The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[YZT580]

Is "f**k Trump" really a good enough reason to make bad major defence procurement decisions that endure decades?

sure it is. After all we bought Chevys' instead of Cadillacs when we went shopping for helicopters didn't we? Getting out from under Trump is better logic than that was.

 

[RangerRay]

I just don’t understand the logic of replacing Gen 4 fighters with…Gen 4 fighters, which is what I’m afraid the GoC will do. I have a hard time seeing them going with this SAAB deal and still purchase at least 65 American Gen 5 fighters…

 

[Kirkhill]

Has anyone actually decided to cut the F35 order? Or proceed with the buy beyond the first 16 yet? Or is this still speculation?

Like some others here I am in favour of buying all 88 F35s. At the same time LM and the US have not been doing themselves any favours by letting situations like this occur:

UK confirms FC/ASW fit checks on F-35B, no integration plan

F-35B fit checks were conducted to confirm that FC/ASW could be mounted "if required", with no current plan to integrate it to the aircraft.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

It is not just the US that has been hurt by the Continuous Improvement exercise that has delayed Block 4 and US weapons integration. Lack of access to a continually changing software system is not going to allow foreign partners to integrate their full inventory of weapons with the F35 in a timely fashion. Development needs to happen at Ukrainian pace and that means Israeli levels of access to the codes.

Israel's F35's weapons suite

Rampage ALBM
1000 kg bomb that can be internally carried
Python 5 AAM
Spice PGM Bombs (1000 and 2000 lb)
Derby AAM
EW suite nationally procured
C4I suite that operates on top of the factory sets

As well as the US made

GBU-31 JDAM and
AIM-120 AMRAAM.

....

UK - AIM-132 and Paveway IV
Norway - AIM-120, JDAM, SDB, AIM-9X, JSM
US - AIM-120, AIM-9X, JDAM (GBU-31, -32, -38) GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-39 SDB, B61-12 Nuclear Gravity Bomb)
....

The feel is less one of co-operation and more one of compulsion.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile, how about the Gripen as an advanced trainer with combat utility?

The Swedish Air Force goes straight from the Grob to the Gripen. Is it that easy to fly? Would it make a Hawk replacement that could be an intermediate step between the Pilatus and the F35?

CT-102A Astra - Aircraft - Royal Canadian Air Force - Canada.ca

Grob-G120A

www.canada.ca

Sweden orders additional Grob 120TP aircraft - Alert 5

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) has signed a contract for three more Grob 120TP training aircraft, further enhancing the Swedish Air Force’s training capabilities. This follows an initial order in 2021 for 10 aircraft and a simulator, demonstrating Sweden’s commitment to...

alert5.com

Grob G 120TP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[don3wing]

Meanwhile, how about the Gripen as an advanced trainer with combat utility?

The Swedish Air Force goes straight from the Grob to the Gripen. Is it that easy to fly? Would it make a Hawk replacement that could be an intermediate step between the Pilatus and the F35?

CT-102A Astra - Aircraft - Royal Canadian Air Force - Canada.ca

Grob-G120A

www.canada.ca

Sweden orders additional Grob 120TP aircraft - Alert 5

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) has signed a contract for three more Grob 120TP training aircraft, further enhancing the Swedish Air Force’s training capabilities. This follows an initial order in 2021 for 10 aircraft and a simulator, demonstrating Sweden’s commitment to...

alert5.com

Grob G 120TP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[don3wing]

Kirkhill, here is Canadian Defence Review's article on the Gripen,

Saab GRIPEN Canada - Fighter Jet - Canadian Defence Review

Saab GRIPEN E: With renewed interest in the RCAF operating a mixed fleet of F-35s and Gripens, CDR is revisiting our Gripen E cover story.

canadiandefencereview.com

 

[Remius]

Kirkhill, here is Canadian Defence Review's article on the Gripen,

Saab GRIPEN Canada - Fighter Jet - Canadian Defence Review

Saab GRIPEN E: With renewed interest in the RCAF operating a mixed fleet of F-35s and Gripens, CDR is revisiting our Gripen E cover story.

canadiandefencereview.com

They sound like fans…

 

[QV]

But that's not the reason the F-35 order is being cut.

