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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ainen said:
Well, all Israeli aircraft in two last Iranian wars. Better statistics than F-35, by the way... And while USAF did suffer 1 loss (+several damaged) over Iran, it's very low. Gulf nations didn't fly stealth aircraft either.
Click to expand...
Nope, terrible examples. Israel prosecuted the air war not just with EW but a concentrated campaign destroying EW and tracking radars and the associated C2 networks.
Ainen said:
Impunity is one hell of a requirement, but Ukrainian non-stealth aircraft fly to the battlefield daily.
Click to expand...
You made the statement not me. By implying that the Gripen can survive over Ukraine or other modern battlefields with their EW suite given the platform has little other redeeming qualities as its a LIFT with some good EW...
Ainen said:
Battlefield with more AA any other air force ever encountered. Doing alright. Heck, both USAF and Hel Haavir recently went to order big batches of non-stealth aircraft, with arguably less comprehensive defensive suites, despite the much larger aircraft.
Click to expand...
No you are not understanding the procurementsand the tactical implications.
Ainen said:
Don't put non-VLO aircraft into situation where they don't belong, and it's alright. For situations where they're necessary and will likely result in losses, 30 F-35As is certainly one formidable force. For everything other than highest threat, main force of Gripens can generate way more sorties and deliver more targeted strikes, cheaper.
Click to expand...
You're doing your usual and ignoring the facts already presented and just looping around circular arguments that have no basis in fact. The facts have been presented, Canada found the Gripen E was not capable of executing the missions they required it to yet they are now likely acquiring the aircraft. The Gripen E acquisition has nothing to do with cost, it has nothing to do with capability, it has nothing to do with Industrial capacity, it has everything to do with politics.
 
TomcatViP said:
The fun part of this leaked evaluation is that Canadian politicians, those in charge at least, clearly say to their pilots that their lives doesn't matter that much.

What next, Canadian Cops with bubble guns?

B/w I wonder how the present US administration will react: ban F404 exports?
Click to expand...
It seems there will be a sizable demand for a certain non-American manned 5th gen within NATO in the early 2030s ;) :D

We often come back to this point but it certainly was a mistake for all the U.S. allies, especially those in European NATO, to let the U.S. remain the sole provider of a modern Western 5th gen fighter and to procure from them in the hundreds instead of joining forces to develop an equivalent. Now, with neither GCAP nor FCAS arriving in the late 20s/early 2030s (nor the F-47!), the only modern stealth fighter in the entire Western alliance sans Turkey (and perhaps S.Korea) will remain the F-35; while the Chinese already begin inducting CAC and SAC 6th gens...
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
You're doing your usual and ignoring the facts already presented and just looping around circular arguments that have no basis in fact. The facts have been presented, Canada found the Gripen E was not capable of executing the missions they required it to yet they are now likely acquiring the aircraft. The Gripen E acquisition has nothing to do with cost, it has nothing to do with capability, it has nothing to do with Industrial capacity, it has everything to do with politics.
Click to expand...
Concern over F-35 costs first emerged in 2010, which is 16 years ago, and just into 1st Obama term; Trump at that point in time was at most shitposting on Twitter.

Saab has been in this story since 2010, and its bid was clearly alive (see this topic) even before Trump. So were Dassault and Eurofighter, but both ejected citing politics (meaning strong favour of F-35 and price aspect, making their bids hopeless).

This is indeed political, without the US political factor, an aircraft deemed so unaffordable as to force politicians to push this can for 16 years... it couldn't possibly survive that long.

This is a toy parents just can't afford.
TomcatViP said:
The fun part of this leaked evaluation is that Canadian politicians, those in charge at least, clearly say to their pilots that their lives doesn't matter that much.
Click to expand...
They're getting more strike sorties, cheaper. When targets can't be timely served and less aircraft sorties with less armament result in less engagements, more exposed people die on ground, often orders of magnitude more of them.

As valuable as pilots are, they're not a nobility.
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Nope, terrible examples. Israel prosecuted the air war not just with EW but a concentrated campaign destroying EW and tracking radars and the associated C2 networks.

You made the statement not me. By implying that the Gripen can survive over Ukraine or other modern battlefields with their EW suite given the platform has little other redeeming qualities as its a LIFT with some good EW...

No you are not understanding the procurementsand the tactical implications.

You're doing your usual and ignoring the facts already presented and just looping around circular arguments that have no basis in fact. The facts have been presented, Canada found the Gripen E was not capable of executing the missions they required it to yet they are now likely acquiring the aircraft. The Gripen E acquisition has nothing to do with cost, it has nothing to do with capability, it has nothing to do with Industrial capacity, it has everything to do with politics.
Click to expand...
Since when has Canadian military procurement had anything to do do with anything other than politics.
 
Ainen said:
Concern over F-35 costs first emerged in 2010, which is 16 years ago, and just into 1st Obama term; Trump at that point in time was at most shitposting on Twitter.

