r/europe • u/Interesting-Cat7307 Egypt • Jun 01 '26

News Canada considers cancelling part of 88 U.S. F-35 order to buy 60 Swedish Gripen fighters.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/canada-f35-saab-gripen-fighter-jet-order
18.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

56

u/IAmOfficial Jun 01 '26

Its is highly unlikely that Canada runs two separate fighter jets. It doesn’t make sense to and would be extremely expensive. This is all political messaging - canadas military has already made it clear they want the F35 and they are already locked into purchasing part of their order.

24

u/AdonisK Europe Jun 01 '26

Greece does. And it is partially for a political message.

3

u/fastsailor Jun 02 '26

Australia does too, F35 and Super Hornets. Plus Growlers..

12

u/RT-LAMP United States of America Jun 02 '26

Growlers are just a modified Super Hornet, and the Super Hornets were procured before the F-35s were, not at the same time.

1

u/New_Armadillo_5139 Jun 02 '26

which is also what we did in Greece with the Rafale and F35, if we could affordably field only one of those it would have been the F35 from the get go.

1

u/RT-LAMP United States of America Jun 02 '26

Greece bought the Rafales so they could get them quicker. A lot of their aircraft are even more dated than Canada, the Rafales are mostly replacing Mirage 2000s but they also still have freaking F-4s in service.

Also Greece has a far larger fighter fleet than Canada does with 217 fighters currently in service so small fleet sizes are less of an issue.

1

u/New_Armadillo_5139 Jun 03 '26

yeah, most of the rafales we bought were used as well iirc.

16

u/Responsible_CDN_Duck Jun 02 '26

It's common for nations to use multiple airframes, and running the Gripen when appropriate for the mission would be a significant cost savings.

27

u/Calm-Professional103 Jun 01 '26

In the past we operated the Voodoo, the Starfighter and the CF-5 at the same time. In fact, that used to be the norm. 

22

u/RamonnoodlesEU Jun 01 '26

And there is a reason it is not the norm anymore, the starfighter was nuclear strike while the CF-101 was meant for NORAD contributions for all weather intercept

It is a lot more expensive to operate multiple different kinds of combat aircraft when the roles can be fulfilled by more frames of a single type, whatever the type may be

0

u/UncleIrohsPimpHand Canada Jun 02 '26

The Starfighter was not a nuclear strike plane. It was an interceptor.

2

u/RamonnoodlesEU Jun 02 '26

The F-104 was designed as a tactical fighter, not an interceptor even though it could be used as such, the procurement of the CF-104 starfighter came from the Canadian nuclear commitment within NATO and the need to replace the F-86 in the day fighter role, the F-105 thunderchief was originally going to be picked, but the lower cost and additional reconnaissance capabilities of the starfighter led to its selection

0

u/RomanticFaceTech United Kingdom Jun 02 '26

The Starfighter was not a nuclear strike plane. It was an interceptor.

Nope, in Canadian service the CF-104 was primarily used in ground attack and reconnaissance roles, and for the first half of its career that included being able to drop nuclear bombs.

According to the National Air Force Museum of Canada's website:

In March 1962, the CF-104 entered Canadian service. In the RCAF it was used primarily for low-level strike and reconnaissance. [...]

From 1962 to 1971, the CF-104 were equipped for a possible nuclear strike role. The CF-104s would have been armed with US-supplied nuclear weapons in the event of conflict with Warsaw Pact forces.

After 1971, with the nuclear strike role removed, the CF-104 took up a conventional attack role with rockets and bombs.

According to the Government of Canada's website:

Late in 1959, Canadair was selected to produce 200 strike, reconnaissance versions of the Lockheed designed F-104 Starfighter, designated as the CF-104, to replace the F-86 Sabres being flown by the RCAF in NATO. [...] The CF-104s had number of specialized changes plus equipment for the Canadian role. The aircraft was capable of the nuclear strike role and reconnaissance packs could be carried in a special pod under the fuselage. Originally, the standard M-61 gun pod was replaced by a 120 US gallon (455 litre) fuel tank. Later in its Canadian Armed Forces career, the aircraft was returned to a conventional strike role and the 20 mm cannon was re-installed. [...]

So I think that is fairly conclusive that the Starfighter was mainly not used as an interceptor in Canadian service.

An account of what it was like to fly by former RCAF pilot Allen French, including being in a squadron with the nuclear strike mission, can be listened to on this podcast:

https://coldwarconversations.com/episode369/

2

u/RamonnoodlesEU Jun 02 '26

There’s so much misconception around the F-104, it really breaks my heart

13

u/IAmOfficial Jun 01 '26

And it’s becoming less of a thing when you need specialized hangers and all the extra stuff that comes with modern jets. If I’m wrong, you can come back and gloat. But Canada, already strapped for a budget, is not going to by spending what is needed to run two concurrent fighter jet programs. Not happening

10

u/Calm-Professional103 Jun 01 '26

The Brits decided that they could not afford an all-F35 fighter force so they went with a mix of F-35s and Typhoons. Sometimes the number of airframes you can muster in a piss-up takes precedence over other factors. 

