Submitted my application to become a fighter pilot in the RCAF a few months ago and once I graduate next month and submit my final academic transcript, my future is set to be one of the first if nit the first CF-35A fighter jet pilot in the RCAF 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Not yet boy the gripen is the right choice it has better advantages than the F35 it has the ability to land highways and imagine doing that in the middle of the Antarctic that would be cool and plus the gripen has been combat tested the F35 has done only one raid and plus dude the us airforce is building up a fourth gen fleet because many in the airforce in culling pilots who have been to war zones and flew in combat missions say it’s a dud because if the wings and plus the jet is made from composites that make every single different variant and once the Chinese find the missing F35 which will be way before you step in the cockpit they already no the secrets and then they tell the Russians the weakness of the plane and then what is the point of having the fighter anyway
Th F35 we bought are Block 4 and those are scheduled to ship starting in 2026. So, 2025 delivery is unlikely. The reason the USAF, Marines and Navy are pulling the numbers of F35 purchase is that they also want to maximize block 4 units. Currently, they are buying block3 and those will need to be upgraded later on, which is what USA wants to avoid. Bloc[k] 4 is said to [gradually] fix some 800 defects (minor to major), including powerplant upgrade for some 30% more performance, a mission-critical component for Canada
@@criticalevent it's cute how you think you're cute by denigrating my comment by calling it cute. It's also presumptuous to think I'm not aware their plans can change anytime. As far as Canada is concerned, IMO, I would have preferred the Super Hornet but Boeing fncked us on the C-Series so I'm OK not doing business with them. The political playfield changed drastically last month so we're faced with a hard decision on availability. The per-plane cost of the Gripen was the same (although the F35 has higher cost/hour of operation), and the Gripen requires more development to support NATO and North America interoperability. So between a plane that could and a plane that can, plus the added benefit of aligning with the one with the bigger bat should push come to shove, there really is no other option.
I'm amused you think we need an interceptor. . To intercept who? We don't even need fighters. Let the Americans spend all their money on the military. We just need to defend against America.
@Drew Peacock why is there even a discussion about Russian bombers? Who really thinks they would try to attack North America? Russia is not that stupid. And yeah, a few SAM sites would be a decent deterrent considering it really looks like Russia has some substandard equipment, men or training.
@Drew Peacock Sorry. I dont. It's all over the place in terms of details for block 4. Basically there's a list of some ~871 defects (whose details we dont have) that are being progressively worked on (Bloomberg, 2021). Right off the bat, Block 4 is said to have 53 improvements (ranging to software fixes to new support for ammunitions-were those considered as defects previously? I dont know). The Block 4 initiates a new upgrade system called C2D2 where defects and additions will be progressively rolled in in what they call Block 4.1, 4.2 etc. In Popular Mechanics, the reason given by the US mil is «One reason for the procurement drop is that the government is waiting on the imminent release of Block 4, a major hardware and software upgrade meant to enhance the stealth fighter’s capabilities.» which presumably takes care of many issues they've been waiting for resolution. I'm also assuming the 800+ defects are spread across the versions of the platform. Not all may affect F35A, B or C. I suppose. In one article I read, some defects were in terms of operational availability: ie, new radar frequencies and the like, not necessarily an actual software/hardware bug. I'm sure they dont care for the MP3 player not being able to read FLAC files 🙂 (Assuming it has one)
Can we talk about that great clip at 2:14? Where is this from? "'Ok attack on my command' 'Yes Captain' 'That is if you feel like it, I mean I don't have to decide everything'" LOLOLOL
@@FrontlinePros the thanks took some time eh! But I greatly appreciate it lol. Keep up the great work. Good thing I got my notifications turned on lol.
You are comparing ranges for “clean” aircraft. The Griffen has to carry all stores externally while the f-35 Carries internally; meaning no additional drag on the f-35. Combat loaddd, the f-35’s range exceeds the combat loaded range of the griffen WITH external tanks
Question: Does Canadian Forces operate aerial tankers? With aerial refueling, take-off fuel capacity is less of an issue so long as air tankers are aloft and loitering where and when they are needed.
@@johngee9018 Yes, we have 4 C-130 tankers. They are outfitted with the so called "Navy" basket or so called "drogue" refueling. That means not a probe or so called boom refueling system. So, with purchase of the F35? We will need either: some new tankers - with Boom/Probe refueling. But, ALSO as we continue to fly the CF-F18's for some years during the transition, we will still require air tankers with the basket system. However, in December 2021, a contract was awarded to Lockheed - a "un known" customer requested a 4th Variant of the F35, and it is to be named the F35D model. So, we have: F35A: Usa Airforce, many other nations. This uses boom/probe refueling - NOT compatible with our current CF-18's F35b: This is the STOVL version (it can hover, and vertical land like a Harrier jet). This uses Navy style basket re-fueling (just like our CF-18's). F35C: This is for USA Navy and their carriers (catapult launch from carriers). this uses Navy style basket re-fueling (just like our CF-18's). F35D: This is brand new designation. It is identical to the F35a model, but will be outfitted for Navy style (basket) refueling. This model will be for Canada, since if we don't choose this model, then we will have to buy new air to air tankers with boom refueling option. But, with boom, then those tankers will not have basket option. However, to be fair, the newer tankers we could buy could and would be equipped to service both basket and boom aircraft. However, by Canada going with this 4th F35 model - then we would not have to purchase new tankers. Internal fuel tank size of typical fighters: Fuel capacity (fuel tank size): Harrier 7,000 lbs F16 - 7000 lbs Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs
@@j2koolc922 Not sure if you referring to my post and information. But yes, a contract involving the refueling system for the F35 went out in December. (this also suggests that Canada had known and made their decisions in December). Regardless, there is to be a new model of the F35, and it will be named the F35D model. This almost for sure is what we in Canada will get.
The A is the only variant with a gun. Canada has an arresting hook on its CF18 fighters to be able to land on smaller runways. From what I know, the A type variant doesn't come stock with one, but they may Canadianize it by adding one. Typically in Canadian procurement you don't want to give up a capability when fighting with the treasury board for funding. This is because it is harder to convince them to get a new capability added to something (costs more money) and therefore makes it near impossible to get stuff back. For example, now that we don't have an aircraft carrier, because we sold our last one and didn't have a new one lined up, we will probably never have another one. Also, it was super hard for the RCN to get more than two MASS launchers added to the Halifax class ship even though the data shows that you need 4 of them for 100% 360 degree protection. If we give up the arresting hook, they might not be able to get a plane with one in the future. Doesn't seem like a big deal but by purchasing the F35 we are going with an airframe that only has one engine and we usually like to have jets with a redundancy. Because, if one engine dies and you only have one then that is an expensive asset lost that could have landed otherwise. To speak in favour of it we have already invested so much money in it's development it would seem like kind of stupid for the government to not follow through on that. IMO, I would have gone with brand new Super Hornets. They are good planes that would last another 30-50 years and still be relevant. Additionally the Super Hornet can be transitioned to easier because of the closeness in infrastructure and support to the current older variant F18s we employ.
F16, F22, F15's and F35a? All of them have a tail hook. They are just not robust ones like used daily for carrier landings, but they all are equipped with a tail hook. And all such military runways have the ability's to lay out a arresting wire for use with such hooks in case of brake failure, or even a bad tire. So, yes, the F35a does have a tail hook.
Canada originally wanted to purchase their CF-18's without a tail hook and the re-inforced front landing gear, but were told by Boeing that it would cost them more because it would involve a total re-design of the landing gear because the Jet was designed as an aircraft carrier based plane.
@@Albertkallal the reason why aircraft like the F 35A have a tail hook is for emergency landings but they could be easily used to make shorter landings on traditional runways that usually they shouldn’t be able to use
@@AdonNighbor Yes the tail hook on the F35A is there for limited use and emergency use (like most fighers have). As such, that tail hook is not designed for daily use, or how a cable trap system works on a carrier. In that case then EVERY landing is a arrested tail hook landing, and one that bears the FULL force and weight of the aircraft day after day. And bears that total aircraft weight in a rather short distance (shorter then the ground based tail hook systems that are much like a "one time" type of use case. So, the light weight tail hooks found on most fighters are not to be compared to the robust and VERY strong tail hook system used for carrier variants of aircrafts. As noted, not only is the tail hook near always used, but that part of the airframe ALSO has to bear the full weight of the aircraft and last for repeated stops. This places significant stress on the airframe in that area. Thus the the rear airframe parts are substantial more robust, and are heaver then non carrier variants for for such operations. As such, there is little to be compared here except the name of a tail hook in both cases.
@@Albertkallal I was saying, I could see it easily being upgraded for daily operations but thank you for bringing some stuff to light that I didn’t know before
I'm a Gripen guy. Highway landings, short reload and turn around, small ground crew and range. Packs a powerful punch. I feel Canada doesn't need stealth capability because we really aren't a "first strike" military but more intercept, peacekeeping and flying the flag up north. That being said I suppose I can learn to love the F35.....
Stealth isn't just useful for attack though. If ever we had to defend our airspace, being able to spot MIGs and SUs and fire at them long before they could do the same would be a massive advantage.
You need to do more research on the 35, aside from stealth the real power of this bird is its electronic and A.I. that are part of the system. the pilots helmet has a 360 or better yet all over view, you can see through the floor down to the earth by pointing the helmet where you want to see. the 35 also has the ability to take control and direct Multiple platforms and coordinate an attach all at once using the A.I from sea air or land. no other jet even comes close to doing this. the 35 will also have a squadron of drones controlled by the pilot and A.I. there is also a f35 with V/STOL
I still feel the Saab is the better fighter for us Canadians. The F-35 is an aircraft we would have difficulty maintaining, paying for, and keeping enough in stock. We need to recognize that we are a middle economy in this world. The Saab planes are advance enough to compete with room for upgrades on our terms. Plus we can purchase and build more then 88 of them. 88 planes with a 2,200 km standard range is not enough to cover all of Canada properly. Plus taking account of breakdowns, training planes, maintenance, and over head whether we can put a proper wing of them into the air. The Saab was built and designed in the same weather as what we have in Canada. It is tested all over the world by different operators. And it is built and produced by a another nation with similar economical and military status. The Saab fighter will give Canada a fighter that will last longer and more of them then the F-35 would ever will.
@@CrashAndBurnProductions I can’t disagree but the military knows more than us if they got the F 35. It can be changed for different missions And we have the liberal checkbook. Lol No problem funding it. We will have under 100 planes, that’s within our budget. Unlike the United States with thousands. I’m sure you get what I’m saying. Cheers
We don't need to cover all of Canada properly, we have a common air defence with America that covers all of Canada properly. We need to be interoperable with our allies.
@@Steve-eq8iz All we have is NORAD. That is just air surveillance unless we get into a dog fight situation with jets from the enemy that is protecting their bombers. So basically we don’t have anything capable of true defence . Even our radar is out of date and is scheduled to be reviewed and replaced. Canadian Army does not have a capability to defend itself against air attack, either from fighter aircraft or sophisticated attack/strike helicopters, unless you want to stretch your imagination and state our soldiers have pistols, rifles and machine guns.
@@Steve-eq8iz our ally planes do not cover the north pole route from Russia or China. With planes of 2,200 range and only 88 of them it is a large area with very little redundancy. Plus in a warfront who do you think the ally planes will cover first? Their territory or ours?
We would need drone tanker to go along!!!! Wondering what would be the minimum fleet size that make sense and get both jets as one is cheap and versatile in the north the other is a fragile computer with wings
Considering Canada has that long northern coast to guard I'd have thought the F-15EX would have been a better choice. It has two crew, a good range, a decent missile load and with support of AWAC and tankers could loiter up there for some time.
Canada dropped the F15EX from the competition in the very early decision stages after Boeing refused to lower the price. The combined cost of the F15 offer was 30% higher than what the F35 and Gripen teams offered.
The F-15 is made by Boeing. It's been off the table since the Bombardier mess with Boeing. I doubt the Govt. of Canada will buy anything from Boeing in the next 30 or 40 years.
@@bearhead9633 the F-15 is also almost a 50 year old, non stealthy airframe. This is coming from sn F-15 fan boy. It definitely isn't the right plane for the job.
@@nelsondoyle1377 I love the F-15 as well. I still think its a dominant aircraft. I just think the F-35 working with other F-35s cannot be beat right now. Yes its expensive. Yes they ard working out the kinks. Yes its stealth coating got rusty on Aircraft carriers this year. But I think nothing can compare right now.
Update: because of delays, Canada will actually be getting the newest D variants. One big upgrade is the internal weapons bay will have a capacity of 6 missles vs the standard 4.
A dozen Superhornets or Typhoons should also be purchased for exclusive long range northern patrol duties which require two engines and longer range. The Australians already successfully use that mix.
Long range patrol is done by externals and or air refueling. Which is why US fighters can and have stayed in the air for up to 14 hours at a time during some missions over the middle east. During Northern watch of Iraq in the 80s. The F14 Tomcat would do air patrols for up to 8-10 hours at a time per jet. It's not hard to do and coordinate
US F-35's are used in arctic Alaska. They are based there. Lots of them. The long range situational suite is way, way beyond anything in those legacy fighters. You don't need two engines. The enemy won't see you unless you want them to. This is not the 1970's anymore.
Can someone explain to me why we can’t have both? I mean the RCAF has managed multiple air frames before, like during the Cold War when it had the CF-104 as a interceptor and the CF-116 as a fighter/ground attacker. The Armed force are expected to receive an increase to it’s budget so maybe we could finance it.
The F-35 is good for high intensity combat, like the opening years of the Afghan war or possible new peer on peer wars, like a country attacking a NATO member. But in a peacekeeping mission or against a small non state enemy, a F-35 is overkill and is a needless waste of resources. In those kinds of situations a Griffin could be used. Or like how the CF-104 was a interceptor, used it the protection of Canadian airspace, and the CF-116 was the frontline fighter.
I don’t believe our Country can justify buying both. I am having a difficult time buying either. We should buy an unmanned aircraft for high Arctic recon and that’s it.
@@danmcbride6258 UAV would be a good option, especially since they have more endurance and could take off from CFS in the Arctic instead of CFB further south. But would they be suited for the patrol and intercept role? Air to air UAVs aren’t that advanced yet.
"Can someone explain to me why we can’t have both?" we are broke AF with multi hundreds of billion in debt and won't be able to balance that out for the next decades if not generations might be the reason
@@johnready630 And if Canada was to get another combat jet, it would make more sense to go for a dedicated interceptor rather than another multirole fighter. Either the Eurofighter or F-15 if money is an issue
Canada's Navy could take a look at an amphibious assault ship. Much cheaper than an aircraft carrier and great for a country with the longest coastline in the world. A handful of F-35B's could fly off it and be easier to maintain since the technicians would already be familiar with the type.
I disagree, I think we need new subs or even more patrol vessels (something smaller than the CSC) rather than an amphibious assault ship. If we want something that patrol our coasts, we shouldn't be doing with a vessel designed for offensive operations or projecting force in distant lands.
@@jamesfriesen191 subs are only an offensive weapon, and despite the name "amphibious assault ship" you could think of it as a "helicopter carrier" it fills a multiple of roles, mainly deploying people and vehicles from the boat onto land. SAR, Disaster response, maritime policing, all great operations for this ship
@@jamesfriesen191 an "A-26 extended" sub would be awsome. Modular with extreme potential for future upgrades and with the very latest tech. Canada could get a product tuned for its needs.
I'm actually glad that Canada held off. It's a foregone conclusion that the F35A is Canada's next fighter - however, it ALSO means that Canada will take delivery of the Block 4 which is a much more mature and capable platform than the original trouble-ridden launch variants.
It is difficult to fly/ maintain two separate high tech fleets on our limited defense budget. The training bill for air crews and more importantly ground crews would force us to only fly a limited few of each fleet simply based on the numbers of available personnel and training facilities.
But buying a 4th Gen fighter, you will eventually hit the wall with upgrades and won't be able to do anymore upgrades way later in its airframe age, like in the 2040s the F35 will still be able to take upgrades in the 2040s and not ro mention that all of the world's top to semi top countries are in the 5th Gen jets already and some already getting to the 6th Gen jets. Can't let Canada fall massively behind if they went with a 4th Gen. Buying 80 new 4th Gen would only help into the 2030s but not after for the reasons I said above. Then canada is looking again to buying something else in just 10-15 years and be so damn behind the curve
There has been a lot of reporting lately about the US reducing their buys: I think this is a bit misleading when simply taken at face value. With Russia getting stupid, the Pentagon wants F-35s in as many allied air forces as possible. By reducing their yearly orders now, it frees up planes for allies (Lockheed is NOT slowing production from 150-160 per year). Second, the Pentagon has always been planning on the "Block IV" software and hardware to be the most combat capable production Lot. They won't be produced until 2029 at current estimates. The changes are so drastic, that the first 150 or so aircraft from the early 2010's might not actually be used in future combat vs advanced adversaries, and, rebuilding them has been deemed cost prohibitive. Which brings me to a question related to the RCAF buy: are we getting a mix of Block 3F and Block 4 aircraft?
No USA wants other countries to buy their jets period. Its not because of Russian aggression right now but only to secure deals making other countries a vassal state to them(The switch from Washington that can disable their air force). US AF is reducing their buys because f35 is to expensive to fly so they are going to stay with f16 for more operations then planned.
Full Block IV implementation won't occur till 2029 but we will see Partial block IV aircraft built before then. FInland ordered Block IV aircraft in Feb the Canadian deal is likely 2 years out from a signature with Liberal procurement efficiency then Canada goes in the Que. So Canada will be getting Block IV planes which hope fully will arrive the around the same time as the new A330 MRRT's
@@criticalevent no not really a lot of the allies have already placed orders and already have some jets it’s just that with the us taking priority in the delivery slots the allies won’t see the full number of jets that they have ordered but 2030 so this will just allow the allies get their aircraft sooner
@@criticalevent It's always been an international project that will be upgraded just like the F-16 is. And besides, the planes are exactly what was advertised to whom purchased them, they're still extremely lethal jets and are tactically superior to every other fighter. It's just they are making it better with the Block 4 and obviously the US is going to prioritize their own planes, duh. No other country is even close to the US when it comes to the F-35 right now, especially now that the F-35 is cheaper than almost all of it's competitors.
