By Skies Magazine | March 29, 2021 Estimated reading time 6 minutes, 52 seconds.
Op-ed by William E. Gortney and Timothy J. Keating
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a unique, 63-year-old defense relationship between Canada and the United States. This organization, in close collaboration with a multitude of binational partners, is responsible for safeguarding the sovereign airspaces of both countries. The outstanding men and women charged with this task have performed brilliantly in the execution of their duties, and they must continue to have the resources they need to meet the demands and threats of the day. Much of these resources are due for modernization, and close Canada-U.S. collaboration will be required to ensure cost-effective, relevant, and effective solutions are obtained.
Canada’s current Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) is a timely example of this much needed modernization. FFCP is expected to play out in the coming months, and it is critically important that Canada selects a fighter replacement that can deliver on the Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF’s) long standing history of excellence. Three aircraft remain in the competition: the Boeing Block III Super Hornet, Saab Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
Canada’s effort to choose a new fighter aircraft to replace its aging CF-18 fleet is one of the largest procurement programs in the nation’s history. Fielding a fighter aircraft with the right balance of survivability, counter and blended stealth capabilities, self-protection, weapons capacity, and range at an affordable cost are the key to the fighter capability in any country. As previous NORAD commanders who are familiar with the capabilities of the three aircraft under consideration, we believe the combination of advanced capabilities at a lower cost make the Block III Super Hornet the best choice for the RCAF, and the best value for the Canadian taxpayers.
Early in June 2020, the U.S. Navy unveiled the Block III Super Hornet as its predominant multi-role fighter for its “Global Power Projection” and air-dominance mandate. With a 10,000-hour airframe, enhanced network capability, and advanced data link and long-wave Infrared Search and Track, the new variant of the F/A-18 brings next-level synergy to its capabilities. In fact, this robust, twin-engine Super Hornet is ideally suited for all Canadian military missions, at home and abroad — especially in Canada’s High Arctic. Additionally, the aircraft is capable of refueling other Super Hornets, serving as a force multiplier in large countries with limited resources. The Super Hornet is also compatible with the RCAF’s existing pilot training, as well as 65 percent of its current infrastructure and all of the weapons in its current inventory, providing for a low-risk transition.
With no planned retirement, Block III Super Hornets will undergo regular upgrades and modernization programs to ensure they continue to outperform all adversaries and competitors for the next 40 years. Boeing will support the U.S. Navy, Australia, Kuwait, and Germany — which recently announced its intent to add Super Hornets and Growlers to its force structure. Other prospective partner-nations include Finland, Switzerland, India, and others, which could result in a global fleet of well over 1,000 next-gen Super Hornets.
The Block III Super Hornet is the smartest choice for Canada to fulfill its NORAD missions as it looks to modernize its fighter force. The aircraft is ideally suited for Canada’s defense priorities; it is fully interoperable with the nation’s allies, works with a large degree of its existing infrastructure, and provides an affordable, low-risk transition to the RCAF’s next fighter.
William E. Gortney is a retired admiral from the U.S. Navy following 39 years of commissioned service, during which he commanded at every level in the Navy. In addition to his most recent role as commander, North American Defense Command, and commander, United States Northern Command, Gortney has also flown over 5,360 mishap-free flight hours and completed 1,265 carrier-arrested landings. He continues to serve in both public and private capacities.
Retired admiral Timothy J. Keating served for 38 years in the U.S. Navy, including his most recent three years as the commander of the United States Pacific Command, headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. Keating has also held command positions at the Naval Strike Warfare Center, a Carrier Air Wing, and an F-18 Squadron. Currently, Keating is the CEO of Keating Global, LLC and vice chair of the board of directors for the U.S. Naval Institute. Both Gortney and Keating are currently independent consultants for Boeing Defense, Space and Security.
Fully agreed. This is an excellent weapon system, twin engine aircraft which could fly autonomously over Arctic, better for Canada than than F-35.
No way Boeing wins this competition or any in the near future! CSeries tariff wounds still fresh on the minds of this government. I think Boeing set back their chances of any contracts with a Canadian government for years if not a decade to come! Foolish Boeing blunder…tariffs was a tactical win but a huge strategic lose. Lol.
Well Jas 39 deal to build in Canada sweetens the pot for Quebec loving corrupt politicians, it like the f 35 is single engine and does not have the range to patrol since pm creatien closed air support base of ops in 90’s . Pilots need 2 engines as safety is also paramount. I don’t like boeing tariffs on commercial manufacturing in Quebec, but the training, arms, support infrastructure for super hornets brings hourly ops costs down below even the the Jas. Personally I’d rather spend a bit more and get F 15 eagles , that would really piss the Russians off, And really dream out a deal and buy the used F 22 Raptors lock stock and barrel off the us airforce, a guy can dream. They’d never do it but hey just throw it out there. But safety and economically the super hornet is the only choice. On a personnel note since Quebec killed any pipelines going threw their province, I really don’t care about their jobs building subsidized airliners from said oil revenues from Alberta and Saskatchewan. Regarding Jas armament this would also push the cost up nullifying any savings , not just the bombs, rounds, missles(Some) but all the equipment handling isn’t transferable as a American built aircraft, it just isn’t. You don’t use a paint can lid on a 45 gallon barrel.
