r/canadia • u/ActiveElectrical9424 • 7d ago
Canada Is One Step Closer To Choosing Sweden’s Gripen E/F
https://almostretiredcanadian.substack.com/p/canada-is-one-step-closer-to-choosing?r=6ahvua23
u/nicksknock 7d ago
Gripen are really nice planes so I would be happy if we decide to go that route
8
u/DiickKicker 7d ago
I agree if we go with a larger mixed fleet. It’s time for Canada to take its defense into its own hands for a multitude of reasons. One of the most pressing reasons is Arctic sovereignty. Having the Gripens capability to respond from austere FOB’s in the high arctic rather than F35’s scrambling from cold lake and bagotville is a win IMO but not at the expense of maintaining a true first-day-of-war, high end air combat capability like the F-35.
3
u/MK_Regular 7d ago
As I understand it, the FOLs are being upgraded to handle F-35s (among other things). The FOLs are also not particularly austere, as they have heated aircraft shelters, paved runways, and on-site bulk fuel storage.
The kind of "austere" operations that the Gripen was designed around is not really a factor in our arctic, simply because of how long the distances are and how undeveloped the infrastructure is outside of the few areas (like the FOLs) where it has been deliberately built up. Being able to land on a specifically prepared stretch of road is great, until you realize that none of the roads that far north were built with the idea of landing a fighter jet on them (most of them aren't even paved or accessible year-round) and that the places built up enough to serve as logistics hubs to resupply your jets from are hundreds of kilometers apart. It's a neat capability to have, but ultimately one that we don't really benefit from.
→ More replies (1)2
u/lommer00 7d ago
Yes, this is the answer. Canada operated 4 different fighter aircraft simultaneously at one point in the cold war, we can manage two now, especially when each one is very well suited to a specific mission profile that is essential to Canada and doesn't overlap that well with the other profile.
2
u/MK_Regular 7d ago
Ref. my earlier comment, the RCAF really can't manage a mixed fighter fleet right now. The RCAF of today is a shadow of what it was back in the 50s and 60s (or even the 70s) after decades of underfunding, and it's going to take about a decade to get to the point where a single-type fighter fleet can be fully staffed (let alone a mixed fleet). Once that happens, we can start looking at the possibility of a mixed fighter fleet again (I believe that this may have been part of why we've gotten in on GCAP as an observer).
2
u/lommer00 6d ago
Saying it will take a decade isn't putting the right priority on it. Canada needs to get it's military affairs in order ASAP in the world of today. We don't quite need a world-war-scale mobilization, but urgency to build the size and capability of the forces in a matter of <5 years instead of decades is absolutely required.
1
u/MK_Regular 6d ago
The RCAF is already prioritizing the fighter fleet as much as they can. They've already reached the hard limits of what they can do, outsourced everything they can, and it still takes 3 years to train a technician, 6 years to train an engineering officer, and 8 years to train a pilot. They literally cannot train people faster than they currently are, and are painfully aware of how much they need to prioritize it. Saying "just go faster" doesn't really help.
(As an aside, I will also note that SAAB's plan for Gripen deliveries wouldn't have the first one show up for at least 5 years, which makes it a questionable candidate for an immediate mobilization anyways)
2
u/dogfishfrostbite 7d ago
Also Boeing crashed the bombardier now Airbus A220 AND the 737 Max fiasco. They are a terrible company run by bad people.
2
5
u/51NN3D 7d ago
Saab marketing team out in full force on this sub lmao
4
u/FreeProletarian 7d ago
It's the same reason they sold the government on the GlobalEye despite the RCAF categorically not wanting it.
4
u/Comrade-Porcupine 7d ago
RCAF senior leadership is heavily interspersed with people deeply locked into the American military industrial system, and deeply interwined with American military objectives and outlook. Obviously as a result of almost a century of deep cooperation etc but they are hardly objective.
Nor should they be the ones responsible for making decisions that have political-economic-diplomatic aspects/consequences to them.
4
u/Diligent-Neck6594 7d ago
Sounds like there's no point in us investing in an airforce at all then if our goal is to distance ourselves from the states
that or fire everyone in the RCAF and start over
3
u/Winbot4t2 6d ago
They don’t even choose American equipment every time so this argument falls apart.
Airbus MRTT/VIP transport
Airbus SAR
German Leopard II tank
Soon to be German subs
Type 45 (UK) destroyers coming onlineThese are pretty significant assets that aren’t American. The fact is the F35 is the best platform that our experts have chosen, despite what bot narrative people spin about our leadership being compromised lmao.
5
u/GonZo_626 7d ago
Yeah we should not listen to subject matter experts and totally let someone who will never have to use the equipment make the descions. I am sure that will have no negative effects on our military.......
2
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 6d ago
This is like rejecting medical advice because all of our pharmaceuticals come from America.
2
u/FreeProletarian 7d ago
The RCAF pilots are the ones who will ultimately put their lives at risk to defend Canada, and they are 100% the right people to make a decision on which fighter to choose. Defense procurement is a much bigger machine that is built to check every box there is to check, to acquire the best capability for the mission.
Project teams are made of a diverse group of professional pilots, engineers, maintainers, operations planners, etc. If there was a kill switch, wouldn’t you think that the people potentially flying the planes would point it out?
