TreeBeard Posted March 17 Report Posted March 17 12 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Please explain how we are diversifying our economy I need to explain how creating a shipbuilding industry would diversify the economy? 13 minutes ago, Army Guy said: once these ships are built there will be no more military ships Shipyards only build one type of ship? Why wouldn’t they bid on other shipbuilding contracts? 13 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Canada tweaked the design, but that does not explain the massive price difference They’re built heavier and have more weapons systems. 22 minutes ago, Army Guy said: not even close to over 7 bil a copy $6.4B AUD per unit Quote
Army Guy Posted March 17 Report Posted March 17 6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: I need to explain how creating a shipbuilding industry would diversify the economy? Shipyards only build one type of ship? Why wouldn’t they bid on other shipbuilding contracts? They’re built heavier and have more weapons systems. $6.4B AUD per unit Irving shipyards downsized and moved it's dock yards to halifax so it could build smaller ships like fishing vessels because the navy did not provide enough business, The NAVY or should i say our government likes to keep them 40 plus years before replacing them, Irving can not wait that long....So we really don't have much in the way of a ship building industry, when it comes to major war ships....so it does not provide much in the way of diversify our economy does it? at most it provides a small bump while we pay workers to get up to speed on building ships only to lose that expertize after 10 years.... You should ask Irving...maybe the answer is no one likes paying those kind of prices when you can get far more ship for your dollar at other ship yards... Negative, they have the same amount of weapons, same aegis systems, ours is a little heavier...because they are the size of a cruiser... Do you have a source for the australian price i'd like to read it... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
TreeBeard Posted March 17 Report Posted March 17 38 minutes ago, Army Guy said: So we really don't have much in the way of a ship building industry, when it comes to major war ships You keep saying shipyards can only build one kind of ship. 39 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Negative, they have the same amount of weapons Your own link says they have additional weapons. 41 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Do you have a source for the australian price i'd like to read it... https://www.meta-defense.fr/en/2024/10/04/Australian-Navy-Hunter-Class-Price/ Quote
Army Guy Posted March 18 Report Posted March 18 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: You keep saying shipyards can only build one kind of ship. Your own link says they have additional weapons. https://www.meta-defense.fr/en/2024/10/04/Australian-Navy-Hunter-Class-Price/ No i did not say that, building a major war ship is nothing like building fishing ves....apples and oranges... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-class_frigate 8167 tones, with 32 vls cells.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_destroyer_(2030s) 8000 tons with 24 vls cells... https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Frigate/City-Type-26-class.htm#:~:text=As of 2017%2C BAE Systems' website suggests a,157 with room for a total of 208. 6900 tonnes with x 2, 24 vls cells, plus 24 mk41 vls cells. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BeaverFever Posted March 18 Author Report Posted March 18 (edited) 8 hours ago, Army Guy said: Liberals announce a new military contract for frigates....What irving is charging us for just 3....you should sit down for these numbers, over 22 billion....more than 7 bil a copy...close to what the british paid for their aircraft carriers....while the british are building almost the same ship there total price is 15 bil for 8 ships... And the NAVY wants 15 of these ships estimated at over 100 bil today...compare that to the first estamate...is it worth the cost to pay for Canada shipbuilding industry....when these ships are going to be in the water for at least 40 plus years...and Irving will be in the same place it is now , 40 years from now....Somehow i don't think the navy is going to get 15 ships...like most navy projects it will be pared down...and Irving will dance all the way to the bank... Irving shipyards contract should be canceled and given to either british or australian contractors, or see south korea have the same ship built for much much less. with the same capabilities... Not to mention that at the last minute we shit-canned the respected Canadian-designed CMS330 combat management system (which was so successful the British based theirs on an earlier version of it) for the US Aegis system because US interoperability was a key concern. Now there’s fear about USA having the ability to lock us out of our own warships if they wanted to. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-system-canadas-war-ships Edited March 18 by BeaverFever 2 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 18 Report Posted March 18 13 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Not to mention that at the last minute we shit-canned the respected Canadian-designed CMS330 combat management system (which was so successful the British based theirs on an earlier version of it) for the US Aegis system because US interoperability was a key concern. Now there’s fear about USA having the ability to lock us out of our own warships if they wanted to. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-system-canadas-war-ships Lets not kid ourselves the Aegis system is one of the best if not the best in the world....being interoperable is just one piece of the puzzle....you make it sound like the US has some remote to prevent us from operating our war ships "not possible" like anything you buy from a foreign nationality you run the risk of them turn hostile or putting on tariffs etc same thing could happen with purchasing european, asian. Only save gap is to design and produce within Canada, and that ship sailed a long time ago...you can still operate a fully functioning warship with the older software...as for spare parts, thats what having a good logistical system here in canada where you purchase enough spares to midgate tariffs or spats, or unforeseen circumstances like war or conflicts... Quote The Ottawa Citizen revealed Feb. 14 that defence industry officials have warned that the U.S. controls many of the key systems onboard Canada’s new warships, allowing the Americans to hold this country hostage over future upgrades or even the provision of spare parts. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
PIK Posted March 18 Report Posted March 18 Our own navy wants american over Canadian. The CMS 330 has its issues and is very costly. We need to cut back on warships and buy subs. The contracts just rewarded seems to be a vote buyer in NFLD. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Dougie93 Posted March 18 Report Posted March 18 19 minutes ago, PIK said: Our own navy wants american over Canadian. The CMS 330 has its issues and is very costly. We need to cut back on warships and buy subs. The contracts just rewarded seems to be a vote buyer in NFLD. the Anti-American moral panic in the face of Trump is at the threshold of hysterical, hence there is no sense trying to reason with it Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 18 Author Report Posted March 18 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: Lets not kid ourselves the Aegis system is one of the best if not the best in the world....being interoperable is just one piece of the puzzle....you make it sound like the US has some remote to prevent us from operating our war ships "not possible" like anything you buy from a foreign nationality you run the risk of them turn hostile or putting on tariffs etc same thing could happen with purchasing european, asian. Only save gap is to design and produce within Canada, and that ship sailed a long time ago...you can still operate a fully functioning warship with the older software...as for spare parts, thats what having a good logistical system here in canada where you purchase enough spares to midgate tariffs or spats, or unforeseen circumstances like war or conflicts... Apparently Aegis has less advanced ASW capabilities and is also less flexible and customizable than CMS330.Aegis also requires US weapons and ancillary systems while CMS has open architecture that works with other NATO nations’ technology. OTOH Aegis has proven BMD defence capabilities while CMS ability in this area has yet to be fully developed (but it is customizable open architecture so theoretically possible). Currently it seems far more likely that USA would lock us out of upgrades than the Europeans. And even though it would be operational without upgrades those upgrades could include security patches for existing vulnerabilities or defences against new threats You can’t stockpile software updates in advance or new countermeasures that haven’t been invented yet And CMS 330 is Canadian not American or European Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 18 Author Report Posted March 18 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Not to mention that at the last minute we shit-canned the respected Canadian-designed CMS330 combat management system (which was so successful the British based theirs on an earlier version of it) for the US Aegis system because US interoperability was a key concern. Now there’s fear about USA having the ability to lock us out of our own warships if they wanted to. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-system-canadas-war-ships Correction: it was the Integrated Communications Control System (ICCS) that was copied from the Halifax class to the British Type 23. The CMS 330, while also Canadian, is a derivative of a British system used on Type 23 that was added to Halifax class as a later upgrade. Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 18 Author Report Posted March 18 3 hours ago, Dougie93 said: the Anti-American moral panic in the face of Trump is at the threshold of hysterical, hence there is no sense trying to reason with it No “moral panic”. The threat is real and proven by his own words and deeds And no “hysteria”. Urgent threats require timely measures Quote
