# What happens if.....Saab Gripen



## Kirkhill

http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/

What happens if Her Majesty's Canadian Government pulls a CF-5 and delivers 80 or so JAS-39s to the RCAF whether they want them or not?

Thoughts on impact on the 30 to 50 BCAD budget for maintaining a Fighter Cap over Canada for the next 30 to 50 years?
Thoughts on the impact on Foreign Affairs - US Relations, participation in international operations, with or without US Intelligence support and logistics?
Thoughts on the impact of Quebec Aerospace Inc of Montreal - gaining the assembly of Gripens and supply of parts to the international Gripen fleet while losing the supply of parts and technologies (like trainers) to the F-35 fleet?

My sense is that the economic impact on the military budet will be marginal and the NORAD piece of the puzzle will be met.

Internationally relations with the US will become a bit more difficult to manage technically resulting in more time and space being necessary for Canada to join in US operations. And that is probably a good thing as far as the Liberals are concerned. Jean Chretien never liked standing solutions as they didn't give him the wiggle room that he preferred.  

It also means fewer Libyas and Iraqs but more Baltics and Romanias - Show the flag.

In Montreal it means a long term loss of business - but one that is only felt in the boardrooms - and a short term gain of political announcements and hiring.  The fact that those jobs will be gone in 5 years time once the fleet is built is probably politically immaterial  Another big ticket project will be announced in time for the next election.

So.... if you get stuck with these things, how could you use them?  What couldn't you do with them?


----------



## Altair

Saab Gripen. 

So very Ikea.

Relatively cheap, you build it yourself at home and the instructions are in swedish  ;D

I'll go now.


----------



## Haggis

The US would never allow us to buy anything not made in (north) America.  This point would be bluntly made, quietly and politically if we even openly considered a non-American NFA platform purchase.


----------



## Altair

Haggis said:
			
		

> The US would never allow us to buy anything not made in (north) America.  This point would be bluntly made, quietly and politically if we even openly considered a non-American NFA platform purchase.


And they get to dictate our defense purchases why?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> And they get to dictate our defense purchases why?


Because we have to be really interoperable, especially aircraft. Watch what happens to NORAD if we buy the PAK-FA.


----------



## dimsum

Altair said:
			
		

> And they get to dictate our defense purchases why?



They won't come out and say it publicly, but I'm sure the backroom discussions will be something like "if you don't buy American, we won't buy your _____ stuff".  Basically, put enough pressure that our hands are tied enough.

As PuckChaser also said, we are also extremely tight-knit with NORAD - I'm not sure if Gripen or any of the European fighters have the same Link, etc. capability that lets us work with the Americans.  Anything Russian, etc won't even be in the list.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Basically, there is a lot of US technology in the Grippen. They get a say who the end user of that technology, is.

If we started favouring the Grippen over say, f-xx (insert what ever digits of a US made fighter you wish), I predict SAab suddenly begins to run into issues accessing US tech. I would be surprised if Saab has not already been told to not fish in this pond. Basically, the US wants to protect its fighter industry. Welcome to the grown up world of international trade.

That problem is not as large with the Eurofighter and the Rafael.


----------



## blacktriangle

Sounds like it's time for a NATO "air policing" mission over Canada. How much does Iceland pay for the service?


----------



## Altair

Dimsum said:
			
		

> They won't come out and say it publicly, but I'm sure the backroom discussions will be something like "if you don't buy American, we won't buy your _____ stuff".  Basically, put enough pressure that our hands are tied enough.
> 
> As PuckChaser also said, we are also extremely tight-knit with NORAD - I'm not sure if Gripen or any of the European fighters have the same Link, etc. capability that lets us work with the Americans.  Anything Russian, etc won't even be in the list.


Nice little monopoly being run by the Americans.

You can only buy planes that are interoperable with norad and the only planes interoperable with norad are American. 

I was under the impression that NATO planes were build to communicate with other NATO member aircraft. I also would have assumed that these newer European aircraft would do a better job and our current aircraft. I guess that's too simple a assumption?


