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

[Ozair]

Yet Americans keep telling us that a Gripen purchase would be more expensive, and not suitable for obligations to NATO, or international clout.

No, the Canadian fighter competition evaluation identified that the Gripen wasn't capable of meeting mission performance, not the US. Canada wasn't pressured to join the JSF program, they saw the industrial advantages it provided. Canada would have a full fleet of F-35A at lower cost had it gone through with its initial acquisition timeframe. Instead the decision to run a competition ironically added years and billions to the cost of the Future Fighter Capability Project and even then resulted in the F-35 being selected anyway.

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.

A much better option than a Gripen purchase.

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.

I certainly didn't vote for him, not my country...

That's how we ended up without our own aerospace industry.
Maybe we've learned ...

??? Canada has a thriving aerospace industry that is multiples of the size of Sweden. Canada remain a top tier supplier, aside from building their own commercial aircraft, to US and European commercial and military programs.

Australia is indeed a great example.

You can't cancel an order that was never made... 100 F-35s was the aim but never budgeted for. The initial 72 were always planned to replace the classic Hornet but the subsequent 28 were always reliant on a decision on SH.

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).

Growler was never retiring next year, it was always going to be in service until the late 2030s. The SH decision was made for several reasons and provides today some capabilities the F-35 has yet to achieve including LRASM/JASSM.

Had there ben a Govt change in the last election then the additional F-35 order would have been made but, like Canada, it was political more than capability or intent to maintain a mixed fleet, that made that decision.

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

That is a long leap, calling Growler a third aircraft type is not a valid statement. It is a SH with extra wiring and pods.

 

[Ainen]

Growler was never retiring next year, it was always going to be in service until the late 2030s. The SH decision was made for several reasons and provides today some capabilities the F-35 has yet to achieve including LRASM/JASSM.

This is another argument against a single F-35 fleet: the F-35 weapons integration pipeline has been confirmed defective. Yes, blk.4 will do that. It was supposed to be available in 2024, and now we're only in 2026; there are more than enough opportunities for even more delays (given current experience, they're almost certain).

A platform where other weapons can be integrated without global blocks is a reason to have a second aircraft all by itself. Case study: Europe, where F-35 nations are disarming themselves v affordable mass capability exactly as it now stands firm on its feet.

That is a long leap, calling Growler a third aircraft type is not a valid statement. It is a SH with extra wiring and pods.

Still, it's an entirely separate capability set and entirely different sustainment/procurement pipeline.
One of the arguments in favour of Gripen E is that it also comes with escort EW pods (EAJP); you're getting multiple capability sets F-35 won't provide, too.

 

[Ozair]

This is another argument against a single F-35 fleet: the F-35 weapons integration pipeline has been confirmed defective. Yes, blk.4 will do that. It was supposed to be available in 2024, and now we're only in 2026; there are more than enough opportunities for even more delays (given current experience, they're almost certain).

A platform where other weapons can be integrated without global blocks is a reason to have a second aircraft all by itself. Case study: Europe, where F-35 nations are disarming themselves v affordable mass capability exactly as it now stands firm on its feet.

No none of that is justification for a nation Canada's size to operate a two type fleet and they have not wanted to for the last 45 years. Again, as you know, this potential decision isn't based on Canada desiring a mixed fleet, it is solely a political decision due to the trade war.

Australia only has a two type fleet because the F-111 fatigued earlier than the RAAF was willing to afford. Had it served to its expected retirement date the RAAF would have an all F-35 fleet today.

Still, it's an entirely separate capability set and entirely different sustainment/procurement pipeline.

The Growler has over 90% commonality with the Super Hornet. More than an F-35A does with a B...

One of the arguments in favour of Gripen E is that it also comes with escort EW pods (EAJP); you're getting multiple capability sets F-35 won't provide, too.

No that isn't an argument in favour of the Gripen, it is lipstick on a pig...

 

[Ainen]

No that isn't an argument in favour of the Gripen, it is lipstick on a pig...

State-of-the-art escort jamming pod family add-on to the EW suit, which specifically went into WW(!) Eurofighter over Praetorian eVo?
I beg your pardon. Except for said Growler(US) and Sweden itself, it's a capability not a single other NATO member has/will have.

And it's most certainly advantageous for F-35 operations!

No none of that is justification for a nation Canada's size to operate a two type fleet and they have not wanted to for the last 45 years. Again, as you know, this potential decision isn't based on Canada desiring a mixed fleet, it is solely a political decision due to the trade war.

