Why Canada Has Chosen The F-35

Let's take a look at how Canada finally picked the F35, the politics behind the deal, and how the Lightning just keeps winning fighter competitions.
Ways to support this channel:
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @pilotphotog
Subscribe on Patreon: / pilotphotog
Join our growing community on Discord:
/ discord
Photography and video Credits/Attributions:
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Department of Defense
The NATO Channel
Peter Mackay sitting in F-35: Reuters/Chris Wattie
Justin Trudeau photo: creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons

[@panpiper]

Honestly I am really surprised. Canada had the opportunity to buy a significantly less capable fourth generation fighter instead of the most modern, preeminant fifth generation fighter of our time, and they failed to go for the inferior fighter. This is SO uncharacteristic.

[@royscott9162]

It’s the western world, bro. Looking after our OWN best interests is SO out of style.

[@adrienpetryka1682]

Don't worry the old F18 will still perform 100% better than the "new unfinished" F35

[@spyrule]

Not even close. Canada hasn't kept its F-18s fully up to date, so they are closer to Gen 4, then 4.5 like the current version in the USA. Hell, they havn't even completed the radar upgrades on the replacement f-18's they bought used from Australia. Its time to replacement as quickly as we can.

[@clivedoe9674]

@@adrienpetryka1682 Underestimating the F35 is a mistake. People complained about the F-16 and F-18 when they were introduced. They had early teething issues as well.

[@markhepworth7822]

@@adrienpetryka1682 You literally,have no idea what you’re taking about...keep blissfully wrapping that blanket of ignorance round yourself princess.

[@andrewtaylor940]

The big thing that has likely changed for Canada, from back when they initially turned down the F-35 project, is with the insanely fast and ever more widespread adoption of the aircraft by a large number of Western Nations, the long term costs of ownership have fallen drastically. So much so that they are now probably well beneath the Grippen or Eurofighter. The more planes that are built and sold, the greater the pool of spare parts and the broader the pool of support talent. 10 years after delivery an aircraft that had over 1000 or more produced will generally be much cheaper to maintain than one that had only 100 ever made.

[@R.U.1.2.]

The overall cost per unit and the hourly cost of maintenance was oddly left out, so a person cannot compare these costs with other aircraft, which are known. So the question becomes moot on being able to make any comparison with other airships with the information so given..

[@deanfirnatine7814]

Still almost twice the cost of a Gripen

[@grndzro777]

In what way? F35 is still going to be plagued by higher than expected maintenance costs, and failure rates.

[@andrewtaylor940]

@@grndzro777 Canada is going for the F-35A’s, correct? You will be seeing much greater parts availability for those than for the much lower produced Grippen. And availability of parts is one of, if not the biggest long term maintenance cost. And the A’s aren’t anywhere near the maintenance headaches that the B’s are. Yes they all require a great deal of maintenance. The F-35 probably have a higher ramp up and training cost for support staff. But once established those costs likely even out pretty quick.

[@wadopotato33]

The decision to turn down the F-35 program was political and nothing else. The F-35 was and is the best plane available. In simulations run where the Russian bombers fly escorted by fighters over the poles Canada was unable to even slow them down before they could bomb the US. That is actually Canada's job in that situation. In simulation where Canada owned fifth-gen aircraft they put up a real fight and did slow the Russians down, but still let them through. The Americans who understand Canada's important job in NORAD were kind of pissed that Canada didn't immediately buy F-35's. Canada is sovereign country (with a soft Liberal dictator) and it is their decision, but you can also understand why the US wants them to get with the program. No one wants to get bombed because Canada won't get with the program. The Ukraine is a great wake up call. Canada finally got their shit together.

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

Simple: It is the FINEST multi-role fighter-bomber-ground support aircraft on planet Earth.

[@ygloogloo]

Lol

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

@@ygloogloo Very funny until an F-35 kills you.

[@ygloogloo]

@@DavidFMayerPhD lol again.

[@reneb3063]

how do you know? this jet has not been tested yet. they are still having a lot of problems with it.

[@benbowland]

@@reneb3063 did you watch the video? Which plane is better?

[@kayakutah]

I went from flying the F-8 to the F-14 to the f-16N. Compared to F-35 capabilities, I might as well have flown the Sopwith Camel the whole time! I think by delaying, Canada may have hit the F-35A procurement sweet spot.

[@spackle9999]

They kinda did. Most of the big kinks have been worked out and the cost per flight hour has plummeted. This is a great time to buy F-35.

[@appa609]

That's hella cool man! Are you training on the F-35 now or retired?

[@kayakutah]

@@appa609 Oh, I'm way past my sell by date. I'll be 70 in August. Even the airline I was flying with decided to kick me to the curb back in 2017. My father flew the P-38, and me talking to him about that would be like F-35 guys talking to me now, with a 40 year differential in each case. He flew the P-38 in 1942 and I flew the F-14 in 1982. Now, 40 years later, the F-35 is off and running. Kind of puts it in perspective.

[@davbhard]

So are you an Air force reserve pilot? I know only one reserve pilot who's tasted his career in the Navy, flying the F-18. Then he became Air Force Reserve which allowed him to fly the F-16. I don't know how that worked but something like after his time in the Navy, he was allowed to enroll as an Airforce reserve, because of all his flight hours in the Navy. But it was the only way he could fly a Navy jet, then eventually fly am Airforce jet. I wish it was something I could do. But medically I couldn't become a pilot. But I'm interested in learning about how people got to be pilots. Because I could never be one. Edit, I see you flew the N version. So you got to be an aggressor? That would be awesome.

[@kayakutah]

@@davbhard 2 years in VF-126 and then 7 years in VFC-13 all flying Adversary. Better to be lucky than good! Edit: It's funny, the Navy and Marine "red air" call ourselves "Adversaries" while the Air Force is "Aggressors". Calling a Navy Adversary pilot an Aggressor is like calling a Marine a soldier. A bit silly, I know.

[@Triple87]

It will be odd to see another fighter other than hornets in our sky’s. It’ll be interesting to see them fly together until they phase out the hornets. Going to miss the old bugs.

[@vonpredator]

How long has it been that Canada had TWO fighter jet types flying at the same time?

[@Triple87]

@@vonpredator F-5s we’re retired in 95, so I think that was the last time?

[@appa609]

I suspect it won't be for very long. The hornets are quickly becoming safety hazards and the rcaf has no truly urgent operational requirements.

[@Triple87]

@@appa609 Might see them together at air shows from 2025 to 2028. Depends on how fast the battle penguins come in. That’s not even including delays that will probably happen. 😂

[@drbendover7467]

@@Triple87 kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZPKhqtve994d7s

[@LogieT2K]

Its the best outcome Im a bit sad because i adore the gripen but im glad Canadian Pilots will be getting such a capable aircraft The F-35 has proved a lot of doubters wrong. “Cant turn cant climb cant run” yeah tell that to the state of the art flight control system, 40,000lbs of thrust or the stealth design that means it shouldnt end up in a merge in the first place

[@woof059]

Occasionally, I talk to people who say that statement about the F-35. I then ask them what they are comparing it to, and most of the time they point to the PAK FA. I then point out that the latest data I can find is that there are only 15 PAK FAs in existence. It will be the PAK FAs running from all those Lightnings.

[@douginorlando6260]

A test pilot report detailed the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a mock air battle against a two-seat F-16D. The F-16D-based on a design developed 40 years ago and from a production run in the mid-1990s-bested the F-35 in close-range combat maneuvers. In the report, the F-35 pilot reported that his aircraft was in a "clean" configuration for the test, carrying nothing under its wings or in its internal weapons bays. The F-16, on the other hand, was flying with under-wing external fuel drop-tanks, which in theory would have put the aircraft at an aerodynamic disadvantage. Apparently, it didn't. "Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement," the F-35 pilot reported. That means the F-35 constantly found itself flying slower and more sluggishly, unable to effectively maneuver to get the F-16 in its sights. Furthermore, the F-35's high-tech helmet, which is supposed to give the pilot the ability to essentially "see through" the plane with the assistance of external cameras and sensors, didn't help matters. "The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft," the pilot reported, which made it impossible to keep visual contact with the F-16 during the dogfight. That huge engine will show up in IR from many miles away as the F35 tries to run away. That huge engine sips fuel through a fire hose. That huge engine is wasted on an airframe with very poor drag. The aerodynamics can not be fixed

[@LogieT2K]

@@douginorlando6260 ahh yes, the famous lost to an f-16 when it was still having its flight control system refined and wasnt in production condition yet…….. F-35 doubters always say the same things. If its really so bad, why has it won pretty much every contract that it has entered for? Keep your head in the sand all you line mate. But its a simple matter of fact that this aircraft is here to stay, and that it will prove utterly dominant in every mission profile that its given. When your trying to do something that hasnt been done before, of which there were many in the x-35 program there are going to be setbacks, and unforseen challenges that cause delays and cost overruns. Theres no denying that its been and expensive, time consuming difficult development run. But the end product is the best fighter in the world I emplore you to do more research into it and to listen to interviews with current combat and trst pilots The f-35 of 2022 is not the same as the f-35 of 2015 that lost that hastily set up dogfight with the viper

[@douginorlando6260]

Logan Taylor why? Short answer is corrupt leaders strong armed to select this POS. You don’t have to believe me ... Because the state department cables are still on line that prove it thanks to Julian Assange.

