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

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The canard of needing twin engines for arctic operations was an invention by the RCAF to eliminate the F16 and drive the choice to the F15 in th competition where we ultimately acquired th CF18.

I know. I was being sarcastic.

 

[Nvlgzr]

The canard of needing twin engines for arctic operations was an invention by the RCAF to eliminate the F16 and drive the choice to the F15 in th competition where we ultimately acquired th CF18.

I thought it had to do with poor reliability of jet engines back before FADEC.

 

[Maxman1]

SAAB Gripen: the wartime aircraft that can be replaced at the speed they are lost in combat.

No, they can not. Saab can't even meet peacetime demands.

Cheaper and quicker to build,

They absolutely are not.

maintain,

Maintenance costs are currently nonexistent, but will almost certainly be not significantly different from the F-35.

and train pilots on

There will be no significant difference in training time. This is not a factor worth considering.

Put down the shiny brochure. Every country that has considered the F-35 and the Gripen E has chosen the F-35 and determined Saab’s claims are lies.

I see a role for both aircraft within a balanced fleet. We should also pursue domestic production of the Gripen, providing Canada with a wartime manufacturing base and the ability to sustain and expand production when needed.

We can't do a mixed fleet. The horse is dead, stop beating it.

 

[YZT580]

That is the first time I've heard that, but it doesn't surprise me.

of note, it was around the same time that trans-oceanic commercial was debating allowing long-range twins to carry passengers trans-Atlantic. The desire for multi-engine a/c wasn't confined to the military by any means

 

[Halifax Tar]

We can't do a mixed fleet. The horse is dead, stop beating it.

I disagree, and no.

 

[GR66]

We have 5000 reasons based in Latvia to consider a less maintenance supplement to the F35 to provide airborne coverage a la the F16 that Ukraine is using effectively. Unless we are planning on withdrawing to NA and pulling up the drawbridge so to speak other obligations are certain to occupy our future employment of our armed forces. It is better if we can provide at least some of our own defense when that occurs without having to totally rely upon our allies to provide it.

The Shahed-type drones that you're proposing we use cheaper (non-F-35) fighters to counter are not typically being used against front-line military forces in Ukraine. They are being used as terror weapons against Ukrainian civilian and fixed infrastructure targets in depth, so your "5000 reasons" argument doesn't really hold water. And if they did use those drones to target our Brigade in the front lines in Latvia you'd be sending those non-stealthy fighters well within range of Russian air defence systems where they'd likely be quickly blown from the sky.

I'm definitely not saying that cheaper platforms don't have a role to play or that they can't be effective against Shahed-type drones (both Ukraine and the Middle East have proven that they are), I'm just saying that in Canada's unique situation that type of threat at a large enough scale to justify a 2nd fleet intended to serve that particular purpose in the defence of Canada does not exist and 4th Generation fighters are not suited for deployment over the front in Latvia.