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: 5....You keep thinking that some general only wants the shiniest equipment...for their own enjoyment....And while this may be a foreign concept but these people p[ick this equipment because they know LIVES depend on it...they are not buying construction equipment or a few new cars... they are buying Combat equipment, and they pray that it will only be used on parades and fly pasts.... A MIXED FLEET in this case lets you have the right tool for the right job instead of just having to use the most expensive high powered tool for every job even when it’s a waste of resources and only works half the time 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: nd it is not the worlds most expensive fighter, it sells for 80 million a copy or less....dropping even lower...Gripen cost more. F35B is the most expensive, to be fair that is not the version we are buying But Gripen doesn’t cost more especially when you factor operating and lifecycle costs, Gripen is the lowest cost 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: NO what your proposing is kill the purchase of the remaining F-35 and fill those numbers with much less capable aircraft to do fly pasts, and chase balloons...And yet the Airforce is screaming to anyone that will listen NO we don not want a mixed fleet, we want a single F-35 fleet...The government wants Canadian jobs, it wants to produce and aircraft here, it wants off sets, which really is a politically charged word for kick backs... I would keep up to half the fleet F35 which is all the that we would need for a high end war fighter in a future conflict. No, offsets are not kickbacks by any stretch 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: Yes there is a design , a Canadian one, that was a competitor for the P-8 contract and we shut it down.....of course that was before trump but that contract is already signed....and the P-8 are going to be reality.... It was on paper only, not fully vetted no prototype, no testbed, no full size mockup, it was a thought piece only that was not ready for production. But even if it was it would have been an orphan like the wedgetail is now because everyone had signed up for P8 already Yeah P8 is reality there’s no credible alternative but it’s parts software and maintenance are not US-controlled like F35 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: Americans were tired of paying for most of the bills... No they weren’t that’s how they maintained dominance and control US doesn’t want equal partners, they wanted subordinates who buy more US equipment and participate more in America’s wars of choice. Even Europeans spent most of their defence dollars in US 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: t would take 3 to 5 years just to build the plant here in Canada, THATS a huge part of the proposal..... then there is training the staff to build it, tooling, Then they can start building aircraft, slowly at first because the work force is not experienced... From what I understand the initial batch would come from Sweden while Canadian production is tooling up and then we would be making orders for whatever is left plus the 150 Ukraine has ordered. Quote
John Stone Posted November 25, 2025 Report Posted November 25, 2025 18 hours ago, ExFlyer said: "Threaten to give Ukraine 'teeth'"...Trump already did than and the next day Putin bombed Ukraine. Now there is a proposal...with 28 points to agree on? Gimme a break...oh and giving Putin Donbass and Crimea??? Putin laughs at everything Trump and his tribe do and say. 18 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: I was going to post a piece essentially by Saab but they put it behind a bloomin’ paywall! That’s not the way to get your point across. RE: Trump already did that??? - ever heard of the Kansas City Shuffle?. .........but I digress, Ur joking, right?. Anyone less refined would advise you to 'keep up' OMG Quote
ExFlyer Posted November 25, 2025 Report Posted November 25, 2025 38 minutes ago, John Stone said: RE: Trump already did that??? - ever heard of the Kansas City Shuffle?. .........but I digress, Ur joking, right?. Anyone less refined would advise you to 'keep up' OMG Once again, what are you saying? Trump has, several times , met with or discussed with Putin a peace proposal and zero has happened. Zero. Putin walks away and laughs and continues to bomb Ukraine. 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
John Stone Posted November 25, 2025 Report Posted November 25, 2025 28 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Once again, what are you saying? Trump has, several times , met with or discussed with Putin a peace proposal and zero has happened. Zero. Putin walks away and laughs and continues to bomb Ukraine. RE: Trump has, several times , met with or discussed with Putin a peace proposal and zero has happened Concur Quote
