As a middle power, Canada really doesn't need the offensive capability the F-35 promises. Operationally, the Grippen has more availability and lower maintenance requirements, and is simply better for Canadian requirements. A dual fleet of F35s and Grippens will allow us to to fulfill our NATO commitments, while keeping our limited defense budget in check, as we are simultaneously building out our destroyer and submarine fleets, while rebuilding our army requirements. Oh, and yes, we've had our fill of being a captive customer of the US defense industry.
I loved the 'conversation' in the Lockheed conference room. Now, consider this additional dimension: in the back of the minds of these guys is the grinding thought, "I voted for Trump."
Excellent. I think the software sovereignty component is the most significant for Canada. This is yet another component of the "ITAR-FREE" wave advanced by the the unpredictability of Washington planners.
The imagined conversation at Lockheed Martin was great. You forgot the part where they decide to deploy their stable of ex RCAF personnel who are now on their payroll to go on media to say what a mistake moving away from the F35 is. Of course none of these individuals disclose they are lobbyists in their interviews.
Yet again, a great information package served with a side of humour has put a huge smile on my grumpy morning face. I think a dual fleet will serve Canada's needs very well. And, Wes, you are welcome to travel north any time, and I will buy the poutine.
Thank you, Wes. This Canadian agrees with the idea of not putting all the eggs in one basket, particularly when one of the eggs is decidedly unsuitable for long-range Arctic patrol. Whatever flies has to be rugged enough to function in sub-optimal conditions reliably. There's a whole lot of hostile out there and that's before you see an airborne threat. More important to me is the fact that some yokel in Texas gets to decide whether or not monumentally expensive equipment that MY TAX DOLLARS HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR will get spare parts or software upgrades or if it can be used without some committee decision in the (recently unreliable and actively hostile) US government. I listened to the hearings that Mark Kelly just conducted asking about the status of this program. It did not inspire confidence.
My concern for Canada is that if things don’t go well for the American(US) people in the upcoming midterms, Canada like Finland may share a border with a Fascist state and while the US spirals down into a technologically challenged police state, there may come a day when the Gripen faces the F-35 in cross border conflicts. I think that Canada must include this calculus in their possible future. I hope for the best for both countries and appreciate your great technical evaluation and reporting. Thanks for sharing;o)
While I haven't seen the list of the various factors that were evaluated, resulting in the 95% to 33% comparison, it seems that availability was not considered. We have all read many discussions concerning the downtime required to keep the F-35 operational and the resulting reduction in availability. 50% availability seems to be highly optimistic, and figures down around 30%, or sometimes even 10% do not appear to be out of the question. If those figures are close to being correct, then the F-35 is a 95% capable fighter only 50% of the time, or less. For me this closes the gap between the two typesconsiderably. The other factor is preemptive targeting. Because the facilities required to protect the F-35s on the ground are specialized, they will have to be located in fixed, and therefore known, locations. As one USAF commenter pointed out, either the USAF, or an enemy, can hit any target once they know where it is. Having aircraft, like the Gripen that can be dispersed to any improved stretch of road without major supporting infrastructure being required to support them on site, is a form of stealth all of it's own.
You should also ad when Canada ran its original fighter competition, the F-35 scored 57.1 out of 60 points, a 95 percent.
The Gripen E/F scored 19.8, a 33 percent. They added a factor(on the Gripen) on this numbers because it wasnt in production yet so in reality its not that much of difference in the numbers between the Gripen and the F-35. In the document describing the evaluation its also stated that the Gripen fulfills all of Canadas requirements(still with the added factor to the results). And the results of the F-35s evaluation is questionable. Its stated that its very easy to upgrade the software and hardware in the plane, in what world is that true?(but it still gets 95% of the points for this). Gripen can be updated in a day, F35 takes year for any type of upgrade.... Availability close too 95%, i havent seen any country that owns F-35s that have this availability........and it goes on and on...Makes me wonder if Lockheed martin made the evaluation for Canada......
Makes me wonder if Canada might reconsider building the Arrow II. There's not a lot of info available, but it would be a serious contender in the medium/long run.
As a middle power, Canada really doesn't need the offensive capability the F-35 promises. Operationally, the Grippen has more availability and lower maintenance requirements, and is simply better for Canadian requirements. A dual fleet of F35s and Grippens will allow us to to fulfill our NATO commitments, while keeping our limited defense budget in check, as we are simultaneously building out our destroyer and submarine fleets, while rebuilding our army requirements. Oh, and yes, we've had our fill of being a captive customer of the US defense industry.