The truth of the matter is that the Gripen was thrown out of the competition many times (including in the review) because it is not the right fighter for Canada and for the modern battlespace, full stop.
3
u/FreeProletarian 7d ago
It’s insane how my reply gets downvotes. I’m just stating facts and pointing out that the ones putting their lives at risk are the ones who are better suited to make the decisions. Anyone who disagrees with that truly doesn’t care about the men and women in uniform and their service, as long as they get to show the finger to Orange man.
1
1
u/GreatAffect9454 7d ago edited 7d ago
The military has never had the final say on procurements. Where as radar systems are being installed on Canadian made airframes providing thousands of jobs and uplifting Bombardier. The Saab Globaleye will be more than effective enough to achieve its intended goal as a aircraft mounted early warning system. While also being cheaper and providing jobs for Canadians.
2
u/FreeProletarian 7d ago
Your way way of thinking is the exact cause of the enshitification of our military.
1
u/GreatAffect9454 7d ago
Ridiculous, some of the main criticism made by military figures was "too small of cockpit" and "no air refueling port". Which all of those can, and likely be addressed in the end anyways by Bombardier engineers. .
2
u/barkmutton 5d ago
Yeah we'll just rengineer something. That should be a smooth and efficient process. Lol
1
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
Never mind that it's incredibly dumb to jones for in air refueling for a plane with 11 hours endurance.
2
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 6d ago
The military should have the final say. It is precisely because of political meddling that it takes 15 years to get new pistols.
2
u/danielbot 4d ago
The military is not put in charge of procurement for exceptionally good reasons that have emerged over literally thousands of years.
→ More replies (14)1
u/danielbot 4d ago
Well, RCAF pilots will be safer in Gripens than F-35s because they are faster with a FAR smaller IR signature.
3
u/FreeProletarian 4d ago
^ this guy doesn’t understand how the modern battlespace operates. I invite you to read sone of the countless papers from military strategists on the advantage of 5th gen capabilities.
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
I invite you to read some of the many papers moaning about how modern radar undercuts X-band stealth. Never mind the totally unworkable IR signature.
3
u/9999AWC 3d ago
FAR smaller IR signature
Gonna need some sources for that claims lol. Also speed isn't worth giving up all other advantages a 5th Gen platform has
1
u/danielbot 2d ago
Which claim, that Gripen is faster than F-35 or that Gripen has a far smaller IR signature than F-35? They are both easily verifiable and you could easily do it yourself, but pray tell, which one do you doubt?
3
u/9999AWC 2d ago
>which one do you doubt?
I literally, specifically quoted your IR signature claim... There's no argument about which is faster; my point was that the Gripen being faster doesn't really affect much in terms of procurement decision.
>They are both easily verifiable
No they're not, because that's literally classified information. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that stealth isn't just a factor for radar, but it also encompasses IR signature, EW, visual, etc. Saying the F-35 has a much larger IR signature than the Gripen would be synonymous with stating that none of the countries involved in the JSF program ever brought up the notion of IR detectability through IRST pods and systems. So unless you have a reliable source that can categorically compare the two, you are making your claim up.
>you could easily do it yourself
You made the claim. The onus is on you to prove it. In the meantime, there's lots of evidence to demonstrate the F-35's reduced IR signature. The Gripen E, while a "new" aircraft, is still an evolution of the first gen Gripen. It uses the same aerodynamic design and principles, and uses similar materials in its construction. It was never designed for reduced IR signature, because that would basically require designing a whole new aircraft from the ground up.
→ More replies (6)1
u/ThinAndFeminine 7d ago
Every thread related to fighter jets, including this one, invariably get swarmed by F35 dick riders and their "muh just better", "muh modern", "muh capable", "muh new generation" talking points taken straight from LM's marketing depts and based on initial pie in the sky F35 specs that have yet to be manifested in reality (or that have since been rescinded or walked back). All while completely ignoring all the governmental and military reports about how much of a massive failure the F35 program is, how many delays it has accumulated, how many technological systems are still not even fully spec'd out, how fucking more expensive it is to fly and maintain a fleet of these compared to LM's initial claims and compared to other aircraft, how much of the current fleet is unavailable for parts / maintenance issues at any given time, how the us's own military is dissatisfied with the program and constantly raises alarms on it's viability, and how all of the latest versions that have come out of the factories for years have been "accepted" and delivered despite not being fucking mission capable because LM whined it didn't have enough space to park that many non operational aircrafts while waiting for them to meet the requirements.
But yeah, keep playing victim and crying about the evil meanies who bully the poor F35 dude ...
2
u/patrix299 7d ago edited 7d ago
The gripen aligns more with CAF doctrine and dispersed operations, as it can land and take off from public roadways when an airbase runway inevitably gets shelled during an all-out war. But for the sake of interoperability (since our biggest NATO allies use the F-35) I can see why we went with the F-35. There's also the added benefit of SAAB allowing us to produce Gripen parts in Canada with Canadian materials as well as full intellectual property and source code transfer. Lockheed won't let us do any of that.
