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?

 

[galgot]

I fail to see the justification for the length of this discussion.

Interest and fun, long discussions can occur when people find the subject interesting and fun to debate. Nothing wrong about that.

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.

Brrrr... that's a bit... finale, Miss.
Note, I believe too they will get some F-35s, as they are apparently stuck to get some. But I believe too that acquiring some Gripens can be beneficial as a start to get a bit more strategic independence from the US in defence and build cooperations with other actors than the US.

Also it's not like RCAF didn't had several types together in service already, I think they operated CF-101s, CF-104s and CF-5s at the same time in the past. True that was another era, but it shows it can be done.
In peace time I could see the Gripen filling the role of the CF-5 for example, even tho with much more capabilities. Like having a something cheaper to operate for mundane missions like air policing for example, certainly less expensive than sending a stealth jet to escort an airliner in difficulty. Or just maintaining fast jet proficiency for a bigger pool of pilots.
All this while having that cheaper jet with still quite some punch if needed to supplement their F-35s in case of real troubles.

 

[Ainen]

But I believe too that acquiring some Gripens can be beneficial as a start to get a bit more strategic independence from the US in defence and build cooperations with other actors than the US.

It won't. What it can do is produce several hundred high level aircraft specialists in a time where theyatter a lot(drones), and in general save money(maybe for munitions even, god forbid) and available sorties.

 

[galgot]

It won't. What it can do is produce several hundred high level aircraft specialists in a time where theyatter a lot(drones), and in general save money(maybe for munitions even, god forbid) and available sorties.

One does not preclude the other. Your theory is not at odds with mine.
Sorry, "theyatter" ?

 

[Ozair]

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/

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?

There is more to NORAD systems than just a data-link. The other side of it is Saab will have to open their systems completely for US security review and approval.

EDIT: The other thing I was going to add is I expect relations will improve significantly no matter which party wins the next Presidential election and a Canadian Gripen won't be a thing until 2031 at the earliest anyway. That would make approvals potentially smoother as long as Saab opens the closet to inspection (and that goes for Globaleye and Gripen).

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

No there is a clear difference. For starters the F-35s radar and other systems are more capable but the F-35s MADL is also significantly more capable and also LPI, unlike Link 16 & CDL39 combination on the Gripen. The capability of both radar and data-link allow an F-35 flight to spread out further while still sharing data in a way that an adversary will not detect. It translates to more airspace being covered for the same amount of jets and an adversary not being aware they are being tracked or targeted.

 

[Apophenia]

... Sorry, "theyatter" ?

No clue. Perhaps a reference to Canada's Defense Drone Initiative Marketplace?

The DDIM is closely based on Ukrainian supply methods (not to mention Ukrainian drone technology. Something close to CAD 1B (€ 622k has been committed. At the beginning of September, CAD 50M (€ 31.1M) was allocated for CAF procurement to kick things off.

-- https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-r...-scale-drone-production-build-canadas-defence

 

[Ainen]

One does not preclude the other. Your theory is not at odds with mine.
Sorry, "theyatter" ?

*They matter*. Rushed typing, sorry. As @Apophenia raises it - same specialists that assemble aircraft are applicable to simple COTS drone making, even when you don't have the rest of a full military aircraft supply chain (example - Antonov).

 

[Wotan]

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

Those factories will run anyway in serious trouble soon...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-canadian-automotive-steel-tariffs/

""Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social.
"On Jan. 1, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50%," he said, noting that vehicles that are built in the U.S. are not subject to tariffs.
"Canada will be treated like a State no longer!" he added.
Non-U.S. automobiles and parts are currently subject to a 25% tariff. Imported Canadian steel already faces a 50% levy. "

The american car manufacturers will run into financial difficulties and will have to sell those factories to european firms. Probably the canadians will have soon both Gripen and Volkswagen factories, like the brazilians. Problem solved.

 

[MigLui]

On Jan. 1, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50%," he said,

We'll see what Congress has to say about that after Nov 2

 

[Apophenia]

As @Ainen suggested, any Canadian engineers, technicians, or other skilled trades involved in GCAP (or some other future fighter for the RCAF) are, by definition, unavailable for drone development and production under DDIM.