And…the topping, is being in on the ground floor development of the NEXT generation of jets.
I loved the 'conversation' in the Lockheed conference room. Now, consider this additional dimension: in the back of the minds of these guys is the grinding thought, "I voted for Trump."
Excellent. I think the software sovereignty component is the most significant for Canada. This is yet another component of the "ITAR-FREE" wave advanced by the the unpredictability of Washington planners.
The imagined conversation at Lockheed Martin was great. You forgot the part where they decide to deploy their stable of ex RCAF personnel who are now on their payroll to go on media to say what a mistake moving away from the F35 is. Of course none of these individuals disclose they are lobbyists in their interviews.
Excellent review, great humour, thank you!
You just had to get Celine Dion in there somewhere!
Daniel, it was either her, Bieber, or Drake, and since my audience trends older, I went with Celine lol
Yet again, a great information package served with a side of humour has put a huge smile on my grumpy morning face. I think a dual fleet will serve Canada's needs very well. And, Wes, you are welcome to travel north any time, and I will buy the poutine.
Thank you, Wes. This Canadian agrees with the idea of not putting all the eggs in one basket, particularly when one of the eggs is decidedly unsuitable for long-range Arctic patrol. Whatever flies has to be rugged enough to function in sub-optimal conditions reliably. There's a whole lot of hostile out there and that's before you see an airborne threat. More important to me is the fact that some yokel in Texas gets to decide whether or not monumentally expensive equipment that MY TAX DOLLARS HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR will get spare parts or software upgrades or if it can be used without some committee decision in the (recently unreliable and actively hostile) US government. I listened to the hearings that Mark Kelly just conducted asking about the status of this program. It did not inspire confidence.
My concern for Canada is that if things don’t go well for the American(US) people in the upcoming midterms, Canada like Finland may share a border with a Fascist state and while the US spirals down into a technologically challenged police state, there may come a day when the Gripen faces the F-35 in cross border conflicts. I think that Canada must include this calculus in their possible future. I hope for the best for both countries and appreciate your great technical evaluation and reporting. Thanks for sharing;o)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland%E2%80%93Russia_border
Very informative. Thank you
While I haven't seen the list of the various factors that were evaluated, resulting in the 95% to 33% comparison, it seems that availability was not considered. We have all read many discussions concerning the downtime required to keep the F-35 operational and the resulting reduction in availability. 50% availability seems to be highly optimistic, and figures down around 30%, or sometimes even 10% do not appear to be out of the question. If those figures are close to being correct, then the F-35 is a 95% capable fighter only 50% of the time, or less. For me this closes the gap between the two typesconsiderably. The other factor is preemptive targeting. Because the facilities required to protect the F-35s on the ground are specialized, they will have to be located in fixed, and therefore known, locations. As one USAF commenter pointed out, either the USAF, or an enemy, can hit any target once they know where it is. Having aircraft, like the Gripen that can be dispersed to any improved stretch of road without major supporting infrastructure being required to support them on site, is a form of stealth all of it's own.
In the meantime someone in Viale dell'Università, at Palazzo Aeronautica, said: "Bugger Boeing..."
https://aresdifesa.it/litalia-acquista-sei-airbus-a330-mrtt-per-1-4-miliardi-di-euro/
You should also ad when Canada ran its original fighter competition, the F-35 scored 57.1 out of 60 points, a 95 percent.
The Gripen E/F scored 19.8, a 33 percent. They added a factor(on the Gripen) on this numbers because it wasnt in production yet so in reality its not that much of difference in the numbers between the Gripen and the F-35. In the document describing the evaluation its also stated that the Gripen fulfills all of Canadas requirements(still with the added factor to the results). And the results of the F-35s evaluation is questionable. Its stated that its very easy to upgrade the software and hardware in the plane, in what world is that true?(but it still gets 95% of the points for this). Gripen can be updated in a day, F35 takes year for any type of upgrade.... Availability close too 95%, i havent seen any country that owns F-35s that have this availability........and it goes on and on...Makes me wonder if Lockheed martin made the evaluation for Canada......
Makes me wonder if Canada might reconsider building the Arrow II. There's not a lot of info available, but it would be a serious contender in the medium/long run.