The F-35 or the Gripen?

Personally I would prefer Canada buy the Super Hornet but that is not an option.

In all of the arguments around which aircraft to buy the key issue is always, "which aircraft has the greater capabilities?" Proponents of the F-35 indicate that it is the more capable aircraft of the two and they are correct.

Unfortunately, that is the wrong question. The question is which aircraft can best meet all of the operational needs the Canadian Air Force? 

The F-35 cannot meet all of the requirements. This particular airframe was developed for a specific mission, namely the deep penetration of hostile airspace, to take out high value targets, and return alive. For this it is very well suited but for other tasks not so much. Which is the reason that most users of the F-35 have other 4th generation fighter and strike aircraft to back them up. Hell, even the US has not even suggested retiring any of the F-Teens aircraft and the cost of the F-35 is not the only reason why.

So can the Gripen meet the requirement? Not completely. It is a capable aircraft but it is still lacking, although if Canada is only going to buy one type the Gripen comes closest to being able to meet all of the operational needs of the Air Force.

Then you have to look at the politics. The simple fact is the US is no longer a reliable ally so buying aircraft from them is a huge risk, particularly when said aircraft requires the frequency and intensity of maintenance the F-35 requires. It is true that part of the deal to purchase the F-35 is the maintenance of them and that the supply chains for the manufacture and maintenance of them include Canadian companies. However, watching the current administration trample all over agreements when it suits them does anybody really believe the maintenance deals and supply chains are safe? If they are not then the Canadian Air Force would be left with a large number of useless pieces of junk very quickly.

On the other hand the Swedes have made all sorts of promises regarding the manufacturing of the Gripen here in Canada. It all sounds great but one of the reasons why they have made these promises is because they want to build the Gripens for the Ukraine war away from the combatants. The problem is, if the deal goes through, the first Gripens would not roll of the assembly line until the late 2020s, maybe early 2030s. By then the war in Ukraine will probably be concluded one way or another and that could change plans really quick.

So what is the answer? As I stated above most F-35 users have other aircraft to complement them and that is the approach the Canadian Air Force should take. We have already agreed to buy 16 F-35s from the US and that agreement should be honoured. However, Canada should not agree to buy any more, instead filling out the balance of their requirement with the Gripen. 

This approach would best meet all of the operational requirements of the Air Force while mitigating the risks associated with buying both airframes. It would provide the Canadian Air Force with its own deep penetration capability, which is very important in the changing geopolitical landscape, while better meeting all of the other requirements as well.

Some would argue that maintaining two aircraft would lead to logistical issues but I am old enough to remember when the CAF had the Voodoo, Starfighter and CF-5 and they had no problems with logistics. They can do it again and with the big influx of money going to the CAF maintaining two logistical chains would be a good way to spend that money.

I do not know how this will all finally shake out but I am hoping that someone in authority will start thinking outside of the self-imposed box they seem to have put themselves in and consider the idea of buying both types.

A short note on why I prefer the Super Hornet. We already use an earlier version of the Hornet so the transition would go alot smoother. As well, I remember when Canada purchased the Hornets. It was a competition between the F-16 and the F-18 in the early 80's. Canada eventually settled on the F-18 and one of the reasons was it has two engines. When we have to send a couple of fighters up to the Arctic to play with some Russian Bears they have to cross some of the most forbidding terrain in the world. If an aircraft loses its engine there you not only lose the aircraft but the pilot also has a very low chance of survival even if they successfully and safely eject from the plane. Having two engines mitigates that risk. If one fails the other will allow you to limp home. Of course, the instances of engine failures in modern aircraft is very low so it is not a huge issue but it is not negligible and it would only take the loss of one Gripen or F-35 to engine failure to create all sorts of questions of why we did not buy aircraft with two engines.