Canadian Military News

[btimbit]

That would surprise me, I think they keep the CSC program but push fighter procurement back at least another 5 years

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Has there been something else published because I don't know why Irving is all fired up. The Government, DND and the RCN have been very clear with their messaging this year. That is, there will be 15 ships, no less, no more. There will only be one variant and they will all perform the same role.

At $70B, in my opinion there is no way that the Government can afford both the CSC and new fighter at the same time. I suspect they cancel CSC and buy more AOPS.

That would be a wildly significant rollback of RCN capabilities, wouldn't it?

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by peter12

That would be a wildly significant rollback of RCN capabilities, wouldn't it?

Depends. Depends on how you configure the AOPS. It depends on the roles the Government assigns CAF in general and, specifically, the RCN.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Depends. Depends on how you configure the AOPS. It depends on the roles the Government assigns CAF in general and, specifically, the RCN.

But like, essentially consigning the RCN to coastal patrol, yes?

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by peter12

But like, essentially consigning the RCN to coastal patrol, yes?

What's the role of the military? What's the role of the Navy?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

What's the role of the military? What's the role of the Navy?

All I’m asking is pretty simple - we go with more AOPS vs Type 26’s, we lose more capabilities than we have no with the City-class?

[I-Hate-Hulse]

The latest CSC feature sheets had a lot of top end systems - SPY-7 radar, Tomahawks, Kongsberg NSM missiles, Sea Ceptors. I fully expect them to decontent this CSC to make budget - a less capable AESA, Tomahawk deletion, Harpoons, and a recycled Phalanx.

[CaptainCrunch]

And oars and a timing drum.

[peter12]

Yeah, I agree, we can kick it around all we want, but I think this is the end of the RCN as a bluewater navy for a very long time.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That would surprise me, I think they keep the CSC program but push fighter procurement back at least another 5 years

Or we just automatically go with the Gripen as a low-cost solution.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by peter12

Or we just automatically go with the Gripen as a low-cost solution.

Or both. Gripen, but not until 2030. Becuase Canada

[Baron von Kriterium]

Speaking of Gripen, SAAB plays the Quebec card:

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...141602.article

Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.

The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December.

[Harry Lime]

The economic benefit is a good angle.

Also, it's bugged me for a while... I understand the integration part of going with the F35, and how it makes life easier. It's a better plane. The one thing is... as a part of NORAD, what does Canada bring to the table as a tiny little baby clone of the USA? Is it better to have planes with an alternate capability, and go with the Gripen?

[CaptainCrunch]

If we turn down the F-35, a lot of the companies that are or would receive benefits for the F-35 internationally would lose that. The F-35 in a study submitted with the bid offers up about 17 billion dollars to Canada and something like 100,000 jobs over the life of the project.

I'm just not onboard with the Gripen, I mean its a nice plane and all, but its literally a generation behind the F-35 which would have a longer lifespan and greater upgradiblitity. Its interoperability, sensors and other systems are way ahead of the Gripen.

When we bought the F-18 over other planes it was because it was at the leading edge of fighter tech at the time and we got what almost 40 years of operations out of it.

With the shrinking price tag of the F-35, The F-35A has dropped to about 80 million per copy compared to the Gripen E which is in the 80 to 85 million per copy price range there's not that much of a cost savings to buy the inferior fighter.

Right now the competition should be between the Gripen and the F-35 with a real comparison and not some narrative over the benefits to Quebec industry. But I doubt that will happen and this thing will be pork barrelled to help out Lavalin and Bombardier.

[btimbit]

The Gripen would be fantastic in a secondary role supported by F-35's. Not the choice for a single model fleet though

[speede5]

The logistics involved in running two fleets of fighter jets negate that idea pretty quick. We can barely keep one fleet operational right now.

I like the idea of more role suited aircraft but the reality is we are going to use a catch all solution. And that solution is the F-35 full stop.

The economic benefits are there, the plane is the most advanced we can get and will give us the most operational capabilities and allow us to continue playing with the rest of our allies.

Its all a political game being played by people with no skin in the game.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

[F35]'s a better plane.

That's certainly debatable. Better at doing what?

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The one thing is... as a part of NORAD, what does Canada bring to the table as a tiny little baby clone of the USA?

Manpower, money, infrastructure, real estate and fighters.

