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

H_K said:
I'd be curious to see what a 'Silent Gripen' could achieve in terms of performance figures, range, and RCS.

Basically flying almost clean with 2 CFTs (as once studied by Saab), an Enclosed Weapons Pod (EWP) on the centerline (4x BVRAAMs, 10x SDBs or a mix), and 2x SRAAMs on the wingtip pylons (ideally in cocoons?). Perhaps also some additional treatment of RCS hotspots (via coatings etc).
Click to expand...
So we are now making up platforms for this requirement?
 
GTX said:
So we are now making up platforms for this requirement?
Click to expand...
No just saying it would be reasonable to expect Gripen to receive further upgrades to close the gap with 5th gen fighters and those are some of the RCS reduction ideas most commonly mentioned for other designs such as F-15, Super Hornet and Rafale... that might therefore be applied here if a customer like Canada shows up with fairly demanding requirements.
 
helmutkohl said:
Its generally easier when your machinery is more analogue like those 2nd and 3rd gen fighter jets. But with everything becoming more digitized, integrated with each other, etc.. it becomes more challenging.
Click to expand...
Not if you have your own programmers...

https://simpleflying.com/gripen-e-f-35-stealth-supremacy-maintenance-freedom/

"Then there's the concern over the 'kill switch' aspect of the F-35. When a nation buys the F-35, it buys into an American ecosystem. The F-35 relies on the Operational Data Integrated Network, an automated logistics system that constantly sends data back to the US. If the Pentagon disagrees with a nation's foreign policy, they can theoretically cut off software access or parts, grounding the fleet. Saab gives operators total sovereign access to integrate its weapons, rewrite electronic warfare codes, and deploy without asking a foreign power for permission."
 
Oh no. Not that. Not the kill switch again.

This conversation is border ridiculous (from Gripen RCS shadowing stealth aircraft performances to F-35 customer and program partners depicted as imbeciles). Can any admin here do actually their job and switch kill it for real?
 
H_K said:
I'd be curious to see what a 'Silent Gripen' could achieve in terms of performance figures, range, and RCS.

Basically flying almost clean with 2 CFTs (as once studied by Saab), an Enclosed Weapons Pod (EWP) on the centerline (4x BVRAAMs, or 10x SDBs or a mix), and 2x SRAAMs on the wingtip pylons (ideally in disposable cocoons/nacelles?). Perhaps also some additional treatment of RCS hotspots (via coatings etc).
Click to expand...
That sounds remarkably fat for a plane with a single F414.
 
TomcatViP said:
... Not the kill switch again... Can any admin here do actually their job and switch kill it for real?
Click to expand...

So don't read it! Is that really so difficult that you need a moderator to intervene?

Likewise parsing the content. You chose to zero in on the bit in inverted commas despite the key issue being emphasised in bold :rolleyes:

"... Saab gives operators total sovereign access to integrate its weapons, rewrite electronic warfare codes, and deploy without asking a foreign power for permission."
Click to expand...
 
TomcatViP said:
Oh no. Not that. Not the kill switch again.

This conversation is border ridiculous (from Gripen RCS shadowing stealth aircraft performances to F-35 customer and program partners depicted as imbeciles). Can any admin here do actually their job and switch kill it for real?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure either why neither @GTX nor @helmutkohl nuked this thread by now.

Admittedly if they were to close it for clean up, I genuinely think that their issue would be to not know where to even start. This thread would probably be 3-4 pages if it would stick to factual matters and the chronology of Canada procuring the F-35 as the conclusion of this program.

But there would also be a handful of people who'd bitch about their noise getting deleted in the "Feedback" thread where staff would have to defend their justified actions against an angry mob.
 
TomcatViP said:
Oh no. Not that. Not the kill switch again.

This conversation is border ridiculous (from Gripen RCS shadowing stealth aircraft performances to F-35 customer and program partners depicted as imbeciles). Can any admin here do actually their job and switch kill it for real?
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. Not just stupidity with kill switches but reposting links to nutjobs who don't understand basic fighter aircraft TTPs or technology. It isn't worth the time to refute because there isn't an interest in learning the truth, just pushing propaganda.
 
Maybe so. But the objectives behind tactical doctrine change over time and, with that, out goes the old TTPs and standard-manoeuvre manuals.

Some of us believe that such a time has now arrived. Others cling to the familiar.
 
