This is true, however one should also keep in mind that Gripen E is still a lightweight fighter — it will have a long range mainly for light configs, like a2a. Once you start hanging a lot of stuff under the wings the drag will increase rapidly and range and endurance is dropping faster than for a bigger a/c, and also faster than for F-35.

So it really depends on the requirements. If Canada needs the range mainly for air policing perhaps the Gripen E range is enough? How many air bases are they planning to operate moving forward?

I don’t think there are any plans to reduce the number of forward bases we operate. The defence procurement program has been a nightmare since the 80’s (and to be fair, probably since the 60’s.) That said, we are under such as massive budget crunch that probably anything is on the table.

In order to meet the requirements to purchase new FWSAR, surface fleet, patrol vessels, new fighter planes, new sureveillance?aratime patrol, tankers….Canada is going to have to getpretty creative about how we invest money in defense programs. I generally hate the national shipbuilding strategy and would be just as happy if we could invest in pragmatic approaches. It irks me that all defense spending is looked upon as a make-work project.

Buy our resupply ships off the shelf instead of building them
Build our surface combatants in a modular way off a proven design (help us Denmark!!), and if need be buy off the shelf
Ideally Canada would partner with Saab on maritime patrol/ASW platforms built off the Bombardier platforms (all the way up to C Series, not just the Global 6000)
Build tankers off the Bombardier platforms
Acquire Super Tucanos for training (instead of the Texan II) and also get attack versions of them for CAS/ISR for forward-deployed and peacekeeping missions to keep fast jet costs down. This seems to be a capability gap for everyone.
Look to Sweden and Germany long term for cost effective sub replacements (rather than the crap we bought from the Royal navy)
Buy fighters we can afford to fly to keep up the exceptional track record we have with pilot training

Canadian procurement has been a nightmare. The sole source F35 project off fantasy driven requirements was just an example of that. (The F 35 might still be the right plane for us but the process absolutely stunk)

How many EFT are you talking about and which size? The Gripen will only outrange the F-35 when fitted with the 450 gallon tanks. Those tanks are not supersonic, so you are not talking about outranging the F-35 on an interception mission, period. Second, do a little actual footwork- not looking at manufacturers claims.

What is the estimate empty weight of the Gripen E now? Then realize that it’s operational weight will be roughly 500kg heavier (pilot, countermeasures, etc), then calculate the weight of fuel for the 3 EFT and full internal, then look at the Gripen E’s MTOW.

What you will find? The Gripen isn’t going to be doing much of anything but ferrying in that configuration. It is not a realistic operational loadout. That is the problem with many of yours (and other’s) arguments for advancing the Gripen as the “perfect” aircraft for Canada. People start quoting the amazing brochure range, when you start looking at loading up a light fighter with fuel tanks, weapons: performance degrades and mission flexibility decreases.

I’m not saying that the F-35, or the Typhoon, or any fighter is ideal for Canada. Every aircraft has drawbacks and strong suits. The Gripen is attractive for two reasons: affordability, and clear (and demonstrated) upgrade path.

The great source code canard- Canada can modify and upgrade their F-35’s with the same flexibility as any other user. Why does Canada need all the source codes? Are Canadian firms planning to develop new weapons and sensors to add? No.

BTW, love a source that says that Saab is going to hand over all source code to MS21, and allow Canada to develop their own upgrade path for the Gripen.

http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/iaf-modernisation-plan-saab-offers-gripen-fighter-jets-under-make-in-india-with-full-control/articleshow/50253759.cms

Saab has been pretty consistent with both Brazil and India that they offer full control over software. (That’s not even too hard to find in a search).

I’ve never argued that the Gripen was the best choice for Canada. I’ve stated repeatedly that all 5 planes have drawbacks and that all 5 planes are fully capable of sovereign air defence. I like Gripen a lot more as part of a mixed fleet….same for an F35 or even the F18. I like the typhoon (the plane, not the nightmare vendor consortium) and the rafale (candianized) a whole lot more if we have to buy a single type. There is no obvious solution yet. Right now I’m leaning EF.

You are incorrect about the Gripen NG outranging the F-35… not in an apples to apples comparison. That is what so many on the internet struggle to understand, you can’t just reduce things to a number on a brochure. The F-35’s quoted range is on an air to ground strike mission, flown at lower altitude than would be ideal for efficiency, and including a substantial reserve of fuel for combat in the mission area. In an apples to apples comparison the F-35 easily out-ranges the F-16, F-18, and Gripen.

You realize that the Gripen repeatedly ran out of fuel during the Swiss eval forcing it to abort its air policing missions, right? Picture Switzerland relative to Canada…

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116740-Rafale-Thread-13&p=1890004#post1890004

:rolleyes: Imagine how you would be reacting if this were the F-35. The F-35 will have fully internal satcom, fully integrated with its mission systems, and compatible with US satellites…

“Compatible with” isn’t the same thing as integrated with. You realize that right? An AMRAAM or AIM-9x could presumably be integrated with a Rafale, but it hasn’t been and would cost millions of dollars to integrate.

