Gripen or F-35 for Canada?

[grumbler]

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.

I'm struggling to see a mission for fighters in the defense of North America.  Even if the Russians have more than a handful of their 16-total-force Blackjack bomber fleet available, they are not what will be coming over the pole.  What will be coming is ICBMs, which no fighter can intercept.  The Canadians will want fighters because fighter-bombers are part of any conventional warfare package.

Which plane is "cheapest" isn't clear,  even when you look only at procurement costs.

[Zoupa]

Just keep the old ones. I'd invest in the Navy and more soldiers, not planes. Build a permanent base in the Arctic, a deepwater port and establish a presence in the NW passage.

[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.

I'm struggling to see a mission for fighters in the defense of North America.  Even if the Russians have more than a handful of their 16-total-force Blackjack bomber fleet available, they are not what will be coming over the pole.  What will be coming is ICBMs, which no fighter can intercept.  The Canadians will want fighters because fighter-bombers are part of any conventional warfare package.

This is an argument around whether or not the NORAD mission is still relevant.

My point was simply responding to an article I read that highlighted the intention of fulfilling the NORAD mission (however it is defined now versus how it ought to be designed) as being the purpose behind this specific procurement. These are not meant to be just "generic" aircraft being added to the Canadian force pool. It is intended, at least in part, to be intended for a very specific mission.

[The Minsky Moment]

These are not meant to be just "generic" aircraft being added to the Canadian force pool. It is intended, at least in part, to be intended for a very specific mission.

That would seem to tip things more to the Gripen side . . . though I share grumbler's skepticism re the relevance of the mission.

[viper37]

The F-35 is the superior combat plane, no doubt about it. But it ain't there yet, unfortunately.

Canada will need a replacement fighter very soon, unless we want a repeat of the Sea King fiasco.

The F-35 has a lot of interesting things, but it is not ready for mass deployment right now.  They're still ironing the bugs out of it, and the heads up display, its best feature, is still problematic, last I heard.

If it were feature complete and bug free right now, I'd not hesitate a second.

The Grippen has some advantages, mainly, an apparent reduction in maintenance cost, and it can do with a smaller airstrip than the F-35, which could be of use for some missions.  Not that much, since we'll likely end up sharing
airbases with the Americans using the F-35...  But still, it's a thing.

The Grippen has more armament and a longer range than the F-35, something to consider as well.  To maintain stealth, the F-35 has to fly with reduced armament.

Also, that would piss off the US and show them that über protectionism has a cost.  That alone might be worth going for the Grippen.

[Sheilbh]

My instinct is always the option with domestic manufacturing in the modern world - but that's just me

[Berkut]

I can definitely see how pissing off the US is a important benefit for many on the internet.

[Jacob]

I can definitely see how pissing off the US is a important benefit for many on the internet.

I *think* Viper's point is that - in his view - the US has been more protectionist than average recently, so going with the non-US plane is a reasonable response.

Personally, I think in terms of maintaining the relationship we're better off going with a conciliatory approach and for that reason I think - barring weird personality clashes or SNAFUs - that we'll go with the F-35.

I don't know enough about things to make a call as to which will be the better plane for Canada, but I am sympathetic to the domestic manufacturing and the "we need the plane now, not later" arguments in favour of Gripen. That said personally I'm not sure that outweighs the importance of remaining aligned and integrated with our closest ally.

[Berkut]

The F-35 is the superior combat plane, no doubt about it. But it ain't there yet, unfortunately.

Canada will need a replacement fighter very soon, unless we want a repeat of the Sea King fiasco.

The F-35 has a lot of interesting things, but it is not ready for mass deployment right now.  They're still ironing the bugs out of it, and the heads up display, its best feature, is still problematic, last I heard.

If it were feature complete and bug free right now, I'd not hesitate a second.

There are over 600 delivered F-35s across 21 bases and like 10 other countries.

It is still certainly ironing out plenty of bugs. But they are in fact operational today in the hundreds.

The idea you should buy a 30 year old airframe because the modern one is still working out bugs betrays a rather profound lack of understanding about how these systems work, and a lack of understanding about how modernized 3 decade old platforms will have bugs as well.

The HUD has problems? OK - instead buy a plane that lacks the capability altogether, rather then one that is working out the bugs in generationally advanced systems? Isn't stealth that is 75% as effective as hoped (and no reason to suspect the final 25% won't be achieved) definitionally better then not having stealth at all? Isn't no stealth the ultimate "bug"? Is a helmet HUD that is working out the kinks in a system that is ten times more effective better then a HUD from 30 years ago that works perfectly at doing 1/10th as much?

That makes no sense at all.

There are arguments to be made about the F-35. The claim that they aircraft is not operational though is simply not true. There are several thousand pilots flying several hunded planes every single day who would dispute that armchair analysis.

If anyone is interested, here is an interesting article about the F-35 cockpit and the helmet mounted "HUD".

https://hushkit.net/2021/01/21/what-is-good-and-bad-about-the-f-35-cockpit-a-panthers-pilots-guide-to-modern-cockpits/

[Berkut]

I can definitely see how pissing off the US is a important benefit for many on the internet.

I *think* Viper's point is that - in his view - the US has been more protectionist than average recently, so going with the non-US plane is a reasonable response.

Personally, I think in terms of maintaining the relationship we're better off going with a conciliatory approach and for that reason I think - barring weird personality clashes or SNAFUs - that we'll go with the F-35.

I don't know enough about things to make a call as to which will be the better plane for Canada, but I am sympathetic to the domestic manufacturing and the "we need the plane now, not later" arguments in favour of Gripen. That said personally I'm not sure that outweighs the importance of remaining aligned and integrated with our closest ally.