[@michaelryan5973]

@@douginorlando6260 dude no shit the f16 won. its an air superiority jet meant for rate fight and one circle engagements. the f35 is a muti-role fighter which is a bit of an oxymoron because some capability in some fields will remove all capability in others, like dog fighting. it's not an f22 and it wont ever be one so stop dreaming. that isn't its purpose in life. enter a circuit race with an SUV and a viper acr and you tell me which wins.

[@warfarenotwarfair5655]

"The F-16 is too small, short legged, fly-by-wire is unsafe, it doesn't carry enough ordnance, it's too slow, and a waste of money so we should just upgrade our F-4's". --Random Critics, 1978

[@germanher7528]

the F15 was the superior plane, even the US is planning on getting the nex gen F15, the EX

[@oubrioko]

@@germanher7528 👀 The USAF _Lightweight Fighter Program/Air Combat Fighter_ (YF-16) wasn't in competition with the USAF _Air Superiority Fighter_ (F-15) when the two programs were conceived. The multirole *F-16* _did_ become the successful alternative to upgrading the aging F-4.

[@Xenomorphine]

@@germanher7528 Those F-15s will not be allowed to fly in hostile airspace, until stealth assets have destroyed all air patrols and anti-air systems.

[@Xenomorphine]

@@criticalevent Respectfully, those assumptions of yours would be completely incorrect.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

@@Xenomorphine Check THE FACTS.

[@markphilpot8734]

My prior comments are known, but I can’t fault the Lightning. Clearly has a tactical advantage over it’s adversaries. When you have a winning plane that is clearly appreciated by many. It’s not hard to see why. Enjoyed the video. Press on sir! Stay safe my mates!😊👍🏻😁

[@reneb3063]

what winning plane?it has never been tested, and in the states the f-22 escorts it.

[@mojothemigo]

@@reneb3063 Define "tested". Israel used it with success. Those tests and training the military put it through stack the odds against them more so then what usually faced in combat actual combat at least here in the states in Red Flag events. Jets rarely ever go out alone. Boxing and MMA champs have security around them, same way of thinking. Also F22s are Air Force while F35 are used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. Even if Air Force F35s go escorted only with F22s (unlikely as there are more F 35s then F22s) isn't going to happen with the other 2 branches

[@reneb3063]

@@mojothemigo i hope you are right

[@techinrl9869]

@@reneb3063 Israel sent three F-35’s to Tehran and back and Iran never detected them. When the Ayatollah found out about the incident through a Kuwaiti newspaper, he moved to fire Iran’s chief of the Air Forces and the head of the Revolutionary Guards.

[@willbarnstead3194]

Given all the recent orders for this aircraft, it’s important for industry to stay a part of the global supply chain. Additionally, given all the operators, interoperability with allies an access to spare parts is also a factor.

[@aauwhatitdo1582]

Many people say that economy of scale is BS. The cost of the F-22 per unit proves that economy of scale is everything for a jet program.

[@larryc1616]

​@@aauwhatitdo1582yes, but congress wouldn't allow sales outside the US even to our most trusted allies

[@aauwhatitdo1582]

@@larryc1616 Exactly what I'm saying. By not allowing outside sales, economy of scale was limited. The F-35 would cost more than the F-22 rather than half an F-22 if only the air force bought it.

[@mavsmith3326]

A better choice is to follow the USAF strategy and but a few dozen F-35s for first strike and a larger number of 4th gen for better ground strike loads, like the F-15EX or Gripen.

[@nick4506]

or run the f35 with the wing pylons installed. stealth isn't needed but can still carry weight, and still haveing the sensor suite and connectivity incase anything happens. I don't think there is much advantage of using a less capable aircraft. esp since the f-15ex is more expensive per unit than the f35, others aren't mutch cheaper while being way less capable.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

There's no point to that. Operating a dozen F-35s will cause the operational costs to rise, while also dealing with the added logistical tail of having to field dissimilar aircraft.

[@spackle9999]

@@nick4506 I love F-15EX, but it's hard to justify buying a less capable platform if you have the option of F-35.

[@appa609]

USAF strategy rn seems to be to get rid of almost all 4th gen platforms excepting a smallish number of F15ex. They're buying 2000 ish F35's and seem to be goimg all in on ngad and loyal wingman drones.

[@spackle9999]

@@appa609 Which is exactly the correct strategy. I wish they'd do my idea of making a fuel tank and boom capable of being stored inside B-21. You could turn F-35 and B-21 into a super long-range stealth attack flight capable of hitting nearly anywhere on the planet.

[@gregedmand9939]

Listen to the pilots and maintenance staff. The F-35 is by far the best choice for any Airforce. It's past time Canada regained its position as a first class aviation technology user. We've been hobbled for too many decades.

[@reneb3063]

the pilots and staff are not allowed to talk about their equipment. never. only in promotional videos by lockheed martin.besides , cANADA CANNOT EVEN AFFORD TO TRAIN THE PILOTS IN THIS JET AT 40 THOUSAND AN HOUR. BUT THEY WILL AND WE WILL PAY

[@wadopotato33]

@@reneb3063 It isn't 40,000 per hour, so drop that number. And when airframes age they cost more as their flight hours increase. That is due to age. Canada's F-18 are super high hour air frames, do you think they are cheap to operate? Or safe? I was able to find a cost per flight hour for the CF-18's. It is 22,000$ USD. It was in a proposal from Boeing to switch from F-18 E/F's. The current cost of the F-35 per flight hour is 32,000$ USD. For a plane that is much, much more capable you are only spending a little more. Now remember that the plane can do more work than an F-18 by far, so you actually need fewer planes to do the same work. The F-35 also has such a good simulator that you need less flight hours to train pilots. I think if you actually analyze this you will find that the costs aren't going to be much different and any extra cost will easily be justified by the benefits. For one, Canada produces many F-35 parts and it accounts for 150,000 Canadian jobs. The Hornets....not so much. I would be willing to bet that the taxes the government takes in from those high paying jobs will pay for a lot of flight hour costs. 🤪

[@reneb3063]

@@wadopotato33 well said, you have a lot of good points

[@barbarathornton547]

@@wadopotato33 “

[@Ok.ok.]

To be honest our country has a history of shooting ourself in the foot with aviation. Personally I think a combination with a few Gripens and the 88 f-35 would be the best option. Use the gripens for air patrol and rapid deployment and reserve the f-35 for norad as well as missions requiring stealth

[@niweshlekhak9646]

Combination of F-35 and F-15 Eagle II will be the best since F-15 EX is not made by Boeing on it’s own but rather a combination of Raytheon/Northup/Boeing.

[@randyharder3208]

Canada waited til they got the bugs fixed and then went from 65 aircraft to 88 aircraft for the same price.

[@twocansams6335]

Plus 1.8 billion to keep the hornets flying.

[@JLWestaz]

Yea, 10 years late to the party and maybe to late. I wouldn't want to be sitting waiting for deliveries of F35 in 2025 with what's happening in Europe, I think Germans are very nervous they have let there military deteriorate so low. This is probably true for several EU members. And how would you like to deploying a 4 gen aircraft against Russia right now.

[@cdncrooner1]

Harper ordered 65 F-35's and not to be outdone Justin Trudeau ordered 23 more! The Liberals and Conservative both agree in a back room deal! Liberals Troy the same old story! $127.6 trillion no problem paying for WMD'S?

[@stevenbaer9061]

@@JLWestaz The European NATO partners let their military go to hell because they were cheap and knew the US guaranteed their security.

[@daveenadams588]

America is just like: God..I’ll let you guys have 23 more jets for the Same price because you guys have been a security threat to us for 100 years now.

[@tapanikittela]

Hi from Finland. Canada, Finland, Australia and Swizerland are F-18 operators who have ordered F-35. This is not coincidence. By the way , where was Trudeau when Canadian government kept its info.

[@orangefanta3163]

What info are you referring to?

[@tapanikittela]

@@orangefanta3163 Andrew Taylor have the answer.

[@brianfoley4328]

Well...as my father was fond of saying "You pay your nickel and you take your chance". The Canadians weren't going to go wrong either way they went. Always remember...it's the player, not the glove. A great glove won't make a mediocre player great, but a great player can make a mediocre glove work just fine ". The F-35 will serve the Canadians well, but it's Canada's flyers who will make it great.

