Photo Info
Two of Saab's three flying Gripen E test aircraft, 39-9 and 39-10. The test program of four aircraft has accumulated over 150 hours. Saab Photo

Saab Gripen E: Dark horse

By Chris Thatcher

Published on: January 15, 2020
Estimated reading time 20 minutes, seconds.

In a fighter procurement program that will be evaluated on capability, cost and economic return to Canada, Saab firmly believes it has a compelling offer to make.

If you have been following the convoluted process of replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-188 fighter jets, the continued presence of the Saab Gripen E might seem puzzling in a competition that has seen both Dassault Aviation and Airbus Defence and Space withdraw their entrants.

Two of Saab's three flying Gripen E test aircraft, 39-9 and 39-10. The test program of four aircraft has accumulated over 150 hours. Saab Photo
Two of Saab’s three flying Gripen E test aircraft, 39-9 and 39-10. The test program of four aircraft has accumulated over 150 hours. Saab Photo

The Gripen has been mocked as too small by some critics and less capable than the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II or Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the remaining competitors, by others. It’s also, perhaps ironically given the many concerns raised about the F-35, the only fighter still in development and not yet operational.

But to dismiss the single-engine Gripen E as merely a longshot might be a mistake. Because in a project that will be evaluated on capability, cost and economic return to Canada, Saab firmly believes it has a compelling offer to make.

Some of the reasons for that belief became evident when Skies recently toured Saab’s production facilities in Linköping, Sweden, and visited air wings and operational bases where the Gripen C is deployed by the Swedish Air Force and NATO customers to monitor and interdict Russian aircraft skirting, and at times breaching, domestic airspace.

The Gripen was purpose-built for Swedish national defence, but its missions of quick reaction alert (QRA) defensive counter-air along Sweden’s borders and offensive roles during, for example, NATO’s Operation Unified Protector over Libya in 2011, would look familiar to any Canadian CF-188 Hornet pilot. So, too, would the modest defence budget with which it was procured.

And in a Canadian defence procurement system where access to intellectual property (IP) is deemed essential to long-term in-service support and technology upgrades, Saab has demonstrated an approach to foreign sales that can include the wholesale transfer of IP to sustain the aircraft and a commitment to share and invest the knowledge behind that IP with indigenous industry.

To appreciate the strengths of the Gripen, it helps to understand the origins of Saab. An abbreviation for Swedish Aircraft Company, the business is the direct result of an agreement with the Swedish government over 80 years ago to start an aircraft manufacturing company with the sole purpose of being able “to protect Sweden’s borders and people,” explained Jerker Ahlqvist, deputy head of Business Area Aeronautics.

Vastly outnumbered by Russian fighter jets and strategic bombers that reside in Kaliningrad, a short distance from its southern border, Sweden has relied on tactical superiority to achieve combat effectiveness, deploying some of the first datalinks and electronic warfare systems in its fighters, starting with the Saab 35 Draken and more recently the 37 Viggen. That combination of aircraft combat performance, pilot tactics, cost and availability were all baked into the JAS 39 Gripen, said Ahlqvist.

“It is not something you can start to think of once you have designed your fighter.
It needs to be part of the design criteria from the beginning,” he said.

And that philosophy has carried over into the Gripen E, what Ahlqvist called “an even smarter” system of integrated systems. The fighter has two customers at present–Sweden will begin with 60 and Brazil is acquiring 36, eight in the twin-seat F variant–but the aircraft is a contender in at least three fighter replacement competitions globally.

However, unlike the F-16s, F-18s, F-35s and other jets it is up against, the Gripen E is not yet in service.  The test program of four aircraft has accumulated over 150 hours, a majority of those in 2019, achieved 9Gs, broken the Gripen speed record in level flight, validated new flight control software, sensors and electronic warfare systems, conducted a test flight with a new electronic attack jammer pod, flown with the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, and fired the short-range IRIS-T air-to-air missile. Brazil accepted its first flight test aircraft in September and expects to take delivery of its first operational aircraft in 2021.

Gripen E test aircraft 39-8 carries the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. Saab Photo
Gripen E test aircraft 39-8 carries the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. Saab Photo

Investing in superior technology

The enhanced capability of the Gripen E furthers a combat DNA intended to meet an operating environment the Swedish Air Force regards as cluttered, contested, connected, constrained and congested with advanced fighters and air defence systems.

“The Russian QRA behaviour has been changing in the last three to four years. There is more aggressive flying,” explained Col Anders Persson, commander Air Staff.

Russian Sukhoi Su-35, 34 and 27 fighters have frequently flown to within 10 metres of Swedish aircraft in the past 24 months and, in what he said was “a signal to us” earlier this year, a Russian signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft escorted by two fighters flew inside Swedish airspace for a minute. “That had never happened before in Swedish airspace. A fighter, yes, a SIGINT, yes, but never a SIGINT escorted.”

A Swedish defence white paper in May concluded Russian capability and activity, in particular electronic warfare (EW), will continue to increase, necessitating investment in superior technology and tactics. “You are superior in technology if you use the technology in the right way,” Persson emphasized.

As with its predecessors, the Gripen E aims to detect and disrupt threats earlier in the kill chain through an improved avionics system that fuses data from an Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radar system on a swashplate, a passive infrared search and track (IRST) sensor, a tailored datalink and an enhanced EW system, explained Jonas Hjelm, senior vice-president and head of Business Area Aeronautics.

As part of the test program, Saab is trialing what it calls Multi-Functional System EW, part of its Arexis family of airborne EW systems, that incorporates ultra-wideband digital receivers, gallium nitride (GaN) AESA transmitters, digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) devices, precision direction finding and localization, and stealth-enabled countermeasure systems. The onboard signals and data processing are further enhanced by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms.

The result is far better situational awareness in the cockpit. Ahlqvist described an OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop informed by an electronic support measures system in which the pilot is “quicker to see, quicker to understand, quicker to decide, quicker to act and quicker to adapt. With all the sensors on board, with the data analysis on board … the aircraft will suggest what he should do, so he will be quicker to act.”

Through datalinks, which Saab been developing and employing for over 30 years, “a couple of Gripens can do magic just because of the way the datalink is used,” he said.

The Gripen E was designed to counter the threats of Russian aircraft and anti-aircraft systems near Sweden's borders, said Saab's chief test pilot Mikael Olsson. Saab Photo
The Gripen E was designed to counter the threats of Russian aircraft and anti-aircraft systems near Sweden’s borders, said Saab’s chief test pilot Mikael Olsson. Saab Photo

While the debate about stealth may feature prominently in the Canadian competition, Saab sees no long-term value in building for short-term stealth. “If you build an airframe with a stealthy design, there are other things you can’t do with that aircraft,” observed Ahlqvist. “We have created another way by, for instance, putting in a very capable electronic warfare system that can make the aircraft invisible.”

