By: hopsalot
- 13th March 2016 at 23:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How is the F35 well suited to operating in Canada and the Gripen ill-suited? I don't follow that reasoning at all.
The F-35 is a substantially larger aircraft with inherently greater range and endurance capabilities.
The F-35 has stealth, which would allow it to monitor aircraft near Canadian airspace without revealing itself if it so chose.
The F-35 has a larger and longer-ranged radar.
The F-35 has EOTS, which allows BVR "visual" ID of aircraft and ships. (particularly if Canada goes for the advanced EOTS)
The F-35 will have satellite comms integrated internally. (it won't need the pod Canadian F-18s currently carry.)
The F-35’s mission systems are critical to its mission success. With the most robust and advanced communications suite of any fighter aircraft built to date, the F-35 provides pilots with an unprecedented advantage. It will also be the first fighter to possess satellite communications capable of integrating beyond line-of-sight communications throughout the spectrum of missions it is tasked to perform.
The F-35 will also be fully compatible with Canada's chief military ally and training partner.
Canada is already participating in the F-35 program and has received significant work-share.
etc etc, and all of this completely ignores overseas/NATO operations.
1. Currently without external drop tanks the F35 has far less range than the Gripen E has with tanks. When the F35 has EFTs it will kind of negate all that stealth advantage.
2. Your second point is just plain silly. NORAD and sureveillance aircraft are sufficient to identify threats. The whole point of bomber interception and commercial traffic escort is to actually be seen. I'm sure you can contort some logic hard enough to come up with an extreme case....but you lose alot of credibility by even making this point.
3. I assume the F35 radar is larger and longer range. The selex ASEA radar is pretty impressive. Edge to the F35
I have no idea about your 4th point.
5th point is irrelevant. It was a weakness of the F35 until capable in Block 4. Since other aircraft don't need to worry about external pods degrading stealth....not a Gripen weakness.
Point 6 - Stop talking about interoperability It's bunk. Any of the five figjters will be interoperable. NATO cheif says this is bunk. The Pentagon says this is bunk. The advantage of the F35 is available parts and replacements when deployed overseas. It's pretty much irrelevant inside Canada.
Point 7 - Yep we invested and we've already gotten a nice return. Thanks for that. We don't need to buy the plane to contribute to the supply chain. Meanwhile....we can get 100% offsets with Saab guaranteed. No such guarantees exist with LM.
What you missed:
Gripen can deploy to ALL icy forward operating bases in Canada. Im not sure how well the F35A will handle those conditions but at a minimum more money needs to be spent on the drag chutes.
The Gripen is already compatible with our tanker fleet. The F35...requires either new tankers sooner or new refuelling probes...yep more money...
Saab offers technology transfer and access to modify source code....F35....nope
The Gripen can be maintained entirely in Canada. F35 we'll have to do at least some of that work in the US.
Of course that does not even mention lower acquisition and operating costs.....
That said.....I like both of these planes a whole lot more in mixed fleets. I have concerns about every one of the planes on offer. All have warts.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 14th March 2016 at 02:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. Currently without external drop tanks (axed from the program for now at least) the F35 has far less range than the Gripen E.
... and which profiles are you comparing? The Gripen NG is a small aircraft... you can hang giant fuel tanks on it but it effectively isn't a fighter anymore.
There is simply no way around the fact that a larger aircraft with a far larger fuel capacity will have the edge.
2. Your second point is just plain silly. NORAD and sureveillance aircraft are sufficient to identify threats. The whole point of bomber interception and commercial traffic escort is to actually be seen. I'm sure you can contort some logic hard enough to come up with an extreme case....but you lose alot of credibility by even making this point.
If you can't think of reasons you might not want to be seen then you just aren't thinking period. Better to have the Russians wondering whether there is a fighter there... sometimes they see one, sometimes they don't.
5th point is irrelevant. It was a weakness of the F35 until capable in Block 4. Since other aircraft don't need to worry about external pods degrading stealth....not a Gripen weakness.
Thanks to this latest bout of indecisiveness the F-35 will be at block 4 by the time Canada gets its jets. Hanging a pod on a jet is never ideal, especially a small plane like a Gripen.... first you want to hang some giant fuel tanks on the Gripen, then you want to add a satcom pod (which would have to be integrated), next presumably you want a few weapons... then you may need to hang a targeting pod if you want to be able to see anything on the ground/sea from altitude...
Point 6 - Stop talking about interoperability It's bunk. Any of the five figjters will be interoperable. NATO cheif says this is bunk. The Pentagon says this is bunk. The advantage of the F35 is available parts and replacements when deployed overseas. It's pretty much irrelevant inside Canada.
Oh, so this didn't happen just a few years ago then?
he Swedish JAS Gripen aircraft deployed in Sicily as part of NATO's Libya mission remained grounded on Thursday as the fuel available is suitable only for US navy aircraft.
The eight fighter jets are located in the US part of the Sigonella airbase on Sicily and the only fuel available it that which is used for US navy aircraft.
The Gripen were due to participate in their first mission over Libya on Thursday but this has now been delayed and test flights have been postponed.
According to the outline plan, the eight aircraft were all due to monitor the UN no-fly zone over the civil-war torn country from Thursday but on arrival at the base they discovered that no fuel was available.
The Sigonella base is designed as a naval air force base, lieutenant colonal Mats Brindsjö, head of the Swedish Air Operation Center, said.
"And US navy aircraft use somewhat different fuel to that which we use in our planes," he told the TT news agency.
The US fuel variety is known as JP5 while the Gripen normally fly using a civil fuel known as Jet A1.
"Certain additives and some equipment are needed to change JP5 to Jet A1 in a controlled manner. This equipment is not as yet in place down there and in the time being we are trying to buy the fuel from a place off the base."
Point 7 - Yep we invested and we've already gotten a nice return. Thanks for that. We don't need to buy the plane to contribute to the supply chain. Meanwhile....we can get 100% offsets with Saab guaranteed. No such guarantees exist with LM.
