Why Canada Should Buy The Saab JAS39 Gripen E “Next Generation” Fighter

Ottawa Citizen ^ | January 7, 2013 | Kyle Meema

[sukhoi-30mki]

[sukhoi-30mki]

Part Two-http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/08/the-case-for-a-canadian-forces-gripen-fighter-aircraft-part-2/

[Bender2]

Yeah, Canada, real stealthy... don't ya see!

If red X above go to http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/1/6a2623cd-8307-4091-8145-e298911d650f.Large.jpg

[rmlew]

Why not get Block 60 F-16 E/F?

[donmeaker]

Author compares F-35A without external hard points to Gripen with external hard points.

In some cases Stealth is not important (say, after day 10 of a conflict) then a valid comparison would compare F-35 with external stores to Gripen. First days of a conflict Gripen would have to hunker down and wait in dispersed and camouflaged hides, and only after that, come up to fight with what was left. Lower cost of a Gripen fleet has to be weighed against the fraction lost in the first days of a conflict, and the damage that the inability of the Gripen fleet in high threat initial conflict.

[Mr. Blond]

I think it would be easier for the RCAF to transition from Hornets to Super Hornets.

[Mr. Blond]

Canada doesn’t need a stealth aircraft, they won’t be performing the same missions as the US.

[Dundee]

Canada probably should go the Super Hornet like Australia did. Being a current Hornet user, the costs of going from classic Hornet to Super is minimal, the capability improvements are pretty good (especially if they get some Growlers in the mix), and the logistic tail hooks into the USN system.

[spetznaz]

Stealthiness is really not he be-all-end-all of aerial combat. It is simply one metric in a soup of convergent/divergent aspects that have to be considered on aggregate. These facets need to be looked at based on what a country requires for its defense needs, and not just because there is something available that has a trick exhaust or fat tires and a nice paint job. Canada will never find itself in an air combat environment where it will need to have an effective integrated air-defense network penetrator (since the US would be there), and even IF IT DID the F-35 is not an IADS penetrator. Modern stealthy cruise missiles launched from aircraft or submarines (e.g. the German Tuarus missile design) are a far better (and far cheaper) option that having F-35s if one is that worried about 'stealth.'

More importantly, the costs of the F-35 are simply not justifiable to a country like Canada, especially considering that the Gripen NG will do 100% of what the F-35 would have done for Canada (because Canada will not be doing IADS penetration duties) at 15% of the cost. It is really a pretty open-and-shut case.

Is the F-35 better than the Gripen NG? Easy - yes it is. Far better. It is stealthier, it has better sensor networking, etc. However,does it give Canada any additional capabilities based on the probable missions Canada would be involved in? Not really. More importantly ...does that extra capability provided by the F-35 justify the cost overhang over the Gripen? Definitely not!

It is like comparing a Corvette C6 with a Bugatti Veyron SuperSport. Is the Veyron a better car (in terms of handling, speed, acceleration)? Definitely yes. However, the Bugatti Veyron SS costs US$2.4 million, while you can get the Corvette at a starting price of around US$51,000. While the Bugatti is a better performer, most people will never be able to utilize the extra oomph, and in terms of needs the two cars will meet the requirements of most people who like fast cars (apart from those who are true racers). Additionally, the extra 2 million Dollars price overhang over the Corvette only makes sense to those with the money to afford that car.

Same thing when it comes to Canada and the Buga ..I mean, the F-35 and the Gripen NG. While the F-35 has certain areas of capability that are better than the Gripen (with the ONLY major one being a certain level of stealthiness), the Gripen NG meets the requirements the Canadians need, and it is at a fraction of the cost of the F-35.

Unless the Canadians ever need to fight the Russians or the Chinese by themselves, the Gripen NG is more than sufficient for their needs (and if they did have to fight the Russians or Chinese by themselves, the F-35 would not be sufficient anyways to achieve any objectives).