“Stealth is much more than the radar cross section,” added Patrick Palmer, executive vice-president and head of Marketing and Sales for Saab Canada. “That is a perishable commodity as technology evolves. Ten years from now, the technology in terms of radar capability will be far more advanced than it is today. What this allows us to do is provide that upgradability, to be forever responding to whatever those new threats are.”

Instead, the goal for the Gripen is to be a “true multi-function aircraft in all aspects,” said Persson. As adversaries advance anti-access/area denial weapon systems and their own stealth capabilities, EW and datalinks for passive sensing and silent networking are an operational necessity to share target information between aircraft. “As soon as we take off, the jamming [from Russia] starts,” he said.

Those onboard systems are “a huge difference maker” for the multi-function Gripen E, said Mikael Olsson, Saab’s chief test pilot. “It is purposely designed for what you see around Sweden (such as the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system in Kaliningrad). That is what it is designed to counter.”

Saab is “building the aircraft around the pilot,” observed BGen Csaba Ugrik, commander of Hungary’s recent Baltic NATO air policing mission in Lithuania, of the systems and human-machine interface in the cockpit. Based at Šiauliai Air Base, Hungary served as lead nation for a three-month rotation from May through August, operating five JAS 39 Gripen C and D aircraft, augmented by Spanish F-18s and United Kingdom Eurofighter Typhoons at Ämari Air Base in Estonia.

Over that time, the Hungarians conducted more than 400 sorties, over 40 of which were actual (Alpha) scrambles in response to Russian Tupolov, Antonov and Sukhoi transports, bombers and fighters, including the Tupolev Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft, transiting to Kaliningrad or flying over the Baltic Sea. “If they don’t want to see us too close to the aircraft, they are doing manoeuvres,” he noted.

Consequently, the Gripen Link 16 datalink was critical to ensuring situational awareness. “If you are running the APU here and you turn on the Link 16, you will have the information already on the ground, and you can move the maps and see what is going on 300 kilometres away… and you can prepare for the fight,” he said. “That is a good advantage of the aircraft.”

Capt David Szentiendrei, a graduate of the NATO Flying Training in Canada program in 2012, said the Gripen worked well with non-NATO fighters and excelled at maintaining and sharing situational information fused from its sensor suite.

Both Airbus and Dassault withdrew from the Canadian fighter competition citing, in part, their concerns about the NORAD security requirements and the need for Two Eyes (United States and Canada) interoperability. Though Sweden is not a member of NATO, Saab has designed the Gripen to meet Sweden’s requirement to be fully interoperable with NATO, and in particular with the U.S., working on same or similar datalinks. “We have our own mission planning but the data format transfers into the NATO system,” said Persson.

A Gripen E fires off the short range IRIS-T air-to-air guided missile. Saab Photo
A Gripen E fires off the short range IRIS-T air-to-air guided missile. Saab Photo

With the technology behind onboard sensor systems poised to change almost as rapidly as the applications in a smartphone, Saab has attempted to “future proof” the Gripen by designing the avionics “in such a way where the software is more or less hardware independent,” said Ahlqvist. “The threat environment changes quickly and you will need to make changes in a much faster way then you have done in the past. Gripen E allows for that.”

By separating the hardware layer from the software layer, and the flight critical applications from the mission critical or tactical, “we are ready for novel algorithms like artificial intelligence in the future,” explained Johan Segertoft of Saab, noting that even in the development phase of the E model, multiple software changes were required because computing power improved during that span.

“This is a major problem in a fighter jet,” he observed, adding that the exponential increases in computing power make it difficult to predict how technology will be affected. “Computer power translates to tactical power…[T]he key is how you harness the evolution of computing power.”

The separation of church and state also means that every change no longer requires re-testing and certification. “The vision was, program in the morning, fly in the afternoon,” he added. “You can code once and deploy everywhere. We can now do a change in a matter of days.”

Brazil accepted the first of its flight text aircraft in September 2019 and expects to take delivery of its first operational aircraft in 2021. Saab Photo
Brazil accepted the first of its flight test aircraft in September 2019 and expects to take delivery of its first operational aircraft in 2021. Saab Photo

Knowledge transfer

From the outset, Saab built the Gripen E with international customers in mind. And it has demonstrated a willingness to transfer technology in a manner that might seem unusual to some. Besides Sweden, four countries currently operate the Gripen C — South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand (the U.K. Empire Test Pilots’ School also uses the platform). But as the first foreign customer for the Gripen E, Brazil provides an interesting case study on how that technology and knowledge transfer could work.

“One of the aspects that makes us unique is our willingness and ability to share technology,” said Mikael Franzén, vice-president and head of the Gripen Brazil business unit. “We understand the importance of national industry and national independence.”

Saab has recognized IP without knowledge has limited value. Under a “train the trainer” model over a 10-year period, 350 professionals from local partner companies and the Brazilian Air Force will receive theoretical and on-the-job training in Sweden for anywhere from six months to two years. Already, over 190 Brazilians have completed their technology transfer program and are now working on teams in the Gripen Design and Development Network.

The offer to Canada would be similar, said Palmer. “This illustrates what the realm of the possible is. In the case of Brazil, they had a very specific focus in terms of what they wanted to accomplish from a [technology transfer] perspective … [We] will be completely responsive to the RFP. We have been working with suppliers and partners in Canada for the last 24 months or so, and we will have a very attractive proposition.”

The Gripen E tests its ability to jettison a drop tank. Saab Photo
The Gripen E tests its ability to jettison a drop tank. Saab Photo

He acknowledged that one of the strengths of the current CF-188 sustainment program was early engagement with Canadian industry and access to IP. “Our vision is to have companies and capability early in the process so that you don’t have this huge wall at the end where you are not able to get over it.”

Whether that willingness to transfer critical IP negates any of the concerns raised by the NORAD security requirements remains to be seen. But Palmer said Two Eyes interoperability is not a technical issue, but rather a process and procedure challenge. “We see it more as where is that data going, what is it touching, who has access to it, and how is that controlled.”

No discussion of fighter jets would be complete without an attempt to pin down costs. Comparing price tags is problematic because different companies and countries often use different metrics to define unit flyaway costs, cost per flight hour and long-term sustainment. Saab officials were coy about an exact number, but the sale of 36 Gripen E/F aircraft to Brazil, including related systems, support and equipment, was valued at around US$4.5 billion.

“I think it is a fact that we are the most cost-efficient solution,” said Eddy De La Motte, vice-president and head of the Gripen E/F business unit. “That goes both for acquisition and flight hour costs.”

Rather than invest specifically in stealth, Saab has developed sensors and electronic warfare capabilities to make the Gripen E difficult to detect. Saab Photo
Rather than invest specifically in stealth, Saab has developed sensors and electronic warfare capabilities to make the Gripen E difficult to detect. Saab Photo

If there is a feature Saab hopes might intrigue Canadians, it’s the Gripen’s ability to operate in Arctic conditions. Sweden’s most northern air base is above the Arctic Circle, so the Gripen “was designed from the beginning to cope with very cold conditions and to be operated with no hangars in open airfields, short takeoff and landing on ordinary roads, even in winter time,” said Ahlqvist.