We're still buying lots of kit from the US.

It's economic benefits. And for better or worse, economic benefits are a large part of defence procurement everywhere. It's not like the Americans themselves don't do the same thing.

I meant in the context of a handful or Gripen supporters here.

 

[brihard]

Is "f**k Trump" really a good enough reason to make bad major defence procurement decisions that endure decades?

It is not.

However, it’s. It only valid, but strategically necessary at this point to freshly reassess our dependencies and reliance’s on the U.S., and to game out the impacts certain U.S. policy choices could have on our defense capabilities, defence production, and our larger economy and industrial base. “Fuck Trump” is not a strategic imperative, nor is it a total equation. But “Will Trump get pissy if he loses his tariffs in court and look for a new way to fuck Canada in the ass?” is a valid question to ponder.

We need a few things. They’re partially aligned, partially overlapping, and partially distinct.

We need potent, and long term viable tactical air capabilities that RCAF pilots can fly into harms way when it’s necessary to kill people and break their shit.

We need to grow the hell up as a country and rebuild not just our direct defence production, but our larger industrial and human capital that permits the rapid growth of such an industrial base when we suddenly need it.

We need to get an economic and diplomatic wheel alignment. Freshly assess what our national interest is, and reassess who it aligns with, where, and how. And then adjust as needed. We need this as a matter of economic, military, and political sovereignty.

The range of outcomes of this will still all leave us heavily dependent on the U.S. for a lot of equipment in the near to mid term. For some stuff, F-35 is the only game in town until Gen 6 is rolling out. The U.S. makes the best of a lot of stuff and for some roles we need that best. But we may also be able to build upon core equisite capabilities with an additional “more that’s good enough”. That might mean an additional inventory of (insert equipment here) that isn’t the absolute best, but that bolsters our capabilities in a cost effective way. And in doing so, we may enhance our defence production base and pull or retain more of the economic human capital thusly needed.

Now, I’m not saying “buy Gripens too”. Obviously I’m open to it but I also don’t know what I don’t know. Nobody has given me a hat with a propellor on it, I cannot speak with any authority to what our RCAF should look like.

“Fuck Trump” is an emotional heuristic for “This guy and his policies are grave symptoms of a fundamental shift in our relationship, and we are now being treated transactionally. So let’s get transactional.” While he’s gonna come in for a grope or three, we are not obliged, as a sovereign state, to ‘just let him grab us by the pussy’ and not act economically and diplomatically to counteract that.

 

[Furniture]

That might mean an additional inventory of (insert equipment here) that isn’t the absolute best, but that bolsters our capabilities in a cost effective way.

I agree with your entire post, but really want to hit this point home.

Canada isn't America. Canada isn't going to fight a "peer" enemy alone, nor are we likely to pick the fight and go first strike.

With that in mind, having lots of "good enough" platforms, with the industrial base to make more of them, is likely far more realistically important in the next fight, than having a small fleet of top tier platforms that we can't replace because our sole supplier is too busy replacing their loses.

I get that the F-35 is the best option, if one only considers platform performance. Does that still hold up when you look beyond that? Is the F-35 actually the best for Canada and our realistic place in the world? Is the RCAF too USAF centric in their thinking?

 

[Prairie canuck]

Meanwhile, how about the Gripen as an advanced trainer with combat utility?

The Swedish Air Force goes straight from the Grob to the Gripen. Is it that easy to fly? Would it make a Hawk replacement that could be an intermediate step between the Pilatus and the F35?

CT-102A Astra - Aircraft - Royal Canadian Air Force - Canada.ca

Grob-G120A

www.canada.ca

Sweden orders additional Grob 120TP aircraft - Alert 5

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) has signed a contract for three more Grob 120TP training aircraft, further enhancing the Swedish Air Force’s training capabilities. This follows an initial order in 2021 for 10 aircraft and a simulator, demonstrating Sweden’s commitment to...

alert5.com

Grob G 120TP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Add replacements for the Snowbirds and it may look like 30 Gripen 2 seaters E max? Definitely not in any way an F35 replacement but potentially a very good Hawk and Tutor replacement.