----------



## dimsum

Altair said:
			
		

> Nice little monopoly being run by the Americans.
> 
> You can only buy planes that are interoperable with norad and the only planes interoperable with norad are American.
> 
> I was under the impression that NATO planes were build to communicate with other NATO member aircraft. I also would have assumed that these newer European aircraft would do a better job and our current aircraft. I guess that's too simple a assumption?



Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen aren't newer than Super Hornet though.  All of them were designed around the 1990s.

And as for the monopoly - that's just how it goes.


----------



## Altair

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen aren't newer than Super Hornet though.  All of them were designed around the 1990s.
> 
> And as for the monopoly - that's just how it goes.


Yup, and I assume  (doing that a lot on this topic) all would be no worse than our current cf 18s


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup, and I assume  (doing that a lot on this topic) all would be no worse than our current cf 18s



Yup, and I assume that the competitions aircraft and defences are going to get better over the 30 to 50 years that the RCAF will be flying their "new" aircraft.

Lessee- SE5as being flown against ME109s,  (30 years), Spitfires flown against F18s (40 years), Shooting Stars being flown against F22s (50 years).

But at least they were no worse than the aircraft they replaced when they were bought.

Edit: My opinion - the least harm Trudeau can do is do nothing for 4 years.


----------



## YZT580

Why do you think the arrow project was scrapped with 104's, 101's and BOMARCs entering our inventory?  We had a good no great market potential in Europe but the states refused export licenses on little things like sights, engine controls and the like.  Without those items there was no chance of a sale and we couldn't afford the airplane by ourselves.  Say goodbye to aircraft mfg in Canada.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yup, and I assume that the competitions aircraft and defences are going to get better over the 30 to 50 years that the RCAF will be flying their "new" aircraft.
> 
> Lessee- SE5as being flown against ME109s,  (30 years), Spitfires flown against F18s (40 years), Shooting Stars being flown against F22s (50 years).
> 
> But at least they were no worse than the aircraft they replaced when they were bought.
> 
> Edit: My opinion - the least harm Trudeau can do is do nothing for 4 years.


I still find it hard to believe that anyone not buying the F35 will be left utterly defenseless with junk aircraft for the next 30 years or so.

That said, I'll trust the experts on here.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/145484/gripen-pulls-out-of-canada-fighter-competition.html



> Gripen Pulls Out of Canada Fighter Competition
> 
> (Source: defense-aerospace.com; published June 3, 2013)
> 
> 
> PARIS --- In a surprise reversal, Sweden’s Saab has decided to pull out of Canada’s fledging fighter competition, although it may rejoin later if conditions change, the company said June 3. Saab is the first of the five competitors to pull out, but other competitors also have expressed doubts that the competition will be fair and open.
> 
> “Saab followed the discussions in Canada with interest [but] at this time and stage of the evaluation process, Saab has decided not to take part,” the company said in a June 3 e-mail message. “Our conclusion is that the conditions were not yet ripe for us to act.”
> 
> Saab’s withdrawal is all the more surprising that, just days before the week-end, it appeared eager to continue the competition. Saab executive vice-president Patrick Palmer was quoted by Postmedia news May 31 as saying that “I think [Canada] really [has] a desire to get the information. I don’t think they have a predefined outcome. And we are supportive of it.”
> 
> In a June 3 e-mailed statement, Saab spokeswoman Karin Walka added that “as the customer continues to mature their process and further define the way forward, Saab will re-evaluate this decision, based on our assessment the Government of Canada’s requirements, to see if and how Saab can take part in the continuing process as well as the applicability of any potential Saab solution.”
> 
> Canadian officials quoted May 31 by the Sun News Network say the possibility of buying Saab fighters is not permanently discounted. "Not participating in the market analysis in no way precludes a company from participating in any potential, future competitive process," one official said.
> 
> Saab had expressed interest in competing to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighters, in which Boeing (F-18E), Dassault Aviation (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) are competing against the Lockheed-Martin F-35, which the Canadian government was publicly committed to buy until its skyrocketing price, technical problems and a particularly slanted procurement process forced it to “re-set” the project in December.
> 
> “Defence companies whose fighter jets are competing against the F-35 stealth fighter have raised concerns about the new way bureaucrats are evaluating options for Canada’s next warplane,” Postmedia newspapers reported May 31, adding that “There are worries F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin continues to enjoy a distinct advantage despite the Conservative government’s promise to push the reset button, with some saying the best solution is an open competition.”
> 
> To restore confidence, the Canadian government took responsibility for managing the fighter procurement process away from the Department of National Defence and moved it to a newly-created National Fighter Procurement Secretariat (NFPS) which prepared a 7-point plan to which it is scrupulously adhering.
> 
> However, industrial benefits obtained to date by Canadian industry in the F-35 program – US$488 million as of last week – the strong bias previously shown by the government, the DND and the RCAF in favor of the F-35 has left some manufacturers pretty dubious about the competition’s fairness.
> 
> “The best proof that this is a genuine process would be arriving at the end of this year with a decision to really open a competition,” said Dassault senior vice-president Yves Robins.
> 
> Describing its progress to date, the Fighter Secretariat said in a May 31 statement that “The focus of…. work over the past few months has been on the…. evaluation of options. Companies with available aircraft have been engaged through questionnaires on fighter aircraft capabilities, price and industrial benefits. Companies were briefed on the assessment methodology for the capability questionnaire on May 3, 2013 and price and industrial benefits questionnaires on May 31, 2013.”
> 
> It also said that its “methodology, the three questionnaires and the approach to options analysis have been developed by the Secretariat and the Royal Canadian Air Force, and reviewed and challenged by the Independent Review Panel”, which meets regularly and ensures “the work to evaluate options is both rigorous and impartial.”
> 
> Saab notes in its statement that “We continue our focus on currently on-going Gripen campaigns in the rest of the world as well as the continuing process to provide the Gripen E (the next generation) to Sweden and potentially to Switzerland.”.
> 
> -ends-