I think the decision should be about 90% based on a sober analysis of which aircraft fits the needs of the Canadian military overall. That should include thinking about how any weapon system will integrate with your likely allies.

Remaining aligned should be the outcome of a good relationship, not the driver of a decision.

Remaining well integrated is, however, a huge concern, IMO.

[Razgovory]

I can definitely see how pissing off the US is a important benefit for many on the internet.

I don't think we will be pissed off much.  We aren't France, for God's sake.

[Berkut]

I can definitely see how pissing off the US is a important benefit for many on the internet.

I don't think we will be pissed off much.  We aren't France, for God's sake.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering *when* they could even deliver another 88 F-35s. I think LM is building just under 200/year. I wonder when a F35 ordered today would actually get delivered?

Italy is getting 90 total, and they actually have an assembly facility in Italy. I am surprised that wasn't on the plate for Canada....maybe too late to the game?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the decision should be about 90% based on a sober analysis of which aircraft fits the needs of the Canadian military overall.

I agree but it's not 100% clear what that is.  If the mission really is chasing around Tu-160s in the vicinity of the Arctic Circle then it seems like the Gripen would be a good option but it's hard to see how that mission would justify the level of investment being discussed.  If it is just to "be prepared" for whatever unexpected contingency arises than the F-35 would seem better but again that is a lot to pay for such an amorphous purpose.

[viper37]

I can definitely see how pissing off the US is a important benefit for many on the internet.

yes

[viper37]

The F-35 is the superior combat plane, no doubt about it. But it ain't there yet, unfortunately.

Canada will need a replacement fighter very soon, unless we want a repeat of the Sea King fiasco.

The F-35 has a lot of interesting things, but it is not ready for mass deployment right now.  They're still ironing the bugs out of it, and the heads up display, its best feature, is still problematic, last I heard.

If it were feature complete and bug free right now, I'd not hesitate a second.

There are over 600 delivered F-35s across 21 bases and like 10 other countries.

It is still certainly ironing out plenty of bugs. But they are in fact operational today in the hundreds.

The idea you should buy a 30 year old airframe because the modern one is still working out bugs betrays a rather profound lack of understanding about how these systems work, and a lack of understanding about how modernized 3 decade old platforms will have bugs as well.

The HUD has problems? OK - instead buy a plane that lacks the capability altogether, rather then one that is working out the bugs in generationally advanced systems? Isn't stealth that is 75% as effective as hoped (and no reason to suspect the final 25% won't be achieved) definitionally better then not having stealth at all? Isn't no stealth the ultimate "bug"? Is a helmet HUD that is working out the kinks in a system that is ten times more effective better then a HUD from 30 years ago that works perfectly at doing 1/10th as much?

That makes no sense at all.

There are arguments to be made about the F-35. The claim that they aircraft is not operational though is simply not true. There are several thousand pilots flying several hunded planes every single day who would dispute that armchair analysis.

If anyone is interested, here is an interesting article about the F-35 cockpit and the helmet mounted "HUD".

https://hushkit.net/2021/01/21/what-is-good-and-bad-about-the-f-35-cockpit-a-panthers-pilots-guide-to-modern-cockpits/

The stealthy F-35 jet may not complete its most critical stage of combat testing until about September 2022, the latest in a series of delays that has set America's most expensive weapons program back by years, Pentagon officials were told last month.
[...]
The simulator testing is meant to determine how the fighter will perform against the most advanced Russian and Chinese aircraft and air defenses. It's a key benchmark in a program that's been a work in progress for two decades.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/crucial-f-35-combat-test-could-be-delayed-until-late-in-2022

Currently, it ain't combat ready and performs less than 4.5Gen combat aircrafts in combat simulations.

The main problem with the F-35 is that it overdelivered on one big promise: a one size fit all frame for VTLO, aircraft carrier and regular landings.

Regulard landings and a/c can be made compatible without too much problem.  But the F-35 had to sacrifice one engine to achieve VTOL capacity and keep everything else.

Less payload, less speed, less range.

If stealth is truly working as advertized, it's a decent compromise, since the plane will be able to down other aircrafts before they see it and avoid detection by ground-based radars.  Useful against portable SAM sites and quite possibly individual rocket launchers like various extremists in the middle east would use.

Canada can't have 3-4 different model of aircrafts like the US, we can only have one multipurpose aircraft.

If the F-35 can deliver on all its promise, sure, it's the best choice.  Right now, it isn't.
There are still critical defiencies that have yet to be resolved.  Will they be?  That is the big question.  The next big question is when.  If the F-35 is only combat operational and deliverable to Canada by 2025, it's a couple of years late, but we can still manage the costs.  If it's 2030, it's way too late.

Honestly, the end of development has been around the corner for the last decade, and it's still not ready.

I liked this site's comparison, but I don't know how accurate the cost part is:
https://aviatia.net/saab-gripen-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/

There's also a comparison between the F-35 and the Rafale:
https://aviatia.net/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/

Basically, without stealth, the Rafale is the superior plane.  Stealth is certainly a game changer, but eventually, it will depend on the price of the offers.

Rafale is not an option for Canada, since France has zero interest in sharing its technology with us and having the aircrafts built here.

Economically speaking, Grippen would be a solid choice, due to technology transfer and the promise to invest in future technology development here.  It's a better deal than the one we have with Lockheed Martin, even though part of the R&D is done here.  So, Grippen would be a wise bet for the future.

Where will the contract go: most likely the F-35.

Where it should go: I'm still on the fence.  Grippen is certainly a good choice for Canada, even if not stealth.  I guess we'll have to wait a little longer and have some faith in the military to make the proper choice, considering all variables.