ExFlyer Posted November 25, 2025 Report Posted November 25, 2025 1 hour ago, John Stone said: RE: Trump has, several times , met with or discussed with Putin a peace proposal and zero has happened Concur Ok, then what are you trying to say with your post I responded to? "RE: Trump already did that??? - ever heard of the Kansas City Shuffle?. .........but I digress, Ur joking, right?. Anyone less refined would advise you to 'keep up' OMG". ????? 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
BeaverFever Posted November 25, 2025 Author Report Posted November 25, 2025 (edited) Here’s a good article by Wesely Wark, one of this country’s top security and intelligence experts … The F-35 decision: Canada getting pregnant in the Norway way? https://open.substack.com/pub/wesleywark/p/the-f-35-decision-canada-getting?r=3adb8b&utm_medium=ios Back in 2008, Norway, a staunch NATO ally with a history of close defence cooperation with the US, faced the same dilemma that currently confronts the Canadian government and the RCAF—whether to buy the US F-35 fighter jet or the Swedish JAS Gripen to replace its aging fleet of F-16s. (Our CF-18s are even more aged). The decision was surrounded by intense political controversy, strong campaigns by both aircraft companies (Lockheed-Martin and Saab), and from both governments, anti-US sentiment on the socialist/labour flank of Swedish politics, and efforts to measure the relative economic benefit to Norway. While the decision went in favour of purchasing the F-35 on technical aircraft capability grounds (though the analysis was never released in public), we do have some partial insights into the US governmental advocacy campaign, thanks to the mass Wikileaks/Julian Assange release of US diplomatic cables (“Cablegate”) in 2010-2011. One such diplomatic cable, sent by the US ambassador in Oslo, on September 22, 2008, argued that the Norwegian government decision had entered a critical phase, that public perception was shifting against the F-35, and that high-level US government advocacy was needed.[1] The US ambassador was concerned that any Norwegian decision to buy the Saab Gripen could have a domino effect on pending decisions on fighter jet acquisition by other European countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, and could have very negative consequences for bilateral relations, political, economic and military, between the US and Norway. Another revealing cable from Oslo, one that came in the aftermath of the Norwegian decision to choose the F-35 in November 2008, tried to chronicle the decision and offer some lessons for the US.[2] It mentioned a series of visits by US officials in the Fall of 2008 “to make the public case on why the F-35 is an excellent choice, and the private case on why the choice of aircraft will have an impact on the bilateral relationship.” The embassy noted that the Norwegian government decision in favour of the F-35 was accompanied by “unusually strong language (for domestic political reasons) to say the Gripen was uncompetitive.” In a “very relaxed meeting” between the US ambassador and the Norwegian Deputy Defence Minister, the Norwegian official was noted as saying it would be “very helpful” if the US Government publicly stressed the strength of the F-35 and confirmed “there was no USG political pressure to buy the plane.” The ambassador’s cable stressed that the eventual success of the US campaign to sell the F-35 to Norway reflected the technical capabilities of the plane “despite perceived weaknesses in other areas such as the industrial [benefits] package” and followed consistent and sustained US public and private advocacy. He noted that the US campaign tried to walk a careful line between outright pressure on Norway and more diplomatically couched reminders to the Norwegian government of the potential impact of the decision on the bilateral relationship. The ambassador noted that the private advocacy campaign was “much more forceful,” presumably meaning more iron fist and less velvet glove. Is Canada about to get pregnant in its fighter jet decision in the Norway way? Will some combination of the alleged technical superiority of the F-35 for various classified military scenarios, never to be made public, over the Saab Gripen, combined with a public and behind the scenes pressure campaign, bend the decision in favour of going through with the full purchase of 88 F-35 jets (36 more than were bought by Norway)? Canada may not get pregnant in the Norway way, but the circumstances are remarkably similar. (Though don’t expect a Canadian “cablegate” with a glimpse behind the scenes). We just get the very public Pete Hoekstra. [3] What Norway never considered was the possibility of buying both competitor planes and running a mixed fleet of military aircraft. Why not? The reason is straightforward. Norway’s military needs are distinctly different, and much less complex, than those that face Canada. They operate in one well-defined geographic theatre against one identified foe. A mixed fighter jet fleet may be a Canadian strategic necessity in a way it