[@kayakutah]

I've operated with Canadian fighter pilots in the somewhat distant past and was consistently impressed. This particular glove is magic, but to complete the metaphor, you have to be a magician to employ it effectively. You can't be mediocre in this beast; there's just too much to operating it. It'll make anyone better, but only if you're good to begin with.

[@swh0rd682]

@@kayakutah Good point. From my experience, having a former CF18 / Snowbird as a family friend and knowing what he went through on both the selection and training side, we're comforted knowing that we only put our best in those few seats, so "good to begin with is covered." Add to that how well we've done in William Tell competitions (both pilots AND ground crews) this only adds more comfort.

[@moparchallenger749]

🇨🇦👍

[@alpearson9158]

as a strike aircraft maybe as an interceptor it is incapable

[@hyporaptor1280]

@@alpearson9158 Probably cause it isn't an interceptor. A dedicated interceptor role has been dead for awhile in the West

[@calcrappie8507]

The under development and already tested new adaptive engines for the F-35 (A and C versions) are showing a 30% increase in range and 20% increase in thrust compared to the current engine.

[@menotyou7762]

lol you mean the engine that will never make it into the airframe?

[@menotyou7762]

@Phillip Banes How many? The P&W engine was upgraded 2 times and one of them was to rectify serious design flaws. The GE engine was done 2 times as well with a couple minor modifications. The F16 has been flying 48 years and it is still faster than the f35 brand new out of the box, Loaded or unloaded. As a matter of fact the F16 is faster fully loaded with full gas tanks than an empty f35 with 1/2 tank of gas. It turns faster as well. The turkey f35 has been flying how long? major league underpowered jet that can't even make mach 1 without it falling apart.

[@weasle2904]

@@menotyou7762 Because they already have operational prototype engines and the program has had no issues thus far, not even overbudget.

[@bighands69]

I also suspect that the radar absorbent coating will be getting an upgrade that will make it even easier to run. The F-35 as a concept aircraft is now tried and tested in the field and will be getting changes to make it operate more efficiently. By the time there are 2000 F-35 in operation everybody will be acting like they were always in favor of them.

[@karelgeerardyn240]

Fastforward to today (08-2023) and the USA has cut planned numbers of F-35 as (still) too expensive to combine them with 2 unmanned aircraft each, awaiting the arrival of NGAD. TCO or through life cycle cost is still high, like the number of maintenance hours per flight hour. This aircraft´s JSF program was started in 1993 (3 decades ago) and many of the initial flaws still remain. The USAF calls it 'sluggish' due to being underpowered and the need for an engine replacement like you're mentioning was already announced over 8 years ago but not continued as it would lead to the whole program to be cancelled under Nunn-McCurdy law. They actually decided recently not to add an adaptive cycle engine as demanding too much modification and now decision is on which upgrade (engine core upgrade or just cooling system), which means it not sure it will be part of TR3-block4 upgrade which desperately needs that extra electric power and cooling to run all planned system upgrades properly. Stalling the buy will get Canada a recent version of the plane with less issues, but it all depends if your government will put them to use all the 1st dag of war capabilities they're paying for. Personally I regret Belgium doing the same and think the Gripen E is a very valid alternative, much underappreciated. They are built for the arctic from the start, are fully NATO compatible, easier, quicker and cheaper to turn around and maintain. And the buyer gets full technology transfer facilitating local/national development (good for your industry), while with the f-35, nobody except Israel got access the software code.

[@Cubcariboo]

I wonder if anyone else feels that the "C" modified for Canadian land based operations woukd be a slightly better fit for the RCAF. Longer range and a tail hook to fit with the way we already use the CF-188.

[@hamishneilson7140]

The F-35A has a 20km longer range than the C, and the tail hooks aren't a major part of our F-18 use... Sure they're handy for emergency landings, but even that is rare.

[@102kuku]

the F-35A has a tail hook/arresting hook, just like USAF F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s.

[@claymclaren5788]

The reinforced frame and hook, bigger wings, and probe and drogue of the F-35C would be great for Canada, but they are quite a bit more expensive. Norway has been developing a drag chute for short landings for the F-35A so we may end up with that

[@eziekkiel5876]

@@claymclaren5788 That seems to be the case. I read an article stating there will be modifications to the F-35A for Canadian requirements, including the drag chute. I can try and find it again if you like.

[@PerSon-xg3zr]

@@hamishneilson7140 How about we literally just take the F35A but give it the wing and tail size of the F35C?

[@WayneBorean]

Over the period of the selection my views have changed drastically. While the Rafale, Gripen, and Eurofighter are all great aircraft, my understanding of our mission has changed a lot. Canada doesn’t buy fighters for defence, we buy them for use overseas. For that the F-35 is the best choice, and it will fit really well with our new warships.

[@dkoz8321]

I agree. But RCAF primary mission is not to NATO, but to NORAD. North American Air Defense. Joint Command in the bowels of Cheyenne Mountain. Manned by American and Canadian personnel, with some NATO allied officers. Policing of Canadian airspace, Canadian Arctic, North Atlantic, and North Pacific littoral is mission of RCAF fighter force. THats an interceptor mission. Thats why RCAF got F-104 back in the long ago days, then F-101, then F-4. Sharing platforms with USAF Strategic Command fighter squadrons. Keeping North American skies free of Soviet Backfires, Blinders, Badgers, and Bears. For speed and safety two motors are needed. RCAF should be demanding US Congress provide it F-22 and F-15EX. Demanding it!

[@WayneBorean]

@@dkoz8321 I disagree. Interception and combat require different capabilities. The engineering challenges mean it isn’t possible to put both into a single airframe. What’s more important, combat or interception capability in peace? Canada made the decision that combat capability is more important. That’s why our Type 26 frigates are bigger and more capable than the ships being built for Australia and Britain. We went for combat capabilities. That’s why the new infantry rifle wouldn’t look out of place in Star Wars. Combat capability. That of course assumes that the military gets it right, but indications are promising that they have, especially on the naval side.

[@l8knight845]

@@dkoz8321 The F-35 is more than capable of interception. It's as fast as an F-16, except you don't know you are being intercepted until the AMRAMS go pitbull.

[@southbay5875]

@@dkoz8321 the F-22 has long been out of production and part of that ceased production required the destruction of much of the specific machinery used to manufacture them. A lot of Americans are upset by the decision to reduce procurement numbers and focus on the F-35, but at the time the decision was made in the context of the Global Recession of the 2010’s. Likewise, at the time it was determined the closest peer adversary the Western democracies would be engaging with in the near-term was China. Hindsight is always 20/20, but in the context of the time the decision made sense. Additionally, by the end of the F-22’s production run the USAF was already heavily invested in research for their next “6th Generation” fighter. Canada could certainly have considered the F-15EX but the concerns would’ve remained regarding its survivability in a modern air-to-air conflict with a peer adversary. Regarding your concern for the single engine platform, the US Navy and Marines both use the jet for carrier based operations; I’m sure if there were a problem with the platforms endurance and reliability, we would’ve heard something by now.

[@alpearson9158]

@@dkoz8321 neither raptors ( no longer built) or f15ex's are available beyond the USAF Gripen's will likely be necessary as interceptors

[@gazza7uk646]

awesome video dude

[@erikhaynes5506]

Super well done video or S.W.D.V and also highly informative to regular Canadians or H.I.R.C. so kudos to that. ;)

[@ramonpunsalang3397]

With the F-35, the RCAF will not be relegated to the bench playing second fiddle to other NATO air arms, A great day for the RCAF.

[@cameronward9443]

Although I was always in favor of the F-35... back in like 2014-2015 there was so much controversy around cost overruns and underperformance that everyone was thinking the F35 would be a HUGE dud. It's actually impressive how good of a turn around it made from such luke warm reception during the last days of development. I think people who were used to 4th gen fighters weren't forward thinking on the advantages of the electronic countermeasures and next gen targeting.

[@ryanestes7331]

The f18 was called a dud as well

[@SeanP7195]

It wasn’t a turn around. There are many, many forces with a vested interest in besmirching any American defense project/product. It’s estimated about 96% of articles talking about things you mentioned originated from a handful of pro Russian and pro Chinese websites. They were simply repeated in the west and resourced over and over. Once RT was banned, nearly all those articles went away. What you are witnessing is rubber meeting the road. Once people got to truly see what they were getting (and not what they heard) they opened their checkbooks faster than a prom dress.

[@rickcosman9670]

So there is a couple of things that have helped Canada because of the delay in purchasing. One, as mentioned is that more buyers means less cost per unit. The other benefit which was not mentioned is that the F35 has a concurrent production strategy. Before the F35 after the design and prototype phase there is a trial production phase. They set up the production line and build 20 or 30 planes just the way they would during the full production phase they issue these trial planes to the Airforce and let them fly them and see what breaks, when etc. they figure out what in the production line needs to be fixed and make changes to the plant and the planes until they work all the bugs out then they start full production. Concurrent production means they start full production right away and fix the problems with the production lines and the planes as they go. So all the early buyers had to have their planes being “recalled” so to speak to fix problems that showed up in the production. By waiting much of these “growing pain” in the F35 production have already been worked out. Another interesting thing about the purchase, the previous Conservatives Government was only going to buy 65 planes even though the Airforce stated they needed 88 the Trudeau government required the Airforce to do the full review and tests that are required in the purchasing process and when the report was issued the Government agreed to buy the 88 planes the Airforce said were needed.