Those factories will run anyway in serious trouble soon...

That is already being sorted. By way of example, GM just poured CAN 1B into Canadian operations. This was not just a reaction, it was a belated survival plan. And much of it involves GM reversing its earlier decisions (Oshawa layoffs, CAMI Ingersoll EV halts, etc.).

Like the rest of 'Detroit', GM had cut Canadian jobs and production quotas to reduce the 'hit' of US tariffs. Then, GM raised prices and adjustments 40% on US-built vehicle intended for sale in Canada. Predictably, the end result was US-made vehicle sales in Canada fell off a cliff.

However, none of this really affects Canadian involvement in aerospace projects. Even with the full assembly of GCAP in Canada (however unlikely), no-one will be planning to nail 'em together in a 73 years old auto plant in Oshawa. And Ukraine - our DDIM model for all things UAS - has demonstrated that most drones can be produced in the smallest and simplest of shops.

What this translates into is now redundant auto parts makers in Ontario repurposing their shops to supply other industries - including making widgets for aerospace and, now, DDIM. We really don't need erratic industrial partners like 'Detroit' anymore.

 

[Wotan]

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/09...-in-2028-saabs-jas-39-gripen-could-join-them/

"Former submarine officer Hush Kit has argued that: “The Gripen vs F‑35 debate isn’t about hardware or software. It’s about whether Canada has the self-respect to say, “We call the shots.”
And if Ottawa wants to be taken seriously — not as a junior partner but as a sovereign state — it should choose accordingly.”"

 

[Wotan]

The minimal number necessary for localised production and an interesting proposal for the engine.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/09...ide-sweden-on-the-f-35-its-ceo-says-its-both/

" Saab says an order for roughly 40 Gripen E fighters would be large enough to support full aircraft production in Canada – not merely the manufacture of components, but assembly of complete jets. It would be the first such Gripen production operation outside Sweden.
That does not mean Saab is asking Ottawa to throw out the F-35.
“We’re not trying to replace F-35 … it’s both,” Saab CEO Micael Johansson told The Globe.""

"The Gripen E utilizes the American-made F414-GE-39E engine.
However, GE and Canada’s Magellan Aerospace said that, if a Gripen is eventually greenlit, they would set up Canada-based repair and overhaul facilities for the complex engine."


https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/ge-magellan-f414-mro/

"Citing industry and government sources, CBC News reported that discussions are ongoing regarding the potential acquisition of a larger, mixed fleet incorporating both Lockheed Martin F-35s and Canadian-built Saab Gripen E fighters.

If the acquisition proceeds, GE Aerospace would provide technical training and formally license Magellan as a Canadian centre of excellence for F414 engine sustainment.

Under the terms set out in the MoU, maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) work for the F414 engines would be based at Magellan’s facility in Mississauga, Ontario."

 

[Titus]

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/09...-in-2028-saabs-jas-39-gripen-could-join-them/

"Former submarine officer Hush Kit has argued that: “The Gripen vs F‑35 debate isn’t about hardware or software. It’s about whether Canada has the self-respect to say, “We call the shots.”
And if Ottawa wants to be taken seriously — not as a junior partner but as a sovereign state — it should choose accordingly.”"

View attachment 824363

That attrociously fat woman buys over 68% of all of Canada's exports. All of Europe purchases about 15%. That is with a free trade pact (CETA) in force between Canada and Europe since 2016. Europe - no matter how blonde and busty - will never replace the USA as a reliable trade partner.
Carney is being just as idiotic in his behavior as Trump. By the time a new American administration comes along, he will have ruined the trade regime no matter who arrives in the oval office. I am a Democrat and can't wait for Trump's retirement but his rebuilding of our borders and his efforts to bring our factories back home...those are popular with a large majority of American voters (75% of voters support his border policies per a Harvard poll recently and a recent Cato Institute survey shows that 82% of voters support government initiatives that return American industry back to the US.)
This idiocy of claiming that everything wrong between the US and Canada is Trump's fault is not helping our cross-border relations.
One last bit of rant. Canada originally d3cided that the F-35 was its choice to replace the CF18 in 1997, before backing out. Then they "finalized an agreement " for 88 of the jets in 2023. Now they are "reviewing" the deal again and commiting, at the moment, to a ludicrous buy of 16 freaking jets. If Carney can't get himself to commit to a reasonable fleet (88 is minimal for such a large country) he should find the balls to cancel the contract and order 100 or so Rafales or Typhoons. The Saab entry is nothing more than an updated F-20 and Canada is NOT a light fighter nation.