Better for Canada than the F-35A? Absolutely!
Better for Canada than the JAS-39E? Absolutely NOT!
You just agreed with a sales pitch from a US NAVY ADMIRAL. What plane did you think that he was going to recommend, the Su-33? He says the F/A-18E is a lower cost fighter, that’s false. It’s cheaper to BUY than the JAS-39E but far more expensive to own and operate. It’s like comparing a Dodge Ram to a Toyota Tundra. Sure, initially, the Tundra is WAY more expensive. However, over ten years, the Tundra will end up being far LESS expensive because it just won’t break or die. The Ram will have a major issue every six months or so and the cost of maintenance will eventually drive the total cost of the Ram above that of the Tundra. The same is true for the maintenance cost of the Hornet pushing the total cost above that of the Gripen.
the JAS-39 e is at a max cost of 60mil while the f/a-18 is 66mil. even the initial cost of the boeing plane is higher. on top of that hour flight in super hornet is about 12-15 thousand $ while the JAS-39 is at 2000. with a life expectancy of 10,000 thats adds to about to a difference of 80,mil at best to a 130mil. on top of that th e-war that the JAS-39 has is one of the best in the world. while not been stealth it has active jamming that make it highly resistance to SAM.
Gripen can also do that and at a lower cost and is more maneuverable.
Also agree fully!!!! The sad part this decision should have been made 5 years ago. Our men and women in the military put their lives on the line and the least we can do is give them the best equipment available. That’s like racing in the formula 1 with a race car that is 10 to 20 years older than the competition. No matter how well we maintain our CF-18’s and how amazing our pilots are they are limited by old equipment and technology.
With due respect to the authors above, sorry gentlemen but I see this as a US sales pitch. In my considerable research on the topic, the best fighter by far for Canadian operations is the Saab Gripen E.
Given the length of service necessitated by our Canadian method of procurement, the F-18 SH will be
obsolete twenty years before we are politically motivated to replace it. The Gripen E is easily modified by software updates and is totally compatible with NORAD and NATO operations. The RCAF has, in the past, operated with their own equipment and had no difficulty operating with US or other NATO forces. I was part of those operations. Tactical, communication and weapon commonality are built into the Gripen fighter. It is the right choice for the time.
Hi John,
Can you elaborate on your considerable research? Looking for facts please. I don’t buy the “stealth is obsolete” posture of SAAB, nor the fact that Gripen is easily modifiable. That will only roll the wheels so far.
The Gripen is a much newer fighter than the Super Hornet, which is still just a 1970s era Hornet at heart. If you’re concerned about stealth, the Gripen is the smallest fighter in the competition, which is hugely important for minimizing its visibility. Small form factor is a type of “stealth” that is lower maintenance and harder to defeat than the fancy temperamental radar absorbing paint applied to the F-35 which must be constantly replaced to be effective, and limits its ability to supercruise because it is easily damaged when the F-35 flies at high speeds.
You say “facts only” but don’t buy the idea that the Gripen is easily modifiable? Where are your facts to back up that claim? The proof of the Gripen’s upgradability has already been proven by observation. It’s core operational software is kept separate from upgrades like new missiles and radar. This alone means that, since the core flight operations aren’t touched during upgrades, the plane doesn’t have to be re-certified to fly as other planes with all-in-one monolithic software do. Sweden doesn’t have a lot of money (It’s a small country with about ten million people). However, it’s also only one Finland away from Russia’s border. As a result of this, SAAB had to make a plane with maximum efficiency in all possible areas to maximise the effect of every Swedish Krona spent on its development and manufacture. Anything less would have been a waste since Russia’s air force is relatively huge.
As a Canadian, I agree with your assesment 100%. The Saab Gripen E is the best fit for the RCAF. One of the finest fighters in the world, a very high tech capable fighter, utilizing all NATO/U.S. weapon systems, far lower operating costs, ease of maintenance, complete sharing of electronic and computer code for future Canadian use (unlike the Super Hornet with U.S. government restrictions) and an economic investment package in Canada that Boeing can’t match and by far in Canada’s industrial and employment best interests. On top of that, a retired U.S. Navy Admiral advocating the F-18 Super Hornet is hardly unbiased in his advocacy of the aircraft.
I agree 100% John. My years of research have proven exactly the same thing. There is no doubt in my mind that the JAS-39E Gripen is easily our best option. It’s an actual fighter rather than a dolled-up ground attacker, it’s faster than the other two which makes it a better interceptor for the north, it’s agile enough to fly circles around the American “offerings” and it’s dirt-cheap in comparison despite being state-of-the-art. The Americans should be embarrassed that a country of only ten million people can produce fighter aircraft that outclass the F-15 and are even dangerous opponents to the F-22A while costing a fraction of what those planes do.
