4 ms·

Saab makes excellent AWACS systems, this strikes me as a good choice. It'll be interesting to see if Canada also invests in the Gripen long-term, as a replaceme

Saab makes excellent AWACS systems, this strikes me as a good choice. It'll be interesting to see if Canada also invests in the Gripen long-term, as a replacement for the aging CF-18 fleet.

jleyank 5mo ago
I think the F-16 would have been a good bird for Canada's needs. The F-18 had the advantage of two engines, which strikes me as a good thing in the Arctic. If these two are off the table, things like the Saab are reasonable. There's only 2-3 countries one needs stealth fighters for, and 30-40-ish won't matter in such cases.
- switchbak 5mo ago
  We've long pushed for 2 engines - which has made sense in the past. Even a successful ejection over the vast arctic would basically be a death sentence. Though some of our allies don't seem to have the same reservations, and it seems modern engines are a lot more reliable - certainly the F-35 only has one, so it looks like we're ok with it now. The modern F-18's and the new F-15's would have also made sense, but agreed that modern F-16s would seem to be a nearly perfect fit if a single engine is now deemed acceptable. Given we like to keep equipment for as long as physically possible (and then some), the F-35 might have more runway (rimshot) in that regard though.
  - jleyank 5mo ago
    If the F-15 line is still in production, it's a damn fine bird and has broad mission capability. And the remaining B-52's are probably older that most of the HN community. At least those not retired or cashed out.
    - switchbak 5mo ago
      The F-15 EX looks to be pretty popular right now, export-oriented and will probably be around for a while. To be honest, which aircraft we choose isn't going to be the make or break part. All the other terrible decisions that politicians make will be. Like waffling on a decision for another 10-15 years, paying cancellation fees, etc.
- nradov 5mo ago
  The F-16 lacks the range to operate effectively in Canada. They would need to load it up with multiple conformal or external fuel tanks, which wrecks performance, and would still need extensive tanker support.
switchbak 5mo ago
The F-35 always seemed like a funny choice for a mainline fighter for Canada. Even the US has invested in many more F-15EXs. Having a Hi/Lo mix makes sense for a larger force, but equipping a smaller force with only exquisite birds doesn't seem to make much sense. Then again, this is Canada - sensible decision making in military procurement just isn't something that happens here. But the economies of scale are such that at least the $$ isn't completely out of whack (for purchase at least, maintenance I'm not so sure of). I would wager that the cost of maintaining those ancient CF-18s is pretty high now too though.
- jandrewrogers 5mo ago
  The F-15EX is designed to be a stand-off missile truck that works in tandem with a network of forward-deployed stealth jets. This compensates for the relatively low ordnance load-out of stealth jets. A stealth jet can designate and cue a target from the front using an F-15EX as a missile launcher safely in the back since it is non-stealthy. The F-15EX isn't a particularly survivable aircraft on its own. It is a plane you'd only use if you have stealth jets and you plan to do air combat at scale. It augments the capabilities of something like an F-35 but isn't something you'd add to your fleet unless you had a lot of stealth aircraft.
  - bigyabai 5mo ago
    The F-15A/C is designed to act as a missile truck, but the F-15EX was specifically designed to be a multirole strike fighter. You can operate it without putting 20 AMRAAMs on the pylon, or without an F-35 datalinked to it, and many countries do. The flexibility and heavy ordinance are the selling point at home and abroad. Canada could very well operate the F-15EX without a fleet of stealth fighters. The F-35 is not an interceptor platform in any sense of the word, in an "all out" scenario like you're suggesting it's doubtful they would be any better than the CF-18 they have today.
  - switchbak 5mo ago
    That's how the USA uses it, and for that use case it makes a tremendous amount of sense. I just think it's a bit too rich for Canada's blood. Perhaps the whole-system costs do balance out in the end: surprisingly reasonable capex, capable at many roles, excellent at NATO combined roles, etc. There's a lot to like on the balance sheet. But the maintenance costs are killer, and we're talking about an exceedingly underfunded military (thanks to the politicians, our military do wonders with what they have). I mean, in any real engagement our fleet is going to be blown away by a real adversary in short order. This is about presence and deterrence, I'm just not sure how essential stealth is to accomplish those goals. It sure is a nice pay day for Lockheed and friends though.
Animats 5mo ago
From the article: > Saab is also in the running to sell Canada some of its Gripen fighters. The Iran war has uncovered a vulnerability of the USAF's approach to basing. The USAF likes to build large, elaborate air bases. Many of the bases used to attack Iran have been hit by Iran.[1][2] Large air bases are tough to defend from drones and missiles in quantity. There are anti-drone weapons, but now that drones are used by the thousands and tens of thousands, some of the attacks will get through. A major air base is a big, fat, soft target. Both the US and Russia have recently found this out the hard way. Air forces now need to disperse and hide. Saab, which stresses operating from minimal airfields and roads, has aircraft better suited to that.[3] Stealth may not help as much, especially for fighters. Geometric stealth, which is designed to reflect radar beams to anywhere except straight back, doesn't help for bistatic and multi-static radar. All the players in the current wars have some of those systems now. So, as in WWII, air operations anywhere near the enemy require dispersal. [1] https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-strikes-us-bases-middle-east-radar-destroyed-pentagon-damage-2026/ https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-strikes-us-bases-mid... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/world/middleeast/iran-strikes-us-military-facilities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/world/middleeast/iran-str... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E

