+Matsimus what so you who's a army guy is allowed to talk about weapon platforms such as the CV90 or AS21 and all other types of equipment potentially used by the Army. But they forbid you to talk about aviation as an army guy? Should'nt it be the otherway around lol
You didn't mention that Gripen can land on and take off from roads. Using only a team of 6 people (only one technician needed) it has an air-to-air turnaround of only 10 minutes. Also it it is by far the easiest and cheapest to maintain
It's easy to maintain because Sweden is a conscript nation. Conscripts usually have fixed and short service duration unlike professional soldiers so having a plane that is easy to maintain and conscript friendly is a must.
If the Liberals stay in power anything could happen. The recent purchase of the FWSAR aircraft where they selected the plane that cost more, the RCAF pilots didn’t want, the RCAF Maintenance & Logistics team didn’t want and the one the CF SARTechs said was too slow, too small, too cramped and not good enough . . . but they picked it anyway because the engines are made in Quebec, doesn’t inspire hope for a successful CF-18 replacement
As a Canadian and knowing the terrain here, I would say the Gripen would be the most suitable, since its also cheap and can take off very easily, and take off roads/highways it would be perfect.
I'm Brazilian and I'm proud of the Saab Gripen E choice for the Brazilian Air Force. Brazil is a giant country like Canada, and Gripen E meets it's demands. Gripen is the most cost effective fighter jet and NATO approved . If I was a Canadian taxpayer , I would demand a jet that's not only on par with the SU-35 and F18 , but far less expensive to operate (Gripen's flight hour cost is $4700 vs F18 cost of $24400 vs F35 cost of $30000) and able to land on highways and with a 10 minutes combat turnaround makes it a true "Sukhoi Killer" .
you'r cost comparisons are funny !!! 4700 dollars if even possible are just the plane without ever touching the afterburner, no pilot, mechanics, support purchase or infrastructure costs involved. Add all the lifecycle costs together and the gripes will cost you somewhere between 20 to 40.000 USD an hour. You can't just calculate DOCs without fuel ;-)
@@PappyGunn why brazil should be fighting against taliban? This is Just a American war! and a Otan war, but Brazil doesn't have problems with terrorist. Why should us criate one?
@@xyzaero any way you look at it the Gripen is a very capable plane with great abilities and it is the cheapest cost effective to run and maintain. It is a good choice for Canada Your not changing the world with 88 planes.
I'm hoping we get the Gripen E. Saab already said it would set up a production line in Canada to build the fighters if it was selected and it's the least expensive of the three. The Gripen E is faster than the Super Hornet and a little more stealthy. It's also designed and built by people who understand our climate and have a similar mission to the RCAF. Hopefully Gripen wins.
Any stealth advantage will be gone the moment you start attaching missles to its hardpoints so unless you intend to only rely on the gun the stealth advantage means nothing without an internal weapons bay the smart choice would be to buy mixed a compliment of gripens and F/a 18s but don't expect it to happen
People, please remember the F-15 and F-16 duo and draw parallels with F/A-18E (or F) and Gripen E: - One is smaller and cheaper, the other one is bigger and can carry more weapons; - Both use the same engine, reducing costs; - The smaller one is used the most for everyday missions, including Airline Traffic interception. The idea being... Get both! Also add the Hornet training and parts familiarity, plus the resistance to cold weather of the Gripen to the equation, you get two great warplanes both suited for Canada.
@@michaelbrisson1067 so you're complaining about the US not giving component specifications well simultaneously hailing a plane that uses several us designed components
While the F-35 certainly is NOT a contender for quality and lowest service costs, what are your reasons for favoring the Gripen over the F-18? Granted, the use of a single engine should reduce service costs for the Gripen. But that comes at the 'expense' of a lower payload, a smaller selection of weapons, etc. Also, as best I can tell by Googling, the F-18 has a larger combat radius, while the Gripen has a larger ferry (i.e. unladen, one-way transport) radius. I'm no expert on fighter jets, but the F-18 seems to have a lot of attributes in its favor. (Note: This video inconsistently provides specs. - parameters such as range and payload are only specified for some aircraft, not all)
A very fair point and thanks for commenting - I could not get reliable costs for the Canadian procurement (number of units and timeline) and so did not include that in the video. I agree that cost will definitely play a factor though.
Look at the Brazilian bid, the JAS-39E/F is the cheapest, cheapest to operate, and the deal include local production and some development. I don't believe the other contenders can have a better total cost proposition. Local jobs generation might be a big impactor. Even without all that, the technical points answer so well, including the Arctic and dispersed operation. If we are to believe, The 39D lost only to F22 in the Red Flag. But I am afraid the Grippen was selected just to be a negotiation card, lower contender's bid price and serve as political leverage, we will see. Edit: What I mean to say is that Sweden has "only" the best jet fighter to propose in the big game. The US brings oil to the table, defense agreements, commerce agreements, extradition or not of the Huawei lady, continued production of F35 parts, the list is long.
@@JaM-R2TR4 Yes the price per unit is almost the same between Gripen E and F35A. But the huge difference is in the actual flying cost. F35A = 44 000 USD/ hour Gripen E = 5-6000 USD /hour. ..which is more important becuse you are going to fly these planes for at least 25-40 years. You get at least 3 Gripen E for the same cost as one F35A.
@@mustang5132 f 35 cannot supercruise, it can go supersonic which is a different thing, also the Pentagon has a limit of 80 to 90 seconds on the supersonic abilities of the f35 since anything longer will damage the stealth coating on the aircraft.
@@francisaeb1980 you seem to be a little confused. The F-35 is very much capable of supercruise from a technical aspect and if needed to be used, it most certainly can be. However, from a tactical perspective, it is limited in it’s operational ability to do so (for the points you made about damaging stealth coating but also the rest of the composite airframe). Whether it does regularly supercruise is another matter (which is what you are talking about) but whether it can is something else.
@@mustang5132 I think you are the one confused, supercruise it's not supersonic. Look it up for yourself to see if the F35 with current engine is capable of supercruising. Meaning going supersonic without getting the afterburners on.
I think Gripen, not just initial cost but also cost of operating & maintenance. It's also designed from the outset for harsh environments + it's a bloody great plane!
I quite like the Grippen option for a number of reasons, low cost of operation, high top speed for interceptions which would be a major task for our Air Force, the data link is supposedly the best. It would also be advantageous if we could parley this in to becoming involved in the joint British/Swedish gen 6 Tempest, Manufacturing parts for both the Grippen and the Tempest with the possibility of purchasing some Tempests in the future.
I like this idea. As well, building these aircraft in Canada will bring back our once amazing aerospace industry. The superhornet is another good idea but I think we just need a modern 4th gen interim fighter to hold us over for the next 20-30 years until drone fleets and 6th gen fighters are prevalent, as that will be a way bigger deal than stealth and the f35 and a better investment imo. I'd like to see the gripen but also think the superhornet is a very good idea as well. Honestly I think it'll come down to those two acording to the pilots I've spoken to up at cold lake.
So you advocate spending money for two planes in order to somehow come out with money saved in the end? Also SAAB isn't a key partner in the Tempest program, BAE is. You know, the BAE that's also manufacturing parts for the F-35s today.
@@Beliserius1 On 19 July 2019, Sweden and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to explore ways of jointly developing sixth-generation air combat technologies. In 2035 when the Tempest is forecast to be brought in to service, Canada could have 15 years of high tech advanced aviation manufacturing, I don't see how that is not a good thing to at least explore.
@@michaelold6695 I am aware SAAB is interested in entering the program, however they are not a major partner as of now. 2035 window is very optimistic, like with other fighter jet programs including the Eurofighter, it will likely be delayed. Again, if you are interested in the Tempest program, by sticking with the F-35 will actually have Canada partner up with a major Tempest partner, BAE.
Because everyone knows it it is constantly repeated in every comment section comparing the Gripen to anything and everything low costs are good but as the old saying goes you get what you pay for
@@spartanx9293 What, a pretty good advanced multirole fighter? Yeah. Basically, yeah. What's the use of fancy stealth aircraft if you're going to use them as guard dogs? 😆
JAS 39 Gripen has been developed for and in service mostly with missions similar your specifications. Latest upgrade Gripen F has a range of 4000 km among many other upgrades, don’t miss them.
Ferry range, or combat range? And with what combat load? These things matter, and why Canada should purchase the F-35A... Twenty years from now, the future matters too concerning spare parts availability... No one supports their military equipment more than the USA! No one!
As a Canadian, I Really like and appreciate this video. It's a great, simple and very informative video regarding our current fighter competition and it's remaining contenders. I don't expect the deep politics of the situation in a video like this but I might be able to add some context. Although I'm no expert lol. Canada has been a partner in the F-35 program dating back to the late 90s and was one of the first major partners. This was in anticipation to inevitably replace the current CF-188 Hornet's. Our previous Conservative government was set to purchase 65 of the F-35A and call it a day. They campaigned during the 2015 election on this purchase under the idea that the X fighter competition was the competition to select our next fighter and this was a plan started by the Liberal government of the late 90s and early 2000's to replace the current Hornets. We became a partner for this reason. During the 2015 election the Current elected Liberal government in Trudeau campaigned on the F-35 being a controversial and expensive aircraft that was mainly designed to fill US military needs and not necessarily our own. And that we should have our own competition where the F-35 could compete against other available aircraft. The liberals won that election and the competition was under way. Out of the three aircraft mentioned in this video two more fighters were initially offered but pulled out. The French Rafale and Eurofighter. Early in the competition the newly elected Liberals actually announced they were going to purchase 18 Block 3 Super Hornets to fill an interim gap in capabilities, that our own DND argued even existed. The Super Hornet looked like the top contender early on, both in it's proven capabilities and track record and being the most similar to the current fleet of Hornets it's safe to say it would be the more easy transition logistically speaking. It was also a political top contender. Given the announcement of the interim purchase of 18 Block 3s off the shelf prior to any competition. Our very pro liberal bias national news broadcaster the CBC ran hit peices on the F-35 and promotional peices for the Super hornet during and after the 2015 election I should add. So the anti F-35 message was clear and pro Super hornet message clear. This all prior to the competition really even getting started. Than Boeing controversy happened. Boeing sued the Canadian government and Bombardier Aerospace in US commerce court over the C series now A220 series aircraft. Leading to heavy tariffs and you probably know the rest of that story if you're an aviation enthusiast lol. Around the same time Boeing also had the commercial division controversy in the 737 max8s This really hurt the Boeing image for the competition. The Liberal current was quoted saying the won't do business with companies who actively sue them. Recently Boeing also announced that wouldn't be making a partnership to build the aircraft here in Canada and they would be Built in the US. Canada went on to purchase used aussie Hornets to fill the interim gap and Boeing and the Block 3 went from top contender to least likely selection now in my opinion. The liberals who campaign against the F-35 stayed on as a funding partner of the program and supposedly changed their competition requirements to favour or be more open to the F-35. This is what allegedly played a roll in the Rafale and Eurofighter pulling out. This is purely speculative from what I've heard. Very well could of been other reasons for them to pull out. But the F-35 still remains controversial and politically important. We are still a long term highly invested partner in the program and to come up empty handed is slightly embarrassing at best. We do get to supply parts and resources for the entire program but we will not be building them in Canada and lockheed seems to keep maintaining and service and technical support all to themselves. But all of our closest allies and some of the worlds top airforces will be flying the aircraft in some model and capacity. But for the Liberals to choice it will be very political. Basically only proving the previous government right and wasting time and money on this competition to come to the conclusions that not only was the previous government right but you willing to invest even more in the aircraft buying more of them at 88 compared to the initial 65. So the F-35 remains controversial. Saab on the other hand has quietly and with no controversy offered the Gripen in a deal With IMP as mentioned in the video to build fighters here in most likely my home province. They come in as the cheapest to operate and built and designed to work in the artic and on makeshift runways and bases. The Saab also gets us out from depending on the US military market. helping us reestablish our fighter aerospace industry that was arguably destroyed by the US military market lobbyist when they played a role in the cancellation of the controversial Avro Arrow. Sorry for the very long comment but just some of my thoughts and understanding on the situation in more political detail.
That was very thorough. It appears that politics is playing a greater role in this than the actual capabilities of the aircraft or the needs of the Canadian Forces. The purchase of those surplus F-18A/B's seems to have been a bad buy as they arent as capable as the CF-18's in Canadian service which means the RCAF will have to upgrade them to the current CF-18 standard before they can even join the fleet. But from reading some reports the bigger problem isnt the aircraft. Its the lack of pilots and maintainers in the RCAF. Sure the CF-18's are long in the tooth and require a ton of maintenance after every sortie. But if you dont have enough pilots to fly or maintainers to work on them. You can have the best aircraft and they mean nothing sitting on the ground. I wonder if this shortage is due to the pervasive view in the west and among NATO countries that the US will do the heavy lifting in a conflict. Thus national defense has taken a backseat in many NATO member countries. Personally I think the Super Hornet would be perfect for the roles the RCAF operate their aircraft in. The F-35 would be nice but probably is overkill and doesnt have the legs or the payload capability of the Super Hornet.
@@lesmatthews2231 yes we purchased 18 used RAAF F-18s. We were going to buy 18 Block 3 Super Hornets off the shelf prior to the competition to fill an interim gap up until Boeing sued Bombardier and the feds. The used aussie Hornets are supposedly in good shape but need upgrades to meet the current cf-18 standards. We are also short the pilots and maintenance personnel to fly these aircraft.
Seems to me that Canada doesn't really need a stealth aircraft. Stealth aircraft are for leading offensive strikes deep into enemy territory; Canada just needs something that can defend its extensive airspace. In that mission it seems like the Super Hornet has the advantage in range and familiarity, and Gripen has the advantage in ease of maintenance and proven cold-weather performance.
Canada has NATO treaty obligations requiring an aircraft for attack missions. For strike missions against a modern enemy stealth improves chances of mission survival. For only interceptor missions piggybacking on the USAF order for the new F-15X would be excellent choice
@@zofe That is not true at all. USAF practice engagements with Germany's MiG-29s acquired prior to German unification in 1990 displayed the superiority of the Super Hornet to the MiG-29. And the MiG-29 is widely considered one of the best air to air fighters anywhere.
@@Red_Sector_7 You refer to different avionics ages, rather not to gun-fights or to altitude & speed capabilities. The mild-sweep of the hornet renders it a lame-duck in dog-fights and incapable of chasing Russian-bombers.
As a brazilian my suggestion is...just pick the gripen like we did, its perfect for Canada too, amazing speed, excellent armement, low cost, good in all weathers , u guys we not regret.
Gripen. Engineered by another northern country with similar needs, can be built in Canada - seems like a perfect fit. Plus it looks cool ;) Maybe a couple Hornets thrown in the mix for variety ...
Sweden is a small country, unlike Canada. That is why the Gripen has bad combat radius. I don’t think Gripen is a good option. (I already know canada selected the gripen)
@@a15bionic59 Didn't know Canada already chose, thanks for the info ... to be honest Canada needs a range of fighters. Its hard to fit just one into everything that Canada could possibly need.
What people need to understand is that the area of Canada is massive. The Yukon Territory dwarfs the lower provinces. The Arctic region above the Yukon dwarfs the Yukon for sheer massive size. Now, imagine flying a patrol over the Arctic ocean, in the middle of the winter, thousands of miles from any help, in a single engine aircraft. Being a former military pilot who flew a single engine aircraft the one time I had to fly over the ocean made my pucker factor go way up. Of the three, the F-18 Superhornet is the only twin engine jet. But the F-18 is not the jet Canada needs due to it's lack of range. Canada needs a jet that can fly thousands of miles unrefueled with a powerful radar and an ability to take on a patrol of Su-35's. The jet that Canada needs is the single seat F-15X. It's cost is no more than the SuperHornet. Actually, I think it's less. THAT is the jet for Canada.
@keith moore That is definitely a factor in favor of the F-18, though I'm not so sure about spares interoperability. Retraining will be next to nothing. But the F-15 and F-18 have very similar systems and avionics. The latest radars in each user the same processors and they are near identical. They operate the same so hornet guys can pick up the eagle radar quick. Same manufacturer so logistics differences will be slight. Going back to the hornet spares I don't think the super bug uses the same spares, now that I think of it. Nations flying the legacy hornet had big issues getting spares until the Navy retired them recently. Even the Marines were starting to worry. If the spares were interoperable then nobody would have had a need to worry. The Marines now say they can continue to operate the C model now that the Navy got rid of theirs. So I think the spares issue is moot. Canada will have to buy all new spares no matter which plane they buy. If the F-15X is indeed the cheaper fighter then that's the best choice. Conversion training won't be all that difficult. And it doesn't have stupid canted pylons that cause all kinds of drag.
As a Canadian I would love to see the Grippen due to low cost to build and operate, proven artic operations, can land or take off on rough ground and a good fit overall. The F35 is too costly and expensive to operate and the stealth tech will most likely be good for only a few years before it needs to be upgraded as new tech is coming out every year.
@@marscanada7891 the Arrow program as ambitious as it was and as advanced as it was it was doomed from the start due to politics, spying and US government interference. On another note the US Osprey aircraft are taken directly from a Canadian designed and built aircraft that had been built 15 -20 yrs before the US Ospreys came into service and the only reason nobody knows about it is nobody was sure about it’s capabilities and it was unknown tech at the time. I believe there are still two working aircraft of the Canadian version still one is in an aviation museum in Ontario the other I heard was in a private collection.
@@deans6129 Not true: You are describing the Tilt Wing Canadair CL 84 I believe which is TILT-WING which came out of the program the USA had in the 60's. The CL-84 came out in the 70's. Same time period the experimental tilt rotors were being tested which actually goes back to the 60's as well.
@John King Desert Storm, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and the current Baltic Air Policing missions, are all examples of real-world operations that Canada has and are involved in. That type of operation is also a part of the consideration.
As a retiree from the USAF, I can attest that the US aircraft are great choices. But, they are not as well suited to the arctic environment as some other choices such as the SAAB Grippen. For overall mission parameters such as speed, cost (including purchase and operational costs), proven arctic operability and ability to handle rough field operations with limited support, I would endorse the SAAB. The other two aircraft have many things going for them but the needs of the Canadian AF are best met by the Grippen. Sorry LH and MD.
Must not have been in USAF for long, or were totally unaware that the USAF flies more arctic circle sorties and builds more aircraft with arctic operations requirement than any other nation on earth. AK and Iceland FIS experiences date back to the 1950s. Practically every fighter Canada and Norway have operated over the past 70 years have been US designs. But the US doesn't understand Canada's climate....