[@danbeaucage7425]

Bravo to Canada. All three candidates were very competent in my view. Boeing picked a fight with what they thought was a company but actually was a Country so they were out. Both the Gripen and F-35 have great strengths. But I think the stealth did it for me. If they don't sign a contract then the Saab is a very good second. Maybe we should get a hand full just for variety.

[@cameronkrause4712]

the stealth advantage is good only until the Russians or Chinese develop a multi satellite system that can target these planes from space and then transmit the information to ground forces. This will happen within the next few years, and then everyone will see that the Gripen was the best choice.

[@wadopotato33]

They picked a fight with a company...and Canada has it wrong and views it as a country. Bombardier has been bailed out by the taxpayer so many times that it is hard to seperate the two. As a Canadian you have "invested" in Bombardier many times without ever having recieved actually stock....the joke is on you.

[@jklappenbach]

Stealth allows them to be effective. But what they bring to the table is all about that incredible radar and IR sensor suite, and their ability to communicate that data to a larger control network. That's really the key. It's one thing to be harder for an enemy to detect. It's quite another to see them before their radars can even see you, and do so without alerting them that they've been seen.

[@wadopotato33]

@@cameronkrause4712 I had a good laugh at that one.

[@carpetclimber4027]

The passive stealth is already obsolete unless you want to invade other poor nations, so... I don't see the selling point.

[@MrDeman40]

I guess it won't be long before I can start seeing them land at CFB North Bay . I think it is a great choice for our country . I am wondering on how they came up with the procurement numbers ... Originally it was 65ish and now it has been bumped up to 88... New jets , new Frigates , our country still has a long way to go , but we're starting ..

[@Kaiserland111]

From your southern neighbor, we're happy to have you with us. Let's hope Putin and other's aren't insane enough to force us to defend ourselves.

[@MrLathor]

I’m glad this is finally over. I found it amusing that people somehow though Canada was going to choose the Gripen over the F-35. Some people have delusional hatred of the F-35.

[@brannonmeador1792]

People who hate the f35 do not understand the insane advantage of it’s stealth alone is in real life combat

[@PaladinPoppie]

@@brannonmeador1792 the majority of those people are older and don’t understand that stealth is the way forward for aircraft. They don’t understand it’s no longer about speed or turn rate. It’s about who see’s who 1st. Although thrust vectoring is pretty handy. XD I believe this perception will eventually change tho. Lotta the same guys hated the F22 when it 1st went into service.

[@claytonberg721]

I'm willing to bet there is nobody here truly capable of speaking of which is better tactically, as most of this info is classified. However economically it would have made sense to get the gripen as saab would have set up the factory to make them in montreal. The gripen deal would have meant 6000 new high paying jobs.

[@Kishanth.J]

Also at the time, many people believed Canada would need a first strike capability or that Canada would fight in a war against a near peer adversary. Remember at the time procurement can around Canada was mostly doing peacekeeping operation or fighting non state actors. With the change in the international political climate, people are starting to realize that is no longer the case.

[@brannonmeador1792]

@@claytonberg721 tactically the f35 is better than the grippen in every single way other than cost

[@Kermitpan]

Good move in the end! I hope we can still maybe buy some Gripens as well, maybe the ease of maintenance of the Gripens would make them better planes for some more remote northern airbases ? There could be a place for both planes.

[@wadopotato33]

Not a horrible idea if money is of no concern. However the infrastructure for each plane is different and that adds to the cost of a program. It is probably cheaper to pick one or the other. i like the Gripen, but one would think that an option like that has already been looked at, but one never knows with Canada. The Canadian miltary is actually terrible when it comes to procurement. Like historically bad. Used subs that are useless? Sign me up says Canada. Helicopters that know one can decide on? 500 million dollar cancelling fee? We'll just pay that and get no helicopters says Canada. Imagining taking more than a decade to not decide and that inaction costs 500 million dollars....which you then have NOTHING to show for. With the F-35 it actually worked out though. Turns out that Canada will get them cheaper because they couldn't decide. Economy of Scale has meant that the cost of the F-35 has come down significantly.

[@virgilius7036]

Range of the Gripen is too short for northern mission!

[@stevenbaer9061]

It would make much more sense to buy F-18 Super Hornets for ease of pilot transition and maintenance continuity for the remote locales, provided the issue with Boeing can be resolved.

[@DragonsinGenesisPodcast]

Mixing your planes makes maintenance more difficult, not less. The whole purpose of the F-35 is to use one plane for most applications, meaning you only need to stock parts and train crews on a single plane. Adding the Gripen not only increases the cost by roughly $10 million per plane ($85 mil for the Gripen vs $75 for the F-35) but you must also train mechanics on a second plane and carry parts for it at your bases. That doesn't reduce costs. It drastically increases it. And since the Gripen is a far less capable fighter, it brings no benefit. The Gripen would be great in Ukraine, which is exactly the type of war it was designed for.

[@alpearson9158]

your uninformed@@virgilius7036

[@jasonsmith8567]

I was under the understanding that the new F18 super hornets were released from the picks was due to Boeing and Canada tariffs at the time over aluminum. So the feds booted them as an option

[@stupidburp]

Canada and Boeing have had rocky relations for a long time for a variety of reasons. But the F-15EX was the best fit for Canada, better than Super Hornet offered. Shame that they got forced out

[@bighands69]

The trade deals are already through.

[@alpearson9158]

no idiot the a/c doesn't match the RCAF's profile. More to the point the RCAF determined the purchase just as the RCN determined the new warship decision@@criticalevent

[@alpearson9158]

no clown Boeing kicked us all in the cahonies and we said don't do that again@@criticalevent

[@guylankin]

F-35s are the first step. Then combine F-35s and the Loyal Wingman now known as the Ghost Bat being developed by the Royal Australian Airforce/Boeing as a force multiplier.

[@PilotPhotog]

Agreed, and cool username BTW

[@stupidburp]

F-15EX is a better controller platform for Loyal Wingman because it has a second seat and more firepower. The drones can scout ahead and designate targets under the control of the back seater. F-35s are all single seat which means more things to juggle when trying to keep track of flying multiple aircraft including the one you are in. Satellite communication is highly likely to be unavailable in a major conflict thus local control capability is necessary. Also, AI and long distance remote pilots are still inferior to local human pilots in a contested environment. Of course there are other factors to consider but for drone control the F-15EX is currently the best option available.

[@cmac9029]

Not to mention they’re getting type 26’s for the navy as well, which Lockheed also has a big hand in. As long as all the current projects go through as planned, our forces will finally have the equipment the deserve. Only things I would add in are maybe more fighters, more tanks, and a ground-based air defence system that can be mobilized as and where needed.

[@bighands69]

@@criticalevent Canada with a $600 billion federal budget there are no excuses.

[@KapitanPisoar1]

Sensible decision for the future. Yes it would also make sense to keep the F-18s but they would have to be replaced with the 5th generation fighters sooner or later. Switching to Gripens would make no sense whatsoever... Can't wait to see the F-35 on air shows with the maple leaf on it!

[@wadopotato33]

The F-18 left are high flight hours. At a certain point it becomes expensive and unsafe to keep them flying.

[@matpk]

@@wadopotato33 sell those to Taiwan!

[@wadopotato33]

@@matpk It is not economical for Taiwain to fly them. They are often grounded in Canada because of their high flight hours. Taiwain is doing the smart thing and buying new F-16V's. That is a great plane. When a plane gets old it becomse both dangerous to fly and expensive to operate.

[@lovegod1steverythingelse2n47]

Good job! 👏

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@johnpaulbacon8320]

Great video. The F-35 Lighting II in all of it's variants is currently the most advanced fighter for all other NATO countries other then the USA. In fact the F-35's were designed to be the 5th generation fighter for every country other then the USA. With Most of the NATO countries involved with it's development. The F-35's were designed to replace a large number of the older planes which include the Hornet. So choosing the older plane that is gonna be replaced with the air plane that you could get now and not have to invest in multiple planes besides the planes that is already in use.

[@johnnytyler5685]

@@criticalevent That means nothing. The US Navy is an absolute DUMPSTER FIRE and they have been for some time. Whatever decision the Navy makes, you should assume that it was the wrong one...so buying more Super Hornets over F-35s immediately tells you that the F-35 would've been the correct choice.

