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

[Jarnhamar]

I don't get the whole hate on the split fleet thing. Australia does it no problems, its part of their doctrine and has been for years (bomb trucks and air superiority).

1. My guess is Canada could have suggested a Mig 21 and many of the Gripen supporters would have supported that (or literally any aircraft) because FuCk TrUmP.

2. I think Australia originally bought the 24 FA-18F Super Hornets as an interim capability before the F-35 arrived, but instead of retiring them, the RAAF continued upgrading and sustaining them alongside the F-35 fleet.

FA-18s had:
-Large weapons payload;
-Long-range strike flexibility;
Lower operating costs; and
-Commonality with the EA-18G Growler fleet.

The Gripen wouldn't be an interm buy while we wait for F-35s. The Gripen also doesn't have the attravtive payload or range.
It might have lower operating costs but some people say SAAB cooked the numbers, plus there's hardly an established record like the F-18. There's maybe 20 Gripen Es in the air?

If Harris was laughing away as POTUS I doubt anyone in Canada would give the Gripen a second thought.

 

[Underway]

did the Aussies really buy the SH to replace the F-111 or to mitigate against delays in the F35?

Both. They also bought Growlers for obvious reasons.

 

[Altair]

If Harris was laughing away as POTUS I doubt anyone in Canada would give the Gripen a second thought.

Uh huh.

Ya, I heard about all the problems plaguing the F35 but I didn't just jump on the SH bandwagon.

I started to look into possible alternatives

How the Five Fighters stack up.

Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Saab JAS-39F Gripen Eurofighter Typhoon Dassault Rafale B F/A-18F Super Hornet ...

bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca

That was my first stop and I did a bit of research on each one afterwards and I personally like the jas Gripen, especially if it could be built by bombardier.

Didn't just settle on the only other American jet. Like the liberals seem to...

 

[YZT580]

most of these countries added F35s to their 4th gen fleets, with a Gripen we'd be adding a 4th to a 5th gen fleet-backwards

this is silly. Most of us have a fancy set of wheels for going to weddings, church, family outings, whatever or maybe the F350 for going hunting, fishing or towing the sleds depending on your preference. Then most driveways I see have a different vehicle for running around town, commuting, or for the kids to drive around. You/I don't need the gas guzzler with all the bells and whistles for everyday use. In fact it can get to be a pain in a lot of parking lots. The F35 has a lot to say for itself but for many of our purposes it is a definite overkill. Stealth isn't needed over Yellowknife and it probably isn't needed off either east or west coast either. So what is so terrible for about buying a Volkswagen for running around or sending a six pack of Gripens to Iceland to cover our turn over the mid-Atlantic? Other strings here are complaining about the abuse the C17s are taking and the need for replacement. Having a backup fleet for routine stuff strikes me as simply logical. And lets quit with the woe is me regarding flight crews. If we ordered Gripens, Raphael, Typhoons or whatever tomorrow you are looking at initial training for a kid just graduating from Grade 8.

 

[markppcli]

this is silly. Most of us have a fancy set of wheels for going to weddings, church, family outings, whatever or maybe the F350 for going hunting, fishing or towing the sleds depending on your preference. Then most driveways I see have a different vehicle for running around town, commuting, or for the kids to drive around. You/I don't need the gas guzzler with all the bells and whistles for everyday use. In fact it can get to be a pain in a lot of parking lots. The F35 has a lot to say for itself but for many of our purposes it is a definite overkill. Stealth isn't needed over Yellowknife and it probably isn't needed off either east or west coast either. So what is so terrible for about buying a Volkswagen for running around or sending a six pack of Gripens to Iceland to cover our turn over the mid-Atlantic? Other strings here are complaining about the abuse the C17s are taking and the need for replacement. Having a backup fleet for routine stuff strikes me as simply logical. And lets quit with the woe is me regarding flight crews. If we ordered Gripens, Raphael, Typhoons or whatever tomorrow you are looking at initial training for a kid just graduating from Grade 8.

Because that is entirely predicated on the idea that we will never need them to perform their primary task - air to air combat. If we dont want a jet capable of of shooting down another jet, while keeping its pilot alive, then why on earth are we buying a fight jet?

If we buy Gripens, base of Brazil's experiance, we're recruiting 10 yr olds to fly them.

 

[Underway]

1. My guess is Canada could have suggested a Mig 21 and many of the Gripen supporters would have supported that (or literally any aircraft) because FuCk TrUmP.

Why aren't we ordering Eurofighters then, they are still producing them. Why Gripen...

If Harris was laughing away as POTUS I doubt anyone in Canada would give the Gripen a second thought.