Ya, this is a bogus excuse. The F-18:operates in the same weather environment as Sweden by the Finnish Air Force. Both Finland and Switzerland operate the F-18:from “runway roads” as does the Gripen.
Of the three, I believe the Gripen provides the best blend of lethality, reliability, maintainability, affordability and economic benefit to Canada. Given that it is far less expensive to maintain than its competitors it stands to reason that over time, Canada will be able to allow its pilots the flight hours needed for real combat proficiency. Gripen makes it easier for Canada to be ready to fly and fight anywhere, any time, and against all know adversaries. It is the logical and cost effective choice.
Canada operates in a military environment with the US. The 80 odd Gripens Canada could get would be he only Gripens in that environment. The entire command and communication structure for North America will be based around the F35. There is no guarantee that the Gripens will be plug and play into that system, in fact, I would bet against it. In any significant military event, I suspect the US would just shove Canada and its Gripens to the side, and do it all itself without the worry of incorporating Gripens into the situation. Canda isnt after the best fighter, its after the best fighter that fits the strategic situation its in, and thats the F35 by a mile. Gripens would be an act of shear stupidity.
@@jars6230 That doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Gripens were designed from the start to be able to integrate seamlessly into NATO operations. There are NATO countries flying Gripens C/D and they integrated fine with sensors and communications. That being said, Canada specifically asked for local companies to integrate the communications suite for the aircraft and SAAB responded by already partnering with local companies to provide said system. Their main work will be to provide a layer of communication between the aircraft's sensor systems (one of the big pluses of the E/F versions) and the radios/datalinks. Those will, of course, be fully compatible with NATO/NORAD standards. Moreover, important components of the airplane are made in the US. The engine is the same as the Super Hornet's for instance. And it's also interesting to note that SAAB have partnered with Boeing to provide the US' new training jet to replace the T-38, so there may be not as much resistance as previously thought of. Still, I don't believe Gripen will be the winner, even though I think it would provide an excellent service to the RCAF.
@@leandrocosta3709 lol. Having spent a number of my years stationed in a NATO environment, the idea of NATO integration being simple is quite hilarious.
No point in it IMO. All of the options are excellent in that regard. Block III Superbug's actually better, complete with IRST, and the F-35... well, it's the F-35. Not only does it have all that, it's stealthy to boot.
@@Lanse1984 if we wanted to pressure you we could simply ban saab from using the super hornet engine inside the Griffin if you want to intentionally use a more subpar design that's on you and it'll be on your pilots
@@spartanx9293 didn't know General Electric bought volvo? Or does the superhornet use a volvo engine? Lol..... Or does the US just own everything? I am so confused..... but less than you i can imagine
@@Lanse1984 that's not a Volvo engine it's a licensed copy of the f414 it is about as swedish as the m256 is American that being not at all Believe it or not developing the engine is one of the hardest projects in aircraft development why do you think the Tejas also uses it and why the Russians and chinese use su30 engines on their 5th gen platforms
There was one fighter jet exercise that i have heard of. It was a cold morning and every jet failed to start upp its engine, the gripen was the only one able to start upp it's engine and that's because its built around cold/warm climates.
Did that happened during a Red Flag exercise? I know that during one of them Gripen was the only fighter to fly 100% of all sorties. All the other planes were grounded due to bad weather of some sort.
Of these 3 aircraft, if the RCAF still maintains the importance of two engines for reliability whilst patrolling vast uninhabited and inhospitable territory (Arctic expanses), then the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is default the choice. Additionally it provides familiarity and transferable stores of legacy equipment, and with modern jamming pods you can get near 5th gen abilities anyway. If single engine is now allowable, then my preference is the Saab Gripen, the latest variant. Swedish and Canadian terrain is very similar, the Gripen is a proven design made by a competent company (at least for now), with its aircraft having served several NATO and allied states. It is capable of STOL on unprepared strips, carries a variety of weapons, and will serve as a platform for air defensive. The latest variants make it a 4+(+) fighter - and it has been said that Canada doesn't need a first strike capability in Stealth. With regards to the F-35 in Canada, my concerns are cost (outright and operational), the single engine vs twin requirement (it has been a staple of the RCAF for a while), the political and shady dealings behind much of the project, and the capabilities of the aircraft - as q bomber it seems flawed with payload (how many rather than how heavy a bomb load). As a fighter, to theoretically engage the latest Sukhois, I doubt its stealth will help much (given alternative detection methods for 5th Gen) and once in VR combat it is outclassed when as can be expected, both sides using stealth suddenly only detect eachother at closer ranges, and as a Close support (i.e. a Su.25/A-10 role) its ability to stay on station, its minimum speeds and ability to take damage. For the F-35-aboos, I do not deny the F-35 may well end up a fantastic airplane, but I have my concerns which have long gone unabated
Idk man you seem to have undermined the capabilities of the f35. You said Canada doesn't care that much about stealth but use stealth as a mark against the f35. Also the F35 is actually more maneuverable than most fighters including superhornet. And if borge sides use stealth Gripen and Super hornet are dead anyway. Payload isn't really a problem cause F35 can just use external weapons. F35 have longer legs than both, by a lot and of they need more just get the f35C. F35 sensors are way better than both and Jamming is exceptional . Super hornet isnt optimized for electronic Attack role and they would have to. Buy the Growler anyway. In my personal list Superhornet blkIII ties with F35 but Gripen is dead last because of range and payload. It's a good airplane but its better suited for smaller countries
@@Aaron-wq3jz thanks for watching the video and commenting - you have some great points and I go into further detail on the F-35 here: ua-cam.com/video/pswL2vo935Y/v-deo.html
Good comment. The F-35 certainly has its drawback and advantages. It's technology and power make it the best air to air platform, but at the same time it's complexity might disway Canada as they need something that can be launched at a moments notice. As for the engine experts in the fields have confirmed that single cars dual engine is no longer a relevant topic given the reliability of modern engines. A Hornet and Viper pilot here on UA-cam gave his own two cents and sees it as an archaic mindset.
@@jacobbaumgardner3406 yea i think I've seen that video was by mover. But it's still funny that1 engine sets have always been around and ironically so e u reliable gets have been 2 engine. Like the 14 with its stall outside and the Cutlass. Two engines are usually used for larger jets or when you want more thrust
3 роки тому+8
SAAB has an EW suite that jam enemy radars and similar. They also integrate almost any weapon to Gripen. The E version is under production right now and currently undergoing test in both Sweden and Brazil. Most likely in normal operation starting 2022. A reflection about turnaround. Changing engine has been done in 45 minutes, but the normal time is one hour. Quite impressive in my view. And turnaround between missions is normally 10-15 minutes.
As opposed to literally every other EW suite in the world whose job it is to guide enemy radars? The Gripens has a decent EW suite. Its not the best EW suite, but its decent. Dont make it more than it is. Additionally, integrating almost any weapon to Gripen is a misleading statement. Yes, the Gripen can be modified to be compatible with a variety of weapons, but it hasnt. To date it has a much more limited weapons variety than its main competitor, the F-16. So the main difference is that the Gripen has to be modified to carry additional weapons, while its competition is already capable of carrying said weapons.
For Canada, I would probably pick the Grippen. All of the aircraft are good choices but you didn't provide cost figures. Setting home production will be expensive either way. The Grippen with probably be the most economical. The Hornet will have the easiest cross over training for your pilots and this comes with an expense tag as well. Unfortunately while the Hornet is an excellent aircraft it is towards the end of it's development which is a consideration. The other important data missing from your presentation was flight range with out refueling. This is very important considering the size of your airspace. While a 5th generation aircraft would be nice, even preferred they come with a stiff price tag. As the parts are a multi national effort I doubt you will be able to get a sole manufacturing license. Either way a lot to consider.
F35 is the obvious choice. The A Model has a sustained rate near the F16 and can deliver stealth ordinance. Stealth means air superiority, its the obvious future proof choice. Single engine and high part compatibility if they want to purchase the B model.
The good news is that all 3 of these jets have strengths and advantages in their own ways so Canada can’t go too far wrong. The world is getting more and more dangerous with the rise of China and the pace of tech change, so Canada cannot be complacent about the potential future threats and challenges.
@John King Thank you. Nice comment. The Australians purchased both F-35s and Super Hornets/Growlers. If Canada buys Super Hornets, they might consider to buy Growlers or at least Super Hornets pre-wired to convert into Growlers later. I would also like to see them all be 2 seat versions in order to prepare for future missions where a second person might help manage things like “loyal wingman” UCAVs and other UAVs being developed in such research as Project Skyborg in the USAF.
Everyone knows conflicts & threats to national security.. drives sales.. which means profit.. sucking up tax dollars... in a major way.. there is only one plane one get more bang for the buck & that's the Gipens.. and it's no slouch when it comes to performance.. I don't see standoff capabilities.. when close quarter fighting starts.. I would want something to handles demand.. standoff may be an effective strategy.. that won't last long with a determine aggressor..
The Gripen is the best for Canada over all. the Gripen has the speed, its cheap to keep in the air, and it can do every thing Canada needs. we do not need stealth.
@@omarn6989 There are already new techs on the way that will make Stealth a non factor. However I think Canada will choose a US plane for political reasons
1) The Gripen is out, IMO. It's range is roughly 1/2-2/3 of the other two (internal or external fuel). And intercepting 'bombers' over the arctic - with very few Canadian bases up there - means you need long range (and preferably two engines in case of malfunction). And the Gripen does not have it. In Sweden - with it's relatively small size - range means little. But in Canada, it means a lot. The Gripen is a small, relatively short range, lightweight fighter/bomber (it weighs about half - empty - as the other two) that is easy to service. It is not suited to long range interception. I like the Gripen - and it's the cheapest - but it's just not suited to defending Canada's far north. It's out, IMO. 2) The F-35 costs a ton and it has only one advantage - though it's a big one - stealth. But stealth is ruined if it has to carry external stores. And it's internal weapon's bays only carries 4 missiles - and I don't think you can carry extra fuel in them. But, even if you could, that leaves it with just two missiles and a gun. And if you load the external stores, it could compete with the Super Hornet in range and payload - but that kills it's stealth advantage...and it costs WAY more than either the F/A-18E/F or the Gripen E/F. Plus, there is a political reason. Canada was all set to buy the F-35...then the liberals came in and said 'hold on there' and re-started the competition. It might look a bit silly if they go through all this mess, time and extra cost - just to pick the same plane the conservatives did. My guess is the liberals STRONGLY want to NOT pick the F-35 (purely for politics). But if the Conservatives get back in power before the decision - they would have incentive to choose the F-35 and wave it in the Liberal's faces. 3) The Super Hornet has two engines (would you rather fly over hundreds of miles of snow and water with one or two engines beneath you?) - though that is not major. Second, it's relatively cheap. Third, it has a great range. Fourth, it has the Growler option. The Growler is a radar jamming version of the Super Hornet. And if the Canadian Air Force has to ever attack against tough targets, the Growler would certainly help them with that. Now, I don't think the purchase includes the Growler. But if they wanted it later, it is virtually the same plane with some alterations - so it would fit in perfectly with Canada's existing aircraft. And the Aussies thought so much of the Growler that of the 36 Super Hornet's they bought - fully 12 were Growler's. For me - the choice is the Super Hornet. Thanks very much for making this video.
@@jontus9925 The Gripen only has decent range and speed if it's not carrying weapons. Kind of a hard way to fight a war, dude. Think a little harder before you write something stupid like this! :D
I'd also add to the above that the Superbug is pre-wired and plumbed to serve as a tanker. That greatly expands it's mission flexibility and offers a capability that the others don't have. The Superbug is truly "omnirole". Anti-ship, combat air patrol, interdiction strike, air superiority, jamming, tanker... It does it all.
I think the F-35 is a bad choice for Canada as it comes with a huge logistical & operational overburden. You have to look at the whole system not just the plane.
looking at the system is the whole point, just looking at the plane as a singular unit is no longer the major consideration, it is about the system, not the platform, and from any other option available there is not system that even comes close to the F-35
Tough to be honest, all the other fighters are good ones for the year 2020, but well use these fighters for decades to come, will they still be good in 2040 ? 2050 ? I think the only option is the F-35 when you look at long term effects, the F-35 will benefit from huge supply chain and a lot of models and spare parts available, slowly the cost of maintenance will go down.
@@kingnathiii1927 F-35 systems are highly integrated which makes modernization difficult. Hornet & Gripen are modular & have been designed to accept upgrades. There is also the F-35 problem of both limited space & cooling capacity. Consequently, the F-35 is stuck with its current level of avionics & sensors. These were cutting edge in 2006 but are becoming obsolete in the 2020's. If you're interested there is a lot of (public) information available through the Government Accountabilty Office (GAO) & the Office for Testing & Evaluation (OTE). However, everything else about this aircraft is highly classified so no one outside the program knows anything for sure & the people inside aren't talking. What is public information is that this weapons system is extremely expensive to purchase, to operate & to maintain. There are also questions of national soverignty. LM owns all the code & will not let anyone else, including the US govt, modify it. If Canada buys this aircraft LM will be the entity that ulimately controls each plane. Hell, the plane won't even start without LM's permission. See the problem?
No question as far as i'm concerned, it's the Gripen. It's the fastest, it's the least expensive both to buy and to operate. There is no comparison. The incredible electronic warfare software will make it in the same league as the F35 as far as stealth, but is almost twice as fast as the F35. It has STOL which would be a huge advantage for hiding their airport from any enemy by using public roads and highways for short take off and landing. This would give protection to the Gripens from enemy aircraft bombing runways, which is a brilliant strategy. The re-fuel and re-arm in 10 minutes is a great plus too. As far as i'm concerned the Gripen E is by far the best and most affordable fighter for Canada, by a long shot. There's much more about the Gripen but it's late and i'm falling asleep.
@Paul Witham... the Gripen is only faster in airshow mode with clean wings. When the Gripen has a war load on it, it becomes very slow, and not very manuverable.
@@coldforgedcowboy Gripen E will still be much faster then F35 in air to air configuration. Gripen E can supercruise at mach 1,1 with air to air payload. F35 can only carry 4 missiles and and two bombs in internally.
@John King most of our aircraft sorties are air patrol and intercept missions a couple sidewinders or AMRAAMs and drop tanks is all you need for that mission set
That's new .. the Gripen is a Mach 3.2 airframe, since according to you it is twice as fast as the F-35. LOL As soon as you put any meaningful payload on a 4th gen airframe they are all limited to subsonic speeds.
Buy the Gripen already. It was designed to take off and land on back roads and NOT have to rely on intact runways. The Gripen would have no issues spending 24/7/365 in Canada's arctic. It can carry any ordinance use by the US Airforce as well as any ordinance use by the member states of the EU. All those thoughts about there being no problems with parts for the other two fighters BUT as we have seen in the last four(4) years, The US cannot be trusted to not just pull out of any agreement they wish. The Gripen bid INCLUDES building some of the Gripens on Canadian soil. The other two fighters would all be built in the US with no benefit to the Canadian Aircraft Manufacturers . So Stop Flapping your Lips and buy the Gripen. Canada owes NOTHING to the US in regards to the F-35, it was a fighter designed by a committee. The Gripen E/F is simply the next generation following the original A/B which was followed by the C/D. The 1st letter of each grouping is the designation of the single seat version and the 2nd letter is for the two seat version. The F-35 doesn't have the flight time on it's body design like the Gripen and the other US bid is cheap to buy but very expensive to keep if flight worthy shape.
I agree with that. Sadly, the "netherland-experience" has been widley ignored. Those not knowing: the first F-35A of the Netherland "Koninklijke Luchtmacht" has been greeted by a fontain of the airbases firefighters. Issue: someone flipped the switch from lightwater to foam. So the freshly arrived F-35A was covered in foam (fun fotos to watch). ...sadly, neither the for the aerodynamics needed stealth-cover took it too good, all the external sensors have been damaged so bad, the F-35 had to be sent BY SHIP back to the States for a total makeover. ...add to it, that after some 20 years of development, the F-35 only contains 800 pilot-killing bugs, I'd say no Air Force that gives a damn about its pilots buys F-35. Also with the climate - Gripen is the wise jet (yet again)
Counterpoint: Most of Canada doesn't have any roads whatsoever, so unless Canada plans on surrendering all of it's northern territories, a light fighter (no matter how good) is probably not in their best interest.
@@Dexter037S4 Liberals have a history of not giving a shit about the military and getting whats cheap, the SH is the cheapest option cause we already have a bunch of the ground maintenance tools for it.
One thing is for sure, Gripen is the cheapest modern fighter to operate and maintain 👍🏻 It can also do turn around (refuel/rearm) in 10 minutes from a road base. Try that with an American fighter.... Cost Per Flight Hours: Gripen - 7000$ F35 - 42.000$ Purchase Cost Per Aircraft: Gripen - 45 million F35 - 180 million
Gripen is the most sensible, reliable, and cost effective option. It is the only one that offers assembly in Canada. It is by far the least expensive to purchase and to operate and it offers good interoperability with our allies, if not the same platform. What it doesn't have, is the support of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who have had their heart set on the F35 since it was vapour ware. Although the Gripen makes the most sense, the F35 will be the selected aircraft.
Let's hope that the Canadian Government realizes that the set-backs in production and upgrades and poor readiness states of the F-35 makes them think again. Way back when the Canadian Government first bought into the programme they were conceptual, and looked perfect on paper. Airforces around the world using the F-35 are having issues with replacement parts - with readiness states of around 60% for a $100 million aircraft.
Toss my hat in for the Super Hornet, with Gripen as a second. Too many issues ongoing with the f-35 to justify the extraordinary cost compared to the other options.
I think a hi-lo mix would be best and that way we could buy more total I think. Get a couple squadrons of F-35's, one for each coast, and then get either Gripen or Super Hornet for those air sovereignty missions. Super Hornet would be quicker in to service because we already use the Hornet and could realise some savings with parts most likely. But the Gripen is a fairly cheap option as well long term from my understanding.
As odd as it sounds to buy 2 different aircraft, I totally agree that it makes sense, and wish the program was set up to allow this possibility. Part of that is for industry. As a part of the F35 supply chain we need to buy those to keep our industry, but we really only need a few squadrons as you suggested. I think we could buy mostly the super hornets and they would be well suited for long patrols in the Arctic, and a few squadrons of growler versions would support the F35s, and they would be less expensive to operate. All are good planes and are desperately needed.
