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

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

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post29 Dec 2020, 12:40

I suspect that F-35 is so hard to kill in the air that everything else that enables it will be increasingly targeted instead. Or kill it on the ground, make it be in the wrong place at a specific time.
Stealth and psychology goes hand in hand. There's a notable psychological pressure when you don't know whether it's lurking there already. Some of the psychological effects are one-off - the effectiveness is the highest until they are breached. Like the well noted hits on two F-117s (with one lost) in the 90s. That cleared out both user over-confidence and target scare.

For a western country it would be catastrophic to stagnate in tech, because the appetite for losses is small. Stealth fighter is already a requirement to participate unless there's a desire to intentionally limit the ability to take part in certain stages of operation. Max goodwill points will be earned with stealth jet, AEA and tankers. Canada won't be buying the most obvious AEA capability in the form of Growlers. If it doesn't buy the F-35, it looks to become a second rate participant. Their tankers might end up being the best value add for a coalition force.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Dec 2020, 18:43

go4long wrote: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.


the origin of this particular urban myth is that the Gripens small size and hidden engine face makes it "Stealthy" somehow. But an actual VLO aircraft like F-35 with a single Aim 9, or barely misaligned panel after a maintaince job now stands out like the dogs bollucks from 300 miles away and the entire airplane is now nullified.

Image

what an amazing size difference!! The F-16 is clearly not stealthy but the smaller Gripen is harder to detect than actual stealth airplanes!

You need to be asking more questions rather than trying to do the answers. Make them try and explain the contradictions. Try to sound as honest and sincere as possible. You genuinely "just want to know why" Like i've always been super duper curious how the Gripen has such an amazing fast turn aruond time that other fighters can't emulate. Why is that. Is it somehow easier to load? special pylons? or is it the fact that it has fewer hardpoints than all its rivals? what are they loading? is there any actual video of this amazing reload (preferably uncut) I could see? how many pylons are being loaded anyway? is it 2 or all 8?

Theres tons of paradoxes on BF4C. Stealth is both "obsolete and unneeded" but also the Gripen E is "totally stealthy" (even when that's obsolete and irrelevant)

Damn fun watching them try to explain how Stealth is the "past" when the European next generation mockup was revealed:

Image


to add to what Charlie has said, theyve switched up the narrative to "active stealth" or "active cancellation." rather than "physical stealth" as i've seen them call it

Image

which means this is now one of the first stealth aircraft :mrgreen:

"It is not the world's fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better."

-Bill Sweetman, while adovacating that the Gripen E is a "6th generation fighter"

This is the Gripen Paradox. Its both an uber super fighter, but its also just a "good enough" fighter that bows to cost concerns rather than performance. I had no problem with people saying "its 80 percent of an F-16, but half the cost" a kind of silver or bronze medal. (the cost of even the legacy Gripen vs F-16 is up for debate, but I digress) Where the Gripen E or Gripen NG argument falls short, is that its somehow an F-22 rival for a pennies on the dollar budget fighter. Thats a complete contradiction, before getting into the obvious fact that Gripen E/NG is of course a follow on design to the same old Gripen anyway. How much can you really improve with an evolution of the circa 1990s budget fighter?

The Gripen E is designed to compete with the F-16 on the export market. Thats its main rival. thats why Gripen E grew to F-16 weight, got F-16 amount of pylons, and got the notoriously small range problem also creeped up to F-16 level fuel carriage. it still by Saabs own numbers under performs F-16 at the margins. its not some magical F-22 because they added more gas and a new radar with an F414.

Image

PLEASE NOTE GRIPEN NG HAS BALLOONED BEYOND THIS GUESS AND IS NOW 8000 KG EMPTY.

so once again, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a fighter that is "deliberately constrained" on purpose to keep costs low and avoiding F-35 style cost pitfalls, yet somehow out F-35 the F-35. in a bit of pure irony since the Gripen E sales have been anemic, its cost is actually high compared to the airplane that has massive production and hundreds built with thousands more on the way like the F-35. F-35 is not a "boutique" airplane ordered in a few dozen by brazil and the rest by its host country (reluctantly)

Gripen E was an absolute mistake.

