F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Rue]

Here is a comparison of the Typhoon with the F 35:

http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f35/

Here is a comparsion of the Saab gripen and the F-35:

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/saab-gripen-vs-f-35/

Here is a comparsion of the F-35 and the Superhornet:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.ca/2011/11/f-35-looses-value-comparison-to-super.html

The bottom line is I keep hearing the F35 because of its stealth technology is better. The assumption is since it won't be seen sifrt it gives it an advantage.

That entire argument assumes one buys these aircraft for dog fights.

The reality is Canada does not need them for dog fights. It needs them for long range air patrols.

At best Canada is talking about now being abole to afford the bare minimum it needs, 65 basic F-35s not the kind with the added features.

The fact is the government said they were to roll off the Lockheed Martin line for $5 billion, or $75 million apiece.

Then the New York Times reports the average price per jet was $137 million.

At this price its more than $4 billion more per plane so whoever said the Typhoon or Rafele is more epensive is wronng.

Now another assumption is if we get the American get it means inter-oeprational abilities with the US Air Force which is a must with Norad.

I call bull shit. There is absolutely no reason a Typhoon, Gripen or Raefele, could not be compatible with US gets.

Get it clear, the F35 we are purchasing is a dumbed down version of the F35 the Americans will use.

Quite frankly right now I see only one advantage the F35 has over the Typhoon or French Rafele and that is a stealth technology Canada has no need for.

Either jet is just as good. The Super Hornet could do the job as well.

However if its bang for buck, its the Gripen and its absolutely nonsensical not to get it given the huge price difference and lower maintenance costs.

[Remiel]

There was a news story I read earlier today about Russia testing our Arctic borders more and more with bombers. We need long range interceptors more than the F-35s boosters have been trying to tell us.

[Rue]

Remiel I am going to try my best to argue why I think the Gripen is a better intercepter and better choice for Canada and I took this info from many places, please its not my own but I am arguing there is a growing movement of people who believe the Gripen NG has not been properly considered and should be for the summary of reasons I have placed below:.

Also I concede right now I am no pilot, and just debating. I defer to any of you who are pilots. I make no claim to be one and I know some of you have your own opinions its just up until now no one is arguing the F35's strengths over the Typhoon or Rafale or Gripen or even Superhornet in coomparitive operational terms so any opinions y'all have on the design comparisons I would love to read.

Here are the summary arguments for JAS39 Gripen E NG as the best suited fighter craft for Canada that I was able to find from the articles that kept getting repeated:

• the Gripen's top speed is mach 2 compared to the the F-35 at mach 1.6) (note the F-22 Raptor or Russian Su-35 or China’s equivalent are the fastest)
• it has a supercruise, capable of achieving mach 1.2 with air-to-air missiles needed for interception duties
• 450 gallon external fuel tanks extend its range to give it a combat radius of 1,300km as opposed to the F-35's 1,100km, and take note if you moun external gas tanks on the F35 to extend its range capacity those tanks cancel out its stealth advantage
• so for those reasons the Gripen is a better intercepter than the F-35 because it would be able to reach its target much faster and fly longer range unless we add the tanks to the F35 which is likely since we need them to fly longer range and so then I ask what is allthis fuss about stealth when the tanks will neutralize that advantage?
• also keep in mind that while the Gripen does not have stealth technology, it does have a small frontal radar cross section and it uses non radar reflective materials which along with its smaller size when compared to the F35 makes it in fact 1/5th the size of the current CF-18 in terms of radar detection and no this can not compare to the F-35 but only if we don't put the tanks on the F35-I absoluely argue that the stealth advantage is a sham-we need a long range intercepter not a low flying stealth craft-as well that stealth technology we probably won’t use also has to give up internal weapon storage space the smaller Gripen does not, meaning the Gripen carries more weapons on a smaller faster craft as I showed in my ther post, the Gripen is far more manouverable than the F-35-it cna sflip and turn much faster-look we do not need it for dog fights, we need it to intercept enemy aircraft encroaching on our air space-no Russia won't send SU 35's to our air space, they will send slower moving planes to test our response time-if the Russians sent SU35's the Americans would counter with their F22's because nothing else can go against them not even an F35
• the Gripen is far easier to maintain-how much easier-well on a foreign deployment say as part of NATO peacekeeping forces, a group of 10 Gripens only requires support from one sC-130 Hercules but that is not all…
• the biggest difference is this not only is it easier to maintain but the Gripen can take off and land on 800 meters of two lane, snow covered highway and can be serviced from a transport truck- it takes on average ten minutes, five recruits and one technician to get it refueled, rearmed, and ready to fly again, meaning it could land at any Canadian airbase, even during lousy weather and could land at small civilian airports throughout the country and in an emergency Ontario's 401 or a stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway
• there is all this talk about using our fighter in multiple roles…well that dictates using advanced, long range missiles and yet the F-35 doesn't use the most modern of long range missiles, it in fact uses the American AMRAAM medium range missiles, it has no space or deisgn to accommodate larger, longer range missiles like the Gripen since while the F35 does it internally the Gripen, mounts its missiles externally and unlike the F35 it compatible with weapons or bombs used by NATO countries
• now let’s talk cost shall we? Harper claimed the cost of 65 F-35A Gripen was to be $9 billion. Not we here $20 to $30 billion and still climbing while Saab has offered to sell 65 Gripen NGs to Canada, which included 40 years worth of maintenance costs for under $6 billion!
• they also stated they would also Gripen production to take place in Canada under contract with Bombardier meaning we could and would hire Canadians to make a Canadian version Gripen fighter-a made in Canada fighter which we could turn around and sell to others
• for those who keep arguing we need stealth technology I would argue no we are not Israel or the US we have far different priorities no we do not have the finances to ever build a true fighter jet like the F22 or the Russian or Chinese equivalents to the F22 Raptor
• if we want stealth ability then we could purchase unmanned combart aircraft like the Northrup X-47A-stealrth technology is going the way of unmanned craft not manned craft
• the Gripen makes the most sense because we also need just as badly search and rescue aircraft and helicopters t which do not have to be fast as they patrol the coasts for the lost or illegal fisheries and we would have money left for those needs as well

Finally. I think Canada has to play a role in its air defence and not rely on the US so heavily and contribute to NORAD and NATO yes. But I would argue we could do all that with the Gripen NG.

We should stop trying to imitate the US. We are not a superpower. We can not play the role of a superpower. I can see the US and Israel wanting to use the F35 in combat roles. They have different needs than us. However the F35 is just too expensive.

Its fine the British or Japanese may want them but even the Aussies are getting cold feet.

European nations also have the French Rafaele and Typhoon craft to fall back on if the F35 becomes too costly.

Canada? Well I like to think we are in the same boat as Brazil which chose this craft or the Czechs. We have 33 million people. Can we stop acting like we are a superpower and get a grip.

Sweden made us a credible offer. Let's revisit it.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Rue

[Remiel]

I certainly believe that the Gripen would be better than the F-35 in the Arctic, where we need our planes the most. Whether they would be better than the other two choices I am not sure, but once we were confident the F-35 is not a foregone conclusion that wuld be an easier question to deal with.

[Derek 2.0]

There was a news story I read earlier today about Russia testing our Arctic borders more and more with bombers. We need long range interceptors more than the F-35s boosters have been trying to tell us.

Of all the touted alternatives, the F-35 has the longest range on internal fuel.

[Derek 2.0]

Remiel I am going to try my best to argue why I think the Gripen is a better intercepter and better choice for Canada and I took this info from many places, please its not my own but I am arguing there is a growing movement of people who believe the Gripen NG has not been properly considered and should be for the summary of reasons I have placed below:.

Also I concede right now I am no pilot, and just debating. I defer to any of you who are pilots. I make no claim to be one and I know some of you have your own opinions its just up until now no one is arguing the F35's strengths over the Typhoon or Rafale or Gripen or even Superhornet in coomparitive operational terms so any opinions y'all have on the design comparisons I would love to read.