Those contracts can and will go away if Canada does something silly. As for Gripen offsets, they can't hope to compare to the F-35 given that they haven't even managed to sell 100 of them yet.
Gripen can deploy to ALL icy forward operating bases in Canada. Im not sure how well the F35A will handle those conditions but at a minimum more money needs to be spent on the drag chutes.
Drag chute integration is already being paid for by Norway, and the US will be operating F-35s in Alaska. Not an issues.
The Gripen is already compatible with our tanker fleet. The F35...requires either new tankers sooner or new refuelling probes...yep more money...
The F-35B and F-35C already use refueling probes. The space is reserved in the F-35A if Canada wants one added. It is hardly as if they would need to undertake an R&D program.
Saab offers technology transfer and access to modify source code....F35....nope
Saab doesn't even own much of the key technology in the Gripen and thus can't transfer it...
The Gripen can be maintained entirely in Canada. F35 we'll have to do at least some of that work in the US.
Based on what? As I said above, there aren't even 100 Gripen NGs on order, total. Who knows what the Gripen NG's sustainment effort will look like.
Being all alone in trying to maintain a fighter fleet isn't a good thing.
Of course that does not even mention lower acquisition and operating costs.....
That of course is very much in question. Brazil certainly hasn't experienced these supposedly lower acquisition costs...
By: Ginner
- 14th March 2016 at 03:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... and which profiles are you comparing? The Gripen NG is a small aircraft... you can hang giant fuel tanks on it but it effectively isn't a fighter anymore.
There is simply no way around the fact that a larger aircraft with a far larger fuel capacity will have the edge.
If you can't think of reasons you might not want to be seen then you just aren't thinking period. Better to have the Russians wondering whether there is a fighter there... sometimes they see one, sometimes they don't.
Thanks to this latest bout of indecisiveness the F-35 will be at block 4 by the time Canada gets its jets. Hanging a pod on a jet is never ideal, especially a small plane like a Gripen.... first you want to hang some giant fuel tanks on the Gripen, then you want to add a satcom pod (which would have to be integrated), next presumably you want a few weapons... then you may need to hang a targeting pod if you want to be able to see anything on the ground/sea from altitude...
Oh, so this didn't happen just a few years ago then?
Those contracts can and will go away if Canada does something silly. As for Gripen offsets, they can't hope to compare to the F-35 given that they haven't even managed to sell 100 of them yet.
Drag chute integration is already being paid for by Norway, and the US will be operating F-35s in Alaska. Not an issues.
The F-35B and F-35C already use refueling probes. The space is reserved in the F-35A if Canada wants one added. It is hardly as if they would need to undertake an R&D program.
Saab doesn't even own much of the key technology in the Gripen and thus can't transfer it...
Based on what? As I said above, there aren't even 100 Gripen NGs on order, total. Who knows what the Gripen NG's sustainment effort will look like.
Being all alone in trying to maintain a fighter fleet isn't a good thing.
That of course is very much in question. Brazil certainly hasn't experienced these supposedly lower acquisition costs...
First and most important point.....you said there were concerns about the ability of the Gripen to operate in Canada...so all of my counterpoints relate to that notion. There are no concerns..at all.....about the Gripen in Canada other than the one we all worry about, the single engine. And the F35 offers nothing on that point. So keeping my rebuttal to your point about defending Canada...
Larger plane....more fuel. The Gripen can more than adequately defend Canadian airspace and do so at longer range than the F35 without tanks. It can carry as much in A2A as the legacy hornet with tanks. Not a problem.
Your second point....still ridiculous.
Gripen has SatCom capability delivered by Thales. Until the RCAF deal with the polar issue with orbiting multiple satellites North South I assume a pod is also needed. I could be wrong.
Your interoperability point is 1000% bunk in Canadian operations and bunk in deployed locations except maintenance. In addition Gripen is compatible with all munitions we currently have except the gun.
The top end estimates of contracts available to Canadian companies on offer from LM is 11 billion (not guaranteed). The existing supply contracts will dwindle when and if we choose another plane but it's not certain they will all go away. Lowest cost supplier and all....
Is Norway paying for our drag chutes? Cool.
The refueling probe is not installed. More money. Again...Gripen is already compatible.
Saab owns the source code and a significant amount of the technology installed in the plane. We can't touch the code on the F35 to do our own upgrades.
Do you have any links to state why Canada won't be able to sustain the Gripen in Canada? Anything????
Do you know what the acquisition cost of the plane was for Brazil? Fly-away? How about F35. Nobody has experienced those cheap F35 flyaway and maitenance costs yet....
None of the five planes (least of all Gripen) will have any issue defending and operating in Canada. It was a silly point you made. Gripen.....in Canada there are no issues with....except that bothersome (yet proven) single engine.
By: mig-31bm
- 14th March 2016 at 08:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...
Larger plane....more fuel. The Gripen can more than adequately defend Canadian airspace and do so at longer range than the F35 without tanks. It can carry as much in A2A as the legacy hornet with tanks. Not a problem.
e.
Feom kinematics pov
Gripen with 3 tank will have no advantage over the traditional hornet, similar speed (probably even slower) , not agile
By: Loke
- 14th March 2016 at 09:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 has stealth, which would allow it to monitor aircraft near Canadian airspace without revealing itself if it so chose.
The F-35 will have satellite comms integrated internally. (it won't need the pod Canadian F-18s currently carry.)
Has the F-22 been used to monitor aircraft near US airspace "without revealing itself"? I can think of many scenarios where stealth would be very useful but I must admit this is not the first that comes to my mind!
Gripen NG will have satcom integrated; will it not work in Canada?
For the other points, I mostly agree; however one should note that again you do the mistake of looking for the "best" plane. Instead one should have requirements and compare requirements to those. It may not be that important that e.g. range is much bigger for a/c A compared to a/c B; the most important thing is whether A and B meet the requirements or not. Canada is a large country and perhaps the range of Gripen E will be too small; but it should be related to the requirements of Canadian air force, and not to the range of the F-35... I hope you get my point.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 14th March 2016 at 11:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First and most important point.....you said there were concerns about the ability of the Gripen to operate in Canada...so all of my counterpoints relate to that notion. There are no concerns..at all.....about the Gripen in Canada other than the one we all worry about, the single engine. And the F35 offers nothing on that point. So keeping my rebuttal to your point about defending Canada...
