Skies Mag has a decent article on the Super Hornet for the Canadian competition.

Low Risk Capability
https://assets.skiesmag.com/digital/202 ... ml?page=58

The article is clearly aimed at the F-35 given the comparisons between the two jets throughout and is trying to pitch the SH as the low risk option for Canada.

The RCAF posted a number of pictures on Twitter, and an ex-RAAF Hornet is featured flying alongside a CC-150 Polaris tanker heading to CFB Cold Lake, coming from from Mirabel, Quebec:

https://twitter.com/RCAF_ARC/status/1271472388044185601









No squadron markings, and as this aircraft was coming from Mirabel, I will have to assume this bird just left refurbishment while at L-3 MAS's facilities in Mirabel.

This is an utterly strange and probably poorly written article. It references Canadian Super Hornets being upgraded despite Canada only operating classic Hornets.

Canadian CF-18 upgrade package OK’d by US

The U.S. State Department has cleared Canada to purchase a package of upgrades for its fleet of CF-18 Super Hornets, including upgraded radars and weapons, intended to serve as a bridge between the legacy fleet and Canada’s future fighter.

...

Among the upgrades included in this potential package: 50 Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II tactical missiles; 38 APG-79(V)4 active electronically scanned array radars; 38 APG-79(V)4 AESA radar A1 kits; 46 F/A-18A wide-band RADOMEs; upgrades to the Advanced Distributed Combat Training System; and technical assistance to support the upgraded jets.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... okd-by-us/

Obviously Canada are keen to maintain capability between now and the new fighter arriving and upgrading the classic Hornets with an AESA makes sense. Looks like they are piggybacking on the USMC work done to develop and deploy the APG-79 (v4) for their classic Hornet fleet. Having a sub fleet may present some sustainment challenges though unless the plan is to see how these first aircraft go and then progress additional aircraft past that. It could also be a risk mitigation against the Trudeau Government cancelling the new fighter competition...

The update also addresses the fact that they had the helmet mounted queuing system for hihg off bore targeting for the AIM-9X sidewinders, but had none of them actually in inventory.

thedrive.com has a decent article on this whole transaction, though the raw details aren't any different from the defensenews article.

Canada had also gained the right to purchase the new AIM-120D AMRAM missiles a few years ago, but couldn't fully take advantage of the additional range of those missiles because the older radar on their CF-18 fighters didn't have sufficient engagement range for them. This addresses that deficiency. Maybe they will now actually make that AIM-120D purchase?

LightningZ71 wrote:

The update also addresses the fact that they had the helmet mounted queuing system for hihg off bore targeting for the AIM-9X sidewinders, but had none of them actually in inventory.

thedrive.com has a decent article on this whole transaction, though the raw details aren't any different from the defensenews article.

Interesting, I didn’t even realise Canadian CF-18s were still running AIM-9Ms… 50 X Blk IIs seems a small number given that wouldn’t even equip all upgraded aircraft with wingtip missiles but perhaps the first step in a larger acquisition.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Canada had also gained the right to purchase the new AIM-120D AMRAM missiles a few years ago, but couldn't fully take advantage of the additional range of those missiles because the older radar on their CF-18 fighters didn't have sufficient engagement range for them. This addresses that deficiency. Maybe they will now actually make that AIM-120D purchase?

Now that the only jets left in the competition already have AIM-120 integrated it would seem a wise decision as the missiles could be reused on those platforms no matter which is selected.

RFP's being published for base infrastructure at CFB Cold Lake and Bagotville to support the upcoming replacement fighters:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-nat ... onnel.html

The Defence Team has been hard at work over the last several months. We’ve opened bidding on design and construction contracts for new fighter aircraft facilities at 3 Wing Bagotville and 4 Wing Cold Lake, our two main operating bases for Canada’s fighter aircraft. This infrastructure will support the long-term operation and maintenance of 88 new aircraft that will be procured for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) through the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).

These infrastructure investments will have a significant economic impact in Alberta and Quebec – combined, we expect these construction contracts to total over $500 million, and create more than 900 jobs over the next several years. We’re planning to award the design-build contract for the Cold Lake fighter aircraft facility in August 2020, with Bagotville following in September 2020.

A Carleton University post grad student has published a thesis on the Canadian Future Fighter Competition. It is well sourced and includes some good analysis on the capabilities of the respective aircraft and how important interoperability is to Canada and their Air Force, irrespective of the NORAD or NATO mission.

One Horse Race? A study of interoperability in Canada's Future Fighter Capability Project

Through the $19 billion Future Fighter Capability Project, the Government of Canada will procure a replacement for the CF-18. However, the requirement that the future fighter be “seamlessly interoperable” with key allies calls into question whether the competitive selection process can be run in good faith. This study argues that contemporary Canadian defence policy is oriented around partnerships with other states, especially the US, and that interoperability would therefore best be attained through the selection of a fifth-generation American platform. However, it is unclear that the FFCP evaluation criteria, which include mandatory and rated technical requirements as well as pillars for cost and industrial offsets, account for high-end tactical networking and new allied technical standards. The FFCP may result in the acquisition of a type that prevents the CAF from interoperating “seamlessly” with allies over its lifecycle. This risk undermines Canada’s reliance on partnerships for national defence.

https://curve.carleton.ca/de37d537-9719 ... c12d50ad18

Some of the interesting content of the document is the review of how the Canadian Military looks to use information warfare going forward and how the unique two eyes and five eyes intelligence agreements impact the future fighter selection. I don’t expect everyone to read it but I found it interesting and the issues of how the competition requirements have been watered down or altered to provide the non 5th gen airframes a better chance of competing. Additionally you can see after reading the sections on datalinks and foreign access why Airbus and Dassault withdrew from the competition, the additional cost to make their airframes compliant would have made their selection highly unlikely.

