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

[kimjongnumbaun]

Saab's offer to Canada. Overall, it's pretty lackluster.

"Saab offers two aerospace centres in Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter

Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.

The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December."


https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... KBh7hg_xzQ

[Corsair1963]

Saab's offer to Canada. Overall, it's pretty lackluster.

"Saab offers two aerospace centres in Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter

Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.

The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December."


https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... KBh7hg_xzQ

The only real choice is the F-35 and everyone knows it. Including Justin Trudeau........

[ricnunes]

according to the experts on BF4C (lead by Peter Goon) the Gripen will also be able to power a pod to provide a similar video stream to what the F-35 did in the X-58 test...with the number of pods they're planning to have on the Gripen E to match what an F-35 can do, plus the fuel it'll need to do it, I don't think there will be any hard points left for weapons.

That group makes my head hurt. I just can't wrap my head around how no matter what reason someone gives, their answer is just always the gripen is going to do it better.

Well, it's a well know fact by now that BF4C is among the most retarded, idiotic and 'factless' military aviation website ever created!

[ricnunes]

Gripen E has 1 export sale

Well, technically the Gripen E has zero (0) export sales since that 'sole export' (Brazil) is actually a program partner and not a 'typical' export/foreign sale.

That is splitting hairs.....

I don't think it is.
Let's look for instance at the Eurofighter Typhoon. Would you say that the UK is the 'domestic costumer' while Germany, Italy and Spain are 'export costumers'? Of that Germany is the 'domestic costumer' while UK, Italy and Spain are 'export costumers'?
IMO and in this case (Eurofighter Typhoon) UK, Germany, Italy or Spain are all 'domestic costumers' while Austria, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are export costumers.
Following this example - and here there are indeed similarities between both Eurofighter Typhoon and Gripen E - I would (and will continue) to say that both Sweden and Brazil are Gripen E 'domestic costumers' while at the moment there isn't any export costumer for the Gripen E.

[spazsinbad]

'ricnunes' said above:

"Well, it's a well know fact by now that BF4C is among the most retarded, idiotic and 'factless' military aviation website ever created!"

Why bother going there? Is it worse than reading brain dead YouTube comments (which I don't BTW). Please STOP!

[ricnunes]

Saab's offer to Canada. Overall, it's pretty lackluster.

"Saab offers two aerospace centres in Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter

Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.

The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December."


https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... KBh7hg_xzQ

The only real choice is the F-35 and everyone knows it. Including Justin Trudeau........

Agreed!

And IMO the following paragraph from the article above is very telling:

A contract is scheduled to be awarded in 2022 after evaluation by the RCAF. The air force wants the first jets received as soon as 2025. The new fleet is expected to fly beyond 2060.

So, does anyone here in this forum believe that the RCAF won't give the best evaluation to the F-35? Or does anyone here believe that either the Gripen E or the Super Hornet will be flying beyond 2060??
(I do have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes otherwise )

Here's another (I believe) quite telling paragraph:

The company [Saab] says initial aircraft would be produced in Sweden to meet Ottawa’s goal of first fighter delivery in 2025. It is still evaluating how many aircraft could be made in Canada, but says it aims to “maximise” the number.

So, this means that in the case of the catastrophic scenario of Canada selecting the Gripen E that it would be even more expensive since less would be assembled in Canada (due to economy of scale).


Anyway and since the article since to be behind a 'paywall' here's the complete article:

Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.

The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December.

Mission system software and hardware development, as well as integration, for the proposed Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Gripen E would be done at the Gripen Centre.

The Aerospace Research & Development Centre would focus on a variety of aerospace technologies, including automation, artificial intelligence and “greening” technologies. That work may or may not be directly related to the Gripen E. Rather, the research and development would focus on next-generation aerospace technologies more generally.

Saab is also in talks with undisclosed local universities about partnerships related to the aerospace centres, it says.

Saab has only about 50 people working in Canada currently, across various businesses such as maritime traffic management and army training and simulation work. However, between the two aerospace centres, the company anticipates at least 3,000 people being directly employed.

The RCAF is looking to buy 88 advanced fighters to replace its fleet of Boeing CF-18 Hornets. Canada’s Department of National Defence estimates acquisition of the aircraft, related equipment and entry into service will cost C$15-19 billion ($11.8-14.9 billion).

A contract is scheduled to be awarded in 2022 after evaluation by the RCAF. The air force wants the first jets received as soon as 2025. The new fleet is expected to fly beyond 2060.

In addition to Saab, the RCAF received bids in July from Boeing, which is offering its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Lockheed Martin, which is offering F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters.

Canada is also part of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme, spending more than $500 million on the effort since 1997, an investment that has allowed Canadian companies to secure C$1.8 billion in contracts from the project.

