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

[Furniture]

To purchase only 16 IMO would invite nothing but trouble. I am no expert on foreign relations - would the US government ban sale of spare parts to Canada? Would the USAF be told not to train Canadian pilots?
Elbows up does have consequences.

That would kill sales to other countries, as they would start questioning if they were next.

LM will likely try to sweeten the pot, not threaten us, to get us to buy more.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The threats continue...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norad-canada-us-f35-9.7059800

"Ambassador Hoekstra describes the current defence relationship as "awesome," but says such interventions by the U.S. military over Canada would increase if Canada does not increase its purchase of F-35s beyond the 16 currently on order. "

As much as I loathe Hoekstra generally and his typical inflammatory rhetoric specifically, he is sadly right in this scenario. If the Canadian Govt adopts the Gripen over the F-35, NORAD will be weaker and less advanced as a whole, requiring the US to step in and fill the gap with likely more F-35/next gen platforms. The Gripen is an inferior product versus the F-35, and its adoption would be a sizable integration/interoperability hurdle for NORAD compared to the F-35. Gripen is adequate currently and in the short term for NORAD uses, but it's a waste of resources in the medium and long term, or even if we do expeditionary work in the short term.

 

[Furniture]

As much as I loathe Hoekstra generally and his typical inflammatory rhetoric specifically, he is sadly right in this scenario. If the Canadian Govt adopts the Gripen over the F-35, NORAD will be weaker and less advanced as a whole, requiring the US to step in and fill the gap with likely more F-35/next gen platforms. The Gripen is an inferior product versus the F-35, and its adoption would be a sizable integration/interoperability hurdle for NORAD compared to the F-35. Gripen is adequate currently and in the short term for NORAD uses, but it's a waste of resources in the medium and long term, or even if we do expeditionary work in the short term.

I think his meaning was far less complex that interoperability. If Canada doesn't buy enough fighters, the USAF will conduct more intercepts over Canada, because we won't have enough jets available.

As for interoperability, @Good2Golf already mentioned the Rafale integrated with the USN without issues, so I suspect the "interoperability issues" with the Gripen WRT NORAD is more a marketing thing than a reality.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I think his meaning was far less complex that interoperability. If Canada doesn't buy enough fighters, the USAF will conduct more intercepts over Canada, because we won't have enough jets available.

As for interoperability, @Good2Golf already mentioned the Rafale integrated with the USN without issues, so I suspect the "interoperability issues" with the Gripen WRT NORAD is more a marketing thing than a reality.

Rafale doing cross deck operations off USN Carriers and utilizing NATO datalinks is the bare minimum interoperability for our alliance as a whole, the Gripen can do exactly the same thing with other LINK capable NATO platforms. That isn't what I'm talking about here, and doesn't hold a candle to the F-35 and its low probability of intercept, high bandwidth and proprietary Multifunction Advanced Data Link. This is the sensor fusion "special sauce" that makes the F-35 so potent, outside of its obvious physical stealth features. MADL is such an upgrade over the standard NATO LINK systems that they really aren't even comparable.

Any F-35 can seamlessly and stealthily integrate data with other F-35's, fusing together their combined sensors into a larger overall picture (sensor outputs, EO targeting, radar tracks, etc) which all of the nearby F-35's can utilize. Gripen and other 4th generation western fighters do not have this ridiculous datalink capability, and there is really no replacement. This also can fuse in AEGIS from the upcoming River class destroyers, AWACS platforms and even ground platforms like HIMARS to provide other platforms with targeting data from the F-35.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

To purchase only 16 IMO would invite nothing but trouble. I am no expert on foreign relations - would the US government ban sale of spare parts to Canada? Would the USAF be told not to train Canadian pilots?
Elbows up does have consequences.