And BTW, stupid memes like this have no place in an intelligent discussion. Ai meme photos are just so damned juvenile.

 

[galgot]

...

And BTW, stupid memes like this have no place in an intelligent discussion. Ai meme photos are just so damned juvenile.

Agreed but, to be honest the fat woman is a good caricature of a F-35.

 

[Wotan]

The Saab entry is nothing more than an updated F-20 and Canada is NOT a light fighter nation.

The Gripen is slighty heavier than a Starfighter...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrmKVwQ49m8


And has almost double the empty weight of a Freedom Fighter.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk2oZtQqjZ4


Both aircrafts proudly built in Canada. By Canadair. And which served Canada for decades. Last CF-116 (canadian F-5) were retired in 1995.

 

[Scott Kenny]

"The Gripen E utilizes the American-made F414-GE-39E engine.
However, GE and Canada’s Magellan Aerospace said that, if a Gripen is eventually greenlit, they would set up Canada-based repair and overhaul facilities for the complex engine."


https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/ge-magellan-f414-mro/

"Citing industry and government sources, CBC News reported that discussions are ongoing regarding the potential acquisition of a larger, mixed fleet incorporating both Lockheed Martin F-35s and Canadian-built Saab Gripen E fighters.

If the acquisition proceeds, GE Aerospace would provide technical training and formally license Magellan as a Canadian centre of excellence for F414 engine sustainment.

Under the terms set out in the MoU, maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) work for the F414 engines would be based at Magellan’s facility in Mississauga, Ontario."

Makes sense, IIRC Magellan is currently one of the MRO providers for F404s.

 

[Ozair]

The minimal number necessary for localised production and an interesting proposal for the engine.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/09...ide-sweden-on-the-f-35-its-ceo-says-its-both/

" Saab says an order for roughly 40 Gripen E fighters would be large enough to support full aircraft production in Canada – not merely the manufacture of components, but assembly of complete jets. It would be the first such Gripen production operation outside Sweden.
That does not mean Saab is asking Ottawa to throw out the F-35.
“We’re not trying to replace F-35 … it’s both,” Saab CEO Micael Johansson told The Globe.""

Did someone forget that Brazil has a production line for Gripen E...

"The Gripen E utilizes the American-made F414-GE-39E engine.
However, GE and Canada’s Magellan Aerospace said that, if a Gripen is eventually greenlit, they would set up Canada-based repair and overhaul facilities for the complex engine."


https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/ge-magellan-f414-mro/

"Citing industry and government sources, CBC News reported that discussions are ongoing regarding the potential acquisition of a larger, mixed fleet incorporating both Lockheed Martin F-35s and Canadian-built Saab Gripen E fighters.

If the acquisition proceeds, GE Aerospace would provide technical training and formally license Magellan as a Canadian centre of excellence for F414 engine sustainment.

Under the terms set out in the MoU, maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) work for the F414 engines would be based at Magellan’s facility in Mississauga, Ontario."

You already posted this agreement back in August in post #372 with these links,

Self sustainment for the future canadian Gripens.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...2/canada-prepares-gripen-e-engine-sustainment

https://thedefensepost.com/2026/07/23/canada-gripen-engine-support/

Again this is MRO work, not production and is standard for a fighter jet acquisition above a certain number of aircraft.

Magellan is also a parts supplier to the F-35 and applauded the Canadian Govt when they selected F-35 in 2023 so they win no matter which way the selection goes,

Magellan Aerospace Corporation (“Magellan”) applauds the Government of Canada’s announcement that it has reached a final agreement to acquire 88 F-35 fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force. By selecting the F-35, Canada is continuing a relationship that was established between the original partnering nations for the development of the F-35.

