Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Oct 2019, 15:55

pushoksti wrote:Waiting a decade isn’t necessarily a bad thing, this allows us to be in the later production models which should have most of issues ironed out. You know what they say about buying a vehicle model in its first year of production...


Yeah, silver lining... :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Oct 2019, 16:09

hornetfinn wrote:But Canada is not very small country and I see F-35 having several very important capabiltiies for Canadian needs. Even for home-land protection it has the largest and most capable AESA radar. It also uses that same array for very high performance narrowband ESM system. So it will most likely detect any intruding Tupolev or god forbid cruise missiles before 4th gen fighters could. I also bet that EOTS has the highest performance compared to IRST/TV systems in 4th gen fighters especially when it comes to long range ID. Only latest targeting pods likely have higher performance right now and that will also change when Advanced EOTS becomes operational. Especially when combined with the advanced sensor fusion within a flight of F-35s along with very fast data link, the SA they can provide is much better than with any 4th gen fighter at the moment.

And of course Canada will most likely fight somewhere else than within Canadian borders. Then all the qualities of F-35 will be very handy.


Precisely!

Moreover, Canadian Air Force has been trying (quite unsuccessfully thou) to procure EW aircraft for decades. For example in the 1980's it modified a single F-101 Voodoo (look at the picture below) and Falcon 20 biz jets for the Electronic Warfare role.
Image

During the 1990's it modified Challenger biz jets also for the Electronic Warfare role. Currently it has none of such aircraft, if I'm not mistaken.
The F-35 would take care of such very desired role, without adding more cost.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Oct 2019, 09:41

lipovitand wrote:
mixelflick wrote:This is ridiculous, yet satisfying at the same time.

SAAB will end up folding, and the F-35 will win before any evaluation even begins. Trudeau will end up looking even dumber than he already has, which is quite an accomplishment by the boy wonder. As such, Canada will end up with the F-35 - just a decade later than they should have.

Oh well, at least they're getting it. India will go through the same procurement mess, but will almost assuredly end up with a lesser aircraft..



I still dont understand why theyre still in this "competition" PR perhaps?


As I previously mentioned, I strongly believe that they (Saab) will only leave the competition after the Federal Elections (to be held on the 21th of this month) in order not to "anger" the Canadian Federal government, specially if the same political party (Liberals) happens to win these elections.
Guess that this could also be considered a "PR" of some sorts...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 Oct 2019, 13:05

magitsu wrote:
lipovitand wrote:so 1000lbs more thrust to and 1000kg more weight

1200 kg more weight (6.8 tn to 8 tn), or 2500 kg more MTOW (14 tn to 16.5 tn).

Fuel growth was indeed 40% (2000 kg, half internal and half external).

Some sources give 14.4 k lbs dry for GE F414-GE-39E instead of 13 k.


I think that 14.4k lbs is closer to truth than 13k. EJ200 has dry thrust of 13k lbs giving AB/dry thrust ratio of about 1.54. Snecma M88 has 1.5 ratio. 14.4 k lbs would give F414-GE engine a ratio of about 1.53. 13k would give very high ratio of almost 1.7 which would be higher than even Russian AL-41F-1S in special power conditions. Normal full AB/dry thrust ratio is about 1.59 for AL-41F engine. F135 engine has 1.54 ratio also.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Oct 2019, 16:55

pushoksti wrote:
Waiting a decade isn’t necessarily a bad thing, this allows us to be in the later production models which should have most of issues ironed out. You know what they say about buying a vehicle model in its first year of production...


Is that why they purchased the decades old used Aussie Hornets? The half billion dollar upgrade of the CF-18s? The loss of more chances at Canadian F-35 industrial opportunities? The multi million dollar reevaluations and reevalautions and reevaluations and now a competition? Not to mention the pilot exodus theyre expereincing as the RCAF realizes they're going to be flying those old buckets for years yet?

