First Norwegian Armed Forces Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II, known as AM-1 Joint Strike Jet Fighter, is unveiled during the rollout celebration at Lockheed Martin production facility in Fort Worth, TX, on Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2015. (Laura Buckman/AFP/Getty Images)

Norway’s experience with F-35 fighter jets offers lesson for Canada


As the federal government embarks on a much delayed and criticized quest to find a replacement for its ageing fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, Norway’s saga with the acquisition of F-35 stealth fighters offers Canada a valuable lesson.

The search for a replacement for CF-18 got a new urgency Tuesday after a blistering report by Canada’s auditor general, who lambasted the Liberal government’s handling of the file that could have serious implications for Ottawa’s ability to fulfill its NATO and NORAD obligations.

Just like Ottawa, Oslo was one of the first NATO countries to show interest in the new stealth multirole fighters developed by U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.

In June 2009, the Norwegian Parliament decided that the F-35A Lightning II would replace its current fleet of F-16 fighter jets. Unlike Ottawa, despite strong internal opposition, Oslo saw things through.

By 2025, Norway hopes to have a fleet of 52 F-35s.​

No-show at Trident Juncture demonstration

Norwegian F-16s escort a Jet Falcon DA-20 electronic warfare aircraft during an Air Power Capability Demonstration of the NATO exercise Trident Juncture 2018 in Byneset near Trondheim, Norway, October 30, 2018. (Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP/Getty Images)

Norwegian authorities were hoping to showcase their newest and most expensive defence acquisition in the country’s history at a massive display of NATO’s military might during the official launch of Trident Juncture 2018 exercise on Oct. 30.

But much to the chagrin of dozens of journalists, NATO officials and dignitaries that had assembled on the shores of the Trondheim Fjord in central Norway to watch the display of land, sea and air power, the Norwegian F-35s never showed up.

Lt.-Col. Stale Nymoen, commander of the 332 Squadron of the Royal Norwegian Air Force and one of the first Norwegian pilots to learn to fly the F-35s, said strong crosswinds at the Ørland Air Base forced officials to cancel the planned overflight.

The cancellation of the overflight on an otherwise perfect autumn day had nothing to do with the jet’s capabilities, Nymoen said.

“Seen from my perspective, it’s one of the best fighter aircraft out there,” Nymoen told a roomful of journalists during a briefing at the Ørland Air Base in central Norway earlier this month.

But it has taken even experienced pilots like him years to learn to fly the new fighter jets and, just as importantly, unlearn old habits, Nymoen said.

Learning to crawl before walking

The first three F-35 fighter jets ordered by Norway’s Air Force arrive in Orland Air Base in central Norway Friday Nov. 3, 2017. (Ned Alley/NTB scanpix via AP)

Norway received its first four F-35s in January of 2017. But all of them were stationed at the Luke Air Force Base in Phoenix, Arizona, where Norwegian, U.S. and Italian pilots trained on the new aircraft.

It wasn’t until November of 2017 that the stealth fighter jets actually arrived for service in Norway, at the Ørland Air Base, which is going through a massive infrastructure upgrade to house the new planes.

Operating and flying them in Norway with its harsh North Atlantic and Arctic climate is a whole new experience, Nymoen said.

“What is different from Luke when we train to operate the aircraft here is temperatures, winter, icy and slippery runways, winds,” Nymoen said. “Those are conditions that we don’t necessarily get to train for when we’re training in the United States.”

And the Norwegian air force is taking a very cautious approach to avoid any accidents, he said.

“We have to learn to crawl before we can walk, and we have to learn to walk before we can run,” Nymoen said.

The first squadron of F-35s is expected to reach initial operational capability in 2019 and full operational capability only in 2025, eight years after the aircraft were delivered to Norway.

This timeline would also apply to Canada, if Lockheed Martin were to emerge as the winner of the competition to buy 98 advanced aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force announced by the Liberal government last December.

The list of eligible suppliers identified by the federal government also includes France’s Dassault Aviation, Sweden’s SAAB, the U.K.’s Airbus Defense and Space, and the U.S. defence and aerospace giant Boeing.

If the federal government manages to stick to its timetable, a contract award is anticipated in 2022 and the first replacement aircraft delivered in 2025.

This means that the current fleet of Canadian CF-18s and the 18 additional second-hand Australian F-18s the federal government is buying as a stopgap measure will have to operate until at least 2030, experts say.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Politics

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet netiquette guidelines.

Netiquette »

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1.’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3.’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.


9 comments on “Norway’s experience with F-35 fighter jets offers lesson for Canada
  1. adamo cianci says:

    I think a wait and see is the best way to go. the f18 are still good, We should be making our own jet plain ,with Canadian requirements to our climate and ability to go further without refueling. I get the fact that we need the USA a a great alliey . But it would be nice to have something that we can be proud of.