Larger plane....more fuel. The Gripen can more than adequately defend Canadian airspace and do so at longer range than the F35 without tanks. It can carry as much in A2A as the legacy hornet with tanks. Not a problem.
You are incorrect about the Gripen NG outranging the F-35... not in an apples to apples comparison. That is what so many on the internet struggle to understand, you can't just reduce things to a number on a brochure. The F-35's quoted range is on an air to ground strike mission, flown at lower altitude than would be ideal for efficiency, and including a substantial reserve of fuel for combat in the mission area. In an apples to apples comparison the F-35 easily out-ranges the F-16, F-18, and Gripen.
You realize that the Gripen repeatedly ran out of fuel during the Swiss eval forcing it to abort its air policing missions, right? Picture Switzerland relative to Canada...
The mission of Wednesday, August 13, 2008, however, promised to be simple. A plane flies north towards the Alps of Ticino and is the intercept. To do this, the evaluation team placed the Gripen D 39-822 registered on alert on the military base of Zion. The tarmac is dry, it's beautiful weather. At the controls of the fighter, the Swiss test pilot Peter Merz, aka "Pablo" behind him, the Saab Gripen manufacturer, to ensure that everything goes smoothly. After taking off as planned at 15 h 32, the plane goes into Swedish supersonic speed to stabilize at Mach 1.42. But suddenly, in the middle of his approach: "Bingo Fuel"! The LED Alarm fuel placed on the left of the cockpit shows the need to abort the mission and return to base.
Gripen arrived barely in contact with the F/A-18 to intercept, but was unable to intervene and had to land in Emmen (LU). Ground, the head of the Swiss Air Force Markus Gygax is stunned: excluded to buy such a flying pan. In comparison, the French Rafale, tested under the same conditions two months later, has made the interception, returned to Zion, and has been able to achieve another successful missions. On the twenty-six test flights at the time by the Gripen, the plane landed with four times the reserves of fuel below the minimum security.
Fortunately, the Defence Minister Ueli Maurer swears he will not buy the Gripen then but an improved version: Gripen E / F. Its engine is 33% more powerful, it has a completely redesigned car electronics, can carry more weapons and above all ... 46% more fuel. For Federal Councillor, there is no problem: it's a bit "like one of tuning a car," he likes to repeat.
Tests for the gallery Unfortunately, all is not so simple. "Sunday Morning" has obtained a list of 98 improvements. She was provided by a whistleblower, federal employees, and we have it validated by three reliable sources. Contacted the Department of Defense did not wish to share its position on that list confidential.
At this stage, as shown in our graphic, only six of these upgrades have been tested in flight (green). The rest is either in the prototype stage (orange), or on planes (red). The Gripen NG Demonstrator - the plane is supposed to prove the feasibility of future product enhancements - is certainly equipped with the new General Electric F414G engine, but it lacks the new wings. Redesigned the computer, a few inches thicker, they will accommodate a few percent of additional fuel, in addition to three large drop tanks of 450 gallons (1700 liters). During the flight tests conducted May 2 to 4 in Linköping, Sweden, the Swiss delegation would just wanted to test at least those famous tanks. Because they are essential to achieve sufficient autonomy to the surveillance of an area, a task that the military assumes for example during the Davos Forum. But ultimately, "people Saab refused," says one source. With three external tanks, the aircraft would have been too constrained. "It was not necessary to have tanks of 450 gallons for missions," retorted the spokesman Armasuisse Kaj-Gunnar Sievert.
Gripen has SatCom capability delivered by Thales. Until the RCAF deal with the polar issue with orbiting multiple satellites North South I assume a pod is also needed. I could be wrong.
:rolleyes: Imagine how you would be reacting if this were the F-35. The F-35 will have fully internal satcom, fully integrated with its mission systems, and compatible with US satellites...
Your interoperability point is 1000% bunk in Canadian operations and bunk in deployed locations except maintenance. In addition Gripen is compatible with all munitions we currently have except the gun.
"Compatible with" isn't the same thing as integrated with. You realize that right? An AMRAAM or AIM-9x could presumably be integrated with a Rafale, but it hasn't been and would cost millions of dollars to integrate.
If Canada bought some rare aircraft with a tiny fleet size it would end up footing the bill to integrate every new weapon that emerges in the next 30 years. It isn't even a certainty that Saab will still be in the fighter business for much of that time...
The top end estimates of contracts available to Canadian companies on offer from LM is 11 billion (not guaranteed). The existing supply contracts will dwindle when and if we choose another plane but it's not certain they will all go away. Lowest cost supplier and all....
There are plenty of low cost competitors out there. Look at who is already buying the F-35...
Is Norway paying for our drag chutes? Cool.
They are paying for them to be developed and integrated. You realize that is the major expense right? (see above on integrating weapons)
Saab owns the source code and a significant amount of the technology installed in the plane. We can't touch the code on the F35 to do our own upgrades.
What indigenous upgrades does Canada field anyway? You aren't Israel... you don't make your own weapons, EW gear, or much of anything else.
Do you have any links to state why Canada won't be able to sustain the Gripen in Canada? Anything????
It is called common sense. Gripen NG will be lucky to sell 200 jets, mostly spread across tiny cash-strapped air forces. (look at current customers) Canada doesn't have a large enough air force to justify doing depot level maintenance in Canada.
Do you know what the acquisition cost of the plane was for Brazil? Fly-away? How about F35. Nobody has experienced those cheap F35 flyaway and maitenance costs yet....
It is hard to tell the exact cost, but when you look at both Switzerland and Brazil you can see that it is certainly not nearly as cheap as its fans would like you to believe.
None of the five planes (least of all Gripen) will have any issue defending and operating in Canada. It was a silly point you made. Gripen.....in Canada there are no issues with....except that bothersome (yet proven) single engine.