I think a mixed fleet of F35As and F15EXs like what the US airforce is moving towards would be the most effective but not necessarily the cheapest, so it won't happen here... The Gripen looks like a great platform but it's not a NATO airframe and not able to be connected to NORAD with its current electronics package, that pretty much guarantees it will never be picked by Canada.
Hi from Finland. F-35 is safest and have more capabilities than Saab. There is also nearly 800 planes already in use.. Keep it simply F-35 is the best.
I still believe we should’ve followed suit behind the aussies and bought a dozen or so FA18F as a stop gap to augment the fleet. They are still a very relevant 4th gen, especially with conformal fuel tanks. The Aussies were even smart about it and had a number of their F models prepped to be converted into growlers, another very important asset
Honestly, that makes a lot of sense, I'd even go as far as to say that the "upgraded" F18's are all we really need. We know it does the job, we have the maintenance knowledge/facilities/logistics based on our current CF18s AND the pilot familiarity of systems. However I think the Bombardier C-series tariff scuffle a few years back soured the relationship with Boeing from the governments' point of view.
Canada would never be put in a position to need growlers. The Americans have so many. The US has more F-35 in Alaska then we have fighters in the forces. I think buying 35 was the right choice. Specially with the investments we made into the joint task fighter program
There is a lot of problems that make a Super Hornet interim purchase a very bad decision. Super Hornets were attempted to be bought previously but the spat with Boeing and Airbus alongside the insane $5.5 billion dollar cost for only 18 aircraft killed the program. The US Navy stopped funding the conformal fuel tank development for the Super Hornet as well so Canada would have to pay to build and develop those as well. It just doesn't make sense, buy the F-35 and upgrade what we have in the meantime until they arrive.
"If the F-35 uses external fuel tanks then why are we paying for that fancy stealth?" Because the F-35 has the option of range, or stealth. The Grippen has no such option. Different loadouts can be used for different missions, depending on whether range is a priority or not.
@@strikebr because Canada has taken on a lager air to ground role in the last 10 years. Incursions over Syria and Iraq with air superiority and no real threat from the ground is one thing, but in a hot war with a modern military, stealth will be a great asset. Survivability is very important and having the ability to greatly reduce your chances of being detected by ever improving SAM systems or enemy fighters is a strong selling point. Since both units come in at the same price, take the objectively more advanced option.
We use the external tanks when training so the pilots can have more flight time per sortie dumbass lol. External tanks won't be used in live combat areas. It's why the US has a ton of areal tankers that stay on station just outside of a combat area to keep the F35 in the air for hours without externals
@@strikebr because the Grippens radar can't see a F35 that far away to just shoot it lol. What's called, "red air" missions in training where we have tested our best air defense radar to detect an F35 and most of the time, the F35 wasn't seen on radar until it was already within 8 miles and that's with air defense radars which are like 3589 times larger than radars in a fighter like the grippen lol
No, we brought over time a total of 138 and some more over time. However, we only ever to my knowledge had a total of 80 CF-18's at one time and in most cases somewhat less. So, the purchase of 88 F35s would result in Canada having and flying the same number of fighter jets we have now.
A question.. why can’t we get the F35 and a couple of squadrons of Gripens ? I know it will require more logistics and it will add to the cost but I think operating both platforms will have its merits as both will have different roles and complement one another especially that the Gripen is a fully NATO interoperable
Not a bad idea but.....now having to train and operate and maintain 2 new jets, the cost is so high, Canada might as well just invest in even more F35As
@@nexpro6118 I totally agree on the cost part but the operational yield will be greater because the Gripens can outperform the F35 in some missions especially in interception and close air to air combat due to its better manoeuvrability , also the running cost of the Gripen is far less than of the F35 .. a lot of capable airforces around the world operate more than one platform, and with what happening in Ukraine.. I think we should significantly more in our military especially that we share borders with Russia and everybody knows that Putin has malicious ambitions for n the North Pole
we have been trying to buy a 9mm pistol for over a decade now , selecting a winner is almost meaningless at this point ! we still also cant replace the LSVW and so , so much more
@@cjlancaster3558 The Hi-Power use to work. Most are broken and even the best working ones we have are held back because of the highly worn out magazines that constantly cause it to jam.
The Saab extended range and lower price makes it a winner. Who ever wins must be capable of building an unmanned variant to fly aside our manned aircraft. Saab has indicated a willingness to build maintenance facilities in Canada. The Swedes build quality and we should buy!
The F-35A is ALREADY 3 million dollars cheaper the the Gripen. The Gripen only has a further range than the F-35 when loaded down with external fuel tanks. That means the F-35's cruise speed will be significantly higher, probably around 50 knots since it doesn't suffer from parasitic drag.
Have a look at the combat radius of an f-35 A with fuel internal fuel, 2 PGM’s and 2 AMRAAMs, then compare it to a similarly configured Gripen - the SAAB product doesn’t come up to scratch..
@@Smokeyr67 although the gripen is a cool airframe, the f35’s are easier for our guys to learn, and I heard that stealth has been a big factor in this too. I don’t know what will happen but doesn’t matter, our airforce needs and upgrade
@@Smokeyr67 would you rather have a radar cross-section the size of a ping pong ball, or would you rather have SA-8’s fire on you 130 miles out. It’s a very clear answer. With air-to-air refueling the argument of range is meaningless, the only thing you can argue is time on target. Range is a non-factor these days. Plus the Grippen sucks guys…
We can absolutely afford to do both. But getting nuclear subs for the arctic should be a much higher priority, and that's an even larger investment. The F-35 trounces the Gripen, just look at the Finish HX competition, where the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was ahead of it, and still massively behind the F-35. The F-35 will have support for years to come, is already set for NORAD integration, already supports Canadian jobs (that goes away if we pick the Saab), and even with its issues the Gripen is laughably untested. I don't think people have a reason to want the Gripen beyond hating the US and US armament.
I think a combination of the 2 would be a better decision. The JAS-39 is faster and cheaper to operate than the F-35, making it a better choice for things like interceptor or patrol. In simulators the Gripen outperformed the Lightning II in air-to-air combat. The F-35’s strength is in it’s survivability on ground attack missions because of it’s stealth. Split up the contracts in whatever ratio works best, and the Canadian taxpayers get more bang for their buck and the RCAF becomes a little more flexible.
@@bryanhendricks1391 they were. They were smart to wait cause the price has fallen lots. And in the last 12 years all the bugs have been worked out. The F-16 actually had way more problems in development than the F-35 but because of social media it seems like their junk. I was completely on board with the Gripens but with asshole invading Ukraine, even Finland is gonna take the F-35. I think it’s the best one for the money right now. The government actually was way smarter for waiting it out. Getting each fifth generation fighter for millions of dollars less .
The Gripen is perfect for South American countries that fight low intensity guerilla conflicts and have borders to patrol. However anyone watching will note Brazil has few if any foreign deployments, 0 commitments to international treaty defense organizations and no enemies pointing nukes at them......basically the complete opposite of any country in the Northern Hemisphere....like say Canada, Finland, Sweden, or even an operator like Austrailia. Countries that MUST consider the technical superiority of the fighters they purchase. In a lot of ways it is the difference between what the requirements of an Amish farmer are vs an American Corn Farmer in Iowa with 3000 acres are. In each case their needs differ by orders of magnitude. The Gripen is a fine fighter but it will not survive the environment that 5th gen fighters are designed for...but it is a perfect fit for places like Brazil where the realistic threats it will face are all -4th gen.....where stealth is simply a waste of $.
A question for some of you more knowledgeable than me, I only started getting back into aircraft again. Why did they stop making the F22? From what I have read it was just as good as the F35 or better and could have upgraded newer models if they were still making them. I do understand they were only able to be purchased by the USAF, not sure why as they try to keep the tech secret for any jet fighter.
Maybe because the F22 is designed and best used for air supremacy, even if it can do ground support as they mentioned. But the F35 is a multirole aircraft that is supposed to excel in every domain. So all around, the F35 is supposed to do more things.
@@CrashAndBurnProductions That's a way better explanation than me, thanks man! I told it from the start : the F-35 is a failure and we would have been way better with either the updated F-18, or with the Grippen. But my favorite choice would have been the Dassault Rafale, what a fighter. Classed as a multirole fighter, they have the ability to outclass some pure air supremacy fighters.
Ok, there are few issues and reasons why they killed the f22 program. While the first copy flew in 1997? The wall came down in 1989. So, some in congress asked why are we spending so much money on a VERY expensive fighter when we don't need it anymore? At that time, the so called cold war was assumed to have ended. And China had not really risen as a threat in that timeframe either. So, congress decided to cut funding to the airforce get get a boadload of VERY exensive fighers, - ones that that they felt they did not require. While Gulf war occured in 1991, funding for the f22 program was tight. So, USA figured there was little threat from other nations - why build somthing so expensive? But, regardless of political pandering, they considered the f22 to high cost to buy, and too high cost to fly per hour. So, the cut the procourment program to buy more - thus the USAF only received 187 copies. They only produced them for a short 5 years. Also, they were looking to replace the F16's, and even F18's to a new platform. And the idea was to produce an affordable single engine fighter - and one that could be exported in larger numbers. so, the JSF program was underway. That program was to be a VERY large volume sales and production program. (since boatloads of F16's and F18's had been sold world wide). So, they decided to get nations like Canada, Austraila, Norway, UIK and a few more to sign on the dotted line to buy the F35. tjhat way, they could have MUCH larger budgets for the F35, and spend MUCH more money to develop. (and they did). And the result was to be a more afforable and lower cost figher. So, money was needed for the F35 program, and once again, the F22 did not get the funding it required for continued production. The Air force wanted more f22's, but they were very high cost. Many will suggest they cut the funds to the F22 program too soon. The problem was with the F35/JSF program now in to full swing? Well, the JSF/F35 had a MUCH better and new round of technology that the F22 did not have, and missed out. The F22 missed better computer tehcnology, and during the F22 program, they had a multi-specritiom IRST package. Then they cut that down to a single specrirmtpn IRST package. And then cut IRST100% out of the F22 program. This is a decison they regret to this day. IRST = Ifraread Seach and Tracking. It is a means to track and see aircarft without using Radar. (passive system). The last figher to have IRST package built in was of all things our fan favorate F14 Tom cat. But is the f22 better then the F35? Not really. The f22 has astounding power - and speed. However, in the area of technology, the F35 is MUCH better. In fact, the F35 is so much better, that it will eat F22's like canday all day long, and THEN some!!! So, all was not lost, and near all lessons as to what to do, and not do with a stealth figher? Those lessions were taken and applied to the F35. While the F35 started out as being expensive? Turns out, the goal of a lower cost, advanced figher with 5th gen features was acheived. Eurofighter/Typhoon: 115 million per copy Rafale: 94 million per copy F15: 88 million per copy Gripen: 85 million per copy F35: 77.8 million per copy. So, in a sense, the original idea of a lower cost fighter, one with new advanced features and stealth? Well, in fact the F35 now is quite much lower cost then just about any good 4th gen fighter you can buy. And thus like the huge success of the F16? the F35 really is achieving the same goal. The F16 sold well and in large numbers because it was a really great fighter at the right price, and with great features. Same can be said for the F35. It is actually racking up BIG sales worldwide right now, and one reason is it has become a lower cost, single engine fighter, and is less cost and offers better value then most other fighters. So, in a funny way? The original dream and idea of offering a advanced single engine fighter for a low affordable price that can't be beat? The F35 has achieved this original concept. It just took longer then expected to reach that lower cost. But, now the lower cost is driving sales in a big way, and the f35 now can't be beat at its current price.
Tbh I’m subscribing to this guy cuz he’s informative and he’s probably the only guy doing new content on the Canadian armed forces. Keep it up guy you’ve got my respect🙏🏾🇨🇦
As long as the 35 can run externals there won't be an issue for canada to purchase them seeing as how compromising the stealth a bit isn't an issue to get the extra range for interdicting russian aircraft as the whole point of going out to meet them is to be seen anyway. the stealth would be retained for active offensive missions where the enemy doesnt know we coming. my two cents as a serving rcaf mechanic on the f18. also im all for the integrated helmet because thats less systems to maintain in the aircraft itself which means more uptime for the jet and helmets can have downtime with spares on the shelf so thats all good. im also a big fan of the gripen though so either way id be happy.
Well, we have this: Internal fuel tank size: Gripen JAS 39 E/F: 7,500 lbs CF18a (our current models): 10,860 lbs F35a : 18,500 lbs Now, looking at above, which you do think holds more fuel? In fact in most cases with 2 EFT's on our F18's you still have LESS fuel (and range) then does the F35 based on just internal fuel load! And you thus don't mess with 2 EFT's - that have to be mounted, filled up separate. So, with say just 6 F18's, that is 18 fuel tanks and 18 fueling operations!!! And if they are to be removed after flights, then that is 12 fuel tanks to be drained, and carted off to storage. Also, in addition to having ripped out the hud, and all gauges? (just a simple flat screen now), they also ripped out and removed near ALL hydraulics . So, no maintains there - no hydraulics fluid tanks to top up, no piston seals to leak - (or replace or maintain). The control surfaces are electro-mechanical now. They are now quite much maintains free. Not only that, but since most of the electronics is network based? Then multiple electric pathways exist to the control surfaces - you can riddle the aircraft with bullets, and a pathway to the control surface will still exist, and is multiple orders redundant compared to traditional fighters that use hydraulics. And the engine? Well, P&W reports that it service requirements are 40% less then previous gen fighters - and with only one engine then that means almost 4x factor in reduced maintains. And the engine was designed for easy field service. All field serviceable parts for the F135 engine have been moved to ONE common area and access door. In fact, all such servicing can be done with just 6 tools found in a typical mechanics box. So, right now? Compared to F18, F16, f15's? The USAF is finding the F35 to require the least amount of ground crew hours to keep a F35 flying then ANY other fighter they have - including the single engine F16. Quote: *_A critical metric of reliability is the “break rate,” meaning the percentage of fighters that return from missions in a non-mission capable state. About 94% of F-35A sorties are completed with no breaks-by far the best performance of any Air Force fighter_* Not just good but BEST of any Air Force fighter. Quote: *_The F-35 was designed to be more maintainable than legacy fighters, and it is. The Air Force variant requires far fewer hours of maintenance per flight hour than the F-15 or F-16_* Again, far fewer hours!!! Quote: *_the number of maintenance hours per flight hour on legacy fighters is a multiple of what F-35A is demonstrating today. The Air Force’s stated requirement for F-35A is no more than nine hours and the actual is five hours, making it the most easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet_* MOST easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet!!! Quote: *_A key metric of sustainability is whether fighters in need of repair can be fixed in a single eight-hour shift. F-35A has consistently outperformed all other Air Force fighters in achieving this goal, thereby speeding return of aircraft to the operational force_* Again: CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORMED ALL OTHER air force fighters.
F35 can take up to 4 external fuel bags. So ranch ain't shit if you will compromise some Stealth. I hate and laugh when people say how Saab has more range. Lmao. Nope. Once you load the Saab with all of the external sensors and missiles and bombs to use its full capabilities in combat, that Saab will have so much damn extra drag on it lol Saab supports are comparing on station time and distance traveled with a "clean" Saab. Clean jets are never used in combat lol
Glad to see that PSPC upholds its motto: Stultus est sicut stultus facit. With a little common sense Canada should have gone with the F18/F, same money on training (e.g., flight, maintenance, etc.).
Have you not been paying attention to this at all? That was the plan until Boeing sued Bombardier and KO’d their new plane and got the rights to it sold to Airbus for pennies on the dollar. Boeing products are disqualified due to “economic harm” or some term.
All the dragging on is because the Woke'sters in Ottawa don't want to spend a nickel on defense. With luck, maybe they've seen the world as it is and that monsters still roam and have the ability to bite.
For most of Canada's military aviation history, we've flown multiple tactical air frames at the same time. Even if we play 'What If' and were flying the Avro Arrow, that's a high speed high altitude interceptor. We would still have needed something else for ground attack and over European areas like Ukraine. While the F-35 is perfect for the later, we still don't have a capable interceptor. Honestly if Boeing had not shot themselves in the foot by trying to sue Bombardier, the F-15X would have made a great pure interceptor.
The problem has always been Canada insisting on "one plane for everything". The F15 is still something Canada needs. Also UCAV to pair with the F35. We always cheap out, but at least the F35 is very potent in its current form.
Range is nothing in today's air war. It's why we have externals if u want to sacrifice some Stealth or use the tankers that the US has a bunch of that are coordinated with the jets to keep them in the air for hours at a time
It's hard to say what is right for Canada as a lot of the true capabilities of both the F-35 and Grippen are classified. It appears the process has found the F-35 as the superior aircraft. As your video eluded to some of the benefits of the delay is now the F-35 is less expensive and having a competitive bid process likely got us a better deal. Also we are likely going to get later build models that are more up to date with hopefully most of the bugs worked out.
IMO, Canada is going to negotiate with Lockheed-Martin & require that ALL the 88 F-35A's will be the Block 4 version with the P&W F135 Enhanced Engine Package. Canada has the time to wait until the production line is producing the Block 4 EEP F-35 since spending that large amount of money upgrading the current CF-18's that can operate for another decade.
F35 and new F15 ...the 2 most expensive aircraft Canada can buy.....lol. Canada can barely afford the F35 alone. Let alone also adding new F15s to its fleet lol.
It’s amazing that so many people here are advocating for the Gripen (used almost exclusively by developing nations) instead of the F35 (used by all of our principle allies and the most advanced air forces in the world). We’ve made that mistake in the past with the CF-5 when the Air Force actually wanted the F-4. As for the video makers concerns about range without external tanks, that’s what aerial tankers are for. Besides the F35 advantage over the Gripen doesn’t end with stealth.
Would full stealth be needed when intercepting a Tu-95 or 160 up north? Strap on those fuel cans! Up against a Sukhoi or Chinese J-series makes sense, but a bomber?
All I stated that I have questions that no one has addressed. I did not say I had the answers, I had questions that I wanted answers to. I am not arguing with anyone, I have always asked why and always have wanted a response. I will never be satisfied with thinking, well they must know. You end up being deceived more times than not.