Saab makes excellent AWACS systems, this strikes me as a good choice. It'll be interesting to see if Canada also invests in the Gripen long-term, as a replacement for the aging CF-18 fleet.

jleyank 5mo ago

I think the F-16 would have been a good bird for Canada's needs. The F-18 had the advantage of two engines, which strikes me as a good thing in the Arctic. If these two are off the table, things like the Saab are reasonable. There's only 2-3 countries one needs stealth fighters for, and 30-40-ish won't matter in such cases.

switchbak 5mo ago
We've long pushed for 2 engines - which has made sense in the past. Even a successful ejection over the vast arctic would basically be a death sentence. Though some of our allies don't seem to have the same reservations, and it seems modern engines are a lot more reliable - certainly the F-35 only has one, so it looks like we're ok with it now. The modern F-18's and the new F-15's would have also made sense, but agreed that modern F-16s would seem to be a nearly perfect fit if a single engine is now deemed acceptable. Given we like to keep equipment for as long as physically possible (and then some), the F-35 might have more runway (rimshot) in that regard though.
- jleyank 5mo ago
  If the F-15 line is still in production, it's a damn fine bird and has broad mission capability. And the remaining B-52's are probably older that most of the HN community. At least those not retired or cashed out.
  - switchbak 5mo ago
    The F-15 EX looks to be pretty popular right now, export-oriented and will probably be around for a while. To be honest, which aircraft we choose isn't going to be the make or break part. All the other terrible decisions that politicians make will be. Like waffling on a decision for another 10-15 years, paying cancellation fees, etc.
nradov 5mo ago
The F-16 lacks the range to operate effectively in Canada. They would need to load it up with multiple conformal or external fuel tanks, which wrecks performance, and would still need extensive tanker support.

switchbak 5mo ago

The F-35 always seemed like a funny choice for a mainline fighter for Canada. Even the US has invested in many more F-15EXs. Having a Hi/Lo mix makes sense for a larger force, but equipping a smaller force with only exquisite birds doesn't seem to make much sense. Then again, this is Canada - sensible decision making in military procurement just isn't something that happens here. But the economies of scale are such that at least the $$ isn't completely out of whack (for purchase at least, maintenance I'm not so sure of). I would wager that the cost of maintaining those ancient CF-18s is pretty high now too though.

jandrewrogers 5mo ago
The F-15EX is designed to be a stand-off missile truck that works in tandem with a network of forward-deployed stealth jets. This compensates for the relatively low ordnance load-out of stealth jets. A stealth jet can designate and cue a target from the front using an F-15EX as a missile launcher safely in the back since it is non-stealthy. The F-15EX isn't a particularly survivable aircraft on its own. It is a plane you'd only use if you have stealth jets and you plan to do air combat at scale. It augments the capabilities of something like an F-35 but isn't something you'd add to your fleet unless you had a lot of stealth aircraft.
- bigyabai 5mo ago
  The F-15A/C is designed to act as a missile truck, but the F-15EX was specifically designed to be a multirole strike fighter. You can operate it without putting 20 AMRAAMs on the pylon, or without an F-35 datalinked to it, and many countries do. The flexibility and heavy ordinance are the selling point at home and abroad. Canada could very well operate the F-15EX without a fleet of stealth fighters. The F-35 is not an interceptor platform in any sense of the word, in an "all out" scenario like you're suggesting it's doubtful they would be any better than the CF-18 they have today.
- switchbak 5mo ago
  That's how the USA uses it, and for that use case it makes a tremendous amount of sense. I just think it's a bit too rich for Canada's blood. Perhaps the whole-system costs do balance out in the end: surprisingly reasonable capex, capable at many roles, excellent at NATO combined roles, etc. There's a lot to like on the balance sheet. But the maintenance costs are killer, and we're talking about an exceedingly underfunded military (thanks to the politicians, our military do wonders with what they have). I mean, in any real engagement our fleet is going to be blown away by a real adversary in short order. This is about presence and deterrence, I'm just not sure how essential stealth is to accomplish those goals. It sure is a nice pay day for Lockheed and friends though.

Animats 5mo ago

From the article: > Saab is also in the running to sell Canada some of its Gripen fighters. The Iran war has uncovered a vulnerability of the USAF's approach to basing. The USAF likes to build large, elaborate air bases. Many of the bases used to attack Iran have been hit by Iran.[1][2] Large air bases are tough to defend from drones and missiles in quantity. There are anti-drone weapons, but now that drones are used by the thousands and tens of thousands, some of the attacks will get through. A major air base is a big, fat, soft target. Both the US and Russia have recently found this out the hard way. Air forces now need to disperse and hide. Saab, which stresses operating from minimal airfields and roads, has aircraft better suited to that.[3] Stealth may not help as much, especially for fighters. Geometric stealth, which is designed to reflect radar beams to anywhere except straight back, doesn't help for bistatic and multi-static radar. All the players in the current wars have some of those systems now. So, as in WWII, air operations anywhere near the enemy require dispersal. [1] https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-strikes-us-bases-middle-east-radar-destroyed-pentagon-damage-2026/ https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-strikes-us-bases-mid... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/world/middleeast/iran-strikes-us-military-facilities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/world/middleeast/iran-str... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E