Dougie93 Posted March 18 Report Posted March 18 10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: . Urgent threats require timely measures well so far that's a dud, since soft as warm baby shit Doug Ford caved in on export tariffs never mind export bans, while both Quebec & Alberta refuse to put any energy export skin in the game at all, same old same old Canada Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 18 Author Report Posted March 18 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: well so far that's a dud, since soft as warm baby shit Doug Ford caved in on export tariffs never mind export bans, while both Quebec & Alberta refuse to put any energy export skin in the game at all, same old same old Canada He only suspended them after Lutnik invited him to the White House with the rest of the Canadian delegation. And you’ll notice that since that meeting Lutnik, Rubio et al have only had respectful things to say about Canada. I think in that meeting both sides agreed to tone down the rhetoric and suspend further escalation in order to stabilize markets, while acknowledging that nobody can control the nonsense that spills out of Trump’s mouth, least of all Trump himself. That love-in still appears like it’s going to end on April 2 however. As for Quebec, unlike Ontario it is a long-term electricity exporter to US utilities , it has long-term contracts and special purpose-built infrastructure for exporting electricity. Unlike Trump they are not going to violate existing written agreements and trash their reputation as a reliable partner. Ontario OTOH is only an occasional electricity exporter mostly on the spot market where surplus electricity is bought and sold in 5-minute increments, sometimes Ontario imports from states and sometimes it selss, other times it pays those states to take surplus electricity off our grid. Those states have other sources of electricity in their mix they could pivot to, Ontario doesn’t literally “power 1.5 million homes in those states”. So US ratepayers likely wouldn’t have seen any noticeable increase from Ford even at his worst even if those states’ ultimately ended up paying slightly more for the electricity they out on their grid. Alberta needs no explanation. They’re a wannabe American petro-state Im surprised they haven’t defected to the US already. Edited March 18 by BeaverFever 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 19 Report Posted March 19 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Apparently Aegis has less advanced ASW capabilities and is also less flexible and customizable than CMS330.Aegis also requires US weapons and ancillary systems while CMS has open architecture that works with other NATO nations’ technology. OTOH Aegis has proven BMD defence capabilities while CMS ability in this area has yet to be fully developed (but it is customizable open architecture so theoretically possible). Currently it seems far more likely that USA would lock us out of upgrades than the Europeans. And even though it would be operational without upgrades those upgrades could include security patches for existing vulnerabilities or defences against new threats You can’t stockpile software updates in advance or new countermeasures that haven’t been invented yet And CMS 330 is Canadian not American or European If the CMS is better than the Aegis, why did the navy pick to go that route, I'm not a navy guy, so i'm asking it does not make sense why change for a new system if your already very familiar with the CMS330. I thought thats all we used was American Weapons on our frigates.... I have not heard of our frigates incorporating the BMD capabilities, at least not from a canadian site. I think our current state is one in a million, trump is a one of a kind....or atleast he has been in our history with the US... No one can predict the future, or what is next technology advance, but unless some wonder weapon comes up, the soft ware we have now will work well into the future...and is light years ahead of most of our current tech...But software aside we can still stock pile on spare parts, the next crises or war this manufacturing nations will be over loaded with pumping out spares for their own equipment, and we will be in a long que....same as if we purchased a european system unless we develop our own , which we do not have the funds for...I'm talking about complete machines, such as ships , aircraft etc... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BeaverFever Posted March 19 Author Report Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: If the CMS is better than the Aegis, why did the navy pick to go that route, I'm not a navy guy, so i'm asking it does not make sense why change for a new system if your already very familiar with the CMS330. I thought thats all we used was American Weapons on our frigates.... I have not heard of our frigates incorporating the BMD capabilities, at least not from a canadian site. I am not saying it was better than aegis and the original plan was to develop an evolved CMS330 for the CSC not to transplant the existing system from Halifax. As to why they want American kit well they ALWAYS want American kit “US interoperability” has been the unquestioned standard and too many Canadian military personnel look up to and idolize Americans as their cooler big brother. 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: I think our current state is one in a million, trump is a one of a kind....or atleast he has been in our history with the US... As you say nobody can press the future and it’s highly likely that Trumpism will outlast Trump, especially his belief in isolationism, now limited commitment to NATO, and aggressive foreign policy. It’s not like all the ill will he’s engendered among NATO is just going to magically disappear when he leaves office and nobody wants to be so dependent on a country they no longer have friendly relations with. 