First Saab pulled the Gripen on it's own........As to comparing manufactures’ numbers, those associated with the Gripen (and Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet etc) are not inclusive……..For instance, one of these aircraft with a listed max speed of x is an aircraft without stores under the wings… ..and of course traveling at said speed, requires in these aircraft the use of afterburners, which reduce range drastically.

Also, these above aircraft, with fuel and weapons under their wings, also face a significant reduction in manoeuvrability……..The F-35 has the same ability to dogfight as both the Super Hornet and Falcon, well having the ability to target and fire weapons above, below and behind the aircraft.

[Remiel]

The F-35 has to use afterburners to reach its top speed as well, does it not? Anyway, I found this quote on the Saab pullout:

In a surprise reversal, Sweden’s Saab has decided to pull out of Canada’s fledging fighter competition, although it may rejoin later if conditions change, the company said June 3. Saab is the first of the five competitors to pull out, but other competitors also have expressed doubts that the competition will be fair and open.

“Saab followed the discussions in Canada with interest [but] at this time and stage of the evaluation process, Saab has decided not to take part,” the company said in a June 3 e-mail message. “Our conclusion is that the conditions were not yet ripe for us to act.”

Saab’s withdrawal is all the more surprising that, just days before the week-end, it appeared eager to continue the competition. Saab executive vice-president Patrick Palmer was quoted by Postmedia news May 31 as saying that “I think [Canada] really [has] a desire to get the information. I don’t think they have a predefined outcome. And we are supportive of it.”

Edited June 30, 2014 by Remiel

[Derek 2.0]

At best Canada is talking about now being abole to afford the bare minimum it needs, 65 basic F-35s not the kind with the added features.

All of the operators of the F-35 will have the same baseline aircraft, with the same continual upgrades……..as to the number of aircraft, currently we have 48 Hornets in two operational squadrons, and with the F-35, we’ll have 48 aircraft in two operational squadrons.

Now another assumption is if we get the American get it means inter-oeprational abilities with the US Air Force which is a must with Norad.

I call bull shit. There is absolutely no reason a Typhoon, Gripen or Raefele, could not be compatible with US gets.

There is no reason the other aircraft couldn’t fully integrate into NORAD, but that will cost more…….simply put, no other aircraft can compete with the synergies offered by the RCAF operating the same aircraft as the USAF.

Get it clear, the F35 we are purchasing is a dumbed down version of the F35 the Americans will use.

No it's not.

Quite frankly right now I see only one advantage the F35 has over the Typhoon or French Rafele and that is a stealth technology Canada has no need for

And what makes you say that? Based on the operational history of our current Hornet fleet, going forward, stealth will very much be needed in the decades ahead.

[Derek 2.0]

The F-35 has to use afterburners to reach its top speed as well, does it not? Anyway, I found this quote on the Saab pullout:

Yes.......But not it’s operational cruising speed, which with internal ordnance and fuel, is greater then the legacy aircraft mentioned.

[Rue]

And what makes you say that? Based on the operational history of our current Hornet fleet, going forward, stealth will very much be needed in the decades ahead.

Derek I disagree that the only way to get stealth technology is with a manned fighter craft. I did not say stealth technology wasn't needed. I said it was not needed on a fighter aircraft for Canadian purposes.

This is why for example the National Post stated in this article, the following:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/

"The previous statement of requirement demanded the new aircraft have stealth capabilities to make it difficult for an enemy to detect it by radar. Since the F-35 is the only jet with stealth capability currently being produced by Western manufacturers, critics have accused the process of being rigged in Lockheed Martin’s favour.

Some industry experts have suggested that technological advances may make stealth obsolete within a relatively short space of time. If the government has accepted that thinking, it may decide to open up any competition to aircraft without stealth capability."

