Gripen or F-35 for Canada?

[viper37]

That should include thinking about how any weapon system will integrate with your likely allies.

Saab has committed to inter-operability with other NATO aircrafts.  There's not much public details beyond this line, however.

[viper37]

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?

we've been on the R&D bandwagon since before it was named "F-35".

Like I said, protectionism.  We got some r&d out of the deal, but producing oversea for oversea commitments is one thing, producing in Canada for the N/A market wasn't an option.
That's why the Grippen makes sense, economically speaking.

[Razgovory]

I don't know much about the Gripen, but I'm willing to bet the names means "Griffon".

[mongers]

I don't know much about the Gripen, but I'm willing to bet the names means "Griffon".

No it was named in tribute to Sweden's most popular biro, much cherished by the older generation.

[grumbler]

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.

The Gripen F has not yet competed its development (and has had to drop out of several competitions for that reason).  If getting a plane sooner is a consideration, the Gripen is out.  The F-35 is in full-scale production with hundreds of delivered units.

The Gripen is, as you note, cheaper (at least in fuel costs) than the F-35, and certainly doesn't require the same level of runway size or support as the F-35.  But the F-35 carries better weapons with superior air-to-ground avionics.  The Gripen cannot carry more weapons than the F-35.  They are about the same in total loadout.  The F-35 can, as you note, carry weapons and still be stealthy.  The Gripen cannot be at all stealthy even without any weapons.

[grumbler]

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 Gripen F is a brand-new airframe much larger than the widely-deployed C and E versions.  It is still the same design concept, but embiggened and with new avionics.  The downside to it is that it is a fourth generation airframe still, even if it has fifth-generation avionics.

[grumbler]

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/

That's not the Gripen Canada is looking to buy.  And the cost part is inaccurate for both the F-35 and the new Gripen F (though it may be for the Gripen D it is using in its comparison).

There's a reason that everyone who's had to make the choice between the two has chosen the F-35.  That reason may not apply to Canada, but no one has found the Gripen F to be cheaper in lifecycle costs than the F-35.

[11B4V]

Just make your own. Oh, wait never mind 

[HisMajestyBOB]

Just make your own. Oh, wait never mind 

It's not too hard.

[Berkut]

Currently it is absolutely combat ready. That is simply not true to state otherwise.

I find it interesting that your "evidence" that the aircraft  "ain't combat ready" is that a simulator is not ready! Well done. Did you actually read the article or just the headline?

And if it *currently* performs at at a 4.5gen level, then by definition that is already superior to a 4th gen level....right?

And what is the Gripen? Oh right...a 4th gen fighter.

And yes, lord knows there has never once been a common frame for both carrier and non-carrier variants that was a successful fighter. F-4 Phantom? What a piece of shit that was.

I like that you look at a comparison page, say you "like it" and then conclude from it that absent stealth (which shows how little you understand what the 5th+ gen combat environment looks like - stealth IS the 5th+ gen combat environment) the Gripen is better....when the comparison you cite does not say that at all.

Instead, it says that the F-35 beats Gripen in nearly every single category that is relevant:

Better BVR
Better Avionics
Better Tech
Better radar
Better defense

I guess this just goes back to your previous comment: You like the Gripen because you imagine buying it might piss off the Americans. Which is rather amusing in and of itself, but a bit pathetic.

If the cost per plane is similar, this is not an even close competition.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Gripen is faster and has a better rate of climb in the comparison, which may be relevant if it is primarily intended to be used in an interceptor role.  The fancy tech of the F-35 may be less relevant if the goal is taking on 1980s vintage late-Soviet era bombers.

[grumbler]

The Gripen F (not the Gripen in the page viper linked to; that's a Gripen D) is a fourth-generation fighter with fifth-generation avionics.  Fifth Gen isn't just stealth, it is also avionics:  genuine BVR engagement capability, networked sensors, passive detection capability, glass cockpit, solid-state avionics throughout, digital architecture, and more.

The Gripen F will probably match the F-35 in terms of avionics for air-to-air combat (though not air-to-ground), and, while not stealthy, is probably as good or better against bombers (except for the shorter range).  It is also more agile, but agile is meaningless against bombers.

It is highly amusing that viper wants to reject the F-35 because it hasn't yet passed tests that the Gripen won't even try to pass.

If the costs are, indeed, in favor of the F-35 as the Swiss and Finns have found, then the only real reason to buy the more limited Gripen is the "Mostly Made in Canada" label... which, for political reasons, may be enough to tip the scales.  As I have said, I don't think that that would be a serious mistake, if it is a mistake at all.

[PRC]

The "Made in Canada" label doesn't always work out well.  BC Fast Ferries anyone?

[Berkut]

The Gripen is faster and has a better rate of climb in the comparison, which may be relevant if it is primarily intended to be used in an interceptor role.  The fancy tech of the F-35 may be less relevant if the goal is taking on 1980s vintage late-Soviet era bombers.

I suspect the goal is a multi role fighter capable of surviving in a modern, high threat SAM environment while still delivering a payload on target. The "fancy tech" of the F-35 might be useful there.

If this was for a pure interceptor, the F-35 makes very little sense at all, since it isn't an interceptor at all.

[Zoupa]

The Gripen is faster and has a better rate of climb in the comparison, which may be relevant if it is primarily intended to be used in an interceptor role.  The fancy tech of the F-35 may be less relevant if the goal is taking on 1980s vintage late-Soviet era bombers.

I suspect the goal is a multi role fighter capable of surviving in a modern, high threat SAM environment while still delivering a payload on target.

What do you base this on exactly?