Is the Gripen E a real contender?

[schnitzel2k3]

https://skiesmag.com/features/saab-grip ... et-canada/

"Gripen E meets and/or exceeds all of the Canadian requirements. It’s an efficient, modern fighter, and it’s the latest development on the market.” So says Anders Håkansson, Saab’s deputy campaign director for the company’s participation in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).

Canada’s protracted search for a new fighter aircraft to replace its aging McDonnell Douglas CF-188 Hornets has narrowed to a field of three competitors. The U.S. manufacturing giants of Boeing and Lockheed Martin are respectively offering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35A Lightning II, with Sweden completing the trio with Saab’s latest incarnation of Gripen — the single-seat E variant."

I am optimistic about seeing Saab's in Canadian skies, but I won't be flying them.

What are the guys in the actual seats hopinv for now that more information has been published for their E model?

Cheers,

S.

[Scout44]

Personally, I like this scrappy little underdog. I don't have enough technical knowledge to know if it's the right fighter for Canada, but it sure does capture the imagination with the prospect of assembly in Canada, IP transfer, and lower operational costs.

It will be very interesting to see how the procurement plays out. Hearing rumours now about a federal election this year, and the fighter is to be chosen in 2022. If the current government remains in power, they are already on record as not being a fan of the F-35, and will be under enormous budget pressure following COVID. Add to that we're already in the midst of the largest military procurement in history with the ship building program, and you see there's a lot of context to consider.

I think the Gripen could serve Canada well, but if I was a betting man, I'd say the fix is in for the F-35 even if the government has to change course from their campaign promises to not select it. We'll likely be a late adopter, and buy fewer than the 88 being suggested now. Just a gut feeling, could be wrong. Before the Boeing-Bombardier spat, the current government was also going to buy some Super Hornets as the interim replacement which I viewed as just a back door to eventually doing a full fleet replacement with Super Hornets, so there's always that possibility as well.

[pilotguy53]

The Gripen is a sub-par contender as it delineates us from the international stage. As for the Super Hornet, the technology is already obsolete (ask any USN pilot). I do not buy what SAAB is saying: "Stealth will not be valuable in the future". Stealth is current evolution of technology and drives tactics.

Some will argue that Canada's only role is NORAD and Air Policing, and for that role, the Gripen is ideal. People will also argue that it brings significant economic benefit to Canada (Quebec). From a technical/performance perspective, the F35 is the leaps and bounds better than any of the other platforms. It will outperform them on the technical merit, and hopefully the scale is accurate and not skewed by lawyers and politicians.

The truth is that comparing a 4th gen fighter to a 5th gen fighter is like comparing an early gen Nokia phone to an iPhone 12. Generally speaking, the public has no idea on the significance that 5th gen capabilities plays in all Fighter roles/mission sets. It's not the publics fault - the information is purposely held tightly at higher levels - for obvious reasons. As I mentioned before, being able to perform on the international stage is crucial. In order to do so, you need to be able to communicate/share information on intricate data networks... something the other contenders simply cannot do. 5th gen brings critical enhancements in stealth, sensor fusion and information sharing. 6th gen fighters are already being developed (BAE/USN/USAF). Why would Canada want to get a 4th gen fighter that will be stuck in the stone age?

[schnitzel2k3]

Interesting views.

My understanding is that Saab believes stealth technology is slower to adapt to new threats, while electronic defenses such as their electronic warfare package (electronic stealth) can be updated continuously to match new threats.

In lamens, as I understand it, the Gripen E is like buying computer case with the ability to swap parts in and out as technology becomes outdated, while the F35 is an all in one computer, limited options to upgrade, WYSIWYG. Unfortunately its only stealthy as long as you don't have any amament or fuel on the pods. I'm sure it can be adapted to have similar jamming systems which obviously would give it an advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen the F-35 in action, and it is very impressive, but looking at estimated future operating costs, it makes sense to have fresh airframes at half the cost that can be adapted to future requirements, and operate at 1/5th of the hourly. For a peace keeping country, with a very limited military budget, you can't ask for much more.

https://stratpost.com/gripen-operationa ... ers-janes/

I don't know the economic numbers regarding GDP of either package, but the Gripen seems to be the only one actually built in Canada. I am aware we have contracts for the F35 to develop technology, but how extensive those are is out of my depth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 19-2%3famp

[schnitzel2k3]

You make a good point about 6th gen already in development.

Are we relying too much on our allies to defend us?