Edit: The Gripen is also better suited to arctic patrolling than the F-35. A perfect scenario would be to have a small fleet of F-35s for deep strike operations, but also maintain a larger fleet of Gripens as the primary RCAF workhorse
2
u/NobleA259 7d ago
You do realize we produce parts for the F35 right? Like right now?… and they aren’t insignificant parts they are core parts the plane needs to even function.
→ More replies (12)2
u/barkmutton 5d ago
We dont fly arctic patrols. We fly intercepts of identified intrusions.
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/9999AWC 3d ago
CAF doctrine and dispersed operations
Huh, that's news to me... Haven't heard anything about that. Didn't know Canada subscribed to the Bas90 doctrine 🤔
It can land and take off from public roadways
As can any modern fighter jet, including the F-35...
SAAB allowing us to produce Gripen parts in Canada with Canadian materials
Incorrect: Canada would assemble the Gripen in Canada. All components and parts would be shipped from Sweden, UK, and the US. Ask Brazil how that's working out for them...
Meanwhile the F-35 program is multinational, with Canada being part of the program since 1997. We developed systems for the F-35 and produce USD$3Million worth of parts and systems for EACH F-35 built.
full intellectual property and source code transfer
Very doubtful.
The Gripen is also better suited to arctic patrolling than the F-35
How so pray tell? I'm sure the two F-35 squadrons in Alaska would like to know. So would Finland, Denmark, and Norway.
4
u/FreeProletarian 7d ago
Austere runways isn’t really an issue for us though, as we have an insane amount of air strips all throughout Canada and we also possess air-to-air refuelling capabilities. The F-35 also has the better track record when it comes to arctic operations.
0
u/Zakluor 7d ago
I'd argue we do not have an insane number of airfields. Once you get away from the major centers, runways are few and far between, and they tend to be shorter and unimproved, such as short grass and gravel strips which are not suitable for fighter aircraft. There are a few larger facilities scattered about, but not an insane number by any stretch.
1
u/mvschynd 7d ago
I live in Muskoka and we have an airport capable of launching and landing military aircraft. It was built for Norway to train pilots during WW2.
1
u/Zakluor 7d ago
Ok. There are many airports, but it's a huge country, much of it undeveloped.
If you look at the airport directory for all of Canada, it's a big book. You can match the book's size with any one of six regional books from the US. And most of those are paved runways and fairly long at that.
What I'm saying is that Canada doesn't have an "insane number" of airports. It has lots, but not some crazy number. And most of those in that directory can't handle jet fighters because the runways are grass/gravel, short, or both.
0
u/No_Development7388 7d ago
If your airfield is bombed you still want to put down close by to be re-fueled and re-armed, not in the next province.
0
u/danielbot 4d ago
F-35 can't land on the vast majority of airfields in Canada. Gripen can.
→ More replies (4)0
u/faceintheblue 7d ago
NATO uses the F-35 because the United States is the senior partner of NATO.
Us buying Gripen would be an acknowledgement that we expect the US to no longer be the leader of the Western World. If the EU becomes the greater Canadian ally, we would be wise to start buying more European defense options. We need more connections to Europe moving forward either way. Why not buy a few squadrons of fighters from Sweden?
We already have one squadron of F-35s. If the US remains in NATO and calls us into another Afghanistan-sized conflict, we can send that squadron for the sake of international cooperation.
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/Dr_Dicehammer 7d ago
Half of you guys are Trolls, both planes have a specific roll , F35 does a specific job and the Gripen has its own mission set, running a mixed fleet makes sense when you have proper infrastructure and the manpower to be able to outfit each separate squadron. The honest truth what Canada should have purchased is a dual engine aircraft … someone tell me otherwise.
3
u/MK_Regular 7d ago
The big issue is that the RCAF doesn't have the personnel necessary to run a mixed fleet. As much as I would love to have a mixed fleet with F-35s (even if Gripen wouldn't be my first choice to go with it), it's just not possible to do that at this point because of how short-staffed the RCAF is and how quickly the Hornet fleet needs to be retired.
For reference, as it currently stands:
- the Hornet fleet will be forced into retirement in 2032
- by the time the Hornets retire, the majority (about 3/4) of the currently planned fleet of 88 fighters will need to be in service to take over for them
- the RCAF is projecting that they will barely meet the personnel target for 88x F-35s by 2035, even with all of the recruitment, training, and retention initiatives that have been set up in the last few years
- the RCAF has already cut back on staffing at operational squadrons as much as they possibly can, meaning that there is nobody left who could start conversion training for a second fighter type
Throw in the fact that SAAB's current timeline to deliver Gripens has the first one being handed over in 2031 (meaning that we'd likely only have a single-digit number of Gripens in service by the time the Hornet fleet dies), and I don't believe that Gripen is a viable option for our current situation. While we could cut F-35 orders at 30 aircraft and order Gripens, this would put us in a situation where we would not have enough aircraft or personnel to patrol our own airspace for the better part of a decade; this would be a terrible position to put ourselves in, as it would mean that the United States could (and probably would) step in to "help us" regardless of whether or not we wanted it.
3
u/Sockpuppet870 6d ago
You guys are so much more informed than me, genuinely thank you for the information.
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
Single engines are so reliable now that the main argument for twin engine is practically nonexistent.
