• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
291
Points
830
Defining the test - the evaluation criteria - is where many projects founder. Given the multiple interdependencies, costs driven by second or third order effects, government policies enforcing certain behaviours... just an environmental scan of who's involved can be complex.

And when such steps are skipped "to save time" inevitably we discover that we didn't have time to do it right, but then are forced to find the time to do it over.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
181
Points
780
Defining the test - the evaluation criteria - is where many projects founder. Given the multiple interdependencies, costs driven by second or third order effects, government policies enforcing certain behaviours... just an environmental scan of who's involved can be complex.

And when such steps are skipped "to save time" inevitably we discover that we didn't have time to do it right, but then are forced to find the time to do it over.
Would not a 6th Gen fighter fare better than a 5th Gen or 4.5th Gen fighter under GBA+ analysis?
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Whatever we purchase now could possibly be augmented with some advanced drones at some point, seems to be at least part of what the future holds.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
59
Points
530
Whatever we purchase now could possibly be augmented with some advanced drones at some point, seems to be at least part of what the future holds.
Part of the issue though is if we do not go F35, Lockheed will pull everything out of Canada made for that aircraft overtime. Canadian companies won't be able to bid on contracts, that will cost jobs. Only way to avoid that would be if the F35 wins or if we do a mixed fleet which for the love of God they better not do.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
226
Points
680
I just think we make it overly complex with studies and everything else. I am not an airforce person or a procurement specialist but in my mind wouldn't it be easy to create a flying compition that puts each aircraft to the test, best one wins?
They have done that already, multiple times in multiple nations. The F-35 wins handily every time. :(
 
Last edited:

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
226
Points
680
I just think we make it overly complex with studies and everything else. I am not an airforce person or a procurement specialist but in my mind wouldn't it be easy to create a flying compition that puts each aircraft to the test, best one wins?
They have done that already, multiple times in multiple nations. The F-35 wins handily every time. :(
 

Drallib

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
2
Points
230
I keep hearing about the F-35 being a "strike first" or "day one" fighter... with a our primary mission being defending Canada'a air space and supporting NATO missions, I can't see us purchasing the ultimate best fighter, but the one that will do the job just fine while appealing to the public.

Perhaps the F-35 takes the lead in the area of 'Capability' (60 points available) but with cost and industrial benefits each worth up to 20 points, I think the Gripen takes those both. I could be wrong, and of course Lockheed does have industrial benefits in a way, but this is going to be a nail biter.

I'm starting to feel like the Rhino is the odd one out.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
24
Points
430
Call me skeptical, but I worry our Prime Minister will pick the one with the largest carbon offset plan.....
 

Quirky

Full Member
Reaction score
22
Points
230
The concern is that Trudeau doesn't care about that little detail. He's just looking for the most efficient way to buy votes with our own money....and more capable fighter jets is probably pretty low on that scale.

Except that sensor center is in Vancouver, Saab should be placing those facilities in Ontario since they always elect the PM. The west should just stay home on voting day.


Regardless of what is selected, it will get the job done at the end of the day.

I'll still be pleased with whichever airframe we select.

No it won't. The Gripen is designed for second-rate Air Forces, which by the way, they don't even want. How can the Gripfanbois tout all the capabilities it has when it's still a paper fighter? It's fat, its slow and barely a step up from our current fighter. The F-35 has gone into full production, hundreds are flying with international partners - some in real combat missions. What has the Gripen done besides desperately send flashy brochures? The program is slowly dying, no one is buying the BS. The only way the Gripen wins is if they throw out the capability evaluations and sole-source the thing based on a poor election promise. Knowing the stupidity of this government, that might happen.
 

Drallib

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
2
Points
230
No it won't. The Gripen is designed for second-rate Air Forces, which by the way, they don't even want. How can the Gripfanbois tout all the capabilities it has when it's still a paper fighter? It's fat, its slow and barely a step up from our current fighter. The F-35 has gone into full production, hundreds are flying with international partners - some in real combat missions. What has the Gripen done besides desperately send flashy brochures? The program is slowly dying, no one is buying the BS. The only way the Gripen wins is if they throw out the capability evaluations and sole-source the thing based on a poor election promise. Knowing the stupidity of this government, that might happen.