never was for the Norwegians. There is no question that operating such a mixed fleet would be a complex endeavour that would put a strain on pilot supply, maintenance capabilities, infrastructure and basing, and supply chains. Yes, Canada has done it before, but in an age of much less sophisticated, simpler jet fighters. Also in an age when we had more air force pilots and ground crew. But is there a path to a responsible mixed fighter fleet? A former RCAF commander, Yves Blondin, believes there is. He thinks Canada should go ahead with the full purchase of the F-35, despite his concerns around US control of software upgrades and weapons and sensor systems for the planes, but layer in a subsequent purchase in the mid-2030s of a second, European fighter jet like the Saab Gripen. [4] He makes this argument by balancing NORAD air defence needs with a “credible expeditionary capability in Europe.” It’s a beguiling option (although a full f-35 fleet plus an additional complement of expeditionary aircraft would present a very significant, maybe bank-breaking, expenditure). Cost issues apart, the big problem with the Blondin vision of a mixed fleet is that it scrambles the options. If Canada wanted to create a distinctive air expeditionary force to operate in Europe with NATO, the best plane for that purpose would be the F-35, which is already or soon to be operated by key NATO allies. The Saab Gripen, on the other hand, is well suited, arguably better-suited than the F-35 to fulfill an air defence and air surveillance/sovereignty assertion mission in Canada. Faster, longer-range, more serviceable, cheaper, more operationally deployable and reliable in northern airspace, and with a much better industrial benefit package for Canada. Also, it carries all the lethality and sensor capabilities needed. Buy the Saab Gripen in sufficient numbers to fulfill Canada’s air defence needs. Buy the F-35 in sufficient numbers to make a credible expeditionary arm for NATO. Let the experts decide what those numbers should be and how to layer them in on a timetable as we retire the long-serving CF-18 (“Hornets”). Forget US arguments that Canada must fly the same plane as the US for NORAD purposes. We don’t now and never really have (not since the Korean war). Arguments about inter-operability concerns lack all credibility. Part of the challenge of maintaining a mixed fleet could be solved by jointly basing an F-35 expeditionary air arm with a NATO ally. Norway would be an excellent candidate. They are the first country to complete the full acquisition of their F-35 fleet, all 52 of which are now available to the Norwegian air force. They have nearly a decade of experience with the plane. They have available space at Norwegian air bases, with hardened shelters, for a Canadian contingent. Maintenance and infrastructure costs, training and exercising, could be shared. Win-win. Get pregnant that Norway way. Meanwhile, if the Saab offer to build an assembly capacity in Canada is forthcoming, go for it. The industrial benefits package from the F-35 is paltry (as the Norwegians discovered ). Building the Saab Gripen in Canada would not be the Avro Arrow redux, but something much more tried, true, realistic and needed. [1] US Embassy Cable, Oslo, “Norway Fighter Purchase: High-Level Advocacy Needed Now,” September 22, 2008, https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO522_a.html [2] US Embassy Cable, Oslo, “Lessons Learned from Norwegian Decision to Buy JSF,” December 16, 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20250323202410/https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html [3] Tonda MacCharles, Toronto Star, “Future of trade talks depend on Canada’s purchase of American fighter jets, U.S. ambassador says,” November 23, 2025, https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/future-of-trade-talks-depends-on-canadas-purchase-of-american-fighter-jets-u-s-ambassador/article_fd0daf89-2d9b-4b96-b391-bf9b6cf1aff8.html; CTV News, “U.S. Ambassador calls F-35s ‘phenomenal success’ as Canada considers Swedish fighter jets,” November 20, 2025, https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/f-35s-are-phenomenal-success-us-ambassador-says-as-canada-considers-swedish-fighter-jets/ [4] David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, “Canadian General who recommended F-35 deal now calls for purchase of other jets,” March 27, 2025, https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canadian-general-recommended-f-35-080012093.html; Yves Blondin and Justin Massie, “The idea of a mixed fleet of Canadian fighter jets should not take flight,” November 17, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadian-fighter-jets-f-35-mixed-fleet-defence/ Edited November 25, 2025 by BeaverFever 1 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted November 26, 2025 Report Posted November 26, 2025 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Here’s a good article by Wesely Wark, one of this country’s top