2
u/sunbro2000 7d ago
Unfortunately the F35 is the better plane. Its time to move on and actually upgrade our fleet instead of sitting in limbo
4
u/Old-Tiger9847 7d ago
It is NOT the better plane. It makes absolutely zero sense to purchase those aircraft. They're flying princesses that can't operate in arctic conditions. Spend too much time in repair and sre susceptible to foreign influence from Magastan. Fuck off and wake up! They are the bad guys now!
3
u/AstralCode714 7d ago
F35 runs circles around the Gripen. Wtf are you smoking
2
u/SuggestedUsername854 6d ago
Problem is F35 would fly circles around our remote-grounded F35s if the only country that threatened us decided to take action.
2
u/DirtyDangles69420 5d ago
The gripen faces the same ITAR restrictions, so your evil orange man fantasy plays out the same with grounded birds.
For the record, the US has not "threatened us" lay off the legal weed.
1
u/SuggestedUsername854 5d ago
The head of the American army has repeatedly talked about making Canada a state. At this point in time, this is the clearest threat by a world lead against Canadian sovereignty.
His people also admitted to being in contact with independance movements in Canadian provinces.
When people tell you who they are, believe them.
1
u/barkmutton 5d ago
The head of the US Army, a Lt Gen, said that or do you mean the secretary of defence?
1
u/SuggestedUsername854 4d ago
I know you think you are being clever, but your either being obtuse or dishonest. Not worth engaging further.
2
u/barkmutton 4d ago
No im being clear. The head of the US army is Gen Neve. Hes hasn't said anything to that effect. Hegseth probably has but hes the secretary of defence not head of the army.
1
u/DirtyDangles69420 4d ago
Head of the US army is the president, but he never said what this derranged person is claiming.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SuggestedUsername854 4d ago
Aaah yes. General Neve, the guy who ordered the war against Iran. That guy.
Trump has posted tons of images showing Canada flying a US flag, called our Prime Minister a governor, and threatened refused to rule out the use of the military to take over territory from another ally. Sure, he has not said he was going to send the army to take over Canada, but he has never said he wouldn’t do it. His rethoric is the biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty at the moment. His administration and party have not denounced it. It makes no sense to buy equipment that could be rendered useless by a nation that is showing this much enmity to us.
Even if it didn’t go to the point of armed conflict between Canada and the USA, which is unlikely but sadly no longer impossible, we would be ceding sovereignty in other conflicts as well. Considering the threat of Russia in the arctic will only grow, and the current admin’s choice to side with that country in the Ukraine conflict, the risks of the F35 are numerous.
The USA have become an unreliable partner at best. Denying that is either propaganda or blind partisanship.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DirtyDangles69420 4d ago
Who said it and when? I took a look into your claim & it appears false (go figure!) Did you see that claim on CNN?
Rabid hatred of orange man is a terrible way to make decisions and live your life.
1
u/Visible_invisible692 4d ago
When the president calls us the 51st state that is a threat. Now politely gfy
1
u/DirtyDangles69420 4d ago
That isn't a threat but I can understand how weak individuals would take that as one.
1
u/SuggestedUsername854 4d ago
What is it then? Please enlighten us.
1
u/DirtyDangles69420 4d ago
Words in response to a very weak leaders idiotic comments. While I think the Canada of the past was great we aren't that Canada anymore, we are in for very hard times and arguably orange man has a point we would be better off joining them now (rather than in 50-100 years as would have eventually occured).
Blame Turdeau he is personally and directly responsible for all of this
2
u/SuggestedUsername854 4d ago
Oh man, that is such a weak response. « Its words. Don’t pay attention to them, but these others one you need to. »
Come back when you finish grade 8 debate class. This is laughable.
1
u/Visible_invisible692 3d ago
A sitting president telling a sovereign country he wants to annex it is absolutely a threat. Seriously WTF is wrong with you?
1
u/Old-Tiger9847 4d ago
For the record, the Magastan Kleptocracy certainly has threatened Canada's sovereignty on multiple occasions. The very fact that you refuse to acknowledge this fact is telling who you truly are. And it's not a loyal Canadian. You are a traitorous person as clearly demonstrated by your comments.
1
u/DirtyDangles69420 4d ago
That is your opinion, like assholes everyone has one. Loyal Canadian? Define Canada please as our last PM turned us into a "post national state" so im unsure now what Canada is, what should I be loyal to?. I would have died for this country a decade ago, the current goverment is traitorous but they have you focused on orange man like a good little peon allowing them to sell you and this country out from under you.
1
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
What are YOU smoking? F-35 is CONSIDERABLY slower than Gripen and has far lower endurance to boot.
1
u/AstralCode714 4d ago
Thats a great advantage when the gripen cant even detect it. Ever heard of stealth?
1
u/danielbot 3d ago
You mean stealth that F35 used to have before radar tech caught up with it? And F35 never was stealthy in IR, quite the opposite.
2
u/scrandlle 7d ago
We can not like the United States while also not denying objective reality here.
1
u/contenttolive 5d ago
The reality is that the French Rafale gives us the most independence from Donnieland but that ship has sailed too so we are told. Unless of course Mr. Carney wants to reopen some conversation with Mr. Macron or start all over again with 'a European/British/Japanese' program. In the short term we are hooped it seems.
2
u/barkmutton 5d ago
The cant fly in the arctic? Better tell Norway and Finland. And the US squadrons in Alaska. Lol.
