• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,572
Points
1,110
CBH99 said:
The one thing the Gripen has going for it, that the others don't, is that it has the potential to reinvigorate the Canadian aerospace industry during a time where it's been beaten to a pulp.

Bombardier, through it's own mismanagement (at the level that truly should be criminal) has sold off almost every asset in it's aerospace folder, essentially eliminating a huge chunk of the Canadian aerospace industry along with it.  (Which is mind-boggling, since the C-series was a huge success as an aircraft, and short sighted politics got in the way).


What the Gripen brings to the table, in addition to being an advanced, nimble little jet - is the opportunity to create hundreds of high tech jobs, as well as a full technology transfer.  Being able to manufacture them, update them, and service them all inside of Canada is the big shot in the arm that the Canadian aerospace industry desperately needs now that Bombardier has single-handedly basically destroyed it.  (With the exception of Viking Air, which unfortunately is a very small player.)


Is it the best jet for Canada?  Probably not.  Although, being able to operate in austere northern environments is kind of what we're all about as a country, 6 to 7 months of the year. 

Has it successfully participated in NATO operations?  Yes, exceptionally so.  Is it designed to excel at air-to-air as a MiG killer?  Yes.  Is it affordable to not only purchase, but also operate?  Yes.

Is it 5th gen?  No.  Able to perform the same capabilities as the F-35?  No.  Is the current, upgraded model in service yet?  No. 



I've seen all 3 of these jets perform at air shows, and the Gripen honestly looks like a children's toy when compared to the others (Just due to it's incredibly small size.)

I am fairly pro F-35, with a Block 3 Super Hornet being my second choice.  But, the Gripen isn't all bad when you consider the health boost it gives to our government directed industrial decline.  :2c:



**All of that being said, IIIIIFFFFFF the Gripen is selected, I hope the manufacturing & technology transfer is done outside of Bombardier.  Even if that means awarding to a different company, or starting up a small crown corporation from scratch.  Bombardier leadership can't be more incompetent, inefficient, and in my own humble opinion, downright criminal.  And yes, I'm mildly bitter about it.**

A friend who is an F-18 pilot once dryly remarked: "I have lot's of gun camera footage of Gripen's"
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Quirky said:
F-35 and Super Hornet as just as capable to operate in so-called austere environments. What does that even mean by the way? Expensive fighters will be parked inside climate control hangars overnight, the likelihood of cold-start from -30 is rare. I’ve seen it once in the winter after a crash and the aircraft were quarantined outside overnight. All modern fighters are capable of operation in all-weather environments, the Gripen E isn’t special in that regard.

One of SAAB's selling points is how it can land on a strip of road to refuel/rearm. Also their short take-off/landing ability.

"Gripen can take off and land on runways that are just 800 metres long and 16 metres wide, and the fighter has been designed for all different types of weather and runway conditions, including the harsh snow-covered runways in the Arctic climates found in northern Sweden."
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
CBH99 said:
Is it the best jet for Canada?  Probably not.  Although, being able to operate in austere northern environments is kind of what we're all about as a country, 6 to 7 months of the year. 

Eielson AFB (F-35 base) is much colder on average than any of the bases the Swedes fly their Gripens from. Sweden's winters aren't that cold at all, not when you compare them to our own winters. 

I don't see Canada adopting the "land on a strip of road" mentality.  It sounds cool, but in reality the logistics required to maintain that capability would be a nightmare.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,085
Points
1,260
Drallib said:

That's fine, but is that the way we operate up north?  How would the logistics work of getting fuel/weapons/etc to those places?

If not, wouldn't longer legs (which the Gripen E doesn't have compared to the F-35 or Super Hornet) be more beneficial to reach further from FOLs like Inuvik? 
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Dimsum said:
That's fine, but is that the way we operate up north?  How would the logistics work of getting fuel/weapons/etc to those places?

If not, wouldn't longer legs (which the Gripen E doesn't have compared to the F-35 or Super Hornet) be more beneficial to reach further from FOLs like Inuvik?

I agree.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,157
Points
1,090
Aircraft listed in increasing order of ferry range (per publicly available information).  To my knowledge, this assumes internal fuel only without AAR.

F35A range: 2800km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Gripen C/D range: 3200km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Super Hornet range: 3330km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

Gripen E/F range: 4000km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen


EDIT to add Gripen E/F range
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
dapaterson said:
Aircraft listed in increasing order of ferry range (per publicly available information).  To my knowledge, this assumes internal fuel only without AAR.

F35A range: 2800km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Gripen C/D range: 3200km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Super Hornet range: 3330km.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

Is that Super Hornet Block II or III with CFTs?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,157
Points
1,090
Drallib said:
Is that Super Hornet Block II or III with CFTs?

Good question; looking at the source documents referenced in the wiki, it appears that it does include CFT. (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1)

Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.
 

Drallib

Full Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
dapaterson said:
Good question; looking at the source documents referenced in the wiki, it appears that it does include CFT. (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1)

Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.

On the Wiki page under Specifications (F/A-18E/F) it says the Combat Range 722km. Under the Advanced Super Hornet section, 2nd paragraph, it talks about the CFTs adding 480km to the Combat Range, making it 1202km. If it can add 66.4% to the Combat Range, I wonder what the Range with 2 AIM-9s would be (2346km currently) or the Ferry Range (3330km currently).