There are already two NATO countries operating the JAS-39 (Czechia and Hungary) who absolutely love it. The single engine doesn’t matter because in 25 years, no Gripen has ever suffered an engine failure. I have calculated that a pilot would be 20x more likely to die in a “safe two-engined” CF-18 than a “dangerous single-engined” JAS-39. The Gripen is also impervious to climactic variation (from arctic to tropical), can run on biofuel and can even use parts made by a 3D printer! Let’s also not forget that it was the first fighter to use the most advanced BVRAAM in the world, the MBDA Meteor. In fact, the Meteor was DEVELOPED on the Gripen! Its standard armament also includes the most advanced WVRAAM, the Diehl IRIS-T as standard. Meanwhile, AIM-9 and AIM-120 can also be mounted right out of the box (along with TONNES of other missiles). It can use ALL of the weapons that the RCAF currently employs without modification along with many weapons that cannot be used by the American planes. In the strike role, it can use the Swedish RBS-15 “Odin’s Spear”, Paveway, Maverick, etc.
Having the plane made here with full tech transfer and IP rights will also re-vitalise the Canadian aviation industry after the Americans took great pains to destroy it. It would also re-vitalise Nova Scotia’s economy which is important because the Maritimes have had a rough go of it lately. Of course. giving the USA the proverbial “finger” by selecting the JAS-39E would be priceless after everything the USA has done to kneecap us.
It’s great to see another fellow Canadian who gets it. The Gripen won’t just be great for the RCAF, it will be great for Canada as a whole.
I both concur, and disagree, with the analysis. Fine on one, general perspective. Yet the conclusion is ‘off the mark’ (in my opinion).
Fighter aircraft decisions, such as this, are always foremost task-based, in my experience. Not sales pitch based. They are both life threatening and protecting.
For example, a key rationale behind the CF-18 selected in 1981 by the NFAP over the comparatively less expensive F-16 was due to the CF-18’s dual engine over the F-16’s single engine.
Canada’s geography obviously has not changed. However, reliability improvements have occurred; granted that also applies to both single and dual. Range, Reliability, Serviceability. Excellent!
Still, the Saab is a single engine fighter designed for a rather small country-market. My opinion.
The Saab may have some attractive costbenefit features.
But the aircraft operational requirements being both dependable, uncomplicated, and effectively addressed are what are paramount:
– Advanced/Basic Munitions,
– Load,
– Avionics,
– Upgradeability,
– Serviceability,
– Ground crew requirements,
– Aircrew,
– Fuel load & Refuelability,
– Range,
– Ceiling,
– Acceleration,
– Loiter time,
– Time at Max. Speed.
Sweden is considerably smaller than Canada. Sitting behind the stick to address Russian interdiction challenges into Canada still results in considerable time and work per flight. Far more than required in Swedish airspace.
For instance, “Sweden is approximately 450,295 sq km, while Canada is approximately 9,984,670 sq km, making Canada 2,117% larger than Sweden.”
I see benefits in each of the 3 platforms on current offer. Salesmanship is the rather expected, obvious side effect with so much expenditure on offer.
However keen those with vested interests may be, Canada’s operational requirements demand the investment which best protects Canada’s interests. Both domestically, and internationally. We are NORAD and NATO members with inter-operation being foundational, of course.
Canada’s great, historic, domestic challenge is the government’s ‘hands on’ involvement. Not entirely unlike the Admiral salesmen, their vested interests are shrouded by pretending to place our national security foremost. The reality is questionable at best.
After a decade or more of perpetually wasted ‘indecision’. Actually, repeat decisions are not to decide. Embarrassing to the Canadian military and it’s members.
GovernmentS that impede rather than enhance. They will not make truly informed decisions in the timely manner needed. As if that is not their duty. Most citizens identify this is 100% inappropriate.
Perhaps a 6th (or 7th) generation fighter might be on offer by the time Canada is closer to finally choose?
Who needs two engines when the single engine in the Gripen NEVER fails? As a pilot, I would take a single engine that never fails over TEN engines, let alone two. It’s clear that you haven’t been keeping abreast of modern aviation technology. Two engines are no longer required and the modern front canard/tailless delta configuration has been proven to be superior to the outdated cold war-era cruciform wing/rear elevator design. That’s why the vast majority of new fighters use canards and delta wings, planes like the Lavi/J-10, JAS-39, Rafale, EF-1000 and J-20. Please do try to keep up.
This is well said. I am curious what planes you have piloted Mr. Hawk?
I totally agree with Mr Bradshaw, it would be a smart and diligent decision for once by the Canadian government as long as the RCAF also is happy with that choice.
HEAR HEAR!