Youre not getting an F-22 rival, youre not getting an "f-35 killer" youre not getting even an F-16, youre getting an improved Gripen, an airplane that just 10-25 years ago everyone agreed was a decent little airplane, no world beater, but a great little machine for an air force on a budget. It wasn't until Gripen NG hit the scene in earnest that it suddenly became some destrominating war killer air/ground/space domination fighter.

Its not cheaper, it broke the budget in Finland just like the Super Hornet and F-35 did, which again begs the question about what the point of a "low cost" fighter that is not actually low cost really is. is it just to pay F-35/SH prices for an airplane that is neither?

Its not expected to go past 2040, which means the Gripen E "6th generation" fighter will be retired decades before those "5th generation" fighters are.

Its absolutely, positively late to arrive. A gen 4.5 fighter showing up in the early 2000s is great. Showing up in the 2020s? That's laughable. its actually managed to be in development hell long enough to still be in testing (that means not in service) as the Tempest is starting to gain steam in its honeymoon phase. (Tempest is an actual 6th generation fighter I'm told?)

Gripen E was screwed early on, as Sweden said they had no interest in it, unless someone else signed on first (really why should the be interested? they were still building and taking delivery of new "legacy" Gripens as the Gripen NG was being revealed as a concept) this put Saab in the uncomfortable position of trying to sell an airplane not even their own country was interested in. It took years to get a sucker, the Swiss said "NO" and Brazil held on, but is now stretching production. at which point Sweden finally signed on. its 2020 there is still not one Gripen E in service, its not scheduled to be unilt 2021, and now Saab is talking about production and supply delays due to covid.

ITS A DISASTER, that in 15 years of talk has yet to produce a single combat fighter, and generated ONE export partner/sale of just 36, which is a far cry from the "450" Saab was saying a few years ago.


To wrap this long post in a neat bow, the F-35 is now in service with all 3 variants, and has over 600 produced and a dozen countries (give or take) buying them in the thousands. yet Its "bad airplane that no one wants" according to the planet of Gripenfandomia.

The Gripen is 420 airplanes short of its sales claims, has just 2 buyers, not in service, and under 100 on order, and its considered a mainstream dynamo, the future of fighters, the standard of 21st century airpower. its somehow not an underselling, unwanted, passed over, boutique aircraft whos dreams never came close to reality.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Dec 2020, 20:39

Continued from above:

about 2012 I made the prediction (hardly a bold one) that with the development timelines of the F-35 and Gripen NG, that the F-35 would be "exiting the dark woods" just as the Gripen was "going into them" Test is where all the problems show up. I was right, but I was also wrong. I had no idea the Gripen NG timeline would become THIS LATE. in 2012 the idea of the Gripen NG being FOC in the mid 2020s would probably get you laughed out of the forum, but here we are.

The F-35 is no longer the expensive, delayed, test problem, immature, risky, not in service airplane-- The Gripen NG is.:mrgreen:

but lets get back to Canada specifically shall we?

Theres no Canadian connection to the Gripen other than "muh cold weather" and parts produced already in Canada for the F414 engine in the Super Hornet. Thats it. Theres no partnership, theres no history. Boeing can at least make inroads with the similarity of CF-18 and Super Hornet. But it had no input into the Super Hornet which was a USN affair from the start (not even the US Marines were partners, or interested in the SH) and has since found some surprising export orders. F-35 has had Canadian input from the start Canada signed on to JSF in the 1990s and has never left. F-35 has Canadian DNA, whether they want to admit or not. (speaking of the typical weak rebuttal to this is that canada has had little ACTUAL input, or is being outright ignored. This is not the case. F-35 has severe cold weather requirements thanks to Canada. its a lie in order to dispel the obvious fact that of all options available to Canada, only one has Canada had actual involvement with)

So you have an F-35 where Canada was involved in the development and its coming to fruition in the hundreds and soon enough thousands

and you have a Gripen E that is the highest risk option in nearly every facet. And yes, Saab knows this.

The only way Gripen wins in Canada is if there is 100 percent political interference. SH is a close 2nd, but was hurt not just by the bombadier row, but also by the sheer high cost after being promised to be cheaper for nearly a decade.