You have to really have blinders on to think that buying some early block F-35s was going to be worse than the full metal retard we've seen. Costs didn't disappear, they shifted and then expanded in other areas. Canada is years behind now and good people have left the service, those who stick around or sign up are dealing with increasingly hard to fix and outdated gear that was on its last legs years ago. The USMC has sped up its Hornet Retirement date. It would rather have the Harriers around longer, which is really saying something.

And you can recover lost ground, never recover lost time. Given all those issues and the real world consequences of Canada's football f**king, I'd take the early block F-35s any day even if they were completely relegated to training for the rest of their days. The Lion's share of Canadian F-35s were going to be the FRP birds anyway of course. Not to mention the newly expanded requirement for 88 aircraft from 65, would mean any potentionally bad early lot F-35s, would be even less of a factor.

This is bad anyway you slice it. The rest is just a coping mechanism. Its not exactly a secret either that these "bad" early F-35s are giving people less trouble than decades old Hornets, which are really showing their age. The US navy completely tossed theirs already. The Marines are going to be ridding themselves of them completely of their last units by the time Canada gets its first Cf-18 replacement (and thats assuming things go to plan currently!) Hornets are utterly falling apart in US service. It is different with Canada, their CF-18s have different problems, but again the light bulb should be going on that the US (and Aus I'm betting) will be utterly divested of the type the Canadians will be just starting to replace.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Oct 2019, 18:43

blindpilot wrote:
magitsu wrote:... it's likely cheaper to use due to being so much smaller than most...


This is not a given either. Even if it might be cheaper per "air frame hour" to fly, it may be - likely is - more expensive to fly a mission. if I carry half the weapons load, I need two aircraft per F-35 load, ... if my range is less, I need to launch an air refueling sortie to get there, if I need a little EW help, or SEAD support, I launch a few more planes... and on and on.

It is not necessarily (likely) cheaper to fly a half dozen or more aircraft to do what one solo F-35 does on its own. It is not cheaper to fly. That is yet another SAAB lie...

MHO,
BP



Its very specific but years ago someone pointed this out:

he gripen is a conventional signature, 2-pylon, airframe. It can drop GBU-16 with the LITENING pods now but it can't carry an ARM or indeed more than 2 AMRAAM period while doing so. Even the U-95 pod is not serviced (or carriageable with the LITENING onboard) and the internal jammer, if it was ever installed, is just a pulse-repeater rather than a fullup deception/noise system like the ASPJ was.

If they were realistically gassed up with 400 gallon tanks on each of the inboard wing pylons to exploit the full depth of the Alaskan range space, the are probably down to a single 500-700lb store (i.e. GBU-12) on the outboards and the fact that that munition is SALH instead of PTOD makes for a lot closer approach to the target than might be considered 'useful' to the modern USAF strike doctrine (meaning we get to pay for your close approach onto a D1/R1 airfield type target).

Much of what makes the Gripen special is inherent to it's proprietary electronics suite interface with both the air and ground environment and specific pods. Given the C/D is just the Swede version of the Xport/International, it is in fact many steps back from that standard with bootstrap solutions to the current airframe to make it 'compatible with STANAG'. When in fact NATO standards are less capable than the Swedish baseline (as an example, Gripens are now compatible with an ACMI pod. But they have always had 'rangeless' ACMI inherent to their own datalink facilities).

As regards the exercise specifically: As I recall, the Swedes spent the better part of a month predeployment training up at the Vidsel weapons ranges and created a provisional 'Tango Red' squadron composed of 20 odd stick monkeys and 7 jets (two of them JAS-39Ds with presumably less operational electronics and/or fuel). Supported by two C-130H. This is not a terribly impressive logistical feat even as it suggests that the aircrew may well be picked pros in the 1,500-2,000hrs on type, 'instructor grade'.