Unless Canada were to withdraw from NORAD and their five eyes agreements the selection of a non US airframe seems incredibly unlikely.

Final bids have been submitted by each of the vendors for the Canadian Competition. Now we wait for the evaluation to begin with the potential that Canada may downselect to two bidders by mid next year before a final selection in 2022.

These three companies submitted bids for Canada’s fighter competition

The bids are in for Canada’s fighter competition, and three companies will go head-to-head for the chance to build 88 new jets.

The Canadian government on Friday confirmed that the field is down to two American entrants — Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet — as well as Swedish aerospace manufacturer Saab’s Gripen E. All companies submitted proposals before the July 31 deadline.

The contest is scheduled to be decided in 2022, with the first aircraft delivery projected in 2025. Up to CA$19 billion (U.S. $14 billion) is up for grabs.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... mpetition/

If they could get the SH block III WITH the F414 EPE (which for some reason the Navy refuses to adopt) then the F-18E/F is a viable option. Otherwise the F-35 is the only aircraft that makes sense. So, the F-35 is the only choice as the upgraded F414 which should have been introduced 10 years ago will clearly never be purchased by the US and therefore not be available to Canada except at great cost.

744SPX wrote:

If they could get the SH block III WITH the F414 EPE (which for some reason the Navy refuses to adopt) then the F-18E/F is a viable option. Otherwise the F-35 is the only aircraft that makes sense. So, the F-35 is the only choice as the upgraded F414 which should have been introduced 10 years ago will clearly never be purchased by the US and therefore not be available to Canada except at great cost.

Initial numbers I have seen puts the Block 3 Rhino at $70M each... with the F-35A at $77.9M, the Super Hornet isnt that much of a deal any more. With the Gripen E coming in at around $85M each with lower performance... other than to save a few bucks, I cant see why they would buy the F/A-18E/F.

Oroka wrote:

744SPX wrote:

If they could get the SH block III WITH the F414 EPE (which for some reason the Navy refuses to adopt) then the F-18E/F is a viable option. Otherwise the F-35 is the only aircraft that makes sense. So, the F-35 is the only choice as the upgraded F414 which should have been introduced 10 years ago will clearly never be purchased by the US and therefore not be available to Canada except at great cost.

Initial numbers I have seen puts the Block 3 Rhino at $70M each... with the F-35A at $77.9M, the Super Hornet isnt that much of a deal any more. With the Gripen E coming in at around $85M each with lower performance... other than to save a few bucks, I cant see why they would buy the F/A-18E/F.

I expect both Gripen and SH are going to be cheaper to sustain initially (first five to ten years) but over the 40 year lifespan I expect F-35 will remain cheapest overall, especially considering a requirement to keep the airframes current and capable. The other side is that even if both SH and Gripen were cheaper to sustain over their operational lifetimes they won’t ever be more capable and survivable. Does Canada want a cheaper aircraft (at best 10-20% saving over the next 40 years) or one that will actually survive in a potential future conflict…

Boeing won’t be setting up a production line in Canada for final assembly of the SH if they win the deal. It would likely only increase the cost of the bid for little overall value. Boeing is trumpeting their large investment with Canadian Aerospace, I saw another article the other day referencing US$46 billion worth of work., and that is referenced by their offer where which appears to focus more on the through life sustainment where Canadian companies could net significant contracts for the fleet.

Boeing would perform Canadian Super Hornet final assembly in US

Boeing would perform final assembly of its F/A-18 Block III Super Hornets in the United States rather than Canada if it wins Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) competition.

Jim Barnes, Boeing Defense, Space, and Security director of business development in Canada, on 27 October cited the small production run for performing final assembly in St. Louis, Missouri, where the Super Hornet is built. Canada will purchase 88 advanced fighters as part of its competition with the first aircraft anticipated for 2025. The procurement is expected to be worth USD11-14 billion.

“It was decided that the benefits of standing up these types of operations in Canada were not worth the investment,” Barnes said. “We are concentrating on the decades of life cycle support for our partners’ work share, including potential work on US Navy Super Hornets.”

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... mbly-in-us



Gripen is the only one that may offer local assembly but again the value there is pretty low given the short production time, less than five years, and no export potential from any Canadian assembly line.

Ozair wrote:

Boeing is trumpeting their large investment with Canadian Aerospace...

Unlike the investment they made in destroying the largest Canadian aerospace player.

Canada needs the Super Hornet. It’s a common platform the CAF is familiar with , even though it’s a big step forward in capability , it will integrate well with the USAF , and its 2 engines are a must for operating in the Arctic theater and beyond. Canada will be well served with this newer and more advanced F-18.

art wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Boeing is trumpeting their large investment with Canadian Aerospace...

Unlike the investment they made in destroying the largest Canadian aerospace player.

Yeah it is funny really. Almost like Boeing would rather just forget the past few years like they never happened. I expect there isn’t a dump Boeing at all cost mentality for the competition as Boeing wouldn’t invest the time and effort if it felt it had no chance to win. There might be some public perception issues were the SH selected but I expect even those will be small interested parties and not the general aerospace industry as a whole. Boeing has probably provided more work/investment to Canadian Aerospace than Bombardier did across the life of the company.

rubberdogdo wrote:

Canada needs the Super Hornet. It’s a common platform the CAF is familiar with , even though it’s a big step forward in capability , it will integrate well with the USAF , and its 2 engines are a must for operating in the Arctic theater and beyond. Canada will be well served with this newer and more advanced F-18.