It’s an operating concept that has been in place since the country first introduced fighter jets. In fact, the Gripen can operate from an 800-metre road that is just 17 metres wide, and can be refuelled, rearmed and checked in under 10 minutes by a team of five conscript soldiers and a technician. More impressive, with just a few more personnel, a small team can replace an engine in one hour in the same frigid conditions.

And it is something that the Swedish air force regularly trains. “Every time we have an exercise, we [operate] on dispersed basing,” assured Persson.

Chris Thatcher is an aerospace, defence and technology writer, editor of RCAF Today, and a regular contributor to Skies.

Join the Conversation


  1. Great article and perspective. Looking forward to seeing where our government takes this.

    1. Does this article mean that Gripen can share data with an f 35? (F35s are nato jets). If so that means an air force can use the f 35 sensor suite, including for targeting, and feed that data to a Gripen to fire off long range meteors missiles etc at a target. That would be a deadly combination.

      1. In theory yes but what’s even more impressive us the gripen has already proven more than capable of doing that wo needing the f35 at all and that’s good esp since the pos 35 is the worst hangar queen in history
        No other contender scored an operational capability like the Gripen did for that matter. In one of it achieved 100% status and only was outscored barely (1 point) by the f22 and that was with the older c/d model! The newer e/f is vastly more capable in many ways

        Trust me u wish I could have a shot at even a checkout ride in it (Gripen didnt exist when I was flying in the usaf/rcaf)

        I firmly believe that given the avail options the Gripen e/f is hands down the best choice for canada and we can once again produce fighters much the same as we did before with the F5.

      2. Yeas, there is a capacity to share data with any Nato plane that includes a F35. The Jas E can suply information and target Data from its radar, IRST and other sensors. They can even change weapons say a missile fired from an F35 can be given to a Jas 39 E. Jas 39 E has the same sensor capability as a F35. The difference is that the F35 trust in radar Steahlt in the X band as main defence and the Jas trust in electronic steahlt cowering X and L band. The latter is considered very important in Sweden because of the Russian S400 systems that covers parts of southern Sweden. The S400 system has good capasity at detecting steahlt but is sensitive to electronic interference.

      3. I don’t know what you mean when you say that “(F35s are nato jets)” because the JAS-39 is also a NATO jet and has been since 2003 when Hungary started using them. In 2004, the Czech Republic also began fielding Gripens which means that the Gripen has been a NATO plane for longer than the F-35 has even been in service. Referring to the F-35 as a “NATO plane) infers that the Gripen is not, which is false.

        As for the sensors, the Gripen is literally built around its EW platform and has been doing what you just described already for well over a decade except that it was Gripen to Gripen. Remember that the aerial tactical data link was invented by the Swedes (Saab specifically) and was first used on the old J35 Draken from the 50s. It evolved over time, increasing in sophistication with the JA-37 Viggen with the JAS-39A-D having the most advanced data link in the world. The JAS-39C/D models also incorporated Link-16 and in-flight refuelling to make them suitable for use in NATO. All of the advanced tech that was in the JAS-39C was improved upon for the JAS-39E (improved radar jamming, AESA radar). In addition to all of that, the JAS-39E/F also comes standard with a Leonardo IRST.

    2. I absolutely believe the best fighter jet for Canada is this one. If Canada doesn’t take his fighter jet they’re making a huge mistake. Come on Canada, do the right thing and purchase this fighter jet.

      1. Australia and New Zealand should look at the E 2 man Gripen also as it has many many interesting features that the F-35 does not have, such landing and takeoff on highways, electronics to make enemy radar redundant and even project false radar targets to enemy radar, that plus greater than Mach 1 cruising speed.
        In addition with a multi roll configuration and 10 minute turn around is pretty compelling.
        Please note not in the military. Allan

  2. In typical DND fashion we delay and defer F18 replacement . Our CF 18’s designed in the 70’s delivered in the 80’s are now worn out . Will it tale as long as the Sea King helicopter replacement to get a new aircraft into service ? The plan was at one time to buy 60 or so F35’s . This was all we could afford . Well we got 130 F18’s to look after our needs 40 yrs ago . The country is just as large now . When 20% of the F35’s are in the hangar getting fixed at any one time if we go war suddenly we will be a day late and a dollar short. The Gripen is a solution which we can afford , We can get enough aircraft to defend the airspace of a very large country. After Boeing put Canadair out of business are we wanting to reward then for their actions by buying Super Hornets ? Time to decide !

    1. The E model of the Gripen I don’t think is still operational so I would seriously consider a delay in choosing Canada’s next fighter can only bode well for the Gripen.

  3. I believe that the Gripen would be an excellent choice for Canada. It is less expensive to purchase, far less expensive to operate, has excellent range and maneuverability, and is already being used (in it’s earlier iterations) in very similar environments, both weather and threat. Also, the comments made in the article about stealth airframes being short term solutions makes a great deal of sense. Technological change could make stealth aircraft like the F22 or F35 far less survivable in 10 years, where software can continually be upgraded to outmatch opponents.

  4. I strongly believe that this might be a great solution to Canada’s jet fighter problem. The Sweden environment / winters are just as extreme and the Gripen operates amazingly. Also there are much cheaper and the article is so correct and proof the direction we should go. Buy more at a better price and give our pilots more flight time of experience.

  5. swedes not so clever Sundin should be talking to Canada talk some sense into the suits buy these and have change leftover for subs f35 too many eggs in one basket I think maybe split the order we have to operate seamlessly with our allies but they cannot give us oversight, we would not be able to service f22 anyhow way too much plane for us canucks lets get bunch of each we always get our money out of our kithope this makes sense these could be the volvo of the skies

  6. I wish Denmark would also back down on our request to go for the Lockeed F-35, and instead go for the Gripen.

    Unfortunately our politicians have their head so high up in the USA defense industry asses that they aren’t able to see past their eye lids!

    We even had great success with the SAAB Draken, which in the early days of the F-16 were able to shoot them down (in practice, so not for real), showing that even older designs from SAAB were pretty good!
    The SAAB Draken is (was) inherently a (very) stable design, and doesn’t turn as easily as the swifter (inherently unstable) design of the F-16, but it was still able to compete with the F-16!

    So SAAB aircraft with Volvo engines has my utmost respect for fighter jets!

  7. Being a skeptic, if the Gripen gets close to be considered in Canada, our friends to the south will intervene is some material way to block that. Yes, we are an independent nation but it would take a determined and resilient PM to go the Gripen route. It would not be easy IMO but it might be the right choice.