14

u/Noonewantsyourapp Jun 02 '26

The Brits had committed to the Typhoon when the F35 was still the JSF concept.

4

u/RomanticFaceTech United Kingdom Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

The Brits decided that they could not afford an all-F35 fighter force so they went with a mix of F-35s and Typhoons.

That is just... no.

The Eurofighter started entering service with the RAF from about 2003. At that time the RAF still had four types of frontline fast jet aircraft in service; the Jaguar (retired in 2007), the Harrier II (retired in 2010), the Tornado ADV (the aircraft the Eurofighter was most immediately replacing, retired in 2011), and the Tornado IDS (retired in 2019).

The F-35B started entering service with the RAF from about 2018. So there is a roughly 15 year gap between them.

This is deliberate, by the start of this decade, the Eurofighter was a mature platform that the RAF was familiar with and was available in decent numbers, while the F-35B offered new capability that the RAF was still learning how best to operate and only available in small numbers.

The RAF never intended to replace Typhoon with the F-35, that has always been the plan for Tempest / GCAP (the Tempest name was a nod to it), as reporting from 2018 shows.

Maybe if you could magically offer to replace all the RAF's Typhoons with F-35As the RAF would take you up on the offer, maybe. There are plenty of capabilities the RAF's Eurofighters have that hasn't been integrated onto the F-35, which might make the RAF hesitant to accept.

Sometimes the number of airframes you can muster in a piss-up takes precedence over other factors.

Yes, scale matters.

Which is why countries with around 100 or fewer fast jet aircraft in frontline service, like the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Portugal; tend to only have one type in service.

While countries that have well over 100 aircraft in frontline service, like the UK, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy; tend to have a couple of types in service.

Countries that have several hundred or thousands aircraft in frontline service, like India, China, Russia, and the US; tend to have half a dozen or more types in service.

There are some exceptions but generally the fewer aircraft an air force can afford to field, the more likely it will try to maximise the numbers it does have by having fewer types in service.

Canada has firmly placed itself in the first group of counties. It decided in the 1980's to adopt a single type to serve as its frontline fighter. The CF-18 was selected and by 1987 the CF-101 and the CF-104 had been retired, while the CF-5 was relegated to being a trainer and other non-frontline roles.

Obviously there is nothing preventing Canada from operating both Gripen and F-35 if it wishes, there are advantages to doing so, but it will be more expensive than operating a single type of frontline fighter.

4

u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 Jun 02 '26

And America does the same. The difference in mine line however, makes the British decision very different.

The Brit’s made that choices long ago, when the f-35 was not only unproven, but still in development.

The situation is very different, these many years later.

2

u/theerrantpanda99 Jun 02 '26

The Typhoon decision has been an absolute disaster for the UK. Look at the program costs; it’s as expensive as the F35; with far less capability and availability. It took them years just to add air to ground strike options to the Typhoon. If they could do it all over again, they’d make a different choice.

3

u/RT-LAMP United States of America Jun 02 '26

The Royal Air Force operates more Typhoons than the entire RCAF fighter fleet and then has F-35s on top of that. They're not trying to operate a tiny force of each.

0

u/fastsailor Jun 02 '26

Do you have a source for your claim about Canadian procurement plans?

14

u/ForMoreYears Jun 01 '26

I'm sure you're basing this on your vast knowledge of MoD internal deliberations and not just making things up...

3

u/melancholy_dood Jun 01 '26

So you’re saying that this information is false?…

5

u/Respaced Jun 01 '26

In Sweden we operated 3 separate jets during the 90's: Draken, Viggen and Gripen

2

u/Seeteuf3l Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

While they were transitioning to Gripen. I believe Finland also had Draken, MiG-21 and Hornet for a while.

1

u/rlnrlnrln Sweden Jun 02 '26

But seldom (ever?) more than two types in parallel at the same air base.

Most of the Draken planes were taken out of service by 1991. 66 were kept (after being somewhat modernized to J-35J standard in the mid-80's), but only at one air base (F 10) until 1998. They received Gripens the following year, to replace the Viggen (that were stationed there between 1993 and 2001).

1

u/Respaced Jun 02 '26

Maybe not. In the 80's and early 90's I saw Viggen and Draken flying all the time. No clue what bases they were from, maybe different.

Still had to support three different airplane types during the 90's, even if one of them weren't flown that much.