Super Hornet and Gripen if they wanna go mix fleet. Both use the same engine and Gripen is design for NATO compatibility in mind. The engines can be sourced from US.
@@Joshua_N-A not that the CA government will choose 2 because they can be narrow minded but I think 1 option has to be F35 and either Gripen or Super Hornet. F35 is next gen far and away a superior fighter to both the ahornet and Gripen. It will allow us to operate in all threat environments and will make the Hoelrnet and Gripen better fighters by being the eyes out front collecting targetting data so the Hornet/Gripen can carry a big missile load and shoot
Saab is the best bet for Canada in my opinion. Best bang for the buck, and it operates under similar situations / environments that Canada does. Plus it can land on a highway and get serviced by a mobile crew. And since we train with the Americans a lot, I see bringing planes with different capabilities to the North American air defence game a bonus. Second choice is the hornet. F35 is too pricey and requires all new maintenance bays be built to handle it. But, my opinion only and I'm no pilot.
I love the gripen. Its probably the best fighter in the running for Canada's needs. However, their partnership in the F 35 program, and the existing training/support systems and familiarity with the hornet family going into the block 3 is a deal breaker for the gripen.
Yes, they did it well with the Leo C1 to the Leopard C2A1 Mexas just before they remove it from the service for the Leopard 2a4m and the 2a6m. The Super Hornet Block III is cool but the best for the RCAF is the Gripen. i just dont like the F-35.
What is it with this arctic BS? Canada need to be able to operate all over the world, period. The problem with the arctic is Logistics, not the machines. What do think the temperature is at 40,000 feet anyway?
@@PappyGunn what do you Think it is when you're flying over the North pole? Plus, unless you're flying over the clouds, what are you gonna do during a low altitude engagement in a blizzard? And how are you going to land? It ain't BS. It's a unique environment found in only a handfull of countries around the world and only one other has the same territorial size.
@@Kamenriderneo No reason to fly low in the arctic. No one would plan an invasion there - it would be suicide. What they need is high altitude intercept capability only. Any of the planes will do that just fine.
@@blacquejacqueshellaque6373 And yet, it is still part of Canada's official requirements. The craft must be able to operate, take off and land in an Arctic environment
I like the JAS 39. It looks the best! haha Fighters need to be cheap, easy to maintain, and have massive weapon capacity/variety. The F-35 is great but the Gripen can carry more of the same weapons. JAS-39 also has some EMC that makes it almost stealth anyway.
But the F-35 is becoming cheaper with the power of economy of scale and advancement in manufacturing. It will outnumber the gripen by the hundreds in the future and support for the aircraft are set to be 40+ years. It is Future proofness vs fufilling short term requarments.
The Gripen does not have EMC that can make it almost stealth. It has a variety of systems on it, but virtually all modern fighters have an electronic warfare suite. This includes the F-35. The ASQ-239 is significantly more powerful than EWS on other fighters, enough so that it can compete with dedicated electronic warfare platforms. If you want the absolute most capable platform, get the F-35. Gripen is cheaper and easier to maintain but not nearly as capable as an F-35.
@@Tonius126 Given a very recent president and the USAs protectionist tendencies showing up again......do you think it is wise to buy American? Better to be able to resupply from within as much as possible IMO....that includes building the jet outright
I have a nick for the Gripen too. For one the F-35 is really all that agile from an aeronautics perspective and lives and dies with it's stealth capabilities (there's a reason why the F-22 isn't for sale). But to reiterate the point i believe that stealth is something that advanced nations could very well overcome in the next 5-15 years so i wouldn't buy something where there have been made big compromises to accommodate that. Which leaves the Hornet or the Gripen. But again i have a nick for the Gripen.
@@Dear_Mr._Isaiah_Deringer This is not true. The reality is that F-35 is a mach 1.6 fighter with kinematic and maneuvering performance equal to that of an F-16 when in combat configuration. For one, the F-35 in any configuration has better performance than a super hornet. Better thrust to weight, agility, top speed, range, etc. No comparison there. Out of the 3 aircraft, the F-35 has the most powerful avionics as well. The ASQ-239 being notably more powerful than the EWS on Gripen E or super hornet. F-35 is packing about as much power as a Growler in that regard. The Gripen in terms of performance isn't all that special either. For one, its very underpowered with a thrust to weight that is the lowest out of the 3. In fact, its lower than most legacy platforms. It is agile, but its overall payload capacity and combat configured performance leaves a lot to be desired. Range too, it only has 7500 pounds of internal fuel, meaning the advertised combat radius is only possible with external fuel tanks. In this configuration, the Gripen is not great in terms of performance. Not to mention an F-35 on internal fuel only can almost match a Gripen with 3 external fuel tanks in terms of range. There is no question that the F-35 is a much more capable platform. If you think that its totally reliant on stealth, then you are quite frankly not up to speed on the capabilities of the F-35. The gripen is an excellent cheap option if you want a versatile sustainable aircraft, but it is by no means superior in terms of survivability without stealth. I will give Gripen some credit in some regards though. Out of all euroconards it is absolutely the best plane coming from europe. Do not think im knocking that jet. The Salex ES-5 radar uses powerful GaN technology along with the widest field of view out of any radar. It may lack the raw power of the F-35's APG-81, but for an aircraft this cheap, its an incredible deal. The Gripen's EWS is no slouch either. Then you have the meteor missile. If you are looking for the most capable fighter money will buy, get an F-35. If you want bang for your buck, get the Gripen E. The F-35's flyaway cost is interestingly enough, lower than gripen however. It is 78 million vs 85 million for the new gripens. This is only because of the US's purchasing power and economy of scale. Gripen has some of the lowest operating costs of any fighter making it fantastic. I still think Canada should get the F-35 though.
I think training wise it should be the Super Hornet. Readiness wise the Gripen. And stealth wise the F35. There is no single greatest aircraft, they all have their ups and downs. My favorite is the Gripen but in my opinion Canada should get the Super Hornet.
Pentaboss... The gripen is under powered and has a short combat radius. The F-18 has 1960's aerodynamics and is G limited because it is a naval fighter.
From what I can find on the net the Grippen E is cheaper cost per flight hour that is less than half of the F18 and 1/4 of the f-35. It is priced between the two cost wise
JAS-39. Sweden is northern country and the Gripen would be adapted to that environment but more importantly, with possibility that if Russia invaded all of Sweden’s airbases would be destroyed in about two days, the Gripen was built with the ability to land and take-off from ordinary highways and be refueled and rearmed in under 10 minutes. Therefore, it has quick deploy/dispatch time. If the Canadians follow the example of Sweden, they could store weapons and fuel near their borders with idea that in a fight at the borders, the Gripen would have place to refuel and re-arm close by and would be able to return to the fight quickly.
Buy once cry once. The F-35 gets you unique capabilities for the money and a fundamentally upgradeable platform that will essentially have a 5th gen jet evolve into something significantly more over its lifespan. This is at a time when nations are planning or even possibly already flying 6th gen prototypes due to the use of full computer design becoming so mature. Canada happens to partially sit in an increasingly contested area of the world. The math is quickly changing for them and honestly, the fact they haven't acted a decade ago on this decision is a political failure.
@@RJT80 can not answer for what abiletys the F-35 have and can have but Gripen i currently the newest airplain and have the best opportunety for upgrading. Already now its not so much about the airframe but more how the software and hardware can be upgraded. And for that gripen is outstanding.
Gripen isn't a competitor of the F35, despite them wanting it to be. The F35 would handily smoke a whole flight of gripens without ever being detected itself. What 5th gen brings to the fight is a cheat code compared to any 4+ aircraft.
@@mhamma6560 well gripen provide the most in combination with other platforms. So the F-35 is good but not that good. The stelth on the F-35 might be problamatic for the gripen radar but groundbase and survalance plane would be compensating. Also Gripen have IR search and track. One also should be clear with the SAAB EW capability, also the offensive one is top of the line. Millenium 7 made a video discussing Gripen stats in Redflag. Inly F22 had better statistics. Hard to evaluate but there is always some info in it. Very often the F35s capability is over rated. I mean ita ofcourse good. But it always have downsides. Design is always a question of trade off.
@@elfi9003 The F35 and F22s are unrivaled in red flag. Nothing can touch them. The gripen's EW capabilities are good, but not better than the F35. As far as bombing goes, the gripen w/ 2 drop tanks has a pretty small payload. It's always having to run around near max weight and despite what everyone likes to claim, those drop tanks limit the gripen to 6Gs. That's pretty bad.
Let's talk cost per hour of flight. Gripen cost 4000 dollars, the same as MIG fighters. F35 cost 35000 dollars per hour. Lets also talk size/radar reflection. During Red Flags 2019 Gripen fought for the first time as the opposing team against the allies. Gripen went 6-0. Only F22 had a better score.. The same thing is said in exercise between Eurofighter pilots and Gripen. Gripen is so small that radar cant "see them" until its to late. Last: Thailand had exercise against chinas latest planes. Thai Gripen won each sortie. Gripen also can use highways for temporary airbases, a must for a country that are at war. Airbases will be bombed / cruise missiles day one in a war. Therefore in Sweden Gripen Squadrons would be deployed all over the country on highways since the Gripen can be serviced/refueled and armed by 4 conscripts. Stealth is a kindergarten in a real war. (and I do not talk about a 3 world country against the biggest army in the world. )
I agree. Gripen is an intelligent choice. Built in Canada (Know how, jobs), small(stealth, maintenance, cost) and powerful(red flag, supercruise, modern avionics, weapons,versatility), short runways(survivability), compatibility of existing infrastructure (tankers, F-18engines).
F35 went 20-1 at red flag 2018, it's easily the best jet available to canada and they would be stupid not to buy it. And btw, your operating costs are off
@@masterofpuppets7295 Was that BVR? Once the engagement progresses, F-35 may not hold an advantage, especially since it hasn't really proven its worth as a close-in dogfighter when its limited supply of missiles is exhausted.
The biggest reason the Gripen makes more sense to me is STOL. The F18 and F35 both can't use shorter runways like we have north of 60 degrees. We have two bases in the middle of Canada that they could use thousands of KM from where we usually intercept. However if we buy the Gripen all those bases north of 60 become useable. That gives us better interception times and more options for emergency landings. So places like Goose Bay, Resolute Bay, Inuvik, Tuktayuktuk, Yellowknife, Whitehorse etc. could become forward operating bases. The legacy Hornets never could use those bases and neither will the maintenance heavy F35.
@juscurious I live in Canada. We can't afford to keep up with the Jones (i.e. USA). Gripen is a better fit for our environment when what we need is to protect our country, not run around the world with the USA. It cost less to buy and MUCH less run.
Like the new blister tanks on the Super Bug. Great performance and versatility but short legs, because range was never considered a priority by the Navy, who always assumed they would truck them up to the enemy's doorstep via carrier. Range is also an issue with the Lightning 2, as is the cost/benefit question of stealth in the defensive interceptor role. The Gripen seems the best match for Canada's needs. Patrolling and securing the airspace of their vast territories is a mission where quantity has a quality all it's own, and the lower aquisition and operations cost allows you to put more birds up. They'll stay up longer too, as range and turnaround time is a much underrated force multiplier. The ramjet-powered meteor missile can kill from an incredible range, and it's mauser cannon, packing 10X the ammo of the gun in the F-35, is absolutely murderous close in. In the end, they'll probably get strong-armed into buying American, in which case the SH would be the way to go.
I was all for the F-35, but it's Gripen E for Canada now. F-35 is sooo costly, which may not have been a problem if they were working as intended. Constantly delayed software upgrade issues, $700K helmets that still do not work properly, issues flying in Thunderstorms as it damages their stealth coating, poor availability of spare parts, only a plus/minus 60% readiness state through most squadrons, thousands of software bugs needing fixing. Hours and hours between sorties, versus a 10 minute turnaround for the Gripen. $39,000 cost per hour flight-time of the F-35 versus about $9,000 for the Gripen. Yes the F-35 is stealthy, but has a very limited sized internal weapons bay which, depending on the missiles loaded, will only hold two - four air to air missiles. Adding any more on the wings hardpoints , and the stealth factor is gone until the external ordinance is fired. This is the reason that the USAF is looking at pairing them with F-15 which carry a LOT of ordinance (non-stealthy of course). Lastly, I applaud Sweden for their self-reliance instead of always buying out-sourced technology. Canada used to be a leading aero-tech country - look at it's state now. Much appreciate the update PilotPhotog.
Gripen E has "electronic STEALTH" with the new AREXIS EW suite...much better because it can be upgraded and adapt to enemy radar. F35 STEALTH is built in the airframe...
@@Beliserius1 They are involved in the Tempest project because it's too expensive to build your own 6th gen fighter...it's NOT because of STEALTH. I imagine SAAB and Sweden will NOT have an expensive maintanence fighter.
@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc Lol, you think Stealth is not a main feature in the Tempest? You are D E L U S I O N A L. Pretty much ALL major powers in the world is now investing in some form of stealth aircraft. Get a grip guy.
I notice that some comments want a selection of each. That is very expensive as it would mean three different types of spares, training, training for technicians etc. They need one type, the F-35 is expensive to buy and operate, F- 18 is getting old and will be the first to be obsolete. Economically and capability, Gipen is I believe the best option especially as an interceptor with the quickest turnaround and Americans forget that a SAAB aircraft was the only one to get a missile lock on a SR 71.
A SAAB got missile lock on an SR71 that wasn't concerned about it having a lock on it. I always get a kick out of that story. But to your point, a selection of each would add increased logistical cost. But the f18 rhino isn't getting old, the f18 hornet is. They're very similar in design but are two different aircraft. If Canada was geographically separated from the US and solely responsible for its own air defense I would recommend they go with the F35 all day long. But context matters and the reality is that Canada can and does consider the US capabilities as a factor in its own decision-making. The US provides the stealth aspect of Canadian air defense (NORAD) and Canada can opt in to that capability with the F35 or continue to support through the use of more traditional fighters. My guess is they go with the Rhino. Two engines, easy supply chain, less change to training, etc. The Rhino is a far better BVR platform than the current Hornet so it's a significant upgrade. You can argue the Gripen is a cheaper option and better dogfighter, but I would submit that the F16 block 70 provides everything the Gripen does but is cheaper.
Dogfights do not exist anymore and intercept missions are not fully based on what type of aircraft you have anymore. It's what missiles and the range they have. The best missle available is the meteor. These can be launched from a Grippen and 35. The range is 54 nmi. I urge the RCAF to go with the 35
@@toddbleakney609 Traditional dogfights could exist again, especially between two stealthy aircraft but I agree that they're at a minimum extremely rare. The Aim 260 is almost ready for operations....
@@toddbleakney609 why do people consider the Meteor the best or the longest range NATO missile? The AMRAAM AIM120D has a 100 mile range. I think the 260 is supposed to be close to 200 miles.
@@trevor108 I believe the meteor has some of the most recent technology. I know it has the biggest "no escape zone" for any aam's, apparently. So more of a success rate at hitting its target
Gripen has the best performance/dollar ratio. A really good fit. Politics? Then F-35. Trade-off with great attack capabilities? F18 I can see them all, but Gripen should win.
In line with what you said, considering Canada's got such a large and sparsely populated territory, the aircraft's interceptor potential is the most important thing, ie. top speed and ability to scramble quickly. On paper that looks like the Gripen, although the aspects of the ease of transfer to the new aircraft and political / economic factors favour the Super Hornet and F35 respectively. I don't claim to know better than the Canadian generals or anything like that, but personally none of these would be my first choice if I were them. I'm not sure that these multi-role planes are really what Canada needs so much as something geared more exclusively to air superiority and intercept missions. I think their ideal choice is the F-15 EX.
I think you have a great point......Ask for a super F15EX with thrust vectoring Nozzles. Definitely would be a Match for anything Russia currently has....
I had the pleasure of working with a Canadian F-18 squadron when I flew adversary at Miramar in the early 1990's. Great guys and very capable. I would guess that their needs are much more toward airspace defense. They need something that can get out away from the borders, have some stealth and some loitering time with the capability to reach out to multiple targets. They probably won't be in the mode of offensive operations, so though I'm a big fan of the F-35, it may not be optimized for their mission. The Gripen is a great airplane, and so is the Super Hornet. With the conformal tanks becoming available for the S.H., it may have better standoff without the need to refuel than the Gripen. From what I know of the Gripen, payload, range and loiter may favor the S.H. But, budget may favor the Gripen. Either would be a good upgrade for sure. If money were no object, I'd think the S.H. would be better. But really, Canadian defensive needs are minimal except for NATO commitments. The only need for something like the F-35, for Canada, is if they have a heavy priority on that, NATO commitments. In that scenario, where they are basing fighters in a densely packed, shorter range battlefield - think Baltic nations - I'd go Gripen (especially given its formidable self jamming capabilities) for defense, but F-35 for offense if they're basing in the Scandinavian arena from which they could throw longer range offensive punches. U.S. forces would be involved heavily with F-35's, so a few from Canada may not be as critical as a few Gripens. These days, battlefield integration is key, regardless. If I were an operator being told, "you're going into battle", I'd want to go feet dry in the F-35, for sure! Well, was that a fancy way of saying "I don't know" or what? Edit: This is an outstanding overview from PilotPhotog
F18 super hornet, training costs are low, old parts can be used to repair the new planes, two engines is a safety feature when flying in the middle of the artic
@Peter Lorimer Because with every new generation of fighter, engine reliability has gotten better. The F-16 and legacy Gripen have stellar safety records and operate regularly in the Arctic. The new F135 engine is even more advanced than previous generations and will likely offer even better engine reliability stats over time. Two engines just adds more operating costs now days and not much benifit other than additional safety for rare events like bird strikes or even rarer events like total engine failure.
@@AirShark95 Besides, the argument for two engines for reliability back in the eighties had nothing to do with bird strikes. Bird strikes occur most often during takeoff and landing. Finding a downed pilot from a bird strike is likely to be much easier, since the aircraft will likely go down near an airport. That just leaves engine reliability, and as you pointed out, today's engines are MUCH more reliable than the jet engines from the '70s & '80s. Operating costs are much more of a factor today, and a single engined a/c will bring those costs down considerably. The Gripen would also reduce our reliability on the U.S.
@@dat581 Wrong. Your statistics include data that is decades old when engines were less reliable. Claiming that two modern engines are less reliable than one makes you sound like a moron.