    1. if the US which a doubt would block say the engine then there is always British Engines or maybe Canadian

    2. I think. if we act in the next 2-3 years, the US will be way too invested in trying to repair the Trump damage, rebuild its economy and try to heal its mourning families.Plus they’ll have their hands full dealing with China, Russia and Iran. The new bad-boys on the block. ANY decent, modern replacement that can link with NATO, will be welcome. And Canada was a low tier investor and VERY mall potatoes to the US military manufacturers. .We have our own small arms, uniforms, munitions, Ship building and buy German MBTs, etc… ALREADY!
      Get OFF the Avro Aro. We had the fourth largest Air Force in the world back when too. And in the 50s, ANY nation with enough capital and engineers could try to make something like that if they focused on it. But NOW, only superpowers have the means to R&D an F-22 or F-35and then mass produce it. Even then, they only have a 50% success rate. One is the BEST Air Superiority fighter up to now on the PLANET and a piece of flying magic. The other is a cool idea that is always breaking down and will never be 100% done fixing. Those Gripen Es are IDEAL for our needs. We’ll just need more dispersed small Arctic bases, which we SHOULD invest in anyways. The meltdown means we need to protect all of OUR suddenly available natural resources… We ALSO need more Northern Naval presence. And a NORTH combat arms brigade.

  8. If we in Sweden are able to field around 160 Gripen’s with our military budget Canada can atleast have 200. The Gripen is awsome for our conditions and the ability to re-arm and refuel in 10 min with 1 technician and 4 conscripts it’s something to take into consideration. A fight is not over after 1 mission. Engine swaps take 1 hour, it’s cheap to fly, top modern tech, very upgrade friendly. I think this is perfect for Canada, but i think i already know who will win this 🙂

    1. I agree with you 100%. Let’s hope Canada doesn’t make the mistake of purchasing the F 35. And God forbid we purchase from the company who took us to court and tried to sue us.

  9. Very interesting and informative article, cudos to the writer. Gripen is not the fastest, not the sexiest, not the “stealthiest” but has a sensible price-tag with “lots of bang for the bucks”, like a sensible IKEA furniture. Where it really stands out from the crowd though is its advanced EWS, sensors and datalinks and how all the information is presented to the pilot ( and others). SAAB has been on the cutting edge in that department from early on and still is. No disadvantage either that it is build for service in tough arctic conditions, (so no risk of it ending up as a “hangar queen”). It’s biggest disadvantage is that it is Swedish and relies on vital parts from US like engine and electronics. US has stopped Swedish export of fighters before and can/will do it again if necesarry.

    1. Gripen E is actually the fastest too!
      Mach 2 and supercruise capable (a Generation 5 requirement until F-35 couldn’t do that…)

    2. FASTER than the F-35 and F-18.. It does Mach 2+ like an F-22 and has Supercruise like the F-22 (sustained supersonic flight without afterburners) a HUGE fuel-cost/weight and flight time consideration, the Gripen E is FAST(faster by 130 mph than an F-104 starfighter).
      The f-35 is a Mach 1.6 aircraft (and apparently breaks up at prolonged max speeds) and the Super Hornet is a Mach 1.8 aircraft…
      ALSO.. I really wouldn’t care about stealth and sexy 12 G manoeuvrability one couldn’t handle anyways… If I had an electronic sensor and counter-detection and acquisition suite good enough to a) make me just as invisible to radars, b) stop missiles from locking onto me or hitting me… And help me SURVIVE just as well if not better… As the more expensive and less easy to build and maintain air-frames.
      And those METEOR missiles!!! WOW!!! AMRAAMs are like sidewinders to them,… 100km vs. 20-30km. Ramjets and a HUGE ZERO ESCAPE radius.. NOT A CONE, a RADIUS!!!
      If it all goes like the rest. The pending F-35-Meteor mating will be a half in and half out thing for the next 10 years, until the last F-35 crashes from poor initial design.
      And you have SEVEN of those on each plane.. Who cares about stealth… You can shoot them all, go home, rearm and refuel and be back up in 10 minutes from ANY stretch of at least 800m by 17 m… And foreign objects on the runway are ACCEPTABLE by design..
      REMEMBER why those M1s and other modern tanks did so well in the first gulf war? They could shoot and kill WAY before the other side could. Superior weapons and Electronics (plus C4I) It DOESN’T MATTER if they can see you. If they are out of range and YOU are not.. You won..
      A squadron equipped with a weapon with a range that is 3 to 5 X the one of the opposition. That can destroy with an almost 100% kill rate once in final range ANY air-frame. Is pretty lethal, when they each have 7 of them… That is 100+ targets every volley, GONE forever… All you need with that reload and rearm speed is enough waves to make it a rolling thing. Cheap, effective and DEADLY!!!
      I say GO SWEDEN!!! Lets keep our money to make them even better.

  10. Canadian Air Force – Sensible SAAB Solution-Canadian Made
    Fighter Replacement
    Gripen acquisition costs substantially less than “Canadianized” F35
    The Gripen can and should be “Canadian Made”
    Canadianized F-35 includes costly modification for a Drag Chute, the F-35 Has no Tail Hook for Arrestor Equipped Runways
    At the present time Canada does not have Air to Air refueling capability for the F-35; expensive modifications to the F-35 will be required for present Probe-and-Drouge method used by the Canadian Armed Forces.
    Operating cost of the Gripen is substantially less (estimated 75% Lower) this equates to more flying hours, more flying hours means happier pilots; happier pilots stay in the service longer, Canada will continue to have unsurpassed professional pilots.
    Gripen allows for more aircraft, higher sortie rates and greater availability rates. The Gripen can be refueled and re-armed in 10 minutes.
    The F 35 relinquishes it “Stealth” characteristics in the ground attack role of when carrying external weapons and fuel tanks. Technology will defeat the F 35 “clean” configuration in the next decade before the F 35 is fully operation in Canada.
    Gripen is not dependent on U.S. regulations or restrictions it is time to end the reliance on American systems, doctrine and economic strangle hold as the demonstrated with Bombardier C Series Aircraft
    The Gripen can operate from all Canadian Forces bases; the F 35 will require expensive infrastructure modifications and maintenance facilities.
    The Gripen is certified for Meteor BVRM far superior than the AIM-120 presently used on CF-18
    Gripen allows Canada open access to software architecture & development upgrades can be Canadian developed and designed as required.
    The Gripen is already serving in NATO Air Forces
    Fielding a fighter made on Canadian soil, by Canadians would be a great source of national pride
    Canada is a Tier 3 Partner in the F-35 program and will be able to compete for contracts regardless if they purchase the F-35, under the present agreement there are NO guarantees of work for Canadians

    Snowbird Replacement / Gripen Demonstration Team
    De-contented, Demilitarized no offensive or defensive systems, radar and communication systems replace with commercial off the shelf systems The cannon area converts to luggage area, re-engine with less expensive GE 404 surplus CF 18 engines. This lowers costs as were essentially buying basic airframes.
    Military wiring harnesses to be retained for quick conversion if required (First aircraft off the production line)
    10 E Models (Snowbirds)
    4 F Models (2 Snowbirds, 2 Gripen Demonstration Team)
    Alternative would be to lease 14 de contended Gripen C/D from Sweden
    Regular Air Force
    72 Gripen E
    24 Gripen F Optimized for Fast Forward Air Control, Electronic Warfare, and Conversion Training
    6 Regular Forces Squadrons 12 E & 4 F models (each Squadron)
    With Gripen’s affordability Canada could equip an additional Reserve Squadron
    CP-140 Replacement- Sooner rather than Later with cost savings realized with the acquisition of the Gripen
    10 Bombardier 6500 / Saab Swordfish MPA manufactured By Bombardier in Canada
    4 Bombardier 6500 / Saab GlobalEye AEW&C (withdraw from NATO AWAC Program) manufactured By Bombardier in Canada, Battle Field Management Platform, Air Space Command and Control, Artic Surveillance

    1. Yes the only way a Pilot gets to fly a F-35 is in a simulator
      as its to expensive and Grounded for no parts

      1. That’s not the way fly to fly an F-35 if they are so expensive to run they should not be purchased.

  11. This jet seems like its the perfect fit for our peace loving country. I hate spending money on military toys, but if we need jets, lets make our money count. I hate lockheed, Boeing etc…. This is the ideal product. For that very reason, I’m sure our government will buy the stupid bloated f35 junk.