The SH is a very different beast to the classic Hornet with little now in common. Integrating well with the USAF is an interesting claim since the USAF doesn’t operate the aircraft. If USAF engagement was really important, and it is, then using MADL is a much better option and the SH does not currently have and likely won’t get MADL anytime soon if at all.

We have discussed two engines here many times and the claim that two engines is required for artic operations is not based in fact. Of the four FOLs that the RCAF operate from three are all based lower than Eielson where the USAF will be basing 50+ single engine F-35A and already base F-16s. The Norwegians permanently based single engine F-16s at Bodo, also higher than three of those Canadian FOLs, and are rebuilding Evenes, higher than all Canadian FOLs, to house F-35As and other allied aircraft.

The SH would not be a bad choice for Canada, certainly better than the Gripen but likely not as good a choice as going F-35A.

Of the three options, I think it's a choice between the F-35 and the Gripen, with the former being most likely but the later being my preference.

What appeals about the Gripen is its pedigree and design intent: a physically robust, combat- and cost-effective aircraft from a resource-constrained northern nation that offers a balance of sufficient-and-upgradable EW and weapons capabilities with low operating costs. It's the F-5 of the current fighter options and that holds a lot of appeal to me, with features like STOL from rough fields and improvised runways, the longest legs of the field, maintainer-focused design, high agility, super-cruise and high-mach sprint speeds (important for our vast geography). The complete technology transfer and full choice of EW suite to fit Canadian-NORAD-NATO requirements and proposed domestic production goes a long way to alleviate concerns about interoperability and industrial benefits (with neither the F-35 or Super Hornet having a Canadian FAL). I have no issue in the slightest with it being a single-engine aircraft, which seems to be a uniquely Canadian fixation.

One thing I do worry about, though, about buying the Gripen is the limited global fleet size and limited military relationship with Gripen's current model operators (Hungary and Czech Republic in NATO, let alone Sweden, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, etc.). As capable as it is, the Gripen is never going to remotely approach the production numbers and deployment of the F35, which is on track to become the defacto strike aircraft of NATO. The F35's lethargic runway requirements, lack of super-cruise, short legs and dependence of tankers, and extensive ground support requirements are all considerations of not small importance. On the other hand, low radar observability and its EW system, particularly datalinks, are critically important for mission effectiveness and survivability in contested airspace.

Fundamentally, I think the Gripen is a better choice for Canada's domestic NORAD defense missions (sovereignty patrols, interception, sustained deployment in harsh environments) while the F35 is a better choice for Canada's NATO defense missions (overseas strike missions, interoperability within a coalition-controlled airspace environment, and even all-out conventional warfare against a technological near-pear). Of these two missions, I personally put more importance on the former. The purpose of the RCAF is, first and foremost, to conduct missions leading up to and including warfighting to defend the territorial and political integrity of Canada as a sovereign nation. Projecting power overseas as part of a coalition of allies may be the best way to preempt the emergence of conditions where the first mission of direct national defense is required, but it is a secondary mission. I have every confidence that the Gripen would allow Canada to be a full partner in an overseas NATO coalition and undertake AAD and strike missions as part of a multi-national coalition and utilize standard NATO ordnance and strike mission profiles.

For the mission of direct national defense, I think the Gripen would perform admirably and best fit the requirements and expectations of the RCAF. It is a state of the art 4.5 gen multi-role fighter, ably capable of air superiority, strike, reconnaissance, and marine interdiction. It has every potential to be somewhat of an orphaned aircraft in the global military environment compared to the F35, but the proposed fleet size, domestic production, full technology transfer, high airframe modularity and future EW upgradability make me believe that Canada would have the ability to sustain the Gripen and ensure its interoperability with NATO and fulfill its NORAD obligations throughout the 50-year lifespan of the program. It's likely to be Canada's last manned fighter, and to me it seems to be the right choice.

Leslieville wrote:

Of the three options, I think it's a choice between the F-35 and the Gripen, with the former being most likely but the later being my preference.

What appeals about the Gripen is its pedigree and design intent: a physically robust, combat- and cost-effective aircraft from a resource-constrained northern nation that offers a balance of sufficient-and-upgradable EW and weapons capabilities with low operating costs. It's the F-5 of the current fighter options and that holds a lot of appeal to me, with features like STOL from rough fields and improvised runways, the longest legs of the field, maintainer-focused design, high agility, super-cruise and high-mach sprint speeds (important for our vast geography). The complete technology transfer and full choice of EW suite to fit Canadian-NORAD-NATO requirements and proposed domestic production goes a long way to alleviate concerns about interoperability and industrial benefits (with neither the F-35 or Super Hornet having a Canadian FAL). I have no issue in the slightest with it being a single-engine aircraft, which seems to be a uniquely Canadian fixation.

One thing I do worry about, though, about buying the Gripen is the limited global fleet size and limited military relationship with Gripen's current model operators (Hungary and Czech Republic in NATO, let alone Sweden, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, etc.). As capable as it is, the Gripen is never going to remotely approach the production numbers and deployment of the F35, which is on track to become the defacto strike aircraft of NATO. The F35's lethargic runway requirements, lack of super-cruise, short legs and dependence of tankers, and extensive ground support requirements are all considerations of not small importance. On the other hand, low radar observability and its EW system, particularly datalinks, are critically important for mission effectiveness and survivability in contested airspace.