F-35 untill 2030s carries:
- stand-in bombs (JDAM, PW)
- stand-off bombs (GBU-39/53, JSOW)
- AMRAAM
- B-61
- Sidewinder(outside)

It's a rather basic list. With a couple of exceptions, this list has been here for a full decade, since 2015. Notably, in Iran, F-35s appear to have operated with both Growlers and Wild Weasels.
Canada may have thought this is unimportant b/c nothing is more important than the United States - this no longer holds. Canada may've thought that surely the US won't mix simple weapon integration with a fleet-wide upgrade with additional risks. Canada may've thought that said upgrade won't get delayed for almost as long as it took to reach IOC (2006 - 2015). Canada may've thought that F-35 would get operational readiness levels under control. This no longer holds, too; their deal is for F-35A and not for F-35I.

F-35 right now just doesn't look the way it was promised before. In so many ways, it evidently can't and very likely won't deliver everything on its own.

 

[Ozair]

State-of-the-art escort jamming pod family add-on to the EW suit, which specifically went into WW(!) Eurofighter over Praetorian eVo?
I beg your pardon. Except for said Growler and Sweden itself, it's a capability not a single other NATO member has.

No it really isn't a capability Canada needs if they pursue an all F-35 fleet.

F-35 untill 2030s carries:
- stand-in bombs (JDAM, PW)
- stand-off bombs (GBU-39/53, JSOW)
- AMRAAM
- B-61
- Sidewinder(outside)

It's a rather basic list. With a couple of exceptions, this list has been here for a full decade, since 2015. Notably, in Iran, F-35s appear to have operated with both Growlers and Wild Weasels.
Canada may have thought this is unimportant b/c nothing is more important than the United States - this no longer holds. Canada may've thought that surely the US won't mix simple weapon integration with a fleet-wide upgrade with additional risks. Canada may've thought that said upgrade won't get delayed for almost as long as it took to reach IOC (2006 - 2015). Canada may've thought that F-35 would get operational readiness levels under control. This no longer holds, too; their deal is for F-35A and not for F-35I.

F-35 right now just doesn't look the way it was promised before. In so many ways, it evidently can't and very likely won't deliver everything on its own.

None of that changes the facts to date or the reason Canada politically is now potentially seeking the Gripen.

 

[Wotan]

F-35 untill 2030s carries:
- stand-in bombs (JDAM, PW)
- stand-off bombs (GBU-39/53, JSOW)
- AMRAAM
- B-61
- Sidewinder(outside)

It's a rather basic list. With a couple of exceptions, this list has been here for a full decade, since 2015. Notably, in Iran, F-35s appear to have operated with both Growlers and Wild Weasels.

It is to be remarked that the Gripen and also the other two eurocanards can outrange the F-35 because they have the Meteor missile integrated. When supported by a a network of ground based sensors and airborne radars this missile can use third-party targeting.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-meteor-missile-gives-europe-strategic-autonomy-hk-022226

 

[Ainen]

It is to be remarked that the Gripen and also the other two eurocanards can outrange the F-35 because they have the Meteor missile integrated. When supported by a a network of ground based sensors and airborne radars this missile can use third-party targeting.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-meteor-missile-gives-europe-strategic-autonomy-hk-022226

Meteor (and its F-35 integration saga) is part of the question, though it's not that much of an enabler for F-35 itself. But there are multiple other gaps.

- Sortie rate (and cost),
- Infrastructure issues,
- Independent sustainment,
- Twin seater;
---
- Drop tanks,
- APKWS (integration initiated for Gripen family),
- EW pods,
- Recon pods;
---
- Stand-off capability,
- ASCM.

The last two points are relatively weak, as they'll reach Gripen E only around the same time when similar capabilities should be rolled onto the F-35 fleet (2033 and 2030, respectively). The rest are inherent, for the time being.

 

[TsrJoe]

Let's be realistic, the Gripen story with regard Canada is over.
It was a fun posulation as a 14 page distraction, but the reality of the original decision carried through, normal service can now resume

 

[Ainen]

Let's be realistic, the Gripen story with regard Canada is over.
It was a fun posulation as a distraction, but the reality of the original decision carried through, normal service can now resume

For now it appears to be the exact opposite. With 2 more years to work with, if any fighter decision is to come at all, it seems increasingly unlikely for Gripen not to happen.
GlobalEye is a very sure indicator of the direction.