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

[markppcli]

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.

The F35 was hit but landed. F15 was shot down by Iran and 3 from friendly fire. F35s from Isreal flew a ton of sorted destroyed Iranian air defence.

Who is getting into peer to peer air combat?

That is precisely what we have a fighter fleet to do. Unlike most Gripen operators, ie Brazil Thailand and South Africa, we are tied to defending Europe from Russia.

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.

Technically F34 is 1-0 however it was an exteme over match. Kind of why I roll my eyes at the good enough for the arctic argument. Everything is good enough till it isnt.

 

[markppcli]

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

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.

If were talking about 88 F35s plus 70 Gripen I'm less against it. However i dont think that's actually the plan.

 

[Altair]

That is precisely what we have a fighter fleet to do. Unlike most Gripen operators, ie Brazil Thailand and South Africa, we are tied to defending Europe from Russia.

Yes, i understand the raison d'etre of a fighter fleet. But seeing as nobody is engaging in air to air combat with peer adversaries for the shits and giggles, how is one to compare air to air records?

 

[Furniture]

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.

Alternatively, people are trying to have a discussion about the advantages of having domestic capacity to build fighter aircraft, and it gets derailed by "but the F-35 is better".

As @GR66 pointed out above, building Gripens is a way to expand the fighter fleet, but more importantly get into the business of making warplanes again. As many have pointed out repeatedly in this thread; if jobs are directly tied to the production of aircraft for the RCAF, the GoC is more likely to buy them more often. If we stick to the current model of just buying from the Americans every 40+ years the RCAF will continuously find itself stuck with old and worn-out aircraft.

Looking at the NSS, there is zero reason we couldn't have an National Aircraft Strategy for the RCAF as well. We choose not to, because we choose to not be serious about defense, or supporting Canadian defense industries. We'd rather buy too few exquisite items from America every few decades and drive them into the ground, than support our own domestic industries.

 

[GR66]

If were talking about 88 F35s plus 70 Gripen I'm less against it. However i dont think that's actually the plan.

But that is exactly what is apparently being discussed as the option:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-gripen-saab-lockheed-martin-canadian-armed-forces-9.7225549

According to various sources, the federal government would still be looking at a fleet of 72 to 88 F-35s, even if it moves forward with the Gripen.

Several sources said Ottawa is exploring a purchase of 72 Gripens, which would create up to 9,000 jobs and be the largest defence industrial project in Canada.

Saab is continuing to refine its business plan to build Gripen fighters in Canada, notably by using the supply chain that will be put in place for the GlobalEye production, sources said.

"There could easily be a fleet of 140 aircraft," says a source with knowledge of discussions between Saab and Ottawa.

 

[ArmyRick]

Yes, i understand the raison d'etre of a fighter fleet. But seeing as nobody is engaging in air to air combat with peer adversaries for the shits and giggles, how is one to compare air to air records?

From google AI, take with a grain of suspicion

USAF Red Flag exercises are widely considered highly effective, and are credited with drastically reducing combat casualties. By exposing aircrews to their "first 10 to 12" simulated combat missions, pilots significantly increase their survival rates should real-world conflict occur. Historical studies indicate that the first 10 combat sorties are statistically the most dangerous for aircrews

 

[markppcli]

Yes, i understand the raison d'etre of a fighter fleet. But seeing as nobody is engaging in air to air combat with peer adversaries for the shits and giggles, how is one to compare air to air records?

Well Indian and Pakistan went ...warm? I guess. Thailand and Cambodia, Israel and the US vs Iran.

 

[markppcli]

But that is exactly what is apparently being discussed as the option:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-gripen-saab-lockheed-martin-canadian-armed-forces-9.7225549

I'll hold off until I see any mind of government document discussing doubling our fighter fleet.

 

[ArmyRick]

Couple of thoughts. Maybe if we get Gripens to go with our F35 fleet, I think Sweden would really like a fleet of LAV6s and/or LAV ACSV. Hint, cough, hint.

Then, we sell our Gripens in 2035-2040 when we get something new and shiny.

 

[Altair]

Well Indian and Pakistan went ...warm?

It did and we have conflicting reports on losses.

I guess. Thailand and Cambodia,

Cambodia doesnt even have fighter jets, so i dont think we can call that peer on peer.

Israel and the US vs Iran.

... no.

 

[markppcli]

Alternatively, people are trying to have a discussion about the advantages of having domestic capacity to build fighter aircraft, and it gets derailed by "but the F-35 is better".

As @GR66 pointed out above, building Gripens is a way to expand the fighter fleet, but more importantly get into the business of making warplanes again. As many have pointed out repeatedly in this thread; if jobs are directly tied to the production of aircraft for the RCAF, the GoC is more likely to buy them more often. If we stick to the current model of just buying from the Americans every 40+ years the RCAF will continuously find itself stuck with old and worn-out aircraft.

Looking at the NSS, there is zero reason we couldn't have an National Aircraft Strategy for the RCAF as well. We choose not to, because we choose to not be serious about defense, or supporting Canadian defense industries. We'd rather buy too few exquisite items from America every few decades and drive them into the ground, than support our own domestic industries.

The RCAF isnt stuck in worn out aircraft because we buy from the US. The RCAF is stuck in worn out air craft because we dont want to invest in defence.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The purchase of 22 M346’s speak to a fighter force between 110-154.

 

[GR66]

I'll hold off until I see any mind of government document discussing doubling our fighter fleet.

Absolutely. Nothing is certain until the contracts are signed and even then with Canada that might not even be enough. However, to be fair it's these reports that sparked the renewed discussions of a split fleet to begin with, so it's not just wild conjecture based on nothing.

 

[Czech_pivo]

.

 

[Furniture]

The RCAF isnt stuck in worn out aircraft because we buy from the US. The RCAF is stuck in worn out air craft because we dont want to invest in defence.

And why don't we want to invest in defense? Because voters don't see an advantage in it perhaps? Would having lots of well-paid jobs in the defense industry likely change opinions on the matter?

Look at GDLS, the CA never seems to have problems getting more LAVS. The GoC isn't talking about cutting RCDs for the RCN, despite them costing more than the F-35s...

 

[Altair]

Couple of thoughts. Maybe if we get Gripens to go with our F35 fleet, I think Sweden would really like a fleet of LAV6s and/or LAV ACSV. Hint, cough, hint.

Then, we sell our Gripens in 2035-2040 when we get something new and shiny.

Dont they have the Patria?

They are offering us something we dont have. I dont think they will want something of ours that they already have.

 

[markppcli]

... no.

Iran had a bunch of 4th Gen Mig 29s, a peer to the F16.

 

[Altair]

The RCAF isnt stuck in worn out aircraft because we buy from the US. The RCAF is stuck in worn out air craft because we dont want to invest in defence.

We would be more likely to invest in defence if we have jobs and industrial capacity on the line.

Again, GDLS london.

 

[OldSolduer]

And why don't we want to invest in defense? Because voters don't see an advantage in it perhaps? Would having lots of well-paid jobs in the defense industry likely change opinions on the matter?

Look at GDLS, the CA never seems to have problems getting more LAVS. The GoC isn't talking about cutting RCDs for the RCN, despite them costing more than the F-35s...

My dental program will suffer if we buy weapons…..

 

[Altair]

Iran had a bunch of 4th Gen Mig 29s, a peer to the F16.

Being blown up on the ground hardly speaks to the air to air capabilities of either airframe.