The Gripen E is not the same aircraft. It is an entirely new fighter based on the Gripen A and C, it has longer range, heavier payload, is faster, has a extensive E/W system, and it can fight in a close in dogfight. It like saying the Super Hornet is the same as the Legacy Hornet. The F35 is a great aircraft, but we do not need a stealth aircraft. The main mission for Canadian F35''s would be sovereignty patrol's, which would require external fuel tanks, which in turn negates any stealth abilities. We are going to spend billions on a stealth fighter where because of its main mission in Canada will not be stealthy. The F35 is perfectly suited to smaller countries, like in Europe or Israel, or the US that had the F22, but not Canada.
Only by developing nations? CZ, Hungry and Sweden are developing nations? If your going to make claims like you know what your harping own about do your due diligence and post the actual facts.
Both a blessing and a curse ,blessing, a better price point by waiting, curse , by the time we take delivery of both the f35 and the destroyers they will be redundant, f15 or 18 would have been more expensive but more expedient
Does Canada plan to conduct strategic stealthy attack bombardement in any country within the range of the plane ??? if not, why do you buy a stealthy attack bomber for doing the job of proper interceptor ?
When was the last time Canadian aircraft were in air to air combat? I'm guessing maybe the Korean war. We need an aircraft that can deliver large air to ground loads. The Super Hornet would be the perfect fit.
@@SgTSlAugHteR613 I just laugh at people who claim that the, F35 Is total crap lol. Like, how? Compared to what? The people that claim its crap are not even pilots lol 🙃 😂 but give their "factual" opinion as if they are experts in being a pilot. Haha. They just want to feel important and more smart than you and I. It's actually sad that those people think their lives are that boring and or unfulfilled that they have to pretend to know everything about everything to feel something.
@@nexpro6118 you know I'll be completely honest with you. My belief and experience with people bad mouthing the procurement of the F-35 are people that just want to continue to deplete the military to put money into something THEY want. People just think we can keep relying on allies. Look at when Canada went into Afghanistan. We sent troops in the Iltis jeep hahaha. The iltis jeep has as much armour as a Suzuki Sidekick lmao. Then the government took flack for buying the Mercedes G-wagon because of costs. How many times has the G-wagon saved Canadians lives in combat since? The Labrador, Buffalo, Herc, CF-18, Sea-King, leapord tank. All flown or used 50 years or longer. It's a disgrace. The Sea-King would go do a rescue and could only rescue 5 people before running out of cabin space and then have to rtb to refuel. The Cormorant helo made a rescue within the first couple operational years in SARS and rescued 12 people before running out of cabin room. But it took flack for cost as well. Canadian people don't want to make the sacrifices needed in keeping its country safe anymore.
Canada would have saved a lot of money if they chose the Saab Gripen, considering that if any foreign power would want to encroach on/over Canadian airspace, they know they would have to go through the US war machine first, ....... you know, because of the whole Monroe Doctrine thing.
With the saabs you can only upgrade so much before now having to spend even more money on the fighters to upgrade parts rather than software and the Saab can only be upgraded so much before it hits the wall and can't be upgraded anymore. The systems with F35 and data link can be continuous upgraded by just software well into the 2040s while Saab buyers now will be looking to buy new jet again before 2040 and spend a bunch again to get a new fleet. Not to mention be way behind all other top countries with 5th Gen fighters already and some getting into 6th Gen already. Canada should not go with the defense strategy of, "let's just rely on the US" because if a massive air war breaks out against China and or Russia, the US doesn't have the capability to then also worry about Canada first.
And....for the Saab to use its full capabilities it would have to hang more gear and probs on its wings and airframe making it look even bigger on radar and cause a ton more drag. Which means less range and less G to pull. Your comparing a perfectly clean Saab when comparing it to the F35 which can stay clean and still have its full capabilities in combat.
So you want the Saab to save money but then put our defense in the hands of the US hahaha? You think the US will do this for free? So you just baught the wrong jets and then made Canada a defense customer for the US. So now we have crap jets and the money we saved is now being spent paying the US to defend us hahahaha
I wonder whether anyone has looked at the difference in costs, capital & OEM and explored how a fleet of UAV's might operate. The white paper or just "paper" would have to include all things logistical, operational, political and especially postulate on how such a significant change would impact on the people the RCAF might attract.
You wanna know why all of the top people in this field in all of the countries in the world are not putting so much focus on a ton of drones .....because it's still better to have a pilot in the seat for situational awareness and sudden changes in the mission.
Best choice; why did Canada delay this decision for so long? All pilots agree that the F-35 is a superior fighter and completely buries the completion like SAAB or rafale. There is no alternative to stealth today, not against peer enemies.
Terrible choice, and we shouldn’t be delaying because there’s nothing to delay about a purchase we shouldn’t be making in the fucking first place. Everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the F-35 is overhyped, overpriced garbage. A plane that can do everything okay can do no specific one thing great. Which means it sucks. There is no alternative to the ability to outmaneuver your opponent.
Should get both. We are not going to war right now. The Gripen E would be very capable of patrolling our skies and escorting unwelcome airplanes out of our skies. Any extra maintenance costs would be offset by the purchase price difference of the F35.
Change over training and maintenance I would think new f18 would be better. Canada does not really need offensive jets. The stealth is meant for attack in locations with air defense. Not sure we really need that.
@@el7105 I've been reading news reports from Britan that their planes are doing stuff like the cannon busting out of the frame in test fires - last year and other problems in their HMS Prince of Whales sea trails
And also....research will also show that every new fighter will come with problems. The F35s problems are blown up because of the controversy over its price. I mean shit....when the F16 was new. The first 2 years of flight testing and they lost over a dozen to crashes. Less than a dozen have been lost in the first 10 years of flight testing to the F35.....
Look up "networked warfare", then you'll understand why. Renders our enemies obsolete & a great deterent. I was a total skeptic ar first, then i was fortunate enough to have it explained to me. Really some next level stuff. Your overall critique was a bit outdated and citing the "helmet" thing, what kid wouldn't I suppose.
I am still waiting for more info on the problems that Australia is suffering from with the purchase of the F35. Their pilots are only going to get less than 200 hours flight time per year, 250 hours of flight time per year is considered a minimum requirement to maintain a capable fighter pilot. The problem they have with this issue, apparently has to do with the serviceability level being very low, less than 68%. That means if you have 100 of these aircraft online for operational capability, at any given time only 68 would be able to fly. If you have some for flight training, then that number will be less. I hear they also have a problem with many of their aircraft will not be able to be fully updated as time goes on. Some will not be able to have the newer replacement engine installed and therefore will not be able to carry out some of the planned operations. That issue may not be an issue for Canada as they will receive a newer batch, but there are many other issues. Also most other Air Forces bought anywhere from 1 squadron to a limited few, Australia and Canada bought to supply their Air Forces with F 35's as their sole fighter. Also the US Air Force has cancelled a major amount of their future F 35's. I guess Canadians can always kick in more money for taxes. That should do it.
@@1982mikedn The 250 hours required by the RAAF was reported by Sky News in Australia. They stated the RAAF requirement was 250 hours flight time for a fighter pilot, to be a competent fighter pilot.
You get your facts from skynews.........the same asshokes who constantly spout of false information on all topics. The only issue being faced is the logistics strain on parts and that's a real fact from personal.
Hum, are you sure about that? F15: 88 million per copy F35: 77.8 million per copy. And the F15 is more costly to fly per hour (duel engine, and older technology). And we have these fuel tank sizes: Fuel capacity (fuel tank size): Harrier 7,000 lbs F16 - 7000 lbs Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs
Sorry disagree F 15 is a better plane it has better dog fighting skills in it out manoeuvres almost every single plane in the world and it’s cheaper and easier to run
@@rockhardbalboa1832 No, it is not less cost. They are now 88 million each, and they cost more to fly per hour then a F35. And in ANY current conflict now or in the immediate future? The F15 can't enter into such air battle theaters - it is too vulnerable , and will not survive - but the F35 can, and in fact is the only fighter the USA has that can enter contested air spaces right now. And no, the F15 is NOT easier to run - it has two engines, and is a older design. The F35 is a single engine, and also designed with lower maintains in mind. For example, the F35 does not use old style hydraulics for the control surfaces. They are electro-mechanical. That means no hydraulic fluid tanks to fill up and maintain, , no piston seals to leak. And you don't even have hydraulic lines to hit!!! . In fact, you can riddle the f35 with bullets - you can't hit a hydraulic line. And the electricals is "networked", which means the computers can find and use alternative path ways to the control surfaces. And they ripped out the whole cockpit on the F35. Not even a HUD display. All gone - just a simple flat screen in the cockpit - this saves million's of dollars right there. The helmet HUD system is now less then 300k, and much less cost then all those knobs and gauges in the cockpit. And you can pull out a cigarettes' sized electronic pack from the helmet, and swap in a new one in 5 minutes (and send the faulty one via FedEx to get replaced). All field serviceable parts in the F135 engine have been moved to a common access door. As a result, all such service can be done with just 6 tools found in a typical mechanics tool box. You would have to re-design the F15 from the ground up to achieve the lower maintains and ease to keep a F15 flying compared to a F35. the result of all these new cost saving and lower maintains technology? Quote: *_A critical metric of reliability is the “break rate,” meaning the percentage of fighters that return from missions in a non-mission capable state. About 94% of F-35A sorties are completed with no breaks-by far the best performance of any Air Force fighter_* Not just good but BEST of any Air Force fighter. Quote: *_The F-35 was designed to be more maintainable than legacy fighters, and it is. The Air Force variant requires far fewer hours of maintenance per flight hour than the F-15 or F-16_* Again, far fewer hours!!! Quote: *_the number of maintenance hours per flight hour on legacy fighters is a multiple of what F-35A is demonstrating today. The Air Force’s stated requirement for F-35A is no more than nine hours and the actual is five hours, making it the most easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet_* MOST easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet!!! Quote: *_A key metric of sustainability is whether fighters in need of repair can be fixed in a single eight-hour shift. F-35A has consistently outperformed all other Air Force fighters in achieving this goal, thereby speeding return of aircraft to the operational force_* Again: CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORMED ALL OTHER air force fighters. And why don't we got to the office of USA accounting - see what they dish out to a air base to keep their fighters running, right? You get these numbers: *_Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: Year 2022_* Air force: per hour rates: F-16C $10,866 F-16D $10,782 F-15C $23,537 F-15D $23,564 F-15E $18,799 F-15EX $16,467 F-22 $50,334 F-35A $13,185 (we can’t mix and match Navy numbers - they calculate their costs somewhat different (and you can’t pull numbers from one quote and compare to another - apples and oranges: Navy: AV-8B 17,094 (Harrier) FA-18C 21,288 FA-18D 23,137 FA-18E 16,742 FA-18F 17,838 F-35B 13,307 F-35C 12,498 So, we see that: F35 is less then older F18's, and less then newer ones to fly per hour. We see that: F35 is VERY much less then older F15, and less then newer ones to fly per hour. And if you want to use the higher per hour rate, then you get this: F35: 33k per hour F16: 30k per hour F15: up to 39k per hour. I can't post public office USA links on YT (they are public records reported and required by law for USA PUBLIC reporting laws). For some crazy reason, YT does not allow such links!!! However, you can find the direct links to the government accounting site in the description of this video - that is the source of above: ua-cam.com/video/CFAyMi_PJ5o/v-deo.html Go grab the above numbers - go see WITH YOUR OWN eyes. but, no, F15's cost more to buy, and cost more to fly per hour.
I really don’t care the cost per flight we are a rich country we can afford it f15 goes mock2.5 F35 mock 1.5 when the nuclear bombers come over the arctic when you the interceptor F 35 has no dog fighting skills all it realizes stealth and technology enough if they really wanted to buy a 5 generation fighter they should’ve tried to get an F 22 which is better than any plane
@@rockhardbalboa1832 But a F15 will burn through it WHOLE fuel load in 6 minutes on AB's. That hardly a game changer here, right? Fuel capacity (fuel tank size): Harrier 7,000 lbs F16 - 7000 lbs Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs Rafale 10,362 lbs F18 - 10,860 lbs
A well trained pilot is the most important part of any fighter, not the only important part, but the most important part. For the cost of giving a pilot 250 hours/year in an F35, we could afford to give that same pilot over 1,300 flight hours/year in the Gripen. Basically we could let them fly till their brains fell out. I'd like to see a force of Gripen pilots that well worked up take on some 250 hour F35 pilots. My money would be on the Gripen guys.
The problem is that in a 'real' war where stealth could make the difference i.e. the F-35 gets to see you well before you see the F-35 and it takes you out regardless of how good a pilot you are. I am also assuming that all pilots especially the best who would be flying the F-35' would be as capable as there counterparts. I do agree though that a mix of aircraft like the Gripen along with the F-35 is the best option for Canada as both have there roles and could be about the best combination out there in the world today!
@@vMaxHeadroom it is only stealthy until it opens the bay to fire. after that it is detected and useless. and once it is done, the real residual radar signature is identified and can then be recognized. it is also is stealthy only to radar at certain frequency ranges, so with several and different system, it might not be that stealthy ... OK you scoe 2 shots at the begining and after you have a slow airplane that carry few bombs and is very expensive and problematic to maintain ...
250 is a made up number lol US pilots right now average 100-140 a year and is actually only required to complete 100. So 250....Jesus. lol Canada would have to have like 3479984 maintenance personal and 247997 F35s to be able to keep up with that many sorties to get each pilot 250 per year lol good lord
@@benjaminlamey3591 bay door is open for less than 1.6 seconds. Now....tell me who current enemy has a radar and pilot that can detect a F35 when it lauches from its internal bay for just 1.7 seconds????? Oh....and at a range of 80 plus miles? Lol
@@nexpro6118 whoo talks about a pilot ? modern warfare includes AI coupled to Radars. as soon as you open, you go fron the radar section of a bird to the radar section of a plane. even if you go back, new AESA will keep tracking you. and if there is a combat cloud, all other will be informed. even if it is a ground radar, or a ship, a drone or a surveillance plane. you are spotted and tagged.
@@jamiewhichelo9983 It is now, but we are ignoring that option & SAAB to throw our lot into an expensive short range stealth plane that may not stay stealthy vs some competitors.
@@TB-zf7we If it won't stay stealthy, then every non-stealth aircraft will have to be grounded. Anything that makes it possible to detect stealth through radar would make it pathetically easy to shoot down non-stealth aircraft from thousands of miles away.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Yah, that is the risk to this planes multibillion dollar commitment, there is no guarantee that tomorrows radar/sensor will not be able to see it & aim SAM's at it.
Generally well done for a "non-expert". The purchase agreement will most likely come with the establishment of a permanent, Arctic-based, squadron. As for northern capabilities, the Gripen could not persuade Finland, Denmark, and Norway among others, so how could Sweden equip NORAD when one of the two partners actually sells the F-35?
The recent purchases of F-35's is more likely due to American political pressure regarding their entry to NATO, than a real preference for the plane. Canada has also succumbed to American coercion as well, instead of buying what they, and Canada, need, a Polar capable plane, which the F-35 is NOT.
Check your facts Dude, The F35 is less expensive than the Super Hornet per unit. Fact checking is important. Basically, Canada just needs a plane that can slot in with its NATO commitment.
Why do we have to buy ONE type of aircraft ? Can a mix of both be considered ? We need interceptors (mostly) Stealth tech does not do much for an interceptor, nor does VTOL. Can't we find that magic craft that would replace the CP-140, the Hercules, the Polaris, the CF-188 and flown by the Snowbirds ?
You can't run two different fighters - unless you have larger budgets. The problem is: You need pilot certification - costs a lot of money. You can't just jump from one fighter to another. You thus then need flight simulators, weapons' training, training for fuel range and consumption - all of these issues are different for each fighter. You need new ground crews - training on how to maintain, spare engines, engine maintains training, even simple things like how to change a battery, or even tow bars on the ground, and correct towing procedures. Correct re-fueling training. Training on how to mount weapons. Training on how to configure one type of missile for the given aircraft. You can't for example just take missile setup and configurated for a f16, and put that on a F18. So, you need also a whole parts supply and inventory system - all the systems from landing gear bits and parts, brake pads, brake lines, how to flush brake lines. So, I can type on for 1000+ more pages. So, if you fly 4 Super Hornets, or 40 of them, you have to build up the expertise to fly, train maintain. And even mission planning? Well, a pilot can spend say 8, even 10 hours for planning a 2-3 hour mission. And all of that training, planning, and coordination between two different fighters? Then again, different fuel ranges, different weapon procedures.. - the list goes on and on. Want to train a crew to roll out a wing tank, mount on the fighter - then fill with gas. Well, train them for one fighter - and wing tanks for that fighter? Well, all of those procedures - they change and you now have say with 10 fighters? Well, you have 5 of one, and that is 10 wing tanks - and procedures. And with 5 of another fighter - now you grabbing wing tanks, and having procedures for that fighter. There is a BIG reason why say on a aircraft carrier, they run SAME wings of aircraft of the same type. This allows crews on deck to service, setup, and deal with ONE kind of fighther. (even the catapult hook and so called hold back bar has a special setting and setup for EACH kind of fighter). I mean, why don't a bus company run 20 different kinds of buses? (or a city for that matter). They run a few models - as few as possible. So, why can't a mix of fighter jets be run? Because it costs a lot of money, boatloads more, and pilots trained, ground crews trained, spare engines, parts etc. now will have to be doubled. So, say while the USA, or the UK can afford to do this? And while at one time even we in Canada had aircraft carrier - even with steam catapults? We can no longer afford to do this. And we have to stretch the dollars as far as possible to run existing fighters. Heck, in Canada, we lucky to even afford to have and run an air force. So, if we are to run different kinds of fighters, we will have to run LESS of them, due to costs. So, introduction of a new airframe? it is a huge challenge. As we start to receive F35s, we still will be flying our CF-18's. So, that's already two fighters, and if we were to say adopt another fighter, the we would already as a nation would be now flying 3 airframes. Canada has not run multiple fighter airframes for a VERY long time. Last time was when we starting buying our F18's - that was about 1981.
