{"id":99277,"date":"2025-11-26T05:00:52","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T10:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=99277"},"modified":"2025-11-25T20:22:40","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T01:22:40","slug":"the-rcaf-needs-either-f-35s-or-gripens-not-both","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2025\/11\/26\/the-rcaf-needs-either-f-35s-or-gripens-not-both\/","title":{"rendered":"The RCAF needs either F-35s or<\/em> Gripens … not both"},"content":{"rendered":"

Although the Trump provocations are a unique situation for the Royal Canadian Air Force to find itself dealing with, the long-delayed decision on what the replacement for our current CF-18 fleet can’t be realistically put off for much longer. The government has committed to paying for the first 16 aircraft of an 88-plane order, but many pundits are crying out for the government to cancel the remaining portion of the order and instead purchase different aircraft … the leading contender being the Swedish Gripen. This might be the worst of all worlds for the RCAF, in needing to support two different airframes with zero parts compatibility. This two-fleet “solution” would make life much more difficult for RCAF training and logistics, but it’d be a performative eLbOwS uP to Trump, so there’s a strong chance it’ll happen despite military and economic reality. Bryan Moir<\/a> makes the argument for the Gripen on his Substack:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Mark Carney loves the big phrases. “Build Canada strong<\/em>.” “Rewire the economy<\/em>.” “Generational investments<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

It’s good branding. But slogans don’t build nations \u2014 decisions do. And right now, one decision matters more than the rest:<\/p>\n

Will Canada assemble the Saab Gripen fighter on Canadian soil \u2014 or will we lock ourselves into permanent military dependence through the F-35?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let’s start with the truth no one in Ottawa wants to say out loud.<\/p>\n

The F-35 is a 56% aircraft in a 100% environment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The F-35 fleet’s mission-capable rate sits at 55\u201356%<\/strong>. That means a country buying 16 aircraft can expect maybe eight<\/strong> airborne on a good day. Eight jets to defend the Northwest Passage, the Arctic archipelago, and a coastline longer than Russia’s.<\/p>\n

This isn’t speculation; it’s physics, logistics, and accounting.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the United States fields 54 F-35s<\/strong> at Eielson AFB in Alaska \u2014 backed by billions in supporting infrastructure: software hubs, spares depots, rapid part cycling, and multiple layers of maintenance and training.<\/p>\n

They can sustain the F-35 in the Arctic.<\/p>\n

Canada cannot.<\/p>\n

And pretending that we can \u2014 or worse, pretending that it doesn’t matter \u2014 is not national defence. It’s denial.<\/p>\n

Gripen was designed for the world Canada actually lives in.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gripen’s core design features are the ones Canada pretends the F-35 also has:<\/p>\n