Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not necessarily. F-15 is a much older design compared to Gripen and US air force is investing heavily in new versions such as F-15EX over the next few decades. Gripen may have limited capability due to its small size, but it is sufficient for Canada's needs which is mainly peacekeeping missions and Arctic air patrol.
This puts me uncomfortably in mind of the long history of kings and generals preparing for the last war. Present attitudes in Canada notwithstanding there's not much to guarantee the status quo will remain. External forces beyond Canadian control also need consideration.

oldsig
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Canada does not have the budget of China and Russia to match their air power. Canada's primary focus in modern times is peacekeeping, anti piracy, humanitarian missions.
So Canada lives in a benign strategic environment? It doesn't have to be concerned about great power rivalries? What's it going to do when the US and the PRC have some argy bargy? What if Russia decides to have a go in Europe whilst the Americans are fully occupied fighting the CCP / PRC? The Americans are no longer capable of fighting two wars against near peer enemies at the same time. They will have trouble fighting a single front war. Canada has NATO responsibilities, so is it going to ignore those. Peacekeeping and HADR are not the primary or core mission of any military; warfighting is. Anything else is secondary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and doesn't understand the core reason for the existence of a military. It exists to defend the nation against those enemies who wish to destroy the home nation, or rob or plunder its wealth, or murder or harm its citizens. It does so by committing violence on those who attempt to harm the nation and wreck the enemy's place and forces before the enemy does it unto them. The members of the military pay the price in blood, but they do so of their own free will.
Sure, manned jets still have their place, but the bulk should be focused on drones. Gripen E is not designed for air superiority. It is multi role, albeit with reduced capability due to small size. Does it serve Canada's needs? Absolutely. Is it the best choice for Canada's manned jets? Personally, I think so. What Canada ultimately comes up with in 2022 or later for the final selection remains to be seen.
And pray tell what combat capable UAVs are there that can replace manned combat fast jets?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This puts me uncomfortably in mind of the long history of kings and generals preparing for the last war. Present attitudes in Canada notwithstanding there's not much to guarantee the status quo will remain. External forces beyond Canadian control also need consideration.

oldsig
Absolutely, but pollies do what is best for them so the status quo will remain, short of a complete $hitstorm engulfing us.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Absolutely, but pollies do what is best for them so the status quo will remain, short of a complete $hitstorm engulfing us.
Not entirely true, and not my point at all. I was referring to the attitudes of the member i quoted, not your politicians.

oldsig
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Post 1 of 3: Upgrade options for a classic Hornet operator

1. There is a greater risk of a large, overt Russian military escalation in its neighbourhood now than any point since 2015, but if you misinterpret their goals, you may prepare for the wrong scenario or take actions that won't deter that escalation.
(a) Canadian soldiers stationed in Latvia and the other Baltic states, under NATO command, are naked, vulnerable and potentially exposed to Russian aggression — Latvia has a whole-of-government approach. They hasten societal preparedness for crises in a document called ‘72 hours: What to do in case of crisis’. This handbook from Latvia covers a broad range of crises, from natural or man-made disasters to military threats and war. See also: How Latvia Accomplishes Comprehensive Defence
(b) If Russian troops move, Canadian troops will be fighting out numbered. Canadian sailors and troops are in the direct line of fire from their support of Baltic states. As Rob Lee said: “In the 2nd Karabakh War last year, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic lost 60% of its air defense systems and 40% of its artillery in the first 30-40 minutes of the war. Modern Warfare is extremely fast and lethal, and Russia has much more capable fires.”​

Canada does not have the budget of China and Russia to match their air power. Canada's primary focus in modern times is peacekeeping, anti piracy, humanitarian missions.
2. Given Russian military activity at the borders of NATO, Canada’s military focus is not and cannot be peacekeeping or counter-piracy. The country has alliance responsibilities, as a NATO member. These are must do treaty commitments — not good to do HADR items. I wish Paull Fuzzball would stop with his efforts at supporting Russian propaganda or misinformation campaigns. It is Russian propaganda and misinformation to generate the myths that:
(a) NATO are not willing to dialogue with Russia, as there is a standing offer to hold a NATO-Russia Council meeting. The Russians have a huge advantage in long-range fires and air defenses. An invasion would involve heavy casualties for the Russian military, whereas they could devastate Ukrainian targets with Iskander-M, Kalibr, MLRS and so on. The Russians are often willing to use little green men to shoot against a weaker side, like Ukraine, to prove a point; and​
(b) they are not responsible for the little green men in Ukrainian soil or the shoot down of a Malaysian airliner. Russia’s fierce campaign to undermine the Ukrainian government has combined traditional military aggression with hybrid warfare: cyberattacks on government sites, political disinformation and strong-arm tactics in trade and energy markets.​

If NATO is determined to avoid mistakes made in 2014, and effectively deter Russia, they will need to strengthen NATO presence in the Baltic states, and Poland.