A couple of issues with your claims above. Gripen isn’t longer ranged than F-35, it is very much the opposite and have posted the numbers on here several times proving that. Gripen E also hasn’t proven it can supercruise at all let alone with a meaningful payload. It did after all increase in empty weight by 12% during development which would be a significant factor in preventing that supercruise. Also not sure where the F-35 lethargic runway claim comes from? F-35 would have very similar runway performance to Gripen with equivalent payloads given Gripen has the worst thrust to weight ratio of modern western fighters. Gripen has no rough field capability either and would operate from improvised runways, so freeways, just the same as the other options. F-35 has a drag chute option being taken up by Norway while Gripen moves its canards, really swings and roundabouts.

The tech transfer and industrial participation being offered to Canada for Gripen isn’t that valuable to the Canadian Aerospace Industry. What is Saab going to actually share that would be of value that Canadian industry doesn’t already know how to do? Compare that to the F-35 program that offers significant high tech industrial work over the next 50+ years for a projected fleet of over 3000, so the ability to participate in the build of 3000 aircraft and then parts for that whole fleet. The scale difference is immense.

For production Canada will get four years of airframe production before all airframes are assembled and the line is shuttered. That sounds great until you realise that it comes with a cost, Saab isn’t doing that for free, so it just gets tacked on to the acquisition price. Canada would be better placed saving money on the contract and investing that into the Aerospace sector where it would actually make a difference. After the airframes are delivered you don’t need the production line anymore and there is no export potential for a Canadian assembled Gripen. The RCAF can conduct heavy maintenance at any number of companies across Canada, such as L3Harris who conduct CF-18 depot work today. You also have other companies such as Embraer interested in the Gripen spares role.

I’d also be surprised that a production line could be stood up and manufacture all aircraft to the timeframe that Canada will require in an efficient and cost effective manner, 88 jets across four years is reasonably steep to get to and then drop from.

Leslieville wrote:

Fundamentally, I think the Gripen is a better choice for Canada's domestic NORAD defense missions (sovereignty patrols, interception, sustained deployment in harsh environments) while the F35 is a better choice for Canada's NATO defense missions (overseas strike missions, interoperability within a coalition-controlled airspace environment, and even all-out conventional warfare against a technological near-pear). Of these two missions, I personally put more importance on the former. The purpose of the RCAF is, first and foremost, to conduct missions leading up to and including warfighting to defend the territorial and political integrity of Canada as a sovereign nation. Projecting power overseas as part of a coalition of allies may be the best way to preempt the emergence of conditions where the first mission of direct national defense is required, but it is a secondary mission. I have every confidence that the Gripen would allow Canada to be a full partner in an overseas NATO coalition and undertake AAD and strike missions as part of a multi-national coalition and utilize standard NATO ordnance and strike mission profiles.

If NORAD is the first and primary role then the F-35 is the better candidate. With a longer range, a far better EW and sensor suite than the Gripen in a platform that the adversary will likely never detect it is a hands down win. It may cost more to sustain initially, noting less to acquire, but that will almost certainly come down as the fleet size increases and maintenance practises improve. There are also concerns that Gripen can even meet the Two Eyes agreements required for NORAD with that being the prime reason Dassault and Eurofighter both withdrew. F-35 is already flying NORAD missions today and will continue to do so out of Alaska for many years to come.

For NORAD I expect loyal wingman will become an important factor that both airframes would benefit from. The wingman will be able to push out past the fighters themselves and expand the sensor network, prosecute targets and present a show of force for intercepts. F-35 is best positioned to excel in that environment with its data link and sensor fusion capabilities.

For NATO operations a recent RAND report, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_repo ... 311-1.html showed how important the F-35 is to future NATO operations with the aircraft able to penetrate current and expected Air Defences compared to 4th gen aircraft, including the Gripen E, being excluded from these environments. One could suggest that Canada should only participate on NATO operations where non 5th gen aircraft are required but nations have proven over the last 30 years that contributing air assets to a conflict is a reasonably good means of showing intent but keeping as many military personnel out of harm.

^ Those are exceptional points. Thank you for such a substantive reply. I guess I must have been reading outdated information about the F35 and the Gripen, with respect to runway requirements, range, and supercruise. Fundamentally, I think the F35 is a better choice, I just like(d) elements of the Gripen option better, but readily concede that my opinion was predicated on what may be out of date or aspirational information. Regardless of which option is chosen, it's reassuring to see that the government is taking this procurement seriously and not trying to curry favour by promising a half-baked domestically-created aircraft or, lord have mercy, follow the suggestion of some wingnuts that we just build the Avro Arrow again.

^ FWIW, I was using various websites, including the RAAF and Wikipedia, entries on the aircraft to come to my conclusions in my original post.

F35A combat range: 1,239km (on internal fuel) per Wikipedia, 1,093 km on the RAAF website
JAS 39E combat range: 1,500km Wikipedia

F35A takeoff distance: the only source I found was a somewhat dubious blog that quotes 8,000 ft and links to a defunct Government of Australia webpage that's now missing
JAS 39E takeoff distance: 500m Wikipedia

F35A thrust to weight (full fuel/50%): 0.87/1.07 Wikipedia
JAS 39E thrust to weight: 1.04 Wikipedia

Leslieville wrote:

^ FWIW, I was using various websites, including the RAAF and Wikipedia, entries on the aircraft to come to my conclusions in my original post.