I was totally against the US cutting down the F-22 numbers, but when it comes to Canada and the F-35 the Canadians would be absolutely stupid to not consider opting for another platform (e.g. the Gripen NG or the SuperHornet) over the F-35.

[Yo-Yo]

The largest objection to the F-35A in Canada (aside from cost) is that it is a single engine aircraft, and patrolling large expanses of frozen tundra calls for a twin engine design for extra safety.

Neither the Gripen nor the F-16 Block 60 would solve that problem. Canada's best option would be the Super Hornet.

As for the article, it seems to be grasping at every negative straw. For example:

The F-35A also cannot carry the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile as it does not fit in the internal weapons bay. It can be equipped on one of the external hardpoints, but this greatly diminishes what little stealth advantage the F-35A enjoys.

So the AGM-65 has to be carried externally, reducing the F-35A's stealth, so instead let's buy an aircraft that has no stealth at any time with any load?

[Mr. Blond]

I agree with you on everything. Gripen would suit Canada’s environment well, but I still think they should have a squadron of Super Hornets for away games.

[spetznaz]

The SuperHornet would definitely be the easiest transition for Canada. Furthermore, it has two engines which is an advantage for Canada (and a comfort for pilots flying over huge swathes of empty country).

[Westbrook]

Good friend of mine recently bought a Saab automobile. Cost him almost $50K. Then Saab closed their auto business. He can’t trade it in for more than $20K, now. Meanwhile, cost of parts has skyrocketed.

Go ahead, Canada. Buy Saab.

[mosesdapoet]

Thanks for this posting.
What is eye opening about this review is the operational costs beyond the initial purchase these things run Kyle Meema presents early on in his comparison report. To me it’s a must read for anyone who wishes to comment about defence purchases and a “atta boy” sukoi for picking this up and posting in FR’s.

[The Antiyuppie]

We saw one of these on our local weather radar - it was flying in Europe at the time!

I don’t think that the author of the article understands that unless a fighter (and it’s pilot) can fly at oh, say, Mach 5 or 6, top speed isn’t a really big advantage anymore.

[Squawk 8888]

To all- please ping me to Canadian topics.

Canada Ping!

[donmeaker]

No doubt they should consider it, but I find the level of analysis presented in the article laughable.

Again, if Canada needs to fly missions in contested air space in the first few days of a conflict, stealth is an important part of the mix. I consider that it may take over a day to get the US involved (if under current administration, that ever happens. I don’t have a lot of love for current administration.)

After the first few days, assuming US air dominance is put in play, the Gripen would be a useful auxilary platform. Before then: nearly worthless. If Canada wants to depend completely on the US to defend its airspace, then why buy any at all? Zero is a lot cheaper than any alternative.

I would also poke fun at an analysis that depends heavily on max top speed. Max top speed isn’t used much. Simplicity, lightness of pitot inlets limits top speed to about Mach 1.6, but that is not a big factor in air combat because drag/fuel usage is very high there, and heat of SS reduces survivability. Supersonic speed is especially difficult when using many external hard points as the shock waves coming off the external stores interact. Range of supercruise depends on load, which also depends on where in a mission it occurs: Later in a mission, after fuel is burned off and weapons expended, greater SC range can be achieved.

This appears to be using Gripen furnished statistics: Max number of hard points which is critical, until you want max speed, upon which time hard points no longer matter and you can used a figure based on nearly slick load.

Noone knows what war will occur in the future. Smart money buys a range of capability, and attempts to cover weaknesses with diplomacy or spinelessness. I don’t think the proud Canadians like to hand over defense of their country for the first few days to the US, but I may be wrong.

[donmeaker]

Saab’s Auto business was sold to GM. GM has killed Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saab, and Hummer, with more to come.

[ken5050]

And being a SAAB, the ignition key is mounted on the floorboard below the joystick.

[A.A. Cunningham]

the costs of going from classic Hornet to Super is minimal

That's the same line of BS the Navy sold to Congress with a straight face.