Saab has been in this story since 2010, and its bid was clearly alive (see this topic) even before Trump. So were Dassault and Eurofighter, but both ejected citing politics (meaning strong favour of F-35 and price aspect, making their bids hopeless).

This is indeed political, without the US political factor, an aircraft deemed so unaffordable as to force politicians to push this can for 16 years... it couldn't possibly survive that long.
Click to expand...
And 2010 has what to do with this, stop trying to inject irrelevant information. The Canadian Govt ran a competition and we have the compelling results of that competition (why buy an aircraft that cannot fulfil the misisons required...).

The only reason it has changed today is US and Canadian political relations.
Ainen said:
This is a toy parents just can't afford.
Click to expand...
Yeah sure, the Finnish must have discovered this in another fair and unbias evaluation from an at the time non-NATO member.
 
Ozair said:
Yeah sure, the Finnish must have discovered this in another fair and unbias evaluation from an at the time non-NATO member.
Click to expand...
Of all things, that one was about as political as one could possibly imagine - and in a way most favourable to the US.
Finland was breaking out of the neutrality into NATO fold, which they successfully did, gaining a stable ally for the decades to come.

Tell them to wiggle back then, they would have done just that. Gripen was obviously a neutral option. It would take a completely different world for them to find anything else.
Ozair said:
And 2010 has what to do with this, stop trying to inject irrelevant information.
Click to expand...
It's perfectly relevant for the conversation. This issue is quite long in teeth for what you try to blame on Trump.

It's the opposite rather - with Trump being Trump, it's the first time in decades that US political pressure in favor of an unaffordable type turned somewhat bearable, and Canada FINALLY got a window to order something they can pay for.
 
Ainen said:
Of all things, that one was about as political as one could possibly imagine - and in a way most favourable to the US.
Finland was breaking out of the neutrality into NATO fold, which they successfully did, gaining a stable ally for the decades to come.

Tell them to wiggle back then, they would have done just that. Gripen was obviously a neutral option. It would take a completely different world for them to find anything else.
Click to expand...
Rubbish revisionist history trying to justify away the result despite it being validated by multiple other sources and competitions. It is completely against the statements made by the companies involved as well as media reports that corroborated it representing a fair and unbiased competition.
Ainen said:
It's perfectly relevant for the conversation. This issue is quite long in teeth for what you try to blame on Trump.

It's the opposite rather - with Trump being Trump, it's the first time in decades that US political pressure in favor of an unaffordable type turned somewhat bearable, and Canada FINALLY got a window to order something they can pay for.
Click to expand...
No there is no logical link whatsoever. The decision was made, despite Canada actually being a partner in JSF, to run a competition in 2016. Whatever your feelings are on either platform it was an open and fair competition. All bidders knew the criteria and we have clear insight on why the F-35 was chosen. To then reverse that decision was not considered until Trump started his Canadian ranting and trade war. To suggest otherwise is rank dishonesty.
 
As a Canadian I can tell that in spite of the talk , we haven't changed our behavior in order to deal with the world as it is. But rather continue to virtue signal and deal with our partners and allies in bad faith .
No matter what happens I suspect we'll end dealing with lawsuits from contractors. The last major military contract that involved this sort of thing was the EH101 .
And that cost almost a billion from the lawsuits.
I haven't quite decided if I'm just cynical or read more on Defence matters then most people.
 
Last edited:
GK. Dundas said:
As a Canadian I can tell that in spite of the talk , we haven't changed our behavior in order to deal with the world as it is. But rather continue to virtue signal and deal with our partners and allies in bad faith .
No matter what happens I suspect we'll end dealing with lawsuits from contractors. The last major military contract that involved this sort of thing was the EH101 .
And that cost almost a billion from the lawsuits.
I haven't decided if I'm just cynical or read more on Defence matters then most people.
Click to expand...
This has been a 16 year long saga (29-24 years if you include contributions to concept dev or formally joining JSF program). We've seen the acquisition cancelled in 2012, interim Hornets bought in 2017-18, F-35 recommit in 2023. This is Canada's "kicking the can down the road" procurement disease.
If a contract was signed for Gripen E/F tomorrow for aircraft built in Sweden it would likely be post 2032 before Canada received the first one. Production is 12-15 aircraft per year and the ramp up to 20-30 by 2028, albeit with huge caveats:
https://en.defence-ua.com/industrie...36_jets_per_year_remains_a_stretch-17425.html
As the deal is said to include local production in Canada, it took, for reference, 11 years for Brazil to have the first locally assembled Gripen E/F. If the news is correct, nothing will be announced until after the US mid-terms. Then Canada has to actually negotiate a contract with SAAB, build a production/assembly facility, train workers, eat F-35 cancellation penalties & probable court challenges, all while navigating inevitable political changes in both US and Canada. Acquisition malpractice is an understatement in this case.
RCAF Hornets are out of airframe life, the ones they acquired from Australia weren't given the HEP of the CF-188 fleet either. Basically the RCAF fleet will consist of 30 F-35's and a lot of remorse by 2032 if they decide on this mixed fleet.
 