The Gripen by far. The thing is designed for the north and QAR (quick action response) and I don't see Canada ever making an offensive, but if it does, SAAB Gripen isn't that bad of a offensive peice
Its a terrible offensive piece and quite overhyped in its capabilities. Single-engined plane that is supposed to run intercept missions over long distance without having any of the F-35s advantages. No thanks.
@@johanlassen6448 Så trevligt att du presenterar dig. Är du döpt till dumskalle eller är det ett öknamn? Sökte du jobb på SAAB i Linköping och fick nej tack? Du låter verkligen som en rabiat idiot som har fått nobben. 🖕
I don't think Canada wants to pay for the F-35 right now. The Block3 Hornet is nice, but the Grippen's built in and integrated ECM and electronic warning suite is really the icing on the cake. The Grippen is the only one of theses three that can super cruise, something that will come in handy when patrolling and traversing a large country like Canada, and the price is very attractive. The only con to the Grippen is it's relative lack of stealth. Does Canada really need to pay big bucks for stealth? I don't think so. Here's what I really think; If it weren't for America's tremendous diplomatic power, Saab would be selling a shit load more Grippens to a lot more countries than they currently do. The plane is amazing and at an amazing price. Honestly, the U.S. should have some, they are that damn good.
in my opinion the lifetime cost and the range are the two biggest factors. Intercepting in our northern regions could become a focus in the next decades as the Northwest Passage open up to trade. Its a LONG way from 4 wing in Cold Lake AB or 5 wing in Goose Bay NL all the way up to the arctic.
I wish you make one detailed video about JF-17 fighter jet. But with correct facts and right details. Hope to see it soon. And good work. Keep it going 😊
@@PilotPhotog Facts and right data matters more in my view (for me) but I am not the your only viewer 😊. It's OK, you can take your time. Good to know it's in your list. I can wait.
@@revolutionariesoffreedom"The tea is fantastic" Said by Indian Air Force Wing Commander being shot down by Pakistan Air Force pilot in actual air force fight between two countries and after drinking tea, expressing his thoughts about tea 😂 😂 😂 😂. Always remember it. Never forget it 😊. Now you can say whatever you want to try to heal your wounds
I like the Grippen. Has more range to patrol, better for Artic weather as Canada is in winter most of the year. It seems more compact, and faster at Mach 2, and they said faster turnaround for continuous missions. Have some F18 for World missions.
It does not have a small radar signature with an air to ground payload, and it for sure does not beat the EW capabilities of the F-35. A varied payload does not matter because Canada only operates weapons armed to the F-18C/D, which means that all of the aircraft above can operate the required payloads. Speed is greatly diminished with any payload due to all the extra drag, and its reduced range means that in the end, the speed does not matter because it will have spent all its fuel to get to the battle. It is cheaper to procure and maintain than the other options, I will give you that. However, in the short term, many of the procurement costs will be offset by the additional maintenance equipment and training that comes from operating a new airframe. The challenge with Canada is first and foremost its size. An F-18E with conformal fuel tanks sounds particularly appealing in this manner. Now, personally, I like the Gripen, but it is more of a competitor for the F-16 than for a larger fighter like the F-18, but low cost is about all it has going for it, and if that mattered, the MiG29 might be more their speed. (Disclaimer) I deduced range logically. I figured that the mission would require the same payload. Each payload would deduct same weight from external fuel stores. I then reasoned that after payload, which aircraft had more external fuel weight by calculated remaining weight as potential fuel weight. I then factored in fuel consumption by looking at ferry range and ferry fuel weight, divided and found that the Gripen had a slightest edge. However, the edge is minor (about 150 nmi) I think that the conformal fuel takes will easily make up the difference.
@@prestonlee9965 Good to know you have interest in the subject. Just see reports on the last Red Flag exercises, and Gripen was second to Raptor. The margin of the mission success ratio was too narrow in favour of the Stealth. Considering the Raptor is far superior to the F35, one can assess the capability of Gripen. As for the signature with payload, that's an obvious thing. The stealth fighters get compromised in such scenarios once the ammunition is stacked on the external hardpoints. I HOPE YOU GET MY POINT.
@@prestonlee9965 As for the ferry range, it gets irrelevant in the modernday airwarfare with the Tankers and AEWS in the fleet. Canada, if obtains the Gripen, could develop an EW envelope just like Sweden. The operational capabilities from roads gives the SAAB great advantage. Please, don't compare the Gripen with the Viper. That's hardly a match. The Gripen, also, has a great AESA radar to eliminate big birds BVR.
@@SMayedAli Since when did Dogfighting stats have anything to do with a good fighter aircraft for a nation. I can say with certainty the F-22 would be a horrible fit for Canada's needs. Canada threats are mostly large bomber/civilian aircraft, or ground targets, both of which don't need any actually ability to fly fighter vs. fighter. Like i said, the Gripen is a great plane, but all of its technology and design make it a low cost fighter, which it does rather well. However, Canada does not need a fighter as much as in needs a long range interceptor/ground support aircraft, which are roles that the Gripen was not designed for considering the light weapon load out. In all honesty, the best choice would have been the Eurofighter with the power, capacity, speed, and range. And as for stealth, any payload will compromise the stealth of aircraft without internal stores. The F-35 has a greater EW suit, which combined with the its internal bays allows for maximum stealth (there is a reason it is marketed in SEAD role, its EW suit playing a large part in that).
Honestly, for Canada's needs, the best option is a hybrid fleet. Have 1/2 to 2/3 either Gripens or Super-hornets for cost effective air patrol and interception missions, and 1/2 to 1/3 F35s for high threat operation and potential foreign deployment. Objectively, the F35 is a superior fighter platform being true 5th gen aircraft, however it is a costly girl, and a lot of Canada's airforce's missions are intercepting Russian aircraft. A mission less suited for a high maintenance stealth aircraft.
We don't need foreign deployment, none of the missions carried over the past 20 years in the middle east were justified. We need to wean ourselves from neocon partnerships to bomb third world countries for nefarious reasons.
If anything that's the only way DND can afford geting new ships for the RCN and new planes for the RCAF. They want both but the budget means they can only afford one or other unless they serriously cut back. If anything chances are they'd want the ships more then the planes, so they whould be more likely to cut back on getting new planes meaning a mixed fleet of F-35's and Gripens.
Really? No shit? None of I us had any clue that about the word “Grippen” sounded like the English word “Griffin.” Even though they phonetically sound the same. You sir, are an asset. Canada needs you.
Great video! What about cost per unit - on Day 1, and over the next 5-10+ years? The overall defence capability will surely depend on how many of each aircraft type can be purchased, and efficiently operated.
The Gripen is such a good choice. It's fast, extremely versatile, has a proven record in cold-weather and harsh conditions, is cheap and easy to maintain and would have a true local workforce brought in. Plus, Gripen does not force us into a proprietary software agreement with Boeing or Lockheed. That means we could develop our own flavor of the control software and collaborate with allies to upgrade, enhance or customize it. Compare this to Lockheed who binds you into a maintenance contract over the proprietary software and charges you an indecent amount annually for it for as long as you fly the damn thing! :o Did I mention the price? It's not even funny how much the F-35 is overpriced for the needs we have. So much so that the future-proof argument is negated by the fact that the upfront cost is downright insane. How many additional brand new Gripen can you buy with all that you save from buying it over the F-35? Do the math and see for yourself. Let's be realistic: The Gripen will not win the contract because they don't have the lobbying power that US companies have over our softy local politicians. But for the role we need it for, it's clearly the best choice. Any major conflict would require us to ask for the help of our allies anyway. But since we all know there's almost no chance that Canada will ever be implicated in a major war, the Gripen would never be needed to be used as anything else than a fast interceptor. And that is what it is. Anyway, let's see what those big wigs in Ottawa FINALLY decide (I mean, WTF!?)... but I suspect they are gonna go with one of the US options: Either an overpriced toy we don't need or an old airframe that costs us way too much to operate and is not flexible enough in the age of the electronic battlefield...
Think you are very right. Though the new Saab EW-missile for the gripen is damn good. Might even make the F-35 capabilety some what redundant. Actually. Check out that missile. Damn cool stuff.
Combo of gripen for home defence and f 35 for international support missions could be nice to see. They're already invested in the f 35 program and it would be kinda weird to not buy the jet for that reason.
The f35 program is already employing a lot people in Canada since local companies are already involved in Lockheed's supply chain. This is not a for nor against, Canada/USA have a complex integrated manufacturing spaghetti, building a brand new product in Canada may have unseen consequences. If saab could bring jobs with no USA retaliation the choice is obvious but i doubt it.
The issue with that is costs and training hours. You would need to procure parts for 2 entirely different aircraft types, as well as having 2 entirely different groups of people trained to fly and maintain each respective aircraft.
@@TgsMaverick I dont think It would be that terrible. Saab said they would move some production to Canada, and Canada already makes f35 parts. But the combo of stealthy + fast and cheap would work out i think.
a major consideration is the flight hours vs. maintenance hours required. A fighter with all kinds of advantages does no good if you can't get it in the air more than once in a while.
All things considered, I would like to see the F-35 selected. Considering we've already invested in it, I would love to see a return on that investment. My second choice would be the F/A 18 Super Hornet due to how familiar it would be for pilots/support crew. But thats just me
No mention of the F-35 only able to carry 4 missiles inside the hull and everything beyond that canceling the stealth ability. Which is questionable anyway if IR pods are as good as we heard in this video..
Not necessarily you can build missiles with stealth capabilities remember the external gun on the f-35b and c both have stealth capabilities of their own as to not break the f-35 stealthiness
@@spartanx9293 No one is contesting the current ''radar stealth capacity'' of the F-35, which will most likely be obselete during its service life(1). (2) Price per unit, price per flight hour + maintenance time. Whichever way the F-35 is configured, the Gripen will simply be more (3) available to response, (4) quicker to respond for NORAD duties using the (5) METEOR (most leathal). The F-35 is an amazing asset, it just does't fit the role for Canada. That being said, the Super Hornet would be my second choice.
The FA/18 Super Hornet block lll variant is the best fit in my opinion. Since Canada has such a large airspace a long range, multi role tactical fighter is perfect the best fit for the northern parts of Canada.
@M T we already bought a bunch of used Aussie Hornets to fill the NORAD gaps which is the same good logic you suggest. but this is a multi decade purchase so they will go new and get it wrong like the SAR platform.
Then why would Canada have injected millions into the F-35 program, if it never intended to validate its potential for RCAF?(because pilots wouldn't fly single engine...) That being said, I agree in general with that ''principal''(2 engines better than one, but...).
Canadian Pilots never had an issue flying the F86, or the CF104. If they have an issue flying single engine fighters, that leaves out the F-35 as well as the Gripen.
Good video, tough decision. Each has different strengths; F18 - familiarity and mass production for many countries; SAAB - built for cold climates, rough conditions, small support requirements; F35 - Stealthy but costly, will be in production, refinement and improvement for the longest time. The determining factor will be cost. How many can Canada afford to buy and maintain as well as the benefits of production in Canada. Also international relations. Take care of your allies.
the problem with stealth is that they are only invisible to monostatic radar not bi-static radar and besides they give away their position as soon as they switch on their own radar
@@apis_aculeiThe F35 uses Radar reflectors whilst not in a combat area, the reason, it's for Civilian Air Traffic Controllers to be able to control their Airspace.
OUTSTANDING video!! Well done sir.
Wish I was able to talk about this 🙁🥺
@matsimus thank you sir! I immensely enjoy your video and channel. Why wouldn't you be able to speak on this topic? Just curious.
@@PilotPhotog I work for the Canadian government. They don’t like me talking about sensitive topics like this.
@@_Matsimus_ understood, thank you for your service and let me know if you'd like to collaborate on a video sometime.
+Matsimus what so you who's a army guy is allowed to talk about weapon platforms such as the CV90 or AS21 and all other types of equipment potentially used by the Army. But they forbid you to talk about aviation as an army guy? Should'nt it be the otherway around lol
@@zoom5024 no. Anything CAF related is taken under strict scrutiny. Like a major government acquisition like the F-35
You didn't mention that Gripen can land on and take off from roads. Using only a team of 6 people (only one technician needed) it has an air-to-air turnaround of only 10 minutes. Also it it is by far the easiest and cheapest to maintain
Gripen is easy.
Any fighter can take off from a road.
It's easy to maintain because Sweden is a conscript nation. Conscripts usually have fixed and short service duration unlike professional soldiers so having a plane that is easy to maintain and conscript friendly is a must.
Finland uses the Boeing F-18 routinely from roads. F-18s takeoff weight from roads is nearly 30% greater then the Gripen. That capability wins wars.
I think a lot of people forget that most of Canada's territory doesn't have roads, so this isn't actually an advantage.
Bet you a beer that in 10 years Canada will still not have one new fighter jet.
A 6 pack of Molson? Tough call!
:( you may be right
@Nonya Buziness I think the USN frames have a large number of flight hours already eh? Might not last much longer than the cf18's
Lol you know it took us 35ish years to replace our navy helicopters? It's not a bad guess to say we'll buy used f35s in 2040 or something
If the Liberals stay in power anything could happen.
The recent purchase of the FWSAR aircraft where they selected the plane that cost more, the RCAF pilots didn’t want, the RCAF Maintenance & Logistics team didn’t want and the one the CF SARTechs said was too slow, too small, too cramped and not good enough . . . but they picked it anyway because the engines are made in Quebec, doesn’t inspire hope for a successful CF-18 replacement
As a Canadian and knowing the terrain here, I would say the Gripen would be the most suitable, since its also cheap and can take off very easily, and take off roads/highways it would be perfect.
But your country and the arctic region are huge and the gripen has a much smaller range than the other ones.
Gripen would also need a more powerful engine, but it does get some very interesting weaponry options.
@@Micha-qv5uf Actually Gripen has the biggest range of the three, look it up !!!
The Gripen Would need to refuel 6 times on a cross Canada flight...
@@jeffgravel5220 So does the f18
I'm Brazilian and I'm proud of the Saab Gripen E choice for the Brazilian Air Force. Brazil is a giant country like Canada, and Gripen E meets it's demands. Gripen is the most cost effective fighter jet and NATO approved . If I was a Canadian taxpayer , I would demand a jet that's not only on par with the SU-35 and F18 , but far less expensive to operate (Gripen's flight hour cost is $4700 vs F18 cost of $24400 vs F35 cost of $30000) and able to land on highways and with a 10 minutes combat turnaround makes it a true "Sukhoi Killer" .
you'r cost comparisons are funny !!! 4700 dollars if even possible are just the plane without ever touching the afterburner, no pilot, mechanics, support purchase or infrastructure costs involved.
Add all the lifecycle costs together and the gripes will cost you somewhere between 20 to 40.000 USD an hour. You can't just calculate DOCs without fuel ;-)
Yeah we heard about the many Sukkoi and taliban and ISIS Brazil's air force has killed over the years.
@@PappyGunn why brazil should be fighting against taliban? This is Just a American war! and a Otan war, but Brazil doesn't have problems with terrorist. Why should us criate one?
@@xyzaero any way you look at it the Gripen is a very capable plane with great abilities and it is the cheapest cost effective to run and maintain. It is a good choice for Canada Your not changing the world with 88 planes.
I'm hoping we get the Gripen E. Saab already said it would set up a production line in Canada to build the fighters if it was selected and it's the least expensive of the three. The Gripen E is faster than the Super Hornet and a little more stealthy. It's also designed and built by people who understand our climate and have a similar mission to the RCAF. Hopefully Gripen wins.
Any stealth advantage will be gone the moment you start attaching missles to its hardpoints so unless you intend to only rely on the gun the stealth advantage means nothing without an internal weapons bay the smart choice would be to buy mixed a compliment of gripens and F/a 18s but don't expect it to happen
The range of the Grippen is not good enough for the RCAF
People, please remember the F-15 and F-16 duo and draw parallels with F/A-18E (or F) and Gripen E:
- One is smaller and cheaper, the other one is bigger and can carry more weapons;
- Both use the same engine, reducing costs;
- The smaller one is used the most for everyday missions, including Airline Traffic interception.
The idea being... Get both! Also add the Hornet training and parts familiarity, plus the resistance to cold weather of the Gripen to the equation, you get two great warplanes both suited for Canada.
@@michaelbrisson1067 so you're complaining about the US not giving component specifications well simultaneously hailing a plane that uses several us designed components
@@michaelbrisson1067 you new full well what I meant
# 1. Gripen is the Honda of fighter jets. Best value for the money, best quality and lowest service costs. 🚗
While the F-35 certainly is NOT a contender for quality and lowest service costs, what are your reasons for favoring the Gripen over the F-18? Granted, the use of a single engine should reduce service costs for the Gripen. But that comes at the 'expense' of a lower payload, a smaller selection of weapons, etc. Also, as best I can tell by Googling, the F-18 has a larger combat radius, while the Gripen has a larger ferry (i.e. unladen, one-way transport) radius. I'm no expert on fighter jets, but the F-18 seems to have a lot of attributes in its favor. (Note: This video inconsistently provides specs. - parameters such as range and payload are only specified for some aircraft, not all)
@@gregparrott The RFP winner will be purchased based upon political reasons, and nothing else.
Best quality my ass
@@bobdimitri2402 America makes junk Comrad.
@@billyrock8305 gripen e uses American engine.
Hey PilotPhotog. No analysis of cost was presented. The whole dilemma is performance vs. cost over short/medium/long terms.
A very fair point and thanks for commenting - I could not get reliable costs for the Canadian procurement (number of units and timeline) and so did not include that in the video. I agree that cost will definitely play a factor though.
Gripen E is the cheapest fighter to operate...
Look at the Brazilian bid, the JAS-39E/F is the cheapest, cheapest to operate, and the deal include local production and some development.
I don't believe the other contenders can have a better total cost proposition. Local jobs generation might be a big impactor.
Even without all that, the technical points answer so well, including the Arctic and dispersed operation. If we are to believe, The 39D lost only to F22 in the Red Flag.
But I am afraid the Grippen was selected just to be a negotiation card, lower contender's bid price and serve as political leverage, we will see.
Edit: What I mean to say is that Sweden has "only" the best jet fighter to propose in the big game. The US brings oil to the table, defense agreements, commerce agreements, extradition or not of the Huawei lady, continued production of F35 parts, the list is long.
@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc its cheaper, but by how much... F35A these days are being sold for 85mil$... and price will continue decreasing...
@@JaM-R2TR4 Yes the price per unit is almost the same between Gripen E and F35A. But the huge difference is in the actual flying cost.