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
They can freeze up their hydraulics in the Arctic. Better be careful how long it takes to get them inside their air conditioned hanger.
2
u/barkmutton 4d ago
Well yes any fluid in any aircraft will freeze if its been contaminated to the point that its 30-60 percent water. Thats like suggesting an f1 car can't turn because a mechanic missed a lug nut.
2
u/9999AWC 3d ago
The Gripen would also crash if filled with contaminated hydraulic fluids...
1
u/danielbot 2d ago
Gripen's hydraulics are considerably more robust than F35, designed for winter operation as it is. Gripen's software is dramatically more robust as well (the other major contributor besides water to the Alaska hull loss was inferior software design).
2
u/9999AWC 2d ago
Source: you made it up...
You do know the F-35 is designed for winter operations as well right? In fact, unlike the Gripen, the F-35 has actually been cold weather tested to -40 degrees at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory, while the Gripen E has only been tested to -26C at Vidsel AFB.
ALSO, I hope you realize ALL fighter jets are designed for extreme cold conditions, considering the altitudes they operate at (+50,000ft) is around -60C. The notion that only the Gripen is designed for winter operations is ludicrous. Otherwise I'm confident Sweden's neighbours (Denmark, Finland, Norway) would've chosen the Gripen instead of the F-35...
1
u/danielbot 1d ago
Source: you made it up...
Prove it.
2
u/9999AWC 1d ago
You made the claim that it's more robust, so the burden of proof falls on you.
Even IF that were true, that wouldn't change the fact that a water contaminated hydraulic system is a catastrophic emergency that would affect ANY fighter today. It's no different from having an air bubble in your blood stream.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Lost_Log4035 7d ago
It is not the better plane for Canada.
Gripen
- Costs less to maintain.
- Retains Canadian sovereignty
- Built in Canada
- Designed for the kinds of missions we would actually run.
- Can be stationed nearly anywhere
- Canada already chose SAAB for early warning. This is an excellent pairing.
F35
- U.S. control of software, mission data and reliance on U.S. for parts
- Higher maintenance cost.
- Harder to support in northern bases.
- Readiness rates of current F35 fleets are repeatedly an issue.
- Only one country has threatened to annex Canada. They sell the F35.
The F35 has advantages, mainly stealth, which isn't as important to Canada's usage of the jet as it is to some countries.
Buying anything that Canada doesn't have to from the U.S. is self-harm. Double that for buying military equipment. The current U.S. administration has made it clear that we are their enemy.
2
u/Educational-Book7431 3d ago
Bombardier needs a government contract to expand into military tech. America need not corner the market.
2
u/DirtyDangles69420 5d ago
Gripen uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E....Wonder who controls software oh right the US.
1
u/Lost_Log4035 5d ago
The U.S. could certainly restrict parts. The source code for the plane has been offered to Canada if we build and fly them. F35 does not have unrestricted access to code.
There really is no perfect choice. I believe there is a better choice though.
2
u/DirtyDangles69420 5d ago
Our choice is the plane which has been selected twice by our assessment teams. There are absolutely ITAR restrictions, I do not follow the logic on this line of thinking.
We shouldn't buy something because of a scenario where the US could ground our planes. In this scenario we are either fighting the US for some ridiculous reason or have allied with a less than desirable nation against our greatest ally.
The grounding of our planes in either scenario makes no difference on the outcome.
Spending 8 years crapping on a man was stupid, we are doubling down.
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
You are wrong, SAAB sandboxed the 39E controller so it can't possibly do dumbass things with the rest of the plane's systems. Rather sad they had to go to that extent, but you know, once trust is lost it's pretty much gone for good.
2
u/barkmutton 5d ago
The logistical reality is that Saab cannot start to deliver until 2031 by their own admission. Hornets will be retired by 2032. So we go for Gripen and we will have a massive gap in capability to cover, as well as the personnel issues of two fleets. But sure made in Canasa, ask Brazil how thats gone.
2
u/Lost_Log4035 4d ago
2034 for the full fleet of F35s.
SAAB stated delivery in 3 years. It's 5 years if we want to build all the infrastructure to build them here. So... somewhere between 3 and 5 since we would want some quicker than others.
2
u/barkmutton 4d ago
2034 F35 fleet complete. The Gripen was quoted at delivery beginning in 5 years, thats assuming they build everything on time. Their whole pitch is built around jobs in Canada. Right now Saab builds 15 a year and thise are spoken for for years.
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/saab-ceo-gripen-canada-five-years
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
2031 would be a perfect time frame. No doubt SAAB will pull a few Gripen Es from their domestic production for us in the interim, just like they did with Brazil.
Meanwhile, F-35 block 4 is now delayed to 2031 AT EARLIEST. You can bet it's going to be delayed further. Until then, everyone gets "stub TR3".
2
u/barkmutton 4d ago edited 4d ago
Okay so assuming we get what Brazil did - ie 11 Gripens, wed be able to fly maybe 5 of those at any given time. So wed be entirely reliant on the US for air defence for how long? 2031 is not end date of deliveries, it is the beginning. We wouldnt have a full fleet until the 2040 best case. Brazil faced 8 years of delays and out produces Canada for air craft production. I have 0 faith wed do better.