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: No one can predict the future, or what is next technology advance, but unless some wonder weapon comes up, the soft ware we have now will work well into the future.. I don’t think that’s easy to say, the next generation of drones or hypersonic missiles or electronic/cyber warfare could easily make a system vulnerable and require some new upgrade where the US could demand concessions on fresh water or critical minerals or the Northwest passage. 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: But software aside we can still stock pile on spare parts, the next crises or war this manufacturing nations will be over loaded with pumping out spares for their own equipment, and we will be in a long que....same as if we purchased a european system unless we develop our own , which we do not have the funds for...I'm talking about complete machines, such as ships , aircraft etc... I think we’re less likely to get bullied by a European country than USA Side note: I may be reading into things too much but we just had. French Nuclear attack submarine make an announced port call in Halifax which the government was very cryptic about, followed by Carney’s whirlwind bromance with Macron in France where they alluded to closer military ties followed by an announcement that F-35 contract was being reviewed followed by Macron announcing a surprise purchase of additional Rafale fighters. If Canada ends up with French SSNs (or even SSKs) or Rafales you heard it here first! Quote
Army Guy Posted March 19 Report Posted March 19 3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: I am not saying it was better than aegis and the original plan was to develop an evolved CMS330 for the CSC not to transplant the existing system from Halifax. As to why they want American kit well they ALWAYS want American kit “US interoperability” has been the unquestioned standard and too many Canadian military personnel look up to and idolize Americans as their cooler big brother. As you say nobody can press the future and it’s highly likely that Trumpism will outlast Trump, especially his belief in isolationism, now limited commitment to NATO, and aggressive foreign policy. It’s not like all the ill will he’s engendered among NATO is just going to magically disappear when he leaves office and nobody wants to be so dependent on a country they no longer have friendly relations with. I don’t think that’s easy to say, the next generation of drones or hypersonic missiles or electronic/cyber warfare could easily make a system vulnerable and require some new upgrade where the US could demand concessions on fresh water or critical minerals or the Northwest passage. I think we’re less likely to get bullied by a European country than USA Side note: I may be reading into things too much but we just had. French Nuclear attack submarine make an announced port call in Halifax which the government was very cryptic about, followed by Carney’s whirlwind bromance with Macron in France where they alluded to closer military ties followed by an announcement that F-35 contract was being reviewed followed by Macron announcing a surprise purchase of additional Rafale fighters. If Canada ends up with French SSNs (or even SSKs) or Rafales you heard it here first! I get that, Have they developed an evolved CMS330 as i can find anything on it...perhaps thats why they went with the Aegis new spy 7 system. I think there is more to it than that, American equipment is cool, but not nessicary better, but in this case i do think the Aegis offers more...from what i have read. Yes, and the next President is going to have a lot of work to do repairing all of that. but the question is , Is trump one of a kind or are we going to face someone like him again... Spy 7 is pretty advanced, and will be for at least 10 years....we can also make the same assumption on europe...no one knows for sure... Today thats exactly what it looks like but 15 years ago do you think we would have predicted what is happening today.... French know we are looking for a sub....and really want to sell some...i would prefer American, or UK, i think the UK ship yards are getting ready to finish their run of their nuke subs....now would be a good time to start talks....but the french have a very good sub as well, nuclear is the way to go for canada...but i'm not a navy guy...Rafale is a good aircraft, but i think the typhoon is better, but is expensive to purchase, i think they are building tranche 4 now...but then again EU coalition is working on their own new stealth design fighter...in the near future...it would be a shame to throw all that investment we have into the F-35 away....someone suggested a split fleet also more expensive but the typhoon would compliment the f-35 a lot.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Dougie93 Posted March 19 Report Posted March 19 11 hours ago, BeaverFever said: If Canada ends up with French SSNs (or even SSKs) or Rafales you heard it here first! but the only reason Canada purchases expensive military hardware is to appease Washington, if that ceases to be an imperative, Canada will simply maintain the status quo of purchasing as little as possible, Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 19 Author Report Posted March 19 34 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: but the only reason Canada purchases expensive military hardware is to appease Washington, if that ceases to be an imperative, Canada will simply maintain the status quo of purchasing as little as possible, Appeasing them, keeping them at bay, keeping them from trespassing on our territory, using our lack of defence as an excuse for hostility….whatever you want to call it will probably always be a priority. Quote