The Gripen is the smallest airframe of the three, and can reach speeds of Mach 2...

The F-35 was also a flashy brochure when other nations purchased it. The F-18 is also in full production and flown real combat missions.

I agree, there are a lot of unknowns with the Gripen, but it can do the job our Air Force requires it to do.

I am by no means a 'Gripfanbois', and I'm not accusing you of saying I am, but as I said I'll be happy with whatever airframe we go with. All have their pros and cons.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
24
Points
430
Are there any incremental updates scheduled for the Gripen E that would make it acceptably "more capable"?

Or is the size of the airframe (radome, power generation from single engine) always going to put it at a major disadvantage against larger platforms?

Perhaps coming from an alternate standpoint is there a way to develop tactics that suits what it can do? So instead of being solely focused on its standalone sensors, could we assess its capabilities in the context of a data fusion environment where its main operational mode is passive sensors with Link 16/22? feeding in info from ground-based, air-based or satellite radars? In that environment, if we can obtain targeting info from passive sources, does the mix of weapons (and their ranges) become more important than standalone active sensor capabilities? So standoff distances provided by weapons like Meteor, LRASM, etc. become more of a larger priority?
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
181
Points
780
Are there any incremental updates scheduled for the Gripen E that would make it acceptably "more capable"?

Or is the size of the airframe (radome, power generation from single engine) always going to put it at a major disadvantage against larger platforms?

Perhaps coming from an alternate standpoint is there a way to develop tactics that suits what it can do? So instead of being solely focused on its standalone sensors, could we assess its capabilities in the context of a data fusion environment where its main operational mode is passive sensors with Link 16/22? feeding in info from ground-based, air-based or satellite radars? In that environment, if we can obtain targeting info from passive sources, does the mix of weapons (and their ranges) become more important than standalone active sensor capabilities? So standoff distances provided by weapons like Meteor, LRASM, etc. become more of a larger priority?

Yes, SAAB could re-design the Gripen's tactical sensor/comm/nav/IFF system and integrate MADL, tying it in with the the majority of Western air forces in terms of sensor and C2 connectivity, vice the Swedish-only bespoke TIDLS link system (functionally similar to, but not compatible with Link-16). TIDLS doesn't come close to having the necessary bandwidth to support high data-rate electronic connectivity associated with state of the art AESA radar systems and advanced 4k/8k multi-/hyper-spectral EO sensors.

Regards
G2G
 

Quirky

Full Member
Reaction score
22
Points
230
he Gripen is the smallest airframe of the three, and can reach speeds of Mach 2...
What does that even mean, is that supposed to be some sort of milestone? Under what conditions can it do this, clean aircraft with no weapons, what’s the acceleration, how long will it take for a clean Airshow configuration Gripen to reach those speeds? What’s the point when you’ll quickly be out of fuel and can’t sustain those speeds?

You really need to do some research on this subject, because like the typical Gripen supporter, you don’t understand why you support it and don’t bother comparing it to other platforms. Stop hanging out at blogs like Best fighter 4 Canada and you might find some real data.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
24
Points
430
Yes, SAAB could re-design the Gripen's tactical sensor/comm/nav/IFF system and integrate MADL, tying it in with the the majority of Western air forces in terms of sensor and C2 connectivity, vice the Swedish-only bespoke TIDLS link system (functionally similar to, but not compatible with Link-16). TIDLS doesn't come close to having the necessary bandwidth to support high data-rate electronic connectivity associated with state of the art AESA radar systems and advanced 4k/8k multi-/hyper-spectral EO sensors.

Regards
G2G

I thought I had read that SAAB integrated Link-16 into the Czech Gripens as that was a mandatory part of their bid (NATO specified requirement). If they did it for that small order (which was a retrofit of used C/D's), why wouldn't they include that in the Canadian bid for new-build aircraft? Or are you saying that it's "jerry-rigged" solution and doesn't offer the full functionality that you would see on the other contenders?
 
Top