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

[ytz]

Saab also has plans on a UCAV variant of the Gripen E (Loyal wingman anyone?), what are the chances this is the reason why they want to build here.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That's the running rumor. 30-40 Panthers. 60-70 Gripens. This is going to suck for the RCAF. I'm praying we don't also commit to the Globaleye. Especially now that NATO is cancelling the E-7.

So if the E7 is cancelled, what are the other options?

 

[MilEME09]

This one is debatable to me. Full tech transfer doesn't mean much unless the supply chain is substantially developed in Canada. But then how is that profitable for Saab? They never talk about Canadian content and supply chains. Just assembly and vague assertions to R&D.

Except it means we also have technical plans to go to company A, and say make us this widget.

 

[Altair]

Overall, this is great news.

One has to imagine the liberals would have made it so that whenever there is a open competition, the F35 wouldn't win, and they would go with a north american jet, thus SH by default.

Now, with them on the record as saying no F35 (although that could change) and in a trade dispute with Boeing, that leaves the Saab NG Gripen, the Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale.

I would be ok with any of those 3, amateurs preference in my case, being the Saab.

Saab also said it would build their fighters in canada, which would help...guess who, bombardier.

Saab CEO confirms talks with Ottawa, Bombardier for Gripen fighter jet production

Talks to continue during royal visit of Sweden’s King and Queen to Canada next week

www.theglobeandmail.com

Saab AB chief executive officer Micael Johansson confirmed on Thursday that his company is in talks with the federal government and Bombardier Inc. to build Saab’s Gripen fighter jet under licence in Canada, which he said could create 10,000 jobs in the country and spawn a research network to develop other aircraft, including drones.
“If Canada wants to create sovereign capabilities, not only buying planes, we are prepared to do that tech transfer for Canada,” Mr. Johansson said in an interview at Saab AB’s headquarters in Stockholm. “We are talking collaboration.”

Hehehe

 

[Kirkhill]

And the Euros back off the E7 leaving room for Saab.

European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 AWACS Aircraft

Loss of the multi-billion dollar acquisition is a severe blow to U.S. dominance of European military landscape and will boost European defense technology

defensemirror.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

Good question.

I presume we're buying 30-40 Panthers so that NORAD doesn't get axed.



Massively plays into Trump's worldview that allies are screwing over the US. Cause this deal is literally two NATO allies that are banking on the US for protection from Russia.

Buy 65 and tell Trump to relax.
Buy 15 Gripens and use them as replacements for the Tutors.
Buy another 4 squadrons plus replacements and use them for NATO purposes.

 

[GR66]

32-40 F-35A's out of our 88 order could very well see other members of the JSF program/F-35 customers asking questions as to why contracts remain with a country that clearly has lost interest in the platform. Potential pressure on the contracts to be split up or sent abroad, away from Canadian companies.

Hypothetically if we were to go for 65 x F-35's for the NATO role and 65 x Gripens for the NORAD role we would still be one of the largest F-35 fleets (top 4-5?) so it would be hard for anyone to argue against us maintaining our parts contracts. Our NATO contribution would be much greater than our current plans (the original planned order was for 65 aircraft total to cover NORAD and NATO roles, but not simultaneously). It would be a split fleet but the total number of fighters would be about on par with our original CF-18 fleet.

Possibly more important that the actual Gripen assembly would be the R&D and production potential for domestic UAVs and CCVs which will play an increasingly important role in warfare.

 

[MilEME09]

Buy 65 and tell Trump to relax.
Buy 15 Gripens and use them as replacements for the Tutors.
Buy another 4 squadrons plus replacements and use them for NATO purposes.

Station them in Sweden close to Saab for cover for our latvia brigade.

I see more like a cold war level increase, 10 squadrons, 4 in canada, 6 in europe.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Station them in Sweden close to Saab for cover for our latvia brigade.

I see more like a cold war level increase, 10 squadrons, 4 in canada, 6 in europe.

