Dear editor:

As a former Royal Canadian Air Force pilot, I enjoyed the comments of your contributor about the coming fighter aircraft for the air force, even if the topic was a bit peculiar for a local newspaper (“Opinion: Canada, a.k.a. Venezuela North?” Jan. 8).

I wouldn’t quibble too much about the facts presented that lead your contributor to his recommendation of an all Gripen E procurement. Well, maybe the F-35’s requirement for mixed nuts. Here are a few facts I think need to be added to the discussion.

The Department of National Defence directorate of aviation requirements has consistently and recently made it clear that the F-35 is the aircraft type that best meets Canada’s defence requirements. The directorate of aviation requirement’s assessment would have included existing data about short and unprepared field operation and system malfunctions for both the F-35 and the Gripen E.

To my knowledge, Canada has no strengthened highways similar to those in Nordic countries that are prepared and suitable for aviation use. The government already has a considerable investment in the F-35 and a contract that might be expensive to break.

The RCAF has a lengthy history of simultaneously flying more than one fighter aircraft type to meet national defence objectives. The operation of the CF-100 Canuck and CF-86 Sabre is one example. The CF-101 Voodoo and the CF-104 Starfighter is another.

Limiting the F-35 purchase to the number of aircraft in the existing contract and dedicating them to NORAD, or North American defence, makes sense to me. So too does negotiating a contract to acquire the Gripen E to signal our intent to align ourselves more closely with the Europeans.

Kenn Moody
St. Davids