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

[Czech_pivo]

With GCAP full and France looking like it wants to go alone again maybe Sweden, Germany and Spain could use a Canadian partner?

Well it’s looking like France and Germany may be buying the Globaleye off Sweden, so a framework between the 3 will be in place. If we buy Globaleye, which is quite possible because of the Bombardier angle, we could be the forth.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Assuming the numbers are roughly equal in regards to what is included, a Gripen over 8,000hrs (lifetime of a F35) at $7,000 per flight hour is going to cost 56,000,000 to fly, a F35 at $36,000 is going to cost 288,000,000 in the same timeframe.

You could equip the Snowbirds and 1 other squadron with Gripen's for deployments in more permissive areas and keep the F35's for the higher end stuff. Lets say 25 aircraft total. You could be saving $5,000,000,000 over the 8,000hr lifespan of the aircraft. The fleet would look like 53 xF35 and 25x Gripens. You keep the Snowbirds, which is very much the public face of the RCAF and CAF, get them a modern, combat capable jet if required.

Why stick with only 88 airframes when we all know that the number is too low given attrition over 25yrs.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

With GCAP full and France looking like it wants to go alone again maybe Sweden, Germany and Spain could use a Canadian partner?

Or may be sign-on with South Korea and their KF-21.

 

[suffolkowner]

Or may be sign-on with South Korea and their KF-21.

I heard they were full too with Saudi Arabia and the UAE?

 

[Rainbow1910]

Assuming the numbers are roughly equal in regards to what is included, a Gripen over 8,000hrs (lifetime of a F35) at $7,000 per flight hour is going to cost 56,000,000 to fly, a F35 at $36,000 is going to cost 288,000,000 in the same timeframe.

You could equip the Snowbirds and 1 other squadron with Gripen's for deployments in more permissive areas and keep the F35's for the higher end stuff. Lets say 25 aircraft total. You could be saving $5,000,000,000 over the 8,000hr lifespan of the aircraft. The fleet would look like 53 xF35 and 25x Gripens. You keep the Snowbirds, which is very much the public face of the RCAF and CAF, get them a modern, combat capable jet if required.

I don't believe for a minute that it costs only $7,000 per flight hour for a Gripen E, especially given Saab is notorious for not releasing much information and "flight hours" can be easily modified to make them as flattering as one wants.

 

[dapaterson]

Why stick with only 88 airframes when we all know that the number is too low given attrition over 25yrs.

buying into an ongoing production program like the JSF means that, as attrition occurs, you buy in to the line for replacements.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I heard they were full too with Arabia and the UAE?

According to Wikipedia the two countries are in talks with South Korea about buying into the program.

 

[suffolkowner]

According to Wikipedia the two countries are in talks with South Korea about buying into the program.

buy some subs and buy our way into a fighter jet program?

 

[KevinB]

I don't believe for a minute that it costs only $7,000 per flight hour for a Gripen E, especially given Saab is notorious for not releasing much information and "flight hours" can be easily modified to make them as flattering as one wants.

It all depends what one considers a flight hour.
A lot of the F-35 costs have average ordnance expenditures, and the infrastructure to house them.

It isn't as comparable as blade hours are counted for vertical lift (albeit some countries skew their AH costs with ordnance as well).

 

[Czech_pivo]

buying into an ongoing production program like the JSF means that, as attrition occurs, you buy in to the line for replacements.

Did we do that at any time, any time, with the CF18’s?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't believe for a minute that it costs only $7,000 per flight hour for a Gripen E, especially given Saab is notorious for not releasing much information and "flight hours" can be easily modified to make them as flattering as one wants.

Oh I don't take them as gospel, and hence why I qualified my post. Keep in mind they are marketing them to politicians, who generally make the final choice. However. If there is a substantial savings on equalized flight hours on the two fleets, it may very well make good fiscal sense to have a two aircraft fighter fleet, even if it costs us some more training dollars.

This does not take into account dealing with costs involving infrastructure, security and ITAR issues around the F35. So there may be savings there as well.
If you are bombing Taliban or the like, you don't need a top end aircraft, and with the expeditionary nature of our military, which is a distinct possibility. If you have to forward base F35 to support a UN mission to keep the Lord Resistance Army or such in check. The security requirements might be eye watering expensive.

 

[dapaterson]

Did we do that at any time, any time, with the CF18’s?

Production line shut down a quarter century ago.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Production line shut down a quarter century ago.

Yes I’m aware of that. Did we replace any from 1982 to 2000?

 

[dapaterson]

Yes I’m aware of that. Did we replace any from 1982 to 2000?

No. Because the 1980s purchase included attritional aircraft by design.

 

[Czech_pivo]

No. Because the 1980s purchase included attritional aircraft by design.

Maybe
What carried us was the fact that we mothballed all the CF18’s that we moved out of Europe after the bases closed back to Canada. That gave them the depth they needed to cover off all the attrition up until the last 12-15yrs ago when the Aussie buy was supposed to cover us until the F35’s came active.