Yes, true but there is another option for the engine. Yes it will cost money and take time, but that option exists.
And yes there are other bits of ITAR compliant pieces as well.
If we go with 65-88 F35 AND still pursue the Gripen E as an another fighter and the US gives us bullshit about ITAR related items, what would your thoughts be then? Would you still be ok with this or would you be up in arms about the untrustworthiness of our supposed closest Ally?
The US can't suck and blow on this. If we stick with 88 or reduce to 65+, what right does the US have to bitch against our sovereign decisions?
I almost want to see what would happen in this situation. We stick with 88 F35's and in addition we go with making Gripens E and pursue a joint programme with SAAB and the South Koreans on a 6th gen figther, along with UAV and such, and see if Trump comes out bitching about this. Dollars to Donuts he would.
People bring this up all the time, but I think the sheer complexity, time and money required to re-engine an aircraft is lost on many folks. Saab is seemingly plagued by long standing problems just producing enough Gripen E/F models as it stands now, and we expect them to go through all of the trouble to integrate a new engine into the airframe when the desire for such a thing is up in the air for the current/future customers? I find the whole thought experiment rather fanciful personally.
The US almost certainly wouldn't put their foot down if we procured 65-88 F-35 and then wanted to set up Gripen production, as we'd effectively be upsizing our airforce while maintaining our current orders. If can cancel or seriously cut back our orders for F-35 in favour of Gripen, I can very much see the US kicking up a sizable stink.
As much as it pains me to say, the US has a direct interest in our procurements as they relate to the defence of Canada as we are in a dual partnership with them regarding NORAD. If Canada adopts the Gripen and shuns the F-35, the NORAD organization will suffer with less capable aircraft being operated by Canada.
Not sure where you keep getting this joint Swedish-Korean 6th gen fighter idea from, but it makes no sense at all. As far as I am aware, neither party are talking or interested in partnering up. If Saab goes anywhere, it will be into the arms of other European companies as their own expertise in next gen aircraft is very limited.
The Swedes will be able to churn out Gripens
They cannot churn them out now and wartime isn't going to magically allow them to change this fact, regardless of how much money and manpower they throw at the issue given the supply chain/capability constraints at play here.
SAAB building Erieyes in Canada may not be the worst outcome. Especially if they bring Arthur and tbe Giraffe family with them.
If we could open a GlobalEye assembly, development and upkeep plant in Canada, I think that would be a great development given the increased demand for the aircraft abroad. For our own use though, any AEW aircraft without the ability to refuel in air is rather useless for long legged, high endurance northern missions.
What % of a 80million USD a plane cost does 3.2million CAD represent? Answer just under 3% of the total cost. So, that is what it comes down to, 3% of the total cost of a F35 is going to CDN companies. Is 3% enough? Is it too much? Is it too little?
There really isn't much more Canada can realistically hope to get from the F-35 program, given how its contracts and organized and given out. Partner nations have their private industry bid and win the contracts, they can't just arbitrarily carve more off the program and hand to Canada because we want more. We have to win the contracts, considering the US, UK, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, Australia, Norway, Finland and Israel compete directly with Canada for contracts.
If LM wants to give Canada more, it will have to be unrelated military or civilian offsets. The F-35 program is very much full with a lot of other hungry partners.
The F-35 is the more advanced platform, but the Gripen isnt exactly useless... People like to push that anything but the latest is useless, but that is never the case.
The Gripen isn't useless however, I think people really are looking at everything with blinders on. We are living in a world of ever increasing tensions, where technology advances and increasingly proliferates worldwide. More capable radars, more dangerous air defence systems, advancing drone technology and ever increasing numbers of updated & advanced hostile fighters from nations like Russia and China to name a few. Gripen is able to meet the threats of today at a baseline and either match them or come out on top however, it's fundamentally a 1980's airframe that has been modified to fit new hardware and better suit the world it was envisioned in years ago when it was developed.
If we take 5-10 years to start having Gripens delivered to the RCAF and we operate the aircraft for another 30+, we are fundamentally going to be operating yesterdays aircraft in a world we cannot predict. China is buying swaths of 5th generation fighters and heavily modernizing its existing 4th gen fleet, Russia has continued its troubled 5th gen developments to the point of seemingly exporting the SU-57 to Algeria and we have nations like Turkey, South Korea and India developing their own 5th generation fighter programs. It makes very little sense to me to sign up for a fighter originally designed a built in the 1980's that was remanufactured in the mid-late 2010's to a higher standard, to operate in a world of more advanced opposing systems for another 3 decades or more?
The Gripen is fine today however, we aren't buying an aircraft to operate just today. The RCAF is looking for something to operate for decades, and I don't think the Gripen is suited for the future that seems to be shaping out. Nations are going heavily into 5th and 6th generation designs wherever possible, chasing a 4.5th gen in 2025 seems like utter folly. If the RCAF ever decides to do operations abroad like we undertook with the CF-18 or if Russia/China becomes more of a risk at home, the Gripen being operated long term puts us at serious risk of a capability gap. There is no replacement for stealth in a world that is becoming more and more swamped with sensors/their weapons.
Nobody has denied the F-35 is the better jet, but sometimes the 80% solution is good enough, particularly if it opens doors to further developments.
Saab is not the partner I would attach myself to if I wanted to open doors to future developments, considering they are very much the laggards of the European aerospace industry. They have no experience in the field and seem to have issues managing their current, relatively low scale Gripen developments and deliveries.
