I'm not sure I understand this reference. The US has a habit of throwing Canada under the bus on allowing US dairy products into Canada yet the US has never even approached the threshold where Canada would apply tariffs to US dairy products.Not really. Because all you are doing is shifting jobs around and for a questionable term. It’s highly unlikely for Canadian production to be maintained long term on a Grippen order as you already have Grippen production in Latin America and Sweden. The Assembly and production by Canada as such would likely be just for Canada driving up the production costs. Making a highly dependent relationship to Europe and its fickle economy and arms.
So this would be a niche production line with maybe some parts for international distribution.
Well some want to frame it as breaking reliance on the US really it’s weakening the Canadian F35 production base to shift money around in a performative manner.
F35 is called the “Joint Strike Fighter” for a reason. It’s not “Joint” as in across the US Joint Force its Joint as in the program was designed to Join industrial bases across almost every continent save for Antarctica. Its production system included. Long term after a hypothetical Grippen last unit delivery to Canada. Canadian Companies are still going to be working on F35 components.
“The US could block GE engines” and Canada could block PW engines. Although final assembly is in Connecticut major components of the F135 engine are built in both Canada and Poland. It would take years to replace those components. In the meantime Canada would loose Grippen and F35 well those alternatives also are off the table as the ROK and German and French fighters have US content and the GCAP is still vapor.
This push to Grippen is self defeating at best. It’s giving Canada the best of the worst options and a huge waste of funding and resources as it pushes Canada into paying for a completely separate eco system of parts, arms and infrastructure to maintain a second inferior fighter that will likely cost just as much as F35 if not more.
At worst this creates a self fulfilling proposition of the US becoming a less reliable partner to Canada as they themselves cut ties that bind.
With Globaleye there was some potential positive for Canada due to the host aircraft used being of Bombardier origin. That may also have worked for L3 Harris’s offering too. However the Wedgetail had an advantage in that with an Assured US order it had the Economic cost offsets of knowing the overhead was paid by the USAF and the USAF investment meant it was assured integration into NORAD. This fed into the logic of a NATO and Canadian order. Once the Trump Admin threatened to kill the project that background shifted and put SAAB Globaleye on top. Even with the USAF now back to Wedgetail that move allowed SAAB an assured future
With Grippen Sweden is pushing but they can’t make a performance based argument By the RCAF’s own metrics F35 is the best of the best. It’s proven now globally and blooded in battle with high survival. The economic argument is highly dubious. Although SAAB’s marketing materials push higher speed and cheaper operating costs the speed doesn’t help if it can’t find the target it’s also based on an assumption of load out that operating in the high arctic may not comply with. Its costs often don’t consider factors worked into the US calculations.
So it’s a political argument. The timeline doesn’t work. Setting up a line for Canada will take a decade during which they could place orders and get delivery’s of F35. The Logistics doesn’t work it would require a complete redevelopment of Canadian air bases and tools, an entirely different set of weapons and training. The Threat is a hollow one not from the Trump admin but SAAB and a support base who are more obsessed with a lame duck American government that will end long before they will get so much as a bag of bushings from SAAB. The Block of engines doesn’t make any sense as it would be mutually destructive to both programs putting them both back decades with on the Grippens side the potential to be a complete mission kill. If America blocks F414 SAAB has to launch a completely new engine development program and RR is still connected by America. Meaning a new supplier new R&D and stalling multiple countries procurement for potentially a decade on an already aging design and previous generation fighter.
If America Blocks F414 Canada retaliation on F135 which forces the US to develop an alternative engine. Though work has started on a potential engine replacement for the F135 long term it would need to be rushed and decoupled from any Canadian content. This slams far more countries F35 orders and creates an even bigger problem.
The Argument of America as an unreliable partner is rooted in the current political situation between the two parties which at its core isn’t a unilateral US action. It’s a set of mutual retaliatory measures after failing to comply with the USMCA on Dairy, Forced Labor products import , Back door import annd repackaging and Narcotics enforcement. The latter three issues are not unique to the Northern border but also apply to the Southern even more so. Though the US recently paused the Permanent Joint Board on Defence that was likely in response to lack of momentum in Canadian own military modernization and funding combined which moves at a glacial pace. With recent developments on Canadian-Chinese relations farther raising eyebrows in Washington National Security circles. Outside of this Military to Military still seems to be operating well Pol to Pol are locking Antlers.
Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions
- Thread starter John Fedup
- Start date
I'm not sure I understand this reference. The US has a habit of throwing Canada under the bus on allowing US dairy products into Canada yet the US has never even approached the threshold where Canada would apply tariffs to US dairy products.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
The only real aspect that this large split F-35/Gripen fleet makes sense in is with regard to supporting domestic jobs and building local industry however, I think even that falls apart upon inspection. Gripen E is cheaper in regard to operational costs than the F-35A, but it's initial purchase costs are equal or higher and if we assemble in Canada, they will certainly only go up even more. We would be hitching half of the RCAF's fighter fleet to a platform with few customers, substantial production bottlenecks and questionable long term viability in order to prop up a domestic industry.
The current F-35 delivery timeline claims to have the whole 88 aircraft order delivered to the RCAF between 2032 and 2034, while Saab is going to likely take 5+ years just to set up an assembly facility within Canada. There is no existing expertise in Canada to even assembly 4th generation fighters, this is not an industry you can just swap over from say Bombardier's commercial jet lines with a snap of your fingers. If we assume contract signature in 2026 for work on the facility in Canada ASAP, we're likely going to be waiting until the early 2030's until the factory is ready and starting to deliver aircraft. I should specify as well that Canada is almost certainly getting the same arrangement as Brazil where Gripen parts and equipment are primarily exported from Sweden to Canada, who assembles them into the final product with some limited manufacturing. This is not licensed production and we are not actually building the airframes, thus not truly gaining the real valuable expertise required to go off on our own or be a valuable future partner. If other projects are anything to go off, 5+ years is likely overly optimistic and delays/problems will push this back even further. Saab's Swedish production line is relatively low volume and still has to support Brazil while also making deliveries to Sweden and the few other foreign customers which exist. This process will take time and the high job figures provided are likely a mirage.
So we have an assembly facility operating in the early to mid 2030's, at which point we have the majority of if not the entire F-35A order already delivered to the RCAF. During the run up to this process, we'd likely have to start sending personnel over to Sweden to train on the Gripen and further splinter the training pipelines and personnel pools we already are having issues with. The majority of the fighter force would already be transitioned to the F-35, so we'd be undergoing another transition before the original is even complete. Where are all of these personnel even coming from? We would need to establish more infrastructure as the F-35A and Gripen cannot cohabitate within the same hangers and infrastructures due to security risks. Our current bases cannot handle this many fighters, so there's billions more in expansions, refurbishment of old fields or entirely new airbases. It would likely be into the later 2030's before Gripen's were operational in a useful quantity, and we'd likely be looking at another 5-10 years before we actually got the entire fleet of 72+ Gripens as is being discussed.
Now we're well into the 2040's with a fleet split between the F-35 and the Gripen E, effectively a modernized 4th gen fighter with worse performance in most aspects than the other aircraft in the fleet, having been delivered on a slower timeline and is far less relevant at this point. Gripen E is perfectly fine for the world we face right now, but it will be long past its prime in the late 2030's and into the 2040's when both enemies and allies alike will have heavily proliferated 5th gen stealth fighters and even started adopting 6th gen aircraft at this point. Given the time, effort and money invested into the Gripen at this point in time, Canada would need to operate them for another 25-30 years to make any financial sense. I don't think I have to point out the issues that come from operating an aircraft like the Gripen into the 2050's, 2060's and 2070's+ when aviation as we know it now is rapidly changing. How do we justify this purchase when even heavily modified Chinese and Russian 4th gen fighters can fight on a relatively equal playing field as the Gripen now? What about the SU-57, which is being proliferated abroad to nations like Algeria? What about Chinese 5th generation fighters which will almost surely see major exports in the coming years? What about the multitude of Chinese 6th gen fighters concepts we see flying right now? Our allies in Europe are already moving on right now towards their own 6th generation programs, and we're talking about attaching ourselves to yesterdays aircraft for the foreseeable future at great financial cost and effort?