Dougie93 Posted March 19 Report Posted March 19 (edited) 35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Appeasing them, keeping them at bay, keeping them from trespassing on our territory, using our lack of defence as an excuse for hostility….whatever you want to call it will probably always be a priority. which isn't interrelated in any way with the French, meaning Canada is not going to switch to the French as a vendor, as a vassal state, you don't actually want to go to war with the Empire, that would be suicidal, rather it is all about rendering unto Caesar, but only so much as you are utterly forced to concede, regardless, if you are purchasing for the RCN or RCAF, you're going to be buying foreign, in terms of buying Canadian, the Army is better for that, spend the money on more dismounted troops, their equipment & facilities, particularly as when it comes to the ultimate Defence of Canada, the arm of decision would be boots on the ground, Ducimus Edited March 19 by Dougie93 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 19 Report Posted March 19 Things are getting a little crazy....40 % serviceability rate is sickening...and now we are looking at another non us fighter...for the sake of politics....it is always the forces and it's personal that pay for politicians games...the grippen is a joke.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BeaverFever Posted March 20 Author Report Posted March 20 Menaced by Trump, Canada Prepares to Join E.U. Military Industry Buildup Canada’s draft deal to participate in Europe’s defense industry will bring contracts to Canadian manufacturers and help lessen dependence on the United States. Canada is in advanced talks with the European Union to join the bloc’s new project to expand its military industry, a move that would allow Canada to be part of building European fighter jets and other military equipment at its own industrial facilities. The budding defense cooperation between Canada and the European Union, which is racing to shore up its industry to lower reliance on the United States, would boost Canada’s military manufacturers and offer the country a new market at a time when its relationship with the United States has become frayed. Shaken by a crisis in the two nations’ longstanding alliance since President Trump’s election, Canada has started moving closer to Europe. The military industry collaboration with the European Union highlights how traditional U.S. allies are deepening their ties without U.S. participation to insulate themselves from Mr. Trump’s unpredictable moves. Canada’s new leader, Prime Minister Mark Carney, this week made Paris and London the destinations of his first overseas trip since taking office on Friday, calling Canada “the most European of non-European countries.” Two officials, one from the European Union and one from Canada, with direct knowledge of the discussions said detailed talks were underway to incorporate Canada into the European Union’s new defense initiative. The goal is to boost the E.U.’s defense industry and eventually offer a credible alternative to the United States, which is now dominant. Specifically, the officials said, Canada would be able to become part of the European military manufacturing roster, marketing its industrial facilities to build European systems like the Saab Gripen jet, a competitor to the American F-35, which is made by Lockheed Martin. The officials requested anonymity to describe the talks because they were not authorized to brief the press and the negotiations were still ongoing. They said that no specific contracts had been discussed yet. The European Union is taking major steps to increase military spending, both loosening budget rules so that countries in the bloc can spend more and proposing a 150 billion euro loan program ($163 billion) to finance shared military development. That program is meant to prioritize European-made products, with 65 percent of component costs coming either from within the bloc or from partners that have signed a specific type of deal with it. Under the current talks, Canada would help supply the additional 35 percent and could go further if it brokered an additional agreement to participate even more closely. Canada, according to the terms of the discussion, would also be given preferential access to the E.U. market for military equipment, an alternative to buying equipment from the United States. In a similar way to the European Union, which is having to step up its aid to Ukraine rapidly as the United States limits its own, Canada is going through a rude awakening in terms of its lagging military capabilities and investments. It is among the NATO allies that has been criticized as under-spending on its