However, Ottawa has not yet committed to buying F-35s, hence the acquisition competition. Politicians objected to F-35s in part due to the high cost of early examples of the stealth fighter. The cost of the F-35A has fallen to $77.9 million per unit, though operating costs remains high, at $35,000 hourly. Lockheed has promised to lower that figure to $25,000 hourly by 2025.

For its part, Saab has proposed that Canada’s IMP Aerospace & Defence would handle in-country production of the Gripen E, and provide support over the lifetime of the fleet. The company says initial aircraft would be produced in Sweden to meet Ottawa’s goal of first fighter delivery in 2025. It is still evaluating how many aircraft could be made in Canada, but says it aims to “maximise” the number.

The rest of the Saab Gripen for Canada team would include CAE, which is to provide training and mission systems; Peraton Canada, which is to supply avionic and test equipment, as well as component maintenance, repair and overhaul, and material management; and GE Aviation, which is set to provide and sustain the fighters’ turbine engines.

[ricnunes]

'ricnunes' said above:

"Well, it's a well know fact by now that BF4C is among the most retarded, idiotic and 'factless' military aviation website ever created!"

Why bother going there? Is it worse than reading brain dead YouTube comments (which I don't BTW). Please STOP!

Agreed! And for what's worth I never go there and if you noticed I was only replying to go4long's post in the previous page.

So, I was basically replying to go4long the same thing that you replied above but using different words

[spazsinbad]

OK but I was just generalising that NO ONE should be encouraged to waste there time at that idiotic website mentioned.

[XanderCrews]

according to the experts on BF4C (lead by Peter Goon) the Gripen will also be able to power a pod to provide a similar video stream to what the F-35 did in the X-58 test...with the number of pods they're planning to have on the Gripen E to match what an F-35 can do, plus the fuel it'll need to do it, I don't think there will be any hard points left for weapons.

LOL

That group makes my head hurt. I just can't wrap my head around how no matter what reason someone gives, their answer is just always the gripen is going to do it better.

Yeah theyre funny. Just wait.

Saab's offer to Canada. Overall, it's pretty lackluster.

"Saab offers two aerospace centres in Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter

Saab is offering to open two new aerospace centres as part of its Gripen E proposal for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project.

The aerospace facilities, the Gripen Centre and the Aerospace Research & Development Centre, would be based in the greater Montreal region, the company announced at Aero Montreal’s International Aerospace Innovation Forum 2020 on 14 December."


<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/saab-offers-two-aerospace-centres-in-gripen-e-proposal-for-canadas-future-fighter/141602.article?fbclid=IwAR0HbOoNxUp8fdBPX8ZdpE_1BcwOFMNFyXCp9PnuvQHHOVUDiKBh7hg_xzQ</span>

Theyre going to do the old Quebec Ransom option, nice.

They really don't have that much to offer. Remember that Saab doesn't have the rights to the engine, and 30 percent of the Gripen E/F is UK sourced which is why they got spiked in the Argentine deal.

"how would you like to help put together some of yesterdays fighter??"

I think Gripen is a very wide longshot, but Trudeau also doesn't seem to care much for Canada, so thats a real wild card.

[XanderCrews]

OK but I was just generalising that NO ONE should be encouraged to waste there time at that idiotic website mentioned.

I disagree, I think everyone should go have a visit there the moment the Gripen loses or drops out and really just "wish them well" in that event.


https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... ition.html

it was funny the last time, and it will be even better this time.

[kimjongnumbaun]

OK but I was just generalising that NO ONE should be encouraged to waste there time at that idiotic website mentioned.

I disagree, I think everyone should go have a visit there the moment the Gripen loses or drops out and really just "wish them well" in that event.


https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... ition.html

it was funny the last time, and it will be even better this time.

It's pretty funny. You can see that they know the walls are closing in on them, yet they cling on with such fervor.

[go4long]

Can anyone help me with what effect the fuel pods under a Gripen would have on its RCS?

I think I read on this thread that the two wing ones are 450lbs each, and then I've seen twin 300lbs under the belly?

Dealing with the BF4C crowd on the nonsense that if an F-35 puts weapons on its pilons it's suddenly not stealthy and should be excluded, but the Super Duper and the Gripen can both hang weapons and fuel under them without affecting their RCS at all.

[charlielima223]

Can anyone help me with what effect the fuel pods under a Gripen would have on its RCS?

I think I read on this thread that the two wing ones are 450lbs each, and then I've seen twin 300lbs under the belly?

Dealing with the BF4C crowd on the nonsense that if an F-35 puts weapons on its pilons it's suddenly not stealthy and should be excluded, but the Super Duper and the Gripen can both hang weapons and fuel under them without affecting their RCS at all.