Last edited:
Canada isn't kicking the can down the road, they are just budget diverse. They have quietly been putting money into F-35. Any proposal for Gripen E is a distraction. They will operate F-35.

I would not discount the theory that the Gripen E might have been earmarked for the Ukraine from the beginning.
 
Ozair said:
Rubbish revisionist history trying to justify away the result despite it being validated by multiple other sources and competitions. It is completely against the statements made by the companies involved as well as media reports that corroborated it representing a fair and unbiased competition.
Click to expand...
Idk, numbers are numbers; F-35 stumbled in 2010, there's just no way around that.
IMHO F-35 crowd seriously, seriously underestimates just how much the United States itself (aka, politics), as well as military weight behind (weapon stocks, F-35 fleet, and commitment), weighs - weighted - into decisions.
For a decade, the very idea that not every force needs a single type fleet of neo-Thunderchiefs was diligently made controversial. To a degree, it was, until the entire West Block decided to leave the US to its devices in Iran.
But since it happened, instead of F-105s, one may start considering F-104s, Mirages, or outright F-5s.
Ozair said:
All bidders knew the criteria and we have clear insight on why the F-35 was chosen. To then reverse that decision was not considered until Trump started his Canadian ranting and trade war. To suggest otherwise is rank dishonesty.
Click to expand...
This order would've happened back in the early 2010s, should that have been the case.
But it was always the case of their kid chosing tesla, when parents have money for ford focus, and even that from savings and pretending that they consider a Tesla until the kid is now in his 30s. Furthermore, it doesn't help that F-35 that was promised to everyone by this point was block 4. It's now 2026, and it's still being promised 5-7 years into the future.
 
Furthermore, it doesn't help that F-35 that was promised to everyone by this point was block 4. It's now 2026, and it's still being promised 5-7 years into the future.
Click to expand...
And how long into the future would a Canadian built Gripen E/F be flying? And what are the odds of it happening? Those are the real questions for Canada.
 
J McInn said:
And how long into the future would a Canadian built Gripen E/F be flying? And what are the odds of it happening? Those are the real questions for Canada.
Click to expand...
For entire previous decade, that was an absolutely solid take (Saab promoted gripen as if E is a production aircraft, when they didn't have anything stable until ~2024).
But now, they're a clean sheet bird without much stain. F-35 block 4 is one hell of a painful upgrade story.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
For entire previous decade, that was an absolutely solid take (Saab promoted gripen as if E is a production aircraft, when they didn't have anything stable until ~2024).
But now, they're a clean shit bird without much stain. F-35 block 4 is one hell of a painful upgrade story.
Click to expand...
See my post on previous page regarding the issues of timeline. It's not so much that SAAB over-promised and underdelivered in regards to Gripen E/F development... plenty of L-M and SAAB evangelists point out the differences between their respective marketing and reality.

SAAB has said that they can have the first Gripen E/F "rolling off the assembly line in Canada 3-5 years after contract". In this case, no, that is not realistic. It takes SAAB 36 months to produce a Gripen E/F currently. It took 11-12 years for the first Gripen to be assembled in Brazil. Now SAAB is correct that Canada has a more robust aerospace industry than Brazil, but at minimum assembly line needs to be established (existing facility?), or new building and assembly line need to be established (more likely) and workers trained on building the aircraft. There is no contract currently. So, assuming that sometime in 2027 a contract is finalized, the first Gripen E/F built in Canada would roll off assembly line in 2033 under the most optimistic scenario.

Therefore, from 2032-? the entire RCAF will consist of 30 F-35, basically enough for one squadron+ training. I wonder how Canadians will feel about requiring the USAF to secure their airspace (more than they do now) for the majority of the 2030's. This is a foolhardy plan, Canada had 16 years to commit to replacing the Hornets. Those Hornets are out of airframe life now, actually have been, 40-50% mission capable, obsolete.
 
I give the RCAF fighter capability roughly 5 more years of existence. Unless something is done soon and quite frankly canceling the F35 isn't the great idea which is an idea that is gaining a great deal of popularity .
Just because an idea is politically popular doesn't make it a good one.
I honestly don't see the Government cancelling the first tranche but there does seem to be some movement towards cancelling the others and purchasing the Gripen in their place.
This too would be be disaster and I suspect the current American administration is looking for any excuse to punish somebody. It's a bit like dealing with a sadistic toddler quite frankly.
I really don't think posturing on our part is particularly wise at this moment.
 
MadRat said:
Canada isn't kicking the can down the road, they are just budget diverse. They have quietly been putting money into F-35. Any proposal for Gripen E is a distraction. They will operate F-35.
Click to expand...