[Rue]

Here's an article dated March 22, 2013 indicating like Canada, Denmark is having second thoughts about the F35:

source:http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-03-22/denmark-pursues-alternatives-f-35

"Faced with growing costs in the Lockheed Martin F-35 program, Denmark is reviewing its options for a new fighter and has invited Boeing (F/A-18 Super Hornet), Eurofighter (Typhoon) and Saab (Gripen E) to submit information for alternatives. A decision is due in 2015."

[Derek 2.0]

Derek I disagree that the only way to get stealth technology is with a manned fighter craft. I did not say stealth technology wasn't needed. I said it was not needed on a fighter aircraft for Canadian purposes.

This is why for example the National Post stated in this article, the following:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/

"The previous statement of requirement demanded the new aircraft have stealth capabilities to make it difficult for an enemy to detect it by radar. Since the F-35 is the only jet with stealth capability currently being produced by Western manufacturers, critics have accused the process of being rigged in Lockheed Martin’s favour.

Some industry experts have suggested that technological advances may make stealth obsolete within a relatively short space of time. If the government has accepted that thinking, it may decide to open up any competition to aircraft without stealth capability."

Stealth is a three pronged approach……What’s often referred to in the media, when discussing “stealth” is radar return signatures, but stealth is also IR return and electronic emissions….All aspects the F-35 has the edge on when comparing it to legacy aircraft.

As to the need for “stealth”? I’ll put it into simpler terms:

Would you argue the military does not require camouflage because some technologies can defeat it?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Signals.Cpl]

Get it clear, the F35 we are purchasing is a dumbed down version of the F35 the Americans will use.

How so? If I'm not mistaking the US is purchasing all 3 variants for the 3 different services that would use them, we are getting the same aircraft as the USAF.

At this price its more than $4 billion more per plane so whoever said the Typhoon or Rafele is more epensive is wronng.

$4 Billion more per plane?

I call bull shit. There is absolutely no reason a Typhoon, Gripen or Raefele, could not be compatible with US gets.

Dont you think it would be significantly better if we can land a RCAF plane on a USAF base to be repaired, refuelled, rearmed etc? Seeing as if we deploy the aircraft chances are it will be alongside our NATO partners and wouldn't it be easier, cheaper and safer to be serviced by any of those nations?

[Rue]

I am nopt clear about Derke's contention that the F-35 is abetter fighter in a dog fight than a Gripen,e tc.

First off Canada does not need aircraft for dog fights. It needs long range patrol and intercepters. If its going to shoot anything down its probably going to be a tetrorist hijacked plane. More to the point dog fights are a thing of the past. Fighter jets stay at distances and engage in long range missile attacks. This is not word war two with up front machine gun fire.

The F35 is not as manouverable as a Gripen. Its big and its heavy.

Let's get real. The F-35 is a heavy attack and bomber plane. We need a plane suited to intercept and be aggressivem deft and mobile. The last thing we need is a stealth bomber. We are not engaging in the kind of missions the US or British Navy or Israel might be engaged in.

Canada is not in the position to engage in bombings.

What I personally think the Harper government did is make up its mind to buy a particular aircraft without seeking competitive bids, then AFTER THE FACT designed specifications to suit the F35 and that is why Gripen pulled out. Its still interested it just new there was no bidding and the decision was made.

Harper is now stuck with a choice that has exploded in his face.

[Rue]

Would you argue the military does not require camouflage because some technologies can defeat it?

First off thanks for debating. I am trying my best to debate back. I enjoy your points. To answer yoru question no I do not think we need stealth for long range interceptor missions. No not at all.

I totally agree with you if its for missions like in the Middle East absolutely.

I also am a fan of unmanned stealth combat aircraft. I like drones as well. I think in the future that is where we are headed. I believe the fighter jet craft has priced itself out of the future and will be replaced by smaller, mobile unmanned craft.

In the interim, I do appreciate why the US or Israel wants them but for Europe, it makes no sense.

[Derek 2.0]

I am nopt clear about Derke's contention that the F-35 is abetter fighter in a dog fight than a Gripen,e tc.