[Scout44]

The truth is that comparing a 4th gen fighter to a 5th gen fighter is like comparing an early gen Nokia phone to an iPhone 12.

Generally speaking, the public has no idea on the significance that 5th gen capabilities plays in all Fighter roles/mission sets.

6th gen fighters are already being developed (BAE/USN/USAF). Why would Canada want to get a 4th gen fighter that will be stuck in the stone age?

I can easily buy that point of view, and if the tech gap is a large as you say, then the RCAF should get the best. I'm just curious about the procurement details in light of operational costs like how many airframes we could field, how much time our pilots will get in them, and so on.

We have more waiting to do, hopefully they do announce the competition winner next year and don't kick that can further down the road.

[7ECA]

As has been seen time and again, the latest and so-called greatest new thing is almost always obsolete the moment it is introduced into front line service. This is just another case of bloated R&D projects being subsidized at great expense by tax payers, while corporations and conglomerates make gads of money supplying junk.

The most economically viable option for Canada is an aircraft of the Gripen/Super Hornet/Eurofighter line, in which we can purchase a large quantity of "last generation" aircraft and have the ability to make upgrades over their lifespan. Obviously, any agreements for benefits such as building them in Canada, intellectual property transfers, etc., are bonuses...

[Raincoast]

Any truth to the rumour that the F35 has already been nick-named the 'Penguin'??

[Bede]

The Gripen is a sub-par contender as it delineates us from the international stage. As for the Super Hornet, the technology is already obsolete (ask any USN pilot). I do not buy what SAAB is saying: "Stealth will not be valuable in the future". Stealth is current evolution of technology and drives tactics.

Some will argue that Canada's only role is NORAD and Air Policing, and for that role, the Gripen is ideal. People will also argue that it brings significant economic benefit to Canada (Quebec). From a technical/performance perspective, the F35 is the leaps and bounds better than any of the other platforms. It will outperform them on the technical merit, and hopefully the scale is accurate and not skewed by lawyers and politicians.

The truth is that comparing a 4th gen fighter to a 5th gen fighter is like comparing an early gen Nokia phone to an iPhone 12. Generally speaking, the public has no idea on the significance that 5th gen capabilities plays in all Fighter roles/mission sets. It's not the publics fault - the information is purposely held tightly at higher levels - for obvious reasons. As I mentioned before, being able to perform on the international stage is crucial. In order to do so, you need to be able to communicate/share information on intricate data networks... something the other contenders simply cannot do. 5th gen brings critical enhancements in stealth, sensor fusion and information sharing. 6th gen fighters are already being developed (BAE/USN/USAF). Why would Canada want to get a 4th gen fighter that will be stuck in the stone age?

Can you outline what a 5th generation fighter can do that a 4th generation fighter can't with reference to our typical missions (Libia, etc.)? I know nothing about fighters.

Signed,
A guy with a Nokia phone.

[dhc#]

Considering Turdo and Company's green modus operandi, they will probably pick a CF18 replacement fighter based on a manufacturers' E.S.G.

[schnitzel2k3]

Considering Turdo and Company's green modus operandi, they will probably pick a CF18 replacement fighter based on a manufacturers' E.S.G.

Well Sweden likely will be the best contender on that front as, last I checked, the U.S and all their corporations walked away from any green initiatives...

Realistically though, I'd think that our government would be more concerned with stepping on U.S relations rather than get a fighter that we can afford and which address our typical mission. Particularly now with a new President.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It is now over 14 years from the first flight of the F 35 and things are not getting better........

From Flight Global



Lockheed Martin F-35 deficiencies: two fewer in 2020, 871 issues remain
By Garrett Reim14 January 2021

Lockheed Martin managed to reduce the total number of identified problems with its F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter by two in 2020 – though 871 deficiencies remain.

That’s according to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s (DOT&E’s) 2020 annual report to the US Congress, released on 13 January. The DOT&E is the Department of Defense’s top weapons tester.

DC - F-35A Lightning II for maintenance at Eglin Air Force Base

Source: US Air Force

F-35A Lightning II parked for maintenance at Eglin AFB

It appears that Lockheed solved more than two deficiencies in 2020; however, it also discovered additional problems, which meant the total number of open issues only fell slightly. The total number of deficiencies solved and discovered in 2020 was not disclosed in the DOT&E report.

“Approximately 100 new deficiency reports were written in 2020 and about as many were resolved and adjudicated,” Lockheed says.

The F-35’s problems included 10 category 1 deficiencies, three fewer than in 2019. Such problems “may cause death or severe injury; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organisation; or results in a production line stoppage,” according to the US Air Force’s definition.