 

[Maxman1]

Add replacements for the Snowbirds and it may look like 30 Gripen 2 seaters E max? Definitely not in any way an F35 replacement but potentially a very good Hawk replacement.

A Gripen is way overkill for a trainer and demonstration plane.

 

[quadrapiper]

A Gripen is way overkill for a trainer and demonstration plane.

To bat that around, bundle a bunch of "jet, but not F-35" roles, and you might actually be able to get rid of some fleets and contracts in a way that provides depth should things go sideways.

An armed Skyraiderish prop trainer/COIN/etc. bird, a jet trainer/demo/"not bleeding edge missions"/etc. fighter , and a Gen 5 and eventually 6 fighter to top it off seems like a mix that would have possibilities.

 

[Czech_pivo]

A Gripen is way overkill for a trainer and demonstration plane.

The US use F18’s as a demonstration unit.

 

[Maxman1]

The US use F18’s as a demonstration unit.

Which is also their combat plane, and each one can be returned to combat duty within 72 hours.

Buying a plane  just for demonstration purposes would be pointless. Whatever we get for the new trainer to replace the Hawk should also replace the Tutor.

To bat that around, bundle a bunch of "jet, but not F-35" roles, and you might actually be able to get rid of some fleets and contracts in a way that provides depth should things go sideways.

An armed Skyraiderish prop trainer/COIN/etc. bird, a jet trainer/demo/"not bleeding edge missions"/etc. fighter , and a Gen 5 and eventually 6 fighter to top it off seems like a mix that would have possibilities.

I'm not sure I follow. If we want a light fighter for low cost, low intensity missions, there are other options. There's a light attack version of the Harvard, the AT-6 Wolverine, and the T-7 and T-50 both have light attack versions.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The 10,000 jobs include Fighter Assembly, manufacturing, Surveillance aircraft, ground equipment, R&D for future system, land sea and air. In my opinion this is a large opportunity for Canada to partner with a country who values us as a valuable partner not only servants and a hassle to deal with. Canada brings a lot to the table as far as R&D in various tech industries along with skilled labor, and support . We also have large tracks of land they can test new equipment on, land sea and air.

They've pledged the 10,000 jobs figure specifically regarding the Gripen and its related industry, not as a part of a larger cooperation agreement. They've pledged 3,000 jobs specifically regarding GlobalEye production as well, are they double counting these two together? There is definitely some shifty definitions going on because that many jobs is very, very unlikely given the scale of both projects, even in a perfect world with a full throated Canadian adoption.

However, with the case of the Gripen, with a full tech transfer, this means we could do our own upgrade programs, modifications and keep replacement components going, potentially down the pipe of an in house program to replace it in 20+ years.

F35, how hard will it be to upgrade in 10 years even?

Canada is being offered something akin to Brazil, where we get limited domestic production of some sub-components and do final assembly of full jets with parts kits sent in from abroad. We won't be producing enough replacement components to keep our fleets going in all likelihood, and the idea of Canada doing its own domestic upgrade programs to yesterdays aircraft in an attempt to keep it relevant in 20+ years sounds like a typically Canadian money burning exercise. If anybody should be doing such a task, it should be Saab who has much more of the experience and expertise, not Canada who has none.

The Gripen fundamentally is at the limit of what it can actually accommodate going forward, they've already enlarged the airframe compared to the older models to be heavier/larger in order to fit usable amounts of fuel/hardpoints while also having the space/power generation for its new systems. Realistically for such a small and old airframe, the design is basically tapped out for what it can handle going forward. Look at the F-16's in newer models and how they've turned into hulking monstrosities full of conformal fuel tanks and bristling hardpoints for what you are looking for here.

A Gripen is way overkill for a trainer and demonstration plane.

Huge waste of money and effort for that role, adopting an actual training aircraft like the T-7 or T-50 would make far more sense.

 

[lenaitch]

Pardon the sarcasm but doesn't Borden still have hangars? Seriously though, you build them. We used to have lots more than just 188 and we had places to put them too. What is involved is breaking the do more with less standard and plan and work for more with more to work with. Does that make sense?

