By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 28 November 2021
And then there were two! The Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada, which are managing the competition to find a replacement for the CF-18s, announced that Boeing was out of the competition. Last week Boeing was informed that its bid to replace the CF-18s with Super Hornet fighter jets did not meet the federal government's requirements. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and Swedish firm Saab’s Gripen fighter jet apparently have met the government's requirements. We continue to wait for a final decision. Anyone want to take odds on which option will be selected?? See https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-fighter-jets-1.6262851
3 thoughts on “The Slow March to Replace CF-18s Continue”
In my opinion odds are about 60/40 that the LM F-35A will be chosen over Saab’s Gripen fighter jet. But as time goes on (so slowly), the odds could dwindle down to 50/50. The only losers in this “cold as molasses” process will be the RCAF and Canadian people
Hi everyone, I believe the odds to be very close to 50/50. The qualities of the Gripen E are often underestimate but let me explain. First, the two remaining contenders are the logical one to be left because they are the only two at the early days of their production run. The Super Hornet, Rafale & Typhoon on the other hand are near the end of their production line and, with our record of stretching our Aircraft, we would be the only one left operating these types by the time we retire them. We were able to stretch our Hornets because we were among the first Hornets customers and we were able to upgrade them using equipment developed for the C/D and even E/F variant. Developing updated radars, communication equipment and adapting newer weapons on our own to remain relevant might have been much more expensive for us otherwise. With the Hornet’s original retirement target in 2003, the Super Hornet would have been the right choice back then.
We can quickly summarise the point for and against each fighter. First the advantages of the F-35 are commonality with many of our NATO allies and especially the USA. Canada is to purchase the least expensive version (F-35A) which is also the one with fewer development hiccups. The APG-81 radar fitted to the F-35 is one of the most advanced and powerful radar fitted to a fighter jet to this day and also other sensors that allows for the pilot to virtually see through the aircraft thanks to the DAS system helmet mounted display (HMD). It carries as much internal fuel as a fully loaded CF-18 with 3 external tanks. It means that with internal missile combat load it loose way less performance than other fighters with similar combat load and still maintain a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 while the maximum speed of other fighter is much reduced. When we are deployed, we can take advantage of a global supply network that can locate spare parts availability around the world. And of course it would make our southern ally very happy if we opt for their prized jet. On the bad side of the F-35 option we can also mention a few things. To begin with, the USA remain in control of the internal codes of the fighter which mean that we cannot do any modification to the system and that we remain dependant of the modifications that they want to do to the aircraft. A lot of compromise were made in order to build an aircraft that was to replace so many ones so the general aerodynamic suffered from it. It is also said that they cannot operate from our forward operating base up north the way they are actually configured. I don’t know if it is fixed yet but a few engine failure were due to the massive engine flexing under G-load causing blade to touch vanes in the engine. If you want to load IR seeking missile, they are to be mounted on the wing reducing greatly the stealth advantage. There are apparently still a lot of hiccups with the integrated supply system but it should be great once it is fixed as mentioned earlier. Some will argue that we already invested more than 600 million $ into the F-35 but we already receive more than 2 billion $ in contract so Canada did not lose anything there. One last big point is the reported astronomical 33000 US $ operating cost per flying hours which is even a threat to the US Air Force operating budget!
As for the Gripen, the original A/B version were not NATO compatible. This was address with the C/D variant but the Aircraft still lacked the necessary range to operate in Canada. This was fixed with the new E/F version thanks to an extra 40% increase in fuel capacity reach by completely redesigning the landing gear configuration among other things. The new Gripen-E range now exceeds the one of our actual Hornets and exceeds the ferry range of the F-35 when using external fuel tanks. With a Gripen purchase come the full transfer of technology and the ability to do any modification necessary to our needs. It also open the door to our industry to be involve to future development of the type and to be involved in other international sale. The Gripen can be easily be fitted with almost any weapon system and now uses the most advanced western weapon such as the MBDA meteor that is still to be fitted to the F-35. The Gripen is fitted with the modern Raven Radar that is less powerful than the F-35 but that uses a swash plate to increase its tracking angle. Data fusion is said to be as advanced in the Gripen as in the F-35. Gripen relies on a highly advanced electronic counter measure system to defeat enemy defences that can be upgraded through time while the stealth attribute of the F-35 are fixed and it relies less on electronic counter measures. The Gripen can also super cruise with an Air-to-Air combat load which might be very practical over Canada’s large land mass. It rugged capacity gives it the ability to operate from rudimentary runways and it possess a very light logistical footprint. And last, it was reported by Jane’s defence that the operating cost of a C/D Gripen was about 7000 US $ per flying hour.
Of course the Gripen is the underdog. The weapons and extra fuel is mounted outside so it ads drag. It cannot carry as much ordonnance as the F-35 but it depends on what you want to do with your fighter. The F-35 is more technologically advanced and stealth is still to this day a big advantage. The Gripen E program did reach every miles stone without hiccups but is an evolution of a proven design while everything about the F-35 was new.
I don’t.t believe that there is a bad choice but which one is the best? It depends on the RCAF requirement and if the winner is really the one that did score the highest on the evaluation grid!
My problem with the F-35A is that it WON’T ever be a finished product.
For example, the internal gun flaw! There are no plans to fix this F-35A internal gun (it can’t hit targets very well since opening the gun cover changes the flight dynamics = pulls gun off target the second before it fires).
Another example, lack of Drop Tanks! There have been attempts to engineer drop tanks for the F-35….but without success. For an already unusually ‘draggy’ jet, the drop tanks would result in little gain. Also, the engineers can’t remove the danger of collision if the F-35 tries to drop the tanks.
Add to that factors such as the F-35A is slower, lower ready rates, MUCH higher operating costs, can’t use austere/short runways = NOT a valid candidate for NORAD duties (99% of RCAF duties).
…as for the Gripen E. Hmmm, I guess my only issues with that Aircraft is that it won’t have the supply pool of jets with higher sales. And it will have a lighter max loadout than bigger jets can carry.