security and intelligence experts … There is no question that operating such a mixed fleet would be a complex endeavour that would put a strain on pilot supply, maintenance capabilities, infrastructure and basing, and supply chains. Yes, Canada has done it before, but in an age of much less sophisticated, simpler jet fighters. Also in an age when we had more air force pilots and ground crew. But is there a path to a responsible mixed fighter fleet? A former RCAF commander, Yves Blondin, believes there is. He thinks Canada should go ahead with the full purchase of the F-35, despite his concerns around US control of software upgrades and weapons and sensor systems for the planes, but layer in a subsequent purchase in the mid-2030s of a second, European fighter jet like the Saab Gripen. [4] He makes this argument by balancing NORAD air defence needs with a “credible expeditionary capability in Europe.” It’s a beguiling option (although a full f-35 fleet plus an additional complement of expeditionary aircraft would present a very significant, maybe bank-breaking, expenditure). Cost issues apart, the big problem with the Blondin vision of a mixed fleet is that it scrambles the options. If Canada wanted to create a distinctive air expeditionary force to operate in Europe with NATO, the best plane for that purpose would be the F-35, which is already or soon to be operated by key NATO allies. The Saab Gripen, on the other hand, is well suited, arguably better-suited than the F-35 to fulfill an air defence and air surveillance/sovereignty assertion mission in Canada. Faster, longer-range, more serviceable, cheaper, more operationally deployable and reliable in northern airspace, and with a much better industrial benefit package for Canada. Also, it carries all the lethality and sensor capabilities needed. Buy the Saab Gripen in sufficient numbers to fulfill Canada’s air defence needs. Buy the F-35 in sufficient numbers to make a credible expeditionary arm for NATO. Let the experts decide what those numbers should be and how to layer them in on a timetable as we retire the long-serving CF-18 (“Hornets”). Forget US arguments that Canada must fly the same plane as the US for NORAD purposes. We don’t now and never really have (not since the Korean war). Arguments about inter-operability concerns lack all credibility. Part of the challenge of maintaining a mixed fleet could be solved by jointly basing an F-35 expeditionary air arm with a NATO ally. Norway would be an excellent candidate. They are the first country to complete the full acquisition of their F-35 fleet, all 52 of which are now available to the Norwegian air force. They have nearly a decade of experience with the plane. They have available space at Norwegian air bases, with hardened shelters, for a Canadian contingent. Maintenance and infrastructure costs, training and exercising, could be shared. Win-win. Meanwhile, if the Saab offer to build an assembly capacity in Canada is forthcoming, go for it. The industrial benefits package from the F-35 is paltry (as the Norwegians discovered ). Building the Saab Gripen in Canada would not be the Avro Arrow redux, but something much more tried, true, realistic and needed. [ Quote But is there a path to a responsible mixed fighter fleet? A former RCAF commander, Yves Blondin, believes there is. He thinks Canada should go ahead with the full purchase of the F-35, despite his concerns around US control of software upgrades and weapons and sensor systems for the planes, but layer in a subsequent purchase in the mid-2030s of a second, European fighter jet like the Saab Gripen. [4] I've posted this 3 times now, i guess no one watched it....Your author is taking Gen Blondin words out of context...and twisting them to support his augment.....He is not in favor of a mixed fleet he thinks "it would be disastrous" Lets keep in Mind 88 aircraft is just for the defense of Canada, there is NO extras to perform other NATO missions, and doing so takes away aircraft from the defense of Canada...He adds that if you want an expeditionary capability then purchasing another fleet would be acceptable... Quote There is no question that operating such a mixed fleet would be a complex endeavour that would put a strain on pilot supply, maintenance capabilities, infrastructure and basing, and supply chains. Yes, Canada has done it before, but in an age of much less sophisticated, simpler jet fighters. Also in an age when we had more air force pilots and ground crew. Again he mentions Why it is not a good idea to have two fleets, we are short on Fighter pilots and to transition to F-35 and then the gripen is a huge mistake and would put incredible pressure on existing pilot numbers....not to mention maintenance pers, purposeful built infra structure already being constructed....supply chains etc etc...He is not the only EX air force commander to say the same stuff....I know you've already written that off as all he wants is the shiniest stuff...Almost like he cared about