At this time. And we've already paid for 16. The question is:
1) Do we need 88 frames? Original requirement was 65 for NORAD and NATO commitments. So can the growth go elsewhere?
Given the fact that the RCAF had 138 CF-18's and we've still ran into availability issues which required us to purchase nearly 20 additional airframes/aircraft, I do not think the 88 airframe figure is sufficient and you can likely guess where my opinion lies as to the original 65 figure. Canada is the second largest nation on Earth, a prolific NATO partner and increasingly are pushing our support for partners in Asia. It does not fly with me that 88 airframes alone are sufficient, let alone 65 in this climate.
2) Do we need 65 frames? Split the NATO and NORAD requirements and the hard coded NORAD fleet is probably 40-45 frames. Let's not forget that Eurofighter didn't bid and Dassault pulled out because of concerns meeting CAN/US security requirements. If that requirement isn't relevant for the aircraft committed to supporting NORAD, well that creates new options.
As I stated above, 65 airframes is woefully insufficient. 88 airframes are likely workable for NORAD and some limited NATO missions but as the airframes get older and availability drops, especially as we look towards Asia, I do not even think that figure is sufficient. I'd like to see us coming back to something like the 140 that we had with the CF-18 purchase, maybe even 160 if you include the additional option that we never ended up exercising. Obviously the fleet would be highly stretched to maintain, pilot and operate this many aircraft in its current state, but I think it is something to consider.
There's some options here:
1) Ignore it all. Accept the high risk of policy control from Washington. Take 88 Panthers.
2) Make room for a future more capable second fleet. Cut the order to 65 as originally envisioned. Try and get into one of the 6th gen programs. Take delivery in the late 30s or early 40s as capability growth.
3) Immediate second fleet. Cut the Panther order to just 45 frames. Immediately begin negotiations with Eurofighter and Dassault for a 45 frame order. Maybe even consider used frames that have 15 years left in them. Three used fleet could even be a bridge to the 6th gen fleet.
1.) As unpopular with the frothing nationalists as this option current is, I would put forward that it is the only sensible option here. There has been no inkling of even talk from Washington that anything touching the F-35 is on the table, and the cascading effect that any attacks or pressure on the Canadian F-35 program has for the 20~ other operators abroad is apocalyptic. The US has been pushing for Canada to pull its weight on NATO and NORAD, our F-35 procurement handily does this while being the most interoperable system with the US, and also being the best bang for buck capability. People should remember that even if we lose our collective minds and cancel the F-35 procurement entirely, the Canadians and Americans will still have to work together for NORAD duties. We both need each other and such a breakdown is entirely off the table. I personally think we should be looking towards purchasing additional F-35A's if at all possible in the future.
2.) I don't trust this option for a few reasons. All of these European next gen fighter programs are unproven, none of the partners have actually developed a modern stealth fighters through to service. Looking at the American NGAD program potential cost figures, you are looking at a per unit cost of like $300m USD, roughly 3-4 F-35A's. Such a figure will eventually come down however, it will fundamentally remain high due to the advanced nature of these platforms and their low adoption rates compared to the F-35's huge economies of scale. With how desperate the Europeans are for fighters, how many partners/customers already exist and the charitable nature of their timelines, I don't think a late 30's to early 40's RCAF 6th gen deliver date is especially realistic. How many 6th gen aircraft will a future RCAF procure when they could be individually worth 2-4 F-35's? You also have to consider their increased size and complexity above the F-35, that is a logistical burden alongside the operation of two airframes.
Given these facts, I could easily see a future Canadian govt throwing that expensive idea aside. I think you could argue reasonably as well that 6th generation fighters are entirely overkill for Canadian requirements, and the F-35 is more than sufficient for the foreseeable future.
3.) Very bad idea, used airframes never work out well and the political baggage that would bring would be substantial. The Europeans are scrambling to have their own forces be brought up to a modern and reasonable state, are they going to give us half decent fighters? Or are we going to be given the table scraps of the Rafale and Eurofighter fleet? Both fighters seemingly have many orders already on the books and no solid timeline for delivery, let alone throwing nearly 50 additional RCAF fighters into the fray. At the end of the day, you'll have a bunch of used and/or new airframes with limited longevity even for our NORAD roles. Everybody loves to point and laugh at the Russians for their lack of stealth fighters now however, expecting that to last forever is a bet I wouldn't take. The F-35 can reasonably meet and exceed their potential aircraft, I do not expect souped up last generation European fighters to be doing the same. Dealing with the training, logistics and infrastructure issues of operating a conga line of CF-18's, CF-35's, used European fighters, new European fighters and potentially 6th generation European fighters sounds like a rife schedule to be interrupted by changing political attitudes towards defence in the future.
Keep it simple stupid applies here quite well, which seems to fall back to the F-35.
We're Canada. Let's be honest. We'll bitch and moan about the risk and then go with option 1 because every other option requires a ton of work on the part of DND, the CAF and industry. But if we're being honest about the risk from the US and the utility of using defence purchases as leverage, we should be looking at something like option #2 at least.
Hopefully we do, all of these other options seem like various flights of fancy in a situation where everybody is high off the nationalism supply going around right now. We can make leverage elsewhere where realistic and good alternatives to US purchases exist, the fighter program really isn't one of those.
