General Military News

[CaptainCrunch]

yup

[peter12]

I do think a light fighter does occasionally make sense when supplementing a larger more powerful fleet of aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15 performing different roles but having some crossover.

A Gripen/F-35 RCAF would be quite formidable, but impossible for the reasons discussed before. Too bad.

[dammage79]

I dont think saab would just hand over the blueprints to bomardier and say see ya later. I'm pretty confident that they'll be running the show with Bombardier s work force under their thumbs. And as far as I can tell, it's only the big chunk of the airframe being built here. Bombardier doesn't get to play with the tech.

I've also been reading up on the interoperability and security costs to make the Gripen Norad capable. It fits in the budget window. Rafael balked at the cost but they also werent keen on a ton of other things.

The bidding game has been getting rigged to favor the U.S planes and namely the F-35 for a couple of years now but the Saab offer does put more jobs in the country on the table.

And yeah it's a smaller plane but that also means a much smaller radar signature.

Always said I'd rather have a swarm of wasps than a few birds when it comes to fighter jets in this country. And the Gripen E/F is no slouch. Sure it's not the newest toy out there but there's a reason it's up there with all the other fighters.

End of the day itll still end up being super hornet's. Singh seems hell bent convinced that they HAVE to buy U.S. but why on earth should we support those crooks any longer.

[peter12]

Birds eat wasps.

[CaptainCrunch]

Remember that there are some estimated economic benefits to the F-35 program that Canada has already seen or will see if they stay a part of the program. The Liberal's were so sold on them that they paid the 33 million to keep in the program.

In 2014 it was estimated that there would be an estimated 11 billion in opportunties for Canadian Aerospace if we purchased the F-35.

Outside of the costs of the 39E, which in one of the newer contracts was about 85 million per plane, Bombardier doesn't have the facilities or even the expertise to jump into a fighter jet production, and at that it would be a one time only thing, we'd be licensed for a Canadian Fighter only. So those jobs would be fairly temporary.

There is no comparing the F-35 and the JAS-29E/F. The Saab is a generation 4, generously 4.5 fighter, and not that invisible on radar, the F-35 looks like a marble on a radar screen.

Again the strategic implications are completely different. Because of the superiority of the F-35 on nearly all fronts in terms of low observability, interoperability, sensors etc, the concept behind a F-35 is a smaller airforce of 60 some odd planes, and the cost per plane has gone down sharply as the American's have ramped up production. If you're buying 68 F-35's at about 90 million each or have to buy 120 Saab's at even generously 70 million each, the Saab doesn't make sense from an economics standpoint. When you add in air crews, pilots, stores etc. The Saab would probably be more costly for a less capable plane.

So now we'd have to build infrastructure, twice as many planes and personal and there are questions around a 50 year track run of a generation 4 fighter.

If you're going to have a small military and small airforce, then you need to really make it as advanced as you can. I like the Saab, I think its a good budget plane, and probably suited best for a mixed plane airforce, but the idea of speed and maneuvering goes away in the modern battlefield over the next 50 years as the focus is on over the horizon who see's who first combat, or the ability to pin point with one asset and seamlessly kill it with another asset and see the whole battlefield.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't buy the Saab at all, I just don't see a huge benefit to it.

When we bought the F-18, it competed against the F-14, the F-15, The Tornado, the Rafale and the F-16, and the F-18L I think. They chose the CF-18 because beyond the pricing it was a pretty advanced combination of heavy lift, radar, it was a really durable fighter and probably the best multi-role fighter at the time.

It lasted about what 40 years. We need to think the same way and add on that the Canadian Airforce on its budget is probably not going to be able to maintain a fleet of 120 fighters anymore, and we need a small well equipt air force with a future upgrade path to last us for 40 to 50 years.

If they do this purchase and its because of jobs in Quebec, then its going to be a failed selection. If it comes down with a honest assessment of the fighters in the program, then its likely that the F-35 should win.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm still not a super fan of the Gripen, We're buying another 50 year jet fighter, which means the Gripen won't be super capable by the halfway point of the cycle.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. Define "super capable by the halfway point of the cycle".

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...the ultimate goal is to get away from a 120 plane airforce...

Says who?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...we're having enough problems retaining the pilots that we have as well.

Yes, but retention is a problem for many other reasons not having anything to do with the number of aircraft. Interestingly enough, the Gripen can turn around (fuel, re-arm) in ten minutes with just one tech and five recruits out of the back of a truck. F35 is how many hours?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Gripen E is also going to have a price tag in the $85 million dollar price tag (brazil)

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...but capability to capability, the Gripen doesn't compete.

Sure it does, but it doesn't have to compete against F35s now does it? It has to compete against Blackjacks and Sukhois. It was specifically designed to fight Sukhois.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

there's also the question of the modifications to make them interoperable within Norad. One of the reasons why Rafale dropped out is they couldn't do it.

Couldn't do it or didn't want to spend the money to do it? SAAB says it isn't a problem. It's only a problem if the USA makes it out to be one.
SAAB pioneered data link in the 60s. Their current data link is years ahead of USA so integrating into NORAD isn't an issue.

[btimbit]

Nobody is arguing what the better plane is, but what the better plane for Canada is.

Another thing the Gripen has going for it money-wise is again, not the price to purchase, but the price to run is SUBSTANTIALLY lower

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There is no comparing the F-35 and the JAS-29E/F. The Saab is a generation 4, generously 4.5 fighter, and not that invisible on radar, the F-35 looks like a marble on a radar screen.