They aren't in the running right now but maybe they will re-enter.


----------



## a_majoor

Due to the vast distances of Canada and to deploy from Canada for expeditionary work, what is needed is a much larger, long range aircraft like the F-15E (with the conformal fuel tanks) in terms of airframe, but with the sensor and networking capabilities of the F-35 to leverage the small numbers of aircraft available. Truthfully, even a "CF-15 Snow Eagle" doesn't fully fit the bill for the long range expeditionary missions we undertake; for that we need a long range bomber like the B-1B. Try selling that argument to the general public and watch heads explode en mass.....

WRT what aircraft can potentially fill the roles the RCAF needs to fill, outside of the CF-35 the real answer is "none of the above". Canada's defense budget and market is too small to custom build an aircraft for us (if that was actually possible, there were proposed 2 seat strike version of the F-22 and XF-23 which would have the combination of range and payload to fulfill many of our needs), so getting ion on a large program and being able to reap military, economic and political benefits from doing so is a far better course of action than anything else on offer.


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Due to the vast distances of Canada and to deploy from Canada for expeditionary work, what is needed is a much larger, long range aircraft like the F-15E (with the conformal fuel tanks) in terms of airframe, but with the sensor and networking capabilities of the F-35 to leverage the small numbers of aircraft available. Truthfully, even a "CF-15 Snow Eagle" doesn't fully fit the bill for the long range expeditionary missions we undertake; for that we need a long range bomber like the B-1B. Try selling that argument to the general public and watch heads explode en mass.....
> 
> WRT what aircraft can potentially fill the roles the RCAF needs to fill, outside of the CF-35 the real answer is "none of the above". Canada's defense budget and market is too small to custom build an aircraft for us (if that was actually possible, there were proposed 2 seat strike version of the F-22 and XF-23 which would have the combination of range and payload to fulfill many of our needs), so getting ion on a large program and being able to reap military, economic and political benefits from doing so is a far better course of action than anything else on offer.


Due to that no longer being a option I hope there are better second choices in terms of fighter aircraft.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Due to that no longer being a option I hope there are better second choices in terms of fighter aircraft.