First off Canada does not need aircraft for dog fights. It needs long range patrol and intercepters. If its going to shoot anything down its probably going to be a tetrorist hijacked plane. More to the point dog fights are a thing of the past. Fighter jets stay at distances and engage in long range missile attacks. This is not word war two with up front machine gun fire.

The F-35 has a longer range than the Gripen.

The F35 is not as manouverable as a Gripen. Its big and its heavy.

Is your Gripen carrying fuel and weapons under it's wings?

Let's get real. The F-35 is a heavy attack and bomber plane. We need a plane suited to intercept and be aggressivem deft and mobile. The last thing we need is a stealth bomber. We are not engaging in the kind of missions the US or British Navy or Israel might be engaged in.

Yes, let's be real.....So, do you know our current Hornet's operational history?

Canada is not in the position to engage in bombings.

What have we used our current Hornets for on operational deployments?

What I personally think the Harper government did is make up its mind to buy a particular aircraft without seeking competitive bids, then AFTER THE FACT designed specifications to suit the F35 and that is why Gripen pulled out. Its still interested it just new there was no bidding and the decision was made.

Harper is now stuck with a choice that has exploded in his face.

Our involvement in the program began under Chrétien.

[Derek 2.0]

First off thanks for debating. I am trying my best to debate back. I enjoy your points. To answer yoru question no I do not think we need stealth for long range interceptor missions. No not at all.

I totally agree with you if its for missions like in the Middle East absolutely.

Why wouldn’t we need “stealth” for NORAD missions? None the less, we need an aircraft that can do both NORAD and NATO, or in common parlance, interceptions and interdictions (and dog fighting, close air support, electronic warfare etc etc)

I also am a fan of unmanned stealth combat aircraft. I like drones as well. I think in the future that is where we are headed. I believe the fighter jet craft has priced itself out of the future and will be replaced by smaller, mobile unmanned craft.

In the interim, I do appreciate why the US or Israel wants them but for Europe, it makes no sense.

The technology to replace the person in the aircraft (directly and indirectly) totally won’t be available for decades.

[Rue]

From what I can gather he Gripen NG is estimated to cost $60 million per plane, the Typhoon or Rafale in that $125-$150 mil range and the F35A which is the version touted for Canada at $107 mil per plane and continuing to climb,

If we are to believe Harper at this point in time the Canadian government currently has projected initial procurement costs for 65 F-35As at $ 9 billion which puts the initial procurement cost at $ 138 million per plane and from what I understand that keeps climbing and some experts think it will surpass the Euro fighters very soon.

If I just gow itht hat $ 9 billion number that gets me 150 Gripens or 72 Eurofighters but only 65 F35's.

Now lets talk operating costs. From what I have read on all the sites of all the projected fighter jets its projected to cost $ 4.700 per flight hour compared to the Eurofighter costs $ 18,000 per flight hour and then the F-35A costs at right now $ 21, 000 per flight hour.

So as I understand it a fleet of 65 F-35As right now is projected to cost Canada $ 45.8 billion over a 40 year life span course of a 40 + year lifespan plus the 9 billion to purchase the planses if that doesn't continue to rise plsu the operating costs for a fleet of 65 F-35As for 40 + years which is right now estimated at $ 36.8 billion.

As I understand it the Eurofighter's operating costs are 85% of the F-35A, Therefore the operating costs of a fleet of 72 Eurofighters over 40 + years is roughly $ 34.6 billion.

However The Gripen's operating costs are only 15% that of the F-35A, which means the operating cost of a fleet of 150 Gripens for 40 + years would be approximately $ 12.7 billion.

Now those are the specs that come off their web sites and when I go on different web sites everyone seems agreed on the above numbers keeping in mind they all could rise.

From what I have been able to read, most of the air industry experts say the The Gripen and Eurofighter cost projections are mich likely to rise as much as the F35.