Sure, if you work from the assumption that Canada will never need to defend itself then I guess any plane or no plane would do just fine. Might as well invest in a bunch of "No Trespassing" signs...
By: Siddar
- 14th March 2016 at 11:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
2. Your second point is just plain silly. NORAD and sureveillance aircraft are sufficient to identify threats. The whole point of bomber interception and commercial traffic escort is to actually be seen. I'm sure you can contort some logic hard enough to come up with an extreme case....but you lose alot of credibility by even making this point.
You're severely underestimating the threat of a sixth generation bomber.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 14th March 2016 at 11:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Feom kinematics pov
Gripen with 3 tank will have no advantage over the traditional hornet, similar speed (probably even slower) , not agile
Gripen with 3 tanks would be lucky to have a kinematic advantage over a business jet. Read the quote from the link I just posted above:
The Gripen NG Demonstrator - the plane is supposed to prove the feasibility of future product enhancements - is certainly equipped with the new General Electric F414G engine, but it lacks the new wings. Redesigned the computer, a few inches thicker, they will accommodate a few percent of additional fuel, in addition to three large drop tanks of 450 gallons (1700 liters). During the flight tests conducted May 2 to 4 in Linköping, Sweden, the Swiss delegation would just wanted to test at least those famous tanks. Because they are essential to achieve sufficient autonomy to the surveillance of an area, a task that the military assumes for example during the Davos Forum. But ultimately, "people Saab refused," says one source. With three external tanks, the aircraft would have been too constrained. "It was not necessary to have tanks of 450 gallons for missions," retorted the spokesman Armasuisse Kaj-Gunnar Sievert.
A Gripen carrying three 450 gallon tanks is essentially in a ferry configuration. Useless for combat...
By: Tempest414
- 14th March 2016 at 11:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're severely underestimating the threat of a sixth generation bomber.
Firstly who has a Sixth gen Bomber. Second when if at all will it come on line. Third Russia are talking about a new run of Tu-160 and this is not a sure thing
also all this talk of drop tanks the key word is drop if we go with the fact that if we fit them a type is no longer a fighter then some of the best fighter types the world has seen were not fighters at all. I know of 2 times when the RAF have had to clean the wing of tanks to chase down targets.
By: Ginner
- 14th March 2016 at 14:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are incorrect about the Gripen NG outranging the F-35... not in an apples to apples comparison. That is what so many on the internet struggle to understand, you can't just reduce things to a number on a brochure. The F-35's quoted range is on an air to ground strike mission, flown at lower altitude than would be ideal for efficiency, and including a substantial reserve of fuel for combat in the mission area. In an apples to apples comparison the F-35 easily out-ranges the F-16, F-18, and Gripen.
You realize that the Gripen repeatedly ran out of fuel during the Swiss eval forcing it to abort its air policing missions, right? Picture Switzerland relative to Canada...
:rolleyes: Imagine how you would be reacting if this were the F-35. The F-35 will have fully internal satcom, fully integrated with its mission systems, and compatible with US satellites...
"Compatible with" isn't the same thing as integrated with. You realize that right? An AMRAAM or AIM-9x could presumably be integrated with a Rafale, but it hasn't been and would cost millions of dollars to integrate.
If Canada bought some rare aircraft with a tiny fleet size it would end up footing the bill to integrate every new weapon that emerges in the next 30 years. It isn't even a certainty that Saab will still be in the fighter business for much of that time...
There are plenty of low cost competitors out there. Look at who is already buying the F-35...
They are paying for them to be developed and integrated. You realize that is the major expense right? (see above on integrating weapons)
What indigenous upgrades does Canada field anyway? You aren't Israel... you don't make your own weapons, EW gear, or much of anything else.
It is called common sense. Gripen NG will be lucky to sell 200 jets, mostly spread across tiny cash-strapped air forces. (look at current customers) Canada doesn't have a large enough air force to justify doing depot level maintenance in Canada.
It is hard to tell the exact cost, but when you look at both Switzerland and Brazil you can see that it is certainly not nearly as cheap as its fans would like you to believe.
Sure, if you work from the assumption that Canada will never need to defend itself then I guess any plane or no plane would do just fine. Might as well invest in a bunch of "No Trespassing" signs...
I won't argue with you. You are another F35 fanboy or paid shill that has managed to take over all of the non f35 threads. It's obnoxious. You are not even replying to my points. The f35 is a stealth strike fighter. We don't need that to defend Canada. The Gripen, Typhoon Rafale and Hornet can all fill our needs for national defence. In some cases they are flat out better planes. In others they just cost less to buy and operate while still able to do the job as good or better than the legacy hornets in every respect.
By: Ginner
- 14th March 2016 at 15:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are incorrect about the Gripen NG outranging the F-35... not in an apples to apples comparison. That is what so many on the internet struggle to understand, you can't just reduce things to a number on a brochure. The F-35's quoted range is on an air to ground strike mission, flown at lower altitude than would be ideal for efficiency, and including a substantial reserve of fuel for combat in the mission area. In an apples to apples comparison the F-35 easily out-ranges the F-16, F-18, and Gripen.
You realize that the Gripen repeatedly ran out of fuel during the Swiss eval forcing it to abort its air policing missions, right? Picture Switzerland relative to Canada...
:rolleyes: Imagine how you would be reacting if this were the F-35. The F-35 will have fully internal satcom, fully integrated with its mission systems, and compatible with US satellites...
"Compatible with" isn't the same thing as integrated with. You realize that right? An AMRAAM or AIM-9x could presumably be integrated with a Rafale, but it hasn't been and would cost millions of dollars to integrate.
If Canada bought some rare aircraft with a tiny fleet size it would end up footing the bill to integrate every new weapon that emerges in the next 30 years. It isn't even a certainty that Saab will still be in the fighter business for much of that time...
There are plenty of low cost competitors out there. Look at who is already buying the F-35...
They are paying for them to be developed and integrated. You realize that is the major expense right? (see above on integrating weapons)
What indigenous upgrades does Canada field anyway? You aren't Israel... you don't make your own weapons, EW gear, or much of anything else.