Because according to all the (ignorant) banter out there in the interwebs, the Gripen has "active stealth"... jamming capability. You will hear/read the same thing from ignorant Russian trolls/propagandists defending their beloved super dupper Flankers and the Su-57. According to them these aircraft have enough electronic and radio jamming capability to nullify any threat out there.

The F-35s own EW suite along with its natural stealthy designs gives an F-35 with basic loadout (stealthy profile) a huge benefit over 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft that are not stealthy by design.
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... -benefits/

Improve jamming effectiveness:
It is a common misconception that stealth technology is short live and as radar get more powerful, soon, they will be able to out range weapon engagement envelop , thus renders all money spend on RCS reduction a waste. This impression is inaccurate because any technology that can increase a radar peak power or gain will also benefit a jammers in the same ways. And stealth has a synergy relationship with jamming .

Another common opinion is that the gap in RCS can easily be close by using a more powerful jammer .This is also inaccurate because RCS directly proportional to the power required to jam a radar at a certain distance.Which mean when RCS is reduced to 1/100th the original value, the required jamming power is also reduced to 1/100th the original value to achieve the same effect.In others words, if a stealth aircraft need a 10 kW jammer , a conventional asset will need jammer with power of 10Mw or more

If the jamming power is keeping the same then burn-through range is reduced by 10 times, which mean stealth assets( RCS =0.001m2 ) can get 10 times closer the threat compared to conventional aircraft ( RCS=0.1m2).In other words ,even if adversary radar can see through jamming of conventional assets from 400 km aways, a stealth asset can still get within 40 km of such radar using exactly same jamming system

Example : burn-through distance of F-35 compared to Rafale with same jamming assets, same threat radar

Burn-through Range is the radar to target range where the target return signal can first be distinguished from the Jamming signal ( rendering jamming ineffective).

While the F-35 can give up some of its stealthy attributes to load up more weapons, the F-35 at least has that option. Current non stealthy aircraft MUST ALWAYS go out with external stores.
I would make a SWAG that because of the F-35's natural stealth profile; an F-35 looking like this...

Would STILL BE MORE STEALTHY than a this...

[kimjongnumbaun]

Dealing with the BF4C crowd on the nonsense that if an F-35 puts weapons on its pilons it's suddenly not stealthy and should be excluded, but the Super Duper and the Gripen can both hang weapons and fuel under them without affecting their RCS at all.

It's really a simple math problem.

Let's assume the stealthy F-35 in clean configuration has an RCS of .0015

For the sake of argument, let's assume each missile adds .001, so 4 missiles means an increase of .004

Let's assume a non stealthy 4th gen has an RCS of 0.1 (note this is almost 66 times the RCS of an F-35)

4 missiles hung externally on an F-35 gives an RCS of .0055

4 missiles on a 4th gen gives an RCS of 0.104

0.104 > 0.0055

F-35 wins. And not by a small margin. The 4th gen has an RCS almost 19 times greater than the F-35. Plug that into the radar equation and doing drunken napkin math that means the 4th gen gets seen at 4 times the distance.

It's really not that difficult to comprehend. Honestly, if you need this mathematical explanation to get through to anyone who simply cannot understand that a stealthy plane will have a lower RCS than a non stealth plane hanging the same payload externally, you're not dealing with very intelligent people and it's probably not worth your effort to try and educate the unwashed masses. You can explain it by drawing in crayon, but there's the risk they might ingest the production material before you can finish drawing. No offense to my Marine friends.

[hornetfinn]

Very true and in most situations the difference is huge. F-35 is totally clean in configurations where most 4th gen fighters are already heavily loaded. Best for F-35 is air-to-ground configurations where it carries 2 heavy bombs or 8 SDB/Spear, 2 AMRAAM/Meteor, targeting pod (EOTS) and a lot of fuel. 4th gen fighters need at least 3 EFTs to have enough gas for equivalent range. So 4th gen fighters will carry those bombs, air-to-air missiles, targeting pod and 2-3 EFTs all externally increasing RCS (and drag). Most 4th gen fighters will not carry more as they would usually lose 2 EFTs to do that. Even in the worst case scenario, F-35 will carry maybe 2-4 bombs and 2 AIM-9X/ASRAAM externally. All 4th gen fighters will then carry 4-6 bombs externally, 4 air-to-air missiles, targeting pod and 1-3 EFTs and/or CFTs along with all those pylons. So even in the worst case scenario, I'd say F-35 will have a lot lower RCS than any 4th gen fighter. In normal situations, the difference will be enormous. Of course all this is usually forgotten by fans of other fighter aircraft.