2
u/Slykeren 4d ago
They are already paid for. If we back out, we pay the full price for the planes, and get no planes. So no, we really can't
→ More replies (1)1
u/danielbot 4d ago
If we buy them then we end up paying several times that cost for the stupidly expensive operating and maintenance costs. Our best bet is just to put them in the crusher.
2
u/Ok-Educator-3605 3d ago
We control our own F-35 mission software/data (ACURL).
The US controls sales of the Gripen.
The US controls key components of the Gripen.
Shoot me your assessment that details we don’t need stealth and the Gripen is better for Canada, I’d love to read it.
Next up, tell me why no Arctic nations, other than Sweden (very mild), fly the Gripen.
Then you can tell me why the Swiss and Czechia determined the F-35 would be cheaper than the Gripen over the life of the jet.
Oh and then you can tell us when the Gripen was cleared for CANUS data, which is essential for NORAD.
”Can be stationed anywhere”
I assume you mean off highways, you do know the Swedes use specially reinforced highways for jet ops, right? The sections are widened and have threshold markings. They are very close to established air fields and are easily found on satellite imagery. BAS90 take a look.
There will be close to 3,600 F-35s flying at the conclusion of the program and maybe 200 Gripens. Which one will be easier to source parts for in 40 years?
There are no Canadian components on the Gripen.
We have 110 Canadian companies employing 5,000 people working on the F-35.
Each F-35 has close to 3,000,000 worth of Canadian components.
The F-35 is no more harder to support up north than the Gripen, both will require heated hangars. We don’t have our maintainers working outside in Arctic winter conditions. Sweden, sure, as it never gets really cold there.
If you believe the F-35 shouldn’t be acquired because of US control, then you have to feel the same way about the Gripen.
Pick another jet.
2
u/Nugundam446 3d ago
"The Australia-Canada-United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL) does not fully control F-35 data or its primary Mission Data Files (MDFs) independently. While the ACURL—located at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida—allows partner nations to compile, verify, and reprogram their own regional "threat libraries," the system remains tethered to a centralized, U.S.-governed architecture. Partner nations lack full software source-code access and cannot bypass foundational data controls." Can you explained this while Israel as their own independent MDF without the usa?
1
2
→ More replies (18)1
u/AstralCode714 7d ago
Too bad canada has to pay for 18 f35s
2
1
1
u/DirtyDangles69420 5d ago
We should have the full fleet we initially wanted, shame incompetent politicians got in the way.
2
u/DocKardinal21 4d ago
It’s 30 btw; https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-purchase-components-9.7081240
The argument and debate is over. We aren’t going to have a multi unit air force. And just over a third of the fleet requirement is alrdy f35s.
All the rest of this is just BS smoke to distract, and likely some BS carney wants to “keep going” to fuel animosity towards the US for his base and to feign some bargaining power. It’s a dog and pony show, stop participating in it.
2
2
u/Monkey_Pox_Patient_0 7d ago
The F35 is a better plane, but if the Americans can turn it off, it's useless to us. We have to accept and deal with the world as it is.
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
F-35 is actually a terrible plane. It's getting really hard to find a credible role for it now that its stealth story is over (see Iran).
1
u/Economy-Diet-7460 6d ago
F35 is junk. Theres countless military experts out there that laugh at the build of this plane, just look it up.
1
u/Flat_Association_820 5d ago
Stealth is all that matters now? Because that's the only advantage the F35 has over the Gripen E, the technology and capabilities are pretty much on the same level, except that everything is onboard with Gripen and everything is in a US military datacenter in the US with the F35. The Gripen is more affordable and less expensive to maintain, is made for mobile deployment with its ground crew, making it able to land and takeoff from about any stretch of road in the country.
1
1
1
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
The F-35 is a terrible plane. Slow, fuel thirsty, vulnerable to low tech IR, no longer stealthy vs S-band AESA, full of software bugs, probably backdoored, abysmal service availability, hanger queen, from USA.
1
1
u/Karlendor 7d ago
Unfortunately a USS Missouri was a better boat than our HMCS Floral destroyers but quantity is a quality of it's own.
Canada during ww2 had a fuckton of small destroyers, perfect for hunting submarines. They were not by all means the best in anything but we had lots of them.
And the better jet at what exactly? The Gripen is the better jet if we factor maintenance and cost. And we can canadianize the shit outta it
It's like comparing a Toyota to a Ferrari. I'd take the Toyota as daily workhorse. It works for ISIS in the desert anyway.
2
u/SkiyeBlueFox 7d ago
Especially in modern warfare. Flying anything into a modern combat zone is very risky. Sometimes you're unfortunately better off just throwing more of a slightly worse thing at the problem. Its what won the last major war
-1
u/gooberfishie 7d ago
It can only be stationed in two places in the whole country. That's not ideal for response time. It's a very easy target on the ground because of that as well. People think hiding a plane in the air is the end all be all, but more planes actually get taken out on the ground.
6
u/sunbro2000 7d ago
There is a 7.3 billion dollar project to upgrade a bunch of our bases to accommodate and service these planes. But yes you are right all jets are most vulnerable larked at their airbase.