With the cross section of the B-1 Lancer Bomber......to take to invade enemy air space littered with SAM sites.....please don't be a military strategist....please.....New F15s are good for support roles after the SAM sites are destroyed by the 5th Gen Stealth fighters .....and most of the enemies 5th Gen fighters have been shot down......or bombed.....see.....strategy.....can't just have all 4th Gen fighters lol
Mixed fleet, F-35 and Gripen - would be perfect. The Gripen gives you flexibility and lethality with the cheapest operating costs, and full integration/sharing. The F-35 gives you stealth, intrusion & loiter ability, but comes at a whopping operating cost.
Those lower Gripen operating costs are illusory. Having two completely different air frames dramatically increases your logistics costs. You double your fixed costs with the need for two separate maintenance streams and with fewer aircraft utilising each, you don't realise the economies of scale.
The old 'mixed fleet' argument... yes training, parts, etc. but you also get better platforms for their use. Air Forces are naturally mixed due to operational needs - don't succumb to 'one fighter to rule them all' dribble.
The Grippon is obviously the best choice for Canada. Even the Americans are cutting back on orders for the F-35 as they're too expensive to buy, too expensive to operate, and too expensive to maintain. The F-35 is a profit maker for Macdonnel Douglas. But not the best choice for a middle-power like Canada.
Lockheed-Martin manufactures the F-35. As far as cut backs of US F-35's ... Yes that is true but IMO, they are letting other countries get into the line. Could be wrong but once the new Republican Congress & Senate take over in 2023, the orders will start again!
As if the Gripen isn't a profit maker for Saab, which has been cashing checks with their marketing their production capabilities can't cash. Saab's con is milking third rate countries.
"Failing upwards"! LMAO..Seeing Canada 🇨🇦 is the #1 partner, they were just being smart about it by waiting. Now the cost has come down almost 50% from the original purchase price!
I think it is a great decision, though a mix of aircraft is important. The F-35 is without a doubt the best fighter on the market with a first look first kill capability due to stealth. This is no dog fighter nor should it be. Canada needs another aircraft like the Gripen, F-15, F-18 etc. as well much like us in the UK with F-35's and Typhoons. F-35's go in first to clear the way with the Typhoons just behind and the F-35 can direct the Typhoons weapons to targets as well. Lot of FUD about the F-35 bit with over 700 produced and actual pilots now understanding how it should be used with a complete new book on tactics, this is the best option out there right now!
The F35 is better dogfighter then a F16, and it certainly going to be better then our current F18's. the problem with the F16 is that single tail design. And worse for the F16? The F35 has a better power to weight rating then a F16, f18a, Gripen, and in fact the F35 is even better THEN A DUEL engine Rafale. We get this power to weight rating for these fighters (higher = better). Fuel or Payload Rafale F35 F16 Gripen 0 1.4137 1.3984 1.4784 1.2617 700 1.3737 1.3672 1.4284 1.2130 2500 1.2806 1.2932 1.3141 1.1035 3500 1.2341 1.2555 1.2581 1.0508 3750 1.2230 1.2464 1.2449 1.0384 5000 1.1704 1.2028 1.1826 0.9805 6000 1.1314 1.1701 1.1371 0.9387 7000 1.0950 1.1391 1.0950 0.9003 7500 1.0777 1.1242 1.0751 0.8822 9125 1.0249 1.0784 1.0151 0.8283 10362 0.9880 1.0459 0.9737 0.7914 12000 0.9431 1.0058 0.9239 0.7474 13500 0.9055 0.9718 0.8825 0.7111 15000 0.8707 0.9399 0.8447 0.6782 18250 0.8038 0.8776 0.7729 0.6165 20900 0.7564 0.8325 0.7228 0.5739 From above we see that: The F16 has to burn fuel down to a low 3,500 lbs to match the power to weight rating of F35 The duel engine Rafale fairs even worse - down to a bone dry 700 lbs to match the T/W rating of the F35. And the low power Gripen? Even starting with a 0 payload, it never matches the F16, Rafale, or the F35. We see that with JUST 5,000 lbs of fuel in the Gripen, the total aircraft weight EXCEEDS engine power! that means the Gripen can't even fly straight up on engine power anymore. And double that fuel to 10,000 lbs? Now the F16, and EVEN the duel engine Rafale total weight now exceeds engine power (thrust). But, the F35? It still has a T/W rating over 1:1. That means it can still power straight up by engine power. And even with 11,000 lbs or even 12,000 lbs, the F35 still is over 1:1 power to weight. (F35 can still fly straight up on engine power). And as you increase fuel or payloads? Things continue to tip and be in favor of the F35 over the other 3 fighters. the other big elephant in the room? Fuel tank size: Fuel capacity (fuel tank size): Harrier 7,000 lbs F16 - 7000 lbs Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs Rafale 10,362 lbs F18 - 10,860 lbs Typhoon - 11,000 lbs F15 - 13,455 lbs F/A-18E: 14,700 lb F35 - 18,498 lbs Note the VERY small fuel tank on the F16 and the Gripen. And note how that the F35 on internal fuel has MORE fuel then a f16, or Gripen or our CF-18's with 2 wing tanks!!!! It never made sense to me for us in Canada to look a a fighter with a fuel tank that about the same size as Harrier jump jet - which are notorious known for low fuel capacity and range. For those that don't know? Our country Canada is BIG - we are the worlds 2d largest county by land size!!!! So, a fighter jet that starts out with a large fuel tank kind is a basic starting point here, and looking at the F35, it has LARGER fuel tank then even a F15!!!
I'd like to see a couple squadrons of twin engine planes like the Typhoon for Arctic patrols. We simply do not have adequate airfields up north to use single engine aircraft in our massive Arctic region (many times larger than Norway, Sweden, and two or three times that of the USA).
@@jamesfriesen191 More than 750 F35’s made now. That’s more than Typhoon/Eurofighter, more than Rafale. Accident rates: (Class A rates) F15: 2.36 per 100,000 hours F-22: 5.49 per 100,000 hours F18: 2.84 per 100,000 hours F16: 3.45 per 100,000 hours Harrier: 11.4 per 100,000 hours F35: 1.4 per 100,000 hours With the January 2019 f35 crash on the Carl Vinson carrier? The F35 is now at 1.7 per 100,000 hours. However, there is a LOT of F35’s now flying In fact the F35 is the best-selling fighter in 40 years. And more amazing? Well, they lost none during the testing phase. And the F35 also has escaped the so called “bad” early years in which we often see high crash rates. So, for example the bad “early” year for the F16? They had a whopping 17 F-16 crashes in ONE year! (1982). (one year!!!) And even more amazing there are more F35’s flying now than when that bad early year occurred for the F16. And even the fan favorite and loved F15 Eagle? They saw eight (8) in one early year - 1978. And from 1995 to 1996, 10 F-14’s were lost. From 1991 to 1996, I believe the total is 30 F-14’s lost. The F35 not really had that "worst early year", and given that over 750 F35's been made - that's more than any newer 4th gen jet right now. To put it mild? The F35 clearly by HUGE margins has been shown to be one of the most reliable new fighters ever built, and most safe in terms of pilot’s fatalities. But, what about that single engine debate vs dual engine? As noted, for a long time carriers did fly single engine fighters - certainly from WWII to the jet age. And carriers ran their all-weather bomber/attack aircraft - the famous Corsair A7. They ran those single engine attack aircrafts up 1991 - so again a single engine aircraft proved to be safe and reliable for carrier operations. However, dual engine fighters do NOT have two engines for reasons of reliability, but in fact for more power. In Gulf war, we saw the most sorties and up time was the f16. Do you want to maintain 120 engine cores on a carrier, or 60? You in effect double the number of engines you have to deal with, check, and maintain. Worse yet, unlike an airliner, these centerline engines share a LOT of common stuff. If one engine lets go, then often the problem spreads to the other. In 2017, a navy f18 had engine trouble during takeoff at Bahram airport. The f18 crashed, but pilot ejected safely. In mid-2018, an f18 flying off Philippines experienced engine trouble, and both pilots ejected (safely), but jet of course crashed and was lost. (2 seater model lost). And one in Japan area was lost. And in one case a F18 lost its left engine. However, that engine also just happens to control and supply fuel transfer duties from wing tanks. The pilot had fuel, could not transfer, and thus punched out and had to ditch the f18. Interesting looking at those lost F18’s? Dual engines did not help or save the fighter in many cases. So that sharing of hardware between the two engines does not give you a double redundancy say like those 100% separate engines on commercial aircraft. So with dual engine fighters, those side by side engines share all kinds of bits and parts and control systems - and the engines are kept fed and happy by a lot shared hardware between the engines. One engine lets go, it often causes problems for the engine right next to it. As such, we don’t see higher crash or loss rates for single engine fighter’s vs dual. And as noted, put 60 aircraft on a carrier - you now want to manage, check and maintain 120 engines? In fact, I don’t even believe that the Navy specs out or demands that fighters be dual engine. So, this debate is not all cut and dry, and not all that simple in favor of dual engine fighters. Right now? The F35 is the safest fighter - in terms of both crash rates, AND loss rates per hour flown, and that includes loss of pilot life. So, this debate of duel engine vs single engine fighters is not over. Fighters don't have two engines for reasons of reliability, but in fact to package up more power. And we in Canada did fly single engine fighters in the past. And so far, the F35 is turning out to be the best fighter jet - including a low loss rate, and low crash rate.
Sure get the F-35's they're slow and stealthy a great plane for operating in other countries airspace. Canada should also be buying some new F-15EX systems that the US just ordered. Longer range, two engines, 50% faster interception. You don't need stealth to intercept 70 year old Russian bombers. You want them to know you're there and armed to the teeth with a dozen missiles.
What does speed have to do with today's air war needs? Please explain. Because super fast aircraft is only really needed for intercepts on bombers and at times other jets. Most missiles are wanting to be launched at the bad guys jet when you are still about 65 miles away from each other and if a 5th Gen fighter finds itself in a dogfight, then that pilot fucked up lol. Even in dog fights, max speed is pointless. It really matters in dog fighting with how quickly the jet can regain its speed to get its energy back quick. Lmao dude
Yes we can because you can’t put a price on freedom and we already got the CF 18 set up so the Griffin could be maintained and then we just have to modify it for that 35
So how much did they pay to cancel the first order of the F35? And what was the cost back then? And what is the cost now? So will the F18s become the snowbirds? Talking about old planes...
Look at all major air forces that operate the F 35, everyone has to have a second jet to supplement the F 35. The US air force has the F15, the Navy has the F 18 (same as the RAAF) and the RAF has Eurofighters. So, the point is the F 35 on its own does not fulfill all promised purposes (see the late John McCain's reaction when someone tried to say the F 35 was as good as the A 10 at close support - he was not "impressed" to say the least). Also as General Brown said you don't use your Ferrari for everyday purposes (not even the USAF can afford that) - so I think a further purchase of another jet like the F 18 super hornet or the Gripen might be unavoidable.
That's the thing its risky to put all your eggs in one basket. There was a reason there are different planes for specific jobs and when it comes to tank busting for instance the A-10 is the epitome of this philosophy.
So, probably the decision to try to have the A, B, and C variants all come off of the same air frame was a mistake. Maybe the A and C was feasible, but certainly not the jump jet version. A lot of compromises had to be made, not the least of which is having one engine.
Those other forces you listed are also significantly-to-vastly larger than ours. In those forces, the Hornets and F-15s are going to serve as "munitions trucks" for F-35s. If Canada is ever in a place where we need to be performing heavy air missions, it means that the USAF, USN and RAF have been severely beaten down, and we all have much bigger problems to think about. Canada does not NEED a "big" fighter. It's not our mission.
F35 should be named A35, the stealth capabilities are worth to invade enemy territory undetected, drop the weapons and get out there. In a dog fight with Gripen, the F35 must deal with the heavy EWS system installed on Gripen, and find a way to avoid meteor and IrisT missiles, two highly lethal weapons. Gripen can fly faster, supercruise and for more time than F35. The turn around is the fastest possible, 10 min to refuel and rearm A2A weapons and Gripen are ready to go. The JSF program was a money pit for the USA, and they are shoving the buggy computer with wings down the other countries throats, to cut their losses. All those countries of the F35 buyers will deeply regret their decision by the time to pay the bills of flying, maintenance and infra structure to keep that Hangar's Queen Divas ready to fly.
That is completely false the info you are giving is for a clean Gripen. With a combat load it is slower has less range and with a significant radar cross section would have to be dodging missiles long before it was able to fire on the F-35
If 2 countries have an airwar with 5th Gen jets, won't be so much dog fighting done. If an F35 finds itself in a dog fight. That pilot done fucked up lol. Also, F35s will not be sent into battle all alone. 4th Gen fighters will escort with the F35s
Also, keep in mind that what you and I and everyone else is saying in here, is based on no experience at all with these fighters lol. We watch airshow videos and play DCS and then think we know which jet is better lol
@@douglasm3310 Dude, you are way too much entitled. F35 has no supercruise. with an engine twice as powerful they can't fly faster than JAS 39 E. The sweden jet has the less drag coeficent, cut the air like butter, ask any pilot and understand this kind of advantange.
@@strikebr you’re still incorrect and are giving information for a Gripen without missiles or drop tanks. With this things added on its slower and has less range.
![Canada's Next Fixed Wing SAR Air-Frame [FWSAR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UFldVi0m9Kw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Canada's Next Fixed Wing SAR Air-Frame [FWSAR]](/img/tr.png)
I can distinctly recall the term "aging" being used to describe the cf-18 when I was in primary school...I'm now in my 30s.
lol
Submitted my application to become a fighter pilot in the RCAF a few months ago and once I graduate next month and submit my final academic transcript, my future is set to be one of the first if nit the first CF-35A fighter jet pilot in the RCAF 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Not yet boy the gripen is the right choice it has better advantages than the F35 it has the ability to land highways and imagine doing that in the middle of the Antarctic that would be cool and plus the gripen has been combat tested the F35 has done only one raid and plus dude the us airforce is building up a fourth gen fleet because many in the airforce in culling pilots who have been to war zones and flew in combat missions say it’s a dud because if the wings and plus the jet is made from composites that make every single different variant and once the Chinese find the missing F35 which will be way before you step in the cockpit they already no the secrets and then they tell the Russians the weakness of the plane and then what is the point of having the fighter anyway
@@joshuadelbelbelluz8325 The F-35 is the future of aerial warfare!!!
Good luck
@@ChaoticCobra once world war 3 stars you will change your mind
@@joshuadelbelbelluz8325 oh stop!!! You obviously have bad info lmao. You go for it Brandon. A 35 will be waiting in Cold Lake buddy.
Th F35 we bought are Block 4 and those are scheduled to ship starting in 2026. So, 2025 delivery is unlikely.
The reason the USAF, Marines and Navy are pulling the numbers of F35 purchase is that they also want to maximize block 4 units. Currently, they are buying block3 and those will need to be upgraded later on, which is what USA wants to avoid.
Bloc[k] 4 is said to [gradually] fix some 800 defects (minor to major), including powerplant upgrade for some 30% more performance, a mission-critical component for Canada
@@criticalevent it's cute how you think you're cute by denigrating my comment by calling it cute. It's also presumptuous to think I'm not aware their plans can change anytime.
As far as Canada is concerned, IMO, I would have preferred the Super Hornet but Boeing fncked us on the C-Series so I'm OK not doing business with them. The political playfield changed drastically last month so we're faced with a hard decision on availability. The per-plane cost of the Gripen was the same (although the F35 has higher cost/hour of operation), and the Gripen requires more development to support NATO and North America interoperability. So between a plane that could and a plane that can, plus the added benefit of aligning with the one with the bigger bat should push come to shove, there really is no other option.
@@criticalevent obsolete 🤣🤣🤣
I'm amused you think we need an interceptor. .
To intercept who?
We don't even need fighters. Let the Americans spend all their money on the military.
We just need to defend against America.
@Drew Peacock why is there even a discussion about Russian bombers? Who really thinks they would try to attack North America?
Russia is not that stupid.
And yeah, a few SAM sites would be a decent deterrent considering it really looks like Russia has some substandard equipment, men or training.
@Drew Peacock Sorry. I dont. It's all over the place in terms of details for block 4.
Basically there's a list of some ~871 defects (whose details we dont have) that are being progressively worked on (Bloomberg, 2021). Right off the bat, Block 4 is said to have 53 improvements (ranging to software fixes to new support for ammunitions-were those considered as defects previously? I dont know). The Block 4 initiates a new upgrade system called C2D2 where defects and additions will be progressively rolled in in what they call Block 4.1, 4.2 etc. In Popular Mechanics, the reason given by the US mil is «One reason for the procurement drop is that the government is waiting on the imminent release of Block 4, a major hardware and software upgrade meant to enhance the stealth fighter’s capabilities.» which presumably takes care of many issues they've been waiting for resolution.
I'm also assuming the 800+ defects are spread across the versions of the platform. Not all may affect F35A, B or C. I suppose.
In one article I read, some defects were in terms of operational availability: ie, new radar frequencies and the like, not necessarily an actual software/hardware bug. I'm sure they dont care for the MP3 player not being able to read FLAC files 🙂 (Assuming it has one)
Can we talk about that great clip at 2:14? Where is this from? "'Ok attack on my command' 'Yes Captain' 'That is if you feel like it, I mean I don't have to decide everything'" LOLOLOL
Swedishness: ua-cam.com/video/v8_7yPocGPg/v-deo.html
Allowing SAAB a back door, will just keep Lockheed motivated to negotiate. It’ll speed up delivery as well.
IF you don't sell me this caddie I will buy this smart car
The narrator and writing of this channel is brilliant. I love it.
Aw shucks.Thanks.
@@FrontlinePros the thanks took some time eh! But I greatly appreciate it lol. Keep up the great work. Good thing I got my notifications turned on lol.
You are comparing ranges for “clean” aircraft. The Griffen has to carry all stores externally while the f-35 Carries internally; meaning no additional drag on the f-35. Combat loaddd, the f-35’s range exceeds the combat loaded range of the griffen WITH external tanks
Question: Does Canadian Forces operate aerial tankers? With aerial refueling, take-off fuel capacity is less of an issue so long as air tankers are aloft and loitering where and when they are needed.
@@johngee9018
Yes, we have 4 C-130 tankers. They are outfitted with the so called "Navy" basket or so called "drogue" refueling. That means not a probe or so called boom refueling system.