his pilots, or like any other boss out there in the world....I mean i would take the word of an top security and intelligence expert who must have years of experience flying and commanding air units in Battle........over an ex fighter pilot and commander of the air force any day....WTF were they thinking.... And the idea of putting our F35 in Norway is on the fringe....in order to do that we would need to increase the amount purchased, from 88 to what ever number you want to place in any European country... Anyways, the liberal government is going to do what ever it wants to, whether it makes sense or not, mean while back home in Canada gripen is the song they sing because F-35 is an American machine and right now we hate anything American....we would prefer to cut off our nose despite our face, they will use the offsets which are exactly that brides and pick that over capabilities.............and in typical fashion the military will stand to attention and say yes sir... F-35 already provides over 5000 Canadian jobs today, and not in 30 years from now.......I stand with the people that are tasked with this countries security period. I trust their opinions on the topic more than any other source.....i trust them with my life, Something Canadians have failed to do so for decades...Canadians don't mind them dying for their country, but don't trust them to do what's best for the nation.....and in some cases trust our politicians more... Anyways i do enjoy our chats beaver, i just don't see anyone changing their minds on this topic so I'm going to call it a day.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Venandi Posted November 26, 2025 Report Posted November 26, 2025 (edited) 10 hours ago, Army Guy said: Your author is taking Gen Blondin words out of context And then some... it sure wasn't an accident. 10 hours ago, Army Guy said: i just don't see anyone changing their minds on this topic so I'm going to call it a day.... My sentiment as well; I'm now looking forward to watching how the entrenched positions play out over time. The appetite for a mixed fleet (the worst possible option IMO) is intriguing... I didn't expect it. Even though I share concerns about US control over virtually all proprietary aspects of the fleet, I'd observe that this was already accepted, already decided on, and already put to bed only to be reopened again for what seems to be political reasons. Don't know if you've seen this article... I was actually surprised to find it on CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-gripen-dnd-competition-9.6992167 It's the sort of thing I only expected to see long after we started slogging down an overgrown path under a heavy load on a hot day... with no water. Given the time frame a mixed fleet is possible and doable, I just think people have vastly underestimated the cost, effort, and end result that's associated with it. And when they do, the folks who defend it now will be far less inclined to do so when the bills are itemized and the unintended consequences revealed. Given the list of new acquisitions and a mixed fighter fleet, I think they'll balk a bit and that we'll end up parking a few airframes and playing catchup longer than expected. Edited November 26, 2025 by Venandi 1 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 26, 2025 Author Report Posted November 26, 2025 (edited) 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: I've posted this 3 times now, i guess no one watched it....Your author is taking Gen Blondin words out of context...and twisting them to support his augment.....He is not in favor of a mixed fleet he thinks "it would be disastrous" Lets keep in Mind 88 aircraft is just for the defense of Canada, there is NO extras to perform other NATO missions, and doing so takes away aircraft from the defense of Canada...He adds that if you want an expeditionary capability then purchasing another fleet would be acceptable... Again he mentions Why it is not a good idea to have two fleets, we are short on Fighter pilots and to transition to F-35 and then the gripen is a huge mistake and would put incredible pressure on existing pilot numbers....not to mention maintenance pers, purposeful built infra structure already being constructed....supply chains etc etc...He is not the only EX air force commander to say the same stuff....I know you've already written that off as all he wants is the shiniest stuff...Almost like he cared about his pilots, or like any other boss out there in the world....I mean i would take the word of an top security and intelligence expert who must have years of experience flying and commanding air units in Battle........over an ex fighter pilot and commander of the air force any day....WTF were they thinking.... And the idea of putting our F35 in Norway is on the fringe....in order to do that we would need to increase the amount purchased, from 88 to what ever number you want to place in any European country... Anyways, the liberal government is going to do what