Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
IMHO with its lower cost of acquisition, higher speed, lower hourly cost, longer range and the possibility of being assembled in Canada. It will be difficult for the voting masses to say the Gripen is not the right decision.

LM has a high priced, short legged, American built aircraft that has already been smeared.

Let the games begin.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
Calculas there is a link to the SAAB presentation at CANSEC that states that the aircraft and systems are NORAD compatible but i can not get it to load. Technology and age are not a good mix. Sorry. I did read it in a comment on the Bestfighterforcanada blog.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
IMHO with its lower cost of acquisition, higher speed, lower hourly cost, longer range and the possibility of being assembled in Canada. It will be difficult for the voting masses to say the Gripen is not the right decision.

LM has a high priced, short legged, American built aircraft that has already been smeared.

Let the games begin.
True. The range of the Gripen can exceed the F-35, but only with external tanks. Internal tanks the F-35 has the greater range.

The Gripen is not a bad plane. It just isn't the right plane for the missions Canada might be called upon to prosecute (including NORAD). Also, the F-35 has a great deal of future capacity increments planned, including further enhancements to range: ANALYSIS: F-35's next engine to reach for more range

If one is objective (a term that is admittedly difficult for politicians to grasp), militarily there is no real competition among the three remaining jets.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
IMHO with its lower cost of acquisition, higher speed, lower hourly cost, longer range and the possibility of being assembled in Canada. It will be difficult for the voting masses to say the Gripen is not the right decision.

LM has a high priced, short legged, American built aircraft that has already been smeared.

Let the games begin.
The Gripen would only have a lower acquisition cost IF they were purchased from a Swedish production facility, and that lower acquisition cost is likely to be within about USD$5 mil. per aircraft of the F-35A acquisition cost. Going off the costs associated with the Brazilian facility producing some of their Gripens at ~USD$130 mil. per aicraft, then the LRIP Lot 10 F-35A costs of USD$89.2 mil. per aircraft are not anything I would consider as "high priced".

The combat radius of the Gripen might be greater than that of the F-35A, or it might be comparable. The info I have come across has a Gripen NG in a CAP configuration (which does not detail what the carried ordnance is) of 800 n miles +30 minutes on station, while the standard USAF listed combat radius for the F-35A is greater then 590 n miles, but does not detail exactly what the ordnance configuration is though I suspect it is the standard 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM's and a pair of 2,000 lb GBU-31 bombs. From my POV that is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison at best and even if the F-35A combat radius would be ~590 n miles in a configuration the RCAF would use, that still is a significant improvement beyond what the current RCAF fighter is capable of.

IMO the only possible area where the Gripen might be considered "the right choice" for Canada were if one placed the greatest importance on operating costs. Once the F-35A hits full rate production, I strongly suspect the acquisition cost would be either virtually the same as the Gripen or possibly even less than the Gripen.

The gov't of Canada will of course make it's own decision at some point, but I suspect the decision will revolve around what is most politically advantageous for those making the decision, as opposed to what would make the most sense from an economic or defence capability standpoint.

With that in mind though, the Canadian electorate could also end up holding the decision makers responsible if they make a choice to garner or retain political power and it ends up that the selection is significantly more expensive and/or less capable than other options. With that in mind, any Canadian fighter selection based upon construction taking place in Canada would IMO be risky, because the higher cost per aircraft (possibly as much as 50% more) could put a noose around the necks of those who made the decision.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Gripen has the one attribute that the F35 does not and for those not from Canada its likely very difficult to understand.

"BUILT IN QUEBEC"

This will win the competition for the Gripen if they present an offer to build or assemble at Bombardier in Quebec.
Not, it is not hard to understand. And I certainly agree that a sitting Canadian gov't might see new RCAF fighters built/assembled by Bombardier in Quebec as being politically advantageous. OTOH while not being Canadian (though I might have access to citizenship, the family history and laws get a bit complicated...) I do have many non-Quebecois relatives in other Canadian provinces, and could easily see them, and others like them, voting against a gov't which selected such an expensive fighter replacement option. Particularly since it could be seen as 'rewarding' one specific area of Canada at the expense of the rest of the country.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
But if it creates jobs thw aircraft per unit cost doesnt matter.

Want proof, look at our new navy replenishment ships. The two Seaspan ships will cost almost $3 billion when and if delivered. Domestic capability and job creation in Canada trumps military effectivesness.

Want more proof look at the acquisition of the Bell 412s in the 1990s as a one size fits all replacement for three types including Chinooks that were sold to the Dutch. Civilian helicopters built in Quebec.

I will be very surprised if the F35 gets picked. If it does you can expect a long legal action like almost every other Canadian defence acquisition..
 