Which is seeming less and less likely. Trudeau's purely political posturing to cancel F35 is smacking more and more like EH101, where we get an inferior platform, for more money, 15 years late. But at least it bought votes on the backs of the CAF again.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which is seeming less and less likely. Trudeau's purely political posturing to cancel F35 is smacking more and more like EH101, where we get an inferior platform, for more money, 15 years late. But at least it bought votes on the backs of the CAF again.


You know that your guy could have just bought the F35, right?


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> Due to that no longer being a option I hope there are better second choices in terms of fighter aircraft.



Altair - Google "Last Manned Fighter".   You will find that sub-text in all the discussions about the F-35 going back to the JSF competition.  That is why the competition is and was so hard fought.  The odds were high that the F-35 was going to be the last of the fighters.  The company that won the competition got to live. The rest had to figure out what to do next.  They are still figuring.

Meanwhile, the F-35 is already entering into its third iteration - if it ends up being re-engined before it gets out of LRIP.

And that is not an impossibility.

The original engine was designed against paper specs.  The paper specs came up short and the engine came up short.

Now there is real chunk of metal in the air and the engine engineers know how much more thrust they need, how much space they have, where the hardpoints are for bolting on the new engine, and the size of the gas tank.

Confronted with known unknowns life becomes manageable.

Spitfires were powered by 12 different variants of the Rolls Royce Merlin, and 4 different variants of the Rolls Royce Griffon.


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> You know that your guy could have just bought the F35, right?



Right.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Altair said:
			
		

> You know that your guy could have just bought the F35, right?



Cuz your guy would have let that happen without further using it against him in the last election... :

(Yes, I realize it is incumbent on the guy in charge to get things done- not on the opposition to let things happen...)


----------



## Altair

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Cuz your guy would have let that happen without further using it against him in the last election... :
> 
> (Yes, I realize it is incumbent on the guy in charge to get things done- not on the opposition to let things happen...)


As long as we all agree that it's all about politics. 

CPC didn't want to lose points and the LPC used it to gain points.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> As long as we all agree that it's all about politics.
> 
> CPC didn't want to lose points and the LPC used it to gain points.


Completely agree. Everything about CAF procurement is politics. Look at NSBP, we could have gotten better deals elsewhere.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Altair said:
			
		

> As long as we all agree that it's all about politics.
> 
> CPC didn't want to lose points and the LPC used it to gain points.



Fair enough.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Altair - Google "Last Manned Fighter".   You will find that sub-text in all the discussions about the F-35 going back to the JSF competition.  That is why the competition is and was so hard fought.  The odds were high that the F-35 was going to be the last of the fighters.  The company that won the competition got to live. The rest had to figure out what to do next.  They are still figuring.
> 
> Meanwhile, the F-35 is already entering into its third iteration - if it ends up being re-engined before it gets out of LRIP.
> 
> And that is not an impossibility.
> 
> The original engine was designed against paper specs.  The paper specs came up short and the engine came up short.
> 
> Now there is real chunk of metal in the air and the engine engineers know how much more thrust they need, how much space they have, where the hardpoints are for bolting on the new engine, and the size of the gas tank.
> 
> Confronted with known unknowns life becomes manageable.
> 
> Spitfires were powered by 12 different variants of the Rolls Royce Merlin, and 4 different variants of the Rolls Royce Griffon.


I'll look it up. Need to late night reading material. And it would be nice to know a bit more about plane that is the subject of so much conflict.

Whatever is in it though, won't change the fact that the new government won't buy it. 

From a amateurs perspective, the other planes, while not as good as the F35, seem to be capable weapons platforms. I don't buy the interoperability argument, seeing as how I'm sure that European fighters will be able to operate with future fleets of American f35s without too many issues.

Many countries are buying/developing fighters other than the F35, I doubt that every other other fighter is junk.


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> I'll look it up. Need to late night reading material. And it would be nice to know a bit more about plane that is the subject of so much conflict.
> 
> Whatever is in it though, won't change the fact that the new government won't buy it.
> 
> From a amateurs perspective, the other planes, while not as good as the F35, seem to be capable weapons platforms. I don't buy the interoperability argument, seeing as how I'm sure that European fighters will be able to operate with future fleets of American f35s without too many issues.
> 
> Many countries are buying/developing fighters other than the F35, I doubt that every other other fighter is junk.