Not that keen on being taken for granted or sales being assumed.
 
Ainen said:
Idk, numbers are numbers; F-35 stumbled in 2010, there's just no way around that.
IMHO F-35 crowd seriously, seriously underestimates just how much the United States itself (aka, politics), as well as military weight behind (weapon stocks, F-35 fleet, and commitment), weighs - weighted - into decisions.
For a decade, the very idea that not every force needs a single type fleet of neo-Thunderchiefs was diligently made controversial. To a degree, it was, until the entire West Block decided to leave the US to its devices in Iran.
But since it happened, instead of F-105s, one may start considering F-104s, Mirages, or outright F-5s.
Click to expand...
This is waffle and has no place in this discussion.
Ainen said:
This order would've happened back in the early 2010s, should that have been the case.
But it was always the case of their kid chosing tesla, when parents have money for ford focus, and even that from savings and pretending that they consider a Tesla until the kid is now in his 30s. Furthermore, it doesn't help that F-35 that was promised to everyone by this point was block 4. It's now 2026, and it's still being promised 5-7 years into the future.
Click to expand...
Again, Canada made the decision to run an open and transparent competition in 2016. The end result of that competition was selection of the F-35 to fulfil the entire 88 aircraft order. Only after Trump started a trade war with Canada did a change to that order begin to be mooted.

GK. Dundas said:
I give the RCAF fighter capability roughly 5 more years of existence. Unless something is done soon and quite frankly canceling the F35 isn't the great idea which is an idea that is gaining a great deal of popularity .
Just because an idea is politically popular doesn't make it a good one.
I honestly don't see the Government cancelling the first tranche but there does seem to be some movement towards cancelling the others and purchasing the Gripen in their place.
This too would be be disaster and I suspect the current American administration is looking for any excuse to punish somebody. It's a bit like dealing with a sadistic toddler quite frankly.
I really don't think posturing on our part is particularly wise at this moment.
Click to expand...
The RCAF already has a massive manning issue especially with aircrew. The continued uncertainty won't help that critical issue.

The mooted intent is that Canada maintains a fleet of 30 F-35s that are essentially used for overseas NATO tasking, and a domestic fleet of 60 Gripen that are used in North America only. It ignores the NORAD integration issue, it ignores the issues of having multiple fleet types resulting in less aircraft and aircrew available, it ignores the cost issues of a mixed fleet costing more to own and operate over the life time etc. It isn't a plan rooted in fiscal responsibility; it is a political decision to send a message to the Trump Administration that will no longer be in office 2.5 years from now and likely lame duck in 7 months.

DJK said:
If block 4 had been promised, theres a chance that LM could be in breach of contract themselves. At least there could be legal justification for a reduced buy.
Click to expand...
That seems highly unlikely. The first Canadian jets won't arrive in Canada until 2028 with the whole fleet planned to be in place by 2032. Canada is a signatory to the JSF partnership so has invested money into the program and receives industrial work as well as a say in requirements and future development of the aircraft. Contesting a contract regarding Blk 4 delays likely isn't possible within the framework of that agreement.
 
Ozair said:
The RCAF already has a massive manning issue especially with aircrew. The continued uncertainty won't help that critical issue.
Click to expand...
Gripen may reduce the manning problems.
 
Ozair said:
How? Because prospective pilots for the RCAF will be keen to fly a less capable aircraft?
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of the specific issues for the Canadian airforce, but the Gripen does have a much better mission readiness rate than the F-35, and doesn't have an almost decade long delay for critical upgrades either.
A more capable aircraft isn't ideal if you can only use it half the time you need it, and have to wait 10+ years to get the weapons you want integrated.

This is ignoring the politics, which can't just be swept under the carpet in 2.5 years - the cat is out of the bag now.
 
Last edited:
SlowHandClap said:
I'm not aware of the specific issues for the Canadian airforce, but the Gripen does have a much better mission readiness rate than the F-35, and doesn't have an almost decade long delay for critical upgrades either.
A more capable aircraft isn't ideal if you can only use it half the time you need it, and have to wait 10+ years to get the weapons you want integrated.

This is ignoring the politics, which can't just be swept under the carpet in 2.5 years - the cat is out of the bag now.
Click to expand...
Does the Gripen E? While you might be right the E is essentially not in service yet. Brazil has a token IOC and the Swedes have yet to reach IOC. There are users of the F-35 that have high readiness because they have invested in significantly higher spares inventories than the US and others and Finland for example will be acquiring a significantly large spares package as part of their acquisition for this reason. Conversely if we took South African Gripen use we'd have seen levels significantly below F-35 and that is all related to funding and acquisition, or not, of sufficient spares and maintenance training.
 
Ozair said:
This is waffle and has no place in this discussion.