Using Gripens to replace the tutors gives us a full squadron as replacements readily available.
If the US Blue Angels can be F18’s there is no reason why Gripens can’t be the new Snowbirds.

 

[ytz]

So if the E7 is cancelled, what are the other options?

We're definitely getting railroaded into getting the Globaleye. No 360 coverage. And can't refuel in the air. I honestly don't know what's worse. The Globaleye or the Gripen.

Buy 65 and tell Trump to relax.
Buy 15 Gripens and use them as replacements for the Tutors.
Buy another 4 squadrons plus replacements and use them for NATO purposes.

What makes this rumor so strange is that they could have chosen a middle of the road option that sends a message but won't piss off the Americans. But they seem to be going for broke here. And that phrase might be literal.

Kudos to Saab. They took Canadian emotions and milked us for every penny.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We're definitely getting railroaded into getting the Globaleye. No 360 coverage. And can't refuel in the air. I honestly don't know what's worse. The Globaleye or the Gripen.



What makes this rumor so strange is that they could have chosen a middle of the road option that sends a message but won't piss off the Americans. But they seem to be going for broke here. And that phrase might be literal.

Kudos to Saab. They took Canadian emotions and milked us for every penny.

Understand the frustration.
Circling back to the question on the E7, what is everyone else buying?

Regarding the F35, would buying 65 ruffle fewer feathers? It is the original number that was proposed.
As for the Gripens, Snowbird replacements and planes for NATO deployments.

 

[PuckChaser]

Quick Google is about 3000 jobs, so that would be a net increase of 7k ish jobs if we buy enough of them.

Net 7k jobs for the LSVW of the RCAF. Can we just have nice things?

 

[Maxman1]

Should we have a separate AWACS thread?

 

[Remius]

Swedish manufacturer says 10,000 new jobs could soon come to Canada

The Swedish manufacturer of the Gripen fighter jet, SAAB, says ten thousand manufacturing and research jobs could land in Canada if Ottawa adds the aircraft to its military fleet.

www.ctvnews.ca

Pressure…

 

[OldSolduer]

One thing is clear:

WE if WE ever have to face armed entities in Canada are going to have to properly arm the CAF and train it...properly. Cause Uncle Sam ain't riding to the rescue. Since 1867 Canada has quibbled about who pays for the defense of Canada - well that's an easy question to answer. Canada does.

And for the most part our preparedness is woefully lacking.

And maybe a few of those 300,000 civil servants might be able to fly jets. (Sarcasm intended)

 

[MilEME09]

And maybe a few of those 300,000 civil servants might be able to fly jets. (Sarcasm intended)

I mean one benefit there, the Gripen was originally designed to be easy to maintain by conscripts in war time

 

[OldSolduer]

I mean one benefit there, the Gripen was originally designed to be easy to maintain by conscripts in war time

A bit off topic but can you imagine an infantry, engineer, arty or armored NCO(s) trying to whip a bunch of whiny civil servants into some semblance of a military unit?

 

[MilEME09]

A bit off topic but can you imagine an infantry, engineer, arty or armored NCO(s) trying to whip a bunch of whiny civil servants into some semblance of a military unit?

I mean in fairness, the majority of commentators in early ww2 didnt think US troops in the pacific had the guts and brawn to fight either. Gudal canal changed that pretty quick.

Back on topic, if Saab sells us jets, I'd see us needing investment in a lot more to support that fleet, its legs are shorter so more refueling, etc to support it.

 

[Infanteer]

That jet is like a bad Ex that simply won't go away.

The RCAF could get their TAPV.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Remember when I said I was worried? Once Joli started openly lobbying and they had Bombardier on side, that's when I started getting worried.

With the rumoured numbers, I wonder if we make an asymmetric fleet. Gripens at both bases. Panthers all in Cold Lake.

I don't see how the Americans won't be upset. The only question is whether the retaliation will be just economic or we get hurt on the military relationship.