ever it wants to, whether it makes sense or not, mean while back home in Canada gripen is the song they sing because F-35 is an American machine and right now we hate anything American....we would prefer to cut off our nose despite our face, they will use the offsets which are exactly that brides and pick that over capabilities.............and in typical fashion the military will stand to attention and say yes sir... F-35 already provides over 5000 Canadian jobs today, and not in 30 years from now.......I stand with the people that are tasked with this countries security period. I trust their opinions on the topic more than any other source.....i trust them with my life, Something Canadians have failed to do so for decades...Canadians don't mind them dying for their country, but don't trust them to do what's best for the nation.....and in some cases trust our politicians more... Anyways i do enjoy our chats beaver, i just don't see anyone changing their minds on this topic so I'm going to call it a day.... It’s not misrepresenting Blondin at all. Wark accurately reflected Blondin’s perspective. Blondin says he is not arguing for a mixed fleet, he’s arguing for 2 fighter fleets, because USA can’t be trusted. Well isn’t that just semantics compared to what Wark and I have suggested? He’s still saying we should acquire BOTH aircraft. And then he says all 88 F35 should come first and then 50-60 4.5 gen aircraft from Europe second That’s just a difference numbers and timing. Like Wark, I’m indifferent to the exact combination and timing and wiling to leave that part to the RCAF to figure out. I have always felt that 88 is too few. At the end of the day he’s still suggesting Canada operate both fighters to de-risk from USA. So call it a “mixed fleet” or call it “2 fleets” we are in agreement that Canada should have more than 88 planes and should operate both fighters Canada should buy F-35s but plan for European fighter jets next, former general says https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-should-buy-f-35s-but-plan-for-european-fighter-jets-next-former/ Edited November 26, 2025 by BeaverFever Quote
Army Guy Posted November 26, 2025 Report Posted November 26, 2025 6 hours ago, BeaverFever said: It’s not misrepresenting Blondin at all. Wark accurately reflected Blondin’s perspective. Blondin says he is not arguing for a mixed fleet, he’s arguing for 2 fighter fleets, because USA can’t be trusted. Well isn’t that just semantics compared to what Wark and I have suggested? He’s still saying we should acquire BOTH aircraft. And then he says all 88 F35 should come first and then 50-60 4.5 gen aircraft from Europe second That’s just a difference numbers and timing. Like Wark, I’m indifferent to the exact combination and timing and wiling to leave that part to the RCAF to figure out. I have always felt that 88 is too few. At the end of the day he’s still suggesting Canada operate both fighters to de-risk from USA. So call it a “mixed fleet” or call it “2 fleets” we are in agreement that Canada should have more than 88 planes and should operate both fighters Canada should buy F-35s but plan for European fighter jets next, former general says https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-should-buy-f-35s-but-plan-for-european-fighter-jets-next-former/ He may have said 2 fleets after 88 , F-35 are purchased and delivered and established ...So no mixed fleet at this time....USA is the back bone of NATO and NORAD, and while our politicians are having issues with Trump, Canadian military personal don't have these issues there is still respect and trust between our closet allied. Yes he has suggested we eventually "Could" purchase 2 fleets of aircraft, but not until we purchase 88 F-35...The other two European aircraft have scored much higher than the gripen, but much more expensive, and yet NO Canadian politician is fighting for them, but rather an aircraft that has placed last in 3 separate competitions, because of the offsets That have been offered...I mean lets face it politicians don't score votes just by purchasing equipment unless they get offsets... Now in my opinion ( which counts for nothing in the lager picture. )instead of chasing the last placed aircraft thats scored poorly in the competitions, IF it is decided that a second fleet ( expeditionary fleet) is required, i would purchase more F-35, as the 88 is the minimum required for the defense of Canada, This would increase the amount of offsets and jobs in Canada we original as US official have already said.....we originally purchased 138 F-18 to defend Canada and to have an expeditionary fleet in Germany......or run another competition strictly with 4.5 gen aircraft in mind, The US have been talking about pairing F-35 with F-15EX which would be used as a missile truck while F-35 controlled the engagement... F-15EX out matches the gripen in every category including price... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Legato Posted November 26, 2025 Report Posted November 26, 2025 Not kept up with this topic but.... was there not some talk about the F35 having just one engine and therefore not suitable for Canadian operations. So why now the Saab offering, just a single engine fighter with no stealth capabilities. Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 27, 2025 Author Report Posted November 27, 2025 3 hours ago, Legato said: Not kept up with this topic but.... was there not some talk about the F35 having just one engine and therefore not suitable for Canadian operations. So why now the Saab offering, just a single engine fighter with no stealth capabilities. I haven’t heard that in a long time. Modern engines are now reliable enough to make the single engine argument less relevant. Plus USAF has been operating F-16s in Alaska for decades without significant issues. 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 27, 2025 Author Report Posted November 27, 2025 (edited) 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: He may have said 2 fleets after 88 , F-35 are purchased and delivered and established ...So no mixed fleet at this time....USA is the back bone of NATO and NORAD, and while our politicians are having issues with Trump, Canadian military personal don't have these issues there is still respect and trust between our closet allied. Yes he has suggested we eventually "Could" purchase 2 fleets of aircraft, but not until we purchase 88 F-35...The other two European aircraft have scored much higher than the gripen, but much more expensive, and yet NO Canadian politician is fighting for them, but rather an aircraft that has placed last in 3 separate competitions, because of the offsets That have been offered...I mean lets face it politicians don't score votes just by purchasing equipment unless they get offsets... Now in my opinion ( which counts for nothing in the lager picture. )instead of chasing the last placed aircraft thats scored poorly in the competitions, IF it is decided that a second fleet ( expeditionary fleet) is required, i would purchase more F-35, as the 88 is the minimum required for the defense of Canada, This would increase the amount of offsets and jobs in Canada we original as US official have already said.....we originally purchased 138 F-18 to defend Canada and to have an expeditionary fleet in Germany......or run another competition strictly with 4.5 gen aircraft in mind, The US have been talking about pairing F-35 with F-15EX which would be used as a missile truck while F-35 controlled the engagement... F-15EX out matches the gripen in every category including price... As Wark points out, the F-35 should be the expeditionary fleet because that’s where the high end war fighting is. The “defence of Canada” fleet is just constabulary air policing and can be done by Gripens just fine. The F35 doesn’t provide much extra value in that role So we can have 2 fleets and shouldn’t put off Gripens if we can get them sooner while we wait for F-35s. F15EX is even more expensive than F35, not Canada’s bag. The problems with the evaluation that show the F35 so far ahead is that 1) The F35 doesn’t actually perform as well in real life as the evaluation assumes 2) The valuation only considers MAXIMUM capability. We all agree that in an outright war against a near peer like Russia F35 is the best and Gripen is going to be challenged but that’s not the only scenario we should be considering. We can all agree that Ford Mustang is faster than a Honda civic, but if your family only races cars on the weekend and mostly just commuted to work and runs local errands around town on the weekdays you don’t need 2 Ford Mustangs, 1 Mustang and 1 Civic is more than fine. Especially if the Mustang is in the shop half the time for design flaws with no firm resolution date. So to disqualify the Civic as an option because it’s an inferior racecar misses the whole point. Edited November 27, 2025 by BeaverFever 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted November 27, 2025 Report Posted November 27, 2025 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: As Wark points out, the F-35 should be the expeditionary fleet because that’s where the high end war fighting is. The “defence of Canada” fleet is just constabulary air policing and can be done by Gripens just fine. The F35 doesn’t provide much extra value in that role So we can have 2 fleets and shouldn’t put off Gripens if we can get them sooner while we wait for F-35s. F15EX is even more expensive than F35, not Canada’s bag. The problems with the evaluation that show the F35 so far ahead is that 1) The F35 doesn’t actually perform as well in real life as the evaluation assumes 2) The valuation only considers MAXIMUM capability. We all agree that in an outright war against a near peer like Russia F35 is the best and Gripen is going to be challenged but that’s not the only scenario we should be considering. We can all agree that Ford Mustang is faster than a Honda civic, but if your family only races cars