Again, Canada made the decision to run an open and transparent competition in 2016. The end result of that competition was selection of the F-35 to fulfil the entire 88 aircraft order. Only after Trump started a trade war with Canada did a change to that order begin to be mooted.


The RCAF already has a massive manning issue especially with aircrew. The continued uncertainty won't help that critical issue.

The mooted intent is that Canada maintains a fleet of 30 F-35s that are essentially used for overseas NATO tasking, and a domestic fleet of 60 Gripen that are used in North America only. It ignores the NORAD integration issue, it ignores the issues of having multiple fleet types resulting in less aircraft and aircrew available, it ignores the cost issues of a mixed fleet costing more to own and operate over the life time etc. It isn't a plan rooted in fiscal responsibility; it is a political decision to send a message to the Trump Administration that will no longer be in office 2.5 years from now and likely lame duck in 7 months.


That seems highly unlikely. The first Canadian jets won't arrive in Canada until 2028 with the whole fleet planned to be in place by 2032. Canada is a signatory to the JSF partnership so has invested money into the program and receives industrial work as well as a say in requirements and future development of the aircraft. Contesting a contract regarding Blk 4 delays likely isn't possible within the framework of that agreement.
Click to expand...
Err... If waffles are ok to be served to us here, it's for a mod to decide, not you, Sir. Meanwhile, maybe add a bit of sugar to the ones you serve.
 
Ozair said:
The RCAF already has a massive manning issue especially with aircrew. The continued uncertainty won't help that critical issue.

The mooted intent is that Canada maintains a fleet of 30 F-35s that are essentially used for overseas NATO tasking, and a domestic fleet of 60 Gripen that are used in North America only. It ignores the NORAD integration issue, it ignores the issues of having multiple fleet types resulting in less aircraft and aircrew available, it ignores the cost issues of a mixed fleet costing more to own and operate over the life time etc. It isn't a plan rooted in fiscal responsibility; it is a political decision to send a message to the Trump Administration that will no longer be in office 2.5 years from now and likely lame duck in 7 months.
Click to expand...
The Gripen would solve at least in part the manning issue .

Also using different aircrafts for NATO common expeditionary forces and internal air policing makes perfect sense. Historically, Canada had used Canadair CF-104 Starfighter in Europe and CF-101 Voodoo interceptors in the NORAD missions. Both aircrafts optimised for their specific role.

And the Gripen on the home front would bring a huge benefit:
Costs-per-flight-hour-of-Militarys-Fighter-jets.jpg

https://warwingsdaily.com/the-cost-of-fighter-jets-per-flight-hour/

"The Gripen is known for its low operating cost of around €7,000 ($7,500) per hour, making it one of the most economical fighter jets in service with Western air forces."

Over the canadian frozen tundra the chances of meeting a stealthy SU-57 are close to zero. Sukhois have no means to go there. But what you could find, beside stray airliners, are ancient Tu-95 Bears, which can only detect you visually, be you a stealth aircraft or not. On the other hand, cinematic performance of the Gripen is similar with the one of a F-35, it can intercept it`s target as fast, and the Leonardo Raven ES-05 AESA radar and the Meteor missile see and hit at least as far as the F-35`s AN/APG-81 radar and AMRAAM combination. In fact, the Gripen outranges and outguns the F-35. The Meteor boasts the largest No Escape Zone of any BVR missile in service.
 
Ozair said:
Again, if you want to be taken seriously then use real facts, not marketing fluff and completely irrelevant comparisons.
Click to expand...
But it is relevant. NORAD integration argument falls flat on F-35 being such a horrible interceptor material.

Gripen isn't much of a long range AD asset either, but at least it's being bad cheaper. And overall, since Vodoos, Canada more of pretends it cares about North than actually does.

CAF combat value against this threat is negligible for decades, and it hasn't been taken seriously since the very Arrow. In all honesty, Americans will be doing all the work. Or rather won't be as nothing will happen.
 
Ozair said:
The statements Ainen was making had no relevance to the discussion on the reasons the RCAF was potentially going to operate a mixed fleet. If you have an issue with what I have written then call it out with facts to support it...

Brazil's IOC is for A2A only so yes limited and Sweden has still yet to IOC.

Each aircraft still requires a pilot right... So how does that solve the aircrew manning issue? It also removes more pilots from being available for operational service as both types in service would require both airframes and aircrew at operational conversion units aside from other doubling up across maintenance and logistics.