F35A = 44 000 USD/ hour
Gripen E = 5-6000 USD /hour.
..which is more important becuse you are going to fly these planes for at least 25-40 years.
You get at least 3 Gripen E for the same cost as one F35A.
I think the Gripen is the choice since it can go super cruising and it's very cheap to operate and it will be produced locally.
F-35 can also supercruise and will probably be partly manufactured locally.
@@mustang5132 f 35 cannot supercruise, it can go supersonic which is a different thing, also the Pentagon has a limit of 80 to 90 seconds on the supersonic abilities of the f35 since anything longer will damage the stealth coating on the aircraft.
@@francisaeb1980 you seem to be a little confused. The F-35 is very much capable of supercruise from a technical aspect and if needed to be used, it most certainly can be. However, from a tactical perspective, it is limited in it’s operational ability to do so (for the points you made about damaging stealth coating but also the rest of the composite airframe). Whether it does regularly supercruise is another matter (which is what you are talking about) but whether it can is something else.
@@mustang5132 I think you are the one confused, supercruise it's not supersonic. Look it up for yourself to see if the F35 with current engine is capable of supercruising. Meaning going supersonic without getting the afterburners on.
@@mustang5132 currently the only aircraft capable of supercruise:
F22 Raptor
Dassault Rafale
Saab Gripen
Eurofighter Typhoon
SU 35
SU 57.
I think Gripen, not just initial cost but also cost of operating & maintenance. It's also designed from the outset for harsh environments + it's a bloody great plane!
I quite like the Grippen option for a number of reasons, low cost of operation, high top speed for interceptions which would be a major task for our Air Force, the data link is supposedly the best. It would also be advantageous if we could parley this in to becoming involved in the joint British/Swedish gen 6 Tempest, Manufacturing parts for both the Grippen and the Tempest with the possibility of purchasing some Tempests in the future.
I like this idea. As well, building these aircraft in Canada will bring back our once amazing aerospace industry. The superhornet is another good idea but I think we just need a modern 4th gen interim fighter to hold us over for the next 20-30 years until drone fleets and 6th gen fighters are prevalent, as that will be a way bigger deal than stealth and the f35 and a better investment imo. I'd like to see the gripen but also think the superhornet is a very good idea as well. Honestly I think it'll come down to those two acording to the pilots I've spoken to up at cold lake.
Definitely Gripen, we need a good all round land based winter plane.
So you advocate spending money for two planes in order to somehow come out with money saved in the end? Also SAAB isn't a key partner in the Tempest program, BAE is. You know, the BAE that's also manufacturing parts for the F-35s today.
@@Beliserius1 On 19 July 2019, Sweden and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to explore ways of jointly developing sixth-generation air combat technologies. In 2035 when the Tempest is forecast to be brought in to service, Canada could have 15 years of high tech advanced aviation manufacturing, I don't see how that is not a good thing to at least explore.
@@michaelold6695 I am aware SAAB is interested in entering the program, however they are not a major partner as of now.
2035 window is very optimistic, like with other fighter jet programs including the Eurofighter, it will likely be delayed.
Again, if you are interested in the Tempest program, by sticking with the F-35 will actually have Canada partner up with a major Tempest partner, BAE.
Nice You left out the cost aspect, perhaps Gripens strongest advantage.
Because everyone knows it it is constantly repeated in every comment section comparing the Gripen to anything and everything low costs are good but as the old saying goes you get what you pay for
@@spartanx9293 well. sometimes that is true, and sometimes that is exactly what a scam sounds like
Yes of course the cost effectiveness for being logical. But government always does the opposite.
@@spartanx9293 What, a pretty good advanced multirole fighter? Yeah. Basically, yeah. What's the use of fancy stealth aircraft if you're going to use them as guard dogs? 😆
@@peartree8338 because cost effectiveness is not always the best option you need to balance it out
JAS 39 Gripen has been developed for and in service mostly with missions similar your specifications. Latest upgrade Gripen F has a range of 4000 km among many other upgrades, don’t miss them.
Huh? I thought the E was the latest Gippen with the increased range? Am I wrong?
Ferry range, or combat range? And with what combat load? These things matter, and why Canada should purchase the F-35A... Twenty years from now, the future matters too concerning spare parts availability... No one supports their military equipment more than the USA! No one!
As a Canadian, I Really like and appreciate this video.
It's a great, simple and very informative video regarding our current fighter competition and it's remaining contenders.
I don't expect the deep politics of the situation in a video like this but I might be able to add some context.
Although I'm no expert lol.
Canada has been a partner in the F-35 program dating back to the late 90s and was one of the first major partners.
This was in anticipation to inevitably replace the current CF-188 Hornet's.
Our previous Conservative government was set to purchase 65 of the F-35A and call it a day.
They campaigned during the 2015 election on this purchase under the idea that the X fighter competition was the competition to select our next fighter and this was a plan started by the Liberal government of the late 90s and early 2000's to replace the current Hornets.
We became a partner for this reason.
During the 2015 election the Current elected Liberal government in Trudeau campaigned on the F-35 being a controversial and expensive aircraft that was mainly designed to fill US military needs and not necessarily our own.
And that we should have our own competition where the F-35 could compete against other available aircraft.
The liberals won that election and the competition was under way.
Out of the three aircraft mentioned in this video two more fighters were initially offered but pulled out.
The French Rafale and Eurofighter.
Early in the competition the newly elected Liberals actually announced they were going to purchase 18 Block 3 Super Hornets to fill an interim gap in capabilities, that our own DND argued even existed.
The Super Hornet looked like the top contender early on, both in it's proven capabilities and track record and being the most similar to the current fleet of Hornets it's safe to say it would be the more easy transition logistically speaking.
It was also a political top contender.
Given the announcement of the interim purchase of 18 Block 3s off the shelf prior to any competition.
Our very pro liberal bias national news broadcaster the CBC ran hit peices on the F-35 and promotional peices for the Super hornet during and after the 2015 election I should add.
So the anti F-35 message was clear and pro Super hornet message clear.
This all prior to the competition really even getting started.
Than Boeing controversy happened.
Boeing sued the Canadian government and Bombardier Aerospace in US commerce court over the C series now A220 series aircraft.
Leading to heavy tariffs and you probably know the rest of that story if you're an aviation enthusiast lol.
Around the same time Boeing also had the commercial division controversy in the 737 max8s
This really hurt the Boeing image for the competition.
The Liberal current was quoted saying the won't do business with companies who actively sue them.
Recently Boeing also announced that wouldn't be making a partnership to build the aircraft here in Canada and they would be Built in the US.
Canada went on to purchase used aussie Hornets to fill the interim gap and Boeing and the Block 3 went from top contender to least likely selection now in my opinion.
The liberals who campaign against the F-35 stayed on as a funding partner of the program and supposedly changed their competition requirements to favour or be more open to the F-35.
This is what allegedly played a roll in the Rafale and Eurofighter pulling out.
This is purely speculative from what I've heard. Very well could of been other reasons for them to pull out.
But the F-35 still remains controversial and politically important.
We are still a long term highly invested partner in the program and to come up empty handed is slightly embarrassing at best.
We do get to supply parts and resources for the entire program but we will not be building them in Canada and lockheed seems to keep maintaining and service and technical support all to themselves.
But all of our closest allies and some of the worlds top airforces will be flying the aircraft in some model and capacity.
But for the Liberals to choice it will be very political.
Basically only proving the previous government right and wasting time and money on this competition to come to the conclusions that not only was the previous government right but you willing to invest even more in the aircraft buying more of them at 88 compared to the initial 65.
So the F-35 remains controversial.
Saab on the other hand has quietly and with no controversy offered the Gripen in a deal With IMP as mentioned in the video to build fighters here in most likely my home province.
They come in as the cheapest to operate and built and designed to work in the artic and on makeshift runways and bases.
The Saab also gets us out from depending on the US military market.
helping us reestablish our fighter aerospace industry that was arguably destroyed by the US military market lobbyist when they played a role in the cancellation of the controversial Avro Arrow.
Sorry for the very long comment but just some of my thoughts and understanding on the situation in more political detail.
Didn't Canada buy some of the RAAF F-18 classic
Sounds like you just talked yourself into the Gripen. Nice choice. Great plane and has no political baggage of any kind attached to it.
That was very thorough. It appears that politics is playing a greater role in this than the actual capabilities of the aircraft or the needs of the Canadian Forces. The purchase of those surplus F-18A/B's seems to have been a bad buy as they arent as capable as the CF-18's in Canadian service which means the RCAF will have to upgrade them to the current CF-18 standard before they can even join the fleet. But from reading some reports the bigger problem isnt the aircraft. Its the lack of pilots and maintainers in the RCAF. Sure the CF-18's are long in the tooth and require a ton of maintenance after every sortie. But if you dont have enough pilots to fly or maintainers to work on them. You can have the best aircraft and they mean nothing sitting on the ground. I wonder if this shortage is due to the pervasive view in the west and among NATO countries that the US will do the heavy lifting in a conflict. Thus national defense has taken a backseat in many NATO member countries. Personally I think the Super Hornet would be perfect for the roles the RCAF operate their aircraft in. The F-35 would be nice but probably is overkill and doesnt have the legs or the payload capability of the Super Hornet.
Good info. You’re right on.
@@lesmatthews2231 yes we purchased 18 used RAAF F-18s.
We were going to buy 18 Block 3 Super Hornets off the shelf prior to the competition to fill an interim gap up until Boeing sued Bombardier and the feds.
The used aussie Hornets are supposedly in good shape but need upgrades to meet the current cf-18 standards.
We are also short the pilots and maintenance personnel to fly these aircraft.
Seems to me that Canada doesn't really need a stealth aircraft. Stealth aircraft are for leading offensive strikes deep into enemy territory; Canada just needs something that can defend its extensive airspace. In that mission it seems like the Super Hornet has the advantage in range and familiarity, and Gripen has the advantage in ease of maintenance and proven cold-weather performance.
Canada has NATO treaty obligations requiring an aircraft for attack missions. For strike missions against a modern enemy stealth improves chances of mission survival. For only interceptor missions piggybacking on the USAF order for the new F-15X would be excellent choice
Hornet is slow and low, thus incompetent in Air-to-Air, even for chasing Russian-bombers.
zofe f-35 is slower
@@zofe That is not true at all. USAF practice engagements with Germany's MiG-29s acquired prior to German unification in 1990 displayed the superiority of the Super Hornet to the MiG-29. And the MiG-29 is widely considered one of the best air to air fighters anywhere.
@@Red_Sector_7 You refer to different avionics ages, rather not to gun-fights or to altitude & speed capabilities. The mild-sweep of the hornet renders it a lame-duck in dog-fights and incapable of chasing Russian-bombers.
As a brazilian my suggestion is...just pick the gripen like we did, its perfect for Canada too, amazing speed, excellent armement, low cost, good in all weathers , u guys we not regret.
Brasil could afford a fighter plane??????
@@nationalistcanuck7800 Brazil has a GDP higher then Canada.
@@nationalistcanuck7800 No, SAAB gave us 36 gripen NG for free
TheBrazilian Owl Brazil paid 4.5 Billion USD for those 36 planes.
@@kurousagi8155 yup
Gripen. Engineered by another northern country with similar needs, can be built in Canada - seems like a perfect fit. Plus it looks cool ;) Maybe a couple Hornets thrown in the mix for variety ...
Sweden is a small country, unlike Canada. That is why the Gripen has bad combat radius. I don’t think Gripen is a good option. (I already know canada selected the gripen)
@@a15bionic59 Didn't know Canada already chose, thanks for the info ... to be honest Canada needs a range of fighters. Its hard to fit just one into everything that Canada could possibly need.
What people need to understand is that the area of Canada is massive. The Yukon Territory dwarfs the lower provinces. The Arctic region above the Yukon dwarfs the Yukon for sheer massive size. Now, imagine flying a patrol over the Arctic ocean, in the middle of the winter, thousands of miles from any help, in a single engine aircraft. Being a former military pilot who flew a single engine aircraft the one time I had to fly over the ocean made my pucker factor go way up. Of the three, the F-18 Superhornet is the only twin engine jet. But the F-18 is not the jet Canada needs due to it's lack of range. Canada needs a jet that can fly thousands of miles unrefueled with a powerful radar and an ability to take on a patrol of Su-35's. The jet that Canada needs is the single seat F-15X. It's cost is no more than the SuperHornet. Actually, I think it's less. THAT is the jet for Canada.
@keith moore That is definitely a factor in favor of the F-18, though I'm not so sure about spares interoperability. Retraining will be next to nothing. But the F-15 and F-18 have very similar systems and avionics. The latest radars in each user the same processors and they are near identical. They operate the same so hornet guys can pick up the eagle radar quick. Same manufacturer so logistics differences will be slight.
Going back to the hornet spares I don't think the super bug uses the same spares, now that I think of it. Nations flying the legacy hornet had big issues getting spares until the Navy retired them recently. Even the Marines were starting to worry. If the spares were interoperable then nobody would have had a need to worry. The Marines now say they can continue to operate the C model now that the Navy got rid of theirs. So I think the spares issue is moot. Canada will have to buy all new spares no matter which plane they buy. If the F-15X is indeed the cheaper fighter then that's the best choice. Conversion training won't be all that difficult. And it doesn't have stupid canted pylons that cause all kinds of drag.
As a Canadian I would love to see the Grippen due to low cost to build and operate, proven artic operations, can land or take off on rough ground and a good fit overall. The F35 is too costly and expensive to operate and the stealth tech will most likely be good for only a few years before it needs to be upgraded as new tech is coming out every year.
Canada should have made canadian planes like "arrow" instead of others
Someone said that Lavalin - Bombardier had sewn up the competition without a compliant bid.?.. :P
Yeah and that "expected to be in service until 2070" made me laugh out loud. Imagine fighter jets in 2050, they won't be comparable.
@@marscanada7891 the Arrow program as ambitious as it was and as advanced as it was it was doomed from the start due to politics, spying and US government interference. On another note the US Osprey aircraft are taken directly from a Canadian designed and built aircraft that had been built 15 -20 yrs before the US Ospreys came into service and the only reason nobody knows about it is nobody was sure about it’s capabilities and it was unknown tech at the time. I believe there are still two working aircraft of the Canadian version still one is in an aviation museum in Ontario the other I heard was in a private collection.
@@deans6129 Not true: You are describing the Tilt Wing Canadair CL 84 I believe which is TILT-WING which came out of the program the USA had in the 60's. The CL-84 came out in the 70's. Same time period the experimental tilt rotors were being tested which actually goes back to the 60's as well.
If speed and readiness is a priority, the Gripen may be the right choice.
Nowadays speed doesn't matter. It is the avionics which is important.
If interoperability with the US in NORAD is a priority...welp...
@@virgilius7036 that’s very false. speed is still your lifeline in a bvr fight
@John King Desert Storm, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and the current Baltic Air Policing missions, are all examples of real-world operations that Canada has and are involved in. That type of operation is also a part of the consideration.
Do you guys really think a dirty Gripen is going to be faster then a clean F-35? This is just stupid!
As a retiree from the USAF, I can attest that the US aircraft are great choices. But, they are not as well suited to the arctic environment as some other choices such as the SAAB Grippen. For overall mission parameters such as speed, cost (including purchase and operational costs), proven arctic operability and ability to handle rough field operations with limited support, I would endorse the SAAB. The other two aircraft have many things going for them but the needs of the Canadian AF are best met by the Grippen. Sorry LH and MD.
Retired Air Force should know that US operates plenty of F-35 and F-22 in arctic Alaska (you know, next to Russia).
The F-18C is operated by the Finish Air Force in the exact same environment as Swedish Gripen
I cannot believe that I am seeing an american feeling that the non-american choice is best.
Must not have been in USAF for long, or were totally unaware that the USAF flies more arctic circle sorties and builds more aircraft with arctic operations requirement than any other nation on earth.
AK and Iceland FIS experiences date back to the 1950s.
Practically every fighter Canada and Norway have operated over the past 70 years have been US designs.
But the US doesn't understand Canada's climate....
Ya, this is a bogus excuse. The F-18:operates in the same weather environment as Sweden by the Finnish Air Force. Both Finland and Switzerland operate the F-18:from “runway roads” as does the Gripen.
Of the three, I believe the Gripen provides the best blend of lethality, reliability, maintainability, affordability and economic benefit to Canada. Given that it is far less expensive to maintain than its competitors it stands to reason that over time, Canada will be able to allow its pilots the flight hours needed for real combat proficiency. Gripen makes it easier for Canada to be ready to fly and fight anywhere, any time, and against all know adversaries. It is the logical and cost effective choice.
Canada operates in a military environment with the US. The 80 odd Gripens Canada could get would be he only Gripens in that environment. The entire command and communication structure for North America will be based around the F35. There is no guarantee that the Gripens will be plug and play into that system, in fact, I would bet against it. In any significant military event, I suspect the US would just shove Canada and its Gripens to the side, and do it all itself without the worry of incorporating Gripens into the situation. Canda isnt after the best fighter, its after the best fighter that fits the strategic situation its in, and thats the F35 by a mile. Gripens would be an act of shear stupidity.
@@jars6230 That doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Gripens were designed from the start to be able to integrate seamlessly into NATO operations. There are NATO countries flying Gripens C/D and they integrated fine with sensors and communications. That being said, Canada specifically asked for local companies to integrate the communications suite for the aircraft and SAAB responded by already partnering with local companies to provide said system. Their main work will be to provide a layer of communication between the aircraft's sensor systems (one of the big pluses of the E/F versions) and the radios/datalinks. Those will, of course, be fully compatible with NATO/NORAD standards. Moreover, important components of the airplane are made in the US. The engine is the same as the Super Hornet's for instance. And it's also interesting to note that SAAB have partnered with Boeing to provide the US' new training jet to replace the T-38, so there may be not as much resistance as previously thought of. Still, I don't believe Gripen will be the winner, even though I think it would provide an excellent service to the RCAF.
@@leandrocosta3709 Ofcourse the gripens are used by other NATO countries. But NORAD is US controlled and will be dominated by the F35.
@@leandrocosta3709 lol. Having spent a number of my years stationed in a NATO environment, the idea of NATO integration being simple is quite hilarious.
@keith moore not very much common usage of parts between the hornet and the rhino (super hornet).
You kind of brushed over the Gripen's Electronic Weapons Suite, the modularity for ease of future upgrades, and it does offer IRST also.