Gripen, the smart choice. Saab is a company willing to lay their cards face up on the table and tell Canada exactly what the industrial benefits will be and how it will benefit Canada. Cheaper to purchase, maintain and fly. Built for northern climates. Quick turnaround, easily upgraded software. Canada will be able to customize this fighter to give it a unique Canadian flavour.
April Fools joke I guess.
Boeing is not going to win this contract! Canadian government or Canadians have not forgotten the CSeries tariffs. How Boeing thought they can do that and not destroy their chances for future business from Canadian government procurement is beyond shortsighted. Then letting Airbus gain control of CSeries shows how out of touch Boeing management is. A strategic blunder to say the least. Saab Gripen is a better choice anyway. Canada is better off by aligning aerospace industry with Europeans.
John,
It is my understanding the Super Hornet has undergone numerous software updates since entering service with the USN and RAAF. Given the fact the Super Hornet will continue to be the backbone of US naval aviation (alongside the F35C) as well as the RAAF (alongside the F35A) for decades to come, I am certain the capability of the platform will continue to be upgraded and evolve as threat capabilities evolve. This can already be seen with the release of the Block 3 SH which has already entered service with the USN, and is the variant being offered to Canada.
The bottom line is that Canada needs a jet which can seamlessly integrate with our allies. For whatever reason, I have seen numerous articles and comments on this website that advocate against an American made solution, and I cannot understand why anyone would think it is a good idea to isolate ourselves further from our closest and most important ally.
The Saab Gripen E represents the worst option for Canada in terms of mission effectiveness. I believe the only reason it remains under consideration is due to the politicized nature of the military procurement process, and the benefits Saab has offered to allow the aircraft to be built in Canada.
Perhaps the article above is a sales pitch, but I still believe Canada would be much better off with the combat proven F35A or F18E vice an unproven jet built by a country that doesn’t belong to either NATO or NORAD.
Saab not being part of NATO or NORAD has nothing to do with capability. The key is making sure the Gripen communications equipment and software work seamlessly within NATO/NORAD. People make this out to be more difficult than it really is. US propaganda to hurt Saabs chances and keep all their allies buy US equipment. Gripen is fully capable of using all weapons in US and European inventory! Not sure if people noticed but Sweden has similar operating conditions as Canada! Plus Gripen has the ability to operate from road airstrips with minimal crew is unmatched.
Sorry Ken, but it has everything to do with capability. I would argue interoperability with our closest allies is actually much more complicated and difficult than people think, otherwise why would Dassault and Airbus withdraw their Rafale and Eurofighter aircraft from our competition, specifically citing an inability to meet NORAD security requirements?
Additionally, how can you be so certain the platform can use all weapons in US and European inventories? What about new weapons being developed? As threats to both NORAD and NATO (and by extension, Canada) evolve, who is going to pay for these expensive software upgrades? Are we going to be able to afford any testing of these systems to determine their effectiveness on our own? Or should we perhaps seek to leverage the combined resources of our friends to aid us in that task?
The bottom line is the Gripen E represents exactly what everyone already knows it to be…nothing more than a cheap solution that prioritizes cost and industrial benefits over mission effectiveness and providing the best platform for our pilots.
Our cold weather environment is also not something unique to Canada. Last I checked, both Norway and the United States (Alaska) have fairly harsh weather conditions and they seem to have no issue operating their F35s in that climate. The USN also happens to operate the Super Hornet in just about every climate known on this Earth, and that platform has performed exceptionally.
Lastly, if operating from highways was one of your concerns (which seems like a logistical impossibility when it comes to refueling and/or rearming), perhaps we can ask the USN how the Super Hornet fares with short distance landings and takeoffs?
If Saab can’t meet NORAD security requirments then the USN all ready is in deep shit, since they rely on Saab equipment in key systems on their CVs. The Gripen is not cheap to buy, it is almost as costly to procure as the F-35 or the SH. The big differences is that it’s designed to be low maintenance as one of the main design criterias from the start of the first Gripen program. The new Gripen E/F have design requirments to be cheaper to operate and still out perform the present C/D version in service in all aspects.
“Our cold weather environment is also not something unique to Canada. Last I checked, both Norway and the United States (Alaska) have fairly harsh weather conditions and they seem to have no issue operating their F35s in that climate. The USN also happens to operate the Super Hornet in just about every climate known on this Earth, and that platform has performed exceptionally.”
Hey Rick, last time I checked the Gripen is made in Sweden. I do believe they have very cold winters there as well with a northern Arctic border. Like Canada.
Do you realize the upkeep that goes with maintaining stealth coatings? SAAB is already proving they can 3D print battle damaged/maintenance required portions of the Gripen E on-site. SAAB doesn’t ascribe to the “fighter mafia” ethos and thinks outside the box. They haven’t asked for a krona to provide solutions no other manufacturer is even offering.