If Canada bought some rare aircraft with a tiny fleet size it would end up footing the bill to integrate every new weapon that emerges in the next 30 years. It isn’t even a certainty that Saab will still be in the fighter business for much of that time…

There are plenty of low cost competitors out there. Look at who is already buying the F-35…

They are paying for them to be developed and integrated. You realize that is the major expense right? (see above on integrating weapons)

What indigenous upgrades does Canada field anyway? You aren’t Israel… you don’t make your own weapons, EW gear, or much of anything else.

It is called common sense. Gripen NG will be lucky to sell 200 jets, mostly spread across tiny cash-strapped air forces. (look at current customers) Canada doesn’t have a large enough air force to justify doing depot level maintenance in Canada.

It is hard to tell the exact cost, but when you look at both Switzerland and Brazil you can see that it is certainly not nearly as cheap as its fans would like you to believe.

Sure, if you work from the assumption that Canada will never need to defend itself then I guess any plane or no plane would do just fine. Might as well invest in a bunch of “No Trespassing” signs…

Ok screw it….I just cant let you get away with this….

A Gripen with tanks will outrange a F35 without them. With two tanks the Gripen will be able to i tercept Russian Bombers just fine. An F35 with tanks (they dont exist yet right???) Will lose all that fancy stealth advantage so you won’t be able to stalk that Tupolev all sneaky like you suggested. So your points here as a collective make no sense. The Gripen’s range with two tanks is adequate to intercept bombers and we do have a refuelling fleet if needed. The swiss have not flown the Gripen E. Nobody has (a risk we get to evaluate in three months).

Again the Gripen has internal SatCom. Im not sure if the f18 pod will be required. Are you?

The gripen is compatible (and has integrated in cumulative software updates) support for the weapons we already own. Thats better than the F35 at this point. You are making things up here….

Canada has a massive defense industry and has had to do things like develop satcom capabilities for the arctic our own rocket pods….etc. Again you have no clue what you are talking about so please stop. Having the option of updating systems also allows us to source and ingegrate weapons from wherever we want rather than having to pay LM to integrate LM competitive weapons. That compromises autonomy.

It wasn’t a certainty that MD would be in the fighter business when we bought the F18. Nice reach on the FUD there. My god.

If we keep supplying anytbing to the F35 program after we decide not to buy that plane it’s a bonus. Not concerned at all nor should we be
There are no guarantees of work approaching anything near the value of a 100% offset which can be gleaned from Dassault, Saab or Eurofighter. Our aeropspace industry is large and healthy without the F35 (save for Bombardiers mismanagement). With an offset agreement it will continue to grow along with new relationships with global companies other than Lockmart.

We do our own maintenance today and contract mid life upgrades. Im not sure what your point is here. We have more flexibility and autonomy with the Saab than with LM.

So if you don’t know the cost of the Brazil purchase per plane maybe you should not bring it up. More useless FUD.

LOL on your last point. Again…we’re done here.

No Trespassing (which means don’t bother replying)

You are incorrect about the Gripen NG outranging the F-35… not in an apples to apples comparison. That is what so many on the internet struggle to understand, you can’t just reduce things to a number on a brochure. The F-35’s quoted range is on an air to ground strike mission, flown at lower altitude than would be ideal for efficiency, and including a substantial reserve of fuel for combat in the mission area. In an apples to apples comparison the F-35 easily out-ranges the F-16, F-18, and Gripen.

You realize that the Gripen repeatedly ran out of fuel during the Swiss eval forcing it to abort its air policing missions, right? Picture Switzerland relative to Canada…

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116740-Rafale-Thread-13&p=1890004#post1890004

:rolleyes: Imagine how you would be reacting if this were the F-35. The F-35 will have fully internal satcom, fully integrated with its mission systems, and compatible with US satellites…

“Compatible with” isn’t the same thing as integrated with. You realize that right? An AMRAAM or AIM-9x could presumably be integrated with a Rafale, but it hasn’t been and would cost millions of dollars to integrate.

If Canada bought some rare aircraft with a tiny fleet size it would end up footing the bill to integrate every new weapon that emerges in the next 30 years. It isn’t even a certainty that Saab will still be in the fighter business for much of that time…

There are plenty of low cost competitors out there. Look at who is already buying the F-35…

They are paying for them to be developed and integrated. You realize that is the major expense right? (see above on integrating weapons)

What indigenous upgrades does Canada field anyway? You aren’t Israel… you don’t make your own weapons, EW gear, or much of anything else.

It is called common sense. Gripen NG will be lucky to sell 200 jets, mostly spread across tiny cash-strapped air forces. (look at current customers) Canada doesn’t have a large enough air force to justify doing depot level maintenance in Canada.

It is hard to tell the exact cost, but when you look at both Switzerland and Brazil you can see that it is certainly not nearly as cheap as its fans would like you to believe.

