I believe Canada would be best off canceling the F-35 and order F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornets seeing how Canada is already using the CF-18 effectively.
The second best alternative would have been to cancel the order of F-35's and go for the Gripen NG instead. The cost-effective alternative that will deliver a fighter aircraft that's [much] cheaper to fly aswell, operate and in initial procurement costs. The Gripen NG is a jet with larger combat radius aswell as larger maximum range than the F-35, with the ability to supercruise at Mach 1.2+ and that has much better maneuverability than the F-35.
The Gripen NG offers phenomenal BVR-capabilites as it has very low RCS- and IR-signatures [arguably not very far behind the F-35], an outstanding AESA radar, a powerful IRST system, an extraordinary electronic warfare suite and the latest long-medium-short-range high-kill probability missiles [Meteor & IRIS-T].
Thanks to a modern and hi-tech HMD, the use of modern IR-missiles, electronic warfare systems and superb maneuverability, it will perform just as well in WVR-combat.
I'm sure that Saab would be able to give Canada a very good deal for a very good price within a very short period of time. Canada, would also most probably get the same kind of deal as Brazil or India, being in charge of more than 70% of the manufacturing/production and get hundreds of thousands of job opportunities in Canada, aswell as being in charge of all other Gripen sales within North America.
And regarding the somewhat frantic economy aswell as the escalating NATO costs, a cheaper fighter jet is more preferable for the Canadian Air Force seeing as you get almost 2 Gripen NG fighter jets per F-35.
A few points to consider. The F/A-18 E/F SHornet is an entirely new, though very similar aircraft to the CF-18 A/B Hornets in Canadian service currently. While the aircraft is very advanced, it is not currently at the leading edge of capabilities at present, and as time progresses and newer designs enter service (F-35, PAK-FA, J-20 et. al.) it will be less and less capable against potentially hostile aircraft. The farther into the future one plans, the less relevant the SHornet will be. If Canada had placed an order for SHornets when they first entered service ~2001, then service until ~2025 - 2030 would be reasonable. If Canada were to order SHornets now, they most likely would not begin to enter Canadian service until 2016 at the earliest, and IMO 2018 - 2020+ is a somewhat more likely timeframe. Assuming a 25-30 year service life, that would 'see' Canadian SHornets serving until 2043+, which IMO would not be reasonable based upon the likely limations the system places upon the platform.
As for a Canadian order of Gripen NG's... These are IMO still 'paper' airplanes. There has been much talk here on DT and elsewhere about the Gripen NG, but when one gets down and seriously examines the claims in terms of capabilities, costs and development risks, then things stop adding up. One of the key issues here is that the Gripen NG does not yet exist as an actual aircraft. There has been a Gripen C or D which has been modified somewhat to serve as a sort of prototype for some Gripen NG systems, it is not the same as actually having a Gripen NG prototype to do testing on, nevermind actually have SDD completed and be ready to commence production.
Significant use of OTS can help reduce programme risk, but also limits just how advanced a design could be. By planning on having the Gripen NG have a very similar aircraft layout as earlier Gripen, it does put some constraints on just how much RCS and Sig reduction can be achieved, nevermind what level of materials science the Swedes have which is relevant to LO projects. IMO it would be more reasonable to compare the potential Gripen NG RCS and Sig to that of the Sig-managed F/A-18 E/F SHornet, not the LO F-35.
In short, since there is no clear idea on development costs, capabilities or potential numbers ordered, or even if/when the Gripen NG will be ready to commence LRIP, IMO it is foolish to claim that costs will be "seeing as you get almost 2 Gripen NG fighter jets per F-35". And Canada would also run into the issue of no longer being able to utilize US warstocks like Canada can currently do for the legacy Hornets.
ok this is somewhat a noob post
but why doesnt NATO allow its nations to buy from Russia? Their not hostile to each other..so why?
Reason I say this is in the first post I saw something about cold weather planes...what county in the world can make better cold air planes then the coldest country on earth.....
The SU-35 would be perfect for them. Very good 4.5 gen fighter.
I honestly dont think they need the f-35...what do they need a 5th gen stealth fighter for? Canada is a peaceful neutral country that really doesn't have conflict with anyobdy
Oh boy, this needs a bit of correction here.
Canada is not a 'neutral' nation, and never has been. Canada has been a member of NATO since it was founded, and prior to that military alliance, was part of the Allied and British Imperial forces since Canada was founded as a nation. Therefore, anything which NATO is involved in, or could be drawn into, has the potential to involve Canada and Canada has to plan accordingly.
As for NATO 'not allowing' members to purchase from Russia, that is not true. Greece for example has purchased S-300 SAM systems as well as BMP IFV's IIRC. In terms of large scale or advanced systems like ships, submarines and aircraft (fighter/strike and surveillance aircraft specifically) NATO members just typically are not interested.
Take the example of the Su-35 suggested as an alternate candidate for the next Canadian fighter aircraft. Without significant changes or additions to the onboard avionics, an Su-35 flying in Canadian service would not be able to interact with aircraft and systems belonging to Canada's NATO allies. All those E-2 and E-3 AEW aircraft would not be able to provide target data, early warning, or any of the other systemic advantages which NATO members have spent so much time and effort developing.
Next, Canada would have to choose whether to stock Russian-made munitions for the Su-35, or make the effort and spend the funds to enable the Su-35 to deploy munitions made to NATO standards and could enable Canada to use a NATO ally's warstock if need be.
It is also worth noting that Russian (and Soviet before them) aircraft have a different design, construction and maintenance doctrine than that used by most Western nations. While an Su-35 would likely have a lower initial cost to purchase and begin operations, Russian aircraft typically have a higher operational and logistical cost. That logistical cost in particular would count against the Su-35 in Canadian service, because Canada would most likely need to source many of the Su-35 parts from Russia, which in a time of conflict might not be available, particularly if the Russian position does not agree with the Canadian position. Continuing with the potential issue a higher logistical cost could have, since the design is different (and a different doctrine) then much of the resources which Canada could potentially draw upon from an ally during a conflict would be unavailable, since the NATO allies operate completely different equipment.
For the last bit, as gets brought up here at DT repeatedly, the issue is the system, not the platform. With the system which Canada is integrated with, adoption of the Su-35 would either require that Canada change the whole system, or complete significant work adapting the Su-35 to integrate it into the system Canada uses.
-Cheers