There ARE elements of the Gripen which could be nifty. The IRIS-T (if it came with ODIN) and the BK-90/KEDP-350 (if the range space is cleared for a glide weapon) but I doubt if they will clear the cost barrier to a real leveraged use and frankly a fourship with a ramp spare is not going to be-

>>
Lt Col Ken Lindberg. “Gripen is going to be seen in every role,” including leading composite air packages with other participating nations, he says.Lt Col Ken Lindberg. “Gripen is going to be seen in every role,” including leading composite air packages with other participating nations, he says.
>>

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... wedes.html

Simply because they don't contribute enough (numerically) to the gameplan in an airframe with enough strike warfare aptitudes to be worth the effort.

Of course I am also frankly against-

>>
“This is the most extensive and complex exercise the Swedish Air Force has been involved in to date with the JAS 39 Gripen,” Ken Lindberg explains. “Taking part will give us extremely important experience ahead of potential international missions in the future.”
>>

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations ... d_flag.htm

Since this is effectively teaching your enemy your doctrines and where this is particularly relevant to NCW, we don't need to be handing out freebies to people who think of RF as an excercise in-

>>
The exercise also provides a good opportunity to demonstrate the Gripen and its capabilities to interested parties internationally.
>>

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations ... d_flag.htm

Because frankly Sweden was never more than a silent partner in NATO and the Alliance itself is little more than an excuse for backstabbing and 'host fees' now that the Russian threat has gone and militarism is a Vae Victis Vickers business-in-booming.

The U.S. technically fights better alone than with anyone else and with the increase in COE tactics inherent to BVR, DEWS and Glide-IAM, I'm afraid I find much of the 'jointness' inherent to multiforce excersizes to have no point as either a propoganda (against who?) effort or a _secure_ training forum.

CONCLUSION:
IMO, the Swedes are looking for a free kudo on an airframe that is less competent overall (nm per pylon) than the F-16. Rather than indulge in fantasies like this-

>>
Saab-led Gripen International is studying future development options for its Gripen multirole fighter, including the possible installation of a more powerful engine, increasing the type’s overall size and maximum take-off weight, and the potential availability of a carrierborne strike variant.
Intended to boost the long-term export prospects for the single-engined Gripen – as competition increases from rival types over the next decade – the enhancements could result in a modification package similar to the Super Hornet enhancement to Boeing’s baseline F/A-18, say industry sources.
>>

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... +Saab.html

And this-

http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads ... es/598.jpg

They need to start over again, exploiting their SHARC database to create something truly new and cheap enough/enduring enough to be worth the cost, particularly in ops other than war. Once they do this, their vaunted neutrality posture will go right out the window of course but if you want to export death in a wide world, you'd better be able to do it to the tune of the other customers operational issues and the first order of business there is massively cheaper than the U.S. can provide and vastly more capable of BEING THERE when a fisheries violation, smuggling or guerilla threat issue raises a nail to be hammered. While their DCO numbers are pretty good (around 2,500 dollars per flight hour with about 10-20MMH:FH), the JAS-39 just doesn't bring enough of it's literally _owned_ capabilities to the table to be competitive with anyone who can buy upmarket into a twin. Or the U.S. ordnance and total support package deals.



Basically the Gripen has 2 fewer pylons and less range than an F-16. so its actually less economical than simply buying an F-16. Now before anyone starts throwing poo at me, remember that a key goal of the Gripen NG is adding 2 pylons and more fuel geewhiz, I wonder why...


Again the problem with Gripen is that its actually the WORST option for canada for many many reasons. but the most obvious one is the fact that the Gripen is very much a specific and almost custom built fighter for Sweden and its unqiue situation. the original variant did not even include air to air refueling. Think about that. It flew in the 1990s and they saw no need to have an airplane that could fly further than point interception "beyond the channel" spitfire style. Its been band aids ever since to the point that they literally had to do the mass redesign within just 15 years of it being in service. just a bigger band aide to make it more palatable.

its literally a short range interceptor thats been struggling to rectify that since its inception. the same people who won't shut up about "muh range" regarding Canada are picking the smallest airplane with the smallest fuel tank and the least amount of thrust to make up for the massive amounts of drag from EFTs that will be required if flying anywhere beyond the base.

