Gripen or F-35 for Canada?

[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.

What do you base this on exactly?

Just a wild guess.

Do you have some information I do not, that suggests that they are not looking for that kind of capability?

[Zoupa]

None, but I'm not the one making the claim.

[Zoupa]

The "modern, high threat SAM" part I don't see. Who is Canada going to attack in this scenario?

[Berkut]

The "modern, high threat SAM" part I don't see. Who is Canada going to attack in this scenario?

High threat SAMs are nearly ubiquitous these days. A repeat of the Gulf War, for example, would be one such scenario.

If the West got involved in a shooting confrontation with Russia or China in the next 20+ years would be another.

Hell, if the West got into a shooting war with North Korea, for that matter.

Or if Canada wanted to be involved in any kind of regional conflict beyond bombing some third world terrorists.

[Jacob]

The "modern, high threat SAM" part I don't see. Who is Canada going to attack in this scenario?

Whoever the US is attacking, because we've decided to support them in the war they're fighting... possibly for very good reasons. Whatever forces NATO is attacking in response to article 5 being invoked.

Personally, I think Canada should be able to contribute meaningfully if - say - Russia does something stupid in the Baltics or if China decides to start something with Taiwan - even if I hope that such scenarios never come to pass.

[Berkut]

The "modern, high threat SAM" part I don't see. Who is Canada going to attack in this scenario?

Hey Zoups, here is a bit dated, but pretty good article that goes into some of the "why a new fighter?" questions:

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/canadas-jet-fighter-purchase-decision-planes-prices-politics

There are four major purposes for which Canada needs a fighter: protecting its airspace, notably the Arctic, from a foreign aggressor, (i.e. Russia) either in a genuine war or just deterring it from peacetime intrusions; participating in NATO's traditional deterrence mission, again against Russia, as, for example through Canada's participation in Baltic and Black Sea air patrols; participating in coalitions against smaller states, such as its actions in Serbia, Libya and Iraq/Syria; and lastly joining with the United States in protecting North America against 9/11-type terrorism.

The last two missions do not *strictly* need a JSF for sure. But then....those missions don't need a Gripen either.

I am trying to figure out what missions the Gripen is just plain better at, and the only thing I can think of is the pure interceptor mission, and even then....it's likely not better, just not as significantly worse.

Stealth is everything. RCS is critical. A JSF has something like 1/100th the RCS of the Gripen. That is rather useful in nearly any mission where there is a credible bad guy beyond some insurgents toting a RPG (which isn't a threat anyway).

[Berkut]

The "modern, high threat SAM" part I don't see. Who is Canada going to attack in this scenario?

Whoever the US is attacking, because we've decided to support them in the war they're fighting... possibly for very good reasons. Whatever forces NATO is attacking in response to article 5 being invoked.

Personally, I think Canada should be able to contribute meaningfully if - say - Russia does something stupid in the Baltics or if China decides to start something with Taiwan - even if I hope that such scenarios never come to pass.

How much of a debate is there in Canada about whether or not Canada should even concern itself with the capability to participate in a US or NATO action in the future?

I mean...Mexico doesn't have any such capability, right? Why should Canada?

[Berkut]

I wonder if Boeing would sell the F-15EX to Canada, if Canada wanted an actual air superiority fighter and was not concerned about stealth?


A mix of F-15EX and F-35s would be rather potent at both close air support and air superiority, where the F-35s ability to manage the battlespace combined with the F-15 IIs insane payload would be rather dominating.


But I suppose mixing two purchases would just be too much, I suspect....

[Jacob]

How much of a debate is there in Canada about whether or not Canada should even concern itself with the capability to participate in a US or NATO action in the future?

I mean...Mexico doesn't have any such capability, right? Why should Canada?

I don't think there's much debate, honestly. In my view - but this is a sense more than something that's explicitly stated - Canada is pretty committed to the idea of being there when needed. We're proud of our peace keeping contributions, we're proud of our WWII contributions, and - I think - if we separate the "was it a good idea to be there in the first place" and "was it worth the cost" from "we are pulling our fair share" then I think we are also proud of our contributions in the Gulf War and Afghanistan.

That doesn't mean there aren't voices that suggest we shouldn't have those capabilities - I'm sure there are. And there are definitely arguments about where we should put our resources and even more definitely about when we should contribute. But I don't think a "let's not bother with overseas capability" argument has any traction whatsoever. Canada's national identity came significantly out of our WWI contributions. WWII built on that. I don't think we are going to walk away from that general sentiment anytime soon.

[Berkut]

How much of a debate is there in Canada about whether or not Canada should even concern itself with the capability to participate in a US or NATO action in the future?

I mean...Mexico doesn't have any such capability, right? Why should Canada?

I don't think there's much debate, honestly. In my view - but this is a sense more than something that's explicitly stated - Canada is pretty committed to the idea of being there when needed. We're proud of our peace keeping contributions, we're proud of our WWII contributions, and - I think - if we separate the "was it a good idea to be there in the first place" and "was it worth the cost" from "we are pulling our fair share" then I think we are also proud of our contributions in the Gulf War and Afghanistan.

That doesn't mean there aren't voices that suggest we shouldn't have those capabilities - I'm sure there are. And there are definitely arguments about where we should put our resources and even more definitely about when we should contribute. But I don't think a "let's not bother with overseas capability" argument has any traction whatsoever. Canada's national identity came significantly out of our WWI contributions. WWII built on that. I don't think we are going to walk away from that general sentiment anytime soon.

OK, that is kind of what I imagined the sentiment to be, but I know my view of it is rather colored, of course.

[grumbler]

I wonder if Boeing would sell the F-15EX to Canada, if Canada wanted an actual air superiority fighter and was not concerned about stealth?

The F-15 is a very expensive plane to operate.  The EX makes sense for a country already flying the F-15C, but probably not so much for anyone that would have to create the F-15 support infrastructure.

If Canada just wants an air superiority fighter, the F-22 could be had for a mere US$300M per airframe and $50,000 per flight hour.  You could only buy maybe 25 of them for the price of 88 F-35s, but 25 F-22s are infinitely better in air-to-air than 88 F-35As or Gripen E/Fs.

[crazy canuck]

The "modern, high threat SAM" part I don't see. Who is Canada going to attack in this scenario?

Whoever the US is attacking, because we've decided to support them in the war they're fighting... possibly for very good reasons. Whatever forces NATO is attacking in response to article 5 being invoked.

Personally, I think Canada should be able to contribute meaningfully if - say - Russia does something stupid in the Baltics or if China decides to start something with Taiwan - even if I hope that such scenarios never come to pass.

How much of a debate is there in Canada about whether or not Canada should even concern itself with the capability to participate in a US or NATO action in the future?

I mean...Mexico doesn't have any such capability, right? Why should Canada?

As Jacob said, this barely registers as a story here.  But my explanation for why that is differs from Jacobs.  We have been hearing about the need to upgrade our fighters for I don't know how long.  It seems like I have been hearing about these sorts of plans since forever.  I suspect that most Canadians just view this as more talk unlikely to result in much if any action.

In line with what you had linked earlier in thread, here is another story regarding the priorities for the fighter when all the presentations were made to the competing manufacturers - interoperability with both NORAD and NATO.  And as the article points out, what better fighter to integrate with the US than a fighter used by the US.  For me that is the clincher.  Like Jacob, I hope they actually do it this time, one way or the other.

As for why Mexico doesn't have such a capability, they don't face a common enemy with high tech fighters.

Here is the link to the article

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/08/canada-fighter-jets-510804

[The Minsky Moment]

If Canada just wants an air superiority fighter, the F-22 could be had for a mere US$300M per airframe and $50,000 per flight hour.

Wouldn't they have to restart the production line?  That would add some more cost.

[grumbler]

If Canada just wants an air superiority fighter, the F-22 could be had for a mere US$300M per airframe and $50,000 per flight hour.

Wouldn't they have to restart the production line?  That would add some more cost.

That includes restarting the production line, supposedly.  That's the per-plane cost for the USAF to buy aircraft to replace the five lost so far.

[Berkut]

Apparently LM canibalized most of the F-22 production lines to build F-35s. So yeah....re-starting those doesn't make much sense at this point.

The USAF has a new program for another superadvancednextgenairdominacewhizbang solution....