Understand that. Unfortunately there is wide variance in how those numbers are calculated, those number have either significant caveats, no substantiation or are take completely out of context.

Leslieville wrote:

F35A combat range: 1,239km (on internal fuel) per Wikipedia, 1,093 km on the RAAF website
JAS 39E combat range: 1,500km Wikipedia

First thing here is range numbers, and we really talk about radius as the valid metric not range, are subjective to the profile flown. You can fly an aircraft a very long way if you fly the most optimised profile possible or you can fly a real short distance terrain following. It would be immensely helpful if all the manufacturers used some NATO standard profiles for their aircraft but that of course removes the mystique and salesmanship from the evaluations.

The F-35 number from Wiki is from the SAR but what you have is a combat radius. The last F-35 SAR lists the combat radius of the F-35A at approx. 669nm. That is with an A2G internal load flying a very aggressive A2G profile at non optimised altitudes and with end of life engine performance. The A2A performance is significantly longer than that, back in 2012 LM listed it at 760nm with the same restrictions and former F-15 pilots now flying the F-35 on exercises have stated they have more persistence than CFT equipped F-15Es, generally accepted as the longest ranged western fighter.

Do you know what the profile used for the Gripen E to calculate that 1500km? I don’t have accurate details because I don’t a valid reference for it since Saab removed the previous profile references from their website. What we do know is the range was originally claimed by Saab to be 1300km in 2013 but between then and now Saab increased the claim to 1500km despite there being no engine improvements and the aircraft increasing in empty weight 12%. Those number are despite the Swiss finding the Gripen NG was significantly range deficient to the classic Hornet, not known as a long range aircraft, in their evaluation.

Leslieville wrote:

F35A takeoff distance: the only source I found was a somewhat dubious blog that quotes 8,000 ft and links to a defunct Government of Australia webpage that's now missing
JAS 39E takeoff distance: 500m Wikipedia

The 8,000ft F-35A runway requirement would potentially be for a max payload max fuel takeoff (18,000lbs of fuel and 18,000lbs of payload). There are a plethora of youtube videos showing the F-35 taking off from airfields in significantly less than 8,000 feet. The Saab brochure found here, https://www.saab.com/globalassets/produ ... et--en.pdf claims 500m is a min distance… Again we don’t know what payload that comprises, is it just internal fuel, with or without A2A weapons and likely not with A2G weapons, no ECM pod, no TGT pod, really we have no idea…

Leslieville wrote:

F35A thrust to weight (full fuel/50%): 0.87/1.07 Wikipedia
JAS 39E thrust to weight: 1.04 Wikipedia

F-35A has full internal fuel load of 18,000 lbs. Gripen E has full internal fuel load of 7500 lbs… Only when you add external fuel tanks to the Gripen can it carry a fuel load that would allow it to fly a max range profile. We will assume additional missiles/bombs and pylons etc are the same across the two aircraft (this assumption favours the Gripen). We won’t worry about TGT pod, ECM pod etc

From your wiki sources.
F-35A empty weight is 29300 lbs, add 18000 lbs fuel is 47300. Thrust at full afterburner is 43000 lbs so thrust weight is 0.909. Thrust with mil power is 0.59

Gripen E empty weight is 17637 lbs, add 7500lbs of fuel is 25137lbs. Thrust with afterburner is 22000 lbs so thrust weight is 0.87. Thrust with mil power is 0.55.

Same weights as above with 50% internal fuel the F-35A is 1.12 while Gripen is 1.02. The real issue here though is Gripen in that config has only 3750 lbs of fuel which the F-35 has 9000 lbs…

So even with the completely unrealistic scenario of the Gripen flying a combat mission with its internal fuel load only it is still short on thrust and low on fuel. Increase the weights with more fuel, including the weights of the tanks, pylons etc and even if the Gripen drops the tanks it still has a worse thrust to weight ratio. Then factor in that the weight of the F-35 above includes things like a TGT pod and advanced EW system and the disparity increases. Gripen also suffers from having to trade payload for fuel to achieve range. It cannot take a full payload of munitions and fuel at the same time as those external tanks substitute for heavy weapons. You also have the drag of those weapons/tanks to factor in against a clean F-35 which while wider and heavier has a smaller contribution to the overall drag of the airframe compared to external carriage.

Just to emphasis, not having a go at you here but we hear lots of things about aircraft without the actual practical numbers and context to make valid comparisons.

^ Not feeling at all like you're having a go at me. I'm genuinely thrilled at the quality of your reply and the depth of your knowledge. I, clearly, have a superficial knowledge about these aircraft and don't have the subject matter expertise to even know when something sounds off, or the manufacturer is really stretching the truth with its metrics. Based what you've shared (and I'm in the process of reading the RAND report about European contributions to air power that was previously linked to in this thread), I enthusiastically agree that the F35 sounds like a better fit for Canada than the Gripen. Thank you for your responses and info.

Leslieville wrote:

^ Not feeling at all like you're having a go at me. I'm genuinely thrilled at the quality of your reply and the depth of your knowledge. I, clearly, have a superficial knowledge about these aircraft and don't have the subject matter expertise to even know when something sounds off, or the manufacturer is really stretching the truth with its metrics. Based what you've shared (and I'm in the process of reading the RAND report about European contributions to air power that was previously linked to in this thread), I enthusiastically agree that the F35 sounds like a better fit for Canada than the Gripen. Thank you for your responses and info.