The announcement secures significant benefits to the Canadian aerospace industry. To date, Canadian companies have been awarded high value contracts as part of the F-35 global supply chain amounting to $2.7 billion USD as a result of Canada’s partnership in the F-35 program. The Canadian economy is anticipated to benefit by more than $16.9 billion CAD over the life of the program. The actions taken by the government on the F-35 program will continue to deliver economic and technical advantages to Canada for decades to come.

As an international partner on the program, Canada’s aerospace industry has had many first-of-a-kind opportunities to work directly on F-35 production and provided companies the leverage to adopt some of the most advanced technologies in the world. The formal F-35 selection secures Canadian industry’s investment in the program and is expected to facilitate access to future sustainment opportunities.

Magellan sends congratulations to the Lockheed Martin team. Magellan has provided complex structural assemblies and other components for the global F-35 program since the initial system design and development phase.

https://magellan.aero/press-release...aircraft-announcement-by-canadian-government/

 

[Apophenia]

... Europe ... will never replace the USA as a reliable trade partner.
Carney is being just as idiotic in his behavior as Trump. By the time a new American administration comes along, he will have ruined the trade regime no matter who arrives in the oval office. I am a Democrat and can't wait for Trump's retirement but his rebuilding of our borders and his efforts to bring our factories back home...those are popular with a large majority of American voters (75% of voters support his border policies per a Harvard poll recently and a recent Cato Institute survey shows that 82% of voters support government initiatives that return American industry back to the US.)
This idiocy of claiming that everything wrong between the US and Canada is Trump's fault is not helping our cross-border relations.
.

Wow. The USA is now "a reliable trade partner"? And ya'll are "helping our cross-border relations" by telling us just how many Americans support "rebuilding [their] borders"?

If this is to be "an intelligent discussion", experiment with a collaborative approach of mutual respect and active listening. And you may also want to stop arguing against yourself. Canadians don't care that you're "a Democrat". They care that Carney, et al, are acting to defend our economy against the very policies that you apparently approve of.

Oh, and another tip for when dealing with us funny little foreigners ... don't ever quote a US libertarian 'think tank' as evidence. Works against ya

Tense being important, the US used to buy 68% of Canada's exports. Now, the US is swinging a deal with the dictator of Belarus for potash. That, as an example plus the chaos of tariff whims followed by TACO Tuesday is our new trade reality. So, yeah/nah, reliability don't enter into it, mate.

Now remind me ... what is it that qualifies you to tell Canadians what kind of 'fighter nation' Canada is? Meanwhile, we can probably work out what fighter aircraft we want to procure all by ourselves.

 

[Ainen]

The Saab entry is nothing more than an updated F-20 and Canada is NOT a light fighter nation.

F-35 is not a heavy fighter either. This argument is particularly hard to entertain, as the F-35 does get either drop tanks or a twin-seater.
I.e. Gripen is not much of a wide area defense asset, but neither is F-35. Gripen is at least a money-saving asset, as they're cheaper AND they are almost certain to deliver wastly more sorties than F-35s.

Canada also gets to posture that they don't want to make their air force into just an add-on to the USAF any longer.

Maybe it'll eventually gets settled as a 3-type air force: GCAP - F-35 blk4 - Gripen E.
Not least as it now appears to be a path of the least political resistance, as well as a path with most strategic threats covered.

In broad strokes, Canadian strategic outlook now includes:
-NATO resurging as a phoenix in 2028, with the US more committed than ever.
-NATO remaining torn by controversies, assuming wounds won't magically self-heal.
-NATO weakening further, meaning Canada will now have to fend for itself.

All 3 options have their preferred fighter option. If you have all 3 fighter components, you are in the safest spot.

 

[helmutkohl]

I can follow the Gripen or any other aircraft providing Canada a bit more strategic depth than having a single fleet of aircraft.
And assuming that F-35 orders aren't cut, then additional Gripens could create more jobs to varying degrees.
I can even follow the logic of the Gripen taking over a number of tasks. It's not a 5th gen aircraft, but it could approach Canada's defense tasks differently than the F-35.