BF4C is a "truly magical place" eventually you get bored lurking and seeing the same things posted again and again and again. and people get bored typing the same things again and again and again, which means that things quickly turn into a "copy pasta" contest where both sides just copy and paste arguments and then accuse the others of "spamming" so thats fun to see. Every once in a while someone comes in and throws off all the "auto responses" with something genuine. as I said I will be laughing when Gripen drops out again. and I will surely stop by to watch the meltdown.
Choose Crews
Online

go4long

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post29 Dec 2020, 20:51

All logical points, thanks Xander.

I've hit some of the old solid questions pretty hard over there:

-If It's so capable and so cheap, why is nobody else buying it?
-Ok, we're going to get a technological transfer...but why would we want it when it's technology that nobody else is buying? and as more evidence of that...they've offered the same technological transfer to most of their competition entries and still haven't won.
-If stealth is irrelevant, why is every country that produces fighter jets in the process of developing a next gen stealth fighter?...hell even Saab can't claim it anymore since they've now signed on to the tempest program.
-If the F-35 is such a poor performer, why is it doing so well in every exercise?

The truth is that I've come to the conclusion that not only do they not have the answers over there, but they've made it their goal to ignore the obvious answers as much as possible, and instead listen to nonsense like yesterdays gem from Mr. Goon that the F-35 is not capable enough, but "The SU-57 is a damned good design, is a Gen5+; and, has a lot of headroom." and "The Chengdu J-20, particularly the J-20B, is Gen 5++ and thus more capable all around than the Sukhoi." and when asked about how they compare to the F-22:

"Alas, it needs to be further evolved to be competitive.

"For example, harmonised relaxed longitudinal and directional static stabilities to achieve Extreme Plus Agility including 3D Hybrid TVC (ie: fluidic and mechanical vectoring)"

Which to me sounds like a really complicated way to make people think he knows more than he does.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Dec 2020, 22:56

go4long wrote:All logical points, thanks Xander.

I've hit some of the old solid questions pretty hard over there:

-If It's so capable and so cheap, why is nobody else buying it?
-Ok, we're going to get a technological transfer...but why would we want it when it's technology that nobody else is buying? and as more evidence of that...they've offered the same technological transfer to most of their competition entries and still haven't won.
-If stealth is irrelevant, why is every country that produces fighter jets in the process of developing a next gen stealth fighter?...hell even Saab can't claim it anymore since they've now signed on to the tempest program.
-If the F-35 is such a poor performer, why is it doing so well in every exercise?


very nice



The truth is that I've come to the conclusion that not only do they not have the answers over there, but they've made it their goal to ignore the obvious answers as much as possible, and instead listen to nonsense like yesterdays gem from Mr. Goon that the F-35 is not capable enough, but "The SU-57 is a damned good design, is a Gen5+; and, has a lot of headroom." and "The Chengdu J-20, particularly the J-20B, is Gen 5++ and thus more capable all around than the Sukhoi." and when asked about how they compare to the F-22:

"Alas, it needs to be further evolved to be competitive.

"For example, harmonised relaxed longitudinal and directional static stabilities to achieve Extreme Plus Agility including 3D Hybrid TVC (ie: fluidic and mechanical vectoring)"

Which to me sounds like a really complicated way to make people think he knows more than he does.


Image

AHAHAHAHA oh boy that sounds like him. Goon will always try to sound smarter rather than make an actual argument. Just keep dropping questions, in fact the more technical the better. waste his time, he loves to talk. He went onto secret projects once and wrote a "dear diary," style facebook post and started name dropping people at F-16.net. hes not exactly mentally there and he likes to threaten to sue. If you want to have fun just post good news about the F-35 its IOC in Australia as of yesterday and ask for his "thoughts"

let him go around and around. if he responds with 10 words for your 1, you've won. 8)

You're not going to convince goon, he's staked his whole "reputation" on this, so hes not going to back down, but what you can do is waste time and draw out his craziness for all to see. its fun and easy. I would feel bad but I've watched him lead some online lynch mobs composed of mouth breathers you wouldn't believe, and he and his buddy kopp are not only liars, they're generally just disingenuous scum.