    1. Hating a foreign aerospace company is juvenile. Even Boeing, which foolishly tried to kill the C-series, has pumped untold billions into the Canadian economy over the decades. It currently employs 1,700 folks in Winnipeg. Lockheed-Martin is a big player, too – recently given a starring role in the navy’s new ship programs. Highly doubtful that Saab could replicate these age-old value propositions.

      As for being peace-loving, we’ve been in very scrap post-WW2, except Nam and Iraq (2003). We’re a nation of hockey players – just like the Swedes. We don’t rush to drop the gloves, but when we do we get right in there.

  12. The most interesting is not the jet but how this company works. Saab has been for quite some years to the military aviation industry what Tesla is in the car industry: a disrupter bringing strong innovation to how it works as an organisation.
    Tesla since the beginning has applied a modular thinking to its architecture, replicating innovation popular in software. Saab has done the same for the Gripen. This results in agreed stable interface between parts, and easier maintenance for each part as indicated in the article. The notion of code in morning test in afternoon is a giant disrupter that enables more frequent test and so shorter feedback loops. As an organisation their teams are cross functional and deal with both hardware and software, and their priorisation of prioritisation and impediments are done daily. Which competitor can say they have an organisation structure that enables any problem on day to be escalated to the level that can fix it on day 2? Not many.
    They are certainly smaller than american juggernauts, but they work smart.

    You can find more about how they work here:

  13. Even as we speak here in this forum, apparently there are members in high places with in the RCAF who for some reason wants Canada to buy the F-35. Personally I believe that the possibility of rewards ( jobs ) in those US companies coming from the possible purchase of the F-35. The F-35 is completely unsuitable for Canada.Nearly one day to remove and replace the engine. Give me a break. Parts unavailability is a major problem. That F-35 gun apparently has problems shooting straight. Remember that the parts for the F-35 are supplied by industry people who probably had the best ( lowest? ) price.. At present, the Jas39-E is faster than the earlier marks. The Gripen has an instant turn rate that is almost equal to the F-22. The Jas39-E will have that same turn rate and possibilty better.
    Regarding the Super Hornet ( block 3) it has updated electronics etc, but, the airframe is an old design. It is very draggy in the air. Also, like the F-35, it cannot supercruise. This is of major importance to Canada because as you all know, Canada has the 2nd largest territory in the world second only to Russia. In many of the articles that I have read and seen,the electronic warfare capability of the earlier Gripens has been compared to the Growler version of the Hornet and Super Hornet.. With the new “stuff” in the E version, it will be far better. In a Red Flag event in the USA, many pilots found it rather surprising to find out that a Gripen was nearby and they did not know it was there. In a dog fight, it is almost as good as the F-22, Typhoon and the Rafale. That is saying a lot! The one engine issue is a non issue. There is talk that the Gripen E is a light weight In comparing the war load of both the CF-18 and the Gripen, there is only about 1500 lbs difference between the two with the CF18 have the greater load. The Meteor missile that the current Gripens are qualified use are much better than the AArams that the US has.currently have. End Of!

    1. Good points. Do you think we are destined to buy these software bloated american toys? I sure hope not.

    2. AMRAAM’s successor – the AIM-260 – will soon come to market. The jury’s out on whether it will outclass Meteor, but one advantage it will have is that the USAF/USN will be ordering thousands of rounds, providing Raytheon with the incentive to invest regularly into improving the design.

      1. It’s at least six years away from the export market and by then the Meteor will be a matured design. I don’t expect it to unseat the Meteor. This is assuming that LM doesn’t find new and innovative ways to suck more money out of the Pentagon, forcing the AIM-260’s cancellation.

    3. When they put a valve in the wrong way during production
      it was going to take two weeks to fix

  14. Let’s not forget the fate of the F-117. It too was a stealth aircraft with performance limitations. After the Russians had solved the 117, they promptly informed the Serbs who managed to shoot one (or two) down. The F-117 was withdrawn and retired immediately. The same could very well happen to the F-35. It is slower and less maneuverable than the Gripen and without effective stealth would be a flying coffin. Airframe stealth will be history in the near future. Quickly adapting EW will be the future.

    1. #1 f117 is not really a F class.. idiotic why they call it that

      but otherwise spot on.. the cold hard reality is stealth is a very very tiny time limited advantage that fails in many circummstances…. its beyond useless against the right radar.. its incapable of hidnig against the newer IRST systems which continue to get longer and longer range.. and its extremely expensive..wtih many many downfalls.

      Not to mention te f35s sp called stealth is vastly inferior to the F22s.. something LHM does not liketo discuss… (F22 is all aspecct.. f35 is almost all frontal aspect only and even on tat its inferior)

      Whereas the sheer size of the Gripen being very small is a huge advantage not only for sensors but also against teh mark I eyeball.. very much the same as the F5.. many call it a razorblade.. since its so incredibly hard to see esp face to face..

      The Gripen is the closest thing to a moden gen F5 as I can think of and i has overcome the few flaws in the F5… mainly the F5 was underpowered and even the F20 never pushed the basic airframe to its limits.. and of course due to the low mounted wing design the 5 was more limited for underwing storage… (one of the few points where the f20 vs f16 contest went to the 16 .. higher mounted wings allowed for greated payload)
      The Gripen does not suffer from either of those points and its engines are not even officially using the newer EPE/EDE variants which are a no brainer for use in new aircraft.. (giving 15 or 20% more thrust again vs stock engine now.. and/or greatly enhanced durability)
      Add to that its excellent ease of maintenance and roadside pitstops.. which no other contender comes close to..

      and well.. you get the idea im sure

  15. Open sources tell us that most, if not all, major aircraft manufacturers have stated that their 4th-gen designs are good until 2040. They are planning for new designs to hit the street (sky?) around that time. If we choose an advanced Gen4 design (taking delivery between 2025 and 2035?) the RCAF could face obsolescence rather quickly. Thus we need to choose an option that gives us the most longevity for our dollar. Does the notional CF-39 Gripen fit the bill? Saab’s approach is intriguing – emphasizing regular software upgrades instead of a costly (and untimely) ‘mid-life’ upgrade. But judging by the traffic in the aerospace press, I think a major factor in the longevity curve will be the ability of a manned fighter to team with unmanned systems. This will likely require the insertion of AI technology. If Saab has an answer to this, then let it be part of their sales pitch, even if said info is currently classified. In the meantime, it is likely to be handy to have the option of a rear cockpit so the second crew member can handle the manned/unmanned teaming.