Let’s also address the fact that the RCAF is suffering massively from experienced pilot attrition due to Canada’s lagging attempts at staying current. Many Canadian pilots are working for private Tac-Air Adversary companies because they can get paid more and gain more experience with newer and much better systems.
We need pilots that have the best that we can give them. Brazillian Gripen E/Fs rolling off the line have demonstrated hot weather AO performance, while Sweden has demonstrated arctic AO performance.
The ability to use US and European armaments can provide the ability to change mission requirements on the fly with mixed payloads regardless of where the Gripen is operating from.
Lastly…buying F-18 SHs that *still* have canted pylons because it was easier for the designers? Gimme a break.
TWO NATO countries have used the JAS-39 for years and love it. Your post is very ill-informed because ALL Gripens from variant C onwards are 100% NATO-compatible. They’re as easy to integrate into NATO operations as ANY American plane.
The only thing I would add to what Mr. Bradshaw wrote is the question of Boeing’s ability to deliver aircraft on time, on budget. Consider what is happening with Boeing’s K-46 Tanker Aircraft or the issues with the Boeing 737 Max.
The Gripen is the sensible choice, Period!
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
This man right here knows what he is talking about, well said.
Never mind the Boeing salesmen that wrote the article.
Gripen for Canada!!
The F35 will go the way of the F117. One was shot down over Bosnia and the aircraft was grounded forever.
Professing fighter ‘competencyknowledge’ is significantly divested from tactical fighter competency experience.
I have got to wonder, how many accomplished fighter pilots have been asked their work opinions?
Gotta really think about that. After all else, who are going to put their lives on the line? These wannabe writing ‘experts’ in the field? That will never occur! They have not got what it takes.
How many active combat flight hours do so many armchair wannabes actually fantasize they have under their uber-experienced belts?
Reading here, so many truly have zero ‘hands on’ knowledge; yet outspokenly ‘sell’ their pseudo competency as Saab-salesmen in Canada. Gimme a break.
Real world versus otherwise.
Read it with a grain of salt. My kindest opinion.
As much as asking the pilots themselves seems what on the surface, you forget that pilots in the service, like any other soldier will only tell you what their commanders allow them to. The very implication that air force pilots are free to give their honest opinions instead of towing the air force line is absurd.
Agreed the f35 is not the way to go, but no mention of the super hornet! That is Canada’s number one choice by far! DUAL ENGINE PLANE! Super Hornet is the easy choice. Should have purchased them a while ago. Like Australia. Canadian government just hesitating because they don’t want to spend much in our military. Very sad!
It’s all nice sales pitch. I would like to hear from the Canadian side how it ranks in our mission requirements and other commitments before we make that final choice
Any US purchase will ultimately be tied to USA foreign policy.
The F35 is a USA first policy aircraft that is not an operationally stand alone product.
Whatever aircraft Canada purchases it should have the unique performance we require plus be independent of our southern neighbours demands which have been proved to be schizophrenic.
TB
Sorry Gents but I strongly disagree.
The Arctic and or white possible South
China Sea is going to be the primary concern of Canada not far off battlefields in the Middle East against Old soviet era migs The Saab is 15 year old platform the super hornet the same . Both generation 3 aircraft. Any RCAF will be a flying deadman the minute he gets off the ground and all the electronic upgrades in the world will not change that. If we are going to fulfill our obligations to NORAD NATO and our pilots we need to buy the only aircraft on the list that has a better than 70% chance of surviving ans engagement with Russian or Chinese generation 5 aircraft that leaves the F-35. Anything else in the list is a vanity purchase to say we did some thing .
Having 2x the number of Gripen E, with its most likely superior electronic warfare systems, would result in a far more capable air force to deal with those barely existing Chinese and Russian fifth-gen fighters than having a handful of F-35 and spending an insane amount of money on infra and trying to just keep them in the air. Which, mind you, will be all paid to Lockheed Martin, hoping at some point they will allow to use the far superior European Meteor and IRIS-T missiles, hoping at one point in the future they will reach the level of networked warfare Sweden is running among not just ground and fighters but peer-to-peer between fighters and other aircrafts, for 40-50 years already…
I’m in the US but from where I see (NY) the dumbest idea of all is clearly blowing your money on the F-35 when you can not only manufacture but even co-develop your own Gripen Es with Saab, just like Brazil is doing it now (and it only required a 36-plane initial order, most of it they will already mfr in their new plant, eventually scalling up to 80-100 fighters.)
Be smart, neighbors, think ahead 30+ years and the fact that the Gripen can be operated from arctic roads, refueled and rearmed in 15 minutes under an overpass, if necessary. From all the money you save on the nightmarish F-35 infra requirements you can operate 1.5-2x the number of Gripens you manufacture yourself…
Sending Super Hornets or Gripens into combat is like sending Be-2s up against Fokker E1s. It is senseless to plan on coming second place in air-to-air combat! If there is no pretentions on engaging in A2A combat then we could manufacture a LOT of Spitfires for that money and they would look nicer in airshows. Yes, 2 engines would have been preferred, but buying a twin-engined stealth fighter means buying Russian or buying Chinese. Just try to argue that!