The DOT&E did not disclose a list of specific deficiencies. But Lockheed says many of these are categorised as “low priority” or are with the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) for resolution.

“There are currently no CAT 1A (risk to life or limb) and 10 open CAT 1B (mission impacts) deficiency reports,” says the company. “Nine of these have closure resolution plans, with seven already delivered to the government awaiting action. The other is currently being reviewed by the [Joint Program Office]”.

The company claims that “deficiency reports are not always contractual deficiencies”.

“In fact, many deficiency reports document opportunities for improvement from pilots and maintainers for consideration above and beyond contractual obligations,” says Lockheed. “These are called enhancements and are documented as deficiency reports, because there is no other program or process in place to record this feedback from the test sites.”

The DOT&E report notes that issues also continue to emerge with the F-35 modernisation effort called Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2). It is modelled on a commercial software and hardware development process called agile development. That strategy tries to introduce system updates on a continuous basis, instead of the more traditional “waterfall” approach which dumps many software and hardware changes at once, every several years.

Lockheed was bullish that agile development could solve the F-35’s problems, but growing evidence over the last year indicates it is falling far short of expectations.

“The current development process used by the F-35 JPO and Lockheed Martin, that is supposed to provide new capabilities and updates in six-month increments, is not working. It is causing significant delays to planned schedules and results in poor software quality containing deficiencies,” says the DOT&E report. “The current C2D2 process has not been able to keep pace with the scheduled additions of new increments of capability.”

In fact, the process appears to be making the F-35’s problems worse.

“Software changes, intended to introduce new capabilities or fix deficiencies, often introduced stability problems and/or adversely affected other functionality,” says the DOT&E. “Due to these inefficiencies, along with a large amount of planned new capabilities, DOT&E considers the programme’s current Revision 15 master schedule to be high risk.”

There are also concerns that the Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN), the replacement for the F-35’s troubled Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), is falling behind. ALIS is a system that manages prognostics, maintenance, supply chain, flight operations and training for the F-35, but is so cumbersome and error-ridden that Lockheed is scrapping it and replacing it with the new cloud-based ODIN.

“Although the programme continues data, software and hardware development for ODIN, an overarching test strategy that includes government and contractor laboratory facilities has yet to be provided,” says the DOT&E report. “The schedules for ODIN initial operational capability and final operational capability remain high risk.”

ODIN was expected to reach full operational capability in December 2022.

Availability for the F-35 fleet showed “modest improvement” in 2019 and early 2020, says the DOT&E report. However, “the average fleet-wide monthly availability rate for only the US aircraft, for the 12 months ending in September 2020, is below the target value of 65%.”

Lockheed has often pointed to higher availability rates for F-35s that are deployed, but the Pentagon’s weapons testing office says those gains are fleeting.

“Individual deployed units met or exceeded the 80% mission capable and 70% fully mission capable rate goals intermittently, but were not able to meet these goals on a sustained basis,” the DOT&E report says.

[Mick G]

Single engine fighters have no place in the far north and high arctic. We will lose very expensive aircraft and pilots will die if the Canadian government fails to understand this. There simply are not enough runways and infrastructure in the vast areas of the North to support engine failures. We all know arctic sovereignty missions will continue to escalate as the planet warms.

[hawker driver]

I read that Hungary which purchased Gripen’s was have some issues with spare parts and support from Sweden.
It seems the very Liberal government in Sweden does not agree with things that Orban the ultra right president of Hungary has been doing and is causing problems with support for the aircraft.

Sweden thinks this is a good tactic but it looks like it is going to cost them a potential customer Croatia who was looking at the Gripen as well. When the Croatians heard about these polical pressure games from Sweden they chose to pass.

It look like they are going for used Rafale from France the rumours are.

[Air.Field]

Single engine fighters have no place in the far north and high arctic. We will lose very expensive aircraft and pilots will die if the Canadian government fails to understand this. There simply are not enough runways and infrastructure in the vast areas of the North to support engine failures. We all know arctic sovereignty missions will continue to escalate as the planet warms.

That's what some said about flying across the ocean in less than 3 engines. Single engine fighters have been around for quite some time and have proven reliable. North or south of 60 isn't going to make much of a difference.

[all_ramped_up]

Single engine fighters have no place in the far north and high arctic. We will lose very expensive aircraft and pilots will die if the Canadian government fails to understand this. There simply are not enough runways and infrastructure in the vast areas of the North to support engine failures. We all know arctic sovereignty missions will continue to escalate as the planet warms.