At least one has a historic designation and I think one is used by 400 Sq (CH-146 maintenance squadron). No runways.

A lot of the places where we used to have aircraft no longer exist: Chatham, North Bay, etc.).

 

[Rainbow1910]

In an interview with the CBC the Swedish defense minister stated that Canada purchasing Gripens is not a prerequisite to setting up an assembly line for the fighters in Canada with Canadian partners.
Pal Jonson interview

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saab-sweden-canada-fighters-f35-9.6987069

In just the span of a few days, we're already seeing flip flopping from "purchasing Gripens is not a prerequisite to setting up an assembly line for fighters in Canada with Canadian partners" to saying "it doesn’t make sense to go to the trouble of establishing another facility and transferring technology without an order from Canada." It sounds like Sweden's Defence Minister needs to talk with Saab's CEO to figure out what this bid actually is and what we're on the hook for potentially.

Amusingly enough, the article starts poking holes in Saab's claimed jobs generation.

If a Saab facility is stood up, the first Canadian-manufactured Gripens would be rolling off the assembly line in “roughly, between, three and five years depending on the setup,” he said.

During that build-up phase, Johansson reiterated that as many as 9,000 to 10,000 jobs could be created in Canada.

The company established an assembly facility in Brazil following that country’s decision to buy the Gripen. There were apparently promises of thousands of jobs, not dissimilar to the hype surrounding a possible Canadian deal.

Located at facilities in Gavião Peixoto, Brazil, the fighter jet line in that country employs about 200 people, according to Saab press release from the 2023 inauguration of the line.

Johansson said the first jet there is just completing assembly.

By the way, Brazil signed their contract with Saab in 2014 and just inaugurated their final assembly line in 2023, with the first jets apparently being assembled in Brazil sometime this year? Saab is telling us it will take between 3-5 years to deliver those 10,000 jobs throughout the factory, supply chains, construction, indirect jobs, R&D, etc (with 3 years being aircraft deliveries from outside of Canadian factories and 5 years with aircraft being delivered directly from those Canadian factories) when Brazil clearly doesn't reflect the realism of such a proposal. As much as I'd like to say Canadian aviation industry is leagues more advanced than Brazil, we really aren't at the end of the day when they have a company like Embraer that is basically doing what Bombardier does, but potentially better given their military contracts abroad.

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saab-sweden-canada-fighters-f35-9.6987069

In just the span of a few days, we're already seeing flip flopping from "purchasing Gripens is not a prerequisite to setting up an assembly line for fighters in Canada with Canadian partners" to saying "saying it doesn’t make sense to go to the trouble of establishing another facility and transferring technology without an order from Canada." It sounds like Sweden's Defence Minister needs to talk with Saab's CEO to figure out what this bid actually is and what we're on the hook for potentially.

Amusingly enough, the article starts poking holes in Saab's claimed jobs generation.



By the way, Brazil signed their contract with Saab in 2014 and just inaugurated their final assembly line in 2023, with the first jets apparently being assembled in Brazil sometime this year? Saab is telling us it will take between 3-5 years to deliver those 10,000 jobs throughout the factory, supply chains, construction, indirect jobs, R&D, etc (with 3 years being aircraft deliveries from outside of Canadian factories and 5 years with aircraft being delivered directly from those Canadian factories) when Brazil clearly doesn't reflect the realism of such a proposal. As much as I'd like to say Canadian aviation industry is leagues more advanced than Brazil, we really aren't at the end of the day when they have a company like Embraer that is basically doing what Bombardier does, but potentially better given their military contracts abroad.

Nothing, nothing is done quick or efficiently in Brazil. They make us look like Usain Bolt

 

[calculus]

The elephant in the room is still, in my opinion, the ITAR implications of the GE F414 engines. SAAB had proposed a workaround by using a variant of the EJ200 (EJ230) which is a) undeveloped (and by some estimates would need at least 6 years before it would be available) and b) would then need to be integrated into the Gripen airframe, a further 2 years minimum effort.

This whole thing is lunacy. Stop playing politics and commit to the remaining F35s.