[PL1]

Carney's platform released yesterday proposes a reduction in F-35 orders and joining one of the 6th gen programs.

I am 50/50 on this because the lack of a bridge fleet (Rafales or Typhoons) could leave us quite vulnerable. But maybe that's too much detail for a political platform.

In general with these things, I always wonder about their omissions more than their commissions.

I'm not an expert. But seeing as how delayed the CF-18 replacement was, we may need to be stuck with the F-35s. Perhaps continue to look an alternate for either a future replacement, or a side-by-side fleet (with the understanding that Canada has not had a large fighter fleet in a long time). The lead time on these purchases is so long. Who knows what the political reality will be when we receive the F-35s

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not an expert. But seeing as how delayed the CF-18 replacement was, we may need to be stuck with the F-35s. Perhaps continue to look an alternate for either a future replacement, or a side-by-side fleet (with the understanding that Canada has not had a large fighter fleet in a long time). The lead time on these purchases is so long. Who knows what the political reality will be when we receive the F-35s

Exactly what I said over the last couple of pages.

We're also at a point where we don't have the luxury of time because the Hornet fleet is on the verge of falling out of the sky. So whatever public opinion is, we'll be buying F-35s. The only question is the number.

3) Our Hornets won't last long past 2030. They'll be pushing a half century old at that point. The gap between the Hornet retirement and potential Tempest EIS is too long.

Personally, I think something like a 60/40 F-35/Rafale split would be alright as long as there is a clear commitment to the FCAS program as well. Or we buy 60 F-35s, accept a gap and then immediately start taking deliveries of the GCAP. Whatever it is, it can't just be reduce the F-35 order and then do nothing. That's what people in the RCAF really fear.

 

[guavadelic]

Canadian general who recommended F-35 deal now calls for purchase of other jets​

Retired Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin, who headed the Royal Canadian Air Force from 2012 to 2015, argues that the American-built F-35 was the best fighter jet for Canada to operate in a world where alliances were anchored by the United States.

But all that has changed with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump. “Reliance on a U.S. defence umbrella, a critical factor since the end of WW2 for so many countries, is no longer guaranteed,” Blondin wrote in a March 25 post on LinkedIn. “No affected country can afford to close its eyes and hope that 2026 or 2028 elections in the US will bring everything back to ‘normal’… and not happen again. The toothpaste cannot go back in the tube.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-se...-35-fighter-jet-deal?utm_source=pocket_shared

 

[kEiThZ]

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-se...-35-fighter-jet-deal?utm_source=pocket_shared

Misleading headline. He called for a mixed fleet. And substantial expansion (150 aircraft second fleet).

“We may find for example that 36 F-35 and 150 other fighter aircraft such as Rafale or Gripen could be a better strategic, economic, and military posture while investing heavily in 6th gen developments,” he explained.

I have suggested a mixed fleet here too. Though I have suggested numbers closer to 100 aircraft total. Each of the fleets should be in the 40-60 range with the total in 100-120 range. Should be noted that Canada originally purchased 138 Hornets in the 80s. So even 120 total combat aircraft isn't some high ambition. It's basically going back to what Canada was able to do in the 90s.

Often not discussed is how behind Canada is on autonomous systems. Not just drones but Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). The USAF has argued for 7 CCAs at $30M each for every manned 6th gen fighter at $300M each. We should be aiming to have at least 1:1 ratio of F-35s and CCAs by 2035. A lot of discussions are missing this part.

Manned-Unmanned Teaming - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Admiral Beez]

Personally, I think something like a 60/40 F-35/Rafale split would be alright as long as there is a clear commitment to the FCAS program as well. Or we buy 60 F-35s, accept a gap and then immediately start taking deliveries of the GCAP. Whatever it is, it can't just be reduce the F-35 order and then do nothing. That's what people in the RCAF really fear.

Agreed. Notably, Britain’s Royal Air Force has about forty F-35Bs (co-shared with the Fleet Air Arm) and about 135 Eurofighter Typhoons. If the Brits can operate two disparate fighter types, so can we. Eurofighter is still in production, what about those over the Rafale? We could spin it into a discussion on an expanded CETA.

 

[kEiThZ]

Agreed. Notably, Britain’s Royal Air Force has about forty F-35Bs (co-shared with the Fleet Air Arm) and about 135 Eurofighter Typhoons. If the Brits can operate two disparate fighter types, so can we. Eurofighter is still in production, what about those over the Rafale? We could spin it into a discussion on an expanded CETA.

Typhoon. Tad more ITAR risk. Slightly worse performance. Lower purchase cost. Higher operating cost. Full compatibility with existing weapons inventory. Higher obsolescence risk as Italy and UK reduce support during transition to GCAP.