It is called common sense. Gripen NG will be lucky to sell 200 jets, mostly spread across tiny cash-strapped air forces. (look at current customers) Canada doesn't have a large enough air force to justify doing depot level maintenance in Canada.
It is hard to tell the exact cost, but when you look at both Switzerland and Brazil you can see that it is certainly not nearly as cheap as its fans would like you to believe.
Sure, if you work from the assumption that Canada will never need to defend itself then I guess any plane or no plane would do just fine. Might as well invest in a bunch of "No Trespassing" signs...
Ok screw it....I just cant let you get away with this....
A Gripen with tanks will outrange a F35 without them. With two tanks the Gripen will be able to i tercept Russian Bombers just fine. An F35 with tanks (they dont exist yet right???) Will lose all that fancy stealth advantage so you won't be able to stalk that Tupolev all sneaky like you suggested. So your points here as a collective make no sense. The Gripen's range with two tanks is adequate to intercept bombers and we do have a refuelling fleet if needed. The swiss have not flown the Gripen E. Nobody has (a risk we get to evaluate in three months).
Again the Gripen has internal SatCom. Im not sure if the f18 pod will be required. Are you?
The gripen is compatible (and has integrated in cumulative software updates) support for the weapons we already own. Thats better than the F35 at this point. You are making things up here....
Canada has a massive defense industry and has had to do things like develop satcom capabilities for the arctic our own rocket pods....etc. Again you have no clue what you are talking about so please stop. Having the option of updating systems also allows us to source and ingegrate weapons from wherever we want rather than having to pay LM to integrate LM competitive weapons. That compromises autonomy.
It wasn't a certainty that MD would be in the fighter business when we bought the F18. Nice reach on the FUD there. My god.
If we keep supplying anytbing to the F35 program after we decide not to buy that plane it's a bonus. Not concerned at all nor should we be
There are no guarantees of work approaching anything near the value of a 100% offset which can be gleaned from Dassault, Saab or Eurofighter. Our aeropspace industry is large and healthy without the F35 (save for Bombardiers mismanagement). With an offset agreement it will continue to grow along with new relationships with global companies other than Lockmart.
We do our own maintenance today and contract mid life upgrades. Im not sure what your point is here. We have more flexibility and autonomy with the Saab than with LM.
So if you don't know the cost of the Brazil purchase per plane maybe you should not bring it up. More useless FUD.
LOL on your last point. Again...we're done here.
No Trespassing (which means don't bother replying)
By: FBW
- 14th March 2016 at 15:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok screw it....I just cant let you get away with this....
A Gripen with tanks will outrange a F35 without them. With two tanks the Gripen will be able to i tercept Russian Bombers just fine. An F35 with tanks (they dont exist yet right???) Will lose all that fancy stealth advantage so you won't be able to stalk that Tupolev all sneaky like you suggested. So your points here as a collective make no sense. The Gripen's range with two tanks is adequate to intercept bombers and we do have a refuelling fleet if needed. The swiss have not flown the Gripen E. Nobody has (a risk we get to evaluate in three months).
How many EFT are you talking about and which size? The Gripen will only outrange the F-35 when fitted with the 450 gallon tanks. Those tanks are not supersonic, so you are not talking about outranging the F-35 on an interception mission, period. Second, do a little actual footwork- not looking at manufacturers claims.
What is the estimate empty weight of the Gripen E now? Then realize that it's operational weight will be roughly 500kg heavier (pilot, countermeasures, etc), then calculate the weight of fuel for the 3 EFT and full internal, then look at the Gripen E's MTOW.
What you will find? The Gripen isn't going to be doing much of anything but ferrying in that configuration. It is not a realistic operational loadout. That is the problem with many of yours (and other's) arguments for advancing the Gripen as the "perfect" aircraft for Canada. People start quoting the amazing brochure range, when you start looking at loading up a light fighter with fuel tanks, weapons: performance degrades and mission flexibility decreases.
I'm not saying that the F-35, or the Typhoon, or any fighter is ideal for Canada. Every aircraft has drawbacks and strong suits. The Gripen is attractive for two reasons: affordability, and clear (and demonstrated) upgrade path.
Saab offers technology transfer and access to modify source code....F35....nope
The great source code canard- Canada can modify and upgrade their F-35's with the same flexibility as any other user. Why does Canada need all the source codes? Are Canadian firms planning to develop new weapons and sensors to add? No.
BTW, love a source that says that Saab is going to hand over all source code to MS21, and allow Canada to develop their own upgrade path for the Gripen.
By: Ginner
- 14th March 2016 at 16:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has the F-22 been used to monitor aircraft near US airspace "without revealing itself"? I can think of many scenarios where stealth would be very useful but I must admit this is not the first that comes to my mind!
Gripen NG will have satcom integrated; will it not work in Canada?
For the other points, I mostly agree; however one should note that again you do the mistake of looking for the "best" plane. Instead one should have requirements and compare requirements to those. It may not be that important that e.g. range is much bigger for a/c A compared to a/c B; the most important thing is whether A and B meet the requirements or not. Canada is a large country and perhaps the range of Gripen E will be too small; but it should be related to the requirements of Canadian air force, and not to the range of the F-35... I hope you get my point.
Im not sure about the Thales SatCom. The problem we have up North is that geo synch satellites are potentially over the horizon. Beyond having SatCom you need to ensure you can see them. They may need to add something that orbits aroind the poles (two or three of them).
By: Halo
- 14th March 2016 at 16:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ hopsalot, again Gripen D is carrying a lot less fuel compared to Gripen C, and Gripen E carries a lot more than Gripen C. "Bingo", this swiss test flight has zero relevance to Canadian range requirements and Gripen E.
By: Loke
- 14th March 2016 at 16:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ hopsalot, again Gripen D is carrying a lot less fuel compared to Gripen C, and Gripen E carries a lot more than Gripen C. "Bingo", this swiss test flight has zero relevance to Canadian range requirements and Gripen E.