That's what some said about flying across the ocean in less than 3 engines. Single engine fighters have been around for quite some time and have proven reliable. North or south of 60 isn't going to make much of a difference.

Exactly. I looked through every accident report for the Royal Norwegian Air Force's F-16 fleet and found only two incidences of an engine failure (one was on the ground) from 1986 to 2014.

Pretty good odds to me. Seems they have to worry more about mid-air collisions with each other, wire strikes and the occasional bird strike.

[oldncold]

the Grippen e. can land on 3800 ft gravel road and be refueled. and rearmed airborne again 20min .the first thing any combatants to canada will do is take out the fighter airfields and command comms

the Grippen is a pure. aerial dogfighter designed to deny the enemy your home airspace. the ideal would b etohave 88 Grippen + 50 the F35 for international ops but. the idea of quickly rearming and back in the fight from any stretch of gravel road across Canada. certainly gets my thumbs up forthe Grippen

[tailgunner]

There’s no comparison between the Super Hornet, Gripen and the F35.
You have to start thinking about things differently. It is no longer about gravel roads, rearming, and close in maneuvering, it is about network centric defence.
The Gripen, while a fine 4th gen., is comparable to existing F16 block 50/52. Sweden spent a huge amount of money to basically design an F16, but 25 years later.In fact, the new F16V is very competitive with the Gripen.
The F18 E/F/G variant has been flying since the turn of the century. It is not cutting edge by any stretch of the imagination. It is also a drag heavy airplane, that has trouble vis a vis thrust/weight/ acceleration/ sustained G. It also has range limitations, and most always is seen with a drop tank or three. Furthermore, the stores are canted outwards 3 degrees from centreline to ensure proper separation. This greatly hampers it when carrying loads. It performs well at airshows though.
The F35 has advantages that no other current fighter can bring, including the F22. It has sensor fusion that no other platform has. It can use ANY sensor information to create a targeting, SA picture. That means, a F35 flying out of Cold Lake can use any pertinent information created by radar pictures of NATO and NORAD. It doesn’t even need to have its radar turned on. It can be in the right place at the right time all the time. The F35 can essentially act like a mini AWACS, and the USN has conducted tests where the F35 was able to datalink into a SM3 SAM, and retarget the misleading in flight. This is probably of little use for the RCAF right now, but shows the level of sophistication built into the F35.Can it use 3800 ft of gravel, probably not, but that is relatively pointless anyways. We have FOB’s for that and the logistics of setting up adhoc FOB’s can be used on better paved runways anyways.
The F35 is and has always been under heavy scrutiny. The challenges of the program are hugely reported on because it makes great news fodder. All aircraft have deficiencies. The Cf18 was grounded because the tail fins were cracking! The F15 had fuselage separation failures and were grounded. The F22 was grounded because of oxygen issues, and it continues to have issues with its data link. I’m sure the F18 SH has issues as well, as does the Gripen, but they don’t get reported on.
If you read and listen to current F35 pilots, they seem to be overjoyed with the advantages that they enjoy with the airplane.

Cheers

[Big Pistons Forever]

The F 35 has 2 problems. 14 years in it can't seem to escape the reliability, maintainability issues that continue to prevent it from archiving a reasonable readiness level and it is so expensive to operate even the US is having trouble with the bill, hence the US Navy cutting the numbers of F 35 in favor of the F18. Incidentally the Navy has a extensive modernization plan for existing F 18's and the latest fleet plan has the USN operating the aircraft until 2050.

The fundamental problem with Canada's fighter buy is before deciding the type of aircraft Canada needs to answer the question of why we have a Military and what do we want it to do. Canada has no strategic level military doctrine except for the joke of a white paper, the 2017 Strong Secure Engaged document.

In DND's defense however it is hard to have strategic Military doctrine when Canada has made no attempt at a unified rational and consistent foreign policy.....

[YYZSaabGuy]

The fundamental problem with Canada's fighter buy is before deciding the type of aircraft Canada needs to answer the question of why we have a Military and what do we want it to do. Canada has no strategic level military doctrine except for the joke of a white paper, the 2017 Strong Secure Engaged document.

In DND's defense however it is hard to have strategic Military doctrine when Canada has made no attempt at a unified rational and consistent foreign policy.....

Agreed. And add to that the complication of a procurement process that has become hopelessly politicized, by both major political parties. We'll be lucky to have a CF18 replacement in place by 2030.