Canada Future fighter capability project (ex-Next Generation Fighter Capability)

[dark sidius]

^ I suspect that Carney might be waiting for the outcome of the US mid-terms in a few months at the earliest, or the outcome of the next US election before making a decision, in hopes that there's enough resistance within the US to halt or even reverse US policies towards Canada under this administration.

Canada have Huge US Factory like Dodge or Ford and others, they must be realy thinking at what they do....

 

[bennyp]

I don't understand why this thread continues to be spammed with Saab marketing nonsense

This thread has seen an absolutely ludicrous series of replies. You guys can't see the sheer irony of trying to honor U.S. interests (NATO, NORAD) while simultaneously trying to counter U.S. interests? Kindergartners have more political acumen than the lot of you.

You are just arguing over which flavor of political capture looks more fashionable.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Rafale with METEOR. That's the Arrow with Sparrow II, returning from the graveyard lol.

Except Sparrow II only had about the same range as Sidewinder...

Honestly, something like F-35A with AIM-424s or AIM-260s would likely be the right fit for the Arctic Air Patrol mission. (I'm assuming that the software is the same between the different versions, so once USN gets the Malice cleared on -Cs the Canadian -As can carry it.)

 

[timmymagic]

We are committed to about 30 F-35s, which should be enough for NORAD purposes. And there are plenty of Typhoon Tranche 1 available for lease, NATO obligations and overseas deployments; 40-50 would be adequate.
This incurs the costs of a dual fleet for about a decade, but at least both will use AMRAAM, not Meteor.

By about 2036 ( if all goes according to plan ) we can start looking at GCAP replacing the leased Typhoons, and possibly selling the F-35s to Germany, which seems to be stuck going nowhere with their future procurement planning.

It also buys time which is crucial. And time means credible options in the fighter market at present.... GCAP might not work out (I don't think that is actually likely, but there is always a risk). T1's would bridge the gap at a comparatively low cost until that programme had developed further and risks had dropped away, or if it fails Canada would have other options. FA/XX may be around, KF-21 would have developed further.....the world of unmanned systems will have developed further.....you never know but F-35 Block IV work might have got moving by then....and if things have really gone south but the US has returned to sanity F-47 might be a necessary high end complement to F-35.

The 30 F-35 would give Canada a credible deployable force for some time, pretty certain the T1's would cope with anything that could actually reach Canada in the near to mid term.

 

[timmymagic]

sheer irony of trying to honor U.S. interests (NATO, NORAD)

NATO and NORAD are Canada's interests too...as well as being beneficial to the US

 

[MigLui]

Kindergartners have more political acumen than the lot of you.

More like Grade School.
Where the bully tries to threaten and coerce the other school-children, in order to get his way, and personally profit.
Can you guess who the bully is ?

 

[galgot]

This thread has seen an absolutely ludicrous series of replies. You guys can't see the sheer irony of trying to honor U.S. interests (NATO, NORAD) while simultaneously trying to counter U.S. interests? Kindergartners have more political acumen than the lot of you.

You are just arguing over which flavor of political capture looks more fashionable.

Sir, please, some of us are serious here. At least some try.
The mods even test these planes before buying them.

 

[Ozair]

Why you have to take it so personally? It's an American aircraft.

I haven't take it personally.

it's convenient to dump everything on Trump, but there's reason gripen is still there in this room, when rafale and typhoon aren't.
Part is Saab being clingy, but Dassault can be just as persistent when they see a chance.
And frankly speaking, Trump didn't make F-35 worse as a proposal. Trump, for the first time in decades, forced nations to buy aircraft on merits, rather than just paying US to do everything for them.

Then again, Gripen E was back then a "worse risky aircraft, later". Now it turns out they'll deliver FOC together with F-35, and it's very difficult to perceive Gripen as riskier any longer, short of Sweden being nuked.

It's talked about for 1.5 decades. CAF wants their barely affordable toy, though what they want doesn't add up another glorious achievement - F-16G in discussion (can F-35 replace any non-MC aircraft?)
Gripen offers same relative advantages over F-35 which F-16G will.

You are inventing a narrative that has no basis in fact. I've previously given you the evidence why this position is untrue. That you chose to pursue it isn't for the purpose of truth or fact, it is just being contrarian. If you want to talk wild crazy speculation, then it belongs in Discussion and Speculation, not here.

Well that is a response as classy as the current US admin...

At some point the behaviour needs to be called out. Other than perhaps a couple of the Saab evagelists there is no one else on this board who would consider what was proposed a valid or potential reason. There is no factual basis for it.

As for what Canada should get, en bon français, I'm with @Archibald for Rafales + Meteors, or even Typhoons + Meteors as second choice cause it's fully European too.

I agree with your suggestions on alternatives and has been my position all along. If a second fighter is really needed and the reason is no reliance on the US then Gripen is not it. Eurofighter and Rafale make far more sense but at the very least run a competition and make non US content a weighted factor.

Canada can send the already bought F-35 for deployment overseas in NATO operations and use the Gripen for air policing the Arctic.

To do so requires the RCAF to approve the Gripen for NORAD which also would likely needs US agreement. Even then you put an aircraft with less range and reduced sensor coverage into a region that requires more of both.

 

[EmoBirb]

I fail to see the justification for the length of this discussion. Canada will receive F-35s, that's the end of it. It's to be seen if they genuinely pony up the cash to acquire an inadequate aircraft on top of that rather than just buying more of the jet they already ordered even if it might displease people that have little grasp on their geopolitical situation.

 

[Wotan]

To do so requires the RCAF to approve the Gripen for NORAD which also would likely needs US agreement. Even then you put an aircraft with less range and reduced sensor coverage into a region that requires more of both.

The actual canadian CF-18 operating in NORAD defense use standard Link 16 NATO data link, nothing special. There is nothing "NORAD special" regarding the communications between aircrafts and with the ground stations.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.co...lly-get-link-16-while-h92s-get-link-11-01720/

And any of the more modern aircrafts carying AESA radars and IRST systesm are more capable from the point of view of sensors functionality.

 

[timmymagic]

To do so requires the RCAF to approve the Gripen for NORAD which also would likely needs US agreement. Even then you put an aircraft with less range and reduced sensor coverage into a region that requires more of both.

Realistically if Canada purchased Gripen, low hour Typhoon T1's secondhand, GCAP in years to come...any other option etc etc.....is the US really, seriously, going to deny 'agreement' for a fleet of interceptors that help cover its own northern approaches, that are superior to CF-18 with greater availability? What then?

All of them are 'NORAD' compliant, they've got Link 16, have VHF to communicate with civilian aircraft etc etc...

What is the US going to do? Stop accepting data from the Canadian sited radar stations? Move loads of its own fighters around the country in preparation to intercept at the International Border?