No point in it IMO. All of the options are excellent in that regard. Block III Superbug's actually better, complete with IRST, and the F-35... well, it's the F-35. Not only does it have all that, it's stealthy to boot.
That’s because it doesn’t really hold a candle to either of the other aircraft mentioned on the video. 🤷🏻♂️🤦♂️
@@GoSlash27 The Rhino doesn't have IRST.
@@goodputin4324 The Block III does, which is the version they're considering.
@@GoSlash27 in a pod
Kindly note that the Gripen on offer is the vastly upgraded E model, not shown in the video.
I wouldn't exactly say vastly I put it on par with an f-16 block 70
The Gripen is hands down the best choice here but we will be pressured 9f purchasing the f35
@@Lanse1984 if we wanted to pressure you we could simply ban saab from using the super hornet engine inside the Griffin if you want to intentionally use a more subpar design that's on you and it'll be on your pilots
@@spartanx9293 didn't know General Electric bought volvo? Or does the superhornet use a volvo engine? Lol.....
Or does the US just own everything? I am so confused..... but less than you i can imagine
@@Lanse1984 that's not a Volvo engine it's a licensed copy of the f414 it is about as swedish as the m256 is American that being not at all Believe it or not developing the engine is one of the hardest projects in aircraft development why do you think the Tejas also uses it and why the Russians and chinese use su30 engines on their 5th gen platforms
There was one fighter jet exercise that i have heard of. It was a cold morning and every jet failed to start upp its engine, the gripen was the only one able to start upp it's engine and that's because its built around cold/warm climates.
Did that happened during a Red Flag exercise? I know that during one of them Gripen was the only fighter to fly 100% of all sorties. All the other planes were grounded due to bad weather of some sort.
@@kennethjohnson1682 yeah i don't really know, but that could it.
Red flag
One of my favorite aircraft YT channels. Great content! Keep em coming!
Thank you much appreciated and more on the way!
Wow lot of people here are Pro Gripen! Definitely will not argue that, would love to see this aircraft pro trolling Canadian sky’s! What an aircraft.
Of these 3 aircraft, if the RCAF still maintains the importance of two engines for reliability whilst patrolling vast uninhabited and inhospitable territory (Arctic expanses), then the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is default the choice. Additionally it provides familiarity and transferable stores of legacy equipment, and with modern jamming pods you can get near 5th gen abilities anyway.
If single engine is now allowable, then my preference is the Saab Gripen, the latest variant. Swedish and Canadian terrain is very similar, the Gripen is a proven design made by a competent company (at least for now), with its aircraft having served several NATO and allied states. It is capable of STOL on unprepared strips, carries a variety of weapons, and will serve as a platform for air defensive. The latest variants make it a 4+(+) fighter - and it has been said that Canada doesn't need a first strike capability in Stealth.
With regards to the F-35 in Canada, my concerns are cost (outright and operational), the single engine vs twin requirement (it has been a staple of the RCAF for a while), the political and shady dealings behind much of the project, and the capabilities of the aircraft - as q bomber it seems flawed with payload (how many rather than how heavy a bomb load). As a fighter, to theoretically engage the latest Sukhois, I doubt its stealth will help much (given alternative detection methods for 5th Gen) and once in VR combat it is outclassed when as can be expected, both sides using stealth suddenly only detect eachother at closer ranges, and as a Close support (i.e. a Su.25/A-10 role) its ability to stay on station, its minimum speeds and ability to take damage.
For the F-35-aboos, I do not deny the F-35 may well end up a fantastic airplane, but I have my concerns which have long gone unabated
Well stated and presented, thanks for commenting!
Idk man you seem to have undermined the capabilities of the f35. You said Canada doesn't care that much about stealth but use stealth as a mark against the f35. Also the F35 is actually more maneuverable than most fighters including superhornet. And if borge sides use stealth Gripen and Super hornet are dead anyway. Payload isn't really a problem cause F35 can just use external weapons. F35 have longer legs than both, by a lot and of they need more just get the f35C. F35 sensors are way better than both and Jamming is exceptional . Super hornet isnt optimized for electronic Attack role and they would have to. Buy the Growler anyway.
In my personal list Superhornet blkIII ties with F35 but Gripen is dead last because of range and payload. It's a good airplane but its better suited for smaller countries
@@Aaron-wq3jz thanks for watching the video and commenting - you have some great points and I go into further detail on the F-35 here: ua-cam.com/video/pswL2vo935Y/v-deo.html
Good comment.
The F-35 certainly has its drawback and advantages. It's technology and power make it the best air to air platform, but at the same time it's complexity might disway Canada as they need something that can be launched at a moments notice.
As for the engine experts in the fields have confirmed that single cars dual engine is no longer a relevant topic given the reliability of modern engines. A Hornet and Viper pilot here on UA-cam gave his own two cents and sees it as an archaic mindset.
@@jacobbaumgardner3406 yea i think I've seen that video was by mover. But it's still funny that1 engine sets have always been around and ironically so e u reliable gets have been 2 engine. Like the 14 with its stall outside and the Cutlass. Two engines are usually used for larger jets or when you want more thrust
SAAB has an EW suite that jam enemy radars and similar. They also integrate almost any weapon to Gripen. The E version is under production right now and currently undergoing test in both Sweden and Brazil. Most likely in normal operation starting 2022. A reflection about turnaround. Changing engine has been done in 45 minutes, but the normal time is one hour. Quite impressive in my view. And turnaround between missions is normally 10-15 minutes.
As opposed to literally every other EW suite in the world whose job it is to guide enemy radars?
The Gripens has a decent EW suite. Its not the best EW suite, but its decent. Dont make it more than it is.
Additionally, integrating almost any weapon to Gripen is a misleading statement. Yes, the Gripen can be modified to be compatible with a variety of weapons, but it hasnt. To date it has a much more limited weapons variety than its main competitor, the F-16. So the main difference is that the Gripen has to be modified to carry additional weapons, while its competition is already capable of carrying said weapons.
Hope it will be Gripen...Excellent performance with low maintenance cost and high availability are key factors. SAAB also offer local build option
Even the Swiss don't want it!
Every time I hear how big the F-35's engine is, I just shake my head. That think is STONKING huge.
And LOUD!!! Big engine big noise.
And it should not fail.
@@neiljasonvillanueva1864 it fails far less than other Jets used in fighters
But its the slowest of the 3 options.
@@starexcelsior Sadly Japan AF has 1 crash.
I think the Gripen will be the best option for the RCAF
For Canada, I would probably pick the Grippen. All of the aircraft are good choices but you didn't provide cost figures. Setting home production will be expensive either way. The Grippen with probably be the most economical. The Hornet will have the easiest cross over training for your pilots and this comes with an expense tag as well. Unfortunately while the Hornet is an excellent aircraft it is towards the end of it's development which is a consideration. The other important data missing from your presentation was flight range with out refueling. This is very important considering the size of your airspace. While a 5th generation aircraft would be nice, even preferred they come with a stiff price tag. As the parts are a multi national effort I doubt you will be able to get a sole manufacturing license. Either way a lot to consider.
I would go with the JAS 39 Gripen.
F35 is the obvious choice. The A Model has a sustained rate near the F16 and can deliver stealth ordinance. Stealth means air superiority, its the obvious future proof choice. Single engine and high part compatibility if they want to purchase the B model.
The SAAB fighter sounds better suited. Better thrust to weight ratio, quicker turnaround, added ruggedness for arctic deployment.
One of the great thing of JAS 39 Gripen is it can armed with both AIM-120C and Meteor missiles but somehow F-18E can't armed with Meteor missiles.
Canada does not use the Meteor, so this is a non requirement
The good news is that all 3 of these jets have strengths and advantages in their own ways so Canada can’t go too far wrong. The world is getting more and more dangerous with the rise of China and the pace of tech change, so Canada cannot be complacent about the potential future threats and challenges.
Well spoken man
@John King Thank you. Nice comment.
The Australians purchased both F-35s and Super Hornets/Growlers. If Canada buys Super Hornets, they might consider to buy Growlers or at least Super Hornets pre-wired to convert into Growlers later. I would also like to see them all be 2 seat versions in order to prepare for future missions where a second person might help manage things like “loyal wingman” UCAVs and other UAVs being developed in such research as Project Skyborg in the USAF.
@@revolutionariesoffreedom Yes! Get them all!
Canada would bow to china before she fights
Everyone knows conflicts & threats to national security.. drives sales.. which means profit.. sucking up tax dollars... in a major way.. there is only one plane one get more bang for the buck & that's the Gipens.. and it's no slouch when it comes to performance.. I don't see standoff capabilities.. when close quarter fighting starts.. I would want something to handles demand.. standoff may be an effective strategy.. that won't last long with a determine aggressor..
The Gripen is the best for Canada over all. the Gripen has the speed, its cheap to keep in the air, and it can do every thing Canada needs. we do not need stealth.
It also wiped everyones ass at red flag
Well if you don't want to support Nato missions, then sure, I guess you don't need stealth.
@@omarn6989 There are already new techs on the way that will make Stealth a non factor. However I think Canada will choose a US plane for political reasons
agree ... Canada geese can see and bring down every kind of stealth flying machine via “kamikaze” activity ... 😂
@@kola360 it did?
1) The Gripen is out, IMO. It's range is roughly 1/2-2/3 of the other two (internal or external fuel). And intercepting 'bombers' over the arctic - with very few Canadian bases up there - means you need long range (and preferably two engines in case of malfunction). And the Gripen does not have it. In Sweden - with it's relatively small size - range means little. But in Canada, it means a lot. The Gripen is a small, relatively short range, lightweight fighter/bomber (it weighs about half - empty - as the other two) that is easy to service. It is not suited to long range interception.
I like the Gripen - and it's the cheapest - but it's just not suited to defending Canada's far north.
It's out, IMO.
2) The F-35 costs a ton and it has only one advantage - though it's a big one - stealth. But stealth is ruined if it has to carry external stores. And it's internal weapon's bays only carries 4 missiles - and I don't think you can carry extra fuel in them. But, even if you could, that leaves it with just two missiles and a gun. And if you load the external stores, it could compete with the Super Hornet in range and payload - but that kills it's stealth advantage...and it costs WAY more than either the F/A-18E/F or the Gripen E/F.
Plus, there is a political reason. Canada was all set to buy the F-35...then the liberals came in and said 'hold on there' and re-started the competition. It might look a bit silly if they go through all this mess, time and extra cost - just to pick the same plane the conservatives did. My guess is the liberals STRONGLY want to NOT pick the F-35 (purely for politics). But if the Conservatives get back in power before the decision - they would have incentive to choose the F-35 and wave it in the Liberal's faces.
3) The Super Hornet has two engines (would you rather fly over hundreds of miles of snow and water with one or two engines beneath you?) - though that is not major. Second, it's relatively cheap. Third, it has a great range. Fourth, it has the Growler option. The Growler is a radar jamming version of the Super Hornet. And if the Canadian Air Force has to ever attack against tough targets, the Growler would certainly help them with that.
Now, I don't think the purchase includes the Growler. But if they wanted it later, it is virtually the same plane with some alterations - so it would fit in perfectly with Canada's existing aircraft. And the Aussies thought so much of the Growler that of the 36 Super Hornet's they bought - fully 12 were Growler's.
For me - the choice is the Super Hornet.
Thanks very much for making this video.
You are wrong, the Gripen has the longest range of them all! Check the facts before you write something stupid like this!
@@jontus9925 The Gripen only has decent range and speed if it's not carrying weapons. Kind of a hard way to fight a war, dude. Think a little harder before you write something stupid like this! :D
I'd also add to the above that the Superbug is pre-wired and plumbed to serve as a tanker. That greatly expands it's mission flexibility and offers a capability that the others don't have.
The Superbug is truly "omnirole". Anti-ship, combat air patrol, interdiction strike, air superiority, jamming, tanker... It does it all.
GoSlash27 👍
GoSlash27 Good points.
Superbug? I like it.
I think the F-35 is a bad choice for Canada as it comes with a huge logistical & operational overburden. You have to look at the whole system not just the plane.
looking at the system is the whole point, just looking at the plane as a singular unit is no longer the major consideration, it is about the system, not the platform, and from any other option available there is not system that even comes close to the F-35
Tough to be honest, all the other fighters are good ones for the year 2020, but well use these fighters for decades to come, will they still be good in 2040 ? 2050 ? I think the only option is the F-35 when you look at long term effects, the F-35 will benefit from huge supply chain and a lot of models and spare parts available, slowly the cost of maintenance will go down.
@@aussienscale Nothing comes close to the amount of tax dollars F-35 is extracting from all the govts employing it.
@@kingnathiii1927 F-35 systems are highly integrated which makes modernization difficult. Hornet & Gripen are modular & have been designed to accept upgrades. There is also the F-35 problem of both limited space & cooling capacity. Consequently, the F-35 is stuck with its current level of avionics & sensors. These were cutting edge in 2006 but are becoming obsolete in the 2020's. If you're interested there is a lot of (public) information available through the Government Accountabilty Office (GAO) & the Office for Testing & Evaluation (OTE). However, everything else about this aircraft is highly classified so no one outside the program knows anything for sure & the people inside aren't talking.
What is public information is that this weapons system is extremely expensive to purchase, to operate & to maintain. There are also questions of national soverignty. LM owns all the code & will not let anyone else, including the US govt, modify it. If Canada buys this aircraft LM will be the entity that ulimately controls each plane. Hell, the plane won't even start without LM's permission. See the problem?
I’d say gripen as the main plane but a small flotilla of lightning 2 aircraft would be great too.
No question as far as i'm concerned, it's the Gripen. It's the fastest, it's the least expensive both to buy and to operate. There is no comparison. The incredible electronic warfare software will make it in the same league as the F35 as far as stealth, but is almost twice as fast as the F35. It has STOL which would be a huge advantage for hiding their airport from any enemy by using public roads and highways for short take off and landing. This would give protection to the Gripens from enemy aircraft bombing runways, which is a brilliant strategy. The re-fuel and re-arm in 10 minutes is a great plus too. As far as i'm concerned the Gripen E is by far the best and most affordable fighter for Canada, by a long shot. There's much more about the Gripen but it's late and i'm falling asleep.
@Paul Witham... the Gripen is only faster in airshow mode with clean wings. When the Gripen has a war load on it, it becomes very slow, and not very manuverable.
@@coldforgedcowboy Gripen E will still be much faster then F35 in air to air configuration. Gripen E can supercruise at mach 1,1 with air to air payload.
F35 can only carry 4 missiles and and two bombs in internally.
@John King the gripen has a combat radius of 1500km the F-35s is 1091km
@John King most of our aircraft sorties are air patrol and intercept missions a couple sidewinders or AMRAAMs and drop tanks is all you need for that mission set
That's new .. the Gripen is a Mach 3.2 airframe, since according to you it is twice as fast as the F-35. LOL
As soon as you put any meaningful payload on a 4th gen airframe they are all limited to subsonic speeds.
Buy the Gripen already. It was designed to take off and land on back roads and NOT have to rely on intact runways.
The Gripen would have no issues spending 24/7/365 in Canada's arctic.
It can carry any ordinance use by the US Airforce as well as any ordinance use by the member states of the EU.
All those thoughts about there being no problems with parts for the other two fighters BUT as we have seen in the last four(4) years, The US cannot be trusted to not just pull out of any agreement they wish. The Gripen bid INCLUDES building some of the Gripens on Canadian soil. The other two fighters would all be built in the US with no benefit to the Canadian Aircraft Manufacturers .
So Stop Flapping your Lips and buy the Gripen. Canada owes NOTHING to the US in regards to the F-35, it was a fighter designed by a committee.
The Gripen E/F is simply the next generation following the original A/B which was followed by the C/D.
The 1st letter of each grouping is the designation of the single seat version and the 2nd letter is for the two seat version.
The F-35 doesn't have the flight time on it's body design like the Gripen and the other US bid is cheap to buy but very expensive to keep if flight worthy shape.
I have to agree the Gripen seems like a no brainer of the three for the purposes it will be required for.
I agree with that. Sadly, the "netherland-experience" has been widley ignored.
Those not knowing: the first F-35A of the Netherland "Koninklijke Luchtmacht" has been greeted by a fontain of the airbases firefighters. Issue: someone flipped the switch from lightwater to foam. So the freshly arrived F-35A was covered in foam (fun fotos to watch). ...sadly, neither the for the aerodynamics needed stealth-cover took it too good, all the external sensors have been damaged so bad, the F-35 had to be sent BY SHIP back to the States for a total makeover.
...add to it, that after some 20 years of development, the F-35 only contains 800 pilot-killing bugs, I'd say no Air Force that gives a damn about its pilots buys F-35.
Also with the climate - Gripen is the wise jet (yet again)
@Christian Petak Buy Gripens today and we will throw in one free SAAB labeled ice scraper for each plane!
Can't agree more
Counterpoint: Most of Canada doesn't have any roads whatsoever, so unless Canada plans on surrendering all of it's northern territories, a light fighter (no matter how good) is probably not in their best interest.
F-18 Super Hornet Block 3. Cost , 2 engines, and legacy f-18 hands on knowledge!
Despite what everyone says, Canada will choose either F18 or F35 and it’s due to politics. Same reason for Norway and Denmark. Soon also Finland.
Sad but true
F/A-18 will not be chosen, the liberals have a vendetta against Boeing.
@@Dexter037S4 Liberals have a history of not giving a shit about the military and getting whats cheap, the SH is the cheapest option cause we already have a bunch of the ground maintenance tools for it.
Not only political option , F35 is only plane that can raid Russia undetected and destroy targets with JAASM.
@@theRealRindberg Is not sad at all , and not true 100%.
One thing is for sure, Gripen is the cheapest modern fighter to operate and maintain 👍🏻
It can also do turn around (refuel/rearm) in 10 minutes from a road base.
Try that with an American fighter....
Cost Per Flight Hours:
Gripen - 7000$
F35 - 42.000$
Purchase Cost Per Aircraft:
Gripen - 45 million
F35 - 180 million
Gripen is the most sensible, reliable, and cost effective option. It is the only one that offers assembly in Canada. It is by far the least expensive to purchase and to operate and it offers good interoperability with our allies, if not the same platform. What it doesn't have, is the support of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who have had their heart set on the F35 since it was vapour ware. Although the Gripen makes the most sense, the F35 will be the selected aircraft.