Internal Fuel is 14,700 lbs. The CFT would add 3,500 lbs to that. External Fuel Tanks is another 13,040 lbs but I can only see this being used for refueling purposes.

 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,365
Points
1,160
Drallib said:
On the Wiki page under Specifications (F/A-18E/F) it says the Combat Range 722km. Under the Advanced Super Hornet section, 2nd paragraph, it talks about the CFTs adding 480km to the Combat Range, making it 1202km. If it can add 66.4% to the Combat Range, I wonder what the Range with 2 AIM-9s would be (2346km currently) or the Ferry Range (3330km currently).

Internal Fuel is 14,700 lbs. The CFT would add 3,500 lbs to that. External Fuel Tanks is another 13,040 lbs but I can only see this being used for refueling purposes.

And I assume this is all done within the context of a well established, protected and maintained in flight refuelling capability....

.... cool 'combat tools' are always nice, but great combat logistics is always the strategic game-changer AFAIK.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
225
Points
710
NavyShooter said:
The only worse possible solution would be to give the manufacturing/tech transfer to Irving and getting them to build jets...that'd be terribad.

Actually, SAAB has teamed up with IMP to assemble the aircraft, if chosen.

Allen has this write-up on IMP at his blog.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,157
Points
1,090
IMP has a less than stellar record for timely delivery of aircraft.  Adding a Gripen assembly line would push back future Aurora block upgrades into the 2100s...
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
I hate to say it, but they still seem like a better choice than Bombardier 
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,310
Points
1,160
dapaterson said:
IMP has a less than stellar record for timely delivery of aircraft.  Adding a Gripen assembly line would push back future Aurora block upgrades into the 2100s...

Many years decades ago we said the same about Chantier Davie. When TRUMP (TRibal class Update and Modernization Project) was going one ship had to be refitted in Quebec ~ it was firm, non-negotiable government policy in the 1970s and '80s, 20%+ of just about anything had to be procured in Quebec ~ and that meant Davie. We, not jokingly, referred to the project as "One No Trump," because the engineers were really, honestly concerned that Davie could not do the work and we would end up with only three 280s.

Davie nearly went under; they were in such a financial and managerial mess that they were unfit for the first round of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. Then they got new, foreign, owners and they turned themselves around ~ it's amazing what getting out from under "Quebec Inc" can do for a company, isn't it? Now people are singing their praises.

Companies can be destroyed by bad owners ~ Bombardier is proof of that ~ and government ownership and protection can, often do, make things worse. My boss, back in the 1980s, the Chief of Engineering for the CF, believed that Canadian and Quebec government politival policies destroyed a good shipyard. But Davie is back. Eventually the family will be forced out of the Bombardier boardroom and it will be taken public and will be owned by foreigners, I expect. It might become a success story, too.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
494
Points
930
E.R. Campbell said:
.

.

Companies can be destroyed by bad owners ~ Bombardier is proof of that ~ and government ownership and protection can, often do, make things worse. My boss, back in the 1980s, the Chief of Engineering for the CF, believed that Canadian and Quebec government politival policies destroyed a good shipyard. But Davie is back. Eventually the family will be forced out of the Bombardier boardroom and it will be taken public and will be owned by foreigners, I expect. It might become a success story, too.
IF there is anything left to re-build.  It is fast becoming nothing but a real estate holding company with a couple of cottage industries to keep a few quebecers employeed.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Actually the new Global series of large bizjets, on which Bombardier's future depends, are largely made in Toronto:
https://www.bombardier.com/en/media/newsList/details.binc-20191204-bombardier-announces-long-term-agreement-with-gtaa.bombardiercom.html?

Mark
Ottawa
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
350
Points
730
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Eielson AFB (F-35 base) is much colder on average than any of the bases the Swedes fly their Gripens from. Sweden's winters aren't that cold at all, not when you compare them to our own winters. 

I don't see Canada adopting the "land on a strip of road" mentality.  It sounds cool, but in reality the logistics required to maintain that capability would be a nightmare.
What ! Where's your sense of adventure ?
It's a really good point actually, never mind the fact that RCAF would have to develop the ability to operate the majority of it's forces not only dispersed but in austere conditions.
We then we have the interesting question who's is going to pay to upgrade the Trans Canada Highway to the sort of standard the you could land aircraft on ? Granted you only have to do that in small sections. I suspect that still you're looking at tens of billions and that's just the Trans Canada never mind the rest of the Canadian highway system.
But I can't see any government spending that kind of money, not on defence and not in the amounts necessary to accomplish a complete and utter rethink of of how our Airforce operates.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
More on RCAF competition--we'd sure have to buy a lot of missiles to take advantage of the potential loadout:

Boeing Shows Super Hornets Bristling With 14 Missiles In Formal Sales Pitch To Canada
Boeing's Super Hornet is now formally competing against Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Saab's Gripen E to become Canada's next fighter jet.

25vs.jpg

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35272/boeing-shows-super-hornets-bristling-with-14-missiles-in-formal-sales-pitch-to-canada

Mark
Ottawa
 
Top