Image

BF4C is fun in the way that while they all have a big bad to unite against with F-35, they can't agree on much else. Its not hard to have goon quickly pit against the gripen I'm guessing. Remember these are the guys who made a lot of people mad in euroland when they said an F-16 was better than a tiffie. They said a Super Hornet was great until Australia bought them, then they changed their minds overnight. Have fun with it.

Image

no one over there can agree on anything, except they don't like the F-35. Kjell said all american equipment "sucks" once seemingly forgetting what a lot of swedish gear, and what propels the Gripen NG is a product of the US. like I said its a magical place. They tried to make Bill Mcintosh some kind of martyr so anyone who crossed paths with him and he disagreed with, they've called to have banned. the list goes on.

Like I said everyone on F-16.net should wait to hear the fun news about Gripen and then drop on by, but until then its just kind of the same holding pattern until something actually develops

The F-35 has basically "won" with or without Canada. of course big picture they should buy it. I know this, I'm sure even Trudeau knows it. but I really don't care if they settle for super hornet which would be stupid, but I cant protect Canada from itself and making stupid choices.
Choose Crews
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 224
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post29 Dec 2020, 23:54

XanderCrews wrote:BF4C is a "truly magical place" eventually you get bored lurking and seeing the same things posted again and again and again. and people get bored typing the same things again and again and again, which means that things quickly turn into a "copy pasta" contest where both sides just copy and paste arguments and then accuse the others of "spamming" so thats fun to see. Every once in a while someone comes in and throws off all the "auto responses" with something genuine. as I said I will be laughing when Gripen drops out again. and I will surely stop by to watch the meltdown.


After reading BF4C I often wonder if human intelligence is regressing.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 04:24

pushoksti wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:BF4C is a "truly magical place" eventually you get bored lurking and seeing the same things posted again and again and again. and people get bored typing the same things again and again and again, which means that things quickly turn into a "copy pasta" contest where both sides just copy and paste arguments and then accuse the others of "spamming" so thats fun to see. Every once in a while someone comes in and throws off all the "auto responses" with something genuine. as I said I will be laughing when Gripen drops out again. and I will surely stop by to watch the meltdown.


After reading BF4C I often wonder if human intelligence is regressing.


I honestly sometimes can't tell with BF4C, sometimes it really is whimsy which I'm fine with I think there are people who like the gripen, and like to play a kind of "what if" and hold out some hope but know the chances are low (IE Sanity), I enjoy imagination, other times its "aggressive fanfiction" but other times its seemingly nasty lies and some downright ugly ignorance. It can be hard to tell the difference sometimes. is this person "ironically" suggesting or saying something outlandish, or is it 100 percent sincere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

it needs to remember that the F-35 may well be in danger in Canada, but it is still atop the totem pole. Even BF4C realize in order for their favorite to "win" the F-35 must lose. It must fail first for them to even have a chance, and once that is realized you realize they argue from the point of 2nd or last place. the F-35 program is only getting stronger, not weaker. Gripen delays are only mounting, not receding, its sales loses mount. If F-35 loses in Finland, Canada, or Switzerland it will be a first. if Hornets take all those competitions it will be disappointing, but for Gripen E it will be fairly devastating.
Choose Crews
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 06:22

XanderCrews wrote:
I honestly sometimes can't tell with BF4C, sometimes it really is whimsy which I'm fine with I think there are people who like the gripen, and like to play a kind of "what if" and hold out some hope but know the chances are low (IE Sanity), I enjoy imagination, other times its "aggressive fanfiction" but other times its seemingly nasty lies and some downright ugly ignorance. It can be hard to tell the difference sometimes. is this person "ironically" suggesting or saying something outlandish, or is it 100 percent sincere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

it needs to remember that the F-35 may well be in danger in Canada, but it is still atop the totem pole. Even BF4C realize in order for their favorite to "win" the F-35 must lose. It must fail first for them to even have a chance, and once that is realized you realize they argue from the point of 2nd or last place. the F-35 program is only getting stronger, not weaker. Gripen delays are only mounting, not receding, its sales loses mount. If F-35 loses in Finland, Canada, or Switzerland it will be a first. if Hornets take all those competitions it will be disappointing, but for Gripen E it will be fairly devastating.