However what I can't follow that it will be cheaper. Sure, if you only look at flight costs per hour between the Gripen versus the F-35, it is cheaper to run. But at the end of the day, a hybrid fleet means two separate logistical lines that need to be supported (spares, weapons, etc), and the associated staffing and training needed, as well as incentives to retain them in the long term.
Given that Canada, like most countries in the developed world, are experiencing personnel shortages, these are added costs that need to be factored in when having a diverse fleet.

For some countries, they may be willing to spend more on the extra logistical burden of a diverse fleet in favor of strategic goals, such as the UAE or Qatar.

 

[Ainen]

However what I can't follow that it will be cheaper. Sure, if you only look at flight costs per hour between the Gripen versus the F-35, it is cheaper to run. But at the end of the day, a hybrid fleet means two separate logistical lines that need to be supported (spares, weapons, etc), and the associated staffing and training needed, as well as incentives to retain them in the long term.

Gripen E (not C/D) indeed won't be cheaper directly, at least not in the numbers available to Canada. It appears Saab stuffed too many high-end capabilities to end up much cheaper (though the same point undermines a substantial part of F-35 capability-to-capability superiority).

But the problem is not just price per sortie; it's also a visible struggle to make F-35s fly. Netherlands already got to the point of having to order additional F-35s just to achieve the minimum NATO requirement of fully mission-capable aircraft. Part of it is endemic F-35 problems, but just as much it is that they're using them for everything now.

If Gripen takes most mundane missions (at high availability), that is certainly saving a lot of money. It also helps to have the F-35 fleet always ready for what they're truly best for.
The same argument can be used for GCAP.

 

[Ozair]

I can follow the Gripen or any other aircraft providing Canada a bit more strategic depth than having a single fleet of aircraft.
And assuming that F-35 orders aren't cut, then additional Gripens could create more jobs to varying degrees.
I can even follow the logic of the Gripen taking over a number of tasks. It's not a 5th gen aircraft, but it could approach Canada's defense tasks differently than the F-35.

However what I can't follow that it will be cheaper. Sure, if you only look at flight costs per hour between the Gripen versus the F-35, it is cheaper to run. But at the end of the day, a hybrid fleet means two separate logistical lines that need to be supported (spares, weapons, etc), and the associated staffing and training needed, as well as incentives to retain them in the long term.
Given that Canada, like most countries in the developed world, are experiencing personnel shortages, these are added costs that need to be factored in when having a diverse fleet.

For some countries, they may be willing to spend more on the extra logistical burden of a diverse fleet in favor of strategic goals, such as the UAE or Qatar.

Add to that starting a new production line is not cheap and Saab would not be doing this out of their profit, it comes directly from a negotiated price for the aircraft and the associated package. How much is a new production line going to cost, maybe close to or above a billion dollars, and then staffed with comparatively high wage security cleared Canadians.

The mixed fleet study linked below also shows how much more is required to sustain two types, at significant cost and lower availability, compared to a single type. The lesson the RCAF learned when moving to the CF-18 but politicians can obviously decide to make the same mistake again.

But the problem is not just price per sortie; it's also a visible struggle to make F-35s fly. Netherlands already got to the point of having to order additional F-35s just to achieve the minimum requirement of fully mission-capable aircraft, as they're indeed using them for everything now.

Mission availability had absolutely nothing to do with the Netherlands top up order. The initial fleet size of 37 aircraft was always too small and acknowledged at the time of the order. It was a budgetary constraint, not a maintenance one.

Maybe it'll eventually gets settled as a 3-type air force: GCAP - F-35 blk4 - Gripen E.
Not least as it now appears to be a path of the least political resistance, as well as a path with most strategic threats covered.

In broad strokes, Canadian strategic outlook now includes:
-NATO resurging as a phoenix in 2028, with the US more committed than ever.
-NATO remaining torn by controversies, assuming wounds won't magically self-heal.
-NATO weakening further, meaning Canada will now have to fend for itself.

All 3 options have their preferred fighter option. If you have all 3 fighter components, you are in the safest spot.

Three types... where is this mythical Canadian defence budget coming from to afford three fighter types to the required availability? If GCAP does come along the logical fleet to disappear is the Gripen, after all GCAP partners are all planning GCAP/F-35 dominant fleets.