The Gripen NG is a mistake. Instead of making a better Gripen they decided to add 1200 kilos and have it do a poor F-16 impression, but thats ok because theyll sell you the factory to build it. They went the completely wrong direction with it.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Oct 2019, 19:42

XanderCrews wrote:Again the problem with Gripen is that its actually the WORST option for canada for many many reasons.


There's no question about that and of course I fully agree!

XanderCrews wrote:The Gripen NG is a mistake. Instead of making a better Gripen they decided to add 1200 kilos and have it do a poor F-16 impression, but thats ok because theyll sell you the factory to build it. They went the completely wrong direction with it.


I also fully agree with the above. They (Saab) could have had followed the "F-5 of the XXI century" route or resuming being a cheaper but at the same time less capable aircraft "aimed" for 2nd tier Air Forces or who knows even to potentially complement the better aircraft in some 1st tier Air Forces.
But no, they (Saab) decided to compete with the "first tier" aircraft which like you correctly said "forced them" to add 1200 kilos which resulted in an aircraft that likely has lesser performance than the previous C/D versions and above it's more expensive than older variants and yet still less capable than any of its competitors.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Oct 2019, 21:31

ricnunes wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Again the problem with Gripen is that its actually the WORST option for canada for many many reasons.


There's no question about that and of course I fully agree!

XanderCrews wrote:The Gripen NG is a mistake. Instead of making a better Gripen they decided to add 1200 kilos and have it do a poor F-16 impression, but thats ok because theyll sell you the factory to build it. They went the completely wrong direction with it.


I also fully agree with the above. They (Saab) could have had followed the "F-5 of the XXI century" route or resuming being a cheaper but at the same time less capable aircraft "aimed" for 2nd tier Air Forces or who knows even to potentially complement the better aircraft in some 1st tier Air Forces.
But no, they (Saab) decided to compete with the "first tier" aircraft which like you correctly said "forced them" to add 1200 kilos which resulted in an aircraft that likely has lesser performance than the previous C/D versions and above it's more expensive than older variants and yet still less capable than any of its competitors.


I do enjoy hearing how Saab is the worlds greatest aircraft manufacturer capable of the engineering the impossible, but really can't keep a light fighter at its 7000 kilo target weight.

once Gripen E hit 7300 kilos it was time for a timeout and reassessment. Even the pitiful and much maligned LM was able to redesign the JSF to save thousands of pounds. :roll:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 293
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post16 Oct 2019, 22:26

I have heard some whoppers from Gripen fans at BF4C. Here is one I just read at the BF4C blog comments just today (he since deleted it).

Im still laughing, that was the funniest Ive read on this blog so far..

You should read a RAND report about what the likely outcome would be if USA tried to defend Taiwan against China. And remember the Chinese arent shooting down a single stealth fighter in that scenario. Still none survives.
The Gripen C/D would take out the Buckets and F-22 BWR at a range they couldnt fire back. Since they can spot and shoot them down at that range. Sorry thats a fact.

It would be even more devastating if they would meet the Gripen E, backed up by one or two GlobalEyes, some Giraffe ground or surface radars.

You need 45 Buckets to do the same job as three Gripens, 24/365.
One has an availability at around 5%, the other one above 95%.
And you easily get three Gripens for the same life time cost for one Bucket.
So for the same cost you get two Buckets flying, you get more than 120 Gripens.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 01:50

playloud wrote:I have heard some whoppers from Gripen fans at BF4C. Here is one I just read at the BF4C blog comments just today (he since deleted it).

He's like Lloyd Christmas in Dumb & Dumber saying "So you're telling me there's a chance?" against 1:1 000 000 odds.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:03

playloud wrote:I have heard some whoppers from Gripen fans at BF4C. Here is one I just read at the BF4C blog comments just today (he since deleted it).

Im still laughing, that was the funniest Ive read on this blog so far..

You should read a RAND report about what the likely outcome would be if USA tried to defend Taiwan against China. And remember the Chinese arent shooting down a single stealth fighter in that scenario. Still none survives.
The Gripen C/D would take out the Buckets and F-22 BWR at a range they couldnt fire back. Since they can spot and shoot them down at that range. Sorry thats a fact.