There are definitely some die hard fans there who will scream until they are blue in the face, and deny even the most easily verifiable facts because it goes against their fantasies.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4245
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 16:30

I think Canada has already devolved into a 2nd, maybe 3rd tier player insofar as NATO is concerned. Their procurement process has made them the laughingstock of NATO*, but that's what you get with the liberal boy wonder. Choosing the SH or worse, the Gripen only furthers this view.

But if anyone can blow it with this call, they can. 80's retro Hornets... I honestly thought this was a gag headline. Turns out it wasn't. As such, choosing the Gripen is (incredibly) still in the realm of possibility...

*"Canada will finalize terms with the preferred bidder prior to the contract award, which is anticipated in 2022". So potentially 2 more years. I therefore predict this thread hits 1,000 pages before a decision is reached. And it may go for another 1,000 provided the Gripen is chosen :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 17:55

mixelflick wrote:I think Canada has already devolved into a 2nd, maybe 3rd tier player insofar as NATO is concerned. Their procurement process has made them the laughingstock of NATO*, but that's what you get with the liberal boy wonder. Choosing the SH or worse, the Gripen only furthers this view.

But if anyone can blow it with this call, they can. 80's retro Hornets... I honestly thought this was a gag headline. Turns out it wasn't. As such, choosing the Gripen is (incredibly) still in the realm of possibility...

*"Canada will finalize terms with the preferred bidder prior to the contract award, which is anticipated in 2022". So potentially 2 more years. I therefore predict this thread hits 1,000 pages before a decision is reached. And it may go for another 1,000 provided the Gripen is chosen :mrgreen:



I'm not sure Canada has gone full isolationist yet, and they do want to maintain good relations. if they want to give orange man lead 'US the finger that's fine, but it looks like there is not only a changing of the guard in the US but also the fact that Canada doesn't want to be shirking the people who's opinions they do care about. NATO and the commonwealth nations are still important to them, and you need to remember the Gripen E is still not popular in Europe. It has precisely zero sales there, and many have already passed it over. Once Finland gives Gripen its walking papers, its pretty much finished in Europe with croatia is looking at the old gripen not the E, though I know there is always rumors here or there about Austria and such. it seems like a lot of countries are more interested in the old gripen than the new one generally. even if Croatia goes through thats still no improvement for the E.

I doubt the thread will hit 1000 pages, there isn't much "news" happening, there will be aover 800 F-35s flying by the time Canada makes a "decision". Gripen may also drop out before that time. Its highly probable especially if the Finns pass on it.
after that they have India as the last big chance.


now in order to CMA and future proof my post things could theoretically change for the Gripen E (and rapidly, if they won a BIG contract as in something like Canada -88 airplanes and Finland -64ish airplanes as opposed to selling a a couple dozen here and there as they have in the past) but big picture they absolutely mismanaged the program, made bad decisions, and perhaps the ultimate nail in the coffin, they vastly over estimated sales protentional in a world full of second hand F-16s, not to mention the fact that the F-35 is actually "happening" in the sense that its making its cost goals (slowly but surely) when even Poland and Greece is buying F-35s id have to say the market is not what they thought. what once looked like >natural fits" for Gripen E has been completely reshuffled.

Now I know a lot of fanboys will fight me tooth and nail on this because the propaganda put out by this company about this airplane is unmatched in the world, but at one point there will have to be some recognition that there were bad and irrecoverable decisions made about this airplane. some of which I've highlighted above in this post but have commented on throughout this forum and others over the years. Its been 13 years since they were BTFOed in Norway, in 13 years, theyve sold 36 airplanes on the export market. 36. They could have gone different ways with its designed, they made poor assumptions, this will have a knock on effect you may already be witnessing. 36 to brazil is not enticing enough for many people to also jump on board. Thats seen as more of a fluke than a trend.

As for cost id love to hear how a Gripen E makes and meets its price and maintaince cost goals no matter if they sell 36 or 360 or 3600. I was told for years every time an F-35 order was curtailed or canceled it had entered a "death spiral" wherein the smaller order resulted in a higher cost, which would lead to further reduced ordered etc etc. Somehow the Gripen is immune to this, despite saab saying they planned to sell 400-450 of these over the next 20 years and as of right now are at not even 20 percent of that goal.