A case can certainly be made for a Canadian order for Gripen, it could likely fulfil 90% of the roles they need it to. The issue is whether that case is better met with either of the other two jets still left in the competition. A lightweight fighter is good for some things but payload range is a big factor for Canada and the SH and F-35 both exceed the Gripen in this area. Then when you factor in other issues such as Two Eyes security going for a US jet just makes a lot more sense. If it was just NATO then Gripen would have an equal footing but the NORAD requirements up the level enough to complicate the issue.

If I was Canada and ordering the F-35A, I would request the F-135 growth version 1/2 from Pratt (which has been available for a while now) and Meteor capability. The improved thrust, fuel efficiency and long range engagement capability would be ideally suited to the amount of territory there is to cover.

744SPX wrote:

If I was Canada and ordering the F-35A, I would request the F-135 growth version 1/2 from Pratt (which has been available for a while now) and Meteor capability. The improved thrust, fuel efficiency and long range engagement capability would be ideally suited to the amount of territory there is to cover.

Canada will almost certainly have been offered Blk 4 jets given the 2025 first delivery and probably get some Blk 5 enhancements across their aircraft from first delivery. With respect to engine the P&W GO1 I believe is funded and good to go but GO2 would need some funding. Agree the 6-10% thrust increase with 5-6% fuel burn reduction from GO1 would be attractive.

Meteor is coming to UK F-35 mid 2020s so once that integration is completed every other F-35 operator could use the weapon. Not confident Canada will take up Meteor though, they may opt for the AIM-260 that is planned to IOC with the USAF in 2022 and should have similar range. AIM-260 should reduce in cost given expected USAF acquisition numbers and likely be below Meteor cost via production volumes.

Oh yeah, forgot about AIM-260. 2022 is pretty soon for IOC.

Interview with the Canadian Defence Minister that included questions on the fighter procurement. First I have read, probably forgot..., of a potential down select to two vendors in 2021, seems not necessary when there are only three final submissions anyway.

Canadian defense minister talks fighter competition and geopolitics

...

Regarding the fighter competition, the plan is to either downselect to two jets in 2021, or make a final decision in 2022. Where does that decision stand? How has the coronavirus pandemic impacted the timing and size of the program?

I’m very happy with the progress of the selection for our next fighter. And it’s gone to a very good stage where we actually have three companies. I don’t know exactly — because the team there that does the analysis is independent — which direction they’ll go, of downselecting or how that’s going to happen. So we’ll see how the progress moves ahead.

I can turn to your direct question regarding COVID-19. We initially, obviously, just like anybody, had some minor delays because we had to shift a lot of the resources to the pandemic fight. But we were able to shift our people back into dealing with our procurement very quickly because, as you know, defense is an essential service, and making sure that those jobs continue was very important to us. So the delays were actually very minor. And all the updates that I’ve reviewed so far [shows] that things are actually progressing extremely well.

So you don’t see any delays for that program likely coming as a result of COVID-19 or anything else?

Right now I’m confident that we’ll be able to make up any time because the shift that we made. [We have some] very good people [who] are running these very large projects, so we needed to shift some of that talent to the COVID-19 fight initially, for good reason. But in a few months, we were able to shift those people back to this program.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... opolitics/

Puff piece in Skies magazine about the Gripen offer to Canada.

A fighting chance

Canada's protracted search for a new fighter aircraft to replace its aging CF-188 Hornets has narrowed to a field of three competitors. We paid a visit to Swedish contender Saab to learn if its Gripen E offering has the requisite muscle to give the other entrants a run for their money.

...

https://issues.skiesmag.com/554/766/170 ... ml?page=36

The article is full of claims with no substantiation but not out of the ordinary for this offering and these types of articles.

Selection comes down to the requirements. Defence can easily create a list of requirements that allows the Gripen to satisfy and it will get selected as the cheapest life cycle cost on paper. Combat air patrol, interception and point defence could make up 90% of the requirement. Compared to the classic Hornet the Gripen can perform all the same missions in the same way. The Gripen can fly slightly further, faster and it will have lower per hour costs.

However, only a fool would ignore that the F-35 would have double the capability for a very minor cost increase. Some even argue a lower purchase price and in 10 years the Gripen might be unsupported by the manufacturer putting the maintenance costs up. The F-35 performs missions and uses tactics that are different to 4th gen aircraft so hopefully the requirements do not discriminate here.

RJMAZ wrote:

Selection comes down to the requirements. Defence can easily create a list of requirements that allows the Gripen to satisfy and it will get selected as the cheapest life cycle cost on paper. Combat air patrol, interception and point defence could make up 90% of the requirement. Compared to the classic Hornet the Gripen can perform all the same missions in the same way. The Gripen can fly slightly further, faster and it will have lower per hour costs.

The high level evaluation is split 60% capability, 20% cost and 20% industrial offset with no indication of what sits insides those specifically. I’m not sure a Gripen even gets to 90% of the F-35 capability, it won’t be cheaper on acquisition cost and likely close on sustainment cost (depending on if you include mid life upgrades) and the industrial work is a difficult one to measure.

I’m expecting that Canada will down select to the SH and F-35 next year with Saab excluded due to NORAD Two Eyes security costs and risk making the bid unviable.

RJMAZ wrote:

However, only a fool would ignore that the F-35 would have double the capability for a very minor cost increase. Some even argue a lower purchase price and in 10 years the Gripen might be unsupported by the manufacturer putting the maintenance costs up. The F-35 performs missions and uses tactics that are different to 4th gen aircraft so hopefully the requirements do not discriminate here.