This is true, however one should also keep in mind that Gripen E is still a lightweight fighter -- it will have a long range mainly for light configs, like a2a. Once you start hanging a lot of stuff under the wings the drag will increase rapidly and range and endurance is dropping faster than for a bigger a/c, and also faster than for F-35.
So it really depends on the requirements. If Canada needs the range mainly for air policing perhaps the Gripen E range is enough? How many air bases are they planning to operate moving forward?
By: Loke
- 14th March 2016 at 16:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Im not sure about the Thales SatCom. The problem we have up North is that geo synch satellites are potentially over the horizon. Beyond having SatCom you need to ensure you can see them. They may need to add something that orbits aroind the poles (two or three of them).
So this is more of an issue with the satellites than with the satcom onboard the plane? How is the F-35 going to resolve this?
By: Ginner
- 14th March 2016 at 16:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How many EFT are you talking about and which size? The Gripen will only outrange the F-35 when fitted with the 450 gallon tanks. Those tanks are not supersonic, so you are not talking about outranging the F-35 on an interception mission, period. Second, do a little actual footwork- not looking at manufacturers claims.
What is the estimate empty weight of the Gripen E now? Then realize that it's operational weight will be roughly 500kg heavier (pilot, countermeasures, etc), then calculate the weight of fuel for the 3 EFT and full internal, then look at the Gripen E's MTOW.
What you will find? The Gripen isn't going to be doing much of anything but ferrying in that configuration. It is not a realistic operational loadout. That is the problem with many of yours (and other's) arguments for advancing the Gripen as the "perfect" aircraft for Canada. People start quoting the amazing brochure range, when you start looking at loading up a light fighter with fuel tanks, weapons: performance degrades and mission flexibility decreases.
I'm not saying that the F-35, or the Typhoon, or any fighter is ideal for Canada. Every aircraft has drawbacks and strong suits. The Gripen is attractive for two reasons: affordability, and clear (and demonstrated) upgrade path.
The great source code canard- Canada can modify and upgrade their F-35's with the same flexibility as any other user. Why does Canada need all the source codes? Are Canadian firms planning to develop new weapons and sensors to add? No.
BTW, love a source that says that Saab is going to hand over all source code to MS21, and allow Canada to develop their own upgrade path for the Gripen.
Saab has been pretty consistent with both Brazil and India that they offer full control over software. (That's not even too hard to find in a search).
I've never argued that the Gripen was the best choice for Canada. I've stated repeatedly that all 5 planes have drawbacks and that all 5 planes are fully capable of sovereign air defence. I like Gripen a lot more as part of a mixed fleet....same for an F35 or even the F18. I like the typhoon (the plane, not the nightmare vendor consortium) and the rafale (candianized) a whole lot more if we have to buy a single type. There is no obvious solution yet. Right now I'm leaning EF.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 13th March 2016 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 is a substantially larger aircraft with inherently greater range and endurance capabilities.
The F-35 has stealth, which would allow it to monitor aircraft near Canadian airspace without revealing itself if it so chose.
The F-35 has a larger and longer-ranged radar.
The F-35 has EOTS, which allows BVR "visual" ID of aircraft and ships. (particularly if Canada goes for the advanced EOTS)
The F-35 will have satellite comms integrated internally. (it won't need the pod Canadian F-18s currently carry.)
https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/interoperability
The F-35 will also be fully compatible with Canada's chief military ally and training partner.
Canada is already participating in the F-35 program and has received significant work-share.
etc etc, and all of this completely ignores overseas/NATO operations.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 14th March 2016 at 01:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. Currently without external drop tanks the F35 has far less range than the Gripen E has with tanks. When the F35 has EFTs it will kind of negate all that stealth advantage.
2. Your second point is just plain silly. NORAD and sureveillance aircraft are sufficient to identify threats. The whole point of bomber interception and commercial traffic escort is to actually be seen. I'm sure you can contort some logic hard enough to come up with an extreme case....but you lose alot of credibility by even making this point.
3. I assume the F35 radar is larger and longer range. The selex ASEA radar is pretty impressive. Edge to the F35
I have no idea about your 4th point.
5th point is irrelevant. It was a weakness of the F35 until capable in Block 4. Since other aircraft don't need to worry about external pods degrading stealth....not a Gripen weakness.
Point 6 - Stop talking about interoperability It's bunk. Any of the five figjters will be interoperable. NATO cheif says this is bunk. The Pentagon says this is bunk. The advantage of the F35 is available parts and replacements when deployed overseas. It's pretty much irrelevant inside Canada.
Point 7 - Yep we invested and we've already gotten a nice return. Thanks for that. We don't need to buy the plane to contribute to the supply chain. Meanwhile....we can get 100% offsets with Saab guaranteed. No such guarantees exist with LM.
What you missed:
Gripen can deploy to ALL icy forward operating bases in Canada. Im not sure how well the F35A will handle those conditions but at a minimum more money needs to be spent on the drag chutes.
The Gripen is already compatible with our tanker fleet. The F35...requires either new tankers sooner or new refuelling probes...yep more money...
Saab offers technology transfer and access to modify source code....F35....nope
The Gripen can be maintained entirely in Canada. F35 we'll have to do at least some of that work in the US.
Of course that does not even mention lower acquisition and operating costs.....
That said.....I like both of these planes a whole lot more in mixed fleets. I have concerns about every one of the planes on offer. All have warts.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 14th March 2016 at 02:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... and which profiles are you comparing? The Gripen NG is a small aircraft... you can hang giant fuel tanks on it but it effectively isn't a fighter anymore.
There is simply no way around the fact that a larger aircraft with a far larger fuel capacity will have the edge.
If you can't think of reasons you might not want to be seen then you just aren't thinking period. Better to have the Russians wondering whether there is a fighter there... sometimes they see one, sometimes they don't.
Thanks to this latest bout of indecisiveness the F-35 will be at block 4 by the time Canada gets its jets. Hanging a pod on a jet is never ideal, especially a small plane like a Gripen.... first you want to hang some giant fuel tanks on the Gripen, then you want to add a satcom pod (which would have to be integrated), next presumably you want a few weapons... then you may need to hang a targeting pod if you want to be able to see anything on the ground/sea from altitude...