Gripens built in Canada would most likely cost more than the gripens built in Brazil due to higher wages and the additional costs of getting the planes NORAD compliant that pushes the price of a built in Canada gripen upwards of 150 million per plane.Lockheed said that in 2022 when Canada purchases a new fighter the f35 will cost around 80 mill per plane with a 25000 per hour flight cost that would mean we would be basically paying double per plane for a less capable fighter the savings on buying the f35 would pay for a 330 mrtt and wedgetail fleet the gripen will always be cheap to operate but operating cost don't matter if it can't operate in a high threat environment
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
People please recognise that when the RCAF operates in a "high threat" environment it does it with friends who have better toys than us.

We are not a first strike nation. We are followers who participate in coalition operations. Our political masters, regardless of political colours, are not going to allow Canadian offensive operations unless sanctioned by NATO or the UN, both with very strict ROE.

We have no "attack" helicopters as this would be unCanadian. Not that we dont need them IMHO.

A Gripen fleet checks all the boxes for a Candian fighter. Not the best but able to do most things adequately enough. We are very unlikely to see our aircraft operating in a peer on peer fight.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
But if it creates jobs thw aircraft per unit cost doesnt matter.

Want proof, look at our new navy replenishment ships. The two Seaspan ships will cost almost $3 billion when and if delivered. Domestic capability and job creation in Canada trumps military effectivesness.

Want more proof look at the acquisition of the Bell 412s in the 1990s as a one size fits all replacement for three types including Chinooks that were sold to the Dutch. Civilian helicopters built in Quebec.

I will be very surprised if the F35 gets picked. If it does you can expect a long legal action like almost every other Canadian defence acquisition..
The Canadian content, both labour and components, is much higher for naval programs than for any jet assembled under licence in Quebec. As for price, both are excessive compared to buying from the country of origin. The Bell 412 fiasco is just another example of Quebec/Bombardier appeasement that the rest of the country has had more than enough of!
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
It was Marcell Masse who gave Bell the order personaly. Political interference like no other.

Just one more example of Canadian assembly of a long serving aircraft, the venerable Sea Kings were assmbled in la belle provence.
 
Strategic attack on foreign soil was one of the requirements that was worth alot of points in the grading system that sounds alot like first strike capability to me stealth works just as good on defense as it does on offense and in a air to ground or a air to air senario it's not just a first strike capability and what are we supposed to do if advanced enemy fighters violate Canadian airspace with bad intentions?call NATO for help and wait a week for them to get here lol
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
NORAD would be the first call, not NATO. Given the current US administration attitude towards NATO, it might not survive if Trump wins a second term.
 
The nato comment was a little joke lol NORAD has been our most important military alliance since it was formed NATO was created to protect western Europe so the 5 eyes members don't have to lose another generation of young men retaking it for a third time but if we have to rely on America to protect our airspace because of our incompetence or lack of willpower it's not going to be our airspace after that it's going to belong to America we will officially cease to be a sovereign country
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
But if it creates jobs thw aircraft per unit cost doesnt matter.

Want proof, look at our new navy replenishment ships. The two Seaspan ships will cost almost $3 billion when and if delivered. Domestic capability and job creation in Canada trumps military effectivesness.

Want more proof look at the acquisition of the Bell 412s in the 1990s as a one size fits all replacement for three types including Chinooks that were sold to the Dutch. Civilian helicopters built in Quebec.

I will be very surprised if the F35 gets picked. If it does you can expect a long legal action like almost every other Canadian defence acquisition..
The cost per aircraft, and/or the total project cost still matters even if it creates jobs. A number that some people look at for job creation projects is what the cost per job created is, particularly when compared to the pay per created job. Of course the duration of the created positions is also important.

At some point, the cost to create the job outweighs any benefits garnered from the job created. In naval shipbuilding (which usually has far more domestic content and work than assembly of fighter kits) a domestic cost premium of ~30% will usually still provide an overall net benefit for a domestic build. A cost premium of 50% or more however would be getting into questionable territory on whether or not it would be providing a net benefit.

For the RCAF fighter procurement, it gets even more questionable since the F-35 programme has already seen CAN$1.3 bil. worth of contracts to build parts for the F-35 programme and as part of Canada's participation agreements were signed which prohibit imposing industrial benefit requirements.

Depending on how Canada ends up running the rest of the fighter procurement programme, I can see a potential scenario where a Canadian gov't selects a platform based upon being able to engage in domestic assembly, which provides a temporary benefit to one area of Canada, but comes at a higher overall cost and is an overall detriment to the rest of Canada due to losing F-35 workshare. Whatever gets selected will also most likely undergo a legal challenge given how the programme has been run so far.
 

At lakes

Well-Known Member
I recently read on another forum or this one I can’t remember, a quote that sums up Canadian Polly’s to a T when purchasing Defense related equipment.

“Politicians are like babies nappies they should be changed regularly for the same reason”
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I recently read on another forum or this one I can’t remember, a quote that sums up Canadian Polly’s to a T when purchasing Defense related equipment.

“Politicians are like babies nappies they should be changed regularly for the same reason”
It was probably this:

upload_2019-9-1_20-22-36.jpeg

And I probably posted it when referring to Kiwi pollies. I have a collection of memes which I keep adding too.
 
Top