    Operational matters aside, I am uncertain of the value of being able to assemble these planes in Canada, as has been offered. Sure, the politicos might salivate at the prospect of an IMP Aerospace assembly line employing hundreds. But such goodies don’t come free of charge. If the project budget is fixed, the cost of building that line, recruiting and training a workforce, operating it, and the closing the line and issuing severance to said workforce, will carry a steep price – money that could otherwise be spent on airframes, spare parts, ordnance, etc. Recall how long it has taken for Vancouver Shipyards re-constitute itself – to the detriment of the NSP and the RCN.

    1. AI is in the Gripen E, optionally manned is an ongoing project since a long time ago and done controle may be implemented. At least drones have been seen flying in formation with Gripen.

    2. unmanned development SAAB has worked on for many yrs already.. they are a leader in that and many other aspects that again is them punching wway above their weight per se

      and local production is a huge win for canada vs alternatives.. The F5 alone (which was sadly misused by the leaves) was a boone for canadas aerospace andno doubt if we setup for such Gripen production here much the same as we did the 5 it would be an export capable project as well..

      Also remember.. with such we have FULL IP transfer.. unlike te alternatives.. which with the 18 we can only do basic mainteenance and no upgrdes of our own.. and the 35.. hell we’ll be lucky if we are allowed to even start the damn thing without a speccialist from LHM.. and thats assuming it even starts).. and there is absolutely ZERO access to internal systems for the f35 for anyone but the US

      Now seriously think on that.. wwhat idiot would want the ability to remotely turn OFF your fighter jets be in the hands of anyone but themselves.. nevermind that remote key being in the hands of anoter country regardless of us being friends or not.
      Its a huge example of total stupidity..

      Yeah sure.. I’ll buy your $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ toy.. but give you full access and only play with it under your supervion and no.. I promise I wont even try to do my own oil changes…..

      Despite the fact that the toy is for NATIONAL SECURITY!

      Not having 100% full IP for any fighter we ever have is beyond idiotic…

      1. Let’s not be too quick to compare a notional domestic build of the Grip with the Canadair-produced F-5. If the latter was leveraged to nurture Canada’s aerospace industry back in the 60s, that industry has moved on to produce certain niche products and services, but it has not suffered by not assembling fighter planes. Would a domestic build of Gripen empower the industry with skills and/or tech knowledge that it doesn’t already have or could profitably exploit? Wouldn’t the Swedes want other foreign orders (i.e., for Finland) to come off their own production lines? Would a Canadian line also have to compete with a Brazilian line? What are THEIR production costs?

        Don’t get me wrong. It think Saab’s ‘IKEA’ approach to fighter design is worthy of consideration. But the impact/benefits of a domestic build may not be as meaningful today as it may have been in the past. Real tech innovation would involve becoming an upper-tier partner in a next-gen aircraft program.

        As to IP, Canada initially had an office to perform software upgrades for the CF-18. It was shut when it became too expensive to keep open and the defence budget was put under pressure. The air force then piggy-backed on US Marine Corps upgrades for their Hornets. The point being that full sovereignty costs big $$$, and the government’s attitude towards it over the long term will always be in doubt.

        As to the desirability of leveraging the Grip to disentangle ourselves from the US, consider the money and jobs already invested by large US firms. Yet these do not necessarily constrain our equipment choices, as the purchase of the Airbus C-295 over the LM C-27J for the FWSAR program indicates. Strategically, disentanglement seems rather unrealistic (if indeed that is what is being suggested). Would any government assume full responsibility for the defence of Canada’s airspace separate from continental airspace? How much would that cost? Too much for a country that has long preferred to leverage others’ defence budgets for its own purposes, I would imagine.

        As to cost of ownership, that is indeed critical – and not just for the reasons identified in previous posts, but also for morale and retention: pilots may be more likely to stick around if they are allocated more flying hours. If Saab can also team up with a good simulator provider to enable aircrew to replicate complex threat scenarios that would otherwise be too expensive to re-produce, so much the better.

  16. Unfortunately our Canadian military is really not capable of thinking beyond US doctrine. The Gripen is a much better match for Canadian needs then the F-35. I say buy the Gripen or forget the whole thing and join a 6G fighter program with France and Germany,.

      1. Good idea, but I think the canuks don’t have the time to wait for that to come to fruition.
        / “another swede”

  17. I totally agree w/Mark from Toronto! Time to cut off the chains binding us to the U.S.

  18. A few days ago, I came across a report that was written by a Mr. David Archibald for the Australian ” Foreign Affairs Defense & Trade Committee”. The title was ” Joint Strike Fighter Inquiry”. I assume that this report was written while the “Aussies” were contemplating the purchase of the Lockheed-Martin F-35. In this report, there are detailed comparisons made between the Lockheed-Martin F-35, The Boeing Super Hornet ( block 3 ) and the Saab Jas 39-E. A kind of pros and cons thing. To say that this report is an eye-opener, is an understatement.. This report completely destroys the F-35 and the Boeing Super Hornet ( block 3 )! Personally, the first manufacturer that I would have crossed out would have been the Boeing aircraft if for no other reason to get back at them for what they tried to do regarding the “C” series jet. I guess that this is personal. The F-35 does not offer any industrial offsets. Canada was quickly reminded of that by the Americans. As a result of that, our chicken-shit government modified the rules to favor the F-35. Only a bit mind you, but just a bit nevertheless.
    As been mentioned by others, we NEED to distance ourselves a lot more from the Americans. This is a must. Even more so now as a direct result of the current infection living in the White House. If re-elected ( heaven help us all ), our relationship with the USA will become a lot worse. Canada now has a greater need for politicians who place Canada first above all else because that is their job.We’ll see who is balls-less soon enough.
    Mr. Archibald’s report while a little bit dated, is still extremely relevant to Canada right now. The above “report” is a little difficult to find. Look under the Australian Parliament as a first start. It is there in full. I would have liked to have had that report as an attachment which I was able to download. I do have as follows–Foreign Affairs Defense&Trade Committee—-Joint Strike Fighter Inquiry—Joint Strike Fighter Submission 8—Department of the Senate—PO Box 6100—Parliament House—Canberra ACT 2600. It is quite a read.

    1. thnx for the info on that report.. its a killer find and confirms one masive HHHUUUUGGEEEEEE point that should kill of the f35 from choice to buy at all for any one with half a brain thats not the USAF/USN etc

      as pointed out by David Archibald.. the f35 REQUIRES an internet conection to the USA and w/o it the jet will not even START!!!

      read that again…

      WILL NOT START W/O Phoning home for permission!!!!!