I would like to see a mixed fleet of F-35 A and Super Hornets. If the RCAF is committing to 88 Jets why can we not purchase 60 of the Super Hornets and 28 of the F-35A. This would allow us access to two of the most effective fighter Jets on the planet. Allow for greater mission diversity as well as a continuation of enhanced domestic high tech jobs provided by the F-35 and manufacturing jobs from Constructing the super Hornet in Canada.
This is a totally unnecessarily expensive option! Every nation is trying to reduce fleet mix to save costs. We need ONE multi role fighter can do the missions. What does Canada really need? Intercept some russian bombers and a few NATO missions. If there are “capabilities” we don’t have the other allies can do it for NATO missions. Home air defence against bombers doesn’t need stealth!
Ken, I get your point. And to some degree I concur. If we as Canadians are willing to limit our future military role to home defence you make perfect sense. My reasons are twofold. First Canada has a history of participating in international conflicts further afield and I am certain that we as members of NATO will be involved overseas conflicts in the future. A mixed fleet will allow our future governments to offer serious contributions to our allies and their efforts and allow for greater flexibility in decision making.
Second, military procurement should also be used in this country as a way to develop high tech industries and jobs. By purchasing 2 different Jets we maintain the benefit of continued participation in the F-35 program as well as the benefits of manufacturing either a Boeing or Saab product in Canada with all the spin off benefits that entails.
In the 21st century aerospace technology as well as other defence technologies will be a very important part of the world economy and the coincidental simultaneous procurement of both the fighter jet replacement and the Type 26 frigate are a fantastic opportunity to maximize development of these industries. By purchasing two different fighter Jets we would be creating a greater diversity of jobs as well as maximizing the transfer of technology to our industries. I don’t see this as a waste of money but as an opportunity to help expand an already successful industry that will help keep us among the leading world economies.
Any of the world’s air forces that actually fight periodically have at least a high-low mix. The JSF proved one size doesn’t fit all.
So. If just one, the Super Hornet. More plane, more loadout, bigger than the original. More time, more versatile. The mid-grade, putting the multi in multirole.
If high-low, then LightningII and Gripen. Best deep surface attack and best dogfighter. 60 f-35s AND 120 Gripens!
That will NEVER happen. We don’t need or want first-strike capability. Unless you’re planning on going to war soon. If the Americans want to drag is into another one of their stupid conflicts then THEY can do the first-striking for themselves.
First I am Canadian from Québec, and I am all for the Gripen as the best option to defend our Nothern territories for the same reasons the pro-Gripens stated earlier. The F35’s are still not fully operational, regularly breaking down and the US are cutting back on their purchases of the F35 and buying more F15! The pro-F18 writers are probably Americans and are most likely not aware of Boeing’s catastrophic harm to the Canadian economy. The Canadian Air Force and Governement will make the right decision in buying the Gripen! Justin will keep his promiss !
Your position makes sense from a Quebec standpoint. Only thing JT is concerned with is Quebec jobs.
They’re going to be built in Nova Scotia so what are you talking about?
Justin has never kept a promise. Deficit or program. That’s a fact!
Neither has Harper so what’s your point? Harper LIED to us about the F-35. If Trudeau wasn’t elected, our tax dollars would be right now funnelled into Lockheed Martin’s bank accounts and we’d have a broken Air Force ruled by the Pentagon. Lose your political tribalism because this is for ALL Canadians.
Ohh man, I like you. Well said. I’m %111 onboard the Gripen. I hate my hard earned tax dollars going to a code bloated american war toy. Whoever wrote the first 20 million lines of code failed, and from what I hear, a lot of it has been thrown out and being rewritten. (developer speaking). I know about bad code 🙁
F-18E was a new plane designed to look like an old plane. It was never particularly good. The Gripen is a generation ahead in design and technology. Its so good the USAF T7 redhawk is based on it and the USAF is now talking about a fighter version of the Redhawk. Buying Gripen would be a HUGE boost to the Canadian aerospace sector and in the end, that is the most important. After all we know all 3 planes can probably do a good job. It also has a deriviatve engine from our F-18 fleet which will save a lot of time and money on training.
I would argue that it is critical for Canada to strike a balance between interoperability with the US and a degree of autonomy from it. This is why I think the Super Hornet is the best option for Canada. My understanding is that the Saab Gripen would have serious deficiencies in terms of interoperability and with its capabilities more generally. By contrast the F-35, in addition to being exceedingly expensive to operate as well as to acquire, would leave the RCAF heavily reliant on the US for the maintenance of Canada’s own Air Force. One doesn’t have to have a particularly long memory to know how unreliable the US can be as an ally. Much more of the maintenance for the Super Hornet can be conducted in Canada, creating Canadian jobs and assuring greater sovereign control over the RCAF capabilities. We need to be able to collaborate with the United States and be able to carry on independently when necessary.