Oh, so this didn't happen just a few years ago then?
http://www.thelocal.se/20110407/33058
Interoperability is never "bunk."
Those contracts can and will go away if Canada does something silly. As for Gripen offsets, they can't hope to compare to the F-35 given that they haven't even managed to sell 100 of them yet.
Drag chute integration is already being paid for by Norway, and the US will be operating F-35s in Alaska. Not an issues.
The F-35B and F-35C already use refueling probes. The space is reserved in the F-35A if Canada wants one added. It is hardly as if they would need to undertake an R&D program.
Saab doesn't even own much of the key technology in the Gripen and thus can't transfer it...
Based on what? As I said above, there aren't even 100 Gripen NGs on order, total. Who knows what the Gripen NG's sustainment effort will look like.
Being all alone in trying to maintain a fighter fleet isn't a good thing.
That of course is very much in question. Brazil certainly hasn't experienced these supposedly lower acquisition costs...
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 14th March 2016 at 03:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First and most important point.....you said there were concerns about the ability of the Gripen to operate in Canada...so all of my counterpoints relate to that notion. There are no concerns..at all.....about the Gripen in Canada other than the one we all worry about, the single engine. And the F35 offers nothing on that point. So keeping my rebuttal to your point about defending Canada...
Larger plane....more fuel. The Gripen can more than adequately defend Canadian airspace and do so at longer range than the F35 without tanks. It can carry as much in A2A as the legacy hornet with tanks. Not a problem.
Your second point....still ridiculous.
Gripen has SatCom capability delivered by Thales. Until the RCAF deal with the polar issue with orbiting multiple satellites North South I assume a pod is also needed. I could be wrong.
Your interoperability point is 1000% bunk in Canadian operations and bunk in deployed locations except maintenance. In addition Gripen is compatible with all munitions we currently have except the gun.
The top end estimates of contracts available to Canadian companies on offer from LM is 11 billion (not guaranteed). The existing supply contracts will dwindle when and if we choose another plane but it's not certain they will all go away. Lowest cost supplier and all....
Is Norway paying for our drag chutes? Cool.
The refueling probe is not installed. More money. Again...Gripen is already compatible.
Saab owns the source code and a significant amount of the technology installed in the plane. We can't touch the code on the F35 to do our own upgrades.
Do you have any links to state why Canada won't be able to sustain the Gripen in Canada? Anything????
Do you know what the acquisition cost of the plane was for Brazil? Fly-away? How about F35. Nobody has experienced those cheap F35 flyaway and maitenance costs yet....
None of the five planes (least of all Gripen) will have any issue defending and operating in Canada. It was a silly point you made. Gripen.....in Canada there are no issues with....except that bothersome (yet proven) single engine.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 14th March 2016 at 08:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Feom kinematics pov
Gripen with 3 tank will have no advantage over the traditional hornet, similar speed (probably even slower) , not agile
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 14th March 2016 at 08:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
against a long range bomber or, more frequently, an airliner, would it be really so important?
You won't see any fighters come across the north pole any time soon
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 14th March 2016 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has the F-22 been used to monitor aircraft near US airspace "without revealing itself"? I can think of many scenarios where stealth would be very useful but I must admit this is not the first that comes to my mind!
Gripen NG will have satcom integrated; will it not work in Canada?
For the other points, I mostly agree; however one should note that again you do the mistake of looking for the "best" plane. Instead one should have requirements and compare requirements to those. It may not be that important that e.g. range is much bigger for a/c A compared to a/c B; the most important thing is whether A and B meet the requirements or not. Canada is a large country and perhaps the range of Gripen E will be too small; but it should be related to the requirements of Canadian air force, and not to the range of the F-35... I hope you get my point.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 14th March 2016 at 11:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are incorrect about the Gripen NG outranging the F-35... not in an apples to apples comparison. That is what so many on the internet struggle to understand, you can't just reduce things to a number on a brochure. The F-35's quoted range is on an air to ground strike mission, flown at lower altitude than would be ideal for efficiency, and including a substantial reserve of fuel for combat in the mission area. In an apples to apples comparison the F-35 easily out-ranges the F-16, F-18, and Gripen.
You realize that the Gripen repeatedly ran out of fuel during the Swiss eval forcing it to abort its air policing missions, right? Picture Switzerland relative to Canada...
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116740-Rafale-Thread-13&p=1890004#post1890004
:rolleyes: Imagine how you would be reacting if this were the F-35. The F-35 will have fully internal satcom, fully integrated with its mission systems, and compatible with US satellites...
"Compatible with" isn't the same thing as integrated with. You realize that right? An AMRAAM or AIM-9x could presumably be integrated with a Rafale, but it hasn't been and would cost millions of dollars to integrate.
If Canada bought some rare aircraft with a tiny fleet size it would end up footing the bill to integrate every new weapon that emerges in the next 30 years. It isn't even a certainty that Saab will still be in the fighter business for much of that time...
There are plenty of low cost competitors out there. Look at who is already buying the F-35...
They are paying for them to be developed and integrated. You realize that is the major expense right? (see above on integrating weapons)
What indigenous upgrades does Canada field anyway? You aren't Israel... you don't make your own weapons, EW gear, or much of anything else.
It is called common sense. Gripen NG will be lucky to sell 200 jets, mostly spread across tiny cash-strapped air forces. (look at current customers) Canada doesn't have a large enough air force to justify doing depot level maintenance in Canada.
It is hard to tell the exact cost, but when you look at both Switzerland and Brazil you can see that it is certainly not nearly as cheap as its fans would like you to believe.
Sure, if you work from the assumption that Canada will never need to defend itself then I guess any plane or no plane would do just fine. Might as well invest in a bunch of "No Trespassing" signs...