So, with purchase of the F35? We will need either:
some new tankers - with Boom/Probe refueling.
But, ALSO as we continue to fly the CF-F18's for some years during the transition, we will still require air tankers with the basket system.
However, in December 2021, a contract was awarded to Lockheed - a "un known" customer requested a 4th Variant of the F35, and it is to be named the F35D model.
So, we have:
F35A: Usa Airforce, many other nations. This uses boom/probe refueling - NOT compatible with our current CF-18's
F35b: This is the STOVL version (it can hover, and vertical land like a Harrier jet). This uses Navy style basket re-fueling (just like our CF-18's).
F35C: This is for USA Navy and their carriers (catapult launch from carriers). this uses Navy style basket re-fueling (just like our CF-18's).
F35D:
This is brand new designation. It is identical to the F35a model, but will be outfitted for Navy style (basket) refueling.
This model will be for Canada, since if we don't choose this model, then we will have to buy new air to air tankers with boom refueling option. But, with boom, then those tankers will not have basket option.
However, to be fair, the newer tankers we could buy could and would be equipped to service both basket and boom aircraft.
However, by Canada going with this 4th F35 model - then we would not have to purchase new tankers.
Internal fuel tank size of typical fighters:
Fuel capacity (fuel tank size):
Harrier 7,000 lbs
F16 - 7000 lbs
Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs
not gonna happen its still LM will get the contract no matter ......lol
@@j2koolc922
Not sure if you referring to my post and information. But yes, a contract involving the refueling system for the F35 went out in December. (this also suggests that Canada had known and made their decisions in December). Regardless, there is to be a new model of the F35, and it will be named the F35D model. This almost for sure is what we in Canada will get.
@@johngee9018 yes Canada operates mid air refuling aircraft
There is also in-flight refueling which offsets the range question.
The A is the only variant with a gun. Canada has an arresting hook on its CF18 fighters to be able to land on smaller runways. From what I know, the A type variant doesn't come stock with one, but they may Canadianize it by adding one. Typically in Canadian procurement you don't want to give up a capability when fighting with the treasury board for funding. This is because it is harder to convince them to get a new capability added to something (costs more money) and therefore makes it near impossible to get stuff back. For example, now that we don't have an aircraft carrier, because we sold our last one and didn't have a new one lined up, we will probably never have another one. Also, it was super hard for the RCN to get more than two MASS launchers added to the Halifax class ship even though the data shows that you need 4 of them for 100% 360 degree protection. If we give up the arresting hook, they might not be able to get a plane with one in the future. Doesn't seem like a big deal but by purchasing the F35 we are going with an airframe that only has one engine and we usually like to have jets with a redundancy. Because, if one engine dies and you only have one then that is an expensive asset lost that could have landed otherwise. To speak in favour of it we have already invested so much money in it's development it would seem like kind of stupid for the government to not follow through on that. IMO, I would have gone with brand new Super Hornets. They are good planes that would last another 30-50 years and still be relevant. Additionally the Super Hornet can be transitioned to easier because of the closeness in infrastructure and support to the current older variant F18s we employ.
F16, F22, F15's and F35a?
All of them have a tail hook. They are just not robust ones like used daily for carrier landings, but they all are equipped with a tail hook. And all such military runways have the ability's to lay out a arresting wire for use with such hooks in case of brake failure, or even a bad tire.
So, yes, the F35a does have a tail hook.
Canada originally wanted to purchase their CF-18's without a tail hook and the re-inforced front landing gear, but were told by Boeing that it would cost them more because it would involve a total re-design of the landing gear because the Jet was designed as an aircraft carrier based plane.
@@Albertkallal the reason why aircraft like the F 35A have a tail hook is for emergency landings but they could be easily used to make shorter landings on traditional runways that usually they shouldn’t be able to use
@@AdonNighbor
Yes the tail hook on the F35A is there for limited use and emergency use (like most fighers have).
As such, that tail hook is not designed for daily use, or how a cable trap system works on a carrier. In that case then EVERY landing is a arrested tail hook landing, and one that bears the FULL force and weight of the aircraft day after day. And bears that total aircraft weight in a rather short distance (shorter then the ground based tail hook systems that are much like a "one time" type of use case.
So, the light weight tail hooks found on most fighters are not to be compared to the robust and VERY strong tail hook system used for carrier variants of aircrafts. As noted, not only is the tail hook near always used, but that part of the airframe ALSO has to bear the full weight of the aircraft and last for repeated stops. This places significant stress on the airframe in that area. Thus the the rear airframe parts are substantial more robust, and are heaver then non carrier variants for for such operations. As such, there is little to be compared here except the name of a tail hook in both cases.
@@Albertkallal I was saying, I could see it easily being upgraded for daily operations but thank you for bringing some stuff to light that I didn’t know before
I'm a Gripen guy. Highway landings, short reload and turn around, small ground crew and range. Packs a powerful punch. I feel Canada doesn't need stealth capability because we really aren't a "first strike" military but more intercept, peacekeeping and flying the flag up north. That being said I suppose I can learn to love the F35.....
Same.
Stealth isn't just useful for attack though. If ever we had to defend our airspace, being able to spot MIGs and SUs and fire at them long before they could do the same would be a massive advantage.
You need to do more research on the 35, aside from stealth the real power of this bird is its electronic and A.I. that are part of the system. the pilots helmet has a 360 or better yet all over view, you can see through the floor down to the earth by pointing the helmet where you want to see. the 35 also has the ability to take control and direct Multiple platforms and coordinate an attach all at once using the A.I from sea air or land. no other jet even comes close to doing this. the 35 will also have a squadron of drones controlled by the pilot and A.I. there is also a f35 with V/STOL
@@Jarsia Its really the Backfire Tupulev type bombers that are the problem they can fly high ,go far and can attain speeds near MACH 1.8.
@@drunkrumjack It won't matter when the F-35 can detect them from hundreds of miles away and dispatch them with AIM-120D's or the new AIM-260.
I still feel the Saab is the better fighter for us Canadians.
The F-35 is an aircraft we would have difficulty maintaining, paying for, and keeping enough in stock.
We need to recognize that we are a middle economy in this world. The Saab planes are advance enough to compete with room for upgrades on our terms. Plus we can purchase and build more then 88 of them.
88 planes with a 2,200 km standard range is not enough to cover all of Canada properly. Plus taking account of breakdowns, training planes, maintenance, and over head whether we can put a proper wing of them into the air.
The Saab was built and designed in the same weather as what we have in Canada. It is tested all over the world by different operators. And it is built and produced by a another nation with similar economical and military status.
The Saab fighter will give Canada a fighter that will last longer and more of them then the F-35 would ever will.
@@CrashAndBurnProductions I can’t disagree but the military knows more than us if they got the F 35. It can be changed for different missions And we have the liberal checkbook. Lol
No problem funding it. We will have under 100 planes, that’s within our budget. Unlike the United States with thousands. I’m sure you get what I’m saying. Cheers
We don't need to cover all of Canada properly, we have a common air defence with America that covers all of Canada properly. We need to be interoperable with our allies.
@@Steve-eq8iz All we have is NORAD. That is just air surveillance unless we get into a dog fight situation with jets from the enemy that is protecting their bombers. So basically we don’t have anything capable of true defence . Even our radar is out of date and is scheduled to be reviewed and replaced.
Canadian Army does not have a capability to defend itself against air attack, either from fighter aircraft or sophisticated attack/strike helicopters, unless you want to stretch your imagination and state our soldiers have pistols, rifles and machine guns.
@@Steve-eq8iz our ally planes do not cover the north pole route from Russia or China. With planes of 2,200 range and only 88 of them it is a large area with very little redundancy.
Plus in a warfront who do you think the ally planes will cover first? Their territory or ours?
We would need drone tanker to go along!!!! Wondering what would be the minimum fleet size that make sense and get both jets as one is cheap and versatile in the north the other is a fragile computer with wings
Considering Canada has that long northern coast to guard I'd have thought the F-15EX would have been a better choice. It has two crew, a good range, a decent missile load and with support of AWAC and tankers could loiter up there for some time.
Canada dropped the F15EX from the competition in the very early decision stages after Boeing refused to lower the price. The combined cost of the F15 offer was 30% higher than what the F35 and Gripen teams offered.
I think the F-15 has a good range when its carrying gas tanks.
The F-15 is made by Boeing. It's been off the table since the Bombardier mess with Boeing. I doubt the Govt. of Canada will buy anything from Boeing in the next 30 or 40 years.
@@bearhead9633 the F-15 is also almost a 50 year old, non stealthy airframe. This is coming from sn F-15 fan boy. It definitely isn't the right plane for the job.
@@nelsondoyle1377 I love the F-15 as well. I still think its a dominant aircraft. I just think the F-35 working with other F-35s cannot be beat right now. Yes its expensive. Yes they ard working out the kinks. Yes its stealth coating got rusty on Aircraft carriers this year. But I think nothing can compare right now.
Update: because of delays, Canada will actually be getting the newest D variants. One big upgrade is the internal weapons bay will have a capacity of 6 missles vs the standard 4.
A dozen Superhornets or Typhoons should also be purchased for exclusive long range northern patrol duties which require two engines and longer range. The Australians already successfully use that mix.
Rafael from France is cheaper or better than typhoons??
Long range patrol is done by externals and or air refueling. Which is why US fighters can and have stayed in the air for up to 14 hours at a time during some missions over the middle east. During Northern watch of Iraq in the 80s. The F14 Tomcat would do air patrols for up to 8-10 hours at a time per jet. It's not hard to do and coordinate
US F-35's are used in arctic Alaska. They are based there. Lots of them. The long range situational suite is way, way beyond anything in those legacy fighters. You don't need two engines. The enemy won't see you unless you want them to. This is not the 1970's anymore.
Can someone explain to me why we can’t have both? I mean the RCAF has managed multiple air frames before, like during the Cold War when it had the CF-104 as a interceptor and the CF-116 as a fighter/ground attacker. The Armed force are expected to receive an increase to it’s budget so maybe we could finance it.
The F-35 is good for high intensity combat, like the opening years of the Afghan war or possible new peer on peer wars, like a country attacking a NATO member. But in a peacekeeping mission or against a small non state enemy, a F-35 is overkill and is a needless waste of resources. In those kinds of situations a Griffin could be used. Or like how the CF-104 was a interceptor, used it the protection of Canadian airspace, and the CF-116 was the frontline fighter.
I don’t believe our Country can justify buying both.
I am having a difficult time buying either.
We should buy an unmanned aircraft for high Arctic recon and that’s it.
@@danmcbride6258 UAV would be a good option, especially since they have more endurance and could take off from CFS in the Arctic instead of CFB further south. But would they be suited for the patrol and intercept role? Air to air UAVs aren’t that advanced yet.
"Can someone explain to me why we can’t have both?" we are broke AF with multi hundreds of billion in debt and won't be able to balance that out for the next decades if not generations might be the reason
@@LowTEC.Dracarys can you name a country not in multimillion dollar debt.
If we can hit the 2% GDP or get close to it we definately could do with both fighters.
We can't sink it all into jets , our military is badly in need in other areas.
@@johnready630 And if Canada was to get another combat jet, it would make more sense to go for a dedicated interceptor rather than another multirole fighter. Either the Eurofighter or F-15 if money is an issue
What was the SU-24 scene from?
Canada's Navy could take a look at an amphibious assault ship. Much cheaper than an aircraft carrier and great for a country with the longest coastline in the world. A handful of F-35B's could fly off it and be easier to maintain since the technicians would already be familiar with the type.
Very interesting, I didn't realize Canada has the longest coastline on the planet, you make a very good point about an assault ship, or ships
I disagree, I think we need new subs or even more patrol vessels (something smaller than the CSC) rather than an amphibious assault ship.
If we want something that patrol our coasts, we shouldn't be doing with a vessel designed for offensive operations or projecting force in distant lands.
@@jamesfriesen191 subs are only an offensive weapon, and despite the name "amphibious assault ship" you could think of it as a "helicopter carrier" it fills a multiple of roles, mainly deploying people and vehicles from the boat onto land.
SAR, Disaster response, maritime policing, all great operations for this ship
@@jamesfriesen191 an "A-26 extended" sub would be awsome.
Modular with extreme potential for future upgrades and with the very latest tech. Canada could get a product tuned for its needs.
I don't think Canada has the budget to buy and operate 88 F35As plus buy a few dozen F35Bs with a new fancy assault ship all at the same time
I'm actually glad that Canada held off. It's a foregone conclusion that the F35A is Canada's next fighter - however, it ALSO means that Canada will take delivery of the Block 4 which is a much more mature and capable platform than the original trouble-ridden launch variants.
It is difficult to fly/ maintain two separate high tech fleets on our limited defense budget. The training bill for air crews and more importantly ground crews would force us to only fly a limited few of each fleet simply based on the numbers of available personnel and training facilities.
But buying a 4th Gen fighter, you will eventually hit the wall with upgrades and won't be able to do anymore upgrades way later in its airframe age, like in the 2040s the F35 will still be able to take upgrades in the 2040s and not ro mention that all of the world's top to semi top countries are in the 5th Gen jets already and some already getting to the 6th Gen jets. Can't let Canada fall massively behind if they went with a 4th Gen. Buying 80 new 4th Gen would only help into the 2030s but not after for the reasons I said above. Then canada is looking again to buying something else in just 10-15 years and be so damn behind the curve
That's what happens with any new fighter is bought by a country.....
Black Widow II, Typhoon II ...mothballed Syrian MiG-21s. God, anything but that goddamned Hangar Queen to be.
There has been a lot of reporting lately about the US reducing their buys: I think this is a bit misleading when simply taken at face value. With Russia getting stupid, the Pentagon wants F-35s in as many allied air forces as possible. By reducing their yearly orders now, it frees up planes for allies (Lockheed is NOT slowing production from 150-160 per year). Second, the Pentagon has always been planning on the "Block IV" software and hardware to be the most combat capable production Lot. They won't be produced until 2029 at current estimates. The changes are so drastic, that the first 150 or so aircraft from the early 2010's might not actually be used in future combat vs advanced adversaries, and, rebuilding them has been deemed cost prohibitive. Which brings me to a question related to the RCAF buy: are we getting a mix of Block 3F and Block 4 aircraft?
No USA wants other countries to buy their jets period. Its not because of Russian aggression right now but only to secure deals making other countries a vassal state to them(The switch from Washington that can disable their air force). US AF is reducing their buys because f35 is to expensive to fly so they are going to stay with f16 for more operations then planned.
@@criticalevent Liked your own reply and no evidence. Another basic commieboo.
Full Block IV implementation won't occur till 2029 but we will see Partial block IV aircraft built before then. FInland ordered Block IV aircraft in Feb the Canadian deal is likely 2 years out from a signature with Liberal procurement efficiency then Canada goes in the Que. So Canada will be getting Block IV planes which hope fully will arrive the around the same time as the new A330 MRRT's
@@criticalevent no not really a lot of the allies have already placed orders and already have some jets it’s just that with the us taking priority in the delivery slots the allies won’t see the full number of jets that they have ordered but 2030 so this will just allow the allies get their aircraft sooner
@@criticalevent It's always been an international project that will be upgraded just like the F-16 is. And besides, the planes are exactly what was advertised to whom purchased them, they're still extremely lethal jets and are tactically superior to every other fighter. It's just they are making it better with the Block 4 and obviously the US is going to prioritize their own planes, duh. No other country is even close to the US when it comes to the F-35 right now, especially now that the F-35 is cheaper than almost all of it's competitors.
Another important feature of the F-35 would be NATO commonality.
I love how he talks about Canada like the whole country is just some old college friend he hasn’t talked to in a few weeks
I think a mixed fleet of F35As and F15EXs like what the US airforce is moving towards would be the most effective but not necessarily the cheapest, so it won't happen here...
The Gripen looks like a great platform but it's not a NATO airframe and not able to be connected to NORAD with its current electronics package, that pretty much guarantees it will never be picked by Canada.
Not for long. It's only a matter of time before Sweden is a full fledged NATO member. Thanks Vlad.
Well that's wrong.
i agree that Canada should have purchased mixed of f35 block 4 and f-15ex.
@@dalemartell8639 how so?
Czechia and Hungary are both Gripen operators in NATO
Hi from Finland. F-35 is safest and have more capabilities than Saab. There is also nearly 800 planes already in use.. Keep it simply F-35 is the best.
How many we going to buy? 5 or 6?
I still believe we should’ve followed suit behind the aussies and bought a dozen or so FA18F as a stop gap to augment the fleet. They are still a very relevant 4th gen, especially with conformal fuel tanks. The Aussies were even smart about it and had a number of their F models prepped to be converted into growlers, another very important asset
Honestly, that makes a lot of sense, I'd even go as far as to say that the "upgraded" F18's are all we really need. We know it does the job, we have the maintenance knowledge/facilities/logistics based on our current CF18s AND the pilot familiarity of systems. However I think the Bombardier C-series tariff scuffle a few years back soured the relationship with Boeing from the governments' point of view.
The Super Hornet started being produced in the 90s. The US doesn't buy them anymore. We do have upgraded F18s.
Canada would never be put in a position to need growlers. The Americans have so many. The US has more F-35 in Alaska then we have fighters in the forces. I think buying 35 was the right choice. Specially with the investments we made into the joint task fighter program
@@castlekingside76 us navy will be using f35’s backed up by F/A18 for the foreseeable future,
There is a lot of problems that make a Super Hornet interim purchase a very bad decision. Super Hornets were attempted to be bought previously but the spat with Boeing and Airbus alongside the insane $5.5 billion dollar cost for only 18 aircraft killed the program. The US Navy stopped funding the conformal fuel tank development for the Super Hornet as well so Canada would have to pay to build and develop those as well. It just doesn't make sense, buy the F-35 and upgrade what we have in the meantime until they arrive.
1:08 , who’s the party on the left?
the Pirate Party.
"If the F-35 uses external fuel tanks then why are we paying for that fancy stealth?"
Because the F-35 has the option of range, or stealth. The Grippen has no such option. Different loadouts can be used for different missions, depending on whether range is a priority or not.