Great job, reference the RCAF from the 1970s... Canada opted to move from multiple types to one type in the CF-118 because of the cost savings

Again, if you want to be taken seriously then use real facts, not marketing fluff and completely irrelevant comparisons.
Click to expand...
An issue ? Well, just your dozens of posts arguing again and again that Canada is only buying some Gripens only because of politics, and that they would be better going full F-35, all that in the Gripen thread, is a bit tiresome, I think everyone got your opinion. Moreover the tone you use for that, which in a way is quite ironic, because Canada may go for some Gripens in good part because of the way they are spoken to.
And mind you they might like it.
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Great job, reference the RCAF from the 1970s... Canada opted to move from multiple types to one type in the CF-118 because of the cost savings
Click to expand...
And there might also be cost savings in a reduced F-35 buy.
Ozair said:
Each aircraft still requires a pilot right... So how does that solve the aircrew manning issue? It also removes more pilots from being available for operational service as both types in service would require both airframes and aircrew at operational conversion units aside from other doubling up across maintenance and logistics.
Click to expand...
So you don't think ground crew is part of "manning"? Or is there some other reason to push Lockheed that we dont know about. There must be some reason you like to ignore the higher maintenance cost of F-35.
 
galgot said:
An issue ? Well, just your dozens of posts arguing again and again that Canada is only buying some Gripens only because of politics, and that they would be better going full F-35, all that in the Gripen thread, is a bit tiresome, I think everyone got your opinion.
Click to expand...
Can you explain then why the Canadian Govt, not the RCAF, is now considering Gripen when it lost the competition for 88 aircraft just over four years ago and before the first aircraft has reached Canadian soil?
galgot said:
Moreover the tone you use for that, which in a way is quite ironic, because Canada may go for some Gripens in good part because of the way they are spoken to.
And mind you they might like it.
Click to expand...
It is kind of hard to not get short when facts are presented and the replied comments have nothing to do with the issue and display ignorance that a little bit of research could overcome.

Ainen said:
But it is relevant. NORAD integration argument falls flat on F-35 being such a horrible interceptor material.

Gripen isn't much of a long range AD asset either, but at least it's being bad cheaper. And overall, since Vodoos, Canada more of pretends it cares about North than actually does.

CAF combat value against this threat is negligible for decades, and it hasn't been taken seriously since the very Arrow. In all honesty, Americans will be doing all the work. Or rather won't be as nothing will happen.
Click to expand...
Again, the Canadian Govt selected the F-35 based on a competition that clearly showed that the F-35 was the most capable at the missions they cared about. It would be silly to suggest that the NORAD mission was not part of the evaluation. You might not agree with the result but you don't have all the facts and actual platform information available to the evaluation team that resulted in their selection.

DJK said:
And there might also be cost savings in a reduced F-35 buy.
Click to expand...
There might but there might not as well. A Canadian assembled Gripen E is going to cost more than an F-35 especially when factoring in the manufacturing facilities and other infrastructure that needs to be built to accommodate it. A facility that will only manufacture probably 60 aircraft.
DJK said:
So you don't think ground crew is part of "manning"? Or is there some other reason to push Lockheed that we dont know about. There must be some reason you like to ignore the higher maintenance cost of F-35.
Click to expand...
If you read my initial post that you responded to I specifically said the RCAF has a manning issue especially with aircrew.
 
Ozair said:
There might but there might not as well. A Canadian assembled Gripen E is going to cost more than an F-35 especially when factoring in the manufacturing facilities and other infrastructure that needs to be built to accommodate it. A facility that will only manufacture probably 60 aircraft.
Click to expand...
It looks like Saab is happy to export from Brazil and should be no different with Canada.

If you want to make Gripen liok expensive then compare it to buying a CCA drone as the 2nd aircraft. Keep in mind that Gripen can probably also fly with a 6th gen CCA, which could be an interesting alternative to buying 5th gen manned aircraft.
Ozair said:
If you read my initial post that you responded to I specifically said the RCAF has a manning issue especially with aircrew.
Click to expand...
It looked like you had picked on aircrew as the extent of the manning issue. Sorry, my mistake. Still maintenance is a significant drawback of many aircraft, and F-35 is worse than average. Delays getting upgrades and weapon integration is another serious issue, so its not just problems on the Canadian side.
 
Ainen said:
But it is relevant. NORAD integration argument falls flat on F-35 being such a horrible interceptor material.
Click to expand...
Except that the F-35 is already integrated into NORAD, while the Gripen would need to be (at Canada's expense!) or Canada fails to meet some treaty agreements...

Which makes Gripen more expensive to buy.

That said I'd still prefer to see the Canadian air demo team flying Gripens.
 
DJK said:
It looks like Saab is happy to export from Brazil and should be no different with Canada.
Click to expand...
Export to who? Saab has suggested Ukraine but Ukraine have stated they want to build their own Gripens and Sweden will deliver the initial order if it is indeed ordered.
DJK said:
If you want to make Gripen liok expensive then compare it to buying a CCA drone as the 2nd aircraft. Keep in mind that Gripen can probably also fly with a 6th gen CCA, which could be an interesting alternative to buying 5th gen manned aircraft.
Click to expand...
Not sure how that influences or changes the discussion.
DJK said:
It looked like you had picked on aircrew as the extent of the manning issue. Sorry, my mistake. Still maintenance is a significant drawback of many aircraft, and F-35 is worse than average. Delays getting upgrades and weapon integration is another serious issue, so its not just problems on the Canadian side.
Click to expand...
No I acknowledged manning is an issue across the force but especially so with aircrew which is also probably the hardest to fix. F-35 is not perfect and I have never said it is and it is very far from it. The issue here remains the Canadians determined the F-35 was better than the Gripen E at what they wanted their future fighter to do. The only reason the acquisition path has now potentially changed is due to political issues with the current US Administration.
Scott Kenny said:
Except that the F-35 is already integrated into NORAD, while the Gripen would need to be (at Canada's expense!) or Canada fails to meet some treaty agreements...