[@alpearson9158]

what many of us call America is all that matters mindset , is why you have little respect from allies. A little bit about the RCAF much sooner into battle , and fighting when necessary only but always the most professional pilots. Canada retires a/c when they are worn out because of cost only and our airframes get far more use than any ally simply because of the size of the country and until recently high value training . you must realize that Canada buying 88 airframes is the equivalent of the US buying almost a thousand due to cost

[@alpearson9158]

you obviously have no clue about RCAF capabilities and USN and USAF pilots will be happy to inform you@@criticalevent

[@jb76489]

@@alpearson9158your English is bad bro

[@tristanallain1483]

Way to be Canada! Can't wait to see the maple leaf on that jet!

[@pretoshohmoofcguy6523]

Thank God Trudeau FINALLLY didn't f--- up at something. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[@alpearson9158]

well unlike the neocons . 2007 purchase of new warships ( didn't happen) purchased 2019 . F-35 purchase of 2010 cancelled as an election was pending ! Note not 2015 ( the liberals said they would not buy fighters without a legitamite competition. purchased in 2022 . Tanks 200 needed 80 bought 2006. Some times politics gets twisted to suit some others. Through Canadian history the cons have never bought a warship and only once fighters 1961. Much as I don't like Trudeau sometimes the truth will surprise . It should be noted that the f-35 of today is far superior to the a/c of 2010.

[@pretoshohmoofcguy6523]

@@alpearson9158 I've never been impressed with Canadian military spending.

[@torbjrnlund903]

Good choise. Welcome to the club.

[@mattbcameron]

In technology - I have no experience buying a plane - but when I am not sure buying something - buy the exact same thing... if it is right or wrong, at least all workarounds are the same. I would say it seems sort of logical to run with the f35 now..

[@Larry.Roberton]

I wasn't a fan of the F35, but with the newest production model and a good price, I'm on board.

[@dsarmy1]

I have never liked the F35. I think it is over-hyped and isn't the best for it's price. It might be slightly better than anything Russia and China can build and I mean slightly. I think the F22 is still far superior but it does cost more to produce. If or when the U.S. has the money then the U.S. could build something much better.

[@jdanon203]

They cost $78 million each. There are 4th gen fighters that are more expensive and aren't stealth and don't have all the tech the F-35 has. The F-35A is a bargain.

[@classicgalactica5879]

@@dsarmy1 The USAF announced about two years ago that it had already flown a 6th generation fighter jet. Crickets since, however. They seem to be keeping it under wraps.

[@bighands69]

@@dsarmy1 Slightly better than what Russia and China has? That is an absurd comment as neither the Russians nor Chinese have anything that comes close to the F-35. It is a ghost of the battle space and they have nothing that can counter it. Even the mighty S-300 and S-400 cannot deal with the F-35. Fast, low moving, stealth in a multi strike role aircraft for general usage is unheard off. You really do not understand the significance of the F-35. Right now the Israelis are running rings around the Iranians. They can enter their airspace with impunity.

[@kuolevijyrkinen4675]

@@dsarmy1 If anything the f35 is underrated. F22 is not better, it’s an old jet with outdated sensors.

[@sevex9]

The idea that stealth is unnecessary for defense I think is flawed. The f-35 pilots get a choice of engaging first and winning, or revealing themselves and letting the intruder know they could have been destroyed, and would be better off turning around, and then whatever conflict unfolds from there stealth would have an advantage. The deterrence of the fighter relies on it's lethality and effectiveness, not how detectable it is. Air superiority is critical in any conflict involving world powers, that's why you see it prioritized in so many countries. I think this is a win for Canada. Now let's see about getting you guys an effective ballistic missile defense system. Something tells me that in any nuclear conflict you don't want missiles crisscrossing your skies.

[@rogerpr364]

Period!

[@alpearson9158]

hmmm unless Canada is going to station a/c in Latvia or maybe Germany then why buy a purely tactical a/c rather than an intertceptor first capable of much higher speeds. Guess the cold war is really returning!

[@Corbots80]

Of course. It is the best jet available, with the most potential to update and improve.

[@Trev0r98]

Don't forget: each F-35 can effectively act as an AWACS or FAC platform at any time, given its real-time battlefield networking abilities and shared (or distributed) sensory fusion data.

[@virgilius7036]

They criticize the F35 when they know nothing of its capabilities!

[@bighands69]

@@virgilius7036 It is an actual ghost of the battle space and the opponent forces out there have no idea how to deal with it. It mixture of fast movement, low altitude and stealth make it impossible to track for defensive forces.

[@crispyglove]

I'd love to see a video on every country that's adopted the F-35, which ones have already taken delivery, and who has how many still on order.

[@winhtin3420]

Not sure about the single engine reliability argument but the upside to not getting the fighters earlier is the fact that the platform has matured.

[@lisaroberts8556]

I didn’t know Canada was the 2nd Country only only to the USA. To have soo many Hornets. Although these are not the Naval Variant of the Hornet.

[@sintician2939]

"Better late then never", but never late is better.

[@falconeaterf15]

When this fighter was on the drawing board was it not intended to be the fighter of choice for all of NATO? I guess it just took a while.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Reminds me of another Lockheed product slogan being marketed as the NATO fighter, back in the early 1960s The F-104G Starfighter

[@matthewq4b]

@@michaeldenesyk3195 The F104 was NEVER marketed as the NATO fighter..

[@hoghogwild]

That was the target market, it certainly wasn't designed for the "red" team.

[@douginorlando6260]

It took a lot of arm twisting and warnings from the state department. Leaked communications proved this was why Norway selected the F35.

[@matthewq4b]

@@douginorlando6260 GO on post a link to these supposed leaked communications.

[@jhk8396]

the F-35A has an internal fuel capacity of 8278 kg, that's slightly more than the F-22 and almost triple the Gripen E or F-16's internal fuel capacity. That's a lot of range without any external load penalties.

[@spackle9999]

Also, the Block 4 F-35s will have adaptive cycle engines capable of boosting the range 25%! This is barely even a competition anymore.

[@nitroxide17]

F-22 has less fuel capacity and a longer range... that is not intuitive

[@jhk8396]

@@nitroxide17 It doesn't have a longer range. The F-35A has a combat radius of 669nm whereas the F-22 is lower in the 500-590nm range.

[@appa609]

Similar philosophy as P51 and Su-27. Long range on internal fuel.

[@a.fredscullard162]

@@spackle9999 Block 4 will not get the adaptive cycle engine. The USAF is not going to absorb the total cost of this engine since it will not be installed in the F35B or f35C! Block 4 is getting the P&W Enhanced Engine Package for the F135 engine instead!

[@wildweasel3001]

Some cool upgrades scheduled for f35, its going to become very capable

[@rogerpr364]

I'm To old for this now! Planes of all sorts amaze me, those F's models are so existing to watch in action!! fast & faster! The need,,, for speed! I'm ok with the purchase of the F35's It's good for us Canadians and our nex door neigbor!!☺

[@CJB-]

Judging by Russia's recent performance in Ukraine they may have over spent.

[@KapitanPisoar1]

There is still China...

[@brandonstrife9738]

@@KapitanPisoar1 You need to start inculding India aswell.

[@KapitanPisoar1]

@@brandonstrife9738 India is on par with russia, probably worse.

[@CJB-]

@@brandonstrife9738 China and India are more likely to fight each other.

[@stevenbaer9061]

@@brandonstrife9738 Do you see India as a potential threat to Canada?

[@thomasernstpriessnitz2483]

It can also be mentioned that the Gripen is made for extreme temperature sand minimal maintenance.

[@thomasernstpriessnitz2483]

And with meteor missiles there is a just tremendous range for BVR

[@reneb3063]

cannot even fly the f-35 in a lightning storm.

[@bighands69]

Gripen simply will not compete with the F-35. One is a ghost of the battle space the other is faster and better in dog fights. The F-35 is a better defence force aircraft especially for naval defences.

[@alpearson9158]

better consult Red Flag oops@@bighands69

[@rick7424]

That is a lie@@reneb3063

[@e.s.5529]

imagine what the B-21 Raider and the NGAD/FA-XX program are going to produce ....Jesus.

[@robandcheryls]

Canadas next upgrade will be top notch Tanks OR Helo’s/UAV/“switch blade” sequence of vehicles.

[@lookharderatit]

Business is boomin for the f-35 program

[@yia01]

lockheed stock was at $77 a share in 2010, by 2015, it jump to $212 a share, here in 2022, it jump to $472 a share so yes business is booming.

[@galvinstanley3235]

14 countries own it now.

[@AirGaboon]

The only good thing about Canada waiting that long is the hundreds of millions saved due to a more mature program. In the mid 2010's, A models were over a hundred million per copy. Now unit costs are around 80 million per copy, but inflation is driving individual costs back up. So we will see what happens; can't go wrong with the Gripen if Lockheed gets greedy.

[@ogdocvato]

10 years ago F-35s were using block 2B software at >$100 million per jet. Now they cost $70 million per jet and ate delivered with block 4 software installed.

[@devonlord99]

@@ogdocvato Block 4 is not finished yet. An F-35 delivered today would not be Block 4.

[@a.fredscullard162]

@@devonlord99 Do you have any information on when the Block 4 & the Enhanced Engine Package from P&W will be ready for the production line!

[@hamishneilson7140]

We literally can go wrong with the Gripen, there's a reason it wasn't chosen. It's not the aircraft Canada needs or should have, especially considering the renewed understanding of the need for NATO cooperation/interoperability following the current escalation of global events. If Sweden joins NATO like has been gaining momentum within the country, there's a good possibility even they will opt in to the F-35.

[@devonlord99]

@@a.fredscullard162 Block 4 will be completed sometime within the next four or five years. The enhanced engine will most likely be ready around 2028-2030.

[@randyburns3842]

I love it I wish Canada had 500 of these things on order

[@alpearson9158]

gonna pay for them ?

[@Peter22055]

Update, Czech Republic will also have them

[@angelarch5352]

Note that since Canada hasn't had a need to attack anybody for the last decade-- by delaying the new fighter selection by 10 years, they just made all their new fighters last 10 years longer for free :)

[@germanher7528]

and then chose the F35...

[@allannantes8583]

I hate the way you think.

[@allannantes8583]

@@hermanmusimbi4337 They we’re supposed to buy new super hornets from Boeing but that got screwed up due to how Boeing hijacked Canada on the Bombardier jet liner deal whereby we told Boeing the deal was dead.

[@ryanestes7331]

@@germanher7528 exactly it's always good to get the world's best fighter jet

[@alpearson9158]

@@hermanmusimbi4337 No because the f18's only filled in the required airframes and we bought them for a song. That worked as for earlier f-35's they never left the hangars. The US had horrendous issues with those a/c

[@markbrisec3972]

F-35 detractors and haters usually point to JAS Gripen's sensors that are, in their opinion, equal to F-35's. They also say that the vaunted sensor fusion of the F-35 aren't unique given that Gripen supposedly has similar capabilities. Don't get we wrong, I think that Gripen is an awesome little aircraft, but saying that the capabilities that the F-35's DAS and EOTS systems, combined with the 100 000$ helmet, are somehow replicated by Gripen, is a complete nonsense.. And I haven't even mentioned F-35's stealth which is a capability that no amount of future Gripen upgrades can't add to Sweden's aircraft.

[@cattledog901]

Gripen fanboys are on another level of cognitive dissonance.

[@ryanestes7331]

@@criticalevent isn't the version you guys always harp about having better stuff than the f35 way more expensive? Brazil was buying copy's for 120 million a piece while the USAF gets f35s for 78 million

[@britishmalayasociety]

@@criticalevent They couldn't even give the Gripen E's to the Czech Republic for free. Everyone wants the F-35.

[@Dra741]

So Canada went through the different countries to see what was in their best mixed and that's what we always want them to do they want to see what was the best fighter for them on the economic and all the other relationship and it takes time to develop the idea and understanding how advanced the F-35 is, and how you can integrate with NATO and everybody like this even if you don't speak the language the infrared sensors on the F-35 really make a credible capability that's if you don't have it

[@kempmt1]

Even though I didn’t like either fighter, I was expecting Canada to choose the F/A-18E Super Hornet instead of the F-35.

[@benrakus4912]

I may disagree with Mr trudeau on most things. If it wasn't for him stalling the procurement, then we'd have 20 less F35s or any jet. We currently only have 70 flying CF18s today out of the original 130. I don't think we should keep down sizing the RCAF, but I could be bias.

[@hoghogwild]

We just added 18 CF-18s to the fleet. We cant afford 130 F-35, though I agree I'd rather have 130 F-35s for the RCAF.

[@johnn1250]

Maybe they will transfer the best examples of the CF-18 to the Snowbirds? The CT-114s are about 60 years old now. it's time for a upgrade.

[@alpearson9158]

@@johnn1250 nope not a chance

[@miketheskepticalone6285]

The Great Flaming Turdeau deserves no credit. The only reason he finally got off the stick was Putin's tantrum. He finally had his face rubbed in the simple fact people don't always agree, and mutually contradictory national goals will generate conflict. It's not planning, but simple good luck their dithering resulted in getting a platform with most of its bugs already worked out, and a price point that might be survivable.

[@benrakus4912]

@@johnn1250 they are a cold war icon, and are the only demonstration team that runs such a unique aircraft, may be old but enthusiasts from everywhere come to see them. They hornet is too old and expensive to maintain for a aerobatic team, and it wouldn't really separate them much from the blue angles even though they have super hornets

[@patdbean]

If you are going to have a "one" fighter air force then probably the best choice. I still think that a twin engine mach 2+ fighter (f15ex , F18e/f/g or Typhoon ) is better in some situations.

[@ktwei]

Yea maybe, but it can't always be Jeremy Clarkson style. Sliding around screaming "POWER!!!"

[@patdbean]

@@ktwei yes, I know speed is not everything . I am British and it is about 40 years since 20 odd subsonic sea harriers came out on top in the falklands , against much faster mirage 3s

[@outatime626]

It all depends on the kind of mission you’re trying to carry out. For now, the current crop of mach 2+ fighters still have a lot of utility that they can offer, but as more advanced fighter jets and missile defense systems come out and disseminate to air forces, the speed becomes less of a game changer relative to what can be offered by the F-35 and F-22.

[@spackle9999]

F-15EX would be a better choice. The US will always have F-35s to spot targets for the bomb/missile trucks. You don't really need top of the line, but hey, good for them.

[@geofftimm2291]

@@patdbean The Mirage 3s were at the limit of range and afterburner use might put the pilot in the ocean, far from home. It's not a simple equation from a spec sheet.

[@MiserableJosephson]

No HUD? What is the backup if the HMDS fails during combat?

[@sean70729]

They F-35 participated in DACT exercises against it's sales competitors and proved itself generally overwhelming.

[@stupidburp]

The most likely adversaries will be Russian unstealthy bombers with unstealthy escorts. Range, speed, and firepower are more important than stealth for that scenario. The most common missions will be peacetime patrols and intercepting unresponsive commercial aircraft, no stealth needed at all for those 99% of total missions.

[@bighands69]

@@stupidburp The F-35 operating as Network-centric warfare point for other aircraft is a tactic that the Russians and Chinese will not be capable of dealing with. Combine that with general singal warfare in the context of strike capabilities and the whole of the Chinese or Russian radar airspace will be useless.

[@alpearson9158]

really then don't look at the most recent red flags..................... a shock awaits

[@mcamp9445]

@@stupidburpwill that still be true in 2050?

[@timopkokko]

As a Finnish engineer and scientist, I do agree with this analysis. I commend Canada for its selection. Finland came to the exact same resolution. F-35 spare part production has been a problem. Canada and Finland remedy that, a lot 🙂

[@alpearson9158]

NOPE, PARTS ONLY WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM THE US AND AS SUCH ALL THE REST OF US WILL BE VERY LOW ON THE TOTEM POLE THE GRIPEN ACTUALLY HAS A BETTER ELECTRONICS SUITE BUT THEN NO ONE SEEMS AWARE

[@cockatoo010]

The grippen offers F16 capabilities at F-35 prices.

[@Forest0922]

pretty sure the f22 is double the price per hour to fly

[@alpearson9158]

untrue please research Gripen E facts before commenting

[@imyourdad2458]

Why the hell wouldn't they want to purchase a product that they are literally producing? That just boggles my mind.

[@douglascoleman1252]

I’m less surprised by Canada’s F-35 purchase than I might have been 6-7 years ago. As global warming continues, so opens up the waterways lying along Canada’s northern border. As such the potential for conflict, as Canada maintains its control over those increasingly enticing, potentially ice-free waterways, with others determined to access those waters, has become more probable, especially with Russia. As a result Canada will definitely want to have at its disposal, an airplane that manages data the way the F-35 does, especially if those planes need to communicate with others, most probably those of the U.S. Thus the F-35 makes perfect sense, as Canada may need to maintain its authority over its far-north waterways, in a more aggressive manner than it is used to. And the F-35 is the perfect, bird for the job.

[@xkavarsmith9322]

And if Canada plans it right, they can have their own aircraft carriers with some F35 Bravos too.

[@alpearson9158]

only problem well two. 1 too slow, 2 short range requiring numerous tankers as just purchased

[@snarf9455]

Same thing as in Finland replacing legacy hornets with F35s. Seems like Finland made the right choise.

[@appa609]

finland seems to have paid half the unit cost.

[@snarf9455]

@@appa609 Finland got an awesome deal from what I’ve gatherred.

[@gradient2503]

Nice

[@ericb.4358]

PLUS Canada will likely order their F-35 aircraft with the new GE dual mode engine where you can fly it in a long range mode and switch to a speedier (and thirstier) mode in combat. This is very good for Canada's huge distances between their military airfields.

[@bighands69]

A current F-35 would still protect large areas of the Canadian airspace.

