RE:CF-18 replacement RFP F-35 is the only fighter which should be bought. When it comes to battle equipment then go for what is needed without diluting the req by looking for industry offset job creation supplements etc. I work with few RCAF aircraft maintainers and they were quick to point out that CF-18 was picked over F-16 mainly for dual engines redundancy. Loose an engine and fighter can limb home. With single engine you loose an engine you loose the entire airplane. While engine reliability has improved the issue with bird strike is still there. This is the same reason US Navy and Marines went with F-18. But now they are also replacing twin engine with F-35. USAF based F-35 in Alaska will also fly in same conditions as the CF-18 currently does. Case of dual engines while valid is no longer as essential as it used to be. Buying euro trash fighter a generation behind F-35. Knowing that RCAF will operate jets for 30 plus years only makes sense to buy the newest tech out there. I call fighters out of euro trash because they were more of job creation success then as fighters and again they are late 80s technology and upgraded to 90s-2000’s avionics. Norad and most Nato will operate F-35 and these airplanes talk in frequency and codes that older generations don’t have. To bring then to new standards will bring cost of older fighters to more then the F-35. And spare parts on these already old jets will hard to get in future. F-35 due to stealth design is not as good a dog fighter as F-16 and F-18 but with current technology leap most air battles will be out of sight. Stealth is the future and older generation fighters are now target practice for new generation SAM, and AAM.