      Imagnie your car refusing to start if it couldnt contact say GMin Detroit… or GM has a fit one day or any on of a ton of other things… would you buy that car..

      now imagine that car is your ambulances, fire engines and cop cars.. or worse..

      that simple fact alone is enough for any rational person to kick the pos 35 to the curb period!!!

  19. Top choice for Canada.
    Robust and cheap plus it can give a good account of itself in combat should that be needed.
    Can the fragile trouble prone F35 boast that/

  20. With regards to the F-35, remember that it was designed some 20 years ago and has really only been flying for maybe 10 years. With regards to the Gripen, it maybe less expensive but I do not consider it to be cheap. Less expensive all the way around absolutely, but not cheap. Contrary to the loud voices coming from the USA,the F-35 is truly not operational. Flying–yes sort of. I hope that some of you if not all were able to read Mr. Archibald’s submission . As I mentioned before, it is truly an eye opener. I do not remember if I included the actual report as an attachment. I would gladly do so if I was able or given permission to do so and the process to do it. Lately, our government purchased a substantial order of weapons and radars from the USA. I am not too concerned because the Gripen can use all the American weapons. That’s all for now folks. Have a great Happy Father’s Day to all.

    1. i found the report for Oz on the f35 (obviously if you read my comments)

      do you have other reports and/or info on such?

      I’ve kept a close eye on all of this since I used to fly similar and have done all I can via what connections I have to help avoid a total disaster (te 35) or a bif screwup of almost as epic a scale (the super hornet which is in many ways worse than our original screwup of buying the FA18 in the fist place)

      Also the more people ere educated to the reality the bettr off we are by way of pressure put on our idiots in office.. just a matter of educating people and getting as many as possible to even make a small simple pphone call or drop a post card in the mail for free saying NO to this sort of crap.

      1. I wrote that report for Australian parliamentary inquiry, and a subsequent book entitled “American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare”. The F-35 should have been killed off in 2015 but General Dunford, then head of the USMC, declared IOC for what was then just a bag of bolts. He was rewarded with a Lockheed board seat four months and eleven days after retirement.

        The end is nigh for the F-35. The first sign was a couple of years ago when the US DOD told the USAF that they would be buying up to 400 new build F-15. Then a couple of weeks ago it was announced that the simulation test for the F-35 would be put off until some time in 2021. Then last week it was announced that the US DOD signed a US$62 billion contract with Lockheed for some 1,100 F-16s over 10 years, supposedly for foreign sales. They fixed the price of the F-16s before they will announce the F-35 is dead.

        If anyone would like more information, email me at david.archibald @

  21. An unwanted but positive side to the COVID-19 crisis may be the incredible cost it has put on our nation. We may have to downsize our military expenses just to help offset the unexpected cost COVID has put on our budget. This may actually force us to make the correct selection in fighters and that really is the Gripen. It makes far more sense to Canadian military needs than either of the US alternatives, regardless of cost. It is just a better option. COVID expenses may have an unintended but beneficial impact on our purchase decision.

  22. One hidden or side benefit as well is that every time a Swedish AF Grippen E interdicts a Russian Su 34, 35, 27, the more data knowledge the RCAF will get on how well the Grippen has handled the mission in all aspects. SAF Grippen E’s more than likely has much more mission interdiction hours with the Russian fighters and Tupes as do the USAF F-35, F22’s or the Super Hornet.

    1. When it comes to any interaction with the “other side” the Sweeds have experience in spades.. as does Israel. whereas the USAF does not per se.. even t the height of the cold war with higher #s of USAF stationed in Germany & AK etc.. the fact is most never got that close.. Not that theey are not highylyy trained.. (Thats why I was USAF/RCAF actually) but that training is not the same as the pilots that have routinely interacted with the real thing.

      The knowledge from our allies is something not to ever ignore or underestimate..and ultimately Canadas needs are what matter.. and only one of the 3 current available options really fits the bill… (Gripen ftw)

  23. In May of this year a report was given to the US GAO. The report number is as follows—GAO-20-339. This was given to Congressional Committees. The title of this report is–F-35 Joint Strike Fighter–Actions Needed to Address Manufacturing and Modernization Risks. You can read it just by putting in the report number into Google. As I mentioned to you before, there was a report written by Mr. Archibald about the F-35 when the Aussies were in the process of acquiring new military jets.The report given to the GAO confirms with absolute certainty that the Lockheed F-35 is a financial sinkhole and is basically a very expensive piece of garbage. Lockheed continues to misrepresent the F-35 as being the best. Well, it is the “best” piece of junk. For those of you who are old enough to remember, Lockheed did the same kind of thing with its F-104 Starfighter. There were a lot of palms greased with money back then. Boeing should not be trusted especially and in view of what they tried to do regarding the Bombardier “C” jetliner. Also, they further confirm their dishonesty in regards to their 737 MAX. They knew about those issues and it cost the lives of over 300 men, women and children.

  24. I will add that Saab could bring further value into the RFP by proposing a more holistic system-of-systems approach that would solve the CAF’s larger operational needs and enhance the Gripen’s invested network OODA loop capabilities through the introduction of a follow-on commercial AAR services bridge capability that provides a cost-effective and rapid replacement plan for the Polaris CC-150 fleet and which would lead to an organic multi-mission AAR capability built off of the C220 platform for tactical receivers and provides a roadmap for a tactical integrated C3I/BM using the Saab Erieye technology and large commercial AAR assets to support the tactical AAR fleet. Overall derives greater end-to-end integrated mission capabilities that capture improved cost efficiencies and expanded long-term Gripen E/F return on investment.

  25. What a bonus, Gripen plus the Global Eye. The GlobalEye is already based on the Bombardier Global 600, built right here in Canada. Saab offered 2 of them in their package for Finland. We’d get 4.5 Gen aircraft upscalable for many years, an outstanding AWACS platform, and full technology transfer, PLUS lower acquisition costs and lower operational costs. Over 20 years, savings might pay for a good chunk of a working pharmacare plan.

  26. I don’t, understand why we buy a whole new fleet of aircraft or ships at one time, and then run them until beyond obsolescence!
    We should have a continuous program of procurement that ensures the sharp edge of our military is relatively modern, and the second string can use up the older equipment till it is worn out.
    More frequent smaller purchases would allow us to maintain core industrial capacity, rather than the boom or bust system we use now.

  27. Yes, every single research is showing the Gripen is the best choice for Canada, and when it comes to decision time, surprisingly the junk rusted Australian F18 or useless F35 win the deal !!
    Have you forgotten what happened to Avro Arrow ?
    That amazing beautiful plane went to garbage because our big brother didn’t like it. It is that simple !

  28. Love the EW suite on this aircraft.
    Makes it much more flexible and adaptable for future threats. It’s short field capability, though not a real requirement at home, could make it invaluable in an active theater.