I mean, you could patrol in a single engine propeller plane, a helicopter, or a cargo jet, but why do you need a fighter plane and is the Gripen well suited for that need? Gripen was designed by a country with a relatively small land mass to be cost effective as opposed to existing alternatives. May be a mismatch for NORAD in my opinion.
3. Agreed. As a point defence fighter, the Gripen has its limits for upgrades. If Canada wishes to commit to NATO, it needs a modern platform to take the Canadian Air Force well into the 2040s — with range especially important as Canadian fighters need to fly across the Atlantic to get to the fight for a NATO deployment.

As for whether or not the Gripen E is "cost effective" that too is questionable, '
4. @Paull Fuzzball has an irrational fetish for JAS 39E. His proposal to acquire the Gripen is not based on logic or reason — if a fighter type is less suited to perform it’s required mission set (without a huge strike package to clear the way), it cannot be seen as more cost effective. Unless proper air power investments are made, the outnumbered Canadian troops in the eFP battle group will not have the required air cover from the Canadian Air Force. Gripens are small point defence fighters that are not threat relevant in the late 2020s.

5. Why would a classic Hornet operator, make such a huge payload trade-off and buy a smaller less capable platform?
(a) Does the JAS 39E Gripen even have access to the HARM anti-radiation missile? The classic Hornet and F-16s, flew HARM profiles, during Operation Allied Force.​
(b) Do the Brazilians even fly HARM profiles or SEAD profiles? Hard to take them seriously, when they can’t do a SEAD mission set.​
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Gripens are point defence fighters that are not threat relevant in the late 2020s.
I understand the limitations of Gripen in relation to other fighters.

My question is if it's your opinion that Gripen is not relevant to the RCAF and other air arms which face a serious threat, have NATO commitments and have certain types of operational requirements or that it's not relevant in an overall general context? Would you agree that despite its limitations that Gripen does still have great relevance for certain air arms; especially ones which are not expected to be involved in a high intensity protracted conflict with a well equipped/capable opponent ?
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Post 2 of 3: Upgrade options for a classic Hornet operator

Would you agree that despite its limitations that Gripen does still have great relevance for certain air arms; especially ones which are not expected to be involved in a high intensity protracted conflict with a well equipped/capable opponent ?
7. Every platform, if placed in a proper national defence plan, has the potential to be threat relevant. Sweden and Brazil and more interested in maintaining an industrial base that war fighting.
(a) Given the scale of the Russian threat, a country in NATO and operating the JAS 39E Gripen will be seen as something of a joke, in air power capability terms. Many capable NATO members have conducted penetrating strikes and SEAD, against a high end threat. While Gripens can conduct penetrating strikes and SEAD CONOPS, they are not logistically aligned with American and NATO weapons stocks.​
(b) A F-35 or F-15EX purchase by Canada would bring AGM-88 HARMs, JDAMs, GBU-53/B SDB II’s small glide bombs, AGM-154C-1 JSOW stealthy glide weapons with a secondary anti-ship capability, AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER cruise missiles, AIM-9X and the AIM-120 AMRAAM.​

8. The funding stream for upgrades by Sweden and Brazil is just not there — when compared to the scale of investments in the F-35, or F-15EX platforms. Most platforms are inherently limited by their growth potential (by their internal cooling, power, space for computing power, upgraded avionics and EW systems) — as a point defence fighter, the JAS 39E Gripen has certain hard limits for upgrades. The shortlisting of this aircraft type reflects on the lack of professionalism by Canadian procurement.

9. Every sale of:

(a) the F-16 blocks from block 52 to block 70/72 saw significant increases in capability and range (due to internal EW systems & CFTs) but a decrease in maneuverability to keep the F-16I or F-16V platform threat relevant in the late-2030s; and​
(b) the F-15 from the K, to the SG, to the SA, to the QA brought improvements in capability paid for by customers. The F-15EX is an evolved platform, with its huge AESA radar, internal cooling, power, space for computing power, upgraded avionics and internal EW systems, will threat remain in the late-2040s.​
10. Even the F-35, supported by AWACs, needs continued investments to remain not only threat relevant (but also operationally ready) into the 2050s. A number of tertiary air forces operating these three types of VLO fighters will bring in new EW and SEAD weapons capabilities that the Gripen can dream of.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Every platform, if placed in a proper national defence plan has the potential to be threat relevant.
That was the impression I had. Thank you for the clarification.