0
u/gooberfishie 7d ago
A bunch? It's two. Once in Bagotville, and one in cold lake. That's two targets to hit and or entire airforce is gone. The gripen can be stationed in literally millions of places.
5
u/sunbro2000 7d ago
There are 4 bases in the arctic that are slated to be upgraded to accommodate these planes as a FOB.
-1
u/gooberfishie 7d ago
Source?
4
u/sunbro2000 7d ago
One source for part of the picture: https://www.twz.com/air/canadian-norad-commanders-view-on-future-f-35-fighter-force
So I am not entirely correct. Most of the base renovations will be at the two main airbases but the arctic FOBs look to be getting upgraded for landings and refueling. I didn't see anything about maintenance hangers but I would be surprised if there was no capability to do atleast some repairs up there if only to be able to fly them back south.
2
u/gooberfishie 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yes, the f35 needs like an 8000 foot runway so the 6000 foot ones that exist need to be upgraded for the f35 to land. A forward operating base is just somewhere the f35 can land, refuel, and take off from. It could spend a night maybe if they are willing to damage the stealth coating. It could really do that at most airports, there just isn't many in the Arctic. A forward operating base isn't that unique. It's not a place to be stored and serviced, and only and handful would ever be there. That leads me back to my original point. There will only be two airbases that can station them long term and service them rather than millions of places where you could station and fully service the gripen with a small crew, and if those two airbases get hit, there goes our airforce. If a dozen happen to be at a forward operating base when that happens, those dozen won't last long outside in the Arctic with no maintenance, especially considering the plane is so maintenance heavy that in the best of circumstances only about a third would be operable at any given time.
0
u/ImRickJamesMother 7d ago
Every home PC and cellphone has mandated hardware and software backdoors mandated by the American government. Do you not expect them to do the same with their fighter jets?
1
u/OptimisticViolence 7d ago edited 7d ago
If SAAB can agree to a new version without the american engine then this is a no brainer. A new production line would have to be built regardless and that was already part of the current proposal for Canada.
Edit: It seems like GKN only does versions of the FN engine for the Gripen right now. So even their heavily modified versions are still technically subject to american ITAR restrictions. Still waiting on an announcement from SAAB of some sort of agreement to use a European engine...
2
u/MK_Regular 7d ago
SAAB own CEO has said that they are not interested in replacing the engine on the Gripen. The "proposed" engine doesn't exist outside of some napkin math, and there are no plans to develop the engine or re-engineer the Gripen to take it.
1
u/OptimisticViolence 6d ago
Yeah but that comment was from a year ago and things have changed. France also pulled the Rafale from the original canadian fighter jet competition because we wanted too many modifications, and now they're offering it again as of the recent Carney trip to Europe. Sooo, a lot can change in a few months between Trump siding with Russia and threatening to invade Nato allies.
2
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
It's a nobrainer even with the F414. US pulling ITAR silly buggers would be disastrous for their military exports all across the board. Not going to happen. That said, I still think that there is no sane option except ITAR-free for the next Gripen variant.
1
u/OptimisticViolence 3d ago
I wonder if it's possible for Canada and SAAB to sign a deal for xx amount of current Gripens, made in Sweden. And then agree to build a new variant with a different engine at a new production line in Canada? Then there is the Ukraine deal, which is supposed to be for a minimum 100 Gripens at wherever this new factory will be. Could be a huge win-win.
1
u/danielbot 3d ago
With demand for Gripen E signficantly exceeding production capacity, production lines are needed in BOTH Canada and Sweden. And Brazil, and Ukraine, or at least in nearby Poland.
I can see Poland getting Gripen envy as they watch Ukraine build up its massive fleet on an exceptionally modest budget and aggressive timeline.
1
1
1
u/Flashy_Tooth_5597 6d ago
Buy sophisticated fighter jets from your enemy… now there’s a good plan. 🤦♂️
1
u/Nonamanadus 6d ago
We can put trust in the next American administration or the ones after it.
We did that with our trade policy and now we are scrambling to restructure. WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO DO THAT WITH THE MILITARY.
1
u/Ok_Speech_3709 6d ago
Take the obligatory 16 F-35s, and then send a middle finger message to DJT and order a sh!t load of Gripens!
1
1
u/drumtome2 6d ago
I don’t know anything about the real technical differences and capabilities, but god damn this is taking a while. Maybe they’re holding out for the mid-terms and they’ll select a mixed fleet after that just to appease everyone.
1
1
u/GoSensCAN 4d ago
A mixed fleet would be best, time to start spending as it's getting lonely up here.
1
1
1
u/technomage-adept 3d ago
Hot take, but the talk of annexing Canada will end in about 2 years when Trumps term ends and so will the insane rhetoric that he is slinging. Vance and any other republicans are going to start distancing themselves after the mid terms when the Dems win control of the house and senate. So ultimately (I love Saab) if the F-35 is what we get, I have no concerns.
1
u/BeardedFoxhound 2d ago
Buying a jet with software that is controlled by the us is a bad idea. Just look at the star defense system
1
u/Flat-Cap-1063 16h ago
Buy Gripens as stopgaps, invest in the UK-Italy-Japan Next gen fighter program.