on the weekend and mostly just commuted to work and runs local errands around town on the weekdays you don’t need 2 Ford Mustangs, 1 Mustang and 1 Civic is more than fine. Especially if the Mustang is in the shop half the time for design flaws with no firm resolution date. So to disqualify the Civic as an option because it’s an inferior racecar misses the whole point. Yes the F-15EX is more expensive, but your getting much more capabilities and more aircraft, More range , faster, more weapons, etc etc...everything that others have have touted the gripen being better than the F-35....and can be used as both a fighter and Strike aircraft , one that has combat experience with zero losses...And while F-15EX is more expensive i'm pretty sure if Canada did order them it would be a much lower price.... That is not how this combat fighter will be used...The next conflict will be come as you are...todays assembling lines would not be able to keep up with losses....16 F-35 are not going to contribute much....and then they will use those gripens in a high intensive conflict...Canada has a long record of using low end equipment in dangerous situations...that's the problem and the number one complaint from the military, they don't want a sub par fleet be it expeditionary or not...and if so why look at an aircraft that placed in last place every competition...why not the rafale or Typhon...as a secondary fleet if required...Aircraft that would have a much higher survivability rate.. This concern needs to come over the price tag...Canada has a long history of keeping equipment well past it's expiration date....F-18 will be closer to 50 years old upon their retirement...That should speak volumes to everyone in the room....Canada also has a long history of buying from the cheapest bidder, because life is not the top factor...price is... https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/newest-f-35-f-15ex-contracts-are-set-but-how-much-do-they-cost-exclusive/ Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
TreeBeard Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 American track record of new futuristic military technology is really bad lately. The F-35 could go the way of their new ships. State of the art is fine, if it has a proven track record. Otherwise, like the F-35 currently, it’s just the best on paper. The F-35s are an expensive risk. Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 28, 2025 Author Report Posted November 28, 2025 5 hours ago, Army Guy said: 16 F-35 are not going to contribute much.... Im not advocating for 16. I think it needs to be much more than that, just not all 88. Maybe 66 of each for example or 60 F35 and 40 Gripen, whatever makes sense. Quote
User Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 3 hours ago, TreeBeard said: American track record of new futuristic military technology is really bad lately. The F-35 could go the way of their new ships. State of the art is fine, if it has a proven track record. Otherwise, like the F-35 currently, it’s just the best on paper. The F-35s are an expensive risk. This has to be one of the more simpleton assessments I have seen. The F-35 has been in service since 2015 and is slated to be one of the most common fighter aircraft in use globally in the next decade. Picking one completely unrelated failure in technology to compare it against is not a logical argument. 1 1 1 Quote
John Stone Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 All this debate is reminiscent of the Ross rifle debate, WWI Canadian Corp. The Ross, although a fine sporting rifle was woefully inadequate for the rigours of trench warfare - largely due to it's tendency to jam at the most inopportune moment? Canada's minister of defense at the time, Sir Sam Hughes- seated thousands of miles away from the battlefield, argued that the rifle was being unfairly vilified ............... by those Canadian Division soldiers tasked with using it and dying in droves. Cost, politics notwithstanding - there is really only one voice that should be listened to and that is those that are the most knowledgeable. Political hacks / industry are not the most knowledgeable, gentlemen. Trump will not be in power forever, on the other hand it is reasonable to expect that as limited as our defense contribution has been, Canada WILL be allied with the US military - NATO or not? Listen to the experts! Yes, they are self-serving - their men? I applaud their willingness to talk truth to power! For the senior brass at the Royal Canadian Air Force, there is no question that they want the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning as the replacement for their aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighter planes. They have wanted the F-35, and only the F-35, since this fifth-generation stealth strike fighter was first on the drawing board in 1997. I shudder to think how political the River Class Destroyers will become - Oh, Canada! 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.