Sweden and Brazil and more interested in maintaining an industrial base that war fighting.
I have no idea about Brazil but Sweden; in addition to wanting to maintain an industrial base and seek export orders; takes defence seriously and has put great efforts in developing and progressively upgrading Gripen; which of course was originally designed with Sweden's specific operational requirements in mind.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ed Nash has a look at the RCAF Hornet replacement. He discusses the deletion of the F-18E/F from the competition, discusses the pros and cons of the F-35 and the Gripen E. He suggests a third option for the current competition of both those being ruled not suited for Canada's requirement and offers another American aircraft which he thinks meets all of Canada's requirements AND fits in with the new USAF CONOPS for its fighter fleet. It's actually an option that I have discounted earlier, but when he lists the advantages it does make sense.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Ed Nash has a look at the RCAF Hornet replacement. He discusses the deletion of the F-18E/F from the competition, discusses the pros and cons of the F-35 and the Gripen E. He suggests a third option for the current competition of both those being ruled not suited for Canada's requirement and offers another American aircraft which he thinks meets all of Canada's requirements AND fits in with the new USAF CONOPS for its fighter fleet. It's actually an option that I have discounted earlier, but when he lists the advantages it does make sense.

Based on kinematic performance the F-15EX is a better offering than the F-18SH. However earlier versions of the F-15 were well north of 100 million IIRC which is why they were not on the table. The video suggests the EX version could be had for $80 million. One has to wonder how Boeing arrives at a price.

Allowing Boeing to make a second offer at this point in time, that would be another low for our military procurement image.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Based on kinematic performance the F-15EX is a better offering than the F-18SH. However earlier versions of the F-15 were well north of 100 million IIRC which is why they were not on the table. The video suggests the EX version could be had for $80 million. One has to wonder how Boeing arrives at a price.

Allowing Boeing to make a second offer at this point in time, that would be another low for our military procurement image.
The $80 million is the price USAF price. I believe that the aircraft is significantly modernised with new materials etc.There is no prototyping etc., required because its basically the latest Qatari etc., ones.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Assuming similar pricing for the F-15EX and F-35, stealth, superior situation awareness and better networking versus higher and faster, more weapons, and longer range. The EX has lower CPFH but not significantly.
Future investment in a 1700 jet fleet should be considerably larger than for a 200-400 fleet. Bottom line, what would be more useful in 2050-60, the earliest date for the next replacement.
 

SolarWind

Active Member
In my view, for NORAD missions, F-15EX may be better due to range and speed, but for NATO missions, F-35 may be better due to stealth. And so, it comes down to what is more important.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
At present the F-15EX’s kinematic advantages do favour it for NORAD missions as there are no potential stealth jets capable of realistically threatening North America. However there is no reason to believe the EX is being considered so the F-35 should get the win. Not much point in being the odd man out at this stage with most of our allies and friends committed to the JSF….and we have already pumped over 600 million into the program.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
At present the F-15EX’s kinematic advantages do favour it for NORAD missions as there are no potential stealth jets capable of realistically threatening North America. However there is no reason to believe the EX is being considered so the F-35 should get the win. Not much point in being the odd man out at this stage with most of our allies and friends committed to the JSF….and we have already pumped over 600 million into the program.
However, just to look at an option, the pairing of USAF / NATO F-35s with RCAF F-15EX aircraft on either A2A or A2S missions would be a rather lethal combination. The RCAF would have a capability that would be a force multiplier WRT the F-35 delivery of lethal payloads. Don't forget LO is only one component of the F-35s capability set and it's not even its main attribute. It's lethality comes from its ability to acquire, process, synthesis, and distribute information quickly. It's just something to think about, that's all.

@John Fedup I wouldn't be to concerned about how Canadian Defence Procurement looks if this competition goes nowhere, and Boeing got a lookin with the F-15EX. Canadian Defence Procurement already has a well established reputation and nothing would surprise us now except a drama free project from start to finish that delivered within budget and on time.

WRT the $600 million that you have pumped into the F-35 program, how much has that investment returned to Canada since the aircraft has gone into production? It's not as though Canada hasn't received any return on its investment is it?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
WRT the $600 million that you have pumped into the F-35 program, how much has that investment returned to Canada since the aircraft has gone into production? It's not as though Canada hasn't received any return on its investment is it?
I would imagine a fair percentage has been returned via orders for JSF components.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Post 3 of 3: Upgrade options for a classic Hornet operator

I would imagine a fair percentage has been returned via orders for JSF components.
11. At this stage, I am hoping Canada selects the Gripen, so it’s future F-35 work-share can be redistributed to other countries and the Canadian Air Force capability development plans can be clearly seen as a joke that it has become, within NATO (due to Trudeau’s political choices interfering with military procurement decisions).

12. Good for Canada to gain work share for Gripen. Choices have consequences — if Australia, Belgium, Japan, Korea, Italy, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Poland and UAE have selected the F-35 and Canada can’t, the problem is not with the shortlisting of any aircraft type but with Canada’s decision making process in military procurement.