So just so you understand the rules, the F-35 which had a program of record of thousands of airplanes was doomed the second Canada declared it was leaving with its drop in the bucket amount of 65 airplanes, (JPO went on the record saying this would indeed add about 1 million dollars to each F-35) but if Gripen misses its sales goals but 80 percent and makes less than 100 of them total, then thats just fine and they cost the same no matter what!! its just magical oh and its immune to... uh oh!

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Shares in Swedish defence company Saab SAABb.ST slid more than 10% on Monday after it posted falling third-quarter profits and said it saw increased risks due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The maker of the Gripen fighter jet said the slow economic recovery from the pandemic was primarily affecting subcontractors and material supply for the Gripen E/F programme.

Saab said it had managed increased risks by adjusting project estimates, resulting in a 1.5-billion crown ($170 million) hit to operating income in the quarter, of which 1.1 billion was in the aeronautics business.

Jefferies said that the charges were unexpected and initially likely to generate significant caution.

“Today’s charge is unwelcome, but we believe the key issue is whether the Gripen E/F programme is significantly delayed,” the investment bank said in a note.

Saab shares were down 11.6% at 0932 GMT, on track for their worst day since April and at the bottom of STOXX 600 index .STOXX.

The company swung to an operating loss (EBIT) of 663 million crowns, with adjusted operating profit at 445 million crowns in the quarter, from a 518 million profit a year ago. Order bookings increased 8% to 10.15 billion crowns.

“Due to the ongoing pandemic and drawn-out global recovery, Saab now sees an increased risk related to the effects of Covid-19,” the company, which continued to say it could not currently give a financial outlook for the year, said in Monday’s statement.

The company stood by its forecast of a high delivery rate in the fourth quarter and positive operational cash flow for this year. It also said it remained committed to its long-term financial goals for growth and profitability.

Saab’s previous full-year outlook, which it dropped in April, was for organic sales growth of 5% in 2020 and an improved operating margin compared to 2019.

The company, which had cancelled its proposed dividend for 2019 in March, was originally due to post third-quarter earnings on Oct. 21.


The riskiest option just got riskier
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2865
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 18:53

mixelflick wrote:I think Canada has already devolved into a 2nd, maybe 3rd tier player insofar as NATO is concerned. Their procurement process has made them the laughingstock of NATO*, but that's what you get with the liberal boy wonder. Choosing the SH or worse, the Gripen only furthers this view.


While I do agree with that the Canadian military procurement process is a cluster f*ck but I have to disagree with you that "Canada has already devolved into a 2nd, maybe 3rd tier player" or that has any intention for that.
The problem here is indeed with the military procurement process in Canada which have been resulting in the following situation time after time:
1- Canada purchases among the best and most advanced equipment available at the time.
2- Canada operates the previously purchased equipment until it becomes obsolete.
3- When the equipment becomes obsolete a process to replace the equipment is initiated but since the process is a cluster f*ck this process gets delayed time after time which means that the already obsolete and in-service equipment will continue to operate well beyond what was initially anticipated which means that the obsolete and in-service equipment will need updates in order to maintain itself in service.
4- Jump to point 1- (and keeps repeating itself)