Rafale. Lower ITAR risk. Better performance. Higher purchase cost. Lower operating cost. Poor compatibility with existing weapons inventory. Lower obsolescence risk since France itself will operate these into the 2040s and has them as part of their nuclear triad.

GCAP. Partners (UK, Japan and Italy) are all major F-35 partners who won't care as much about ITAR. And are huge aerospace players that are very much unlikely to give us real workshare. But, this is a much more mature program and will deliver in the 2030s.

FCAS. France is substantially anti-ITAR. But Germany is not far behind. Spain is on par with our aerospace sector. We're a better fit and might get more meaningful workshare. Also helps that FCAS is less mature which means it's easier to negotiate entry.

Take your pick.

Option 1 - Mirror UK (Typhoon/GCAP)
Option 2 - Mirror Germany (Typhoon/FCAS)
Option 3 - Mirror France (Rafale/FCAS)

For me, it's number 3. Best workshare. Lowest exposure to the US. Better performance. I could be persuaded on Option 2 because of lower cost. But I'd be worried about exposure to the US and obsolescence risk.

 

[lenaitch]

Saab is apparently planning on demoing a 'Gripen Sovereign' in 2026 that will be ITAR-free. They have their work cut out for them.

(Too bad, I like the Gripen - just not for us)

 

[kEiThZ]

Saab is apparently planning on demoing a 'Gripen Sovereign' in 2026 that will be ITAR-free. They have their work cut out for them.

I have seen this on the socials and nowhere else. Not even Saab itself.

 

[kEiThZ]

https://thehub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/06-05-Mixed-Fleet-En-final.pdf

The report above reached the conclusion that in any mixed fleet scenario the total has to be 74 aircraft or higher. But that's for both fleets qualified for NORAD. If we buy a NORAD dedicated, that fleet has to be about 60 aircraft. Whatever is left will allow for supporting Europe. Basically 60 F-35s, which rarely leave Canada. And 40+ Rafales/Gripens/Typhoons which consistently have 6-9 planes deployed in Europe.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What’s replacing the Auroras? I assume Lockheed something or other, but are there any options?

 

[SubHuman]

What’s replacing the Auroras? I assume Lockheed something or other, but are there any options?

Apparently Boeing P8 Poseidon, derived from 737 NG.

Lockheed CP-140 Aurora - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Admiral Beez]

Apparently Boeing P8 Poseidon, derived from 737 NG.

Lockheed CP-140 Aurora - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sad. Imagine what the RCAF would have today if from the 1980s onwards we’d avoided US kit wherever possible. AugustaWestland Merlins (the military version of the Canadian CG’s Cormorant) instead of rubbish Sikorsky Cyclones, Panavia Tornados instead of Hornets, Short Belfasts instead of Hercules, Airbus Atlas instead Boeing Globemasters, and finally, Rafales instead of Lightnings.

 

[lenaitch]

Sad. Imagine what the RCAF would have today if from the 1980s onwards we’d avoided US kit wherever possible. AugustaWestland Merlins (the military version of the Canadian CG’s Cormorant) instead of rubbish Sikorsky Cyclones, Panavia Tornados instead of Hornets, Short Belfasts instead of Hercules, Airbus Atlas instead Boeing Globemasters, and finally, Rafales instead of Lightnings.

But that is reflecting current thinking, not thinking from even a few months ago.

The Belfast was only in production for a handful of years in the 1960s. The Herc has been in continuous production since the 1950s. Maybe Bombardier could have drawn a picture of their heavy lift offering.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I have seen this on the socials and nowhere else. Not even Saab itself.

And that’s only a problem if the US declares that somehow NATO-founding member Canada, where nearly all RCAF aircraft are thus equipped, cannot have access to US engines through SAAB. To do so would further enrage and motivate Canada, Europe and others to further decouple their military procurement from the US.

Notwithstanding France's desire for technological independence, the Rafale also relies on US tech. Has Washington ever blocked a Rafale sale?

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/rafale-american-inputs-needed

 

[kEiThZ]

Notwithstanding France's desire for technological independence, the Rafale also relies on US tech. Has Washington ever blocked a Rafale sale?

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/rafale-american-inputs-needed

The Rafale has some American parts. None critical. And none that can't be replaced by the French. The article cities the US blocking export of SCALP missiles to Egypt not aircraft. And that incident prompted substantial redesign efforts. On both the Rafale and the SCALP/Storm Shadow. Egypt has both now.

At the end of the day, the French are the only country that actively tries to get around ITAR.