military. The NATO goal is for members to invest at least 2 percent of economic output in defense. Canada spends only about 1.3 percent but has unveiled plans to ramp up to 2 percent by the end of the decade. Mr. Trump has been insisting that Canada should simply become part of the United States, citing the dependence on the American military as one argument. On Tuesday, Mr. Carney announced that Canada had struck a radar technology deal with Australia. Canada’s military industry, which is relatively small, has been used to produce Canadian equipment but has also been a regular contractor for building American military equipment or parts. Canadian factories across the vast country produce munitions, tanks, aircraft, technological defense systems and navy ships. An in-depth industry review in 2022 found that about half of Canada’s military equipment was exported and half kept domestically. The top export destination, by far, was the United States. Since Mr. Trump’s election, Canada has been increasingly aligning itself more closely with partners across the Atlantic, seeking to diversify trading partners and defense allies away from its core relationship with the United States. In a document prepared by the European Union to lay out the plans for its defense initiative, Canada was explicitly mentioned, hinting to the talks to absorb the country into the E.U. military industry project. Mr. Carney spoke with Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, on Sunday, and military industrial cooperation was discussed on that call, the two officials said. “Our cooperation with Canada has intensified and should be further enhanced, also to strengthen trans-Atlantic security,” said the E.U. document, released on Wednesday. It added that talks were underway “including on respective initiatives to boost defense industry production.” To be sure, the European initiative and the Canadian partnership would take years to bear fruit. E.U. defense has been falling behind because of American dominance and underinvestment, and the drive to arm Ukraine depleted the arsenals of E.U. members. Ramping up production takes time, and firmed-up contracts for specific military equipment, to allow defense companies to invest in the production of extremely expensive items, like aircraft. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/world/canada/canada-eu-military-industry-trump.html Quote
TreeBeard Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: the grippen is a joke Carney, get those Gripens! https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/swedens-lightweight-gripene-vs-americas-stealthy-f35a-pros-cons Despite being part of a much more modest program, the Gripen retains a number of important advantages over the F-35. With the Gripen A/B having entered service in 1996, the Gripen E is based on a thoroughly tested airframe and is considered fully combat ready. The F-35 by contrast has over 800 performance issues with progress made towards solving them having been very slow. Where the Gripen is fully operational and well suited to fighting at any time, the F-35 is still limited to an initial operating capability and is poorly suited to even medium intensity combat - with the Pentagon as a result consistently refusing to approve the fighter for mass production every year. The F-35’s maintenance requirements remain very high for a single engine fighter and its availability rates low, where the Gripen is prized for its unrivalled ease of maintenance among Western fighters meaning a far larger proportion of a Gripen fleet can be kept combat ready at any time compared to an equivalent F-35 fleet. This is largely a result of its size, as while the American F-16 is considered a standard lightweight the Gripen is considered a 'very light' aircraft comparable to the cancelled American F-20 or the Chinese JF-17. While the Gripen’s small scale of production means it is not being marketed at a significantly lower price than the F-35, its operational costs are very significantly lower meaning over its lifetime a Gripen squadron will cost several billion dollars less than an F-35 squadron of the same size - depending on how frequently they fly. This could also result in Gripen pilots having more time in the air than those of the F-35. 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted March 20 Author Report Posted March 20 (edited) 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Things are getting a little crazy....40 % serviceability rate is sickening...and now we are looking at another non us fighter...for the sake of politics....it is always the forces and it's personal that pay for politicians games...the grippen is a joke.... The Gripen is not a joke it’s widely respected. But it’s not a perfect solution either.Neither is the F-35. All of these possible fighters have their designed purpose and limitations. The Gripen has short combat range and no 5th gen stealth but is fast and a true “home air defence” fighter that compared to the f-35 can scramble faster, turn around missions faster, and outmaneuver…all with highly advanced radar avionics and EW (but not as advanced as F35). It requires minimal maintenance between missions and can be maintained from virtually anywhere as it was designed with a mobile containerized truck-mounted maintenance kit. The aircraft was literally designed to disperse to remote areas and operate