I have another thought that favours the Super Hornet. It may be a pipe dream, but I wonder if we might acquire more than 88 Super Hornets, say 100 to 120. Furthermore, I wonder if we might be able to reach a long-term agreement with the United Kingdom in order to have a squadron of Canadian Super Hornets serving as a regular component of the British Carrier Strike Group Air Wing. Britain would have to invest in EMALS and AAG, but the RCAF could then serve as a real force multiplier, extending the range of the British F-35Bs as well as providing a combat aircraft with a much heavier payload than the F-35B when it flies in stealth, bringing the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to their full potential, something that Britain can’t afford to do right now. Canada would then have considerable influence over what missions the carrier strike group is assigned, greatly extending Canada’s influence in the global security arena. The RCAF would also then be able to develop expertise in carrier-board operations, which could inform the design of a Canadian aircraft carrier a number of years from now, in the 2040s perhaps. It may be a pipe dream, and it won’t happen under Trudeau, but I think it would be good.
This is a good example of multiplying force. I would leaning towards Canada buying F35C (the embarked version of the plane) to have that capability, also buying a handful (small squadron) of F35B will allow Canada to work with many allies (Singapur, Japan, South Kore, Italy, UK)
The government of Canada will not buy a fighter that is incapable of operating with other NATO air forces. If the government of Canada determines that the Gripen can operate satisfactorily with other NATO air forces, the Gripen is the obvious choice because it provides greater economic benefits for Canada than the U.S. fighters and it will advance Canada’s aerospace industry more than the U.S.-manufactured fighters. The Gripen can do whatever Canada needs a fighter plane to do, and purchasing it will be better for Canada overall.
The Gripen has been PROVEN to be 100% compatible with ALL NATO operations. For many years, the air forces of Czechia and Hungary have operated Gripens with no issues whatsoever. Incidentally, both are NATO countries. There’s nothing to fear in that regard.
As Canada moves closer to a final decision on its future fighter, careful consideration should be given to the efforts of its allies in procuring their new fifth-generation stealth fighters. As we see playing out, unaffordable operating costs and questionable reliability mean fewer fifth-gen stealth fighters and less capability. The Netherlands and United Kingdom had planned to acquire 85 and 138 stealth fighters, respectively, however, both countries are now looking at a 50% and 65% reduction to their F-35 fleets. The Italian Air Force recently announced a 41-aircraft reduction to their F-35 fleet.
Delivery of Australia’s first F-35s was expected in 2012, however, program delays forced Australia to purchase Super Hornets to cover a critical capability gap. Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers remain on Australia’s front line as the government now considers the number of F-35s the Royal Australian Air Force will need in their fighter force.
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) recently announced their plans to dramatically reduce the size of their F-35 fleet by over 700 fighters and divert funding to overhaul their legacy F-16 and F-15 fighter fleets. The USAF also announced a “clean-sheet” fighter development program to find a more affordable and reliable advanced fighter aircraft
Challenging the relevance of fifth-generation stealth fights are new air defence systems that now employ “counter-stealth” and “passive-sensor” technology. F-35 “static-stealth” is effective against older legacy air defence systems that use active radars to engage their targets, however, modern-day counter-stealth technology has made F-35 static-stealth all but obsolete in the new security environment. The Block III Super Hornet employs the same counter-stealth technology, which gives it a “first-look, first shot” game-changing advantage – the ability to engage stealth fighters at long range, beyond F-35 radar capabilities.
It is well known that stealth fighters forfeit their stealth advantage when carrying external pylons and weapons, however, also concerning is the F-35’s degraded performance and loss of maneuverability when loaded with external payloads. In stark contrast, the Super Hornet has unrestricted flying characteristic in all configurations, even when carrying a max-load of pylons, bombs and missiles.
Super Hornet procurement costs are the lowest of North American-built fighters by 30%, and according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Full Life Cycle Costs of the Super Hornet, which account for approximately 75% of the total program cost, are the lowest by almost 50%. This would see a savings of over $10 billion to Canada’s defence budget, a fiscal reality that any political leader or tax payer would welcome.
Both authors are naval aviators… who presumably flew the F-18 primarily or exclusively. I think we can safely say they are more than a little biased in their assessment that the F-18 is the best ever. Never mind that they are also Americans, and not Swedes. 🙂
Swede here. picking a fighter plane is always a difficult decision. primarily because it is hard to future gaze so far as to safeguard a good fit for strategies and threats that a future might bring. What capability is it that is needed? fghting the Russians over the arctic? what will fighting involve? defence? offensive needs?
will the future involve an asian enemy?