H_K said:
No just saying it would be reasonable to expect Gripen to receive further upgrades to close the gap with 5th gen fighters and those are some of the RCS reduction ideas most commonly mentioned for other designs such as F-15, Super Hornet and Rafale... that might therefore be applied here if a customer like Canada shows up with fairly demanding requirements.
Click to expand...
The airframe doesn't have the growth margins for those types of upgrades, it is just too small and underpowered.

An external weapons pod similar to SH would sit way too low on the already low Gripen, hence designing the aircraft to be low to the ground and easy to load weapons backfires when you want to do something like that. Additionally the most SDBs the SH weapons pod could hold was 6 so a pod on the centreline of a Gripen E would be lucky to fit four SDB and maybe even no AAMs. You also have no targeting pod, no additional ECM pods etc. The aircraft remains highly vulnerable despite the best efforts to reduce RCS.

Apophenia said:
Maybe so. But the objectives behind tactical doctrine change over time and, with that, out goes the old TTPs and standard-manoeuvre manuals.

Some of us believe that such a time has now arrived. Others cling to the familiar.
Click to expand...
No it comes down to a basic understanding of how systems work and actually what is being proposed is the old and not new. Said Gripen pilot above who thinks the Gripen is competitive to 5th gens by just using an IRST literally has no idea and frankly calls into question the quality of Swedish aircrew if that is what is being suggested.

How 5th gen fly and fight is different and different for a reason. The RCAF knows this and is evidenced by their evaluation of the Gripen E compared to the F-35. Instead of quacks posting articles on the internet to generate clicks from fanboys we can review the evaluation conducted by one of the more professional and well trained Air forces in the world. I know who I would rather believe...
 
I read the post as 'kill switch' ( notice the colons around it ) not as an actual switch, but as a metaphor for the automated logistics system, ODIN ( which has replaced the problem ridden previous system ), that can cut off your spare parts, and software updates, at any time rendering the aircraft you paid good money for, worthless.
I guess if you have a problem parsing other poster's comments, you tell the mods to 'clean up' any responses you don't agree with.

The situation is, our current jets are falling apart, the Gripens can't do the job, and the F-35 is a 'hot potato', politically if not operationally.
Not that I would prefer Canada buy Gripens; they are woefully inadequate for what will be asked of them, but a decision needs to be made soon.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You actually believe the stuff that comes out of his mouth?
Click to expand...
With the way how tightly F-35 is meant to be controlled (over controlled), it's very hard to discard the easiest and the most immediate idea.
Trump is not the most trusted source, as he reinterprets things he's heard the way he remembered them. But he's heard them.
MigLui said:
I read the post as 'kill switch' ( notice the colons around it ) not as an actual switch, but as a metaphor for the automated logistics system, ODIN
Click to expand...
Delayed cut off via updates are certainly there.
But F-35s, for example, have a very visible tendency to get stuck for weeks when they land in international locations outside of centrally processed mission plan.
Most fighters for decades brick themselves in case of unplanned access anyway.
 
Last edited:
... and yet a majority of the voting populace in the US. voted for him (I guess the alternative in your eyes would have been better ?)

Very much OT. and irrelevant quasi political observation post in response to previous.

I do however wholeheartedly agree with post #569, this and so many other threads have become 'chatrooms' with no actual 'news'
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
No they didn't, the main reason why the Orange Oaf was reelected was due to tens of millions of eligible voters not voting.
Click to expand...
If you're comparing the voter turnout from 2020 to that from 2024, you should also compare 2020 to 2016.

There's a really suspicious spike in turnout in 2020, compared to other years. Highest voter turnout (by percentage of voting age population) since 1968. And somehow, virtually all of that spike voted one way. Had the voting of that spike been less lopsided, it'd be believeable. The 1960 and 1964 elections actually had a higher voter turnout percentage than 2024, after all. But no, the surge all voted against Trump. Voted for Kamala or anyone other than the Orange Troll.

What, did yall think I like the man? My dudes, I voted against him THREE TIMES!
 
swerve said:
But Trump! How credible is that?
Click to expand...
The question is if you think it's worth the risk.

I don't think Trump is very trustworthy. But in the current geopolitical climate, would you take the risk?

Because Trump IS the kind of person who, if such a switch existed, would find an excuse to use it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom