Languish.org

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. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-fighter-jets-defence-1.6296021)

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)?

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.

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

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. :P

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:19:15 AM
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.

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

Why did they ditch Boeing?

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2022, 10:38:55 AM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 12:19:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2022, 10:38:55 AM
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?

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 10:26:26 AM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 12:19:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2022, 10:38:55 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2022, 01:53:29 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 12:19:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2022, 10:38:55 AM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 02:20:17 PM
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.

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.

My instinct is always the option with domestic manufacturing in the modern world - but that's just me :ph34r:

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

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:08:30 PM
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.

Quote from: viper37 on January 04, 2022, 02:45:46 PM
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/

Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2022, 03:17:14 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:08:30 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:08:30 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2022, 04:04:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:08:30 PM
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?

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:34:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:08:30 PM
I can definitely see how pissing off the US is a important benefit for many on the internet.

yes :P

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:32:06 PM

Quote from: viper37 on January 04, 2022, 02:45:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:34:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 04:19:49 PM

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.

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

Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2022, 08:59:20 PM
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.

Quote from: viper37 on January 04, 2022, 02:45:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 03:32:06 PM
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.

Quote from: viper37 on January 04, 2022, 08:05:59 PM
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.

Just make your own. Oh, wait never mind  :P

Quote from: 11B4V on January 04, 2022, 11:31:19 PM
Just make your own. Oh, wait never mind  :P

It's not too hard.
(https://i.redd.it/ebzdc1h96k601.jpg)

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 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.

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.

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2022, 10:06:08 AM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 10:56:07 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2022, 10:06:08 AM
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?

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:02:02 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 10:56:07 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2022, 10:06:08 AM
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?

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

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

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:44:03 AM
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.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:44:03 AM
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.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:44:03 AM
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

QuoteThere 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).

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2022, 11:54:11 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:44:03 AM
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?

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....

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 12:03:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2022, 12:14:05 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 12:03:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 12:06:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 12:03:01 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2022, 11:54:11 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:44:03 AM
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

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2022, 12:30:21 PM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2022, 02:03:24 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2022, 12:30:21 PM
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.

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....

Yeah, the number I spitballed for the F-22 included restarting the production line (the estimate was about $250m each for 72 five years ago.

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2022, 11:54:11 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:44:03 AM
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.

It is hard to imagine scenario where Canada goes to war and the US does not.  Unless the US leaves NATO.  I didn't think of that scenario before, but since it is possibility you might want the best plane you can get.

Well the only time Canada has ever declared war on anybody was in 1939 right? Didn't have the US that time.

Going to war and declaring war are not the same thing.

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Going to war and declaring war are not the same thing.

Canada didn't go to war in WWII?

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2022, 05:19:25 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Going to war and declaring war are not the same thing.

Canada didn't go to war in WWII?

I think the point is that you may fight military actions - going to war - without declaring war.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2022, 04:03:13 PM
It is hard to imagine scenario where Canada goes to war and the US does not.  Unless the US leaves NATO.  I didn't think of that scenario before, but since it is possibility you might want the best plane you can get.

Canada occasionally puts our military in harms way in contexts where the US is not directly involved, usually under the auspices of the UN; Rwanda springs to mind.

But yeah, mostly we're pretty closely aligned with the US.

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2022, 05:34:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2022, 05:19:25 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Going to war and declaring war are not the same thing.

Canada didn't go to war in WWII?

I think the point is that you may fight military actions - going to war - without declaring war.

Canada did both.  Without the US - which is part of the answer to whether Canada would ever go to war without the US. 

In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2022, 05:49:22 PM
In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2022, 05:47:55 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2022, 04:03:13 PM
It is hard to imagine scenario where Canada goes to war and the US does not.  Unless the US leaves NATO.  I didn't think of that scenario before, but since it is possibility you might want the best plane you can get.

Canada occasionally puts our military in harms way in contexts where the US is not directly involved, usually under the auspices of the UN; Rwanda springs to mind.

But yeah, mostly we're pretty closely aligned with the US.

There is a always a possibility that Canada will want to go it alone for a political reason (such as Britain in the Falklands), but the chances of it are very unlikely. The possibility that he US will not be in NATO in the future are less unlikely.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2022, 07:05:08 PM
There is a always a possibility that Canada will want to go it alone for a political reason (such as Britain in the Falklands), but the chances of it are very unlikely. The possibility that he US will not be in NATO in the future are less unlikely.

For sure. One can imagine scenarios, but they're significantly less likely than ones where Canada enters the action alongside the US.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2022, 07:05:08 PM
There is a always a possibility that Canada will want to go it alone for a political reason (such as Britain in the Falklands), but the chances of it are very unlikely. The possibility that he US will not be in NATO in the future are less unlikely.

Or a risk of an intra-NATO Denmark-Canada conflict which the US will sit out, like it does when Greece and Turkey go at it :ph34r:

Jacob would be in an internment camp.  :cry:

Quote from: alfred russel on January 06, 2022, 07:23:48 AM
Jacob would be in an internment camp.  :cry:

:huh:  He is not an intern.

Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2022, 10:29:23 PM

Quote from: viper37 on January 04, 2022, 08:05:59 PM
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.

The current plans is for the Gripen E.  Gripen F is a future possibility, in a mixed fleet.

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 09:29:35 AM
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.

Gripen E is 4.5gen level, like the F/A 18F.


And I did say the problem was making an aircraft carrier ready and vtol ready at the same time.  It's clear compromises had to be made.


Range without refueling might not be so important for a nation with aircraft carriers to move its aircrafts around, but I figure it might play in the criterias for Canada.  A plane like the Rafale could cross the ocean without refueling once.

Quote
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.

I never said the Gripen was a 5thGen fighter.

Quote
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

Sure it beats it, not by much, but it beats it.  On paper.  All of this is theoritical, the latest live tests showed and F-16 outperforming the F-35.  I want to believe it's better now, after a few years or ironing out bugs.


And I did say the F-35 was the best fighter of the two.

Quote
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.

One of those pathetic foreigners commenting on the issue here... (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/?sh=25e025ad1b16).  Oh wait.  He's US Air Force.


Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.:
[/size][/size]The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' [fighter], we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight."[/size]"I want to moderate how much we're using those aircraft," Brown said.
[/size]Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force's roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn't bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.
[/size]Like I said, the US can afford multiple different aircrafts for many different purposes.  You could have a fleet of F-35 and F-22 maintaining air superiority in a fight against China and Russia and use an F-16-analog plane for operations in the middle east.  Canada could not afford the costs to maintain such a diverse fleet.
[/size]I don't know if the Gripen suits our needs.  I know the F-35 would, if it works.  But it's darn expensive.  Had the F-35 been ready 10 years ago, the picture would be different.  As of 2019, it wasn't ready for combat, and it still does not seem operational for all the missions it's supposed to accomplish.

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

Since we do not yet know the costs, it's a bold statements to make as most sites make the Gripen E much cheaper than the F-35, a product many in your own army does not seem to like that much.

Quote from: PRC on January 05, 2022, 10:53:36 AM
The "Made in Canada" label doesn't always work out well.  BC Fast Ferries anyone?

At this point, avoiding the potential problems with Trump 2.0 might be worth getting an inferior aircraft.

Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 12:03:01 PM
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?

To participate in a US action: it depends.  The opposition to the 2nd Iraq war was pretty strong.  The opposition to the Balkan wars were pretty moderate.

To participate in a NATO action in the future: weak to moderate opposition.  I guess it depends against whom.  Russia has very good useful idiots, on the right and on the left.  I suspect opposition to a NATO intervention in Ukraine would be moderate.  Against China, weak opposition at best.  Against a middle east nation, moderate to strong opposition.

Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2022, 10:00:18 AM

Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2022, 10:29:23 PM

Quote from: viper37 on January 04, 2022, 08:05:59 PM
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.

The current plans is for the Gripen E.  Gripen F is a future possibility, in a mixed fleet.

I thought the E was the two-seat version.  My mistake.  In any case, the plane in the comparison is the JAS 39 C/D (see the length of 14.1 M). 

Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2022, 10:20:56 AM
Since we do not yet know the costs, it's a bold statements to make as most sites make the Gripen E much cheaper than the F-35, a product many in your own army does not seem to like that much.

We know the bid costs for the Finnish and Swiss competitions, and the F-35 was cheaper than the JAS 39 in both.  The slightly higher cost of the Gripen for Canada might be offset by the increased percentage of the cost to be spent in Canada, making its net cost lower.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 06, 2022, 07:23:48 AM
Jacob would be in an internment camp.  :cry:

I'm hoping to be a high level mediator, able to build trust with both side.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2022, 11:51:19 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on January 06, 2022, 07:23:48 AM
Jacob would be in an internment camp.  :cry:

I'm hoping to be a high level mediator, able to build trust with both side.

That sounds a lot like what a collaborator would say :shifty: :P

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2022, 11:54:00 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2022, 11:51:19 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on January 06, 2022, 07:23:48 AM
Jacob would be in an internment camp.  :cry:

I'm hoping to be a high level mediator, able to build trust with both side.

That sounds a lot like what a collaborator would say :shifty: :P

... but it might not work. I guess we see the way the conflict might spiral out of control. So much distrust :cry:

When it comes time for Jake to bayonet a Dane in the bloody battles on Hans Island will he hesitate? Probably. You are either 100% Canadian or NOT CANADIAN AT ALL!!!11

:P

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2022, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2022, 05:49:22 PM
In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.   

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2022, 12:05:22 PM
When it comes time for Jake to bayonet a Dane in the bloody battles on Hans Island will he hesitate? Probably. You are either 100% Canadian or NOT CANADIAN AT ALL!!!11

:P

You are with us or against us!

Quote from: alfred russel on January 06, 2022, 12:16:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2022, 12:05:22 PM
When it comes time for Jake to bayonet a Dane in the bloody battles on Hans Island will he hesitate? Probably. You are either 100% Canadian or NOT CANADIAN AT ALL!!!11

:P

You are with us or against us!

By jingo you are correct sir!

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2022, 12:14:05 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2022, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2022, 05:49:22 PM
In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2022, 04:32:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2022, 12:14:05 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2022, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2022, 05:49:22 PM
In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

very helpful

You missed a chance for a good laconic quip:  "Today".

Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2022, 05:08:57 PM
You missed a chance for a good laconic quip:  "Today".

:D

Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2022, 11:09:53 AM
I thought the E was the two-seat version.  My mistake.  In any case, the plane in the comparison is the JAS 39 C/D (see the length of 14.1 M). 

The two-seat version was not mass produced, I think.  I do not know if the newer F will be a two seat variant.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2022, 12:14:05 PM
There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.

these are ground operations, like traditional peacekeeping missions of the UN.


I can't think of any bombardment mission involving Canada alone, without US support.  We need facilities to rearm & repair, we can't land on aircraft carriers.  Despite France being part of NATO, Canadians pilots would be unable to communicate with them due to the language barrier. :(
:P


No, seriously, I do not know if we ever worked out of France or UK aerial bases since WWII.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 11:42:59 AM
None, but I'm not the one making the claim.

You are not claiming something about what Berkut suspects?  In English, the phrase "I suspect" isn't making a claim, it is describing what a person suspects.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2022, 05:07:48 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2022, 04:32:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2022, 12:14:05 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2022, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2022, 05:49:22 PM
In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

very helpful

Yeah, it is kind of weird to discover that an educated Canadian does not know that, but you are welcome.

Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2022, 06:27:41 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 06, 2022, 11:09:53 AM
I thought the E was the two-seat version.  My mistake.  In any case, the plane in the comparison is the JAS 39 C/D (see the length of 14.1 M). 

The two-seat version was not mass produced, I think.  I do not know if the newer F will be a two seat variant.

There were certainly far fewer Bs and Ds produced than As and Cs.  I think that the Swedes just use the two-seaters for training (a quick counts says that about 30 of 250-odd planes ordered were of the two-seat variant), but the Thais and Brazilians are about 1/3 two-seaters (but that might be due to wanting more two-seaters early in the order for training). 

Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2022, 06:37:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2022, 12:14:05 PM
There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.

these are ground operations, like traditional peacekeeping missions of the UN.


I can't think of any bombardment mission involving Canada alone, without US support.  We need facilities to rearm & repair, we can't land on aircraft carriers.  Despite France being part of NATO, Canadians pilots would be unable to communicate with them due to the language barrier. :(
:P


No, seriously, I do not know if we ever worked out of France or UK aerial bases since WWII.

Well at least, unlike Grumbler, you have the intellectual ability to recognize that Canada is involved in NATO missions that do not involve the US.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2022, 11:51:00 AM
Well at least, unlike Grumbler, you have the intellectual ability to recognize that Canada is involved in NATO missions that do not involve the US.

:lol:  First Rule of Holes.  You know perfectly well that I have never denied that Canada is involved in NATO missions that do not involve the US.  What I denied was that there was any "requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US," given that the US actually is in NATO.