from stretches of highway with its mobile maintenance kit. F-35 is slow, slower than our current CF-18s even. It is as nimble as an elephant in cement shoes, can’t dogfight, can only carry a maximum of 2 short range sidewinder missiles and even then it can only carry them externally which will only make it slower and negates its greatest asset which is stealth. Its cannon only has enough ammunition for a 3-second burst. It’s entire aerial combat power is predicated on its ability to remain undetected and take out the enemy at long range with its maximum of 4 long range radar guided missiles. So if/when anti-radar countermeasures or EW defeat those missiles, it is very vulnerable at closer ranges even against 4th generation adversaries, But this is when Canada is doing arctic intercepts and escorting Russian planes away from our airspace it will eventually be at these close ranges. It’s also a high maintenance prima-donna that needs a lot of time on the ground being maintained so not only high lifecycle costs but high downtime at special designated facilities some of which are in the US. Most air forces have multiple types of fighter aircraft and so did RCAF for its entire history except for the CF-18 era. The only NATO forces with a single fighter are the smaller militaries like Belgium, Norway Denmark Netherlands a couple others….most of whom recently switched or are in the process of switching from F-16 to F-35. France only has Rafale but they have different configurations for different roles. We are stuck with at least 16 F-35 due to our contract so a balanced fleet with a mix of F35 and either Rafale or Gripen …due to cost I am assuming Gripen would be sufficient Edited March 20 by BeaverFever Quote
Army Guy Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 17 hours ago, TreeBeard said: Carney, get those Gripens! https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/swedens-lightweight-gripene-vs-americas-stealthy-f35a-pros-cons Despite being part of a much more modest program, the Gripen retains a number of important advantages over the F-35. With the Gripen A/B having entered service in 1996, the Gripen E is based on a thoroughly tested airframe and is considered fully combat ready. The F-35 by contrast has over 800 performance issues with progress made towards solving them having been very slow. Where the Gripen is fully operational and well suited to fighting at any time, the F-35 is still limited to an initial operating capability and is poorly suited to even medium intensity combat - with the Pentagon as a result consistently refusing to approve the fighter for mass production every year. The F-35’s maintenance requirements remain very high for a single engine fighter and its availability rates low, where the Gripen is prized for its unrivalled ease of maintenance among Western fighters meaning a far larger proportion of a Gripen fleet can be kept combat ready at any time compared to an equivalent F-35 fleet. This is largely a result of its size, as while the American F-16 is considered a standard lightweight the Gripen is considered a 'very light' aircraft comparable to the cancelled American F-20 or the Chinese JF-17. While the Gripen’s small scale of production means it is not being marketed at a significantly lower price than the F-35, its operational costs are very significantly lower meaning over its lifetime a Gripen squadron will cost several billion dollars less than an F-35 squadron of the same size - depending on how frequently they fly. This could also result in Gripen pilots having more time in the air than those of the F-35. Sure it is combat ready so is the sopwith camel, Grippen does not have half the capabilities as the f-35...And yes it has performance issues like most brand new aircraft, F-35 is in full production, in 2024...and those issues are down to 65... Not sure how old your source is but it is not current... fixed....https://theaviationist.com/2024/03/13/f-35-full-rate-production-finally-approved/ Quote Talking about Block 4, immature and deficient Block 4 mission systems software and avionics stability problems with the new Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware, according to the DOT&E report, are causing new delays, with the deliveries of TR-3-configured aircraft on hold. The delays prevented the F-35 Joint Program Office from adequately planning the modifications of the new aircraft required for Operational Testing. Additionally, according to the report, not all the required flight test instrumentation is on contract and might not be available in time for the testing. Furthermore, the JSE, although it was certified as ready for operational testing, still needs to correct 65 deficiencies against requirements prior and concurrent with using the JSE during the Block 4’s operational testing. and most of those will be solved by 2030 when we receive our first aircraft...As for the performance issues Israel managed to use it in strikes against Iran's heavily contested airspace to take out Russian made S300 air defences on mopre than one occasion...Hardly poorly suited, or medium intensity combat... https://simpleflying.com/5-times-5th-gen-f-35-used-in-combat/ Grippen is a gen 4 aircraft , F-35 is gen 5 apples and oranges....If this aircraft is so good why is not all of europe not flying them, in fact why is the list of countries that rejected them out right. just look at failed bids on the link i provided, then see countries that have adopted this aircraft.