  2. Avro Arrow says:

    “Seen from my perspective, it’s one of the best fighter aircraft out there,”
    – Lt.-Col. Stale Nymoen

    Well, THIS man has been bought and paid for by Lockheed-Martin and the pentagon. You want to know the REAL reason why Norway chose the F-35 over the JAS-39E? Here:

    WikiLeaks released internal emails detailing the considerable diplomatic pressure that the US government exerted on Norway to get them to change their minds. IF the F-35 was the “magic” aircraft that so many on the conservative side of the political spectrum like to tout it is, this kind of diplomatic pressure would never have been deemed necessary by the Americans. The fact that it was not only tells volumes about what a piece of utter GARBAGE that the F-35 is, it also calls into question whether or not the US used that same tactic against countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark.

    It should be noted that Germany just said “forget it” to the F-35. If the RICHEST country in Europe deems it undesirable, that speaks even MORE volumes.

    Here’s the WikiLeaks info:

    Not much more to be said here. The lesson that we should learn is:


  3. Avro Arrow says:

    All of this is academic anyway. I’ve spent years researching the potential candidates, not just the American planes. Sweden’s Saab JAS-39E Gripen will be far and away our best option. The Gripen is state-of-the-art, deadly, versatile and most importantly, sustainable. You have to hand it to those Swedes, they’re a bunch of geniuses over there and the Gripen just completely outshines the competition with real technology instead of buzzwords or outdated airframes like the Americans have.

    • Richard says:

      Agreed. The best fighter plane is the one in the air. Low initial and flight costs, ease of maintenance, and fast turnaround will keep the Gripen in the air. The F-35 is a hangar queen, and stealth is an expensive flavour of the month – developments in detection technology will soon make it irrelevant.

  4. Alan Barnes says:

    I don’t understand why Canada is considering the Super Hornet over it the latest version of the F-15. The F-15 is much faster, has much greater range and the latest version has similar or Superior avionics to the Super Hornet

    • Archangel says:

      Canada doesn’t request specific aircraft, Canada produces a list of requirements and issues them to interested parties. Those companies review the list and then make an offer, with an aircraft that they believe best suits to meet those said requirements.

      While the F-15 is a great aircraft it is also quite old, the latest airframe design dates its introduction back to the 1980’s (even older with the derived airframe) and doesn’t have the same capabilities (in flight refueling capability and hardened landing gear) like the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is far newer, being introduced in 1999 and would be far easier for current mechanics to understand and for pilots to get use to, additionally it uses the same probe drogue refueling method the current CF-188s use and has carrier hardened landing gear for rough landings under harsh conditions. The F-18 Super Hornets are largely different designs unlike the F-15 which for the most part use very similar and interchangeable parts to it’s predecessor.

      • Mark says:

        Wrong. The F15E AND K are in production, have more modern systems than the Super Hornet, and with conformal features have a lower radar signature and greater range. The downside of the F15 is the long runway.
        The Super Hornet is a great aircraft, but would be downed by an F15.
        The F15 is Air-Air refuel capable, the RCAF tops them off all the time.
        Looking at what CBC has written about the F35, it may be the aircraft does indeed take a much longer learning curve to fly. With the current RCAF issues of crew shortages, and low training, perhaps this is not an aircraft for a Tier C military force like Canada.
        The Gripen, a cold weather multi role f/b might be worth a second look.

        • Avro Arrow says:

          The F-15K is a completely outdated design that is badly outclassed by all three Eurocanards. It WAS the best fighter in the world at one time but that was back in the 90s. It hasn’t been the best fighter in the world since the Gripen was released back in 1996!

          The design itself is ANCIENT, older than the CF-18s that we want to replace. Are you such a worshipper of the USA that you’re willing to get outdated fighters from a company that cost us the most advanced commercial jetliner in the world just because it’s American? That is the POLAR OPPOSITE of being a patriotic Canadian.

          An “upgraded” F-15 today would be about as useful as an “upgraded” F-4 would have been in the 90s. The design itself is outdated and no amount of tech thrown at it will change that. It cannot supercruise despite having tremendous amounts of thrust. It cannot land at our forward operating bases in the Nunavut and Northwest Territories because the runways are too short and it can’t use arrestor cables. I don’t know if you’re aware, but the F-15 WAS an option for the RCAF back when we got the Hornets. The F-15 was considered “too much” plane for our purposes. It was too big, too expensive to buy and operate and it drank WAY too much fuel.

          Recently. two US Super Hornets and one Japanese Eagle were humiliated by a pair of Su-35 Super Flankers. Then, VERY recently, an F-16 was shot down by a MiG-21. This does NOT instill much confidence in American cold war designs in this day and age.

          The Gripen is the best choice for Canada and it’s not even close.