And this is not only an Air Force/fighter aircraft thing but it's all across the Canadian Armed Forces.
Other examples:
- The current CF-18 fleet: When it was delivered in the early 1980's the CF-18 (F/A-18) was most likely the most advanced fighter aircraft in world. For instance it did have true MFD displays and BVR air-to-air combat capability something that the F-16 at that time didn't have. This CF-18 fleet basically replaced two fleets of aging fighter aircraft, the CF-104 (F-104 Starfighter) and the CF-101 (F-101 Voodoo) which and when purchased were among the most advanced fighter aircraft of their time but by the 1980's they were totally and completely obsolete. Heck, they were even more obsolete back then, then the CF-18 fleet currently is.
- The Sea King maritime helicopter which was the best of its kind when it was purchased but later during the 1990's was in need to be replaced but it was only recently replaced! The replacement, the CH-148 Cyclone seems to be an excellent helicopter and apparently one of the best in the role but it came almost 30 (thirty) years late!
- The Tribal AAW (Anti Air Warfare) destroyers and Halifax frigates which were considered to be very good ships when built were supposed to be replaced a decade ago. Only last year was the replacement selected, which by the way is a heck of a ship and certainly among the best of its class in the world:
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/a$$ ... 11_web.pdf
But and in the meanwhile the Tribal AAW destroyers were already retired without replacement which means that currently Canada doesn't have any area-wide anti-aircraft warfare ships until the replacement finally arrives and the Halifax frigates are starting to become obsolete and less capable for future warfare. However the replacement will be great but unfortunately as everything else in the Canadian military it will come late and well after what is replacing becomes 'too obsolete'.
- The Main Battle tanks: Until the 2000's Canada operated an updated version of the Leopard 1 tanks which was already obsolete by the time and it was only during the 2007 (and in this case due to the war in Afghanistan) that Canada finally purchased the Leopard 2 tank (one on the best of its kind) and this decades later than other allies such as Germany or Netherlands.
- And I could go on and on and on... :wink:

Anyway, my point is that Canada always aims to be among the 1st tier player and when it buys military equipment it surely buys 1st tier equipment. Unfortunately Canada takes too long to replace what was once a 1st tier equipment.


mixelflick wrote:But if anyone can blow it with this call, they can. 80's retro Hornets... I honestly thought this was a gag headline. Turns out it wasn't. As such, choosing the Gripen is (incredibly) still in the realm of possibility...


As you can see with the examples above. Canada isn't "blowing this up" (by still and continuing to operate 80's retro Hornets). This is unfortunately the "standard procedure" in Canada when it comes to military equipment.
In this end this will mean that Canada will eventually select the F-35.
Actually I believe that the F-35 was already selected (behind the 'backstage') but this is being delayed in order to give a better sense that a competition is really going on and that most will eventually forget the "Canada won't buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber" comment by the current PM.
“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: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 19:03

Allow me to crassly and grossly oversimplify this:

The F-35 is so capable people will wait years and pay for more money to get it (you can ask any critic about this, they can't wait to tell you how overbudget and overtime it is, yet its sales only climb)

The Gripen has the opposite issue. Its capability is lower, and nearly everything outclasses it. It basically wins only on cost. this creates an unexpected juxtoposition, wherein the Gripen E is actually MORE sensitive to cost than the F-35. The big struggle with Gripen E is that they simply can't get the price low enough to actually entice people to sacrifice better and more capable aircraft to buy it instead. The price simply is not there. (no its not 50 percent less or "half as much so you can buy twice as many" as its fans ardently claim. I've never actually seen that come to fruition BTW. and that of course "buying twice as many" actually net a zero percent savings. this brings us to combat capability.)

Combat capability: to be perfectly clear on this I'm talking about the ability to kill and main and destroy other humans and their weapons systems to win on the battlefield, while avoiding the same fate yourself. I mean killing people and things. The Gripen is simply not as good at this. Other airplanes do it better. Even Gripen fans realize this which is why they quickly start talking about money and "low cost", when people bring up that its not as good at killing and maiming people and objects as well as other airplanes, because they know its not as good and thus "counter argue" that now money has a great place on combat effectiveness. M

Cost as a measure of "combat performance:" Money always matters, don't get me wrong. but on a battlefield, It matters very little. Gripen fans have been trying to deal with this problem for a long time. when that doesn't work, they usually point to "austere basing" and "quick turn around" again this is defensive retreating shot. The ability to quickly reload and refuel an airplane has far more to do with the crew and set up than the type of airplane being serviced (again some are easier than others, but this is hardly unique to the Gripen. same with mobile basing concepts. This is done by many aircraft that are not Gripens all over the world. It again has to do with support, logistics, and well trained "troops" than it does a magical aircraft. besides, some aircraft do it vastly better anyway:


Image

when I brought up that short field capability is great, and the F-35B is even better at it, he again retreated to cost, then logistics. again, note how PERFORMANCE subject instantly changed and was quickly shoved aside to try and "win" in another area/subject/category. This can go on into infinity:

Yes short performance is good, but it doesn't need to be THAT short, and besides that shortness costs too much! and is too short!