Threatening sovereignty caused a reaction. Lets not pretend that the annexation of Canada threat was a joke or a negotiating piece. It was an actual proposition. Just like the Greenland stuff. I doubt Harris would have done that. If it had of been only a trade conflict that probably would have gone down better, instead of a direct security threat.

 

[Altair]

Because that is entirely predicated on the idea that we will never need them to perform their primary task - air to air combat. If we dont want a jet capable of of shooting down another jet, while keeping its pilot alive, then why on earth are we buying a fight jet?

Those poor dumb nations buying Rafales, Typhoons and Vipers.

 

[KevinB]

Why aren't we ordering Eurofighters then, they are still producing them. Why Gripen...

Threatening sovereignty caused a reaction. Lets not pretend that the annexation of Canada threat was a joke or a negotiating piece. It was an actual proposition. Just like the Greenland stuff. I doubt Harris would have done that. If it had of been only a trade conflict that probably would have gone down better, instead of a direct security threat.

Hey based on the Iran deal, you could be so lucky we’d try to annex you.

You’d end up owning Alaska and getting 200 F-35 for free.

 

[Altair]

Hey based on the Iran deal, you could be so lucky we’d try to annex you.

You’d end up owning Alaska and getting 200 F-35 for free.

Dont forget enriching our own uranium.

 

[markppcli]

Those poor dumb nations buying Rafales, Typhoons and Vipers.

Well yes Slovakia and Bulgaria are infact poor countries.

 

[Altair]

Well yes Slovakia and Bulgaria are infact poor countries.

I was talking about France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Italy,Poland...the list goes on.

 

[KevinB]

I was talking about France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Italy,Poland...the list goes on.

Most of those are domestically producing those on existing lines.

The key aspect is why setup an entirely line for a Gen 4 fighter?
I’d be asking the same if Boeing all of a sudden offered to build F-18’s in Canada (albiet that would make a big more sense)

Anyone wonder why Saab limps along at 5 Gripen a year, that is generally the demand.

Clearly going to be a massive demand for Canadian built ones.

Want to get in bed with Saab, fine, just don’t tie it to the Gripen.

 

[markppcli]

I was talking about France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Italy,Poland...the list goes on.

Well you mentioned F16 block 70 so Slovakia and Bulgaria. France, Germany, Italy, Spain have all been flying Typhoons for decades - it is logical to add numbers of fleets your already flying. It doesn't increasing training or logistical burdens, and its current equipment. Poland is actually buying FA50 which is... uh maybe not the best call as they havent integrated AIM120 yet so id hold them apart. They do have a bunch of F35 though.

 

[Altair]

Well you mentioned F16 block 70 so Slovakia and Bulgaria. France, Germany, Italy, Spain have all been flying Typhoons for decades - it is logical to add numbers of fleets your already flying. It doesn't increasing training or logistical burdens, and its current equipment. Poland is actually buying FA50 which is... uh maybe not the best call as they havent integrated AIM120 yet so id hold them apart. They do have a bunch of F35 though.

France doesn't fly the Typhoon.

But it's all moot because.... that is entirely predicated on the idea that they will never need them to perform their primary task - air to air combat. If they dont want a jet capable of of shooting down another jet, while keeping its pilot alive, then why on earth are they buying a fighter jet?

 

[markppcli]

France doesn't fly the Typhoon.

Types typos

But it's all moot because.... that is entirely predicated on the idea that they will never need them to perform their primary task - air to air combat. If they dont want a jet capable of of shooting down another jet, while keeping its pilot alive, then why on earth are they buying a fighter jet?

Well that's the thing. None of them are predicting the purchase on " these dont need X Y Z to do the job of flying around Y where theyll never fight anyway." Which is a key point reiterated in the Gripen arguments here. Now how's the Raphales air to air record?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why aren't we ordering Eurofighters then, they are still producing them. Why Gripen...

The same reason video 1 of a cat falling off a table goes viral and video 2 of a cat falling off a table doesn't. Just timing.

Threatening sovereignty caused a reaction. Lets not pretend that the annexation of Canada threat was a joke or a negotiating piece. It was an actual proposition. Just like the Greenland stuff. I doubt Harris would have done that. If it had of been only a trade conflict that probably would have gone down better, instead of a direct security threat.

<proselytising>
People were quick to ignore the Gripen being heavily dependant on US parts. Forgetting that it took us 14 years to repair a submarine, if Canada some how designed our own engines, radars, radios, and 100 of the components for a US free Gripen Trump could still snap his fingers and tell Sweeden not to do business with us. And they would listen.

Carney apologized to Trump when Ford dropped his accurate and true commercial. If Canada buys any Gripens it will be with Trumps expressed permission.