Sure, if you work from the assumption that Canada will never need to defend itself then I guess any plane or no plane would do just fine. Might as well invest in a bunch of “No Trespassing” signs…

I won’t argue with you. You are another F35 fanboy or paid shill that has managed to take over all of the non f35 threads. It’s obnoxious. You are not even replying to my points. The f35 is a stealth strike fighter. We don’t need that to defend Canada. The Gripen, Typhoon Rafale and Hornet can all fill our needs for national defence. In some cases they are flat out better planes. In others they just cost less to buy and operate while still able to do the job as good or better than the legacy hornets in every respect.

Good day to you.

The F-35 is a substantially larger aircraft with inherently greater range and endurance capabilities.

The F-35 has stealth, which would allow it to monitor aircraft near Canadian airspace without revealing itself if it so chose.

The F-35 has a larger and longer-ranged radar.

The F-35 has EOTS, which allows BVR “visual” ID of aircraft and ships. (particularly if Canada goes for the advanced EOTS)

The F-35 will have satellite comms integrated internally. (it won’t need the pod Canadian F-18s currently carry.)

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/interoperability

The F-35 will also be fully compatible with Canada’s chief military ally and training partner.

Canada is already participating in the F-35 program and has received significant work-share.

etc etc, and all of this completely ignores overseas/NATO operations.

1. Currently without external drop tanks the F35 has far less range than the Gripen E has with tanks. When the F35 has EFTs it will kind of negate all that stealth advantage.

2. Your second point is just plain silly. NORAD and sureveillance aircraft are sufficient to identify threats. The whole point of bomber interception and commercial traffic escort is to actually be seen. I’m sure you can contort some logic hard enough to come up with an extreme case….but you lose alot of credibility by even making this point.

3. I assume the F35 radar is larger and longer range. The selex ASEA radar is pretty impressive. Edge to the F35

I have no idea about your 4th point.

5th point is irrelevant. It was a weakness of the F35 until capable in Block 4. Since other aircraft don’t need to worry about external pods degrading stealth….not a Gripen weakness.

Point 6 – Stop talking about interoperability It’s bunk. Any of the five figjters will be interoperable. NATO cheif says this is bunk. The Pentagon says this is bunk. The advantage of the F35 is available parts and replacements when deployed overseas. It’s pretty much irrelevant inside Canada.

Point 7 – Yep we invested and we’ve already gotten a nice return. Thanks for that. We don’t need to buy the plane to contribute to the supply chain. Meanwhile….we can get 100% offsets with Saab guaranteed. No such guarantees exist with LM.

What you missed:

Gripen can deploy to ALL icy forward operating bases in Canada. Im not sure how well the F35A will handle those conditions but at a minimum more money needs to be spent on the drag chutes.

The Gripen is already compatible with our tanker fleet. The F35…requires either new tankers sooner or new refuelling probes…yep more money…

Saab offers technology transfer and access to modify source code….F35….nope

The Gripen can be maintained entirely in Canada. F35 we’ll have to do at least some of that work in the US.

Of course that does not even mention lower acquisition and operating costs…..

That said…..I like both of these planes a whole lot more in mixed fleets. I have concerns about every one of the planes on offer. All have warts.

That has been repeated “ad nauseum” around here for the last few months with absolutely zero evidence suporting it.
Untill now there were two competitions involving one of the two Eurocanards and the F-35A, on both of them, Japan and korea, the JSF was handily beaten on costs, and in one of the competitions, South Korea, Airbus offered 1/3 more airframes than LM for roughly the same amount of money.
The F-35A MIGHT end in the same cost bracket that evolved versions of the twins by the beggining of the twenties, “might” being the correct word.

Do partners get to buy aircraft cheaper? I think EF and Dassault are moving towards more price competitive offers but the offset and technology transfer seem to make the total program costs increase quite a bit.

I figured it would only be a matter of time before the true arguement “broke cover”. And exactly where do you source that “narrow band frontal stealth”?

Which one did you collect from “Gripen4canada” blog or “best fighter for Canada” blog. They are both about the same, and both garbage.

Those blogs, like this forum, are full of entertaining information about an intriguing subject. The author is no less an authority than most people posting here.

This discussion is silly.

Of course the Canadian Air Force wants the F-35, just like I would like replace my Toyota with a Tesla model X.

As stated before; if the price is not too high they will get it.

Most likely also Denmark and Finland.

(If they decide the price is too high most likely Denmark will go for the SH IMHO).

How is the Canadian dollar doing these days? Norwegian krona has dropped like a rock the last 1-2 years, and unless the oil price recovers the Norwegian F-35 will become much more expensive than originally anticipated. The Norwegian Navy and Army people are very frustrated, the know they will have to pay a very high price for the 52 Norwegian F-35 (our government refuse to spend more money on defence and something has to give — it will not be the F-35).

I find it obnoxious how LM marketing is constanly spat out as fact here. Every country has unique needs and constraints. The F35 may have narrow band frontal stealth and the greatest dependence on complex software of any fighter aircraft, but it does not make it the best plane, and specifically not the best plane for Canada. We are the only country in the world with our unique set of attributes and constraints and thus have a unique set of requirements. The F35 may be the best choice for the UK or Korea….but we are neither country. We are not Norway. We are not Holland.