A lot of F-35 components are made here, so I would expect those contracts to wind up. However the US may not have that capacity. My friend worked for MTU, when the USAF decided to stop sending their jet engines to MTU in BC to be rebuilt, because a US company said they could do it. That US company turned out, not to have the tooling, specs or trained staff and were trying to buy it at discount from MTU, who said "Nope". MTU then filled the slots used by the USAF with other customers, whereupon the USAF had to come back, begging MTU to slot engine in for rebuilds when they could fit them in. Not sure where that situation is now. Moral of the story is that the US is not always prepared for what their politicians want or claim.

 

[Quirky]

Gripen is adequate currently and in the short term for NORAD uses

It's also adequate enough to keep your base happy who don't want any more US products. Dealing with the gripen mid to long-term is problem for the next prime minister and voter base who are still in diapers. We need to think about now!

 

[GR66]

It's not just Canada that is looking to reduce dependence on US military equipment:

Colombia picks Saab Gripen in €3.1bn fighter deal

Colombia signs a €3.1bn contract for 17 Saab Gripen E/F fighters, rejecting the F-16 and Rafale to replace its ageing Kfir fleet.

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Colombia has officially signed a contract with Sweden’s Saab for a fleet of new-generation Gripen E/F fighter jets, drawing a line under years of debate over how to replace its ageing Kfir fleet and marking a decisive shift in Bogotá’s defence relationships.

The deal, concluded on 14 November, covers 17 aircraft and represents €3.1 billion ($3.6 billion) in investment, the country’s largest-ever combat aviation purchase. It includes 15 single-seat Gripen E models and two twin-seat Gripen F variants, along with weapons, training, sustainment and a broad industrial cooperation package. Deliveries will run from 2026 to 2032.

Officials have also emphasised cost transparency, long-term affordability and the strategic desire to diversify suppliers after decades of relying heavily on US-sourced equipment.Colombia now becomes the second South American Gripen operator after Brazil, which both flies and co-produces the type.

The US effort was particularly strong. Washington offered a mixed package of new F-16 Block 70s and donated second-hand Block 50/52s, valued at roughly $4.2 billion, stressing the benefits of NATO-style interoperability for Colombia, the alliance’s only “global partner” in Latin America.
American officials made a sustained push throughout early 2025, linking the F-16 to strategic alignment and future cooperation opportunities. Despite this, President Petro remained aligned with earlier technical assessments that placed Gripen ahead on sustainment cost, operational flexibility and the scale of Sweden’s industrial participation.

Washington’s disappointment is evident, though restrained. The US has long dominated Latin American fighter sales and saw Colombia as a key pillar of its regional military influence.

Bogotá’s decision not to shift course, even as US officials argued interoperability benefits and hinted at future advantages of an American platform, reflects a more assertive foreign policy. Under Petro, Colombia has sought closer links with European partners on technology cooperation, climate policy and defence governance. Today’s contract strengthens that trajectory.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sigh.

The SAAB Gripen still contains US technology and requires US State Department approval for Sweden to sell.

Why does everyone like to gloss over this point?

 

[Quirky]

Sigh.

The SAAB Gripen still contains US technology and requires US State Department approval for Sweden to sell.

Why does everyone like to gloss over this point?

Just let it happen.

 

[CBH99]

It's also adequate enough to keep your base happy who don't want any more US products. Dealing with the gripen mid to long-term is problem for the next prime minister and voter base who are still in diapers. We need to think about now!

I can't tell is this is raw sarcasm or not...

 

[CBH99]

Sigh.

The SAAB Gripen still contains US technology and requires US State Department approval for Sweden to sell.

Why does everyone like to gloss over this point?

Same reason they gloss over the fact that the Gripen was designed from the ground up to defend Swedish airspace...which is a lot smaller than Canada's...



Yes they are both single engine fighters.

But Uncle Sam knows damn well their operations are expeditionary in nature, and thus require sufficient range to launch from distant bases or carriers.

The Swedes? Not so much...

 

[PuckChaser]

Sigh.

The SAAB Gripen still contains US technology and requires US State Department approval for Sweden to sell.

Why does everyone like to gloss over this point?

Because the people banging the drum so hard for it spend their entire time on a military forum in the politics sub-board. Gripen will always be the LSVW of fighter aircraft: a political decision with no view to capability.