Which makes Gripen more expensive to buy.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
Scott Kenny said:
That said I'd still prefer to see the Canadian air demo team flying Gripens.
Click to expand...
Prefer certainly but that ship has sailed, I expect the PC-21s are here to stay.
 
Ozair said:
Can you explain then why the Canadian Govt, not the RCAF, is now considering Gripen when it lost the competition for 88 aircraft just over four years ago and before the first aircraft has reached Canadian soil?
Click to expand...

Does that really need to be explained? I wonder, has anything big changed in the political realm over the last few years?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Except that the F-35 is already integrated into NORAD, while the Gripen would need to be (at Canada's expense!) or Canada fails to meet some treaty agreements...

Which makes Gripen more expensive to buy.

That said I'd still prefer to see the Canadian air demo team flying Gripens.
Click to expand...
How complicated is NORAD integration? Canada would have to integrate into their own C3 network anyway, and Gripen uses open system for weapons and sensors, so should be possible.
Ozair said:
Export to who? Saab has suggested Ukraine but Ukraine have stated they want to build their own Gripens and Sweden will deliver the initial order if it is indeed ordered.
Click to expand...
Looks like will export to Colombia and i think there was another one. Brazil have build the Gripen F test platform so potentially they could also build those for Canada and import some Canadian E's.
Ozair said:
Not sure how that influences or changes the discussion.
Click to expand...
It means you may not need one of the manned platforms at all. Buy LMs CCA if you have to. Also means the limitations of either manned aircraft don't apply to the CCA drone.
Ozair said:
Can you explain then why the Canadian Govt, not the RCAF, is now considering Gripen when it lost the competition for 88 aircraft just over four years ago and before the first aircraft has reached Canadian soil?
Click to expand...
Normally its the government MOD that does the aquisition right? But yeah sure, politics have changed the value of US built anything so they get reassessed. Other projects are still going to US suppliers so its not like everything has been cut.
 
Ozair said:
Again, the Canadian Govt selected the F-35 based on a competition that clearly showed that the F-35 was the most capable at the missions they cared about. It would be silly to suggest that the NORAD mission was not part of the evaluation. You might not agree with the result but you don't have all the facts and actual platform information available to the evaluation team that resulted in their selection.
Click to expand...
It just means that NORAD ones weren't high on the list, as it was on the list and was passed with minor revisions (like, Canada is the first client to specifically go for the sidekick option).

Yes, among the "survivors", F-35 was obviously the best interceptor capability(with Rafale and Eurofighter out). It's just that the competition bar is low (remember Gripen being unable to complete intercept profile requirement in Switzerland), for a rather high price. And since both F-35 and Gripen are the finalists, it says about how much Canada actually cares about the Northern axis.
DJK said:
How complicated is NORAD integration? Canada would have to integrate into their own C3 network anyway, and Gripen uses open system for weapons and sensors, so should be possible.
Click to expand...
The main issue/opportunity is Gripen being designed as a part of a different ground environment.
Opportunity is it's built to be ground-guided/networked in the first place; it's an "interceptor" by design. Just a rather small, almost point defense one.
 
J McInn said:
This has been a 16 year long saga (29-24 years if you include contributions to concept dev or formally joining JSF program). We've seen the acquisition cancelled in 2012, interim Hornets bought in 2017-18, F-35 recommit in 2023. This is Canada's "kicking the can down the road" procurement disease.
If a contract was signed for Gripen E/F tomorrow for aircraft built in Sweden it would likely be post 2032 before Canada received the first one. Production is 12-15 aircraft per year and the ramp up to 20-30 by 2028, albeit with huge caveats:
https://en.defence-ua.com/industrie...36_jets_per_year_remains_a_stretch-17425.html
As the deal is said to include local production in Canada, it took, for reference, 11 years for Brazil to have the first locally assembled Gripen E/F. If the news is correct, nothing will be announced until after the US mid-terms. Then Canada has to actually negotiate a contract with SAAB, build a production/assembly facility, train workers, eat F-35 cancellation penalties & probable court challenges, all while navigating inevitable political changes in both US and Canada. Acquisition malpractice is an understatement in this case.
RCAF Hornets are out of airframe life, the ones they acquired from Australia weren't given the HEP of the CF-188 fleet either. Basically the RCAF fleet will consist of 30 F-35's and a lot of remorse by 2032 if they decide on this mixed fleet.
Click to expand...
Valid points, I think Ukraine and Germany could purchase the remaining ~50 F35s Canada doesnt want. That would make the deal much more palatable for the US as those wouldnt be lost sales. Ukraine could take 36(for around 5bn euro) and Germany the remaining ones since those two countries have large funding already in place. And then Canada can purchase the 60 Gripen Es it wants.
 