Can we truthfully call F35 a fifth generation fighter when it lacks super cruise? You can achieve stealth 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.
If you can actually find the F35 and get within shooting range, then it is highly vulnerable to IR missiles.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Again the strategic implications are completely different. Because of the superiority of the F-35 on nearly all fronts in terms of low observability, interoperability, sensors etc, the concept behind a F-35 is a smaller airforce of 60 some odd planes, and the cost per plane has gone down sharply as the American's have ramped up production. If you're buying 68 F-35's at about 90 million each or have to buy 120 Saab's at even generously 70 million each, the Saab doesn't make sense from an economics standpoint. When you add in air crews, pilots, stores etc.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...for a less capable plane.

Stop it. The defence of Canadian airspace is the RCAF's #1 mission. To do that, you need an interceptor operating from FOLs. The Gripen is more than capable of doing that.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...and there are questions around a 50 year track run of a generation 4 fighter.

What questions? Do you seriously think the F35 will make it 50 years in its present configuration? Its stealth may already be obsolete and, if it isn't, it likely will be in the next decade. As mentioned, LockMart would have to redesign the plane to upgrade the stealth.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you're going to have a small military and small airforce, then you need to really make it as advanced as you can.

No, you do not. You do not need to buy over-engineered war machines. You need to buy the gear that will perform the mission and with the best bang to buck.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...but the idea of speed and maneuvering goes away in the modern battlefield over the next 50 years as the focus is on over the horizon who see's who first combat, or the ability to pin point with one asset and seamlessly kill it with another asset and see the whole battlefield.

So, in this regard, F35 isn't even a fighter; it's just a missile platform.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by btimbit

...but what the better plane for Canada is.

I agree.

[Fuzz]

has the F-35 been heavily tested in really cold weather? I like that the Grippen was designed by a Northern country. I'm not entirely confident the F-35 is going to work very well in remote winter locations.

[peter12]

Baron just changed my mind.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

has the F-35 been heavily tested in really cold weather? I like that the Grippen was designed by a Northern country. I'm not entirely confident the F-35 is going to work very well in remote winter locations.

Yes. Sort of. They tested it at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. I think it was -26. But they aren't permanently stationed there for another few years.

[peter12]

Does this mean we buy more of them?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by peter12

Baron just changed my mind.

Yeah the more I read into it the more I'm leaning that way too

[I-Hate-Hulse]

After reading up on the Gripen, while I'm sure the LockMart lobbyists will scream if the Gripen is chosen, I wonder if the USAF would welcome a Canadian purchase of Gripen for the sheer reason it would provide an Aggressor squadron to train against at no cost to them?

I'm thinking about the role the Gotland-class Swedish subs played for the US Navy and am wondering if that could be the role that the RCAF plays.

That and I'm starting to think that a bit of type diversification would be good for NATO, given the lessons of previous conflicts. One plane's inherent weaknesses (for which the F-35 has a lot of) shouldn't leave the entire fleet vulnerable (and exploitable)

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Does this mean we buy more of them?

Haha, good one. Our government would use it as an excuse to downsize in numbers under the guise of saving money.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by peter12

Does this mean we buy more of them?

From what I've read the plan is to buy the same amount regardless

[Baron von Kriterium]

At the other end of the high-tech spectrum is the very simple (Embraer) A-29, a plane that has a specific purpose of close air support. It is a plane that perhaps many may not have heard of, but is in extensive service throughout the world and has a potential suitor in Sweden, who would use it to complement the Gripen E.



Now, SOCOM is eyeing a fleet of light attack aircraft for 'armed overwatch'. The A-29 is under consideration, as is the (Textron/Beechcraft) AT-6 Wolverine.



Don't be fooled by their small size, "both aircraft pack a wallop. The A-29 comes equipped with two internal .50-cal machine guns with space for additional underwing armaments like 20mm gun pods or MK-81 and Mk 82 bombs, according to Embraer; by comparison, Textron boasts, the Wolverine is "the first fixed-wing aircraft to employ 2.75" laser-guided rockets successfully" and uses an adaptable system to carry all manner of ordnance."

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

At the other end of the high-tech spectrum is the very simple (Embraer) A-29, a plane that has a specific purpose of close air support. It is a plane that perhaps many may not have heard of, but is in extensive service throughout the world and has a potential suitor in Sweden, who would use it to complement the Gripen E.



Now, SOCOM is eyeing a fleet of light attack aircraft for 'armed overwatch'. The A-29 is under consideration, as is the (Textron/Beechcraft) AT-6 Wolverine.



Don't be fooled by their small size, "both aircraft pack a wallop. The A-29 comes equipped with two internal .50-cal machine guns with space for additional underwing armaments like 20mm gun pods or MK-81 and Mk 82 bombs, according to Embraer; by comparison, Textron boasts, the Wolverine is "the first fixed-wing aircraft to employ 2.75" laser-guided rockets successfully" and uses an adaptable system to carry all manner of ordnance."

Apart from presumably more advanced versions of rockets and bombs this is the same payload or less than WW2 fighter bombers carried. For example the Thunderbolt has 8 .50 cal guns plus rockets or bombs.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

The latest US casualty update from the DoD is 64.

Well now.

The US casualty count from the al-Assad air base attack has breached 100.