I would look for rapid development cycles, highly modularized. proven history of delivering. A plane that is part of a system of drones and other capabilities.
weakness as I have read about for gripen is the single engine design where canada is seeking a dual engine configuration dure to reliability requirements patrolling over remote areas. don’t think integration into NATO will be a problem…unless US makes it one.
with Finland now considering the gripen, the possibility of the gripen operating as a drone, a carrier based version being developed, good quick adoption of the latest misssiles, including the very capable RBS 15 sea missile (that I would not be surprised if it gets a gen 4 soon extending the use) Gripen is a reasonable choice for Canada I think.
Finally, Gripen pilots say that a significant strength is the pilot human factor design and information managment where the right information at the right time gives an edge over other planes. This is however hard to quantify.
in regards to Boeing, it is funny that Saab is collaborating with boeing on the US airforce TX trainer..it possibly says something about saab as a company….
Btw, US doe have enough tech used in the gripen to be able to cripple/block sales if they want, think this has been used as a thret behind the scene before, might happen again. However, don’t think they will play that card…they might use it to bluff with, but not use it in anger.
Would suggest people read up on how F35 was chosen by Norway, educational in regards to how US sell their fighter planes (hint it was far from gentleman fight)
.
You guys are all flyers I think. Why not we make a better plane for you. You input would help
It happen.
Would a plane with smaller wings front and rear not move faster. Wings tilt for take of and landing? Tee tail for control
Try again, as a Canadian taxpayer , I have to disagree with the admiral stick to sailing. The Gripen is what 7/10 Canadians want. So give back the bribe money and respect the vote. The time has come to stop bending over when the USA tells you to. Enough of the ball less wonders. Gripen all the way. See you at the ballot box.
The Rafale and Eurofighter withdrew because they are in the same or higher expense legue as the american altenatives, thus not really able to compete. Rafale is good but limited to mostly french weapons. Both wish not that the Gripen knock’s out the US planes as they are competitors in other procurements, thus stating 2-eyes reasons (my own view). 2-eyes was investigated by SAAB and deemed clearly within reach. The reality is that all 3 planes left in the race are able to fulfill all requirements (or they would not be in the race). All 3 can handle cold. However, for sustained operations in forward base actic conditions the Gripen is superior, not because of the aircraft alone but it’s small logistical footprint to sustain it over weeks in the snow – less personel, less fuel, shorter airstrips, easier to repair, higher sortie rate and highest availability (despite/because only one engine). The US alternatives are also developed in an environment where omnirole fighters are not mandatory, they still have their niche to fulfill. They are also expensive since the US govenment is not likely to go abroad to find alternatives. Gripen is developed to fight without big budgets and against a superior airforce. Let that soak in. The political and military tie with the US is in favour of the Super Hornet or F-35. That is their real advantage, plus quite a few numbers of aircraft around the world. With the Gripen, Canada can develop it’s own industy, independance and research. Finland is now in same situation, if they choose Gripen it will not be because they can not afford alternatives but that the Gripen in fact in many ways a superior military option. I would say if Finland chooses Gripen, chances are Canada will too.
As an American, I’m very impressed with the Gripen E/F. The big advantage that the Gripen has over its competitors is a low operating cost ($5K per hour), quick turn around time, and good short runway performance which allows the Gripen to be dispersed to makeshift runways (sections of highway) in the event that your main air base is knocked out by an enemy attack. If you get into a conflict with a formidable opponent (Russia or China), the first thing they will do is knockout your runways. Once that happens, aircraft like like the F-35A are grounded and become useless (Unless you operate the more expensive F-35B). One of Canadian’s military roles seems to be that of defending and patrolling its airspace against long range Russian bombers and recon aircraft. The Gripen’s ability to supercruise with air-air missiles makes it better suited for patrolling and defending Canada’s vast land mass. Supercruise means the Gripen has a better chance of chasing down fast bombers like the Backfire or Blackjack. While the Gripen is not a stealth aircraft, it has a good electronic countermeasures system that can be upgraded for future threats. I think that the Gripen is the best choice for Canada. Sadly, history has shown that politics often leads countries into making the bad choices with regards to military acquisitions. I can think of no better example than Canada’s tragic decision to cancel their Arrow jet fighter in the late 1950’s.
On top of cancelling it they agreed to destroy all of the development documents as well, it was a strange move by the government to integrate US aircraft into our Nato force.
Personally, I believe in a mixed fleet for Canada featuring a High/Low mix of aircraft. Hear me out: Canada may not be at war for a long time, or maybe we will be at war in the pending future. But the situation is we need to be ready in case the unthinkable happens. Now I propose Canada split the 88 aircraft we will be procuring to 44 and 44. With half the fleet being the highly advanced and the MOST survivable aircraft on the battlefield, the F-35A, and the lower-threat
engager but still multirole, F/A-18E III. This would mean we could deploy the stealth fighters for high threat situations and missions, (i.e against Russia) or deploy the multirole 4.5 gen Supers to slightly lower threat situations (Syria, Middle East). Alas this cannot, and will not happen, it would be a great idea.