There is a lot of backlash about that decision to buy the F35 over a European product here as apparently the USA still controls the software for the delivered F35 and the USA is now seen as an unreliable party given the recent events.
JAS 39 Gripen is growing up.... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #282
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Maybe they should do what Switzerland did, let the people vote about it? 
What is it, up from $19B to $27B? That's a lot of dough!
What is it, up from $19B to $27B? That's a lot of dough!
Let's be real, the Grippen is not in the same league as the F35, so the price difference might be well justified in that regard.Maybe they should do what Switzerland did, let the people vote about it?
What is it, up from $19B to $27B? That's a lot of dough!
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
re
see "UK to Purchase F-35As and Join NATO Nuclear Mission | Arms Control Association"
and
The F-35A is only(?) being bought due to the requirements of the NATO Nuclear Mission agreement. The F-35B is not capable of carrying any of the currently in service (or planned?) nuclear weapons.
see "UK to Purchase F-35As and Join NATO Nuclear Mission | Arms Control Association"
and
Part of the reason for the small number of F-35B is that the RAF F-35B Sqns are expected to be trained to operate from the carriers, in a similar manner to what the RAF Harrier Sqns were.
- Thread starter
- #285
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
True, but....does that justify the Canadian -35's increase from $19B to $27B? Would you happily accept that price increase?
Of course the '35 can do things that the Gripen can't, but that also goes the other way around, right?
Mind you, SAAB has been working on this with linking aircraft together (among other things) since the days of the Draken, which is a few decades now....
Look how they work Barracuda camouflage, stealth isn't always shape is it, if they invented that for vehicles who knows what else they have up their sleeves....
When did NATO last have an exercise where they were not allowed to use a single airbase (all destroyed), instead being forced to use ordinary roads and a minimum ground crew, during winter and freezing conditions?
Sure, all aircraft have their strengths. And between you and me, for a small airforce like ours, I'd rather have 100 grippens than 35 F35s. I think the Grippen would have made more sense, but I was not the one to decide thatTrue, but....does that justify the Canadian -35's increase from $19B to $27B? Would you happily accept that price increase?
Of course the '35 can do things that the Gripen can't, but that also goes the other way around, right?
Mind you, SAAB has been working on this with linking aircraft together (among other things) since the days of the Draken, which is a few decades now....
Look how they work Barracuda camouflage, stealth isn't always shape is it, if they invented that for vehicles who knows what else they have up their sleeves....
When did NATO last have an exercise where they were not allowed to use a single airbase (all destroyed), instead being forced to use ordinary roads and a minimum ground crew, during winter and freezing conditions?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
You mean you did not get your envelope?
- Thread starter
- #288
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Sure, all aircraft have their strengths. And between you and me, for a small airforce like ours, I'd rather have 100 grippens than 35 F35s. I think the Grippen would have made more sense, but I was not the one to decide that
Hasn't Switzerland cut the numbers on their -35's due to costs, which is funny as they first decided on the Gripen? Boy, didn't that come back to bite their arses!
No, did you?
When?
The Canadian situation is an interesting one. They are a long term member of the F-35 program going all the way back to 1997. Their industry has also benefitted from it to the tune of billions so far and stand to continue to do so for many years to come - roughly a third of projected F-35 numbers have been delivered to date.
Obviously there is considerable political angst at present with being seen to buy an American product. That is understandable. This is also what I believe Saab is trying to capitalise upon with their pushing the Gripen E/F. Mind you, the Gripen is not a US-free product. Apart from the obvious F414 engine, there are also other components sourced from the US (see here to get an idea) which arguable comes with the same risks and concerns.
While the Gripen is a good platform without a doubt, anyone who thinks it is equivalent to the F-35 is a fool. If Canada is serious about wanting a non-US alternate to the F-35 that offers a good capability, arguably well suited to the Canadian requirements and with less US origin elements (though I doubt you will get to a 0% position), they would be better looking at either the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale. Interestingly though you don't see either of those options put forward.
Looking at the industrial benefits for Canada though, if Canada selects the Gripen (or otherwise) don't expect the same level of industrial benefits. Being part of the F-35 program with 3000+ numbers far out weighs being part of a program with a couple of hundred (at best - it may well be less than 100) even if individual % content per aircraft is higher. It's simply a numbers game.
Obviously there is considerable political angst at present with being seen to buy an American product. That is understandable. This is also what I believe Saab is trying to capitalise upon with their pushing the Gripen E/F. Mind you, the Gripen is not a US-free product. Apart from the obvious F414 engine, there are also other components sourced from the US (see here to get an idea) which arguable comes with the same risks and concerns.
While the Gripen is a good platform without a doubt, anyone who thinks it is equivalent to the F-35 is a fool. If Canada is serious about wanting a non-US alternate to the F-35 that offers a good capability, arguably well suited to the Canadian requirements and with less US origin elements (though I doubt you will get to a 0% position), they would be better looking at either the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale. Interestingly though you don't see either of those options put forward.