13. The geo-political shift to Indo-Pacific means a renewed emphasis on hard power by Australians (72 F-35As & 12 EA-18Gs), Indians (272 Su-30MKI & 36 Dassault Rafale), Japanese (147 F-35A/Bs), Koreans (60 F-35As & 61 F-15Ks) and Singaporeans (12 F-35Bs & 40 F-15SGs) when working with Indo-Pacific Command. As SecDef Lloyd Austin said the U.S. must also strengthen its network of allies and partners in the Pacific region. “We’re not seeking an Asian version of NATO or trying to build an anti-China coalition. And we’re not asking countries to choose between the United States and China,” Austin said. “Instead, we’re working to advance an international system that is free and stable and open.”

14. Go Gripen for Canada! Glad that future Indo-Pacific developments in international groupings can be free of any real Canadian political voice, for the coming generation.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
With Finland’s reported selection of the F-35, this is another blow to the anti F-35 lobby here. Finland was Saab’s best hope prior to the announcement the Canadian government had rejected the SuperHornet. The lengthy list of nations opting for the F-35 will pose a huge political problem for junior should the Gripen be selected. It is a problem for Saab as well. They should be well aware of what happens to contracts here with a change of government. Opposition parties will demand details of any cancellation penalties prior to a contract being signed and any refusal to do so will hurt Liberal backbenchers in the next election.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
With Finland’s reported selection of the F-35, this is another blow to the anti F-35 lobby here. Finland was Saab’s best hope prior to the announcement the Canadian government had rejected the SuperHornet. The lengthy list of nations opting for the F-35 will pose a huge political problem for junior should the Gripen be selected. It is a problem for Saab as well. They should be well aware of what happens to contracts here with a change of government. Opposition parties will demand details of any cancellation penalties prior to a contract being signed and any refusal to do so will hurt Liberal backbenchers in the next election.

I'm of the opinion that with the removal of the Super Hornet from the competition, we're looking at a compete between the Gripen E and F35 which will wend its way to a selection for the F35 after careful consideration of the costs and challenges of adding the secure comms gear for a NORAD fitout required for Gripen E.

Gripen E doesn't have the fuel fraction and weapons loadout for the job I think and it's in there as a stalking horse.

My 2c worth.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I'm of the opinion that with the removal of the Super Hornet from the competition, we're looking at a compete between the Gripen E and F35 which will wend its way to a selection for the F35 after careful consideration of the costs and challenges of adding the secure comms gear for a NORAD fitout required for Gripen E.

Gripen E doesn't have the fuel fraction and weapons loadout for the job I think and it's in there as a stalking horse.

My 2c worth.
I am honestly not so certain that outcome will occur. TBH I would not be surprised if the selection has already been made by pollies, for political reasons to either secure or maintain a political advantage, or to save face politically, and any real defence outputs or fiscal cost considerations are irrelevant. Unfortunately Canada's procurement history has an example of this, namely the replacement of the Sea King helicopters, where politicians intervened after contracts were signed to cancel a needed replacement, and then the political successor gov't intervened again with the selection of the urgently needed replacement several years later following changes in gov't.

As I see it, the Gripen E has one or possibly two advantages over the F-35 in peacetime. These are lower CpfH and possibly, again only possibly since there are a number of possible variables which could impact the acquisition costs.

However, if the PM has made a decision based off what he thinks is best for him, then the actual positives and negatives of the respective fighters are irrelevant.

At present the F-15EX’s kinematic advantages do favour it for NORAD missions as there are no potential stealth jets capable of realistically threatening North America. However there is no reason to believe the EX is being considered so the F-35 should get the win. Not much point in being the odd man out at this stage with most of our allies and friends committed to the JSF….and we have already pumped over 600 million into the program.
From my POV, with the entry of 5th Gen fighters into service, the kinematic performance even of the F-15EX would not be a suitable advantage for the RCAF. It can be made to work for the USAF, because the USAF is such a larger force and also has two types of 5th Gen fighter in service. One needs to remember that a major difference or focus for 5th Gen fighters vs. 4th Gen is in achieving and maintaining 'informational superiority'. This is not just about a 5th Gen fighter having better sensors, or a superior way of collecting, collating and then presenting SA data to the pilot, but also about reducing the information hostiles can collect about the fighter. Even if a 4th Gen fighter might be faster, or longer-ranged, or be able to out turn a 5th Gen fighter (and it is not certain that all the above is true), a 4th Gen fighter it still going to be more vulnerable to surface and air-launched missiles. With that in mind, selecting something like Gripen E for the RCAF would only really work if there is little or no chance of it ever getting fired upon by hostiles. This could be a problem even for missions over Canadian territory or home waters, if sent to intercept aircraft with a fighter escort, or if sent to take a look at suspicious maritime traffic.
 
Top