Why doesn't Canada take the money, effort and time proposed for a Gripen assembly facility and use it to set up our own domestic CCA drone wingman program? We can develop our own platform or license actual full production at home, selling it to our allies abroad and using it ourselves. This would be a more realistic and worthwhile endeavor than the Gripen, given actual realistic export possibilities in comparison. In addition to this, why don't we follow through on our interest in GCAP and procure an actual 6th generation fighter to replace or supplement the F-35? That would provide us with a cutting edge capability going forward that would transition us away from the F-35 when it actually made sense, not now in our current predicament.
This entire saga is a massive boondoggle that seems like it's going to sink the RCAF if it goes through in any of these hypothetical situations. Gripen is not the right aircraft for Canada now or in the future, domestically assembled or not. The world has largely passed the design by, lets move onto greener pastures and not get caught up in Saab's shiny sales brochure. We should be looking forward, not taking a firm step backwards capability wise.
GlobalEye is a far, far more worthwhile and reasonable system for Canada to assemble and operate in comparison.
The current F-35 delivery timeline claims to have the whole 88 aircraft order delivered to the RCAF between 2032 and 2034, while Saab is going to likely take 5+ years just to set up an assembly facility within Canada. There is no existing expertise in Canada to even assembly 4th generation fighters, this is not an industry you can just swap over from say Bombardier's commercial jet lines with a snap of your fingers. If we assume contract signature in 2026 for work on the facility in Canada ASAP, we're likely going to be waiting until the early 2030's until the factory is ready and starting to deliver aircraft. I should specify as well that Canada is almost certainly getting the same arrangement as Brazil where Gripen parts and equipment are primarily exported from Sweden to Canada, who assembles them into the final product with some limited manufacturing. This is not licensed production and we are not actually building the airframes, thus not truly gaining the real valuable expertise required to go off on our own or be a valuable future partner. If other projects are anything to go off, 5+ years is likely overly optimistic and delays/problems will push this back even further. Saab's Swedish production line is relatively low volume and still has to support Brazil while also making deliveries to Sweden and the few other foreign customers which exist. This process will take time and the high job figures provided are likely a mirage.
So we have an assembly facility operating in the early to mid 2030's, at which point we have the majority of if not the entire F-35A order already delivered to the RCAF. During the run up to this process, we'd likely have to start sending personnel over to Sweden to train on the Gripen and further splinter the training pipelines and personnel pools we already are having issues with. The majority of the fighter force would already be transitioned to the F-35, so we'd be undergoing another transition before the original is even complete. Where are all of these personnel even coming from? We would need to establish more infrastructure as the F-35A and Gripen cannot cohabitate within the same hangers and infrastructures due to security risks. Our current bases cannot handle this many fighters, so there's billions more in expansions, refurbishment of old fields or entirely new airbases. It would likely be into the later 2030's before Gripen's were operational in a useful quantity, and we'd likely be looking at another 5-10 years before we actually got the entire fleet of 72+ Gripens as is being discussed.
Now we're well into the 2040's with a fleet split between the F-35 and the Gripen E, effectively a modernized 4th gen fighter with worse performance in most aspects than the other aircraft in the fleet, having been delivered on a slower timeline and is far less relevant at this point. Gripen E is perfectly fine for the world we face right now, but it will be long past its prime in the late 2030's and into the 2040's when both enemies and allies alike will have heavily proliferated 5th gen stealth fighters and even started adopting 6th gen aircraft at this point. Given the time, effort and money invested into the Gripen at this point in time, Canada would need to operate them for another 25-30 years to make any financial sense. I don't think I have to point out the issues that come from operating an aircraft like the Gripen into the 2050's, 2060's and 2070's+ when aviation as we know it now is rapidly changing. How do we justify this purchase when even heavily modified Chinese and Russian 4th gen fighters can fight on a relatively equal playing field as the Gripen now? What about the SU-57, which is being proliferated abroad to nations like Algeria? What about Chinese 5th generation fighters which will almost surely see major exports in the coming years? What about the multitude of Chinese 6th gen fighters concepts we see flying right now? Our allies in Europe are already moving on right now towards their own 6th generation programs, and we're talking about attaching ourselves to yesterdays aircraft for the foreseeable future at great financial cost and effort?