Looking at the industrial benefits for Canada though, if Canada selects the Gripen (or otherwise) don't expect the same level of industrial benefits. Being part of the F-35 program with 3000+ numbers far out weighs being part of a program with a couple of hundred (at best - it may well be less than 100) even if individual % content per aircraft is higher. It's simply a numbers game.
- Thread starter
- #291
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I don't remember when it was, also I remember that they later decided to have a referendum about it, where the Gripen lost out....must be a few years now, before the Big Sniffle I think, I was surprised about it anyway!
The following provides a relatively good summary of (and yes, I know it is wikipedia but it does have supporting references) and you are correct re their being a plan to buy (and lease) Gripens back around 2012:
A deal to replace the F-5s with Gripens makes sense, even if only done as an interim lease to buy the Swiss more time. That said, I have to question Saab's promises around the Gripen NG - which became the E/F model - given the timeframe of the development. It feels to me that Saab were trying to get the Swiss to bankroll the development or at least be on the 'bleeding edge' of development/procurement which would have been risky. Remember that even the Swedish Air Force only got their first E models in recent months, roughly a decade after the promise to the Swiss.
A deal to replace the F-5s with Gripens makes sense, even if only done as an interim lease to buy the Swiss more time. That said, I have to question Saab's promises around the Gripen NG - which became the E/F model - given the timeframe of the development. It feels to me that Saab were trying to get the Swiss to bankroll the development or at least be on the 'bleeding edge' of development/procurement which would have been risky. Remember that even the Swedish Air Force only got their first E models in recent months, roughly a decade after the promise to the Swiss.
- Thread starter
- #294
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
The following provides a relatively good summary of (and yes, I know it is wikipedia but it does have supporting references) and you are correct re their being a plan to buy (and lease) Gripens back around 2012:
A deal to replace the F-5s with Gripens makes sense, even if only done as an interim lease to buy the Swiss more time. That said, I have to question Saab's promises around the Gripen NG - which became the E/F model - given the timeframe of the development. It feels to me that Saab were trying to get the Swiss to bankroll the development or at least be on the 'bleeding edge' of development/procurement which would have been risky. Remember that even the Swedish Air Force only got their first E models in recent months, roughly a decade after the promise to the Swiss.
2012!!?? Bl**dy h*ll, that's further back than I thought!
F-5's? I wonder why I had F-18's in my head....
- Thread starter
- #295
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Nice!
Unfortunately, I don't think that this is the last that we hear about the Canadians and Swiss....
Btw, they're still posting Gripen with Rolls-Royce engines on the Tube, "Rolls-Royce Gripen Engine Proven In Ukraine Combat"!
Which is utter garbageBtw, they're still posting Gripen with Rolls-Royce engines on the Tube, "Rolls-Royce Gripen Engine Proven In Ukraine Combat"!
- Thread starter
- #297
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
MiTasol
Major
Both the Swiss and the Canadians have had problems with the fixed price contract increasing - in Canada's case by over 42%. Part of that price rise is because the manufacturer "forgot" to disclose certain requirements or told the Canadian's "you don't need those items". I personally place the blame on the Canadians for that part of the escalation because it seems to me to be a case of believing a car salesman who tells you that you do not need an electrician to install a three phase power source to run the rapid charger for your new electric car.
The other factor with the F-35 is that we do not know how reliable it is and how good the spares supply for it is.
Case in point. The RAF had an F-35 go unserviceable in Kerala, India. They sent their M&R crew to fix it and after several days it made the press and became a joke "the RAF cannot even fix their aircraft". Within days they would have sent their top crew and the manufacturers Field Service Representative. Days after that the manufacturer would have sent their top trouble shooting team because it was very embarrassing to them, and very negative advertising for their product, that the combination of the RAF s top team and their FSR could not fix it.
Even then it took 35 days to make serviceable.
To put this another way would you purchase a new car that was advertised as fixed price $19,000 but turned out to cost other buyers $27,000 in reality and had a history of taking 35 days to repair?
The other factor with the F-35 is that we do not know how reliable it is and how good the spares supply for it is.
Case in point. The RAF had an F-35 go unserviceable in Kerala, India. They sent their M&R crew to fix it and after several days it made the press and became a joke "the RAF cannot even fix their aircraft". Within days they would have sent their top crew and the manufacturers Field Service Representative. Days after that the manufacturer would have sent their top trouble shooting team because it was very embarrassing to them, and very negative advertising for their product, that the combination of the RAF s top team and their FSR could not fix it.
Even then it took 35 days to make serviceable.
To put this another way would you purchase a new car that was advertised as fixed price $19,000 but turned out to cost other buyers $27,000 in reality and had a history of taking 35 days to repair?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #300