I am more worried at this point than I was awhile ago however, I will point out that we are only hearing one side of the story here. Of course Bombardier, Saab and people like Mélanie Joly have a direct bias towards the Gripen, but none of them most importantly are the RCAF or many within Govt, who have previously rejected the Gripen in favour of the F-35. Joly has a bunch of Bombardier facilities in her own riding if I recall correctly, so there is potentially some conflicts of interests going on here as well. Of course the Minister of Industry wants more industry in Canada, but she has no clue regarding the viability or military feasibility of such a plan.

The RCAF seemingly wants not part of this, and there is very obviously fears within Govt that this kind of "renegging" or "fence sitting" deal will seriously aggravate the Trump admin.

Dont forget the Swedes are offering full tech transfer, supporting the fleet becomes a lot easier then

Good for Saab and us if we decide to order/buy the jet however, I'm not sure at the end of the day there is too much value in a full tech transfer for a jet design that was originally produced in the late 1980's and has seen infamous market failings over the past decade. It's very much attaching yourself to yesterdays product, when it wasn't even a particularly hot success back then.

Saab also has plans on a UCAV variant of the Gripen E (Loyal wingman anyone?), what are the chances this is the reason why they want to build here.

A UCAV variant of the Gripen E would be a pretty bad platform, considering you are only saving on the life support and pilot hosting equipment/space while having to work around a dated, manned aircraft design. If Canada wants a UCAV, we'd be far better off going with a more experienced provider and definitely not converting/producing full on last gen fighters for such a role. $90M~ pricetag per unit for UCAV Gripen's would be a pretty lousy deal.

Buy 65 and tell Trump to relax.
Buy 15 Gripens and use them as replacements for the Tutors.
Buy another 4 squadrons plus replacements and use them for NATO purposes.

Gripen as a Tutor replacement is like buying your kid a LAV for their first car, sure it can get the job done but it's ungodly inefficient in basically every way possible and everybody is going to be looking at you funny. If anything, F-35's should be used for NATO purposes given the huge adoption rate compared to the Gripen.

Hypothetically if we were to go for 65 x F-35's for the NATO role and 65 x Gripens for the NORAD role we would still be one of the largest F-35 fleets (top 4-5?) so it would be hard for anyone to argue against us maintaining our parts contracts. Our NATO contribution would be much greater than our current plans (the original planned order was for 65 aircraft total to cover NORAD and NATO roles, but not simultaneously). It would be a split fleet but the total number of fighters would be about on par with our original CF-18 fleet.

Possibly more important that the actual Gripen assembly would be the R&D and production potential for domestic UAVs and CCVs which will play an increasingly important role in warfare.

I seriously question the viability and responsibility of any kind of mixed 5th-4th gen fleet for the RCAF, so I'm not going to support any split regardless of where it is adjusted to at this point or in the future. Splitting the fleet to any degree is going to ruin the benefits of either fighter, as building only 60~ Gripen's after spending billions/3-5 years flashing up a production line seems like a waste of time given the questionable number of foreign orders currently. If you want something "cheaper" to operate, you aren't getting that since you still have a 5th gen fleet to split your infrastructure and personnel between. You don't get the interoperability of a homogenous fleet of either type, and our allies in Europe or across the Southern border aren't going to be amused with a Gripen purchase in 2025.

65 would likely let us maintain our contracts, but I'd guess there will still be grumbling within the program for that workshare. As far as R&D for UAV's and CCV's and with all due respect to Saab, I'm not sure they are the best partner given their failings and inexperience within the aerospace sphere within the last decade. No stealth platforms, no real big drone developments either. Saab can likely help us at the end of the day, but I'd think some of the more experienced American or European aerospace firms would be much better choices if we wanted a partner for that type of system.

Station them in Sweden close to Saab for cover for our latvia brigade.

I see more like a cold war level increase, 10 squadrons, 4 in canada, 6 in europe.

If anything, we should be putting F-35A's into Europe to cover the Latvia Brigade given how many more F-35's are operated by NATO in the area and how much more effective it is to go up against Russia with 5th gen aircraft vs a Gripen E.