It would be even more devastating if they would meet the Gripen E, backed up by one or two GlobalEyes, some Giraffe ground or surface radars.

You need 45 Buckets to do the same job as three Gripens, 24/365.
One has an availability at around 5%, the other one above 95%.
And you easily get three Gripens for the same life time cost for one Bucket.
So for the same cost you get two Buckets flying, you get more than 120 Gripens.


Setting Gripen fans back years, one lie at a time.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:17

Is that two buckets of GOLD compared to 120 TARGETS?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 223
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 16:48

Wow Xandercrews, please show me on the doll where the Gripen touched you.

WRT the F35 and Canada, the position we are in now with the Australian hornets, and not F35s is exactly where we should be. To think that we would buy them sole-sourced 10 years ago would be delusional. Canada likes to jerk around military purchases and turn them into national job programs. If Bombardier turned one of their biz jets into a missile and bomb truck you can guarantee that we would buy it. We will buy the F35, that’s almost certain, nothing else out there makes any logical sense.

The majority of Canadians still see massive military purchases not a priority. Being next to the world’s largest Air Force and separated by two oceans from our enemies doesn’t help convince Canadians we need a military at all. Most of them would be happy to disband it for good and focus on local issues. Support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Having worked on our Hornets for over a decade, i can tell you that mechanically, they will do just fine until our replacement arrives. Operational capability aside, they are in far better shape than the Marine and Navy hornets were. I saw the state of the hornets in Miramar, side by side with ours, they looked to be clinging onto life. We flew 55+ lines a day with 24 aircraft for 5 weeks straight with half the amount of people. We know how to string every last drop out of our jets without compromising capability or safety.
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 350
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 17:51

pushoksti wrote:The majority of Canadians still see massive military purchases not a priority. Being next to the world’s largest Air Force and separated by two oceans from our enemies doesn’t help convince Canadians we need a military at all. Most of them would be happy to disband it for good and focus on local issues. Support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

America's nominal allies have all become bloodsucking liabilities.

Canada not buying the F-35 is a good thing, they'd probably sooner leak them over to the Chinese anyways.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 18:29

pushoksti wrote:Wow Xandercrews, please show me on the doll where the Gripen touched you.


its overrated and attracts the most ignorant of fans. if we actually spoke about it for what it was, it wouldn't be a problem, but instead its uber-fighter extradonaire that also somehow costs pennies on the dollar. on one hand its a humble "almost as good, but costs less" fighter and on the other its "6th generation F-22-dominating wunderbird"

WRT the F35 and Canada, the position we are in now with the Australian hornets, and not F35s is exactly where we should be. To think that we would buy them sole-sourced 10 years ago would be delusional. Canada likes to jerk around military purchases and turn them into national job programs. If Bombardier turned one of their biz jets into a missile and bomb truck you can guarantee that we would buy it. We will buy the F35, that’s almost certain, nothing else out there makes any logical sense.


But thats exactly what the plans were 10 years ago, its not far fetched when that's what happened, had Trudeua not been elected only 4 years ago (not 10) the plans would not have changed at all either, and the bottom line is that Canada has lost time, and it has lost money, and it has lost opportunity unless you think that all the actions and moves its taken have been free of charge or penalty or consequence. in fact if not for an extremely badly timed F-35 engine fire, The last government was going to place an F-35 order, in which case all of this is history and Canada is getting its first Maple leaf printed F-35s around 2017/18.

my point is that getting a very small amount of "bad" F-35s. as in LRIP lots, even though Canada would have been getting them in fairly later lots before they got their main force FRP jets anyway, would still probably be less of a headache than the path they have taken now.

if we want to say "at least we are getting later jets with fewer bugs!" as a silver lining, knock yourself out, but Canada's CF-18 replacement fiasco been a series of irrecoverable and embarrassing theater for years now-- all for an aircraft they are likely to just buy anyway.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 17 Oct 2019, 18:53, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 9 guests