Gripen is a Light Multi Role Fighter. Why u need stealth when you can shoot down a foe 180 km away? That's the meteor's mission.
@@strikebr because Canada has taken on a lager air to ground role in the last 10 years.
Incursions over Syria and Iraq with air superiority and no real threat from the ground is one thing, but in a hot war with a modern military, stealth will be a great asset.
Survivability is very important and having the ability to greatly reduce your chances of being detected by ever improving SAM systems or enemy fighters is a strong selling point.
Since both units come in at the same price, take the objectively more advanced option.
Mid air refueling should take care of range issues
We use the external tanks when training so the pilots can have more flight time per sortie dumbass lol. External tanks won't be used in live combat areas. It's why the US has a ton of areal tankers that stay on station just outside of a combat area to keep the F35 in the air for hours without externals
@@strikebr because the Grippens radar can't see a F35 that far away to just shoot it lol. What's called, "red air" missions in training where we have tested our best air defense radar to detect an F35 and most of the time, the F35 wasn't seen on radar until it was already within 8 miles and that's with air defense radars which are like 3589 times larger than radars in a fighter like the grippen lol
Why just 88 of them? That's far fewer than the number of CF18's we have/had. We have less pilots now or are we planning on getting drones too now?
Prolly just the first batch. Canada can still order more after the 88. Canada just has to give an order size now to get US to start building.
No, we brought over time a total of 138 and some more over time.
However, we only ever to my knowledge had a total of 80 CF-18's at one time and in most cases somewhat less.
So, the purchase of 88 F35s would result in Canada having and flying the same number of fighter jets we have now.
Canada 🇨🇦 rocks! As a former Topgun pilot, this is the tool my fellow fighter pilots need. Now Let’s go get some Russians and help Ukraine 🇺🇦!
A question.. why can’t we get the F35 and a couple of squadrons of Gripens ? I know it will require more logistics and it will add to the cost but I think operating both platforms will have its merits as both will have different roles and complement one another especially that the Gripen is a fully NATO interoperable
Not a bad idea but.....now having to train and operate and maintain 2 new jets, the cost is so high, Canada might as well just invest in even more F35As
@@nexpro6118 I totally agree on the cost part but the operational yield will be greater because the Gripens can outperform the F35 in some missions especially in interception and close air to air combat due to its better manoeuvrability , also the running cost of the Gripen is far less than of the F35 .. a lot of capable airforces around the world operate more than one platform, and with what happening in Ukraine.. I think we should significantly more in our military especially that we share borders with Russia and everybody knows that Putin has malicious ambitions for n the North Pole
we have been trying to buy a 9mm pistol for over a decade now , selecting a winner is almost meaningless at this point ! we still also cant replace the LSVW and so , so much more
If the hi-power works it works, I mean how many soldiers actually need new pistols, everyone who needs them already have Sig's right?
@@cjlancaster3558 well 1- many do not any more 2-the point is our inability to actually purchase things that have been approved
@@cjlancaster3558 The Hi-Power use to work. Most are broken and even the best working ones we have are held back because of the highly worn out magazines that constantly cause it to jam.
Justin wanted to kill the CF... he's done it
@@vancouver4sure Don't get me started.
Only 88? There should be atleast like 300 or so
As a hopeful rcaf pilot candidate, this just got much more exciting
Good luck kiddo.
The Saab extended range and lower price makes it a winner. Who ever wins must be capable of building an unmanned variant to fly aside our manned aircraft. Saab has indicated a willingness to build maintenance facilities in Canada.
The Swedes build quality and we should buy!
It won’t happen as the Air Force is already used to the f 18, and transitioning to the f35 is easier for them
The F-35A is ALREADY 3 million dollars cheaper the the Gripen. The Gripen only has a further range than the F-35 when loaded down with external fuel tanks. That means the F-35's cruise speed will be significantly higher, probably around 50 knots since it doesn't suffer from parasitic drag.
Have a look at the combat radius of an f-35 A with fuel internal fuel, 2 PGM’s and 2 AMRAAMs, then compare it to a similarly configured Gripen - the SAAB product doesn’t come up to scratch..
@@Smokeyr67 although the gripen is a cool airframe, the f35’s are easier for our guys to learn, and I heard that stealth has been a big factor in this too. I don’t know what will happen but doesn’t matter, our airforce needs and upgrade
@@Smokeyr67 would you rather have a radar cross-section the size of a ping pong ball, or would you rather have SA-8’s fire on you 130 miles out. It’s a very clear answer. With air-to-air refueling the argument of range is meaningless, the only thing you can argue is time on target. Range is a non-factor these days. Plus the Grippen sucks guys…
We can absolutely afford to do both. But getting nuclear subs for the arctic should be a much higher priority, and that's an even larger investment. The F-35 trounces the Gripen, just look at the Finish HX competition, where the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was ahead of it, and still massively behind the F-35. The F-35 will have support for years to come, is already set for NORAD integration, already supports Canadian jobs (that goes away if we pick the Saab), and even with its issues the Gripen is laughably untested. I don't think people have a reason to want the Gripen beyond hating the US and US armament.
Very well said. You have what's called a brain with common sense as well lol something becoming rare in these days lol ugh
Grippen is cheaper...but up to a point u get what u pay for.
I think a combination of the 2 would be a better decision. The JAS-39 is faster and cheaper to operate than the F-35, making it a better choice for things like interceptor or patrol. In simulators the Gripen outperformed the Lightning II in air-to-air combat. The F-35’s strength is in it’s survivability on ground attack missions because of it’s stealth. Split up the contracts in whatever ratio works best, and the Canadian taxpayers get more bang for their buck and the RCAF becomes a little more flexible.
@@bryanhendricks1391 they were. They were smart to wait cause the price has fallen lots. And in the last 12 years all the bugs have been worked out. The F-16 actually had way more problems in development than the F-35 but because of social media it seems like their junk.
I was completely on board with the Gripens but with asshole invading Ukraine, even Finland is gonna take the F-35. I think it’s the best one for the money right now. The government actually was way smarter for waiting it out. Getting each fifth generation fighter for millions of dollars less .
The Gripen is perfect for South American countries that fight low intensity guerilla conflicts and have borders to patrol. However anyone watching will note Brazil has few if any foreign deployments, 0 commitments to international treaty defense organizations and no enemies pointing nukes at them......basically the complete opposite of any country in the Northern Hemisphere....like say Canada, Finland, Sweden, or even an operator like Austrailia. Countries that MUST consider the technical superiority of the fighters they purchase. In a lot of ways it is the difference between what the requirements of an Amish farmer are vs an American Corn Farmer in Iowa with 3000 acres are. In each case their needs differ by orders of magnitude. The Gripen is a fine fighter but it will not survive the environment that 5th gen fighters are designed for...but it is a perfect fit for places like Brazil where the realistic threats it will face are all -4th gen.....where stealth is simply a waste of $.
A question for some of you more knowledgeable than me, I only started getting back into aircraft again. Why did they stop making the F22? From what I have read it was just as good as the F35 or better and could have upgraded newer models if they were still making them. I do understand they were only able to be purchased by the USAF, not sure why as they try to keep the tech secret for any jet fighter.
Maybe because the F22 is designed and best used for air supremacy, even if it can do ground support as they mentioned. But the F35 is a multirole aircraft that is supposed to excel in every domain. So all around, the F35 is supposed to do more things.
@@CrashAndBurnProductions That's a way better explanation than me, thanks man! I told it from the start : the F-35 is a failure and we would have been way better with either the updated F-18, or with the Grippen. But my favorite choice would have been the Dassault Rafale, what a fighter. Classed as a multirole fighter, they have the ability to outclass some pure air supremacy fighters.
Ok, there are few issues and reasons why they killed the f22 program.
While the first copy flew in 1997?
The wall came down in 1989.
So, some in congress asked why are we spending so much money on a VERY expensive fighter when we don't need it anymore? At that time, the so called cold war was assumed to have ended. And China had not really risen as a threat in that timeframe either.
So, congress decided to cut funding to the airforce get get a boadload of VERY exensive fighers, - ones that that they felt they did not require. While Gulf war occured in 1991, funding for the f22 program was tight.
So, USA figured there was little threat from other nations - why build somthing so expensive?
But, regardless of political pandering, they considered the f22 to high cost to buy, and too high cost to fly per hour. So, the cut the procourment program to buy more - thus the USAF only received 187 copies. They only produced them for a short 5 years.
Also, they were looking to replace the F16's, and even F18's to a new platform. And the idea was to produce an affordable single engine fighter - and one that could be exported in larger numbers. so, the JSF program was underway. That program was to be a VERY large volume sales and production program. (since boatloads of F16's and F18's had been sold world wide).
So, they decided to get nations like Canada, Austraila, Norway, UIK and a few more to sign on the dotted line to buy the F35.
tjhat way, they could have MUCH larger budgets for the F35, and spend MUCH more money to develop. (and they did).
And the result was to be a more afforable and lower cost figher.
So, money was needed for the F35 program, and once again, the F22 did not get the funding it required for continued production. The Air force wanted more f22's, but they were very high cost.
Many will suggest they cut the funds to the F22 program too soon. The problem was with the F35/JSF program now in to full swing?
Well, the JSF/F35 had a MUCH better and new round of technology that the F22 did not have, and missed out.
The F22 missed better computer tehcnology, and during the F22 program, they had a multi-specritiom IRST package. Then they cut that down to a single specrirmtpn IRST package. And then cut IRST100% out of the F22 program. This is a decison they regret to this day.
IRST = Ifraread Seach and Tracking.
It is a means to track and see aircarft without using Radar. (passive system). The last figher to have IRST package built in was of all things our fan favorate F14 Tom cat.
But is the f22 better then the F35?
Not really. The f22 has astounding power - and speed. However, in the area of technology, the F35 is MUCH better.
In fact, the F35 is so much better, that it will eat F22's like canday all day long, and THEN some!!!
So, all was not lost, and near all lessons as to what to do, and not do with a stealth figher? Those lessions were taken and applied to the F35.
While the F35 started out as being expensive?
Turns out, the goal of a lower cost, advanced figher with 5th gen features was acheived.
Eurofighter/Typhoon: 115 million per copy
Rafale: 94 million per copy
F15: 88 million per copy
Gripen: 85 million per copy
F35: 77.8 million per copy.
So, in a sense, the original idea of a lower cost fighter, one with new advanced features and stealth? Well, in fact the F35 now is quite much lower cost then just about any good 4th gen fighter you can buy.
And thus like the huge success of the F16? the F35 really is achieving the same goal. The F16 sold well and in large numbers because it was a really great fighter at the right price, and with great features.
Same can be said for the F35. It is actually racking up BIG sales worldwide right now, and one reason is it has become a lower cost, single engine fighter, and is less cost and offers better value then most other fighters.
So, in a funny way?
The original dream and idea of offering a advanced single engine fighter for a low affordable price that can't be beat? The F35 has achieved this original concept. It just took longer then expected to reach that lower cost. But, now the lower cost is driving sales in a big way, and the f35 now can't be beat at its current price.
Tbh I’m subscribing to this guy cuz he’s informative and he’s probably the only guy doing new content on the Canadian armed forces. Keep it up guy you’ve got my respect🙏🏾🇨🇦
Hey thanks!
As long as the 35 can run externals there won't be an issue for canada to purchase them seeing as how compromising the stealth a bit isn't an issue to get the extra range for interdicting russian aircraft as the whole point of going out to meet them is to be seen anyway. the stealth would be retained for active offensive missions where the enemy doesnt know we coming. my two cents as a serving rcaf mechanic on the f18. also im all for the integrated helmet because thats less systems to maintain in the aircraft itself which means more uptime for the jet and helmets can have downtime with spares on the shelf so thats all good. im also a big fan of the gripen though so either way id be happy.
Plus I'd be willing to bet an F-35 with underwing pylons (even with drop tanks still attached) will still have a smaller RCS than a Hornet.
Well, we have this:
Internal fuel tank size:
Gripen JAS 39 E/F: 7,500 lbs
CF18a (our current models): 10,860 lbs
F35a : 18,500 lbs
Now, looking at above, which you do think holds more fuel? In fact in most cases with 2 EFT's on our F18's you still have LESS fuel (and range) then does the F35 based on just internal fuel load!
And you thus don't mess with 2 EFT's - that have to be mounted, filled up separate. So, with say just 6 F18's, that is 18 fuel tanks and 18 fueling operations!!! And if they are to be removed after flights, then that is 12 fuel tanks to be drained, and carted off to storage.
Also, in addition to having ripped out the hud, and all gauges? (just a simple flat screen now), they also ripped out and removed near ALL hydraulics . So, no maintains there - no hydraulics fluid tanks to top up, no piston seals to leak - (or replace or maintain).
The control surfaces are electro-mechanical now. They are now quite much maintains free. Not only that, but since most of the electronics is network based? Then multiple electric pathways exist to the control surfaces - you can riddle the aircraft with bullets, and a pathway to the control surface will still exist, and is multiple orders redundant compared to traditional fighters that use hydraulics.
And the engine? Well, P&W reports that it service requirements are 40% less then previous gen fighters - and with only one engine then that means almost 4x factor in reduced maintains.
And the engine was designed for easy field service. All field serviceable parts for the F135 engine have been moved to ONE common area and access door. In fact, all such servicing can be done with just 6 tools found in a typical mechanics box.
So, right now? Compared to F18, F16, f15's?
The USAF is finding the F35 to require the least amount of ground crew hours to keep a F35 flying then ANY other fighter they have - including the single engine F16.
Quote:
*_A critical metric of reliability is the “break rate,” meaning the percentage of fighters that return from missions in a non-mission capable state. About 94% of F-35A sorties are completed with no breaks-by far the best performance of any Air Force fighter_*
Not just good but BEST of any Air Force fighter.
Quote:
*_The F-35 was designed to be more maintainable than legacy fighters, and it is. The Air Force variant requires far fewer hours of maintenance per flight hour than the F-15 or F-16_*
Again, far fewer hours!!!
Quote:
*_the number of maintenance hours per flight hour on legacy fighters is a multiple of what F-35A is demonstrating today. The Air Force’s stated requirement for F-35A is no more than nine hours and the actual is five hours, making it the most easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet_*
MOST easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet!!!
Quote:
*_A key metric of sustainability is whether fighters in need of repair can be fixed in a single eight-hour shift. F-35A has consistently outperformed all other Air Force fighters in achieving this goal, thereby speeding return of aircraft to the operational force_*
Again: CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORMED ALL OTHER air force fighters.
Actually, surprising and scaring the shit out of the Russian fighter's is what you'd want to do when they harass your airspace.
F35 can take up to 4 external fuel bags. So ranch ain't shit if you will compromise some Stealth. I hate and laugh when people say how Saab has more range. Lmao. Nope. Once you load the Saab with all of the external sensors and missiles and bombs to use its full capabilities in combat, that Saab will have so much damn extra drag on it lol Saab supports are comparing on station time and distance traveled with a "clean" Saab. Clean jets are never used in combat lol
Exactly what I was thinking
So many military aircraft experts !
LOL
Glad to see that PSPC upholds its motto: Stultus est sicut stultus facit. With a little common sense Canada should have gone with the F18/F, same money on training (e.g., flight, maintenance, etc.).
Have you not been paying attention to this at all? That was the plan until Boeing sued Bombardier and KO’d their new plane and got the rights to it sold to Airbus for pennies on the dollar. Boeing products are disqualified due to “economic harm” or some term.
Quite frankly, I just want us to pick something already. I'm so sick of this whole dragging on as long as it has
All the dragging on is because the Woke'sters in Ottawa don't want to spend a nickel on defense. With luck, maybe they've seen the world as it is and that monsters still roam and have the ability to bite.
Fear not - the panic purchase is at hand.
Canada can also do the option with buying the F35A plus buying a few dozen 4th Gen to have a wider variety of missions the jets can be used for
Grippen would have been my first choice for our operational needs.
And benefits to Canadian industry.
@@dalemartell8639 Aint Canada already benefiting from making F35 parts?
Does someone know if with PR can join the CAF? And in the case of yes, what jobs are available
Regards, great video
For most of Canada's military aviation history, we've flown multiple tactical air frames at the same time. Even if we play 'What If' and were flying the Avro Arrow, that's a high speed high altitude interceptor. We would still have needed something else for ground attack and over European areas like Ukraine. While the F-35 is perfect for the later, we still don't have a capable interceptor. Honestly if Boeing had not shot themselves in the foot by trying to sue Bombardier, the F-15X would have made a great pure interceptor.
But that spot the f-15 had is now being offered to the Gripen
The problem has always been Canada insisting on "one plane for everything". The F15 is still something Canada needs. Also UCAV to pair with the F35. We always cheap out, but at least the F35 is very potent in its current form.
I agree the f-15x is a true interceptor, but it needs a long runway and could not be based up north,( hell of a plane though)
I think stealth is the way to go, with regards to the Saab having better range. Doesn't Canada have aerial refueling capability?
Range is nothing in today's air war. It's why we have externals if u want to sacrifice some Stealth or use the tankers that the US has a bunch of that are coordinated with the jets to keep them in the air for hours at a time
@@nexpro6118 Well according to the video range was a consideration to which I wrote 'Doesn't Canada have aerial refueling capability?'
@@stevenbaer9061 oh my bad lol
It's hard to say what is right for Canada as a lot of the true capabilities of both the F-35 and Grippen are classified. It appears the process has found the F-35 as the superior aircraft. As your video eluded to some of the benefits of the delay is now the F-35 is less expensive and having a competitive bid process likely got us a better deal. Also we are likely going to get later build models that are more up to date with hopefully most of the bugs worked out.
Very valid points for the F35 that we didn't have even a few years ago.
IMO, Canada is going to negotiate with Lockheed-Martin & require that ALL the 88 F-35A's will be the Block 4 version with the P&W F135 Enhanced Engine Package. Canada has the time to wait until the production line is producing the Block 4 EEP F-35 since spending that large amount of money upgrading the current CF-18's that can operate for another decade.
I like the thought that we should consider adding the F-15EX as well. So yes to two airframes. The F35 supported by the new F15.
Great Idea, whether an F15ex or the Gripen.
F35 and new F15 ...the 2 most expensive aircraft Canada can buy.....lol. Canada can barely afford the F35 alone. Let alone also adding new F15s to its fleet lol.