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen Yes it is cheaper to fly, and requires less maintenance, but it also only has half the capabilities as the f-35... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 20 Report Posted March 20 17 hours ago, BeaverFever said: The Gripen is not a joke it’s widely respected. But it’s not a perfect solution either.Neither is the F-35. All of these possible fighters have their designed purpose and limitations. The Gripen has short combat range and no 5th gen stealth but is fast and a true “home air defence” fighter that compared to the f-35 can scramble faster, turn around missions faster, and outmaneuver…all with highly advanced radar avionics and EW (but not as advanced as F35). It requires minimal maintenance between missions and can be maintained from virtually anywhere as it was designed with a mobile containerized truck-mounted maintenance kit. The aircraft was literally designed to disperse to remote areas and operate from stretches of highway with its mobile maintenance kit. F-35 is slow, slower than our current CF-18s even. It is as nimble as an elephant in cement shoes, can’t dogfight, can only carry a maximum of 2 short range sidewinder missiles and even then it can only carry them externally which will only make it slower and negates its greatest asset which is stealth. Its cannon only has enough ammunition for a 3-second burst. It’s entire aerial combat power is predicated on its ability to remain undetected and take out the enemy at long range with its maximum of 4 long range radar guided missiles. So if/when anti-radar countermeasures or EW defeat those missiles, it is very vulnerable at closer ranges even against 4th generation adversaries, But this is when Canada is doing arctic intercepts and escorting Russian planes away from our airspace it will eventually be at these close ranges. It’s also a high maintenance prima-donna that needs a lot of time on the ground being maintained so not only high lifecycle costs but high downtime at special designated facilities some of which are in the US. Most air forces have multiple types of fighter aircraft and so did RCAF for its entire history except for the CF-18 era. The only NATO forces with a single fighter are the smaller militaries like Belgium, Norway Denmark Netherlands a couple others….most of whom recently switched or are in the process of switching from F-16 to F-35. France only has Rafale but they have different configurations for different roles. We are stuck with at least 16 F-35 due to our contract so a balanced fleet with a mix of F35 and either Rafale or Gripen …due to cost I am assuming Gripen would be sufficient So respected it is used by how many nations ?, all of which ran their own competitions,It comes with a long list of failed bids.... it came in second in Canada only after most dropped out because Canada was asking for to much offsets... You can operate almost any modern fighter on a highway, or prepared runway. and any airforce can have a mobile truck repair shop...we have that already for our green helos... It does not have to be fast, it's sensors and radar will see most combatants well before they even know the f-35 is there. it kills at distance...That being said it is not that much slower, gripen top speed is 1323 mph, , f-35 is 1200 mph not that slow..., and it caries 2 long range missiles and 2 short range...and when in beast mode, your also forgetting airforce normally scrambles x 2 aircraft at minimum...when chasing down Russian aircraft in the north... Quote For air-to-air missions, beast mode means 14 AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders. This would likely be on “Second Day” missions when air superiority has not totally been determined. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/11/the-f-35-can-go-into-beast-mode-carrying-22000-pounds-of-bombs/ And while Again the question you have to ask yourself is Why did the airforce pick the f-35, we could go back and forth all day about what is better ...but the experts our own air force have chosen the F-35 for many reasons...the other question should be why are there more f-35 users than grippen users, each nation ran a competition and again in most cases the grippen lost...Why ? and when you take a look at most western nations they run either US aircraft or Euro fighters, with exception of France...some nations are running grippens, about 300 grippens have been made, over 1000 F-35 have been produced....that alone has to say something about both aircraft... Operate multi fleet of aircraft are possible when they were cheaper to run, and purchase....hence why we have multi role fighters, not experts in one area, but can do all areas good enough...F-35 is that aircraft.... If we had to purchase a european aircraft i would pick the Eurofighter hands down...or the french Rafale...the Grippen would be in the back of the pack.... Like most military purchases, our politicians have turned it into a political football, we have seen this over and over, just look at the Sea king replacement...the government should be kept out of the whole process, instead approve the amount of funding and thats it...unless it is a strategic piece of equipment, like nuke subs... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.