The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[childs56]

there already is a Gripen lead in fighter trainer the T-7

Correct, but is it up to the capabilities/ potential of the Gripen?
If we announce a Training aircraft buy, then Canadians may not complain to much.

 

[ytz]

but is it up to the capabilities/ potential of the Gripen?

No. Cause it's an actual trainer.

If we announce a Training aircraft buy, then Canadians may not complain to much.

It's not optimized to be a trainer. Too light for our main fighter. And not independent enough of ITAR, if the goal is independence from the US.

Really not sure why people keep beating this dead horse.

 

[childs56]

No. Cause it's an actual trainer.



It's not optimized to be a trainer.

It is suppose to be a decent aircraft to fly. What makes a optimized trainer over a non optimized trainer?

Too light for our main fighter.

Would not be our main fighter, Would make a great Northern based aircraft for QRF duties. Can be run on less then ideal runways.

And not independent enough of ITAR, if the goal is independence from the US.

One can not simply get away from ITAR, The US defense industry has their hands in every western supplier at some level or degree.

Really not sure why people keep beating this dead horse.

Not really a dead horse so much as alternatives.
We need more then 60ish or so F35s we have ordered.
We need new Fighter trainer jets. (the US has ordered the T7) similar looking to the Gripen with duel tail system.
We need jets for our northern base(s) unless we spend a pile of money on infrastructure they are not suitable for the F35

 

[Quirky]

We need more then 60ish or so F35s we have ordered.

We ordered 88.

We need jets for our northern base(s) unless we spend a pile of money on infrastructure they are not suitable for the F35

A pile of money is being spent on infrastructure to house the F35.

The Gripen in Canada is dead. Forget about.

 

[GR66]

The only reason I'd go with the Gripen as a 2nd fighter would be to partner with Saab on their Next Generation fighter (building an initial batch of Gripen's here would get our workforce trained for the new fighters). There is an expectation that their Gripen replacement will be larger and have longer range due to the fact that since joining NATO their front line is much further away.

Sweden will however need partners to get their program off the ground due to the cost of such a program and they are the only realistic partner for Canada that would give us the option of domestic production and integration of Pratt & Whitney engines in the design. You're not going to get that from Dassault, GCAP, FCAS or NGAD. If domestic production is a key objective then partnering with Sweden is likely our best option.

If we forget about the idea of domestic production or integration of Canadian engines then the program I'd pick to join is GCAS. The design is further along than the others, the UK is most likely of all nations to remain a firm ally of Canada (and Italy and Japan less likely than France or Germany to have any significant political differences with us) so probably the more stable alliance. Also, the design is focusing on extended range as both the UK and Japan have very large airspaces to patrol which would be a major requirement for Canada as well obviously. The problem though with the program is that as advanced as it is there is likely limited opportunity for Canadian industrial participation in the program.

 

[ytz]

It is suppose to be a decent aircraft to fly. What makes a optimized trainer over a non optimized trainer?

Trainers are usually lighter, substantially cheaper to operate, and more forgiving when flying. For sure, a Gripen would be extraordinarily expensive as a trainer. But if we're trying to have a reserve fleet for force generation, the optimum choice is to have the same aircraft as the FLIT or the Undergraduate trainer.

Would not be our main fighter, Would make a great Northern based aircraft for QRF duties. Can be run on less then ideal runways.

The geography and distances involved in the North don't allow for short-ranged fighters. Even from QRFs. They will always need tanker support. And if you're going to have to fly tankers anyway, the utility of a second fleet just for patrols is non-existent.

One can not simply get away from ITAR, The US defense industry has their hands in every western supplier at some level or degree.

We can't get away from ITAR. But if the entire point of getting an alternative to the F-35 is to reduce exposure to ITAR, then the best thing to do is to get the furthest away we can. And on that count there's really a clear winner: France and the Rafale.

 

[childs56]

We ordered 88.

ok

A pile of money is being spent on infrastructure to house the F35.

Yup, still wont be enough to fully operate those aircraft north

The Gripen in Canada is dead. Forget about.

The aircraft procurement for Gripen may be dead as of now. But or the project might rear it's head in the near future. Time will tell as things move along with our Defense spending.

 

[ytz]

Yup, still wont be enough to fully operate those aircraft north

What exactly are you basing this on?

 

[childs56]

Trainers are usually lighter, substantially cheaper to operate, and more forgiving when flying. For sure, a Gripen would be extraordinarily expensive as a trainer. But if we're trying to have a reserve fleet for force generation, the optimum choice is to have the same aircraft as the FLIT or the Undergraduate trainer.

Initial cost might be high. But over time it might fit the bill for a dual role platform.

The geography and distances involved in the North don't allow for short-ranged fighters. Even from QRFs. They will always need tanker support. And if you're going to have to fly tankers anyway, the utility of a second fleet just for patrols is non-existent.

The F35 can not operate from smaller runways. Where the Gripen can.

We can't get away from ITAR. But if the entire point of getting an alternative to the F-35 is to reduce exposure to ITAR, then the best thing to do is to get the furthest away we can. And on that count there's really a clear winner: France and the Rafale.

That may not be a bad idea, that would add another host of issues. But maybe worth the headache

 

[Quirky]

 

[Swampbuggy]

Well, there’s always jumping in with the ROK on the Boromae program. I mean, it’s getting to the point that I’d like to just show up in Seoul with a shopping list for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Realistic or not for the fighter, I think the South Koreans would be willing partners across the board for joint development and construction on any number of other projects. If we make good with them on the sub but, there’s no telling what else we could partner up to do.

 

[ytz]

Initial cost might be high. But over time it might fit the bill for a dual role platform.

Again. Why exactly are we getting a second fleet? What exactly is the goal of the second fleet? Because there's no point getting a second fleet just for Northern patrols. The logistics burden explicitly rules that out. And if it's for force generation, the most sensible COA is to use the FLIT or UPT which are easier to train on and cheaper to operate.

The F35 can not operate from smaller runways. Where the Gripen can.

First off, the F-35A is certainly capable of some short-field operations. We're specifically getting F-35s with drogues for this. Next, this point is rather irrelevant when there are fixed FOBs that we use, because of a whole host of support infrastructure that is needed. And this is true even today with the Hornet. Lastly, if we're really that concerned about short-field performance, well the Panther has a solution for that.

That may not be a bad idea, that would add another host of issues. But maybe worth the headache

Ultimately, if the goal is to get away from ITAR (arguably the only reason to ditch the Panther) then really there's only one true option. And it's most definitely not the Gipen.