Why doesn't Canada take the money, effort and time proposed for a Gripen assembly facility and use it to set up our own domestic CCA drone wingman program? We can develop our own platform or license actual full production at home, selling it to our allies abroad and using it ourselves. This would be a more realistic and worthwhile endeavor than the Gripen, given actual realistic export possibilities in comparison. In addition to this, why don't we follow through on our interest in GCAP and procure an actual 6th generation fighter to replace or supplement the F-35? That would provide us with a cutting edge capability going forward that would transition us away from the F-35 when it actually made sense, not now in our current predicament.
This entire saga is a massive boondoggle that seems like it's going to sink the RCAF if it goes through in any of these hypothetical situations. Gripen is not the right aircraft for Canada now or in the future, domestically assembled or not. The world has largely passed the design by, lets move onto greener pastures and not get caught up in Saab's shiny sales brochure. We should be looking forward, not taking a firm step backwards capability wise.
GlobalEye is a far, far more worthwhile and reasonable system for Canada to assemble and operate in comparison.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Yes it has, just as so many other things have been. F35’s a highly sophisticated system and it’s not easy with so many things being demanded and added to it. However jumping to Grippen isn’t a solution it’s more complication.
Cost per flight hours has been on the rise in general for all aircraft especially when said aircraft is older and less parts are available.
adding Grippen isn’t going to solve parts inventory or availability it will complicate it. Two completely different supply chains two completely different weapons sets, tools, training manuals, computers, inventory systems.
Most upgrades for F35 are over the air software packages it’s the Tech refresh that slows things down yet those would have just as much if not more of a risk from SAAB. The only absolute solution would be a purely indigenous supply chain and design. Canada hasn’t had that since Convair.
The Question is does Trump’s Hot Air justify Billions of wasted taxpayer money? PMs and POTUs have had some rather loud public spats in the past. Regan and Senior had loud shouting matches. Yet relations warmed. Right now it seems like Carney is trying to offer an Olive Branch. Ultimately Neither Canada nor the US can pull a Bugs bunny gag of Sawing the other off the map. Since the start of the Twentieth Century we are basically doomed to always be each other’s top trade partners. Even if you cruelly inflict Pineapple on Pizza upon the world…
I leave this to the USTR site.
UNITED STATES–MEXICO–CANADA TRADE FACT SHEET Agriculture: Market Access and Dairy Outcomes of the USMC Agreement
The United States, Mexico, and Canada concluded negotiations for a modernized and rebalanced trade agreement on September 30, 2018. The new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) will advance United States agricultural interests in the most important markets for American’s farmers...
At this point Everyone is covered in Wrong.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
America is largely to blame for their current political predicament, considering it was them who started this trade war that has subsequently detonated so many relationships and economies. There are disagreements between the sides present in CUSMA however, rapid firing off tariffs and exploding the diplomatic relationships between all nations present is self destructive and juvenile. Trying to hoist the blame on Canada or anybody else is unserious and I would not attempt to tow the political line of the current US admin here, I don't think people have the time nor patience to deal with it. The China avenue is another disingenuous way to try and hold Canada up as this sneaky and untrustworthy partner, one cannot expect a former ally not to diversify itself when you've threatened them with basically every tool in your toolbox.
Not completely different. AIM-20, AIM-9X, GBU-12 . . . & I don't doubt others.
These are genuinely interesting times. I’m old enough to remember the latter stages of the Cold War, when force structure decisions often reflected a mix of strategic necessity, alliance obligations, and industrial considerations.
During the 1960s through to the early 1980s, Canada operated three different frontline fighter types simultaneously. The CF-101 Voodoo fulfilled NORAD commitments, the CF-104 Starfighter was dedicated to NATO strike roles in Europe, and the CF-5A Freedom Fighter provided additional capacity, both domestically and as a reinforcement contribution to NATO. While the policy environment at the time was undoubtedly complex, the rationale for maintaining three separate fast jet types is not entirely convincing—beyond the clear specialisation the Voodoo offered in the continental air defence role, and possible industrial or commercial motivations.