Pre Trudeau the RCAF had released a set of assessments that clearly stated their expectations for threat out to 2040 and what capabilities the RCAF needed to combat that, including 5th gen stealth assets. Stealth and sensor fusion were key for both the NORAD and NATO roles. Unfortunately Trudeau had those assessments removed from Government websites and placed a gag order on all RCAF and procurement personnel associated with the competition.

ex-RAAF legacy F/A-18 Classic Hornets being shipped to Canada Nov 2020 in the belly of an AN124

https://m.facebook.com/YBBNspotters/photos/a.438653962858667/3624757394248292/?type=3&source=48&__tn__=EH-R

Nothing moves in the belly of a 124 - it moves main deck.

Saab has added two aerospace centres to their offer for the RCAF fighter competition. Claims of employing 3000 people between the two centres is far fetched though and nothing like this ever comes for free...

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.

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.

...

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 02.article

A puff piece by Saab through Skies Magazine on their bid for the Canadian competition. Some usual Saab nonsense in the article but on the plus side some really great images of the aircraft.

Why Saab’s Gripen E could make perfect sense for Canada

We paid a visit to Swedish OEM, Saab, to learn if its Gripen E offering to replace Canada's aging CF-188 Hornets has the requisite muscle to give the other entrants a run for their money.

“Gripen E meets and/or exceeds all of the Canadian requirements. It’s an efficient, modern fighter, and it’s the latest development on the market.” So says Anders Håkansson, Saab’s deputy campaign director for the company’s participation in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).

Canada’s protracted search for a new fighter aircraft to replace its aging McDonnell Douglas CF-188 Hornets has narrowed to a field of three competitors. The U.S. manufacturing giants of Boeing and Lockheed Martin are respectively offering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35A Lightning II, with Sweden completing the trio with Saab’s latest incarnation of Gripen — the single-seat E variant.

...

https://skiesmag.com/features/saab-grip ... nada/?s=09

Again, I think the only way the Gripen E can be seriously competitive is if it came with the F414EPE. I don't know if that would be enough to motivate GE to produce it though. They will certainly get no help from the USN on that one as they've had at least 12 years to order that engine and haven't moved on it.

744SPX wrote:

Again, I think the only way the Gripen E can be seriously competitive is if it came with the F414EPE. I don't know if that would be enough to motivate GE to produce it though. They will certainly get no help from the USN on that one as they've had at least 12 years to order that engine and haven't moved on it.

From a capability perspective I’m not sure the F414EPE would make much of a difference. Even with more thrust much of the current limitations of the Gripen aren’t related to thrust. Fuel, overall payload and meeting Two Eyes agreements remain significant issues. Additionally only 60% of the competition is about the capability of the airframe anyway. The other 40% is split between Industry and cost and an F414EPE equipped Gripen could actually increase the operating and sustainment cost of the aircraft for little overall capability benefit. Gripen could conceivably not have as high a capability rating but succeed in the cost and industry sections to lift their overall bid up.

744SPX wrote:

Again, I think the only way the Gripen E can be seriously competitive is if it came with the F414EPE. I don't know if that would be enough to motivate GE to produce it though. They will certainly get no help from the USN on that one as they've had at least 12 years to order that engine and haven't moved on it.

Actually, I would argue the EDE makes more sense for Saab and the Gripen E programme. Their whole pitch centres on low O&S, where in reality the advantage in practice is marginal at best, because the US competitors are able to offset anything intrinsic to the aircraft with their obscene economies of scale. Knocking down engine MX costs and adding a fuel burn advantage helps Saab where they are strongest, rather than trying (and failing) to play catch up on pure performance.

Meanwhile, the F/A18s are getting older every day...

Apologies if this thread is too old to be bumped.

Sources are now reporting that Boeing was told that their bid to replace the CF-18 fleet was deemed to not meet requirements:

https://www.timescolonist.com/national- ... 98748?s=09

OTTAWA — The federal government has told Boeing that its bid to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s with a new fleet of the American company’s Super Hornet fighter jets did not meets its requirements.

Three sources from industry and government say the message was delivered Wednesday as the other two companies competing for the $19-billion contract — U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Swedish firm Saab — were being told they did meet the government’s requirements.

So, the only fighters left in contention is the F-35 and the Gripen E. Wonder where did Boeing fall short, or were politics involved here.

To me, this announcement (which isn't Boeing being formally bumped, but told they "don't meet requirements", so same thing), is a shocker. I actually expected the SH to come up the middle and take this competition. Hard to tell if it's a genuine requirement issue (and it should be interesting speculation to think about what requirement was...), or politics (keeping the appearance of a level playing field until the F-35 is selected).

I actually hope that with recent changes in government, and what appears to be a reset of the government - military relationship, Canada steps out and orders the Saab. F-35 is just too expensive to operate for Canada, and the Saab more than satisfies our real requirements. Let's face it - Canada isn't going to invade anyone, is never going to undertake an air campaign without partners, will never be in the first wave of any coalition air campaign, and doesn't really need to defend Canadian airspace - if there's a real threat, the US will do it in a second. Sad but true, so why spend the $$....

johns624 wrote:

Meanwhile, the F/A18s are getting older every day...

They can always buy the F/A18's which Spain will be retiring. That'll keep them going for another decade or so.

j-bird wrote:

F-35 is just too expensive to operate for Canada, and the Saab more than satisfies our real requirements. Let's face it - Canada isn't going to invade anyone, is never going to undertake an air campaign without partners, will never be in the first wave of any coalition air campaign, and doesn't really need to defend Canadian airspace - if there's a real threat, the US will do it in a second. Sad but true, so why spend the $$....