It’s amazing that so many people here are advocating for the Gripen (used almost exclusively by developing nations) instead of the F35 (used by all of our principle allies and the most advanced air forces in the world). We’ve made that mistake in the past with the CF-5 when the Air Force actually wanted the F-4. As for the video makers concerns about range without external tanks, that’s what aerial tankers are for. Besides the F35 advantage over the Gripen doesn’t end with stealth.
Would full stealth be needed when intercepting a Tu-95 or 160 up north? Strap on those fuel cans! Up against a Sukhoi or Chinese J-series makes sense, but a bomber?
All I stated that I have questions that no one has addressed. I did not say I had the answers, I had questions that I wanted answers to. I am not arguing with anyone, I have always asked why and always have wanted a response. I will never be satisfied with thinking, well they must know. You end up being deceived more times than not.
@@seahawksfan9429 Yes. Stealth is quickly becoming a "must have" for combat aircraft.
The Gripen E is not the same aircraft. It is an entirely new fighter based on the Gripen A and C, it has longer range, heavier payload, is faster, has a extensive E/W system, and it can fight in a close in dogfight. It like saying the Super Hornet is the same as the Legacy Hornet.
The F35 is a great aircraft, but we do not need a stealth aircraft. The main mission for Canadian F35''s would be sovereignty patrol's, which would require external fuel tanks, which in turn negates any stealth abilities. We are going to spend billions on a stealth fighter where because of its main mission in Canada will not be stealthy.
The F35 is perfectly suited to smaller countries, like in Europe or Israel, or the US that had the F22, but not Canada.
Only by developing nations? CZ, Hungry and Sweden are developing nations? If your going to make claims like you know what your harping own about do your due diligence and post the actual facts.
with the gripen you get the meteor missle ( need i say more )
Both a blessing and a curse ,blessing, a better price point by waiting, curse , by the time we take delivery of both the f35 and the destroyers they will be redundant, f15 or 18 would have been more expensive but more expedient
I suggest Sopwith Camel with a small jet engine.
What do you say?
Much better to use a SPAD with a rocket engine
@@alaingabriel1710 You got it, captain!
Honestly I just think the better option for Canada specifically is the Gripen
I agree, isn't the F35 an offensive platform? Canada hasn't attacked much since WW2...
@@Piss-Poor-Infantry umm, no its not just an offensive platform
I thought we had chosen the Gripen?
Meanwhile we will refit the current CF-18’s for another decade, while we reconsider our first considerations, that we have already considered.
88 aircraft? That's it? I would be buying 120 at least, as a 1/3 of them will always be in the repair shop anyway.
Does Canada plan to conduct strategic stealthy attack bombardement in any country within the range of the plane ??? if not, why do you buy a stealthy attack bomber for doing the job of proper interceptor ?
When was the last time Canadian aircraft were in air to air combat? I'm guessing maybe the Korean war. We need an aircraft that can deliver large air to ground loads. The Super Hornet would be the perfect fit.
It's called Air refueling and needing something to get passed the 24799054 SAM sites lol
The F35 will be a perfect aircraft for Northern reconnaissance with its stealth capabilities
@@SgTSlAugHteR613 I just laugh at people who claim that the, F35 Is total crap lol. Like, how? Compared to what? The people that claim its crap are not even pilots lol 🙃 😂 but give their "factual" opinion as if they are experts in being a pilot. Haha. They just want to feel important and more smart than you and I. It's actually sad that those people think their lives are that boring and or unfulfilled that they have to pretend to know everything about everything to feel something.
@@nexpro6118 you know I'll be completely honest with you. My belief and experience with people bad mouthing the procurement of the F-35 are people that just want to continue to deplete the military to put money into something THEY want. People just think we can keep relying on allies. Look at when Canada went into Afghanistan. We sent troops in the Iltis jeep hahaha. The iltis jeep has as much armour as a Suzuki Sidekick lmao. Then the government took flack for buying the Mercedes G-wagon because of costs. How many times has the G-wagon saved Canadians lives in combat since? The Labrador, Buffalo, Herc, CF-18, Sea-King, leapord tank. All flown or used 50 years or longer. It's a disgrace. The Sea-King would go do a rescue and could only rescue 5 people before running out of cabin space and then have to rtb to refuel. The Cormorant helo made a rescue within the first couple operational years in SARS and rescued 12 people before running out of cabin room. But it took flack for cost as well. Canadian people don't want to make the sacrifices needed in keeping its country safe anymore.
Don’t forget you need to keep the squadron of CF 18 to fly the northern Missions
Canada would have saved a lot of money if they chose the Saab Gripen, considering that if any foreign power would want to encroach on/over Canadian airspace, they know they would have to go through the US war machine first, ....... you know, because of the whole Monroe Doctrine thing.
With the saabs you can only upgrade so much before now having to spend even more money on the fighters to upgrade parts rather than software and the Saab can only be upgraded so much before it hits the wall and can't be upgraded anymore. The systems with F35 and data link can be continuous upgraded by just software well into the 2040s while Saab buyers now will be looking to buy new jet again before 2040 and spend a bunch again to get a new fleet. Not to mention be way behind all other top countries with 5th Gen fighters already and some getting into 6th Gen already. Canada should not go with the defense strategy of, "let's just rely on the US" because if a massive air war breaks out against China and or Russia, the US doesn't have the capability to then also worry about Canada first.
And....for the Saab to use its full capabilities it would have to hang more gear and probs on its wings and airframe making it look even bigger on radar and cause a ton more drag. Which means less range and less G to pull. Your comparing a perfectly clean Saab when comparing it to the F35 which can stay clean and still have its full capabilities in combat.
So you want the Saab to save money but then put our defense in the hands of the US hahaha? You think the US will do this for free? So you just baught the wrong jets and then made Canada a defense customer for the US. So now we have crap jets and the money we saved is now being spent paying the US to defend us hahahaha
@@SgTSlAugHteR613 i didn't say the US politics is smart lol when it comes to funding aircraft ha
I wonder whether anyone has looked at the difference in costs, capital & OEM and explored how a fleet of UAV's might operate. The white paper or just "paper" would have to include all things logistical, operational, political and especially postulate on how such a significant change would impact on the people the RCAF might attract.
You wanna know why all of the top people in this field in all of the countries in the world are not putting so much focus on a ton of drones .....because it's still better to have a pilot in the seat for situational awareness and sudden changes in the mission.
Best choice; why did Canada delay this decision for so long? All pilots agree that the F-35 is a superior fighter and completely buries the completion like SAAB or rafale. There is no alternative to stealth today, not against peer enemies.
🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴
Armchair generals overhyping “stealth” by a factor of 1,000
Terrible choice, and we shouldn’t be delaying because there’s nothing to delay about a purchase we shouldn’t be making in the fucking first place. Everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the F-35 is overhyped, overpriced garbage. A plane that can do everything okay can do no specific one thing great. Which means it sucks. There is no alternative to the ability to outmaneuver your opponent.
@@JesusFriedChrist lmao armchair general's? What are you then a armchair private? Because the real generals like the F-35
Should get both. We are not going to war right now. The Gripen E would be very capable of patrolling our skies and escorting unwelcome airplanes out of our skies. Any extra maintenance costs would be offset by the purchase price difference of the F35.
Hope you love your fresh jets!
Change over training and maintenance I would think new f18 would be better. Canada does not really need offensive jets. The stealth is meant for attack in locations with air defense. Not sure we really need that.
I'd still prefer the SAAB myself and that is not just because of all the stories I hear of F-35 problems
problems that arose from development..get with the times those problems have been fixed
@@el7105 I've been reading news reports from Britan that their planes are doing stuff like the cannon busting out of the frame in test fires - last year and other problems in their HMS Prince of Whales sea trails
Explain why
And also....research will also show that every new fighter will come with problems. The F35s problems are blown up because of the controversy over its price. I mean shit....when the F16 was new. The first 2 years of flight testing and they lost over a dozen to crashes. Less than a dozen have been lost in the first 10 years of flight testing to the F35.....
Look up "networked warfare", then you'll understand why. Renders our enemies obsolete & a great deterent. I was a total skeptic ar first, then i was fortunate enough to have it explained to me. Really some next level stuff. Your overall critique was a bit outdated and citing the "helmet" thing, what kid wouldn't I suppose.
I am still waiting for more info on the problems that Australia is suffering from with the purchase of the F35. Their pilots are only going to get less than 200 hours flight time per year, 250 hours of flight time per year is considered a minimum requirement to maintain a capable fighter pilot. The problem they have with this issue, apparently has to do with the serviceability level being very low, less than 68%. That means if you have 100 of these aircraft online for operational capability, at any given time only 68 would be able to fly. If you have some for flight training, then that number will be less. I hear they also have a problem with many of their aircraft will not be able to be fully updated as time goes on. Some will not be able to have the newer replacement engine installed and therefore will not be able to carry out some of the planned operations. That issue may not be an issue for Canada as they will receive a newer batch, but there are many other issues. Also most other Air Forces bought anywhere from 1 squadron to a limited few, Australia and Canada bought to supply their Air Forces with F 35's as their sole fighter. Also the US Air Force has cancelled a major amount of their future F 35's. I guess Canadians can always kick in more money for taxes. That should do it.
US is scaling back F35 purchases right now because they are waiting for the Block IV. The Block III will just need expensive updates later.
The USAF averages about 200 hours per year in peacetime, not sure where you get the figure of minimum 250 for effective training.
@@1982mikedn The 250 hours required by the RAAF was reported by Sky News in Australia. They stated the RAAF requirement was 250 hours flight time for a fighter pilot, to be a competent fighter pilot.
@@Tomkinsbc Great for Sky News, but I’d likely take the word of the USAF over a reporter trying to find flaws in a particular aircraft.
You get your facts from skynews.........the same asshokes who constantly spout of false information on all topics. The only issue being faced is the logistics strain on parts and that's a real fact from personal.
LOL!! I LOVE that comment !!! “Talk about failing upwards..” lol
The cost of logistics and the low numbers we would buy if we went two air frames wouldn’t be worth it. Not feasible.
Range isn't an issue if you have a few tanker aircraft.
In another decade, you can remake this video!
F15 E X is the best option it has stealth capabilities two engines and it’s got a longer range and they can probably get the lower models a lot faster
Hum, are you sure about that?
F15: 88 million per copy
F35: 77.8 million per copy.
And the F15 is more costly to fly per hour (duel engine, and older technology).
And we have these fuel tank sizes:
Fuel capacity (fuel tank size):
Harrier 7,000 lbs
F16 - 7000 lbs
Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs
Sorry disagree F 15 is a better plane it has better dog fighting skills in it out manoeuvres almost every single plane in the world and it’s cheaper and easier to run
@@rockhardbalboa1832
No, it is not less cost.
They are now 88 million each, and they cost more to fly per hour then a F35.
And in ANY current conflict now or in the immediate future? The F15 can't enter into such air battle theaters - it is too vulnerable , and will not survive - but the F35 can, and in fact is the only fighter the USA has that can enter contested air spaces right now.
And no, the F15 is NOT easier to run - it has two engines, and is a older design. The F35 is a single engine, and also designed with lower maintains in mind.
For example, the F35 does not use old style hydraulics for the control surfaces. They are electro-mechanical. That means no hydraulic fluid tanks to fill up and maintain, , no piston seals to leak. And you don't even have hydraulic lines to hit!!! . In fact, you can riddle the f35 with bullets - you can't hit a hydraulic line. And the electricals is "networked", which means the computers can find and use alternative path ways to the control surfaces.
And they ripped out the whole cockpit on the F35. Not even a HUD display. All gone - just a simple flat screen in the cockpit - this saves million's of dollars right there. The helmet HUD system is now less then 300k, and much less cost then all those knobs and gauges in the cockpit. And you can pull out a cigarettes' sized electronic pack from the helmet, and swap in a new one in 5 minutes (and send the faulty one via FedEx to get replaced).
All field serviceable parts in the F135 engine have been moved to a common access door. As a result, all such service can be done with just 6 tools found in a typical mechanics tool box.
You would have to re-design the F15 from the ground up to achieve the lower maintains and ease to keep a F15 flying compared to a F35.
the result of all these new cost saving and lower maintains technology?
Quote:
*_A critical metric of reliability is the “break rate,” meaning the percentage of fighters that return from missions in a non-mission capable state. About 94% of F-35A sorties are completed with no breaks-by far the best performance of any Air Force fighter_*
Not just good but BEST of any Air Force fighter.
Quote:
*_The F-35 was designed to be more maintainable than legacy fighters, and it is. The Air Force variant requires far fewer hours of maintenance per flight hour than the F-15 or F-16_*
Again, far fewer hours!!!
Quote:
*_the number of maintenance hours per flight hour on legacy fighters is a multiple of what F-35A is demonstrating today. The Air Force’s stated requirement for F-35A is no more than nine hours and the actual is five hours, making it the most easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet_*
MOST easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet!!!
Quote:
*_A key metric of sustainability is whether fighters in need of repair can be fixed in a single eight-hour shift. F-35A has consistently outperformed all other Air Force fighters in achieving this goal, thereby speeding return of aircraft to the operational force_*
Again: CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORMED ALL OTHER air force fighters.
And why don't we got to the office of USA accounting - see what they dish out to a air base to keep their fighters running, right?
You get these numbers:
*_Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: Year 2022_*
Air force: per hour rates:
F-16C $10,866
F-16D $10,782
F-15C $23,537
F-15D $23,564
F-15E $18,799
F-15EX $16,467
F-22 $50,334
F-35A $13,185
(we can’t mix and match Navy numbers - they calculate their costs somewhat different (and you can’t pull numbers from one quote and compare to another - apples and oranges:
Navy:
AV-8B 17,094 (Harrier)
FA-18C 21,288
FA-18D 23,137
FA-18E 16,742
FA-18F 17,838
F-35B 13,307
F-35C 12,498
So, we see that:
F35 is less then older F18's, and less then newer ones to fly per hour.
We see that:
F35 is VERY much less then older F15, and less then newer ones to fly per hour.
And if you want to use the higher per hour rate, then you get this:
F35: 33k per hour
F16: 30k per hour
F15: up to 39k per hour.
I can't post public office USA links on YT (they are public records reported and required by law for USA PUBLIC reporting laws). For some crazy reason, YT does not allow such links!!!
However, you can find the direct links to the government accounting site in the description of this video - that is the source of above:
ua-cam.com/video/CFAyMi_PJ5o/v-deo.html
Go grab the above numbers - go see WITH YOUR OWN eyes.
but, no, F15's cost more to buy, and cost more to fly per hour.
I really don’t care the cost per flight we are a rich country we can afford it f15 goes mock2.5
F35 mock 1.5 when the nuclear bombers come over the arctic when you the interceptor F 35 has no dog fighting skills all it realizes stealth and technology enough if they really wanted to buy a 5 generation fighter they should’ve tried to get an F 22 which is better than any plane
@@rockhardbalboa1832
But a F15 will burn through it WHOLE fuel load in 6 minutes on AB's. That hardly a game changer here, right?
Fuel capacity (fuel tank size):
Harrier 7,000 lbs
F16 - 7000 lbs
Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs
Rafale 10,362 lbs
F18 - 10,860 lbs
A well trained pilot is the most important part of any fighter, not the only important part, but the most important part. For the cost of giving a pilot 250 hours/year in an F35, we could afford to give that same pilot over 1,300 flight hours/year in the Gripen. Basically we could let them fly till their brains fell out. I'd like to see a force of Gripen pilots that well worked up take on some 250 hour F35 pilots. My money would be on the Gripen guys.
The problem is that in a 'real' war where stealth could make the difference i.e. the F-35 gets to see you well before you see the F-35 and it takes you out regardless of how good a pilot you are. I am also assuming that all pilots especially the best who would be flying the F-35' would be as capable as there counterparts. I do agree though that a mix of aircraft like the Gripen along with the F-35 is the best option for Canada as both have there roles and could be about the best combination out there in the world today!
@@vMaxHeadroom it is only stealthy until it opens the bay to fire. after that it is detected and useless. and once it is done, the real residual radar signature is identified and can then be recognized. it is also is stealthy only to radar at certain frequency ranges, so with several and different system, it might not be that stealthy ... OK you scoe 2 shots at the begining and after you have a slow airplane that carry few bombs and is very expensive and problematic to maintain ...
250 is a made up number lol US pilots right now average 100-140 a year and is actually only required to complete 100. So 250....Jesus. lol Canada would have to have like 3479984 maintenance personal and 247997 F35s to be able to keep up with that many sorties to get each pilot 250 per year lol good lord
@@benjaminlamey3591 bay door is open for less than 1.6 seconds. Now....tell me who current enemy has a radar and pilot that can detect a F35 when it lauches from its internal bay for just 1.7 seconds????? Oh....and at a range of 80 plus miles? Lol
@@nexpro6118 whoo talks about a pilot ? modern warfare includes AI coupled to Radars. as soon as you open, you go fron the radar section of a bird to the radar section of a plane. even if you go back, new AESA will keep tracking you. and if there is a combat cloud, all other will be informed. even if it is a ground radar, or a ship, a drone or a surveillance plane. you are spotted and tagged.
Range factor mitigated with Sidekick and the upcoming A/C engine
Tell me again WHY we are not considering the F-15 EX?
Was never offered by boeing in the first place
@@jamiewhichelo9983 It is now, but we are ignoring that option & SAAB to throw our lot into an expensive short range stealth plane that may not stay stealthy vs some competitors.
It wasn't available when the Request For Proposals deadline ended and Boeing is in the federal government's bad books for the C series tariff.
@@TB-zf7we If it won't stay stealthy, then every non-stealth aircraft will have to be grounded.
Anything that makes it possible to detect stealth through radar would make it pathetically easy to shoot down non-stealth aircraft from thousands of miles away.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Yah, that is the risk to this planes multibillion dollar commitment, there is no guarantee that tomorrows radar/sensor will not be able to see it & aim SAM's at it.
Generally well done for a "non-expert". The purchase agreement will most likely come with the establishment of a permanent, Arctic-based, squadron. As for northern capabilities, the Gripen could not persuade Finland, Denmark, and Norway among others, so how could Sweden equip NORAD when one of the two partners actually sells the F-35?