DJK said:
How complicated is NORAD integration? Canada would have to integrate into their own C3 network anyway, and Gripen uses open system for weapons and sensors, so should be possible.
Click to expand...
Difficult enough that Dassault and Eurofighter both withdrew citing this as a major issue.

Dassault, however, reviewed the draft request for proposals and determined the Canadian requirements for intelligence data sharing and interoperability, particularly with U.S. forces, would be difficult to meet, sources noted.
Click to expand...
https://www.defensenews.com/industr...thdraws-from-canadas-fighter-jet-competition/

DJK said:
Looks like will export to Colombia and i think there was another one. Brazil have build the Gripen F test platform so potentially they could also build those for Canada and import some Canadian E's.
Click to expand...
Columbia, they are taking jets long before a Canadian line would be available. I agree getting F from Brazil might be possible but why would Canada reduce their own domestic production or offset it with imports and exports from/to Brazil?
DJK said:
It means you may not need one of the manned platforms at all. Buy LMs CCA if you have to. Also means the limitations of either manned aircraft don't apply to the CCA drone.
Click to expand...
CCA will come but will be above the 88 aircraft on order. The RCAF typically doesn't lead these things, they follow allies and partners.
DJK said:
Normally its the government MOD that does the aquisition right? But yeah sure, politics have changed the value of US built anything so they get reassessed. Other projects are still going to US suppliers so its not like everything has been cut.
Click to expand...
This is clearly the most visible and easiest to change despite the consequences.

Ainen said:
It just means that NORAD ones weren't high on the list, as it was on the list and was passed with minor revisions (like, Canada is the first client to specifically go for the sidekick option).
Click to expand...
It means you don't know and you are just guessing.
Ainen said:
Yes, among the "survivors", F-35 was obviously the best interceptor capability(with Rafale and Eurofighter out). It's just that the competition bar is low (remember Gripen being unable to complete intercept profile requirement in Switzerland), for a rather high price. And since both F-35 and Gripen are the finalists, it says about how much Canada actually cares about the Northern axis.
Click to expand...
No. Multiple countries have evaluated all the aircraft available and come to the same conclusion, I'm not sure why that is so hard to udnerstand.
Ainen said:
The main issue/opportunity is Gripen being designed as a part of a different ground environment.
Opportunity is it's built to be ground-guided/networked in the first place; it's an "interceptor" by design. Just a rather small, almost point defense one.
Click to expand...
Again... Canada ran a competition to their requirements/mission sets. If that was important to Canada it would have been factored into the evaluation.
 
slroger said:
Valid points, I think Ukraine and Germany could purchase the remaining ~50 F35s Canada doesnt want. That would make the deal much more palatable for the US as those wouldnt be lost sales. Ukraine could take 36(for around 5bn euro) and Germany the remaining ones since those two countries have large funding already in place. And then Canada can purchase the 60 Gripen Es it wants.
Click to expand...
Canada doesn't get to sell their slots that way and they haven't actually paid to date for anymore than 30.
ComradeVortex said:
Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Agree, that seems highly unlikely even if a new administration came along in 2029 and was significantly more supportive of Ukraine than the current one.
 
Ozair said:
It means you don't know and you are just guessing.
Click to expand...
Yes? People who know don't write here on the subjects they know.
But we don't have to "know", we can guess inputs from the result.

Canada buys LO strike fighter with pretty average intercept metrics, functionally unable to engage the main threat outside of an air police scenario. It clearly means that either air force is worried about pilot retention buying Tinder profile pics, or they just don't care about intercept.
Ozair said:
No. Multiple countries have evaluated all the aircraft available and come to the same conclusion, I'm not sure why that is so hard to udnerstand.
Click to expand...
Same conclusion on what? That the best interceptor capability is being friendly with the US, so no one would dare?
Well, it was.
On a broader scale, West doesn't produce defensive aircraft of this kind since the end of CW. But Canada doesn't even choose the more suitable ones among what's available.
Ozair said:
Again... Canada ran a competition to their requirements/mission sets. If that was important to Canada it would have been factored into the evaluation.
Click to expand...
They did, and they are now buying a different aircraft. It means that whatever was the decisive factor in 2022, was there before 2026, and isn't there now. I.e., politics. Before, these politics, after 12 years of friction and running on "Ukraine moment", finally just barely outweighed the costs.
Now, they don't any longer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom