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

[ytz]

I don't think we will see many of the 4-4.5 Gens going anywhere soon. The F16, 15 etc will be around for another 15-20 years.

The F-16 will definitely be out of American inventory by 2050. But we're planning on keeping anything we buy well past that. This is the problem.

 

[MilEME09]

The F-16 will definitely be out of American inventory by 2050. But we're planning on keeping anything we buy well past that. This is the problem.

However, with the case of the Gripen, with a full tech transfer, this means we could do our own upgrade programs, modifications and keep replacement components going, potentially down the pipe of an in house program to replace it in 20+ years.

F35, how hard will it be to upgrade in 10 years even?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not even sure of what I'm asking, but I seem to recall some talk about the F35 and electronic interoperability with other aircraft. Is the Gripen able to link with and work in conjunction with F35's electronics? If it can't, how do we operate under the new continental defence dome? I assume the US would be using F35s.

Make sense?

 

[JLB50]

I wish that guy would just shut his trap.

The more Canada does what Trump and Hoekstra want, the worse things will get for us. They want nothing less than to destroy us as a nation so that they can pick up the pieces. The two of them think like hedge fund managers. They smell blood and want to go in for the kill.

 

[childs56]

The F-16 will definitely be out of American inventory by 2050. But we're planning on keeping anything we buy well past that. This is the problem.

Yet indications are the F16 will be in service with the US military until at least 2048 and longer if they can push the airframes past the 12000hr mark. We are looking at 20-25years from now. Which means it might not be a bad idea to buy a decent 4.5 gen aircraft.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The more Canada does what Trump and Hoekstra want, the worse things will get for us. They want nothing less than to destroy us as a nation so that they can pick up the pieces. The two of them think like hedge fund managers. They smell blood and want to go in for the kill.

75% to go, 25% completed.

That’s how we need to look at things. We’re close to having completed 1 of the 4yrs we have to deal with Trump.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I wonder whose offshore bank accounts are being padded.

On this forum or elsewhere?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Dual fleet may have some merits. If going 5th and 6th gen. But we're replacing a 4th gen fleet with a fleet of 4.5 Gen (at best) and 5th Gen. We're going to do this in the 2030s as the major powers are starting to field 6th gen and proliferate 5th Gen platforms everywhere. See Trump selling F-35s to Saudi. Putin selling Su-57s to Algeria. And China selling J-35s to Pakistan.

We're also doing this right as autonomy is taking off and forces like the USAF plan to have 3 CCAs for every manned jet. So we're going to fly Gripens to do things that others will use CCAs and drones for. And we're doing to do this into the 2050s. At least.

All this for jobs. But even in Brazil, Saab themselves (on their website) say that their assembly plant has 200 jobs:

Gripen final assembly line

Gavião Peixoto (SP) The production line for the F-39 Gripen E was inaugurated in Brazil on May 9, 2023. This marks another historic milestone in the F-39 Gripen program, establishing the first production line for the fighter outside of Sweden.

www.saab.com

Are the Brits, Germans and French not ordering, right now, more Eurofighters and Rafale’s?
Answer: Yes

At the same time they are receiving more F35’s?
Answer: Yes

At the same time they are working - outside of the US - on their own 6th gen fighters? Answer: Yes

So you’ve read the proposals from SAAB and it clearly says that CAA is not on the table, its not in the works in the future?

I’ve said it before, stick with the 88 but look elsewhere for other options and our future.

 

[markppcli]

I'm not even sure of what I'm asking, but I seem to recall some talk about the F35 and electronic interoperability with other aircraft. Is the Gripen able to link with and work in conjunction with F35's electronics? If it can't, how do we operate under the new continental defence dome? I assume the US would be using F35s.

Make sense?

Over link 16, probably as Gripen E's just recieved that capability although how much data im not sure. Over the F35 DAGGR 2 system - no.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Whatever is decided, officially, between us and the Swedes today, or until the future, it should be kept locked down until the final decision on the F35 is made.

 

[Remius]

Question for the ones that know. What is the requirement to meet our NORAD commitments? As in how many F35s would be needed.

 

[dapaterson]

Question for the ones that know. What is the requirement to meet our NORAD commitments? As in how many F35s would be needed.

Where are they based? What infra is required to support them? What sensors are required to direct them?

It's not "Six fighters and we're good", it's bases with materiel and maintenance, forward operating locations, AARs...

Sort of like how with an Army "Bullets don't fly without supply"

 

[Czech_pivo]

It’s been stated on here in the past.
Strictly talking NORAD, nothing else, going from memory in what others had posted on here, less than 65.

 

[ytz]

However, with the case of the Gripen, with a full tech transfer, this means we could do our own upgrade programs, modifications and keep replacement components going, potentially down the pipe of an in house program to replace it in 20+ years.

The tech transfer is great for business. It's iffy for development. NRE is expensive. Especially if you really want to make substantial improvements. The US just spent $16.5B developing the Block IV for the F-35. They can do that, because the cost will be spread over hundreds to thousands of aircraft. The Gripen will never see that kind of investment as a program. Let alone talking about Canada doing so for a few dozen jets.

F35, how hard will it be to upgrade in 10 years even?

Not as hard as an aircraft that is but designed for those upgrades. The F-35 was designed with substantial margin. For example, oversized generators. And even still the F-35 had to undertake a massive effort to increase cooling for their onboard processors, which was the limfac on their radar.

A 4th gen aircraft that was physically not designed to have that margin will have fundamental limits in capacity for upgrades.

Yet indications are the F16 will be in service with the US military until at least 2048 and longer if they can push the airframes past the 12000hr mark. We are looking at 20-25years from now. Which means it might not be a bad idea to buy a decent 4.5 gen aircraft.

The USAF took delivery of their last F-16 in 2005.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/134773/air-force-receives-last-f-16/

They aren't planning on taking delivery of F-16s in the 2030s like we are. They are simply running down the fleet they have while slowly transitioning more tasks to unmanned systems. The head of the USAF has said that eventually he wants three unmanned aircraft for every manned aircraft.

Your suggestion is that we use more manned aircraft for tasks that will normally be done by CCAs or drones in 2050, for most other major powers.

Some of the discussion here is proof that even a lot of military folks don't fundamentally understand automation and where that will be 25 years from now. This ignorance and recency bias leeds to a perpetual obsession with cockpit seat counts.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's definitely from the Bombardier playbook. Whether Saab follows that playbook or has it's own is yet to be seen.

There is a reason why our 84mm MRAAW and the current King of Sweden are both called Carl Gustaf. The 84mm is only on its 4th iteration. The King is on the 16th iteration.

Both start from the same position as the old Royal Ordnance. Arms manufacture was a royal monopoly. Post WW2, when that went out of fashion and arms became more commercial Sweden maintained a corporatist system that essentially put the same board of directors in charge of every strategically important company, and they took a very broad view of what was important. The chairs of the boards rotated among the directors and the King was on those boards. They was a lot of stability and steady progress.

The 1980s broke that system.
And immigration and Covid are testing what is left.

The point is that in a world facing instability and war, Sweden has a model to fall back on that worked well since at least the days of Gustav Adolf.

Military companies were in a different league to other companies. They didn't follow commercial rules. Their purpose was not to make money. It wasn't even to create jobs. It was to supply isolated and sovereign countries with the means to retain their independence. Preferably at least cost so that the bank isn't broken.

I will not be at all surprised to see the establishment of crown corporations if not the outright nationalization of certain capabilities as this new instability progresses.

Back to the days of Royal Ordnances, Royal Arsenals and Royal Dockyards.

....

Edit to correct

There have been 16 Carls but only 2 Carl Gustafs as King.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There is a reason why our 84mm MRAAW and the current King of Sweden are both called Carl Gustaf. The 84mm is only on its 4th iteration. The King is on the 16th iteration.