Australia, by comparison, has more consistently operated two frontline combat types in parallel. This included combinations such as the CAC Sabre with the Canberra bomber, the Mirage III with the Canberra, the interim pairing of Mirage III and F-4E Phantom prior to the arrival of the F-111, and later the classic F/A-18 Hornet alongside the F-111. More recently, we have seen the “stop-gap” Super Hornet and Growler combination bridging to the F-35A.
The key point is that a lack of commonality can be justified—if there is a clear operational or strategic reason for maintaining multiple types. Specialisation, capability gaps, or alliance commitments can all support such decisions, but absent these, the inefficiencies become harder to defend.
Returning to Canada, it is worth noting that both the CF-104 and CF-5A were domestically manufactured and exported. The CF-5A, while not cutting-edge, was widely used by NATO partners as an affordable way to build force numbers. The F-104 itself was also not a long-term frontline aircraft for the USAF, yet found extensive use among allied air forces. There are some familiar echoes here.
This raises an interesting contemporary parallel: if Canadian-built Gripens were to offer meaningful export potential, then the decision to operate more than one fighter type might not be purely about operational requirements. Industrial strategy and export opportunity could once again play a significant role.
Just my two cents.
During the 1960s through to the early 1980s, Canada operated three different frontline fighter types simultaneously. The CF-101 Voodoo fulfilled NORAD commitments, the CF-104 Starfighter was dedicated to NATO strike roles in Europe, and the CF-5A Freedom Fighter provided additional capacity, both domestically and as a reinforcement contribution to NATO. While the policy environment at the time was undoubtedly complex, the rationale for maintaining three separate fast jet types is not entirely convincing—beyond the clear specialisation the Voodoo offered in the continental air defence role, and possible industrial or commercial motivations.
Australia, by comparison, has more consistently operated two frontline combat types in parallel. This included combinations such as the CAC Sabre with the Canberra bomber, the Mirage III with the Canberra, the interim pairing of Mirage III and F-4E Phantom prior to the arrival of the F-111, and later the classic F/A-18 Hornet alongside the F-111. More recently, we have seen the “stop-gap” Super Hornet and Growler combination bridging to the F-35A.
The key point is that a lack of commonality can be justified—if there is a clear operational or strategic reason for maintaining multiple types. Specialisation, capability gaps, or alliance commitments can all support such decisions, but absent these, the inefficiencies become harder to defend.
Returning to Canada, it is worth noting that both the CF-104 and CF-5A were domestically manufactured and exported. The CF-5A, while not cutting-edge, was widely used by NATO partners as an affordable way to build force numbers. The F-104 itself was also not a long-term frontline aircraft for the USAF, yet found extensive use among allied air forces. There are some familiar echoes here.
This raises an interesting contemporary parallel: if Canadian-built Gripens were to offer meaningful export potential, then the decision to operate more than one fighter type might not be purely about operational requirements. Industrial strategy and export opportunity could once again play a significant role.
Just my two cents.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
My primary issue with this idea is that in retrospect, it's a fairly universal fact that the CF-5 was a make work project that was hoisted upon the RCAF, bringing questionable military value. It was an aircraft of dubious potential, although partially saved by existing in a period where it was never forced to fight a meaningful foe. The standards of the era were also much lower regarding what was required to make a workable combat aircraft, although even the CF-5 didn't make par for many of those aspects. Unlike the dirt cheap and simple CF-5, the Gripen E/F has been a pretty resounding export flop and doesn't seem to have any customers besides the Ukrainian "order" (which could disappear any day). As much as Saab likes to claim the opposite, it is a modern fighter aircraft and has a price-tag/operational cost to match. We would be entering into a partnership to assemble an aircraft that has been roundly rejected by almost all of the customers it has attempted to woo, while the world is actively moving on to aircraft types it cannot hope to match even as we speak. How relevant will that same aircraft be in 10, 15, 20 or 25 years given the pace of technological development?