[@alpearson9158]

only with numerous tankers@@bighands69

[@larryweiss7170]

It is always advantageous for allies to field the same weapons.

[@classicgalactica5879]

True. Germany in fact announced recently that it is purchasing 35 F-35s from the United States to begin replacing the Tornado.

[@cinemaipswich4636]

For 12 years Australia has been funding the development of the F35, and we are now finally getting some. I hope that Canada is willing to pay the extra cost.

[@matthewq4b]

12.... years Canada has been funding development since 1998...

[@alpearson9158]

you need to do research before making statements

[@Karl-Benny]

Same reason they dropped the CF-105 Arrow

[@1moderntalking1]

That F35-C looks so good 😮

[@anarchyandempires5452]

The F-35 is one of the least expensive fighters..... Got that sentence feels so weird after decades of people complaining about how expensive it was.

[@morgananderson9647]

Great Video! Thanks for sharing! I was really hoping Canada was going to select the Gripen, as it's a great plane and could use some International additional sales.

[@spackle9999]

Ukraine could really use Gripen. Simple to maintain and can be operated from roads if Russia attacks again.

[@virgilius7036]

Stupid, to do what? Insufficient range, not stealth, not as developed at the level of electronic avionics! none interest, fighter for the poor countries!

[@swh0rd682]

@@virgilius7036 "stealth" lol...NO aircraft in that theater is "stealth"

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@virgilius7036 , the avionics are modular and easily integrated. Fun fact, the C/D datalink was *downgraded* to the NATO standard Link 16 in order to achieve interoperability. Shorter range and less stealth isn't that much of a problem in Ukraine unless they intend to go bomb Moscow, which I doubt is high on the list of missions. ;)

[@BaliMystic]

Thank you for the explanations! I’ve also wondered why Canada didn’t go with the super hornet which appeared to be the obvious choice. Stealth is not at all a requirement for defending Canadian airspace. Perhaps alternate cheaper non stealth panels will become available. I’ve heard of extensive damage being caused to the panels from flying supersonic. Another perk of the F35 is carrying a bunch of ordnance inside the aircraft. I gues Time will tell if it’s the right choice.

[@Diademic111]

our government rejected the fighter based on trials run while the F35 was missing its signature armaments and defensive measures.. our clueless Prime Minister called it a 'stealth fighter with no stealth' .. it's nice to see him eat his words and this fighter will be an awesome upgrade for our aging F16s

[@scott.c9587]

This is just another reason those people who don't know anything about aircrafts and why countries buy them should keep their opinions to themselves. Especially the ones who said the F-35 is a piece of junk. Why to go Canada.

[@mikemontgomery2654]

I know plenty about aircraft. I was against F-35 for Canada. We still don’t fully know it’s Achilles heel. That plane could easily still be a piece of junk and we just don’t know it yet. I will not keep my opinions to myself. Maybe you should think hard about your own advice for yourself.

[@cattledog901]

@@mikemontgomery2654 The F35 has been selected by more than a dozen airforces and won every competiiton its been in, including Switzerland, Finland, Poland, Germany and now Canada this past year. These professional airforces know way more than you do and have tested the aircraft in real world exercises. It's pure hubris and ignorance to think you know more than they do on the aircrafts effectiveness. Keep exposing yourself.

[@mikemontgomery2654]

@@cattledog901 I don't think so. They may have evaluated based on USAF pilot reports, done SOME flight testing prior to purchase, listened to Lockheed rhetoric (as you have). Anybody with any common sense knows not one airforce is going to be allowed to touch a plane they have no stake in. Then, there's actual combat. Unless that country owns the planes they take into combat, they're not going to touch anything else. You want to block the issues with the F-35 because you have a giant boner for the aircraft. After that, the bigger picture means nothing to you. Thank you for exposing yourself.

[@alpearson9158]

@@cattledog901 think f-104 before making such comments

[@paladin0654]

To sum up: the F-35 is a fully integrated system.

[@cab6273]

Makes me wonder how they're going to handle air refueling.

[@stevenbaer9061]

Does Canada not have any tanker aircraft? If not then the only way to handle that task is to obviously build or buy some

[@alpearson9158]

will require about three mmrt's so that is also another expense

[@harrypothead4575]

Can you do a f35 vs j31 video?

[@heritageimaging7768]

Still amazed how many Canadians have been sold on the Gripen. Probably need to stop reading the Toronto Star.

[@KapitanPisoar1]

Gripen is a good plane but it would make absolutely no sense to choose it over the 5th gen F-35 or currently used Hornets with all the infrastructure already needed being there...

[@mtmadigan82]

Its more to do with us and other fellow allies. It being a very solid platform, its an easy sell. Being close in terms of distance and interoperability is great for maintenance, training, seamless integration if a conflict arises. Its expensive but theres a whole list of good reasons even with another foreign aircraft being possibly cheaper and similar ability on some benchmarks. Plus knowing the reality of it ever being used in defense of canada or joint operations in country is essentially zero. We wouldnt stand by in any conceivable type of attack on them. If they bought anything else, it wouldn't matter buying f35s or not. We wouldnt turn our backs in the time of need, regardless. One could abuse that understanding. Its good to see canada is not.

[@virgilius7036]

Eurofighter and Rafale are more expensive than F35.

[@jimdearborn2539]

Canada is currently using Probe and Drogue with their CF-18s. However they have selected the F-35A, which does not have a probe installed. Will they work out an agreement to install the Probe from the F-18B/C on their Lightning II?

[@pete-m86]

No, not necessary. The new A330 tankers will have both drogue and boom refueling.

[@ricardogulpe6328]

Hahaha, now a rush of many pilots including those pilots who’ve left will be coming back applying for the job!!! Congrat’s Canada & RCAF for becoming one of the world’s “SUPERPOWER IN THE SKIES!!!”

[@NGaugeVideo]

I'm glad Canada has finally seen sense. All that time wasted by Trudeau and his clown show has put the RCAF back 10 years..... Let's hope the Canadian people vote him out at next election.

[@alpearson9158]

was supposed to be bought by his predessesor in 2010 but was not thus blaming Trudeau is just political bs

[@fullcircle8231]

@al Pearson except the video explicitly states that Trudea ended procurement for the F-35 when he entered office before any deal had been officially completed. There's no one to blame except Trudeau and his political administration😐😐😐

[@devinbyrnes8058]

@@fullcircle8231 Harper had a majority and never pulled the Trigger on a purchase. Trudeau did. Case closed.

[@maryrafuse3851]

Very happy its the block IV F-35 and that Canada let other countries work out many bugs with the aircraft. Since we have a one fighter jet Airforce I believe this is the best choice. Perhaps we can call it the CF-35 Arrow? Overall a good decision and one we have invested in.

[@arfshesaid4325]

only one pproblem. it kinda isnt shaped like an arrow. lol

[@maryrafuse3851]

@@arfshesaid4325 True.

[@maryrafuse3851]

@@arfshesaid4325 More jets looked like arrows in the late 1950's & 60's. Still your comment is true.

[@Dra741]

I was Disturbed but I was really impressed with Canada keeping the F-18 he's an operation for so many years, but Canada has been able to Faithfully keep these aircraft running functionally and participate in Afghanistan it's just a credible thing cuz I thought they should have more upgraded aircraft but what they have they did the best with it and everybody's impressed

[@bighands69]

That is the thing US support for parts and servicing is one of their main draws when it comes to aircraft. You could imagine even in a major war that they would come good on supply.

[@canadianguy1955]

They are barely operational. When the balloons showed up over the great lakes and our northern territories. Our F/A-18's could not get airborne fast enough to interdict the threat. It took an f-16 and an F-22 to engage them. Canada's air force is a paper tiger when not being supported or backed up by a US air base. The only forces actually defending Canadian airspace is the USA's national guard, airforce and navy. Our F/A-18 fleet simply isn't capable or ready for the task.

[@douglasdebaets6597]

I think that a better bang would be the Turkish drones, with a load of the shoulder launched ground to air missiles.

[@GSteel-rh9iu]

you might not be totally wrong either woooooot!!!

[@Krebssssssss]

In addition, the aircraft mentioned, the Rafale, the Typhoon, and the Gripen, are, at best, halfway through their lifespans. With modern defense technologies, those aircraft are much less survivable on the battlefield, and in hostile environments. In addition, it is imperative allied militaries are as coordinated and networked as ever, and the best aircraft to do that, by far, is the F-35. The F-35 has considerable room to grow still, and is the first modularly designed aircraft. Meaning, it will be fully upgradable during its lifetime. Block I F-35s will have all the avionics, armaments, and tech advancements as block 40. Not to mention the F-35 is now cheaper than the Super Hornet, and is projected to reach the $25,000 flight cost per hour target by 2025, making it the cheapest aircraft to operate in the long term. It just makes sense.