Even two types remains a costly exercise as demonstrated here,

This report compared a single fleet of aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NATO and NORAD commitments, against a mixed fleet consisting of these higher capability, higher cost aircraft combined with lower capability, lower cost aircraft. The analysis found that a mixed fleet of 38 higher capability aircraft, chosen for their ability to fulfill the most challenging of the NATO missions, and 34 lower capability aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NORAD obligations, could not provide the same capability as the single fleet of 65 higher capability aircraft. Assessing the viability and affordability of any particular aircraft or mix of aircraft is beyond the scope of this report, and as such this analysis assumes that any fleet size argument pre-supposes the suitability of any chosen option from a capability perspective. This report showed that unless the acquisition cost of the lower cost aircraft is half of the acquisition cost of the higher cost aircraft or less, then there is strong evidence to suggest that the mixed fleet is providing less capability at higher cost.

 

[Wotan]

However what I can't follow that it will be cheaper. Sure, if you only look at flight costs per hour between the Gripen versus the F-35, it is cheaper to run. But at the end of the day, a hybrid fleet means two separate logistical lines that need to be supported (spares, weapons, etc), and the associated staffing and training needed, as well as incentives to retain them in the long term.
Given that Canada, like most countries in the developed world, are experiencing personnel shortages, these are added costs that need to be factored in when having a diverse fleet.

For some countries, they may be willing to spend more on the extra logistical burden of a diverse fleet in favor of strategic goals, such as the UAE or Qatar.

In the US Air Force the 4th generation F-15 and F-16 fleets outnumber the fleets of F-22 and F-35 and it will remain the same in the next decade. Moreover, US is still buying new F-15 airframes and thinks to buy also new F-16. From this example we can consider that the advantage of operating 4th generation airframes with lower costs of flight hours outmatches the costs of maintaining a mixed fleet.

 

[helmutkohl]

In the US Air Force the 4th generation F-15 and F-16 fleets outnumber the fleets of F-22 and F-35 and it will remain the same in the next decade. Moreover, US is still buying new F-15 airframes and thinks to buy also new F-16. From this example we can consider that the advantage of operating 4th generation airframes with lower costs of flight hours outmatches the costs of maintaining a mixed fleet.

The US is probably not the best comparison to justify a mixed fleet for Canada. The US is exceptional in that it has a large population, large military budget, large areas to cover (domestic and international), and more importantly, a political situation where various defense industry manufacturers are using their influence to push the country to buy a bunch of things.

Not sure how the US example explains operating 4th gen air frames with lower cost hours outmatches the costs of maintaining a mixed fleet for Canada. You probably want to look at another country that is more similar to Canada's situation such as Australia, instead.

 

[MigLui]

You know, we don't tell Americans that it would have been cheaper at the gas pumps to elect K Harris.
Or that America would have more clout with a respected President, or be able to fulfill its international defense obligations with a different President.
Yet Americans keep telling us that a Gripen purchase would be more expensive, and not suitable for obligations to NATO, or international clout.
Personally I, a Canadian, also feel that way, and I think leasing EF2000, along with already purchased F-35s, until GCAP becomes available, is the way to go.
But I really resent that the people who voted in that buffoon President, are now telling us not to over-react, as things will change.
That is exactly the point of trade diversification; things will always change.

 

[Ainen]

Not sure how the US example explains operating 4th gen air frames with lower cost hours outmatches the costs of maintaining a mixed fleet for Canada. You probably want to look at another country that is more similar to Canada's situation such as Australia, instead.

Australia is indeed a great example.

They extended life of their SHornet and Growler fleet into the 2040s (originally due to retire next year), and redirected money from the last F-35 batch into their upgrades and even deeper munition stocks (their stocks are already some of the deepest).

I.e. it's a 3-component fleet already.

 

[Titus]

The Gripen is slighty heavier than a Starfighter...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrmKVwQ49m8


And has almost double the empty weight of a Freedom Fighter.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk2oZtQqjZ4


Both aircrafts proudly built in Canada. By Canadair. And which served Canada for decades. Last CF-116 (canadian F-5) were retired in 1995.