Let's hope that the Canadian Government realizes that the set-backs in production and upgrades and poor readiness states of the F-35 makes them think again. Way back when the Canadian Government first bought into the programme they were conceptual, and looked perfect on paper. Airforces around the world using the F-35 are having issues with replacement parts - with readiness states of around 60% for a $100 million aircraft.
Toss my hat in for the Super Hornet, with Gripen as a second. Too many issues ongoing with the f-35 to justify the extraordinary cost compared to the other options.
probably the f35 will freeze in the arctic with the ice on the wings etc
I think a hi-lo mix would be best and that way we could buy more total I think. Get a couple squadrons of F-35's, one for each coast, and then get either Gripen or Super Hornet for those air sovereignty missions. Super Hornet would be quicker in to service because we already use the Hornet and could realise some savings with parts most likely. But the Gripen is a fairly cheap option as well long term from my understanding.
Interesting proposal and thanks for commenting!
As odd as it sounds to buy 2 different aircraft, I totally agree that it makes sense, and wish the program was set up to allow this possibility. Part of that is for industry. As a part of the F35 supply chain we need to buy those to keep our industry, but we really only need a few squadrons as you suggested. I think we could buy mostly the super hornets and they would be well suited for long patrols in the Arctic, and a few squadrons of growler versions would support the F35s, and they would be less expensive to operate. All are good planes and are desperately needed.
Super Hornet and Gripen if they wanna go mix fleet. Both use the same engine and Gripen is design for NATO compatibility in mind. The engines can be sourced from US.
@@Joshua_N-A not that the CA government will choose 2 because they can be narrow minded but I think 1 option has to be F35 and either Gripen or Super Hornet. F35 is next gen far and away a superior fighter to both the ahornet and Gripen. It will allow us to operate in all threat environments and will make the Hoelrnet and Gripen better fighters by being the eyes out front collecting targetting data so the Hornet/Gripen can carry a big missile load and shoot
Saab is the best bet for Canada in my opinion. Best bang for the buck, and it operates under similar situations / environments that Canada does. Plus it can land on a highway and get serviced by a mobile crew. And since we train with the Americans a lot, I see bringing planes with different capabilities to the North American air defence game a bonus. Second choice is the hornet. F35 is too pricey and requires all new maintenance bays be built to handle it. But, my opinion only and I'm no pilot.
I love the gripen. Its probably the best fighter in the running for Canada's needs. However, their partnership in the F 35 program, and the existing training/support systems and familiarity with the hornet family going into the block 3 is a deal breaker for the gripen.
Honestly, the legacy hornet is a great plane. Also, the Canadians are very good at maintenance. .
Yes, they did it well with the Leo C1 to the Leopard C2A1 Mexas just before they remove it from the service for the Leopard 2a4m and the 2a6m. The Super Hornet Block III is cool but the best for the RCAF is the Gripen. i just dont like the F-35.
The one to choose would be the one that cost the less to adapt for Arctic missions which is one of the things that Canada is looking for
What is it with this arctic BS? Canada need to be able to operate all over the world, period. The problem with the arctic is Logistics, not the machines. What do think the temperature is at 40,000 feet anyway?
@@PappyGunn what do you Think it is when you're flying over the North pole?
Plus, unless you're flying over the clouds, what are you gonna do during a low altitude engagement in a blizzard? And how are you going to land? It ain't BS. It's a unique environment found in only a handfull of countries around the world and only one other has the same territorial size.
@@Kamenriderneo No reason to fly low in the arctic. No one would plan an invasion there - it would be suicide. What they need is high altitude intercept capability only. Any of the planes will do that just fine.
@@blacquejacqueshellaque6373 And yet, it is still part of Canada's official requirements.
The craft must be able to operate, take off and land in an Arctic environment
I like the JAS 39. It looks the best! haha
Fighters need to be cheap, easy to maintain, and have massive weapon capacity/variety.
The F-35 is great but the Gripen can carry more of the same weapons. JAS-39 also has some EMC that makes it almost stealth anyway.
But the F-35 is becoming cheaper with the power of economy of scale and advancement in manufacturing. It will outnumber the gripen by the hundreds in the future and support for the aircraft are set to be 40+ years. It is Future proofness vs fufilling short term requarments.
The Gripen does not have EMC that can make it almost stealth. It has a variety of systems on it, but virtually all modern fighters have an electronic warfare suite. This includes the F-35. The ASQ-239 is significantly more powerful than EWS on other fighters, enough so that it can compete with dedicated electronic warfare platforms. If you want the absolute most capable platform, get the F-35. Gripen is cheaper and easier to maintain but not nearly as capable as an F-35.
@@Tonius126 Given a very recent president and the USAs protectionist tendencies showing up again......do you think it is wise to buy American? Better to be able to resupply from within as much as possible IMO....that includes building the jet outright
I have a nick for the Gripen too. For one the F-35 is really all that agile from an aeronautics perspective and lives and dies with it's stealth capabilities (there's a reason why the F-22 isn't for sale). But to reiterate the point i believe that stealth is something that advanced nations could very well overcome in the next 5-15 years so i wouldn't buy something where there have been made big compromises to accommodate that.
Which leaves the Hornet or the Gripen. But again i have a nick for the Gripen.
@@Dear_Mr._Isaiah_Deringer This is not true. The reality is that F-35 is a mach 1.6 fighter with kinematic and maneuvering performance equal to that of an F-16 when in combat configuration. For one, the F-35 in any configuration has better performance than a super hornet. Better thrust to weight, agility, top speed, range, etc. No comparison there. Out of the 3 aircraft, the F-35 has the most powerful avionics as well. The ASQ-239 being notably more powerful than the EWS on Gripen E or super hornet. F-35 is packing about as much power as a Growler in that regard.
The Gripen in terms of performance isn't all that special either. For one, its very underpowered with a thrust to weight that is the lowest out of the 3. In fact, its lower than most legacy platforms. It is agile, but its overall payload capacity and combat configured performance leaves a lot to be desired. Range too, it only has 7500 pounds of internal fuel, meaning the advertised combat radius is only possible with external fuel tanks. In this configuration, the Gripen is not great in terms of performance. Not to mention an F-35 on internal fuel only can almost match a Gripen with 3 external fuel tanks in terms of range. There is no question that the F-35 is a much more capable platform. If you think that its totally reliant on stealth, then you are quite frankly not up to speed on the capabilities of the F-35. The gripen is an excellent cheap option if you want a versatile sustainable aircraft, but it is by no means superior in terms of survivability without stealth.
I will give Gripen some credit in some regards though. Out of all euroconards it is absolutely the best plane coming from europe. Do not think im knocking that jet. The Salex ES-5 radar uses powerful GaN technology along with the widest field of view out of any radar. It may lack the raw power of the F-35's APG-81, but for an aircraft this cheap, its an incredible deal. The Gripen's EWS is no slouch either. Then you have the meteor missile. If you are looking for the most capable fighter money will buy, get an F-35. If you want bang for your buck, get the Gripen E. The F-35's flyaway cost is interestingly enough, lower than gripen however. It is 78 million vs 85 million for the new gripens. This is only because of the US's purchasing power and economy of scale. Gripen has some of the lowest operating costs of any fighter making it fantastic. I still think Canada should get the F-35 though.
I think training wise it should be the Super Hornet. Readiness wise the Gripen. And stealth wise the F35.
There is no single greatest aircraft, they all have their ups and downs. My favorite is the Gripen but in my opinion Canada should get the Super Hornet.
PentaBOSS Canada doesn’t need stealth f 35
Pentaboss... The gripen is under powered and has a short combat radius. The F-18 has 1960's aerodynamics and is G limited because it is a naval fighter.
@kevin lawrence And the Gripen have the longest combat radius!
The F-35 should be a adopted in small amounts and used for purely high value missions while the other two aircraft fight to replace the main fleet.
Imagine they surprise us and bring back the arrow
I love thinking of epic unlikely scenarios like these
Need more information, such as fighters' cost, maintenance cost, cost per operation, and so on.....
From what I can find on the net the Grippen E is cheaper cost per flight hour that is less than half of the F18 and 1/4 of the f-35. It is priced between the two cost wise
JAS-39. Sweden is northern country and the Gripen would be adapted to that environment but more importantly, with possibility that if Russia invaded all of Sweden’s airbases would be destroyed in about two days, the Gripen was built with the ability to land and take-off from ordinary highways and be refueled and rearmed in under 10 minutes. Therefore, it has quick deploy/dispatch time. If the Canadians follow the example of Sweden, they could store weapons and fuel near their borders with idea that in a fight at the borders, the Gripen would have place to refuel and re-arm close by and would be able to return to the fight quickly.
Speed and readiness well under than most important requirements THE SAAB GRIPEN
gripen, for the readiness, futureproof tech and cost.
Buy once cry once. The F-35 gets you unique capabilities for the money and a fundamentally upgradeable platform that will essentially have a 5th gen jet evolve into something significantly more over its lifespan. This is at a time when nations are planning or even possibly already flying 6th gen prototypes due to the use of full computer design becoming so mature. Canada happens to partially sit in an increasingly contested area of the world. The math is quickly changing for them and honestly, the fact they haven't acted a decade ago on this decision is a political failure.
@@RJT80 can not answer for what abiletys the F-35 have and can have but Gripen i currently the newest airplain and have the best opportunety for upgrading. Already now its not so much about the airframe but more how the software and hardware can be upgraded. And for that gripen is outstanding.
Gripen isn't a competitor of the F35, despite them wanting it to be. The F35 would handily smoke a whole flight of gripens without ever being detected itself. What 5th gen brings to the fight is a cheat code compared to any 4+ aircraft.
@@mhamma6560 well gripen provide the most in combination with other platforms. So the F-35 is good but not that good. The stelth on the F-35 might be problamatic for the gripen radar but groundbase and survalance plane would be compensating. Also Gripen have IR search and track. One also should be clear with the SAAB EW capability, also the offensive one is top of the line.
Millenium 7 made a video discussing Gripen stats in Redflag. Inly F22 had better statistics.
Hard to evaluate but there is always some info in it.
Very often the F35s capability is over rated. I mean ita ofcourse good. But it always have downsides. Design is always a question of trade off.
@@elfi9003 The F35 and F22s are unrivaled in red flag. Nothing can touch them. The gripen's EW capabilities are good, but not better than the F35. As far as bombing goes, the gripen w/ 2 drop tanks has a pretty small payload. It's always having to run around near max weight and despite what everyone likes to claim, those drop tanks limit the gripen to 6Gs. That's pretty bad.
Let's talk cost per hour of flight. Gripen cost 4000 dollars, the same as MIG fighters. F35 cost 35000 dollars per hour. Lets also talk size/radar reflection. During Red Flags 2019 Gripen fought for the first time as the opposing team against the allies. Gripen went 6-0. Only F22 had a better score.. The same thing is said in exercise between Eurofighter pilots and Gripen. Gripen is so small that radar cant "see them" until its to late. Last: Thailand had exercise against chinas latest planes. Thai Gripen won each sortie. Gripen also can use highways for temporary airbases, a must for a country that are at war. Airbases will be bombed / cruise missiles day one in a war. Therefore in Sweden Gripen Squadrons would be deployed all over the country on highways since the Gripen can be serviced/refueled and armed by 4 conscripts. Stealth is a kindergarten in a real war. (and I do not talk about a 3 world country against the biggest army in the world. )
Excellent points and thanks for commenting!
I agree. Gripen is an intelligent choice. Built in Canada (Know how, jobs), small(stealth, maintenance, cost) and powerful(red flag, supercruise, modern avionics, weapons,versatility), short runways(survivability), compatibility of existing infrastructure (tankers, F-18engines).
F35 went 20-1 at red flag 2018, it's easily the best jet available to canada and they would be stupid not to buy it. And btw, your operating costs are off
Do you have links to that exercise data?
@@masterofpuppets7295 Was that BVR? Once the engagement progresses, F-35 may not hold an advantage, especially since it hasn't really proven its worth as a close-in dogfighter when its limited supply of missiles is exhausted.
The biggest reason the Gripen makes more sense to me is STOL. The F18 and F35 both can't use shorter runways like we have north of 60 degrees. We have two bases in the middle of Canada that they could use thousands of KM from where we usually intercept. However if we buy the Gripen all those bases north of 60 become useable. That gives us better interception times and more options for emergency landings. So places like Goose Bay, Resolute Bay, Inuvik, Tuktayuktuk, Yellowknife, Whitehorse etc. could become forward operating bases. The legacy Hornets never could use those bases and neither will the maintenance heavy F35.
Gripen, Gripen, Gripen.
@juscurious I live in Canada. We can't afford to keep up with the Jones (i.e. USA). Gripen is a better fit for our environment when what we need is to protect our country, not run around the world with the USA. It cost less to buy and MUCH less run.
@juscurious hence the result of years and years of Liberal rule. They think the world is full of Unicorns and Rainbows.
Like the new blister tanks on the Super Bug. Great performance and versatility but short legs, because range was never considered a priority by the Navy, who always assumed they would truck them up to the enemy's doorstep via carrier. Range is also an issue with the Lightning 2, as is the cost/benefit question of stealth in the defensive interceptor role. The Gripen seems the best match for Canada's needs. Patrolling and securing the airspace of their vast territories is a mission where quantity has a quality all it's own, and the lower aquisition and operations cost allows you to put more birds up. They'll stay up longer too, as range and turnaround time is a much underrated force multiplier. The ramjet-powered meteor missile can kill from an incredible range, and it's mauser cannon, packing 10X the ammo of the gun in the F-35, is absolutely murderous close in.
In the end, they'll probably get strong-armed into buying American, in which case the SH would be the way to go.
The F-35 has the best range by far.
Canada does not patrol our Arctic but if the RCAF did they would use Patrol aircraft.
Not multirole fighters.
@@pablovonyaletown5997 Yes if 2500 Km (f35) is more than 4000 Km (Gripen E). Yes, then f35 has the best range. 🤣
@@hemligx-sson8202 Ferry range vs combat range
the Gripen is impressive. but I think the F-35 & F-18 Super Hornet, a mixed purchase makes the most sense.
You have much higher costs when you have to sustain two airframes. That makes little sense to me.
I was all for the F-35, but it's Gripen E for Canada now. F-35 is sooo costly, which may not have been a problem if they were working as intended. Constantly delayed software upgrade issues, $700K helmets that still do not work properly, issues flying in Thunderstorms as it damages their stealth coating, poor availability of spare parts, only a plus/minus 60% readiness state through most squadrons, thousands of software bugs needing fixing. Hours and hours between sorties, versus a 10 minute turnaround for the Gripen. $39,000 cost per hour flight-time of the F-35 versus about $9,000 for the Gripen.
Yes the F-35 is stealthy, but has a very limited sized internal weapons bay which, depending on the missiles loaded, will only hold two - four air to air missiles. Adding any more on the wings hardpoints , and the stealth factor is gone until the external ordinance is fired. This is the reason that the USAF is looking at pairing them with F-15 which carry a LOT of ordinance (non-stealthy of course).
Lastly, I applaud Sweden for their self-reliance instead of always buying out-sourced technology. Canada used to be a leading aero-tech country - look at it's state now.
Much appreciate the update PilotPhotog.
Gripen E has "electronic STEALTH" with the new AREXIS EW suite...much better because it can be upgraded and adapt to enemy radar.
F35 STEALTH is built in the airframe...
@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc if it's so much better, why is SAAB hovering around the Tempest program, which features traditional stealthy airframe?
The Swiss evaluated the Gripen to have a cost per flight hour of more than $26,000. More than twice the quote given to them by SAAB.
@@Beliserius1 They are involved in the Tempest project because it's too expensive to build your own 6th gen fighter...it's NOT because of STEALTH.
I imagine SAAB and Sweden will NOT have an expensive maintanence fighter.
@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc Lol, you think Stealth is not a main feature in the Tempest? You are D E L U S I O N A L.
Pretty much ALL major powers in the world is now investing in some form of stealth aircraft. Get a grip guy.
I notice that some comments want a selection of each. That is very expensive as it would mean three different types of spares, training, training for technicians etc. They need one type, the F-35 is expensive to buy and operate, F- 18 is getting old and will be the first to be obsolete. Economically and capability, Gipen is I believe the best option especially as an interceptor with the quickest turnaround and Americans forget that a SAAB aircraft was the only one to get a missile lock on a SR 71.
A SAAB got missile lock on an SR71 that wasn't concerned about it having a lock on it. I always get a kick out of that story. But to your point, a selection of each would add increased logistical cost. But the f18 rhino isn't getting old, the f18 hornet is. They're very similar in design but are two different aircraft. If Canada was geographically separated from the US and solely responsible for its own air defense I would recommend they go with the F35 all day long. But context matters and the reality is that Canada can and does consider the US capabilities as a factor in its own decision-making. The US provides the stealth aspect of Canadian air defense (NORAD) and Canada can opt in to that capability with the F35 or continue to support through the use of more traditional fighters. My guess is they go with the Rhino. Two engines, easy supply chain, less change to training, etc. The Rhino is a far better BVR platform than the current Hornet so it's a significant upgrade. You can argue the Gripen is a cheaper option and better dogfighter, but I would submit that the F16 block 70 provides everything the Gripen does but is cheaper.
Dogfights do not exist anymore and intercept missions are not fully based on what type of aircraft you have anymore. It's what missiles and the range they have. The best missle available is the meteor. These can be launched from a Grippen and 35. The range is 54 nmi. I urge the RCAF to go with the 35
@@toddbleakney609 Traditional dogfights could exist again, especially between two stealthy aircraft but I agree that they're at a minimum extremely rare. The Aim 260 is almost ready for operations....
@@toddbleakney609 why do people consider the Meteor the best or the longest range NATO missile? The AMRAAM AIM120D has a 100 mile range. I think the 260 is supposed to be close to 200 miles.
@@trevor108 I believe the meteor has some of the most recent technology. I know it has the biggest "no escape zone" for any aam's, apparently. So more of a success rate at hitting its target
Given the need for air intercept missions over the arctic the Avro Arrow is the only choice
Gripen has the best performance/dollar ratio. A really good fit.
Politics? Then F-35.
Trade-off with great attack capabilities? F18
I can see them all, but Gripen should win.
In line with what you said, considering Canada's got such a large and sparsely populated territory, the aircraft's interceptor potential is the most important thing, ie. top speed and ability to scramble quickly. On paper that looks like the Gripen, although the aspects of the ease of transfer to the new aircraft and political / economic factors favour the Super Hornet and F35 respectively.