Both start from the same position as the old Royal Ordnance. Arms manufacture was a royal monopoly. Post WW2, when that went out of fashion and arms became more commercial Sweden maintained a corporatist system that essentially put the same board of directors in charge of every strategically important company, and they took a very broad view of what was important. The chairs of the boards rotated among the directors and the King was on those boards. They was a lot of stability and steady progress.

The 1980s broke that system.
And immigration and Covid are testing what is left.

The point is that in a world facing instability and war, Sweden has a model to fall back on that worked well since at least the days of Gustav Adolf.

Military companies were in a different league to other companies. They didn't follow commercial rules. Their purpose was not to make money. It wasn't even to create jobs. It was to supply isolated and sovereign countries with the means to retain their independence. Preferably at least cost so that the bank isn't broken.

I will not be at all surprised to see the establishment of crown corporations if not the outright nationalization of certain capabilities as this new instability progresses.

Back to the days of Royal Ordnances, Royal Arsenals and Royal Dockyards.

BINGO -

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/26/trump-government-companies-defense-00524433

Lutnick says administration considering taking stakes in defense companies​

The Trump administration is “thinking” about taking an equity stake in defense and munitions companies, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

“I mean, Lockheed Martin makes 97 percent of their revenue from the U.S. government. They are basically an arm of the U.S. government.”

 

[Kirkhill]

The tech transfer is great for business. It's iffy for development. NRE is expensive. Especially if you really want to make substantial improvements. The US just spent $16.5B developing the Block IV for the F-35. They can do that, because the cost will be spread over hundreds to thousands of aircraft. The Gripen will never see that kind of investment as a program. Let alone talking about Canada doing so for a few dozen jets.



Not as hard as an aircraft that is but designed for those upgrades. The F-35 was designed with substantial margin. For example, oversized generators. And even still the F-35 had to undertake a massive effort to increase cooling for their onboard processors, which was the limfac on their radar.

A 4th gen aircraft that was physically not designed to have that margin will have fundamental limits in capacity for upgrades.


The USAF took delivery of their last F-16 in 2005.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/134773/air-force-receives-last-f-16/

They aren't planning on taking delivery of F-16s in the 2030s like we are. They are simply running down the fleet they have while slowly transitioning more tasks to unmanned systems. The head of the USAF has said that eventually he wants three unmanned aircraft for every manned aircraft.

Your suggestion is that we use more manned aircraft for tasks that will normally be done by CCAs or drones in 2050, for most other major powers.

Some of the discussion here is proof that even a lot of military folks don't fundamentally understand automation and where that will be 25 years from now. This ignorance and recency bias leeds to a perpetual obsession with cockpit seat counts.

I agree with all your points.

Particularly your position on automation and UxVs generally and CCAs in particular.

I only ask what happens if we find ourselves outside of the club.

What is your fall back position?

 

[dapaterson]

Not as hard as an aircraft that is but designed for those upgrades. The F-35 was designed with substantial margin. For example, oversized generators. And even still the F-35 had to undertake a massive effort to increase cooling for their onboard processors, which was the limfac on their radar.

F35 is following the Avro Arrow approach of continuous improvement on the line. That said, I have heard that there are already concerns about early blocks being able to be upgraded to current configuration.

It's also fundamentally hobbled / underperforming due to the technical compromises required to accomodate the USMC.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

F35 is following the Avro Arrow approach of continuous improvement on the line. That said, I have heard that there are already concerns about early blocks being able to be upgraded to current configuration.

It's also fundamentally hobbled / underperforming due to the technical compromises required to accomodate the USMC.

The crayon tray takes up that much space?

 

[Furniture]

And there it is -

Future of trade talks depends on Canada’s purchase of American fighter jets, U.S. ambassador says​

Future of trade talks depends on Canada’s purchase of American fighter jets, U.S. ambassador says

Pete Hoekstra said it will not be easy to restart the now-stalled trade talks, and urged Canada to "harmonize" as much as possible with the U.S. on a range of

www.thestar.com

The same guy who said we need to stop making cars in Canada too...

Maybe we should adjust to the reality that America wants us broken and submissive, and we should have a little to do with them as is realistically possible.