We need to consider what actual objectives are behind this hypothetical Gripen agreement. Export potential? There seems to be minimal. Building military aerospace industry in Canada? Okay, but to what purpose? To design and build our own fighter aircraft? Assembling aircraft is a long ways off from designing or even license producing a 4th generation design, let alone a 5th or 6th generation platform. We would need substantially more funding, time and effort given to build up our industry. To buy a seat at a future Saab aircraft program? Saab is easily the most lacking member of the primary European aerospace giants, so attaching ourselves to the weakest partner seems dubious. To make jobs? There is surely better ways to generate jobs than dumping billions into military make work projects? Sovereignty? Gripen is has US equipment, a US engine and equipment falling under ITAR. They can cut us off from Gripen to effectively the same degree as the F-35 at the end of the day, aircraft cannot fly without engines.
The Canadian Government hasn't seemingly even answered these questions itself, hence why we're seeing so many different potential fleet composition numbers being thrown around in the media. It seems clear somebody is using the media to sound out reaction to various choices, none of them seem particularly worthwhile in my opinion.
If we want to build industry, have a capable/relevant military and be more sovereign, there are ways to do it without shackling ourselves to Saab.
IMO Gripen would have been a good fit if Canada had gone Superhornet.
Same engines:
Hornet->superhornet was specifically designed to be painless. While the superhornet isn't cheap, the transition to superhornets would be fast and cheap in comparison. If global war ever broke out, Canada could literally call on all previous hornet maintainers/pilots and run them through that same program.
With the gripens, I would make them your lead-in jet trainer. With simulators etc these days, that's not an impossible jump. There is a two seat version as well.
I don't think Canada understand sovereignty cohesively. Unless you have your own entire locally developed fighter (and all its subsystems) that isn't going to happen. You can of course make yourself way more independent. With something like Superhornet or gripen, you buy more spare engines, have more airframes to cannibalise if you have to, more spare parts, try to get locally production of common use parts etc. You make alliances with fellow users that could lend spares or even entire airframes.
Same engines:
- Superhornet is a great bomb truck, uses all US weapons for naval strike, twin engine etc. LRASM, AIM174, Aim260, maverick, growler variations. But also austre capability, short field capability. Deliveries would be already happening. They could have stood up a squadron by now.
- Gripen is a smaller light weight fighter, agile, smaller, euro style weapons like meteor. Also cold weather and austere capable. IMO I see it kind of in the vein of a combat capable aircraft, but with trainer running costs.
- No one can really afford large air forces these days, but ~64 SHornet + ~92 Gripen would provide Canada with numbers. It could permanently deploy a Squadron of Gripens to Europe, and support that with a flight of Superhornets. Gripens could provide a great airframe for European NATO training exercises, international integration stuff.
Hornet->superhornet was specifically designed to be painless. While the superhornet isn't cheap, the transition to superhornets would be fast and cheap in comparison. If global war ever broke out, Canada could literally call on all previous hornet maintainers/pilots and run them through that same program.
With the gripens, I would make them your lead-in jet trainer. With simulators etc these days, that's not an impossible jump. There is a two seat version as well.
I don't think Canada understand sovereignty cohesively. Unless you have your own entire locally developed fighter (and all its subsystems) that isn't going to happen. You can of course make yourself way more independent. With something like Superhornet or gripen, you buy more spare engines, have more airframes to cannibalise if you have to, more spare parts, try to get locally production of common use parts etc. You make alliances with fellow users that could lend spares or even entire airframes.
Terran
Well-Known Member
A huge problem with trying to Export the Canadian Gripen is it’s already exported. Not just Sweden either. Remember SAAB made a huge technical transfer to Brazil and Embraer this means that trying to sell Gripens is a stiff competition.
Do you buy CF39 from Canada with a higher price point due to Canadian Overhead costs or F39 from Brazil and it’s much lower potential price? Farther the later is already in production and export with strong potential for the third world who is really the only potential buyers of the type. Otherwise they would be looking at the higher end systems.
It would be one thing if everyone was clambering for Gripens but it’s not exactly selling like hot cakes. The Demand is there for production but three lines? You have it undercut by a number of Modern very effective combat capable light trainers like the F/A 50. You have the restored F16 Block 70/72 production running parallel and Rafael. F15EX, Eurofighter Typoon above that. If you’re not capable of getting any of these due to security you’re not getting Gripen. If you’re ordering Gripen you’re likely not ordering large volumes making additional lines redundant.