1
1
u/NobleA259 7d ago
We’d be moronic to go with an older less capable plane that would need to be phased out earlier once the next generation comes along due to them being obsolete. The F35 is clearly the better option and we’d get many more years of service compared to the Gripen. Yeah they’re more expensive but we’re getting a longer service life and better performance with that price tag. We also already produce vital parts for the plane.
1
u/frghu2 7d ago
its equally moronic to buy into tech that requires a fulll suite of support infrastructure, vehicles, hardware and systems that would then make us entirely dependent on US equipment for generations for the sole purpose of joint operations with the US in THEIR wars and THEIR conquests.
F that. Our main priority is arctic patrol and defense. Is the Gripen the jet for that? I dont know. But neither is the F-35.
1
u/NobleA259 7d ago
And you don’t think the gripen also needs supporting infrastructure and hardware? What you think we can just buy a jet and that’s it? 🤣. Any jet you buy you need to buy supporting equipment for it dude. And we already make some of the equipment! Jesus if you want to hate on the Americans just say so. They’ve done enough to earn our ire without you making up stuff
→ More replies (1)0
u/WeezinWarbler 7d ago
F-35 was originally written off as an option because of its single engine which is problematic for arctic patrol (since if you’re in a remote area and have an engine failure you will need a second engine to limp back to an airfield). Gripen is actually a better option for that use case.
→ More replies (4)2
u/_MlCE_ 7d ago
Funny that both Finland and Norway use the F-35 over the Gripen...
Heck, even the US Navy and Marines - famous for operating aircraft over empty oceans, hundreds of miles away from land - are perfectly fine with the F-35.
1
u/WeezinWarbler 6d ago
Just telling you Canadas initial logic for rejecting it… not saying it was particularly good logic
0
u/danielbot 4d ago
The older, less capable plane is F-35? Because Gripen E is newer, flies faster and longer, can operate out of small airstrips and even roads and has a totally kickaass EW suite, whereas F-35 is still trying to get its radar to work.
2
u/barkmutton 4d ago
EW suite is such a red hearing. No one can talk accurately about that on reddit.
0
u/CMG30 7d ago
From a strictly technical perspective, going with a mixed fleet is probably the best option. The downside is the logistics train.
3
u/faceintheblue 7d ago
A complicated, expensive procurement and supply chain situation is the Canadian military way!
0
u/Intrepid_Habit_1343 7d ago
The decision is a no brainer, Swedes have brains Americans don't!
See easy choice!
0
0
u/ls40098 7d ago
I can not comprehend how any country would buy these weapons from another country that is a viable threat to its future.
Every day we are told how China is the threat, every day the US shows us that they are the threat. Sometimes the devil you know isn't better than the one you don't.
0
u/Consistent_Ad3181 7d ago
Ok apart from the US, what's the enemy got China Russia? Gripen will do fine, get in on Tempest, keep your options open
0
0
0
u/FelixPotvin94 7d ago
Best option is keep the small number of CF-35s we have ordered and commited to which I think is 30 currently, cancel the rest and buy a whole bunch of Gripens to fill the rest of the gap.
1
u/danielbot 4d ago
It's actually only 16. We bought some parts production slots for a future 14, and we can easily sell those slots.
0
u/Ordinary_Degree_4213 7d ago
The F35 doesn’t have the range to defend and patrol Canada’s vast airspace .. which means it would need to add drop tanks to its airframe .. which negates its stealth ability making it as visible as a gripen or super hornet. So we are paying a boat load for a plane cause it’s stealth and techy and we can’t use the stealth. We don’t have the array of airbases to support the poor range and we don’t have the airborn fuel tankers to support the range this aircraft needs to patrol and ‘intercept’. The F35 is the better plane but not what Canada needs for Canada mission. We were pressured into the development and purchase of the plane like most nato countries to keep the cost down per unit for the US needs
1
u/rnavstar 6d ago
We need a two engine fighter. Losing an engine on a single engine fighter means punching out. Doing that over the Arctic is a certain death scenario. Also a total lost of aircraft.
CF-18a pilots have lost an engine and still came back.
We really can’t back out of the F-35 deal. But we can have a two fighter aircraft fleet.
So the super hornet is probably the way to go.
1
u/Ordinary_Degree_4213 6d ago
I agree already have a lot of the infrastructure to super the Hornet at least more than the f35 .
The strike eagle would be good too
0
0
u/KbtSean 6d ago
Why has it taken 18 months for government to make a decision - thought we were building at lightning speeds!!! Liberal hypocrisy at its finest. The fact is Canadian companies are already benefiting from EVERY F35 that is produced. We are an original signator of the project and to pivot to the Grippen will cost Canadian firms already reaping benefits from F35s coming off the line!
0
u/jimbean1234567890 5d ago
Why not get bombardier to build our own .
1
u/ActiveElectrical9424 5d ago
TBH this would take many years to get there just for the design. Saab has offered to build the airplanes here and give us rights to co-develop improvements. That is unheard of when you have a proven design. Gripens are not concept jets but used by both Brazil, Sweden and Ukraine.
42
u/grizzwall111 7d ago
After trumps announcements today about finding a new leader for Ukraine. We're fucking retarded to even consider continuing negotiations with america until that administration is gone. I understand were a much smaller country economically. But my fuck, I'd rather eat bologna for the next 2 years. Cunt