• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Gripen allows us a cheaper day to day operations aircraft that can still hold its own against the majority of our potential enemies.
It's not cheaper. This has been proven several times over. Saab lied about the cost, as well as intentionally or unintentionally conflating the numbers for the C/D.

Flyaway price is almost the same as the F-35, actual operating costs are unknown because there's less than twenty in service in any capacity, but Switzerland, Finland and Czech Republic found Saab's claims to be nonsense when they evaluated it against the F-35.
 
It's not cheaper. This has been proven several times over. Saab lied about the cost, as well as intentionally or unintentionally conflating the numbers for the C/D.

Flyaway price is almost the same as the F-35, actual operating costs are unknown because there's less than twenty in service in any capacity, but Switzerland, Finland and Czech Republic found Saab's claims to be nonsense when they evaluated it against the F-35.

But it meets our national political criteria perfectly: poking Trump in the eye ;)
 
And when Trump is gone, you are still soaked in piss.
When he is gone, next administration is likely to treat Canada the same, just with language that's more flowery and diplomatic sounding.

Once American voters and politicians have a taste for throwing their weight around, they aren't going to want to go back to "fair" deals.

Whether the RCAF buys 88 or 188 F-35s, expect the next administration to start pushing all of those F-35 component manufacturing jobs to be moved south. After we already buy them, there is no incentive to keep the jobs up here.
 
When he is gone, next administration is likely to treat Canada the same, just with language that's more flowery and diplomatic sounding.
I think that can depend on a number of factors.
Most of the US Elected Officials would much rather revert to something like Trump 45 methodologies.
Once American voters and politicians have a taste for throwing their weight around, they aren't going to want to go back to "fair" deals.
A lot of things here are not roses. Most understand fair is in the eyes of the beholder, and many are SOL with the current situation.
Whether the RCAF buys 88 or 188 F-35s, expect the next administration to start pushing all of those F-35 component manufacturing jobs to be moved south. After we already buy them, there is no incentive to keep the jobs up here.
Very few companies have any interest in doing so. Globalization within allies is security, as everyone having a piece of your pie helps ensure the next pie gets bought too.

While a lot of politicians may think about election cycles, the staffers and industry leaders think about sustainability and growth.
 
It's not cheaper. This has been proven several times over. Saab lied about the cost, as well as intentionally or unintentionally conflating the numbers for the C/D.

Flyaway price is almost the same as the F-35, actual operating costs are unknown because there's less than twenty in service in any capacity, but Switzerland, Finland and Czech Republic found Saab's claims to be nonsense when they evaluated it against the F-35.
However is security and infrastructure cost to support each type factored in? As I understand it, the US demands are far more stringent than the Swedes in this regard?
 
Interesting.....


"As the dust was still settling in Berlin from Monday’s bombshell news, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius outlined three options on Tuesday, plus a mysterious fourth path that he alluded to but left unexplained."
......."Finally, Germany could start its own program, Pistorius said, “under German leadership with Airbus and other partners.”

He said German defense leaders had been talking with Airbus about feasible options “for months,” because the end of the FCAS program had been expected.
 
Interesting.....


"As the dust was still settling in Berlin from Monday’s bombshell news, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius outlined three options on Tuesday, plus a mysterious fourth path that he alluded to but left unexplained."
......."Finally, Germany could start its own program, Pistorius said, “under German leadership with Airbus and other partners.”

He said German defense leaders had been talking with Airbus about feasible options “for months,” because the end of the FCAS program had been expected.

Airbus and Bombardier have an existing manufacturing relationship through the A220 plane and a fairly long commercial relationship in the past.

Bombardier and SAAB have an existing manufacturing-supplier relationship through Globaleye.

Airbus and SAAB have a tier 1 relationship on the Commercial and Defense/Electronics side of the business.
 
Does Hawker Siddeley still exist as a potential manufacturer should Germany try to put together a consortium or is Bristol the only one left
 
Very few companies have any interest in doing so. Globalization within allies is security, as everyone having a piece of your pie helps ensure the next pie gets bought too.

While a lot of politicians may think about election cycles, the staffers and industry leaders think about sustainability and growth.
Car manufacturers were pretty happy with the system that existed until last year too... There is no reason a politician with an agenda can't/won't do the same thing to defence contractors.
 
I think that can depend on a number of factors.
Most of the US Elected Officials would much rather revert to something like Trump 45 methodologies.

A lot of things here are not roses. Most understand fair is in the eyes of the beholder, and many are SOL with the current situation.

Very few companies have any interest in doing so. Globalization within allies is security, as everyone having a piece of your pie helps ensure the next pie gets bought too.


While a lot of politicians may think about election cycles, the staffers and industry leaders think about sustainability and growth.
Any nation that places its trust in the USA for their security and military requirements is foolish.

Once bitten, twice shy.
 
Any nation that places its trust in the USA for their security and military requirements is foolish.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Bitten? If being chastised for being a laggard and freeloader with some consequences is being bitten, then it's deserved.

Canada has faired very well these last many decades with the US.

What alliance do you suggest might be more beneficial? I'm real curious to hear who you think would be a much better partner in defence.
 
Bitten? If being chastised for being a laggard and freeloader with some consequences is being bitten, then it's deserved.
If the USA was specifically targeting Canada, yeah, sure. Maybe. The USA is targetting all of NATO. Laggards or not. So take that argument and bin it.
Canada has faired very well these last many decades with the US.
Those days are over.
What alliance do you suggest might be more beneficial? I'm real curious to hear who you think would be a much better partner in defence.
GCAP doing what the F35 used to do would be ideal.
 
Back
Top