Unless Canada basically gives a complete R&D program to develop a Super Gripen or sells them at a huge loss it is impossible to see this justified on that ground.
Do you buy CF39 from Canada with a higher price point due to Canadian Overhead costs or F39 from Brazil and it’s much lower potential price? Farther the later is already in production and export with strong potential for the third world who is really the only potential buyers of the type. Otherwise they would be looking at the higher end systems.
It would be one thing if everyone was clambering for Gripens but it’s not exactly selling like hot cakes. The Demand is there for production but three lines? You have it undercut by a number of Modern very effective combat capable light trainers like the F/A 50. You have the restored F16 Block 70/72 production running parallel and Rafael. F15EX, Eurofighter Typoon above that. If you’re not capable of getting any of these due to security you’re not getting Gripen. If you’re ordering Gripen you’re likely not ordering large volumes making additional lines redundant.
Unless Canada basically gives a complete R&D program to develop a Super Gripen or sells them at a huge loss it is impossible to see this justified on that ground.
Something like a F/A 50 is about half/third the cost of a Gripen. Gripen is slightly cheaper to buy and operate than some other fighters, but only by ~10%. So unless your budget is really tiny, or you have been excluded from buying lead western fighters then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I thought it was cheaper, but looking into it, its still full fighter jet expensive.
I get Brazil, its arguably the most capable fighter in that region. Its the most modern, it can do what Brazil asks of it, and Brazil can make a lot of that plane locally. But Canada isn't Brazil. Thailand as well, as it then sits in that non aligned pool a bit more closely. ~12 fighters. Yes, every dollar counts in that situation, against Burma or Bangladesh etc, a Gripen would be still a very significant plane. They train and operate with the Chinese air force, so modern US fighters are sort of off the table generally for multiple reasons. Its not going to be fighting China nor the US so those type of comparisons aren't really valid.
FA50 are really designed as a companion aircraft For countries operating F-16 fleets. Its like a much cheaper, trainer focused 80% mini F-16. Poland, Thailand and Korea use them that way. Thailand will probably fade out its older F-16 and move them to FA50s.. Indonesia operates theirs out of the same bases with F-16s.
I'm a bit confused on why Canada would be looking at building a force to match something like Brazil. When it could be building a much more capable force, matching something like Australia.
If you are particularly worried about sovereignty and independence (although Canada actually enacting independence from US economically or in any military significant capacity, or even politically is another thing). Front line fighters are probably not the units that will offer huge independence from anyone, but a large stock of Spares and equipment has seen other countries operate US aircraft under complete sanctions for decades.
But Canadian defence budgets aren't really blowing up, despite the rhetoric.
Also with the US alliance the question isn't really are you aligned with America. Its which part of America/what kind of America are you aligned with? Which American defence services, what American defence companies may still be able to support things outside of the US because they are a very international organisation or rely on overseas sales.
I don't think this is a decision being made based on capability or cost.
Its a decision being made to "punish" the United States for how Trump is treating them diplomatically at the moment, plus possibly a continued reaction to the whole situation with the Boeing/C Series saga which led to Bombardier having to sell the program to Airbus at a huge loss (and renaming them to the A220).
As well as Tariffs the US is also doing other thing such as blocking the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge because apparrently the US Government wanted to own a portion of it and getting upset about not enough US Manufactured materials being used in construction. This despite the Canadian Government funding 100% of the construction cost (in the Billions) and then handing over 50% ownership to the state of Michigan at zero cost.
Its a decision being made to "punish" the United States for how Trump is treating them diplomatically at the moment, plus possibly a continued reaction to the whole situation with the Boeing/C Series saga which led to Bombardier having to sell the program to Airbus at a huge loss (and renaming them to the A220).
As well as Tariffs the US is also doing other thing such as blocking the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge because apparrently the US Government wanted to own a portion of it and getting upset about not enough US Manufactured materials being used in construction. This despite the Canadian Government funding 100% of the construction cost (in the Billions) and then handing over 50% ownership to the state of Michigan at zero cost.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Likely to be made even more expensive in the hypothetical Canadian order if they are manufactured in Canada due to the small scale of the order due to the overhead costs.