[@davidrydl7292]

Except is it is a slow fat "fighter" with only advantage being stealth. Except nobody ever tried it in a fight if it is really stealth against newest radar technologies. If this claim turns out to be wrong, it is going to be the biggest most expensive f up in history. And $25,000 per hour is far from cheapest. Even F-15 is cheaper to fly.

[@johanmetreus1268]

Please, the JAS39 was modular in the 1990s, and datalinks were fully implemented already with JA37 Viggen. F-35 is still four times the cost of JAS 39 per flight hour. For deployment overseas, the F-35 is still a better choice though, especially when deep penetration is required.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@davidrydl7292 It's not slow. Pilots say the F-16 pilots have to run on afterburner to keep up with a F-35 on dry thrust. Newest radar technologies cannot defeat physics. You cannot make a flashlight that makes a black shirt reflect more light than a white shirt.

[@davidrydl7292]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD hmmm.. interesting. Maybe repeat it to the pilot of "invisible" black F-117 which was shot down over Yugoslavia in 1999. ;) Sooner or later someone will make a better flashlight. Even Israeli official said that F-35 stealth technology will be useless in 5-10 years. That's why they are using their own electronic systems on their F-35s and don't have to wait till at least 2027 for very very expensive and problematic Block 4 upgrade which will make F-35 at least little bit usefull. "A senior IAF official said that the F-35's stealth may be partly overcome within 10 years despite a 30 to 40 year service life, thus Israel's insistence on using their own electronic warfare systems."

[@wallow4210]

@@davidrydl7292 Okay the example which you use is dumb lmao. The F-117 that got shot down was a time where everyone was complacent, and literally all of the right circumstances were aligned for it to get shot down. The officer in charge of the battery had to study common flight paths (which, by that way, after that incident has changed overall stradgy in strategic bombing), had to point his radar in this one particular spot in the sky, and prey that the F-117 was still on that route. Stealth isn't about being completely invisible. It's about being detected slower; the F-35 against an anti air missile system with radar is going to always find its target first before getting detected, because y'know, HARM, Eletronic Warfare, and the fact radars are a bigass target to detect. By the time an F-35 actually gets detected, the F-35 will be able to send off its payload. I wouldn't really trust the word of Israelis. They have every reason to say whatever the fuck they want to justify using their own electronic warfare systems. Cool. I assume the US is sharing every detail about the F-35 program to Israel, and Israel also has developed aircraft, as well as stealth aircraft to boot.

[@dilvishpa5776]

As someone who has worked in the aviation industry and has sat at tables with USAF generals, I can tell you that survivability is a major concern for the USAF. Given that the F35 has been blowing F15s out of the sky by large margins during air combat exercises for a number of years now, it is inconceivable that anyone would think a less expensive plane is a better option because you can buy more of them. More less expensive planes blown out of the sky does not translate into money savings, or victory in the air. I hope the F35 haters, with whom I have had exchanges over the past decade, are eating their well-earned crow. Edited to correct typos.

[@claymclaren5788]

I don't particularly think so. Gripen had its own set of advantages for Canada over the F-35. I am very glad this is all over, and that the RCAF will get their new fighter in short order. I am not someone that will claim that the Gripen is just as good, but for intercepts over the Arctic or interdiction missions over Europe ìts fine. Even for the few bombing missions we take part in, it would have accomplished the job to deliver a few SDB's or the occasional GBU's. Gripen would have been less costy to fly and allow money to be budgeted for replacements of other equipment that is in need of replacement. Like a replacement for the Armies WW2 era sidearm. The Canadian military doesn't have the unlimited budget of the US for gold toilets. Over spending on a gucci piece of equipment means that our Army (arguably the personnel most in danger of death) go without something. The CSC program is already funneling about 20 billion LockMarts way out of to replace our Frigate when the entire program was supposed to cost 20 billion (and would have if the MOST expensive option hadn't been chosen). It great that you know US Generals that will go on to work for American arms manufacturers, but I'm pretty sure those same Generals would be just as happy if Canada can actually afford to send its military somewhere when the time comes with proper equipment that isnt falling apart or broken.

[@dilvishpa5776]

@@claymclaren5788 You peddle tired old tropes about golden toilets, demonstrating that you clearly understand nothing about military specifications, the resulting procurement process and eventual production. You are also not one of the pilots inside these planes putting their lives at risk, so you can be pretty cavaliar about the risks.

[@claymclaren5788]

you don't spend the money on extra fighters, you buy new munitions, or other force multiplers like new equipment for our troops since we have been issuing the same side arm since WWII. The actual pistols issued to soldiers in WWII. The Karl Gustavs we had been using were retired and sent to the Ukraine, so we don't really have an anti-armour weapon. We are going to have to modernize our rifle system because 5.56 is probably going to go the way of the Dodo if the US Army adopts the new 6.8mm Rifles and ammunition they are developing to counter enemy body armour. There is a laundry list of things we could buy with 16.8 Billion dollars that would help thousands of people to survive a war instead of just the few pilots that will probably fly the new fighter until it is replaced.

[@dilvishpa5776]

@@claymclaren5788 That is a totally different argument than your original one. That is a resource allocation question, not “system A versus system B” decision. Canada hasn’t been meeting it’s NATO spending committment for years, which may explain the poor state of affairs you describe. Edit: Also, given your point about lack of resources in the Canadian military, Canada had to choose a single airplane for its military. The F35 wins the NATO interoperability argument.

[@claymclaren5788]

@Dilvish PA I believe specifically the "5 eyes" interoperability issue was the main problem and why the Gripen was going to cost us so much more. All the added security enhancements were going to cost a pretty penny. We all knew it was going to happen when Boeing threw itself under the bus over Bombardier. I just don't know why they bothered postponing the announcement so long.

[@cdp200442]

Best choice they could have made..congratulations Ca

[@aaaeee2862]

I still love the super Hornet.I’m old school. Now I understand my uncle. He never liked Jets, only propeller aircraft.He grew up in the 40’s. I also love the EA-18G Growler.

[@taiwandxt6493]

The Hornet and Super Hornet are indeed very sexy aircraft however eh the F35 is winning me over.

[@aaaeee2862]

@@taiwandxt6493 👍

[@waltsears]

Thanks for the informative video! I’m sure Canada’s northern exposure to Russian controlled territory and Putin’s aggression functioned to make the F35 more necessary these days.

[@bighands69]

The F-35 will neutralize any incoming naval force. For Island and large coastal nations the F-35 would be a force multiplier for existing naval defence forces.

[@allensteen3228]

The F-35 falls short on range and that isn’t a bonus in the Arctic.

[@alpearson9158]

short range and not enough speed !?

[@rick7424]

Not enough speed? What are you talking about? At what speed did air combat take place during the Gulf War? I will give you a hint, it was far below the F-35s top speed. @@alpearson9158

[@autarchprinceps]

Buying Super Hornets today would be a supreme waste of money for such an aging design. I do wonder, how did Canada end up with those 3 planes in the running specifically though? Why not the Rafale or Eurofighter, if the Gripen was a choice in the running? Not like they excluded European models at that stage, and they would have 2 engines. If you ask me, I do think stealth is the reason F-35 gets picked most of the time. Since the US won't sell the F-22 abroad, that leaves very few options, beyond developing one yourself, to get that. Sure China has the J-20, but who knows how well that even is at stealth, and obviously not an option for almost anybody, since countries willing to buy from China are typically too poor for that, even were China willing to sell that one in particular. Otherwise, it's all just small series, prototypes or desires to build a stealth plane in the future. As such, is it surprising, when countries pick the F-35, especially, if nuclear participation in Europe mandates an American build fighter bomber by now or your own nukes anyway.

[@spackle9999]

You have to consider ground crew training, maintenance, expertise, pilot training, parts, etc. They already had all of that for Super Hornet/Growler. And Super Hornet is just as good as the rest of the Gen 4.5s out there. Doesn't matter which gen 4.5 you fly, really. US F-35s will always be spotting your targets anyway. But now you don't need us for that.

[@autarchprinceps]

@@spackle9999 Canada may have, but Germany sure doesn’t. Haven’t looked it up, but I think only Spain has Hornets in Europe. It would have been a massive mistake for Germany to replace Tornados with Hornets.

[@spackle9999]

@@autarchprinceps It's only a mistake if you had the chance to buy F-35 and let BS cloud your judgment. If you insist on gen 4.5 then Hornet/Growler is better than Rafale/Typhoon, or Gripen. F-18 would dominate due to the ECM capability of Growler.

[@appa609]

Chinese and Russian jets cannot even be contemplated. The US would sanction Canada over it and accuse us of fraternizing with "the enemy"

[@appa609]

Dassault anc Airbus pulled out due to the contract's technology transfer requirements.

[@reneb3063]

what competitions?

[@whalehands]

this is huge!

[@ramiroguerrero6331]

It is never a good idea to buy that first model, more expensive with lots of bugs, now, bugs were fixed and got cheaper, good job Canada 🥇