The Gripen is somehow the perfect mix of everything. and when one side of the Triangle of


"performance"



"Logistics"


"Cost"

Image


is breached they instantly bring up the other 2 in an attempt to distract from the shortcoming in the first leg of the triangle. perfectly demonstrated by the performance of the F-35B's austere capability. Of course its superior to the Gripen in terms of being able to take off and land from nearly the middle of nowhere-- but it costs too much and is harder to supply. thus, the F-35B performs TOO WELL-- its short field performance need not be THAT SHORT!, and thus at a cost that is simply too high.

The Shorter the better!

What about F-35B then? it must be the best

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE COST REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LOGISTICS!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

Image

We know by Saabs own admission Gripen is not supposed to be equal to or compete with its rivals, its meant to get close to them but for far less money. Bill Sweetman openly states this.


The Gripen E has 60 percent of the thrust of the current CF-18 and I have to explain that its not a world beater...

Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6552
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 20:09

from the Finland thread:

Project manager Lauri Puranen from the Ministry of Defense says that 64 was chosen as the number to know what 64 aircraft would actually cost. The preliminary price range of 7-10 billion was based on 2014 data on the price of fighter deals.

The fighters turned out to be more expensive than estimated.

- All the answers (to the 1st RFI) went well over 10 billion, Puranen says.

Invitations to tender and tenders are not public. Puranen determines that the bids exceeded the ceiling by 10–20 per cent, when the content of the bid includes everything that is required for full replacement of capability.

On this basis, the price of the initial bids would have been EUR 11-12 billion.

Second round prices high

The second, more detailed call for tenders was launched last year. The responses didn't fully match what the Department of Defense hoped for.

- After a more detailed call for tenders, all candidates still had difficulty reaching our full target.

According to the project manager, the excess was related to one of Finland's requirements, security of supply. Finland wants a sufficient number of weapons in stock as well. At this point, the manufacturers' offers had to be supplemented.

- When armament was added, the result was more than 10 billion.

There are numerous requirements in the procurement other than the price: A sufficient number of fighters must be available. Security of supply must be realized and opportunities must be found for Finnish industry to be involved in benefiting from the trade. Operating and maintenance costs must not be too high. The system should also replace the performance of existing fighters "in full", as agreed in the government program.

No more money is going to be asked

The Department of Defense has previously been told that the number of fighters may be flexible, as the intention is to purchase a performance similar to the current one.

Measuring performance is not straightforward, as fighters and their operation along with other defenses have evolved. On the other hand, the performance of all other countries using fighters has changed accordingly.

- 64 has not been carved in stone, but in order to be able to defend the whole country and get a sufficient amount of fighter power into the air, the order of magnitude is that, Puranen says.

Based on the first rounds of bidding, it can be interpreted that if the number of fighters is flexible, it is flexible downwards.

The number of fighters to be acquired will only be determined in a government decision. The defense administration will make the proposal based on the final bids and evaluation.

The most important role in the evaluation is the simulated war game of the defense administration. It verifies how the proposed systems deliver performance.

As the maximum budget set by the government was not enough in the first two rounds, the third round is under pressure to reach the desired total. The fighters have become more expensive, but the budget must be kept.


so somehow the uber cheap Gripen E blew through the cap along with all the other fighters. somwhere between 11-12 billion euros, just like everyone else. Even if Gripen E is the low end of that, and F-35 is the high end its a difference of a billion euros, spread over 64 aircraft... less than a 10 percent cost difference between the hyper expensive F-35 and the heckin' cheap Gripen E.

whats the point of the "cheap fighter" thats unaffordable again? the joy of reduced performance?
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post30 Dec 2020, 22:04

BF4C remind me of the ones behind macas. In the dumpster and yelling at people walking past. Sometimes it's best just to keep walking.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1274
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post31 Dec 2020, 04:15

The Canadian military has been in decline in more ways than one...

The USN has been having problems with keeping their ships maintained but at least they're still able to get their ships and boats out into the water.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: go4long, milosh and 9 guests