It’s the F22 delema. The more you build the more you spread out the costs until you hit break even but with less than 100 units each fighter is shouldering considerable cost per unit. If Canada was importing Gripen from Sweden or Brazil then it would be cheaper but reports have been manufacturing. Something that is likely to drive the costs far outside what the actual product is worth. Unless you can export, even then the fact this is already being exported from elsewhere drive the costs up.
So this Export logic fails.
Globaleye it works as everyone is buying Global Express business jets for special mission aircraft including the Koreans and US.
Yet this will end up Punishing the Canadian people more than the US. If anything the only ones who make off from this are the contractors Including GE and SAAB. The Results are going to be an inferior fighter built at multiple times the cost likely making F35As look cheap yet still highly reliant on the US for essential equipment. Sure Sweden helps out and LM looses contracts but so does P&W and the existing Canadian defense sector.
Bombardier’s C/A220 drama weren’t helped by the dispute with the US but at the same time that was more a straw on an already overloaded camel’s back. Bombardier was suffering from its Lear jet program which was falling apart due to low demand, the company had expanded into a wide range of industries and the C Series was not exactly in there experience. Bombardier had even launched the program then paused it for a whole year to relaunch it. At the time other similar programs had collapsed like the SpaceJet. The jet its self would end up years behind schedule and over budget. Bombardier’s history is a long line of “How the does a company that starts with Snowmobiles end up in this heavy industry?!” Because Planes Trains Boats and Automobiles they were everywhere.
The Bridge issue was delayed but last I checked it’s supposed to open the 15th ribbon cutting this Friday. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-to-traffic-canada-detroit-trump/90463427007/
Really for a local product you have to commit to ~200 Fighters. ~300 total gripen, Sweden origional order was 200 aircraft. The F-2 which was heavily based on F-16 was still an order for 100 aircraft and its cost blew out. Anything less than that, its expensive local assembly from knock down kits etc.
The Gripen is an evolution of an already old, low cost, (80s cold war vintage), small platform. Locally assembly isn't going to happen over night and the F-18 are from the early 1980s. F-35 deliveries aren't going to be made faster. Its a great replacement for something like the F-5 which is getting harder to support and is even more ancient. Gripens weren't even popular amongst other scandi/Euro countries.
I still think if this is the platform, then Canada still hasn't ordered enough for robust capability. It should be more like 8. Perhaps with an ELINT version as well.
Also F-35 has its weak spots. Particularly in Blk III configuration. Carrying large weapons negates it stealthy profile, its single engine, it has limited range, its hard to integrate new weapons and systems on, its not going to be a great EW platform because of stealth etc. USN/USAF Is already moving to its new platforms in development so like Blk IV may be cut short and no major upgrades past that. in high tempo global conflict there is a parts supply bottleneck on that platform.
What's Canada's armed drone program like?
Apart from Brazil & Thailand (though the latter is in tiny numbers).
It's fair to say that it has very few export orders, but not none.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,095
I wonder what the consequences are for Canada, Sweden, Germany, Spain, and perhaps others wrt the apparent collapse of FCAS? Does a future alternative gen 5+ or gen 6 program become a possibility? Does a Gripen buy become somewhat more viable for Canada in exchange some involvement in such an undertaking? Same question for GCAP. As I mentioned on the 6th Gen thread, if the F-47 is not on the export table, what about F/A XX for export (assuming it isn't a naval derivation of the F-47)? Surely NG would be interested? Japan and Australia might have seriously considered NG's black widow runner to the Raptor.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH from a military perspective I just do not really see a path for the Gripen to be viable for the RCAF. At this point, the intial entry into Canadian service would likely be in the early 2030's though might also start in the mid-2030's if there is supposed to be domestic Canadian assembly or production. Assuming a planned 25 year service life that would mean that RCAF Gripens would be expected to service until 2060+, depending on exactly when the last ones entered service. I just do not see a 4th or even 4.5 gen fighters being viable in a modern battlespace with 5th, 6th or possibly even later generations of manned fighters as well as unmanned assets.