Gripen or F-35 for Canada?

[Jacob]

Canada is looking to replace its aging fighter fleet. Boeing has been ruled out, as not meeting requirements, leaving two competitors. Lockheed-Martin with the F-35 and Saab with Gripen.

Getting the F-35 seems brings the advantages of closer interoperability with America's armed forces, as well as maintaining good relations with Canada's most important ally and trade partner.

Saab, however, presents a situation where a much larger part of the manufacturing and assembly will happen in Canada. As well, the intellectual property related to supplying and maintaining Gripen will apparently be handed over to Canada. This is potentially fairly attractive. But is this enough to make them competitive?

Article here on the CBC.

Of course, there's also a chance that somehow politics makes a decision maker decide that buying new fighter jets is a waste of money and we don't buy any.

What do you think Canada will do (subject of the poll)?

What should Canada buy (or not)?

[Berkut]

It seems hard to compare them. The Gripen is what....30 years old now? Its a lightweight, 4th gen fighter.

The F-35 is radically superior, but has to cost several times what a Gripen costs, right? Is the choice between 30 F35s and 100 Gripens? That would be the only metric I could imagine from a capability standpoint that would make sense to ever consider the Gripen.

And if you are considering a 30 year old 4th gen fighter....why the Gripen to begin with? There are a LOT of options in that category.

[The Brain]

Buying Swedish would be a nice fuck you to the Danes in the ongoing conflict.

[Tamas]

I guess it depends on what the intentions are? If "just" for Canada to do their bit for their allies around the world, or to do limited strikes against Danes and Russians than F-35. If it's an airforce to win a war defending the home soil on their own then probably F-16s because it can be about as good as the Grippen and is produced next door, not across the ocean.

[Josquius]

Considering possible threats to Canada buying American would perhaps piss America off less. On the other hand it would mean they're vulnerable if America flips.

[The Brain]

Yes. On the relevant timescale Canada has to plan for war with the US.

[mongers]

Canada needs to be ready with the right military forces to defend the border from the hordes of American refugees fleeing a 2nd Trump Jnr. presidency.

[Threviel]

The obvious choice ought to be F-35. Superior air plane and the Finns showed that it needn't be more expensive. So my money is on Canada choosing Gripen.

[grumbler]

It seems hard to compare them. The Gripen is what....30 years old now? Its a lightweight, 4th gen fighter.

The F-35 is radically superior, but has to cost several times what a Gripen costs, right? Is the choice between 30 F35s and 100 Gripens? That would be the only metric I could imagine from a capability standpoint that would make sense to ever consider the Gripen.

And if you are considering a 30 year old 4th gen fighter....why the Gripen to begin with? There are a LOT of options in that category.

The contract will be for 88 aircraft, and the estimated price is US$11B - 14B, with no breakdown of cost per aircraft. The Finnish competition between the two saw the winning LM bid at US$82M per aircraft, while Saab's best offer was $85 million per aircraft.  So, they are comparable in purchase cost (at least in the out years when the F-35 will enjoy economies of scale the Gripen cannot).

The new Gripen is a much improved version of the existing Gripen, but is still based on a design that entered service almost 30 years ago.  Saab claims that its EW system is so good that it doesn't need stealth, but that's a very questionable claim.  Low RCS is low RCS, and EW is EW.  The F-35 can have both, the Gripen just the latter.

The Gripen will cost probably a third as much per flight hour, but both he Swiss and Finns found that overall lifecycle costs actually favored the F-35.. 

The Gripen is also designed as a lightweight fighter with some air-to-ground capability, and can carry pretty equivalent ordnance to the F-35, though all of it external (meaning huge RCS).  The F-35 is optimized for the air-to-ground role with an air-to-air capability.  The Gripen is much lighter (14k kg max takeoff versus 31k kg ) so is faster at about 1500 mph compared to the F-35's 1200 mph, but has only half the gas load and about 2/3 the range in air-to-air mode, a bit more than 1/2 the range in air-to-ground.

The F-35 has won procurement competitions from the Gripen in Switzerland and Finland.  I am unaware of any Gripen wins in such competitions.

If Canada want just an air defense fighter, then the Gripen is probably worth looking at.  If they want a more versatile aircraft able to support ground forces overseas, then the Lightning II is probably the better buy.  Certainly, the F-35, as a fifth generation fighter, is more future-proof.

I voted lightning II, but it would not be a huge mistake to buy the Gripen.

[Grey Fox]

The solution was and still remain to get our panties out of the twist and buy a Boeing made fighter.

[Berkut]

Why did they ditch Boeing?

[Razgovory]

I'd purchase the cheaper one.  Unless you plan to fight top of the line fighters you don't need to buy top of the line fighters.

[Berkut]

I'd purchase the cheaper one.  Unless you plan to fight top of the line fighters you don't need to buy top of the line fighters.

As I understand it, this is intended to replace and augment the Canadian commitment to NORAD. By definition, this includes the ability to defend North American airspace. The potential adversaries involved in that (Russia previously, but China more currently) does in fact suggest the need for top of the line fighters.

[mongers]

I'd purchase the cheaper one.  Unless you plan to fight top of the line fighters you don't need to buy top of the line fighters.

As I understand it, this is intended to replace and augment the Canadian commitment to NORAD. By definition, this includes the ability to defend North American airspace. The potential adversaries involved in that (Russia previously, but China more currently) does in fact suggest the need for top of the line fighters.

You traitor, the answer is as clear as the nose on your face.

Or should I say as clear as your name?

[grumbler]

Why did they ditch Boeing?

Still pissed over the Bombardier thing, would be my guess.

Not that the Super Hornet can really compete with the Gripen for land-based use anyway.