Keep this up and you will be in the running for Liberal Minister of Defence.  One of their past efforts was a Corporal in the RCAF.  Corporals make excellent leaders of nations as well.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Keep this up and you will be in the running for Liberal Minister of Defence.  One of their past efforts was a Corporal in the RCAF.  Corporals make excellent leaders of nations as well.


Who said I was a corporal??? ???


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Altair said:
			
		

> Who said I was a corporal??? ???



I think he was referring to Paul Hellyer- not you.


----------



## Underway

The problem is the main arguments in favour of the F-35 are basically regarding its ECM, data management and sharing and other electronics stuff.  Which of course are classified.  Also the other main problem is that the RCAF don't/won't/can't have the ability to speak directly to the public/senate etc... about why the aircraft is needed.  If the head of the RCAF came out publically and said these are the reasons why we thought the F-35 was the best and only option then a lot of Canadians would listen or at least understand.  If the gov't decides otherwise that's fine.

As for the Saab Gripen don't buy it.  It's a paper air plane right now, even further behind the F-35 in development (though it is an easier design process).  It's range is questionable and its specifically designed for the Swedish situation, much like this nice but specific design.  If you're going to look at other aircraft its down to the Raf, F-18, Eurofighter.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Keep this up and you will be in the running for Liberal Minister of Defence.  One of their past efforts was a Corporal in the RCAF.  Corporals make excellent leaders of nations as well.



Godwin?  This thread barely started...


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Godwin?  This thread barely started...



Godwin?  Who said Godwin?  I was thinking of a nasty, wee Corporal with aspirations to global empire and golden chamberpots..... from Corsica.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Which only goes to show how easy it is to mix one's corporals up.  :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Godwin?  Who said Godwin?  I was thinking of a nasty, wee Corporal with aspirations to global empire and golden chamberpots..... from Corsica.



Ah...wasn't picking up the undertone of retirement in Club Corsica.  Was thinking more of a 'downfall' than 'retirement.'   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ah...wasn't picking up the undertone of retirement in Club Corsica.  Was thinking more of a_ 'downfall'_ than 'retirement.'   ;D




Well, to meet one's Waterloo, is, now, a synonym for downfall.  :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well this will be the hanger floor on day one


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

They say that the Gripen (or Griffon ... How many griffon can the CF have at the same time ?) can be serviced and turned around on a back street by reservists with a few days of training only. So the instructions must be in English for that one  ;D


----------



## CougarKing

For those anticipating the Gripen E:

AIonline



> *Bullish Saab Sets Rollout Date For Gripen E*
> by Chris Pocock
> - February 22, 2016, 8:19 AM
> Saab is discussing the sale of six more Gripens to Thailand.
> 
> *
> Saab will roll out the first Gripen E version at Linkoping, Sweden on May 1*8, said Richard Smith, the company’s head of marketing and sales for the combat aircraft. In a bullish briefing at the Singapore Airshow last week, Smith said that thanks to the 60 new-build E/F jets for Sweden, plus the Brazilian Gripen order and other surveillance and submarine programs, the Swedish company’s backlog was at an all-time high of $13.5 billion. The Gripen thus has a guaranteed long-term future, and the sales goal was “at least 300 more,” Smith said.
> 
> Smith described the “huge technical transfer program” associated with the Brazilian acquisition of Gripen. This includes 50 key projects in four categories, and is an expanded version of the model used in South Africa’s Gripen deal. Last October, the first 48 of an eventual 350 Brazilian engineers arrived in Sweden to work on the project. Fifteen of the expected 36 Gripens to be acquired by Brazil will be built by Embraer at a Development Center to be established at Gaviao Peixato. The center will also help develop the two-seat Gripen F and integrate weapons. There had been no slow-down of the Brazilian program, despite that country’s recent economic difficulties, Smith told AIN.  Preliminary design of a Sea Gripen version had been completed, with a potential Brazilian requirement in mind, Smith said. “Now we must do a market analysis,” he added.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------