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Is it better to have planes with an alternate capability, and go with the Gripen?

What do you mean by 'alternate capability'? With respect to NORAD, the mission is to defend Canada's airspace. In that mission, Gripen is capable, as are many other fighters out there.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm just not onboard with the Gripen, I mean its a nice plane and all, but its literally a generation behind the F-35 which would have a longer lifespan and greater upgradiblitity. Its interoperability, sensors and other systems are way ahead of the Gripen.

I guess I have to dig into my archives and offer up my counter-arguments again.

Can we truthfully call F35 a fifth generation fighter when it lacks super cruise? As for stealth, you can achieve it in a couple of ways:

a. build it into the airframe; or

b. use EW.

With respect to the former, the F35 is done. There is nothing more you can do to it.

With respect to the latter, you can continuously upgrade the EW suite without doing anything to the airframe. At this point in time, the EW suite in the#Gripen#is very, very good.

As for RADAR and the F35, there is every reason to believe the Russians can see it with their Container over the horizon RADAR and, most likely, S-300/400/500. If you can actually find the F35 and get within shooting range, then it is highly vulnerable to IR missiles.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

With the shrinking price tag of the F-35, The F-35A has dropped to about 80 million per copy compared to the Gripen E which is in the 80 to 85 million per copy price range there's not that much of a cost savings to buy the inferior fighter.

Does the F35 come with a 40-year maintenance contract built into the price? Does the F35 price factor in the cost of infrastructure upgrades required at the CFBs and Forward Operating Locations (FOLs)? As it stands right now, F35 cannot land/take off at any of our FOLs except Iqaluit. What is the Cost Per Flight Hour (CPFH) of the F35? The CPFH of F35 will eat up any cost/airframe advantage it might have.

Gripen E is inferior in what way? Can it shoot down Sukhois, Blackjacks and Bears? Remember, it's designed to shoot down Sukhois.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Right now the competition should be between the Gripen and the F-35 with a real comparison and not some narrative over the benefits to Quebec industry. But I doubt that will happen and this thing will be pork barrelled to help out Lavalin and Bombardier.

Something like 75% of the Canadian companies involved with F35 are based in Quebec. Canada's aeronautical industry is centred around Montreal. That's just the way it is. So, I suspect both bids will receive max points for industrial regional benefits.

[Harry Lime]

My post was not very clear. I was pondering whether having the Gripen as Canada's plane would be of greater benefit to our military commitments because Canada would then bring something to the table that the Americans do not.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

My post was not very clear. I was pondering whether having the Gripen as Canada's plane would be of greater benefit to our military commitments because Canada would then bring something to the table that the Americans do not.

I don't think so. I don't think the Gripen E brings any new capability to the NORAD table that the USAF doesn't already have covered with their current inventory.

As for meeting other commitments around the world...

...well, this is just me thinking and not some government policy, but I think the US and coalitions in general don't want RCAF aircraft for their capabilities per se. The coalitions and the US want offensive Canadian capabilities to legitimize the operations. Canada, being a generally peaceful and reasoned country, brings a lot of soft power to a coalition. Canadian offensive participation sends a strong message to the global community that a given operation is more justified than it would be if Canada didn't participate. Sending fighters is a relatively quick and low-risk way to do this. If you want to be seen as offensive, you need to employ weapons. I honestly do not see the Americans ever putting Canadian aircraft in a position to employ air-to-air weapons (and it is extremely rare for that to happen), but they will let any country drop air-to-ground weapons.

So, to contribute meaningfully to the coalition at the tactical level we should procure capabilities that the US is short of (hence why we are procuring stand-off weapons and Tactical Air Launched Decoys).

Whether you use F35, F18 or Gripen is irrelevant because all three can be used for the above, although I don't think anyone really wants to use F35s to drop bombs which is why USAF is purchasing F15EX. Thus, theoretically, the USA won't care what plane you use to drop the bombs. In reality, they will want us to buy F-35 or F18 and that shouldn't be a surprise.

I don't know what the statement of requirement says for the future fighter but I suspect all three meet the requirements for the missions asked of the fighter, so it's going to be a political decision, I think. Speaking of political, there is some Swedish government position or law that states its military equipment/weapons can't be exported if it would conflict with Swedish foreign policy. So, it might be possible that SAAB can't export spare parts to us if the Gripen is used in an offensive conflict.