The recent purchases of F-35's is more likely due to American political pressure regarding their entry to NATO, than a real preference for the plane. Canada has also succumbed to American coercion as well, instead of buying what they, and Canada, need, a Polar capable plane, which the F-35 is NOT.
Check your facts Dude, The F35 is less expensive than the Super Hornet per unit. Fact checking is important. Basically, Canada just needs a plane that can slot in with its NATO commitment.
Checked the facts, Super Hornet is way way cheaper to buy, per unit And way way cheaper to operate and maintain.
Hes right dude. New Block 3 Super Hornet is cheaper per unit. Not by a ton but it is alot cheaper per flight hour.
Why do we have to buy ONE type of aircraft ? Can a mix of both be considered ? We need interceptors (mostly) Stealth tech does not do much for an interceptor, nor does VTOL. Can't we find that magic craft that would replace the CP-140, the Hercules, the Polaris, the CF-188 and flown by the Snowbirds ?
You can't run two different fighters - unless you have larger budgets.
The problem is:
You need pilot certification - costs a lot of money. You can't just jump from one fighter to another.
You thus then need flight simulators, weapons' training, training for fuel range and consumption - all of these issues are different for each fighter.
You need new ground crews - training on how to maintain, spare engines, engine maintains training, even simple things like how to change a battery, or even tow bars on the ground, and correct towing procedures. Correct re-fueling training. Training on how to mount weapons.
Training on how to configure one type of missile for the given aircraft. You can't for example just take missile setup and configurated for a f16, and put that on a F18.
So, you need also a whole parts supply and inventory system - all the systems from landing gear bits and parts, brake pads, brake lines, how to flush brake lines.
So, I can type on for 1000+ more pages.
So, if you fly 4 Super Hornets, or 40 of them, you have to build up the expertise to fly, train maintain.
And even mission planning?
Well, a pilot can spend say 8, even 10 hours for planning a 2-3 hour mission. And all of that training, planning, and coordination between two different fighters? Then again, different fuel ranges, different weapon procedures.. - the list goes on and on.
Want to train a crew to roll out a wing tank, mount on the fighter - then fill with gas. Well, train them for one fighter - and wing tanks for that fighter?
Well, all of those procedures - they change and you now have say with 10 fighters?
Well, you have 5 of one, and that is 10 wing tanks - and procedures.
And with 5 of another fighter - now you grabbing wing tanks, and having procedures for that fighter.
There is a BIG reason why say on a aircraft carrier, they run SAME wings of aircraft of the same type. This allows crews on deck to service, setup, and deal with ONE kind of fighther.
(even the catapult hook and so called hold back bar has a special setting and setup for EACH kind of fighter).
I mean, why don't a bus company run 20 different kinds of buses? (or a city for that matter). They run a few models - as few as possible.
So, why can't a mix of fighter jets be run?
Because it costs a lot of money, boatloads more, and pilots trained, ground crews trained, spare engines, parts etc. now will have to be doubled.
So, say while the USA, or the UK can afford to do this?
And while at one time even we in Canada had aircraft carrier - even with steam catapults?
We can no longer afford to do this. And we have to stretch the dollars as far as possible to run existing fighters.
Heck, in Canada, we lucky to even afford to have and run an air force.
So, if we are to run different kinds of fighters, we will have to run LESS of them, due to costs.
So, introduction of a new airframe? it is a huge challenge. As we start to receive F35s, we still will be flying our CF-18's. So, that's already two fighters, and if we were to say adopt another fighter, the we would already as a nation would be now flying 3 airframes.
Canada has not run multiple fighter airframes for a VERY long time. Last time was when we starting buying our F18's - that was about 1981.
Neither. We need the F15EX.
This Government of Canada will never buy a product from Boeing!
doesn't matter as currently it is not offered except to USAF
@@alpearson9158
The EX is definitely a bit too new to reasonably expect anyone to buy it right now. They have plans in the future but not now.
With the cross section of the B-1 Lancer Bomber......to take to invade enemy air space littered with SAM sites.....please don't be a military strategist....please.....New F15s are good for support roles after the SAM sites are destroyed by the 5th Gen Stealth fighters .....and most of the enemies 5th Gen fighters have been shot down......or bombed.....see.....strategy.....can't just have all 4th Gen fighters lol
I agree we need to spend more on military
Mixed fleet, F-35 and Gripen - would be perfect. The Gripen gives you flexibility and lethality with the cheapest operating costs, and full integration/sharing. The F-35 gives you stealth, intrusion & loiter ability, but comes at a whopping operating cost.
I think Gripen has electronic stealth.
Those lower Gripen operating costs are illusory. Having two completely different air frames dramatically increases your logistics costs. You double your fixed costs with the need for two separate maintenance streams and with fewer aircraft utilising each, you don't realise the economies of scale.
@@CallsignEskimo-l3o Yeah it makes sense to invest in a single more flexible and effective fighter instead of splitting your fleet up.
Mixed fleet cost more, training, parts, support.
The old 'mixed fleet' argument... yes training, parts, etc. but you also get better platforms for their use. Air Forces are naturally mixed due to operational needs - don't succumb to 'one fighter to rule them all' dribble.
Upgrading are arm forces is must. No other answer! No excuses!
The Grippon is obviously the best choice for Canada. Even the Americans are cutting back on orders for the F-35 as they're too expensive to buy, too expensive to operate, and too expensive to maintain. The F-35 is a profit maker for Macdonnel Douglas. But not the best choice for a middle-power like Canada.
Lockheed-Martin manufactures the F-35. As far as cut backs of US F-35's ... Yes that is true but IMO, they are letting other countries get into the line. Could be wrong but once the new Republican Congress & Senate take over in 2023, the orders will start again!
MD ?
I agree with you but F-35 is made by Lockheed Martin not Macdonnel Douglas. XD
As if the Gripen isn't a profit maker for Saab, which has been cashing checks with their marketing their production capabilities can't cash. Saab's con is milking third rate countries.
"Failing upwards"! LMAO..Seeing Canada 🇨🇦 is the #1 partner, they were just being smart about it by waiting. Now the cost has come down almost 50% from the original purchase price!
I think it is a great decision, though a mix of aircraft is important. The F-35 is without a doubt the best fighter on the market with a first look first kill capability due to stealth. This is no dog fighter nor should it be. Canada needs another aircraft like the Gripen, F-15, F-18 etc. as well much like us in the UK with F-35's and Typhoons. F-35's go in first to clear the way with the Typhoons just behind and the F-35 can direct the Typhoons weapons to targets as well. Lot of FUD about the F-35 bit with over 700 produced and actual pilots now understanding how it should be used with a complete new book on tactics, this is the best option out there right now!
Canada already has already has quite a few F18's.
@@normjohnson4629 20 more years!!
The F35 is better dogfighter then a F16, and it certainly going to be better then our current F18's.
the problem with the F16 is that single tail design. And worse for the F16?
The F35 has a better power to weight rating then a F16, f18a, Gripen, and in fact the F35 is even better THEN A DUEL engine Rafale.
We get this power to weight rating for these fighters
(higher = better).
Fuel or
Payload Rafale F35 F16 Gripen
0 1.4137 1.3984 1.4784 1.2617
700 1.3737 1.3672 1.4284 1.2130
2500 1.2806 1.2932 1.3141 1.1035
3500 1.2341 1.2555 1.2581 1.0508
3750 1.2230 1.2464 1.2449 1.0384
5000 1.1704 1.2028 1.1826 0.9805
6000 1.1314 1.1701 1.1371 0.9387
7000 1.0950 1.1391 1.0950 0.9003
7500 1.0777 1.1242 1.0751 0.8822
9125 1.0249 1.0784 1.0151 0.8283
10362 0.9880 1.0459 0.9737 0.7914
12000 0.9431 1.0058 0.9239 0.7474
13500 0.9055 0.9718 0.8825 0.7111
15000 0.8707 0.9399 0.8447 0.6782
18250 0.8038 0.8776 0.7729 0.6165
20900 0.7564 0.8325 0.7228 0.5739
From above we see that:
The F16 has to burn fuel down to a low 3,500 lbs to match the power to weight rating of F35
The duel engine Rafale fairs even worse - down to a bone dry 700 lbs to match the T/W rating of the F35.
And the low power Gripen? Even starting with a 0 payload, it never matches the F16, Rafale, or the F35.
We see that with JUST 5,000 lbs of fuel in the Gripen, the total aircraft weight EXCEEDS engine power!
that means the Gripen can't even fly straight up on engine power anymore.
And double that fuel to 10,000 lbs?
Now the F16, and EVEN the duel engine Rafale total weight now exceeds engine power (thrust).
But, the F35? It still has a T/W rating over 1:1. That means it can still power straight up by engine power.
And even with 11,000 lbs or even 12,000 lbs, the F35 still is over 1:1 power to weight.
(F35 can still fly straight up on engine power).
And as you increase fuel or payloads? Things continue to tip and be in favor of the F35 over the other 3 fighters.
the other big elephant in the room?
Fuel tank size:
Fuel capacity (fuel tank size):
Harrier 7,000 lbs
F16 - 7000 lbs
Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs
Rafale 10,362 lbs
F18 - 10,860 lbs
Typhoon - 11,000 lbs
F15 - 13,455 lbs
F/A-18E: 14,700 lb
F35 - 18,498 lbs
Note the VERY small fuel tank on the F16 and the Gripen.
And note how that the F35 on internal fuel has MORE fuel then a f16, or Gripen or our CF-18's with 2 wing tanks!!!!
It never made sense to me for us in Canada to look a a fighter with a fuel tank that about the same size as Harrier jump jet - which are notorious known for low fuel capacity and range.
For those that don't know? Our country Canada is BIG - we are the worlds 2d largest county by land size!!!!
So, a fighter jet that starts out with a large fuel tank kind is a basic starting point here, and looking at the F35, it has LARGER fuel tank then even a F15!!!
I'd like to see a couple squadrons of twin engine planes like the Typhoon for Arctic patrols. We simply do not have adequate airfields up north to use single engine aircraft in our massive Arctic region (many times larger than Norway, Sweden, and two or three times that of the USA).
@@jamesfriesen191
More than 750 F35’s made now.
That’s more than Typhoon/Eurofighter, more than Rafale.
Accident rates: (Class A rates)
F15: 2.36 per 100,000 hours
F-22: 5.49 per 100,000 hours
F18: 2.84 per 100,000 hours
F16: 3.45 per 100,000 hours
Harrier: 11.4 per 100,000 hours
F35: 1.4 per 100,000 hours
With the January 2019 f35 crash on the Carl Vinson carrier? The F35 is now at 1.7 per 100,000 hours.
However, there is a LOT of F35’s now flying
In fact the F35 is the best-selling fighter in 40 years.
And more amazing? Well, they lost none during the testing phase.
And the F35 also has escaped the so called “bad” early years in which we often see high crash rates.
So, for example the bad “early” year for the F16?
They had a whopping 17 F-16 crashes in ONE year! (1982). (one year!!!)
And even more amazing there are more F35’s flying now than when that bad early year occurred for the F16.
And even the fan favorite and loved F15 Eagle?
They saw eight (8) in one early year - 1978.
And from 1995 to 1996, 10 F-14’s were lost. From 1991 to 1996, I believe the total is 30 F-14’s lost.
The F35 not really had that "worst early year", and given that over 750 F35's been made - that's more than any newer 4th gen jet right now.
To put it mild? The F35 clearly by HUGE margins has been shown to be one of the most reliable new fighters ever built, and most safe in terms of pilot’s fatalities.
But, what about that single engine debate vs dual engine?
As noted, for a long time carriers did fly single engine fighters - certainly from WWII to the jet age.
And carriers ran their all-weather bomber/attack aircraft - the famous Corsair A7. They ran those single engine attack aircrafts up 1991 - so again a single engine aircraft proved to be safe and reliable for carrier operations.
However, dual engine fighters do NOT have two engines for reasons of reliability, but in fact for more power.
In Gulf war, we saw the most sorties and up time was the f16.
Do you want to maintain 120 engine cores on a carrier, or 60?
You in effect double the number of engines you have to deal with, check, and maintain.
Worse yet, unlike an airliner, these centerline engines share a LOT of common stuff. If one engine lets go, then often the problem spreads to the other.
In 2017, a navy f18 had engine trouble during takeoff at Bahram airport. The f18 crashed, but pilot ejected safely.
In mid-2018, an f18 flying off Philippines experienced engine trouble, and both pilots ejected (safely), but jet of course crashed and was lost. (2 seater model lost).
And one in Japan area was lost.
And in one case a F18 lost its left engine. However, that engine also just happens to control and supply fuel transfer duties from wing tanks. The pilot had fuel, could not transfer, and thus punched out and had to ditch the f18.
Interesting looking at those lost F18’s?
Dual engines did not help or save the fighter in many cases. So that sharing of hardware between the two engines does not give you a double redundancy say like those 100% separate engines on commercial aircraft.
So with dual engine fighters, those side by side engines share all kinds of bits and parts and control systems - and the engines are kept fed and happy by a lot shared hardware between the engines. One engine lets go, it often causes problems for the engine right next to it.
As such, we don’t see higher crash or loss rates for single engine fighter’s vs dual.
And as noted, put 60 aircraft on a carrier - you now want to manage, check and maintain 120 engines?
In fact, I don’t even believe that the Navy specs out or demands that fighters be dual engine.
So, this debate is not all cut and dry, and not all that simple in favor of dual engine fighters.
Right now? The F35 is the safest fighter - in terms of both crash rates, AND loss rates per hour flown, and that includes loss of pilot life.
So, this debate of duel engine vs single engine fighters is not over. Fighters don't have two engines for reasons of reliability, but in fact to package up more power.
And we in Canada did fly single engine fighters in the past. And so far, the F35 is turning out to be the best fighter jet - including a low loss rate, and low crash rate.
The f35 has beast mode which allows it to arm itself with a bunch of weapons or fuel tanks but at the cost of its stealth
Sure get the F-35's they're slow and stealthy a great plane for operating in other countries airspace.
Canada should also be buying some new F-15EX systems that the US just ordered. Longer range, two engines, 50% faster interception. You don't need stealth to intercept 70 year old Russian bombers. You want them to know you're there and armed to the teeth with a dozen missiles.
What does speed have to do with today's air war needs? Please explain. Because super fast aircraft is only really needed for intercepts on bombers and at times other jets. Most missiles are wanting to be launched at the bad guys jet when you are still about 65 miles away from each other and if a 5th Gen fighter finds itself in a dogfight, then that pilot fucked up lol. Even in dog fights, max speed is pointless. It really matters in dog fighting with how quickly the jet can regain its speed to get its energy back quick. Lmao dude
God!! DUDE!!! Your comments are WAY too funny! Thank you for making this idiocy entertaining!
I really feel it’s not a totally right plane for them, they could use a gen 4 platform as well
Yes we can because you can’t put a price on freedom and we already got the CF 18 set up so the Griffin could be maintained and then we just have to modify it for that 35
canada needs f15s
So how much did they pay to cancel the first order of the F35? And what was the cost back then? And what is the cost now? So will the F18s become the snowbirds? Talking about old planes...
Look at all major air forces that operate the F 35, everyone has to have a second jet to supplement the F 35. The US air force has the F15, the Navy has the F 18 (same as the RAAF) and the RAF has Eurofighters. So, the point is the F 35 on its own does not fulfill all promised purposes (see the late John McCain's reaction when someone tried to say the F 35 was as good as the A 10 at close support - he was not "impressed" to say the least). Also as General Brown said you don't use your Ferrari for everyday purposes (not even the USAF can afford that) - so I think a further purchase of another jet like the F 18 super hornet or the Gripen might be unavoidable.
That's the thing its risky to put all your eggs in one basket. There was a reason there are different planes for specific jobs and when it comes to tank busting for instance the A-10 is the epitome of this philosophy.
They should get the Japanese j21
So, probably the decision to try to have the A, B, and C variants all come off of the same air frame was a mistake. Maybe the A and C was feasible, but certainly not the jump jet version. A lot of compromises had to be made, not the least of which is having one engine.
Those other forces you listed are also significantly-to-vastly larger than ours. In those forces, the Hornets and F-15s are going to serve as "munitions trucks" for F-35s. If Canada is ever in a place where we need to be performing heavy air missions, it means that the USAF, USN and RAF have been severely beaten down, and we all have much bigger problems to think about. Canada does not NEED a "big" fighter. It's not our mission.
@@theymaycry9725 I don't think the Japanese are allowed to export.
The Gripen was a better overall choice
Because how?
F35 should be named A35, the stealth capabilities are worth to invade enemy territory undetected, drop the weapons and get out there. In a dog fight with Gripen, the F35 must deal with the heavy EWS system installed on Gripen, and find a way to avoid meteor and IrisT missiles, two highly lethal weapons. Gripen can fly faster, supercruise and for more time than F35.
The turn around is the fastest possible, 10 min to refuel and rearm A2A weapons and Gripen are ready to go.
The JSF program was a money pit for the USA, and they are shoving the buggy computer with wings down the other countries throats, to cut their losses. All those countries of the F35 buyers will deeply regret their decision by the time to pay the bills of flying, maintenance and infra structure to keep that Hangar's Queen Divas ready to fly.
That is completely false the info you are giving is for a clean Gripen. With a combat load it is slower has less range and with a significant radar cross section would have to be dodging missiles long before it was able to fire on the F-35
If 2 countries have an airwar with 5th Gen jets, won't be so much dog fighting done. If an F35 finds itself in a dog fight. That pilot done fucked up lol. Also, F35s will not be sent into battle all alone. 4th Gen fighters will escort with the F35s
Also, keep in mind that what you and I and everyone else is saying in here, is based on no experience at all with these fighters lol. We watch airshow videos and play DCS and then think we know which jet is better lol
@@douglasm3310 Dude, you are way too much entitled. F35 has no supercruise. with an engine twice as powerful they can't fly faster than JAS 39 E. The sweden jet has the less drag coeficent, cut the air like butter, ask any pilot and understand this kind of advantange.
@@strikebr you’re still incorrect and are giving information for a Gripen without missiles or drop tanks. With this things added on its slower and has less range.
Still think the f15 ex should have been on the list