Now from what I was able to decipher as well the F-35A will in fact be incompatibility with certain weapons that the Gripen will not and in fact the Gripen is much more flexible and can complement any NORAD or NATO mission and be refuelled by Canada's CC-150 Polaris refueling tankers which if I understand it the F35 can't.

Why if the The Gripen, is nearly equal to the Eurofighter, but comes at half the cost of the Eurofighter have we nnot considered it. Just what makes it so inferior it was written off?

Surely the money saved by procuring the Gripen Could be put towards arming Canada's Gripen fleet With The best weapons available, not to mention increase in the sheer numbers of Gripen fighters Could Canada purchase.

Italy and Australia are rethinking the F35. I also apologize to Holland because from what I can see The Netherlands has canceled their F-35 order altogether meaning F -35 price will continue to rise as it was based on the assumption its costs would be what they were because the large production demand would lower its cost.

From what I read as welj the AESA radar in the Gripen is better than the one in the Eurofighters.

I read that American General John Jumper who is said to b the only person to Have flown the Eurofighter and the USA's top air superiority fighter, the F-22A, Raptor. and was quoted as saying, "I've flown all the [American] Air Force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter. He then stated botht he Eurofighter and Gripen are very impressive and capable fighters.

The Gripen unlike the F35 has full supercruise capability but the F35 has extremely limited supercruise ability to 241 k's. Come on its a bomber not an intercepter. The Gripen supercruises at mach 1.2. The F-35A también slow by fighter jet standards. With a top speed of 1.930 kmph [26] ( top sppeed is mach 1.6.

The F-35A we supposedly want to buy is in fact slower than the Super Hornet and current F-16.

Now lets talk maneuverability. The small F35A ing design does not allow for quick Manoeuvres using tight turn radii whereas the Gripen excels in this area precisely what one wants from an intercepter.

I also mentioend earlier the stealtgh advantahe limits the internal capacity for weapons and so this slower F-35A can not deliver nearly as much in payload.

I also state dThe F-35A can carry additional fuel and weapons externally using its six external hardpoints, but this then negates the F-35A's already questionable stealth advantage.

Now Derek mentioned weapons compatability. Well The F-35A at this point can not carry the MBDA Meteor upcoming air-to-air missile but the Gripen can and this is a huge disadvantage in air-to-air combat, when engaging a target beyond visual range . Ther Gripens already are compatible with all NATO Virtually every weapons available the F35A is not. Even if an F-35A compatible version of the Meteor was developed up go its costs yet agai.

The F-35A can not carrythe AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile, the Gripen cam.

An option would be to equip on one of the external hardpoints, but again there goes the whole point of the stealth technology.

The F35A requires the BRIMESTONE air-to-ground missile, so that means up goes the cost yet again and no one has mentioned that in the costs.

Any ammunition left over from the CF18 could be used in the Gripen but can't in the F35A/

Now how does that work when Haprer said hisbudget will be slashed from $ 270 million to $ 52 million, which will greatily reduce the quantity of ammunition Canada Could acquire.

The picture emerging is the The RCAF would barely ave the funds to buy and maintain the F35A's, and then lack the funds to actually arm them.

The Gripen and the Eurofighter are Compatible with all the weapons currently Canada stock piles, not just the future MBDA Meteor, and every other weapon NATO support.

The F-35A requires the "flying boom" method to refuel in air. This means Canada would have no capacity refuel midair and have to land for refueling. That is absurd.

You want to modify the F35A to fuel mid air no one knows the cost for that.

I read the F35A is supposed to provide sueprior situational awareness to the pilot achieved through a wide range of sensors, data link capability, sensor fusion, Link 16 data link, and a helmet mounted display. Not so fast the pPentago dropped the helment moutned display.

Meanwhile the current Gripen offers all that and the Gripen NG would upgrade it.

The only thing the F35A has and the Gripen does not is of course the F-35A's MADL data link for stealth technology which has yet to be fully develoed unlike the Gripen sensor suites which have nbeen thoroughly tested.

