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

[Nvlgzr]

FIFY

You know what is really well integrated into NATO? The Eurofighter Typhoon.A lot more NATO countries fly the Typhoon than the Gripen.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Announced today for the German Eurofighter.

Saab receives orders for Arexis system for German Eurofighter - EDR Magazine

Saab has received two orders from Airbus Defence and Space for the Arexis Electronic Warfare (EW) sensor suite to equip

www.edrmagazine.eu

 

[Nvlgzr]

Here we go:

Saab signs 3.1 billion euro Gripen fighter deal with Colombia​

Saab signs 3.1 billion euro Gripen fighter deal with Colombia

(Reuters) -Swedish defense firm Saab said on Friday it has signed a contract worth 3.1 billion euros ($3.62 billion) with the Colombian government to deliver 17 Gripen fighter jets between 2026 and

ca.finance.yahoo.com

Was this deal not previously killed by the US by restricting access to the F414 engine?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Was this deal not previously killed by the US by restricting access to the F414 engine?

I thought so as well - but numerous news agencies have released the article over the last 2 hours.

 

[ytz]

FIFY

Would have better if we ordered that one.

I thought so as well - but numerous news agencies have released the article over the last 2 hours.

It's on Saab's website.

Saab signs contract for Gripen E/F with Colombia

Saab has today signed a contract with the Colombian Government and received an order for 17 Gripen E/F fighter aircraft. The order value is EUR 3.1 billion and deliveries will take place 2026-2032.

www.saab.com

 

[GR66]

This from Google's AI Overview (haven't found a definitive article yet confirming the license agreement being finalized):

Colombia's recent agreement to acquire Saab Gripen E fighters is complicated by the fact that the aircraft's engine, the General Electric F414-GE-39E,, is a U.S.-made component subject to export controls. Despite earlier reports and claims of a potential U.S. "veto," Saab maintains that all necessary licenses are in place, and a deal was finalized in November 2025. The situation highlights the U.S. strategy of using export controls to promote its own defense products, such as the F-16, while simultaneously trying to limit Russian and Chinese influence in the region.

The Gripen E/F and U.S. components

• Engine: The Gripen E/F uses the American-made General Electric F414-GE-39E engine,, which is subject to U.S. export control laws, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
• Impact on sales: This reliance on U.S. components has led to reports and concerns that the U.S. could block Gripen sales to countries like Colombia, potentially pushing them to choose U.S. aircraft instead.
• Recent developments: Despite these concerns, Colombia and Saab finalized a contract for 16 Gripen E fighters in November 2025,.

The United States' position

• Diplomatic pressure: The U.S. has reportedly exerted diplomatic and economic pressure on Colombia, promoting the F-16 fighter jet for its NATO interoperability.
• • Strategic goals: This effort aligns with a broader U.S. strategy to dominate the arms market in Latin America and limit the influence of non-U.S. defense manufacturers.
  • Export control as leverage: Blocking the sale of U.S.-made components has been used as a tactic to encourage countries to choose U.S. defense products.

Closest I could find is this article:

According to reports from these outlets, it was strongly suggested that the U.S. government, seeking to promote its offer of F-16 fighters to Colombia, would veto licenses for the use of the General Electric F414G engines that power the Saab Gripen E, as well as potentially other systems used by the combat aircraft.

Hours after the news circulated, Richard Smith, Deputy Head of Marketing and Sales for Gripen at Saab AB, addressed the matter on the social media platform X, refuting the claims made by the aforementioned media. Regarding this, the Swedish firm’s representative stated: “I don’t usually comment on these types of publications; however, this article and the information in it are neither accurate nor truthful. It is misleading the reader. All relevant licenses and permits are in order. The Gripen E, along with its logistics and industrial package, is the perfect option for Colombia.”

 

[Czech_pivo]

This from Google's AI Overview (haven't found a definitive article yet confirming the license agreement being finalized):

Closest I could find is this article:

Interesting little game of disinformation being played out.

 

[GR66]

It would be a pretty blatant FU to Canada if the US were to block us from getting the F414 engines for the Gripen considering that they are an evolution of the F404 engines currently in use in our CF-18's. It would make it very clear that the US is only interested in having client states rather than allies. Should that happen I think you'd find that pretty quickly all of the US's "allies" will rapidly move away from any American defence products.

 

[ytz]

The Trump Administration is pretty much adopting that position. He routinely talks about how allies are worse than adversaries. He just said an interview that the French spy on the US more than the Chinese. And let's be honest, when he's gone there will be another. Long term the Americans are clearly in decline. We need to be more self reliant and build some separation to avoid getting sucked into that.

But this knee jerk Saab order is not the way. Especially to cut down the F-35 order that drastically.

 

[ytz]

It would be a pretty blatant FU to Canada if the US were to block us from getting the F414 engines for the Gripen considering that they are an evolution of the F404 engines currently in use in our CF-18's. It would make it very clear that the US is only interested in having client states rather than allies. Should that happen I think you'd find that pretty quickly all of the US's "allies" will rapidly move away from any American defence products.

Also, all but guarantees that they'll just re-engine with a Rolls Royce engine.

 

[GR66]

The Trump Administration is pretty much adopting that position. He routinely talks about how allies are worse than adversaries. He just said an interview that the French spy on the US more than the Chinese. And let's be honest, when he's gone there will be another. Long term the Americans are clearly in decline. We need to be more self reliant and build some separation to avoid getting sucked into that.

But this knee jerk Saab order is not the way. Especially to cut down the F-35 order that drastically.

And we do that by locking ourselves 100% into the F-35 ecosystem? If we really feel the need to build some separation wouldn't weaning off the US by splitting a portion of our fleet to a domestically assembled platform be a good first start?

 

[Czech_pivo]

The Trump Administration is pretty much adopting that position. He routinely talks about how allies are worse than adversaries. He just said an interview that the French spy on the US more than the Chinese. And let's be honest, when he's gone there will be another. Long term the Americans are clearly in decline. We need to be more self reliant and build some separation to avoid getting sucked into that.

But this knee jerk Saab order is not the way. Especially to cut down the F-35 order that drastically.

Someone should sit him down and explain what the Israelis do in the US.

 

[Czech_pivo]

And let's be honest, when he's gone there will be another. Long term the Americans are clearly in decline. We need to be more self reliant and build some separation to avoid getting sucked into that.

That’s the part that’s going to hurt so many Canadians the most - the réalisation that the next administration at best will be moderately better than this one but just as easily can be just as bad or worse.
It will be a kick in the teeth.

How many Democrats are you hearing on US news outlets saying that they will scrap all the tariffs once Trump is gone? That they will restore the Canadian relationship and trading status? I’ve not heard one come out publicly yet.

 

[Maxman1]

Would have better if we ordered that one.



It's on Saab's website.

Saab signs contract for Gripen E/F with Colombia

Saab has today signed a contract with the Colombian Government and received an order for 17 Gripen E/F fighter aircraft. The order value is EUR 3.1 billion and deliveries will take place 2026-2032.

www.saab.com

The fact it will take seven years to deliver less than 20 jets does not inspire confidence.

 

[MilEME09]

The fact it will take seven years to deliver less than 20 jets does not inspire confidence.

Well just like our CSC they have jobs to protect so the production rate is low. With the Ukrainian order, and others production rate would likely be higher, and unit costs would drop.

 

[Furniture]

Well just like our CSC they have jobs to protect so the production rate is low. With the Ukrainian order, and others production rate would likely be higher, and unit costs would drop.

Yes, production rate is limited to jobs, because making 12 CPFs fast screwed our shipbuilding industry for a couple of generations... You can't sustain an industry with short bursts of building.

We need to start thinking long-term, and industrial base, rather than capability and time-lines. The ability to make more RCDs is worth more than buying 10 off-shore tomorrow, because when we need another 10 RCDs, everybody else will too...

Gripens might be the Hawker Hurricanes of the next war, but building Hurricanes meant British industry was more ready to switch to Tempests, and other airframes when needed. Right now we can't build anything, and are at the mercy of the Americans for every part we supply to the F-35. Adding domestic capability, while continuing to support he F-35 programme, is a smart balance between complete dependence on America, and trying to build our own capabilities.

Never forget that America is actively trying to destroy our manufacturing capability. Every dollar spent there funds efforts to undermine us... It's almost akin to suggesting we buy Chinese fighters at this point.

 

[FJAG]

We need to start thinking long-term, and industrial base, rather than capability and time-lines.

We should have been doing this for decades. I can't see any reason why we can't have a low-level manufacturer turn out logistics vehicles at a slow rate to replace them at the rate of several hundred per year. We should have had GDLS working on a project to build a true tracked IFV fleet and SP fleet and converting LAVs to SEV vehicles like air defence all at low rates of production.

I'll throw in $0.02 on Gripen. I appreciate everything that anyone with knowledge about the RCAF and this aircraft knows but I think if Gripens give us an in back into manufacturing aircraft then its well worth it. I have no idea what kind of growth the RCAF can handle (maybe if we stop sending pilots to RMC and get them into a cockpit faster) but Canada has run larger mixed fleets before.

Canadair built Sabres and later 200 (plus another 140 for the US) CF 1-04 Starfighters under licence. They flew from 1962 until around 1982-7. Concurrently we flew (but didn't build) 66 CF 101 Voodoo from 1961 to 1984. We then built and flew 135 Canadair CF-5s from 1968 until 1988 (another 105 were built for the Netherlands).

So there was a period from roughly 1968 to the early 1980s) where the RCAF had some 400 (short whatever number had pranged in) fighters in three variants in service simultaneously. And remember, those were the early "cut everything to the bone" Trudeau the Elder years.