I don't claim to know better than the Canadian generals or anything like that, but personally none of these would be my first choice if I were them. I'm not sure that these multi-role planes are really what Canada needs so much as something geared more exclusively to air superiority and intercept missions. I think their ideal choice is the F-15 EX.
I've always said the same thing about the F15 EX its range payload and speed make it Ideal for Canada's needs
I think you have a great point......Ask for a super F15EX with thrust vectoring Nozzles. Definitely would be a Match for anything Russia currently has....
Good choice but I think that the F-16XL is a better option for Canada.
This is 2020. Not 1960. Bomber intercept is not a prime need.
The Grippen is under powered and has a really short combat radius. It is a no go!!
I had the pleasure of working with a Canadian F-18 squadron when I flew adversary at Miramar in the early 1990's. Great guys and very capable.
I would guess that their needs are much more toward airspace defense. They need something that can get out away from the borders, have some stealth and some loitering time with the capability to reach out to multiple targets. They probably won't be in the mode of offensive operations, so though I'm a big fan of the F-35, it may not be optimized for their mission. The Gripen is a great airplane, and so is the Super Hornet. With the conformal tanks becoming available for the S.H., it may have better standoff without the need to refuel than the Gripen. From what I know of the Gripen, payload, range and loiter may favor the S.H. But, budget may favor the Gripen. Either would be a good upgrade for sure. If money were no object, I'd think the S.H. would be better.
But really, Canadian defensive needs are minimal except for NATO commitments. The only need for something like the F-35, for Canada, is if they have a heavy priority on that, NATO commitments. In that scenario, where they are basing fighters in a densely packed, shorter range battlefield - think Baltic nations - I'd go Gripen (especially given its formidable self jamming capabilities) for defense, but F-35 for offense if they're basing in the Scandinavian arena from which they could throw longer range offensive punches. U.S. forces would be involved heavily with F-35's, so a few from Canada may not be as critical as a few Gripens.
These days, battlefield integration is key, regardless.
If I were an operator being told, "you're going into battle", I'd want to go feet dry in the F-35, for sure!
Well, was that a fancy way of saying "I don't know" or what?
Edit: This is an outstanding overview from PilotPhotog
F18 super hornet, training costs are low, old parts can be used to repair the new planes, two engines is a safety feature when flying in the middle of the artic
@Peter Lorimer Because with every new generation of fighter, engine reliability has gotten better. The F-16 and legacy Gripen have stellar safety records and operate regularly in the Arctic. The new F135 engine is even more advanced than previous generations and will likely offer even better engine reliability stats over time. Two engines just adds more operating costs now days and not much benifit other than additional safety for rare events like bird strikes or even rarer events like total engine failure.
@@AirShark95 Besides, the argument for two engines for reliability back in the eighties had nothing to do with bird strikes. Bird strikes occur most often during takeoff and landing. Finding a downed pilot from a bird strike is likely to be much easier, since the aircraft will likely go down near an airport. That just leaves engine reliability, and as you pointed out, today's engines are MUCH more reliable than the jet engines from the '70s & '80s. Operating costs are much more of a factor today, and a single engined a/c will bring those costs down considerably. The Gripen would also reduce our reliability on the U.S.
CF-18 parts cannot be used on the Super Hornet. They are completely different aircraft.
Two engines are not a safety feature. The F-35 has a vastly better safety record than any twin engine fighter.
@@dat581 Wrong. Your statistics include data that is decades old when engines were less reliable. Claiming that two modern engines are less reliable than one makes you sound like a moron.
The Gripen by far. The thing is designed for the north and QAR (quick action response) and I don't see Canada ever making an offensive, but if it does, SAAB Gripen isn't that bad of a offensive peice
Its a terrible offensive piece and quite overhyped in its capabilities.
Single-engined plane that is supposed to run intercept missions over long distance without having any of the F-35s advantages. No thanks.
@@johanlassen6448 So you are Canadian?
@@hemligx-sson8202 Jag är svensk, dumskalle.
@@johanlassen6448 Så trevligt att du presenterar dig. Är du döpt till dumskalle eller är det ett öknamn? Sökte du jobb på SAAB i Linköping och fick nej tack? Du låter verkligen som en rabiat idiot som har fått nobben. 🖕
@@hemligx-sson8202 Du kan skrika och gråta så mycket du vill min arga lilla babian. Det förändrar inte faktumet att Gripen åkte på däng igen.
I don't think Canada wants to pay for the F-35 right now. The Block3 Hornet is nice, but the Grippen's built in and integrated ECM and electronic warning suite is really the icing on the cake. The Grippen is the only one of theses three that can super cruise, something that will come in handy when patrolling and traversing a large country like Canada, and the price is very attractive. The only con to the Grippen is it's relative lack of stealth. Does Canada really need to pay big bucks for stealth? I don't think so.
Here's what I really think; If it weren't for America's tremendous diplomatic power, Saab would be selling a shit load more Grippens to a lot more countries than they currently do. The plane is amazing and at an amazing price. Honestly, the U.S. should have some, they are that damn good.
Well said !!!
The Geipen suits Canada's mission set best
You obviously do not know what Canada’s missions are.
I think we should do 75% Saab, the rest into a few F35s.
I would prefer the hornets to the cf 35s
in my opinion the lifetime cost and the range are the two biggest factors.
Intercepting in our northern regions could become a focus in the next decades as the Northwest Passage open up to trade.
Its a LONG way from 4 wing in Cold Lake AB or 5 wing in Goose Bay NL all the way up to the arctic.
I wish you make one detailed video about JF-17 fighter jet. But with correct facts and right details. Hope to see it soon. And good work. Keep it going 😊
Thanks for commenting - I still do plan a JF-17 fighter but usable footage is somewhat hard to come by. What if I used DCS for the video footage?
@@PilotPhotog Facts and right data matters more in my view (for me) but I am not the your only viewer 😊. It's OK, you can take your time. Good to know it's in your list. I can wait.
@@revolutionariesoffreedom"The tea is fantastic"
Said by Indian Air Force Wing Commander being shot down by Pakistan Air Force pilot in actual air force fight between two countries and after drinking tea, expressing his thoughts about tea 😂 😂 😂 😂. Always remember it. Never forget it 😊. Now you can say whatever you want to try to heal your wounds
@@PilotPhotog They seem to pretty open about the technical specifications on it.
The Avro Arrow should do the trick....I wish. My vote is on the Gripen, Super Hornet is my runner up.
Will you guys just let the Arrow go already? It is 2020.
I like the Grippen. Has more range to patrol, better for Artic weather as Canada is in winter most of the year.
It seems more compact, and faster at Mach 2, and they said faster turnaround for continuous missions. Have some F18 for World missions.
The f-35 and super hornet both have Superior range I don't know where you got that information from
I was comparing F35 and Grippen. As Canada already has F18 and seems to be moving on to something they don't have.
@@stevel1475 the superhornet and the legacy hornet are extremely different
Gripen. Lightweight, small radar signature, varied payload, fast and quick turnaround, and, above all, low operating cost with the best EW warfare.
It does not have a small radar signature with an air to ground payload, and it for sure does not beat the EW capabilities of the F-35. A varied payload does not matter because Canada only operates weapons armed to the F-18C/D, which means that all of the aircraft above can operate the required payloads. Speed is greatly diminished with any payload due to all the extra drag, and its reduced range means that in the end, the speed does not matter because it will have spent all its fuel to get to the battle. It is cheaper to procure and maintain than the other options, I will give you that. However, in the short term, many of the procurement costs will be offset by the additional maintenance equipment and training that comes from operating a new airframe. The challenge with Canada is first and foremost its size. An F-18E with conformal fuel tanks sounds particularly appealing in this manner. Now, personally, I like the Gripen, but it is more of a competitor for the F-16 than for a larger fighter like the F-18, but low cost is about all it has going for it, and if that mattered, the MiG29 might be more their speed. (Disclaimer) I deduced range logically. I figured that the mission would require the same payload. Each payload would deduct same weight from external fuel stores. I then reasoned that after payload, which aircraft had more external fuel weight by calculated remaining weight as potential fuel weight. I then factored in fuel consumption by looking at ferry range and ferry fuel weight, divided and found that the Gripen had a slightest edge. However, the edge is minor (about 150 nmi) I think that the conformal fuel takes will easily make up the difference.
@@prestonlee9965 Good to know you have interest in the subject. Just see reports on the last Red Flag exercises, and Gripen was second to Raptor. The margin of the mission success ratio was too narrow in favour of the Stealth. Considering the Raptor is far superior to the F35, one can assess the capability of Gripen.
As for the signature with payload, that's an obvious thing. The stealth fighters get compromised in such scenarios once the ammunition is stacked on the external hardpoints. I HOPE YOU GET MY POINT.
@@prestonlee9965 As for the ferry range, it gets irrelevant in the modernday airwarfare with the Tankers and AEWS in the fleet. Canada, if obtains the Gripen, could develop an EW envelope just like Sweden. The operational capabilities from roads gives the SAAB great advantage. Please, don't compare the Gripen with the Viper. That's hardly a match. The Gripen, also, has a great AESA radar to eliminate big birds BVR.
@@SMayedAli Since when did Dogfighting stats have anything to do with a good fighter aircraft for a nation. I can say with certainty the F-22 would be a horrible fit for Canada's needs. Canada threats are mostly large bomber/civilian aircraft, or ground targets, both of which don't need any actually ability to fly fighter vs. fighter. Like i said, the Gripen is a great plane, but all of its technology and design make it a low cost fighter, which it does rather well. However, Canada does not need a fighter as much as in needs a long range interceptor/ground support aircraft, which are roles that the Gripen was not designed for considering the light weapon load out. In all honesty, the best choice would have been the Eurofighter with the power, capacity, speed, and range. And as for stealth, any payload will compromise the stealth of aircraft without internal stores. The F-35 has a greater EW suit, which combined with the its internal bays allows for maximum stealth (there is a reason it is marketed in SEAD role, its EW suit playing a large part in that).
@@SMayedAli I meant no offense by the Viper part. I meant the comparison to compare roles, not aircraft.
Gripens built in The Great White North. Hell yeah!!!
Honestly, for Canada's needs, the best option is a hybrid fleet. Have 1/2 to 2/3 either Gripens or Super-hornets for cost effective air patrol and interception missions, and 1/2 to 1/3 F35s for high threat operation and potential foreign deployment.
Objectively, the F35 is a superior fighter platform being true 5th gen aircraft, however it is a costly girl, and a lot of Canada's airforce's missions are intercepting Russian aircraft. A mission less suited for a high maintenance stealth aircraft.
We don't need foreign deployment, none of the missions carried over the past 20 years in the middle east were justified. We need to wean ourselves from neocon partnerships to bomb third world countries for nefarious reasons.
If anything that's the only way DND can afford geting new ships for the RCN and new planes for the RCAF. They want both but the budget means they can only afford one or other unless they serriously cut back. If anything chances are they'd want the ships more then the planes, so they whould be more likely to cut back on getting new planes meaning a mixed fleet of F-35's and Gripens.
Is you want an air superiority fighter.... Then look no further than the F-15.
*F15EX FTW !!!
My thought exactly. The F15 ticks all boxes.
A shame it's not in the running... But it's not in the running. If we were able to pick whichever plane is "best", I'd go with the Rafale.
@@GoSlash27 dassult pulled out but I don't know why Boeing wouldn't be willing to sell the f-15
@@GoSlash27 Rafale is inferior to these jets but good for it's current role abroad.
Gripen is the right choice.
No superhornet is the right choice
Its Gripen the swedish word for griffin. lighter an faster and long rangeand are made for uppgrades like the new jas aggressor,
Yes it is...🇸🇪👍💛💙
Peter Griffin.Fat and slow!
@@Neil-Breen F16?
Really? No shit? None of I us had any clue that about the word “Grippen” sounded like the English word “Griffin.” Even though they phonetically sound the same. You sir, are an asset. Canada needs you.
@@ActuallyCPOS okej i get it.. an its not Grippen... Its Gripen Sound Griii pen.
Great video! What about cost per unit - on Day 1, and over the next 5-10+ years? The overall defence capability will surely depend on how many of each aircraft type can be purchased, and efficiently operated.
88 are being purchased irregardless of the type
The Gripen is such a good choice. It's fast, extremely versatile, has a proven record in cold-weather and harsh conditions, is cheap and easy to maintain and would have a true local workforce brought in. Plus, Gripen does not force us into a proprietary software agreement with Boeing or Lockheed. That means we could develop our own flavor of the control software and collaborate with allies to upgrade, enhance or customize it. Compare this to Lockheed who binds you into a maintenance contract over the proprietary software and charges you an indecent amount annually for it for as long as you fly the damn thing! :o
Did I mention the price? It's not even funny how much the F-35 is overpriced for the needs we have. So much so that the future-proof argument is negated by the fact that the upfront cost is downright insane. How many additional brand new Gripen can you buy with all that you save from buying it over the F-35? Do the math and see for yourself.
Let's be realistic: The Gripen will not win the contract because they don't have the lobbying power that US companies have over our softy local politicians. But for the role we need it for, it's clearly the best choice. Any major conflict would require us to ask for the help of our allies anyway. But since we all know there's almost no chance that Canada will ever be implicated in a major war, the Gripen would never be needed to be used as anything else than a fast interceptor. And that is what it is.
Anyway, let's see what those big wigs in Ottawa FINALLY decide (I mean, WTF!?)... but I suspect they are gonna go with one of the US options: Either an overpriced toy we don't need or an old airframe that costs us way too much to operate and is not flexible enough in the age of the electronic battlefield...
i think they should take mostly gripens and some f-35, maybe 7 to 3 or 8 to 2
won't happen, CAF is on a shoe string budget. the govt keeps handing out lot's of $ to all the special interest cultural groups.
Think you are very right. Though the new Saab EW-missile for the gripen is damn good. Might even make the F-35 capabilety some what redundant.
Actually. Check out that missile. Damn cool stuff.
Gripen... built in Canada with the help of Swedish Experts. (Mic Drop)
Amen brother
Combo of gripen for home defence and f 35 for international support missions could be nice to see. They're already invested in the f 35 program and it would be kinda weird to not buy the jet for that reason.
Nah
When you drop that mic, make sure its not engineered/made in Sweden, or you'll be waiting months for parts... lol
The f35 program is already employing a lot people in Canada since local companies are already involved in Lockheed's supply chain. This is not a for nor against, Canada/USA have a complex integrated manufacturing spaghetti, building a brand new product in Canada may have unseen consequences. If saab could bring jobs with no USA retaliation the choice is obvious but i doubt it.
I strongly think they should do a combo buy. Meaning like 44 Saabs and 44 F35s
Thanks for commenting, that would be ideal
The issue with that is costs and training hours. You would need to procure parts for 2 entirely different aircraft types, as well as having 2 entirely different groups of people trained to fly and maintain each respective aircraft.
@@TgsMaverick I dont think It would be that terrible. Saab said they would move some production to Canada, and Canada already makes f35 parts. But the combo of stealthy + fast and cheap would work out i think.
Too small a buy for a building deal.
Why not a 90 Gripen E and 30 F35?
a major consideration is the flight hours vs. maintenance hours required. A fighter with all kinds of advantages does no good if you can't get it in the air more than once in a while.
All things considered, I would like to see the F-35 selected. Considering we've already invested in it, I would love to see a return on that investment. My second choice would be the F/A 18 Super Hornet due to how familiar it would be for pilots/support crew. But thats just me
No mention of the F-35 only able to carry 4 missiles inside the hull and everything beyond that canceling the stealth ability. Which is questionable anyway if IR pods are as good as we heard in this video..
A fair point and I go more into detail on the F-35 here: ua-cam.com/video/pswL2vo935Y/v-deo.html thanks for commenting!
Not necessarily you can build missiles with stealth capabilities remember the external gun on the f-35b and c both have stealth capabilities of their own as to not break the f-35 stealthiness
A new weapons rack called the "Sidekick" has been developed that allows the F-35 to carry 6 AMRAAMs internally.
They aren't.
@@spartanx9293 No one is contesting the current ''radar stealth capacity'' of the F-35, which will most likely be obselete during its service life(1). (2) Price per unit, price per flight hour + maintenance time. Whichever way the F-35 is configured, the Gripen will simply be more (3) available to response, (4) quicker to respond for NORAD duties using the (5) METEOR (most leathal). The F-35 is an amazing asset, it just does't fit the role for Canada. That being said, the Super Hornet would be my second choice.
Cool. Do what Australia is doing: fleets of F/A-18 Super Hornets, Hornets, & F-35 Lightning II.
And add EA18G Growlers to the Super Hornets and order Australia's Loyal Wingman drones a formidable combination.
The FA/18 Super Hornet block lll variant is the best fit in my opinion. Since Canada has such a large airspace a long range, multi role tactical fighter is perfect the best fit for the northern parts of Canada.
Canadian Air Force Pilots have always said they need a two engine. So that leaves ... ?
agreed, i bet the Echo Hornet wins out for redundancy, familiarity, range and costing. the Boeing/Bombadier fiasco won't factor into this procurement.
@M T we already bought a bunch of used Aussie Hornets to fill the NORAD gaps which is the same good logic you suggest. but this is a multi decade purchase so they will go new and get it wrong like the SAR platform.
@@SSaugaCriss Tha's what I'm afraid of...
Then why would Canada have injected millions into the F-35 program, if it never intended to validate its potential for RCAF?(because pilots wouldn't fly single engine...)
That being said, I agree in general with that ''principal''(2 engines better than one, but...).
Canadian Pilots never had an issue flying the F86, or the CF104. If they have an issue flying single engine fighters, that leaves out the F-35 as well as the Gripen.
Good video, tough decision. Each has different strengths; F18 - familiarity and mass production for many countries; SAAB - built for cold climates, rough conditions, small support requirements; F35 - Stealthy but costly, will be in production, refinement and improvement for the longest time. The determining factor will be cost. How many can Canada afford to buy and maintain as well as the benefits of production in Canada. Also international relations. Take care of your allies.
the problem with stealth is that they are only invisible to monostatic radar not bi-static radar and besides they give
away their position as soon as they switch on their own radar
not true
Stralth is as usefull as a submarine the secound the plane scans for outher planes it shows where it is.
@@apis_aculeiThe F35 uses Radar reflectors whilst not in a combat area, the reason, it's for Civilian Air Traffic Controllers to be able to control their Airspace.
@@apis_aculei they're in civilian airspace. Traffic requires visibility.