So the more one compares the less the price seems justified.

You want a quick and smaller intercepter or a large, slow bomber with stealth technology we do not need and will be negated anyways by our practical use of the aircraft.

The F35 is a fiasco.

Had we properly researched it instead of being the sheep we were jumping onto a perceived bandwagon of countries we would have never agreed to it.

The Gripen makes the most sense operationally and money wise.

In fact I may have to run for office and clean this all up.

The only thing I concede is even with the new slimmed down Rob Ford he's too fat for the Gripen.

[Rue]

1-The F-35 has a longer range than the Gripen.

2-Is your Gripen carrying fuel and weapons under it's wings?

1-No not from what I read.

2-Yes both jets were compared with and without fuel tanks.

The F35A also loses its stealth technology to place external tanks on it. Even with the tanks it can't fly as far.

The major problem with the F35A is not only does it not have as long a range but you can't fill it up in the air it has to land unless you want to design it.

[Rue]

1-Why wouldn’t we need “stealth” for NORAD missions? None the less, we need an aircraft that can do both NORAD and NATO, or in common parlance, interceptions and interdictions (and dog fighting, close air support, electronic warfare etc etc)

2-The technology to replace the person in the aircraft (directly and indirectly) totally won’t be available for decades.

In regards to 1, stealth is only needed on bombing missions. We do not need bombing missions for Norad nor do we need to do them for NATO we could leave bombing to other nations and do other missions instead.

You keep mentioning dog fighting. Its not done anymore. Fighters are too expensive to shoot down. They engage each other long before the dog fights by locking in. The entire method of air war has changed.

The F35 is not a dog fight jet. Its too slow. Its a bomber. Its no F22 Raptor let's not pretend it was designed as one.

2-In regards to 2, the technology is already here and being used by Israel and the US.

[Derek 2.0]

Now lets talk operating costs. From what I have read on all the sites of all the projected fighter jets its projected to cost $ 4.700 per flight hour compared to the Eurofighter costs $ 18,000 per flight hour and then the F-35A costs at right now $ 21, 000 per flight hour.

So as I understand it a fleet of 65 F-35As right now is projected to cost Canada $ 45.8 billion over a 40 year life span course of a 40 + year lifespan plus the 9 billion to purchase the planses if that doesn't continue to rise plsu the operating costs for a fleet of 65 F-35As for 40 + years which is right now estimated at $ 36.8 billion.

As I understand it the Eurofighter's operating costs are 85% of the F-35A, Therefore the operating costs of a fleet of 72 Eurofighters over 40 + years is roughly $ 34.6 billion.

However The Gripen's operating costs are only 15% that of the F-35A, which means the operating cost of a fleet of 150 Gripens for 40 + years would be approximately $ 12.7 billion.

Now those are the specs that come off their web sites and when I go on different web sites everyone seems agreed on the above numbers keeping in mind they all could rise.

From what I have been able to read, most of the air industry experts say the The Gripen and Eurofighter cost projections are mich likely to rise as much as the F35.

The majority of those listed operating costs are sunk, in that they are costs we’re already paying and will pay with whatever aircraft we choose (costs associated with pilots, airfields etc)

Now from what I was able to decipher as well the F-35A will in fact be incompatibility with certain weapons that the Gripen will not and in fact the Gripen is much more flexible and can complement any NORAD or NATO mission and be refuelled by Canada's CC-150 Polaris refueling tankers which if I understand it the F35 can't.

That’s misleading…….as the F-35A stands right now, no it couldn’t be refuelled by our current tankers, but the F-35B and F-35C versions could…..As such Canada (and several other members with the same requirements) can have their order of F-35A’s “plumbed” the same as the other aircraft…..Of course, in the 2020s are current tankers will require replacement, as such, we could also go with the current method employed by the USAF.

Italy and Australia are rethinking the F35. I also apologize to Holland because from what I can see The Netherlands has canceled their F-35 order altogether meaning F -35 price will continue to rise as it was based on the assumption its costs would be what they were because the large production demand would lower its cost.