I actually think the F-35 will be the cheapest option by far. Canada can skip maintenance on the stealth coatings to keep costs low. They can fit a pair of Israeli 600 gallon drop tanks and they'll have a fighter that can cover as much territory as a pair of Gripens.

RJMAZ wrote:

j-bird wrote:

F-35 is just too expensive to operate for Canada, and the Saab more than satisfies our real requirements. Let's face it - Canada isn't going to invade anyone, is never going to undertake an air campaign without partners, will never be in the first wave of any coalition air campaign, and doesn't really need to defend Canadian airspace - if there's a real threat, the US will do it in a second. Sad but true, so why spend the $$....

I actually think the F-35 will be the cheapest option by far. Canada can skip maintenance on the stealth coatings to keep costs low. They can fit a pair of Israeli 600 gallon drop tanks and they'll have a fighter that can cover as much territory as a pair of Gripens.

The Gripen is a nifty airplane but it doesn’t at this point have a great track record of winning competitions vs. the F-35.

I suspect Boeing is looked upon not-too-favorably by the Canadian government folks at this point…

j-bird wrote:

To me, this announcement (which isn't Boeing being formally bumped, but told they "don't meet requirements", so same thing), is a shocker. I actually expected the SH to come up the middle and take this competition. Hard to tell if it's a genuine requirement issue (and it should be interesting speculation to think about what requirement was...), or politics (keeping the appearance of a level playing field until the F-35 is selected).

It's all politics. You think Canada cancelled the first 18 Super Hornet order, disqualified the KC-46 and now the Super Hornet again after Boeing's Cseries dumping complaint is a coincidence? Canada warned Boeing there would be consequences.

j-bird wrote:

Let's face it - Canada isn't going to invade anyone, is never going to undertake an air campaign without partners, will never be in the first wave of any coalition air campaign, and doesn't really need to defend Canadian airspace - if there's a real threat, the US will do it in a second. Sad but true, so why spend the $$....

Because US push really hard to buy the F-35 and we are partners in NORAD and NATO, so we have responsibilities.

Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.

Why not the F-16 ?

rlwynn wrote:

Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.

Buy the F-35, T-7, and P-8A. That would make everybody happy. The needs are there for the F-35 and P-8A. Do they need to replace their trainers?

bt

rlwynn wrote:

Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.

From what I have read the weightings for criteria for evaluation are:
20% industrial offsets
20% cost
60% performance

Does the performance criterion make the F-35 the inevitable choice? Even if the Gripens were assembled in Canada, that offset would not count for so much since Canada makes parts for F-35 (and that would stop, I presume, if Canada rejected F-35).. Agreed, on cost Gripen E would win hands down.

It is a shame Boeing is clearly blocked.

If Canada drags this out further they would be best off buying the T-7 and the proposed light fighter variant. The USAF wants to replace their F-16's with it and Serbia wants it as a light fighter too. Canada would then have a fighter similar in capability to the Gripen at around half of the purchase and operating cost. High commonality with the trainer T-7 variant would keep costs down even further.

In summary:
Gripen = Low capability, medium cost
F-35 = High capability, high cost
T-7 fighter = Low capability, low cost
EF/Rafale = Medium capability, high cost

This is why the F-35 is winning competitions as it provides capabilities worthy of the price or high capability per dollar ratio. This means at any given budget an Air Force would be better off buying as many F-35 as they can afford inside their budget.

Militaries now look at capability per dollar for the equipment and no longer set a fixed number to be purchased.

The T-7 light fighter will change this up providing similar high capability per dollar but at a much lower per aircraft cost.

art wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.

From what I have read the weightings for criteria for evaluation are:
20% industrial offsets
20% cost
60% performance

Does the performance criterion make the F-35 the inevitable choice? Even if the Gripens were assembled in Canada, that offset would not count for so much since Canada makes parts for F-35 (and that would stop, I presume, if Canada rejected F-35).. Agreed, on cost Gripen E would win hands down.

You know I read through this whole thread and there is some good info and some bad info.

How about I also add some good info.

On operating cost to operate for F-35 Norway has recently stated it is 11k EUR an hour, twitter post here https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1460652153308127232

Nearly at the same time the Saab HX Campaign manager said Gripen C/D is 11k EUR, https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/uutiset/ ... 72aede61f4 Link is in Finnish but Google translate also knows Finnish...

So amazing but not amazing the cost per flight hour for two comparable nations is pretty similar and Gripen E will cost more to operate than C.

On acquisition cost no evidence Saab can make a Gripen for less than F-35. Perhaps they can, in Finland they offered 64 jets + globaleye to 64 F-35s but no idea on final costs yet, but the difference won't be very much at all, especially as Canada is a JSF partner and gets the partner price, not the FMS price in Finland.

Capability F-35 wins hands down, anyone thinking otherwise belongs in an alternate universe... Evidence is Swiss evaluation ranking F-35 so much better than competitors. Swiss already evaluated Gripen in the previous competition and it couldn't even meet classic Hornet capability of the Swiss then. While Gripen E is better than that evaluated version still not that much better and would still be behind Rafale and Eurofighter let alone F-35.

On industry offset Saab only has 88 aircraft to build from parts mostly imported into the country and will have a global fleet less than 300. F-35 has a 3000 aircraft build and sustainment going out the next 20 years to build and 50 to operate. If Canadian content in every F-35 was 5% that equates to building 150 jets and then sustaining them for 50 plus years.

How anyone thinks Gripen can win or is a better option...

This news basically wraps the F-35 for Christmas