  29. Just stumbled on this site so apologies if this has already been raised… I recall when the CF18 was selected the twin-engine design was cites as an advantage because of our large northern expanse and limp home ability. If that is still a factor? Would seem to be a knock against the otherwise appealing SAAB offering.

  30. 125 Gripen designated as the CF-39 Arrow II:
    8 Tactical Fighter Squadrons (10 CF-39E variants each), 4 per fighter wing
    2 Tactical Fighter (Operational Training) Squadrons (10 CF-39F variants each), 1 per fighter wing
    25 Maintenance Spares (20 CF-39E variants & 5 CF-39F variants)
    This would allow each wing to maintain a four-phase managed readiness cycle with one squadron in each phase:
    Phase 1 – NORAD QRF (2 squadrons – 20 fighters)
    Phase 2 – NORAD secondary readiness/mission specific training (2 squadrons – 20 aircraft)
    Phase 3 – NATO/Expeditionary deployment (2 squadrons – 20 aircraft)
    Phase 4 – Reset (2 squadrons – 20 aircraft)

    10 GlobalEye Bombardier 6000 AEW&C aircraft:
    2 AEW&C squadrons, 1 squadron in support of each fighter wing (5 aircraft each – 1 per fighter squadron & 1 maintenance/training spare)

    30 Swordfish Bombardier 6000 Maritime Patrol Aircraft:
    4 Maritime Patrol Squadrons (6 aircraft each)
    1 Maritime Patrol (Operational Training) Squadron (6 aircraft)

    1. Add a squadron of Boeing/Saab T-7 Redhawks to replace for training and another for the Snowbirds (which allows continued use of the established logistics and maintenance support for the F404 engine) and maybe add another one or two light strike (AT-7) squadrons (dare I suggest they be reserve squadrons) for good measure.

      ALL running for less than $10,000 per flight hour…so we can keep pilots proficient and trainees moving through the system.

  31. Other than one or two references to Meteor, these posts haven’t dealt with the issue of ordnance. Recall how for years after its acquisition, the CF-18 had no modern air-ground weaponry. Now, with the proliferation of advanced ground-based air defence systems, one will need good EW to enter even the peripheries of a hot zone. The closer one gets, the hotter it will be. So assuming Canada will still be devoting a portion of those notional 88 airframes to NATO taskings, and further assuming that the RCAF will not be confined to defensive counter-air, what air-to-ground ordnance is cleared to fly on Gripen E/F? Guided bombs may be good enough to hit insurgents like Daesh, but what if the opponent has integrated GBAD? What stand-off capabilities are available for carriage? Can the Grip play a truly strategic role by carrying one or more long-range precision-strike weapons? I have not seen any info on this, but I hope the RCAF is considering the matter instead of placing all faith the F-35 as a penetrator itself.

    Canada may not envision using its aircraft the way the Brazilians do….

    1. Well one long range cruise missile is KEPD 350 and Gripen E can carry 2 of them or RBS-15, Gripen E can also carry 16 GBU-39 among other munitions.
      There is also the EAJP (Electronic Attack Jammer Pod) that can be used against GBAD (Ground Based Air Defense) it makes the JAS-39E/F with other EWS capable of the task.
      JAS-39 is built for the environment of the Baltic sea with Russian Kaliningrad and their S-400.

  32. As a former CF-100 Navigator/Radar Operator in the Cold War of the 1950’s and 1960’s I believe the Grippen would be the best choice to replace the Cf-18 as it could operate in the Artic and from northern bases, including paved highways or emergency strips to defend Canada from over the pole strikes by Russia or China. They will come one day as both countries will need our natural resources, and Canada is an obvious close target for both.
    The RCAF’s first responsibility is to protect Canadian sovereignty, not fight in an air war in Europe or elsewhere. The F-35 stealth capabilities are not required for the defence of Canada. It does not have the range required to cover the vast expanse of Canada. We could build or buy far more Grippens for the same cost as the F-35. I can’t see the F-35 saving aircraft in distress as we did on three occasions by guiding them to a safe landing as it would have difficulty staying in the air a the low speeds required.

  33. Some of the biggest advantages that the JAS-39E has over the American offerings when it comes to covering Canadian airspace are speed, supercruise capability, range, reliability and cost. Keep in mind when looking at these numbers that the CF-18 we’re replacing has a top speed of Mach 1.6, cannot supercruise and has a max range of 3,330km.
    F-35A = Mach 1.6 (No improvement over CF-18)
    F/A-18E = Mach 1.6 (No improvement over CF-18)
    JAS-39E = Mach 2.0 (Significant improvement over CF-18)
    F-35A = None. (No improvement over CF-18)
    F/A-18E = None. (No improvement over CF-18)
    JAS-39E = Yes, Mach 1.1 while carrying an A2A weapons load. (Significant improvement over CF-18)
    F-35A = 2,800km (Inferior to CF-18 by 530km)
    F/A-18E = 3,330km (Equal to CF-18)
    JAS-39E = 4,000km (Superior to CF-18 by 670km)
    This one’s easy because the JAS-39 has been by far the most reliable fighter jet in the world since its first flight in 1988. No Gripen has ever suffered an engine failure and the only time that someone was involved in a fatal crash was in January 2017 at the Thai Children’s Day Air Show. The Royal Thai Air Force’s investigation into the incident found the plane to not be at fault. Out of 271 produced aircraft since 1988, across five air forces around the world, only one person has ever died in a Gripen and the lack of engine failures have rendered the single engine question moot (for the Gripen anyway). No other fighter jet has ever come close to that level of reliability regardless of how many engines it has.
    COSTS (All costs are estimated but are accurate enough that any variations will be insignificant):
    F-35A -> $78,000,000 + ($36,000 x 8,000) = $366,000,000 each
    F/A-18E -> $66,000,000 + ($18,000 x 8,000) = $210,000,000 each
    JAS-39E -> $75,000,000 + ($5,000 x 8,000) = $115,000,000 each
    The formula used is purchase price added to the cost per flight hour multiplied by average fighter life in flight hours which is 8,000 hours. Costs do go up as the aircraft get older but I have no way to reliably speculate on that so I won’t.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Gripen is already our best choice and the fact that Saab would allow them to be built in Nova Scotia is just icing on the cake.

  34. I love all the input you all have put in but it all comes down to politics and pressure from down under. The Americans. They wish to control the world. By selling the F35. They actually do ! They can turn off all F35 ‘s ! Or maybe the enemy may find a way too ! Canada has made stupid decisions in the past and they will also do in the present. The F35 in my opinion will be the winner because remember that the engines that power the Gripen is made in America. We need a miracle. Or a government that can actually think and make their own decisions. Ours surely has proven they cannot time after time. Goodbye Arrow. Goodbye Saab. I wish I am wrong on this.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notice a spelling mistake or typo?

Click on the button below to send an email to our team and we will get to it as soon as possible.

Report an error or typo

Have a story idea you would like to suggest?

Click on the button below to send an email to our team and we will get to it as soon as possible.

Suggest a story