This is not what Canada’s air resources are called on to do. We have an enormous airspace, mostly Arctic, to patrol, and a polar border with Russia. Our mission demands long-range, high-altitude interceptors that can chase intruding bombers from our shores and (regrettably) shoot down hijacked airliners. We are unlikely to have a ground target on our soil.
A US Navy study showed the F35 would be 30% to 40% more expensive to maintain than current jets. Technical problems with the US Marine Corps’ short take off, vertical landing version have put the whole project behind schedule and over-budget, and this variant has been shelved. The Danes, Dutch and Norwegians have either delayed or scaled back their planned purchases of the F35. A prominent US aerospace consultant has described the F35 program as “too big to fail”
it also turns out that the F35 can’t land on our short Arctic runways. We can add a drag chute (at additional cost), but some pilots say drag chutes are dangerous in high Arctic winds. In addition, the US Air Force variant of the F35, which Canada has ordered, uses a different mid-air refueling system than we do. This rules out long Arctic patrols and international missions. We can install the Navy refueling nozzle on our planes (which we use), of course (but at an additional cost).
What are the alternatives? It makes sense for Canada to buy US-built military hardware. They are our neighbours, our partners. The US makes other planes which might suit our needs. While the small, light, relatively inexpensive F16 is being phased out of US service, many variants are still being built for export. Our current jet, the CF18 Hornet, has been updated and improved into a faster, larger, heavier version called the Super Hornet, which still costs less than the F35.
Looking abroad, the best option appears to be the Swedish JAS39 Gripen. During the Cold War, rather than become enmeshed in the superpower armaments market, Sweden built its own military industry to retain its independence. They have been producing state-of-the-art aircraft ever since, and the Saab Gripen is the latest.
Optimized for Arctic performance, as befits an Arctic nation, the Gripen is designed to land on back country roads and be serviced and fueled in ten minutes by five men and a truck. It can take off and land in 500 feet. Finally, it’s not really foreign. Its avionics, weapons and engine- all the important bits -, are all US- made.
Here’s a quick comparison of the F35 and the Gripen:
F35 Lightning II
Top Speed Mach: 1.6
Range (ferry): 1200 nm
Range (combat): 590 nm
Payload: 40,700 lb
Ceiling: 60,000 ft
Cost per plane (including service) Approx. $250 mil.
JAS39 Gripen
Top Speed Mach: Mach 2.0
Range (ferry): 2000 nm
Range (combat): 430 nm
Payload: 18,400 lb
Ceiling: 50,000 ft
Cost per plane (including service)Approx. $185 mil.
While it is faster and has more range than the F35, the Gripen is not a stealth aircraft, it is not fifth generation. It does not carry the huge load of armaments the F35 does. However, it IS a good, fast long-range northern interceptor, optimized to land in out-of-the-way places, and it may be just what Canada needs.