 

[YZT580]

Because that is entirely predicated on the idea that we will never need them to perform their primary task - air to air combat. If we dont want a jet capable of of shooting down another jet, while keeping its pilot alive, then why on earth are we buying a fight jet?

If we buy Gripens, base of Brazil's experiance, we're recruiting 10 yr olds to fly them.

No, our current 12 year olds should be able to train on them. As for comments earlier, the Iranians managed to bag an F35 and an F15. No Israeli aircraft were shot down. All the rest of the American losses were close air support to rescue the downed WSO. The A10 that took ground fire made it back over the water. The biggest losses were self-induced or friendly fire so Iran is no real argument for favouring the F35 as there were lots of others there besides the F35 and the casualties were one of each. But on a related note, why did the Israelis bring all there a/c home? Experience? From what I have read, the best use for a dual fleet would be to have an F35 with only internal stores commanding a pair of Gripens or whatever loaded for bear and lagging behind, so yes, a dual fleet.

 

[Altair]

Types typos



Well that's the thing. None of them are predicting the purchase on " these dont need X Y Z to do the job of flying around Y where theyll never fight anyway." Which is a key point reiterated in the Gripen arguments here. Now how's the Raphales air to air record?

Who is getting into peer to peer air combat?

Or put another way, which of any figher jet being discussed has a peer to peer air combat record to write home about?

Rafales in the India Pakistan conflict would be all I can think of.

 

[Fabius]

For comparison South Korea has spent approximately $10 Billion USD developing an indigenous fighter aircraft capability. They still have a long way to go as well.

Canada in contrast spent approximately $780 Million USD supporting F35 development over a similar time frame.

Does Canada have the political will to commit to a decades long generational process spending 10s of billions on development of an indigenous fighter aircraft industrial capacity to include wireframe, avionics, engines and weapons?

Or even commit to a project as a major partner?

What is the opportunity cost of doing so compared to other technologies?

I am not seeing anything on such a conversation in Canada. The Gripen is a platform being used to mask the lack of an actual discussion.

 

[GR66]

If Canada had Gripens already, I would not be the negative nelly that I am on it.

But let’s be honest it is a near orphan aircraft, (and while we know the RCAF tends to love get stuck with orphans) it really isn’t a good option.


@Good2Golf You must see a lot more in Saab than I do, frankly I would be much more interested in wooing BAE, and also shoving money at Canadian Aerospace to join GCAP.

I’m worried you’re just going to end up with another GDLS, Irving type situation with a Saab Aerospace plant. The RCAF flying Gripens into the 2090’s…

I've said before that Gripen wouldn't be my first choice for the NORAD half of a split NORAD/Expeditionary fleet...that would be the F-15EX, but unfortunately the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave makes that a non-option. The advantage of Gripen though is establishing domestic production and the R&D facility Saab is offering. The goal should not to be building more Gripens for the next five decades but rather to establish the capability (and the required partnerships) to produce our own CCV's once the Gripen production run is done.

Personally I'd view the Gripen as a manned CCV quarterbacked by the F-35's until CCV technology reaches maturity. And Saab is already working on developing CCVs as well as potentially partnering with Airbus, Uncrewed systems will have a much wider global market than fighters like the Gripen so the plant when it transitions would have a global export market we could tap into.

Sweden Races to Build Fighter-Sized Loyal Wingman Drone Using Gripen Tech Before 2030 Decision Deadline | Defense Express

Saab aims for 2027 first flight of full-size unmanned fighter using Gripen's modular software, seeking partners as FCAS collapses

en.defence-ua.com

Saab and Airbus co-operate on unmanned fighter technology

Saab and Airbus are discussing co-operation on unmanned warplane technology, senior executives of the companies told Reuters, a move highlighting surging interest in drones and evolving alliances in Europe's fractured defence industry.

www.reuters.com

Because that is entirely predicated on the idea that we will never need them to perform their primary task - air to air combat. If we dont want a jet capable of of shooting down another jet, while keeping its pilot alive, then why on earth are we buying a fight jet?

If we buy Gripens, base of Brazil's experiance, we're recruiting 10 yr olds to fly them.

The primary aerial threat to Canada isn't enemy fighters flying over our territory, it's cruise missiles fired from enemy bombers or subs. You are no more likely to see F-35's dog fighting enemy fighters over Canada than you are Gripens. Expeditionary missions are a different story so that's where you'd send the F-35's but Gripens/F-16's/F-15's are all capable of fulfilling the NORAD role - especially when supported/directed by F-35's, AEW aircraft and NORAD's radar networks.

The other benefit of a larger fleet is coverage of our absolutely massive airspace. 88 fighters (of whatever type or quality) is a tiny amount to protect Canada, especially if in a major conflict we are deploying some overseas to support our allies.