[Baron von Kriterium]

Fundamentally, the Government of Canada has to define the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces and - more specifically to this topic - the role the RCAF plays in executing that mission.


Once that happens, it makes life easier for those in the Requirements directorates of the CAF to define the requirement. Unfortunately, senior officers like shiny new things and "situate the estimate" by defining the requirement after they have already decided what their preferred widget is.



Now, if the primary role of the CAF is the defence of Canada (as it should be), then the RCAF does not require an F-35. If Canada insists on deploying a fighter squadron overseas to drop bombs on brown people and technicals in the Middle East, then Canada does not require an F-35.


The Grippen and other aircraft not named F-35 are more than capable of intercepting enemy aircraft (presumably over the Arctic Ocean if one wishes to define the threat as Russian).


I do not advocate purchasing any military equipment, including fighters, that have multi-role capabilities because you end up with something that can't do any of the multi-roles adequately. If you need interceptors, buy them. If you require bombers, buy them. If you require air superiority, buy them. So, to answer Fuzz's question, I absolutely support the notion of different fleets of aircraft. We used to operate that way. However, the RCAF is not currently in a position to support multiple fighter fleets.