That's not so with the RAAF, the Dutch or Italy.

The Gripen unlike the F35 has full supercruise capability but the F35 has extremely limited supercruise ability to 241 k's. Come on its a bomber not an intercepter. The Gripen supercruises at mach 1.2. The F-35A también slow by fighter jet standards. With a top speed of 1.930 kmph [26] ( top sppeed is mach 1.6.

No it doesn't.

The F-35A we supposedly want to buy is in fact slower than the Super Hornet and current F-16.

Not armed or with fuel.

Now lets talk maneuverability. The small F35A ing design does not allow for quick Manoeuvres using tight turn radii whereas the Gripen excels in this area precisely what one wants from an intercepter.

Not with fuel or weapons under it's wings.

Now Derek mentioned weapons compatability. Well The F-35A at this point can not carry the MBDA Meteor upcoming air-to-air missile but the Gripen can and this is a huge disadvantage in air-to-air combat, when engaging a target beyond visual range . Ther Gripens already are compatible with all NATO Virtually every weapons available the F35A is not. Even if an F-35A compatible version of the Meteor was developed up go its costs yet agai.

It doesn't need to.... it will carry the AMRAAM for us.........but of course, it will carry the Meteor for the British.

The F-35A can not carrythe AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile, the Gripen cam.

It can, but it will carry the AGM-65's replacement, the JAGM

The F35A requires the BRIMESTONE air-to-ground missile, so that means up goes the cost yet again and no one has mentioned that in the costs.

Any ammunition left over from the CF18 could be used in the Gripen but can't in the F35A/

We don’t use the Brimstone….and no, anything ordnance currently in the inventory can be used on the F-35.

1-No not from what I read.

2-Yes both jets were compared with and without fuel tanks.

1. what you read is wrong

2. no they are not, as I already outlined.

The F35A also loses its stealth technology to place external tanks on it. Even with the tanks it can't fly as far.

Huh?

The major problem with the F35A is not only does it not have as long a range but you can't fill it up in the air it has to land unless you want to design it.

That's not so.

In regards to 1, stealth is only needed on bombing missions. We do not need bombing missions for Norad nor do we need to do them for NATO we could leave bombing to other nations and do other missions instead.

Says who?

You keep mentioning dog fighting. Its not done anymore. Fighters are too expensive to shoot down. They engage each other long before the dog fights by locking in. The entire method of air war has changed.

That's what the Americans thought during Vietnam.

Not to sound rude, but most of these points you bring up have already been addressed in this thread......I'd suggest going through this thread again, well also reading up on the role of our current Hornet force, then I'll gladly continue, but to be frank, I have no interest in redressing these issues in such a repetitive fashion……..By all means, research the topic further and I gladly continue.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ignoring stealth and low observability, if the JAS39 Gripen was such an outstanding cost/performance proposition, there would be a lot more of them compared to contemporary F-16 procurements, flight hours and combat missions. Twenty nations placed F-16 orders from 1978 - 2000.....how many nations bought Gripens instead ?

Edited July 1, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

There was a news story I read earlier today about Russia testing our Arctic borders more and more with bombers. We need long range interceptors more than the F-35s boosters have been trying to tell us.

I wouldn't let that story worry you too much. They were flying TU 95's in that boerder incursion. you could shoot them down with shotgun and a Cessna.

[Derek 2.0]

I wouldn't let that story worry you too much. They were flying TU 95's in that boerder incursion. you could shoot them down with shotgun and a Cessna.

Well actually no you couldn’t………interceptions are an exercise in trigonometry.

[Derek 2.0]

Ignoring stealth and low observability, if the JAS39 Gripen was such an outstanding cost/performance proposition, there would be a lot more of them compared to contemporary F-16 procurements, flight hours and combat missions. Twenty nations placed F-16 orders from 1978 - 2000.....how many nations bought Gripens instead ?

That’s answered simply by asking how many air forces have/had the like requirements as the Swedes.