Things went south, literally, after the CF 5 build when the replacement for everything became the 138 all-singing, all-dancing CF-18 a plane originally designed and configured for carrier operations.

So. About those Gripens. I see nothing wrong with a dual fighter fleet but I think it is critical that we should stay with the whole F-35 buy and also go with a healthy Gripen purchase. It has to be to the point where the US isn't pissed so we keep the F-35 work but we also get back into a much bigger manufacturing and servicing game. We're talking eventually getting to a 3.5% budget plus 1.5% on related funding. There is room for two fleets. It's basically a political game of hardball we're in. We need to string the US along and at the same time secure enough top-line aircraft for the NORAD role where they will be most visible to the US. How that is negotiated is a fine line between making the US happy and the Canadian public happy at the same time. The one thing we cannot and should not do is buy less than 88 F-35s under any circumstances.

Getting the Gripen is a political game too. That's where the government gets to say to the public - look we're building at home and making a strong defence. On the plus side we get more aircraft at a cheaper price and cheaper maintenance with manufacturing thrown in and that we can use primarily in Europe - flying out of Sweden to support Latvia - bonus points for that. The numbers need to be whatever gets the best manufacturing deal. All told we're still only talking around 88 F-35s and probably 100 Gripens. That's only half the 1970s fleet. This is too serious a situation to play cheap-ass bean counter or to start handwringing about the complexity of two fighter systems.

What do we give up? I'd say two Griffon tac hel squadrons and a combat support squadron for rerolling to start with. It's not that I hate Griffons (and I do) but we should keep enough to work with the Chinooks, but no more than that. As a second step I'd start seriously turning to "RCAF Flying NCM pilots" for a good bunch of the tac hel and UAV work and upgrade those tac hel pilots capable of being fighter jocks. It's going to take years to build these things. There's time to reset the people.

$0.02

 

[ytz]

And we do that by locking ourselves 100% into the F-35 ecosystem? If we really feel the need to build some separation wouldn't weaning off the US by splitting a portion of our fleet to a domestically assembled platform be a good first start?

It's one thing to split the fleet. And another to shrink the F-35 order to such a small number (32 frames) so that we end up with basically all the overhead of the fleet but a lot less combat power. 32 jets in the fleet means about 20 jets that are combat coded (to use an American term). 50 was about the minimum fleet size to get one gun squadron each of 15 frames in Cold Lake and Bagotville.

Next, if you're going to split the fleet because you want to develop your industry, looking to the past is dumb. We could have joined a sixth gen program and gotten workshare. But now we're basically going to be tied to Saab forever. They'll be worse than Bombardier. We'll have to buy whatever Saab puts out. Even if it's a fighter or AEW plane rejected by several allies. Saab is going to determining what the RCAF looks like from now on.

Well just like our CSC they have jobs to protect so the production rate is low. With the Ukrainian order, and others production rate would likely be higher, and unit costs would drop.

There's no Ukrainian order. It's an LOI. They don't have money to pay for 150 jets.

Guess who's going to be paying for those aircraft? That's what our aid to Ukraine is going to be once the factory is built.

 

[ytz]

Canadair built Sabres and later 200 (plus another 140 for the US) CF 1-04 Starfighters under licence. They flew from 1962 until around 1982-7. Concurrently we flew (but didn't build) 66 CF 101 Voodoo from 1961 to 1984. We then built and flew 135 Canadair CF-5s from 1968 until 1988 (another 105 were built for the Netherlands).

So there was a period from roughly 1968 to the early 1980s) where the RCAF had some 400 (short whatever number had pranged in) fighters in three variants in service simultaneously. And remember, those were the early "cut everything to the bone" Trudeau the Elder years.

Very different in the past. Aircraft were an order of magnitude less sophisticated than today. They were much cheaper. And we crashed them a lot and killed more pilots (who were also cheaper to train).

Aircraft themselves are much more productive. A flight of 4-6 F-35s on a strike mission won't need 4 F-15s out front and 2 wild weasels jamming the spectrum. They don't need another two fighters watching them on the way out.

Also a lot of the low end work that those aircraft used to do in the past can be done cheaply and safely today with drones. We don't need 400 manned fighters. The goal should be something like an inventory of 100 manned and 300 unmanned with that 300 divided up between some portion of CCAs, Cat 5 CUAS operated by the air force and Cat 3/4 drones operates by (or in support of) the army and navy.

 

[ytz]

The one thing we cannot and should not do is buy less than 88 F-35s under any circumstances.

This is exactly what is being proposed. I don't know why people keep ignoring this part. The rumour is a drastic reduction of the F-35 buy from 88 to 32-40, as per the Globe and Mail leak.

A lot of us blue suiters would be more ambivalent if the rumoured cut wasn't so massive.

Managing readiness is going to be a nightmare with these weird numbers.