An F-104 is a light fighter, as is a SAB Gripen. Russia is focusing on very large fighters and gave up on its MiG-29s long ago. The USAF has no light fighters.
BTW, I might as well hurt more Canuck feelings by saying it: RCAF bought the CF-5 because that is the program the feds were willing to drop a few duck-bucks on. It was a way to cheat their way past NATO and NORAD requirements for another generation. Do you remember to fabulous heavy fighters being designed (and built and deployed in one instance) in the Great White North? Do you remember those beautiful CF-101s?
Do you know what should have replaced them? More heavy fighters! They served till the mid-80s. They should have been replaced by Tornado ADVs, F-15s or Tomcats for crying out loud.

 

[MigLui]

Do you remember to fabulous heavy fighters being designed (and built and deployed in one instance) in the Great White North? Do you remember those beautiful CF-101s?

Sure.
I also remember ( actually no, I'm not that old ) the Avro CF-105 Arrow, which the Americans insisted we 'scrap' in favor of the Bomarc missile system.
That's how we ended up without our own aerospace industry.
Maybe we've learned ...

 

[Ainen]

An F-104 is a light fighter, as is a SAB Gripen. Russia is focusing on very large fighters and gave up on its MiG-29s long ago. The USAF has no light fighters.

Nor did Russia have proper multirole fighters until Su-57. This is not a great example of an air force, missing entire capability sets from a superpower-sized industrial base.
This is a big mistake of pre-war peace-era planning that bites and haunts VKS over the last several years.
(Not that mig-29/35 is particularly light or a good striker, but at least it was a step towards some sort of optimization, and they are particularly useful in Ukrainian service).

China is doing the same turn towards heavy over the last decade btw, and I'm inclined to believe it's the same peace era mistake of cool plane fallacy. But China has single-engined fighters with an active production line(3 lines and 3 types actually, with a 4th one going through flight testing), and China has an actual, flying LW program, not just the dreams of how they'll magically appear and solve all problems.

If this experience is brought up, Gripen is a solidmtake. But the most important thing then will be an urgent ELU/life extension to the Hornet fleet, as those at least come with APKWS and JDAM-ER options immediately available.

 

[Apophenia]

... BTW, I might as well hurt more Canuck feelings by saying it: RCAF bought the CF-5 because that is the program the feds were willing to drop a few duck-bucks on. It was a way to cheat their way past NATO and NORAD requirements for another generation. Do you remember to fabulous heavy fighters being designed (and built and deployed in one instance) in the Great White North? Do you remember those beautiful CF-101s?
Do you know what should have replaced them? More heavy fighters! They served till the mid-80s. They should have been replaced by Tornado ADVs, F-15s or Tomcats for crying out loud.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. But these are new times. Ya'll suddenly changed the rules and shifted roles from hegemon to domineering bully. And your nation is free to do so. But why all that US butt-hurt moaning about being misunderstood when it was a collective choice? (And one that you, apparently, fully agree with.)

As the for the CF-104 and CF-5, there are plenty of arguments about why neither type was truly suited the specific roles back then. [1] But, as already noted, a new day - of your creation - began in February 2025. (You want to back up? We may resume talks. You wanna keep going? Then keep your priceless advice to yourself.)

Conveniently ignored in the historical ramblings is the part played by US MAP in deciding which specific aircraft types got built. Eh, merci beaucoup pour tous ces emplois à Montréal, mais vous l'avez aussi fait dans votre propre intérêt, n'est-ce pas? Specifically, MAP contracts were given to a US-owed firm to nail together combat aircraft types that the USAF itself didn't want in any numbers.

That might be described as beneficent but it was also ya'll acting in self-interest. IOW, yet another corporate bailout for the US Military/Industrial complex. US rate-payers deserve gratitude for that. Some from Canadians (Thanks, Dude!) but mainly from the former holders of Lockheed and Northrop stocks. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has wearied of even pretending that ya'll still belong at the grown-ups table.

__________________________________________

[1] As a pedantic nit-pick, the aircraft in question weren't "bought" by the "RCAF". The RCAF may have chosen the CF-104 and the CAF may have had the CF-116 foisted upon them ... but procurement is done on behalf of the military not by them.