Posts: 253
By: Siddar - 14th March 2016 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're severely underestimating the threat of a sixth generation bomber.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 14th March 2016 at 11:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen with 3 tanks would be lucky to have a kinematic advantage over a business jet. Read the quote from the link I just posted above:
A Gripen carrying three 450 gallon tanks is essentially in a ferry configuration. Useless for combat...
Posts: 976
By: Tempest414 - 14th March 2016 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Firstly who has a Sixth gen Bomber. Second when if at all will it come on line. Third Russia are talking about a new run of Tu-160 and this is not a sure thing
also all this talk of drop tanks the key word is drop if we go with the fact that if we fit them a type is no longer a fighter then some of the best fighter types the world has seen were not fighters at all. I know of 2 times when the RAF have had to clean the wing of tanks to chase down targets.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 14th March 2016 at 14:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I won't argue with you. You are another F35 fanboy or paid shill that has managed to take over all of the non f35 threads. It's obnoxious. You are not even replying to my points. The f35 is a stealth strike fighter. We don't need that to defend Canada. The Gripen, Typhoon Rafale and Hornet can all fill our needs for national defence. In some cases they are flat out better planes. In others they just cost less to buy and operate while still able to do the job as good or better than the legacy hornets in every respect.
Good day to you.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 14th March 2016 at 14:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which one? The one with lasers strapped to it flying at mach 3 with a cloaking device?
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 14th March 2016 at 15:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok screw it....I just cant let you get away with this....
A Gripen with tanks will outrange a F35 without them. With two tanks the Gripen will be able to i tercept Russian Bombers just fine. An F35 with tanks (they dont exist yet right???) Will lose all that fancy stealth advantage so you won't be able to stalk that Tupolev all sneaky like you suggested. So your points here as a collective make no sense. The Gripen's range with two tanks is adequate to intercept bombers and we do have a refuelling fleet if needed. The swiss have not flown the Gripen E. Nobody has (a risk we get to evaluate in three months).
Again the Gripen has internal SatCom. Im not sure if the f18 pod will be required. Are you?
The gripen is compatible (and has integrated in cumulative software updates) support for the weapons we already own. Thats better than the F35 at this point. You are making things up here....
Canada has a massive defense industry and has had to do things like develop satcom capabilities for the arctic our own rocket pods....etc. Again you have no clue what you are talking about so please stop. Having the option of updating systems also allows us to source and ingegrate weapons from wherever we want rather than having to pay LM to integrate LM competitive weapons. That compromises autonomy.
It wasn't a certainty that MD would be in the fighter business when we bought the F18. Nice reach on the FUD there. My god.
If we keep supplying anytbing to the F35 program after we decide not to buy that plane it's a bonus. Not concerned at all nor should we be
There are no guarantees of work approaching anything near the value of a 100% offset which can be gleaned from Dassault, Saab or Eurofighter. Our aeropspace industry is large and healthy without the F35 (save for Bombardiers mismanagement). With an offset agreement it will continue to grow along with new relationships with global companies other than Lockmart.
We do our own maintenance today and contract mid life upgrades. Im not sure what your point is here. We have more flexibility and autonomy with the Saab than with LM.
So if you don't know the cost of the Brazil purchase per plane maybe you should not bring it up. More useless FUD.
LOL on your last point. Again...we're done here.
No Trespassing (which means don't bother replying)
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 14th March 2016 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How many EFT are you talking about and which size? The Gripen will only outrange the F-35 when fitted with the 450 gallon tanks. Those tanks are not supersonic, so you are not talking about outranging the F-35 on an interception mission, period. Second, do a little actual footwork- not looking at manufacturers claims.
What is the estimate empty weight of the Gripen E now? Then realize that it's operational weight will be roughly 500kg heavier (pilot, countermeasures, etc), then calculate the weight of fuel for the 3 EFT and full internal, then look at the Gripen E's MTOW.
What you will find? The Gripen isn't going to be doing much of anything but ferrying in that configuration. It is not a realistic operational loadout. That is the problem with many of yours (and other's) arguments for advancing the Gripen as the "perfect" aircraft for Canada. People start quoting the amazing brochure range, when you start looking at loading up a light fighter with fuel tanks, weapons: performance degrades and mission flexibility decreases.
I'm not saying that the F-35, or the Typhoon, or any fighter is ideal for Canada. Every aircraft has drawbacks and strong suits. The Gripen is attractive for two reasons: affordability, and clear (and demonstrated) upgrade path.
The great source code canard- Canada can modify and upgrade their F-35's with the same flexibility as any other user. Why does Canada need all the source codes? Are Canadian firms planning to develop new weapons and sensors to add? No.
BTW, love a source that says that Saab is going to hand over all source code to MS21, and allow Canada to develop their own upgrade path for the Gripen.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 14th March 2016 at 16:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Im not sure about the Thales SatCom. The problem we have up North is that geo synch satellites are potentially over the horizon. Beyond having SatCom you need to ensure you can see them. They may need to add something that orbits aroind the poles (two or three of them).
Posts: 208
By: Halo - 14th March 2016 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ hopsalot, again Gripen D is carrying a lot less fuel compared to Gripen C, and Gripen E carries a lot more than Gripen C. "Bingo", this swiss test flight has zero relevance to Canadian range requirements and Gripen E.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 14th March 2016 at 16:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is true, however one should also keep in mind that Gripen E is still a lightweight fighter -- it will have a long range mainly for light configs, like a2a. Once you start hanging a lot of stuff under the wings the drag will increase rapidly and range and endurance is dropping faster than for a bigger a/c, and also faster than for F-35.
So it really depends on the requirements. If Canada needs the range mainly for air policing perhaps the Gripen E range is enough? How many air bases are they planning to operate moving forward?
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 14th March 2016 at 16:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So this is more of an issue with the satellites than with the satcom onboard the plane? How is the F-35 going to resolve this?
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 14th March 2016 at 16:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/iaf-modernisation-plan-saab-offers-gripen-fighter-jets-under-make-in-india-with-full-control/articleshow/50253759.cms
Saab has been pretty consistent with both Brazil and India that they offer full control over software. (That's not even too hard to find in a search).
I've never argued that the Gripen was the best choice for Canada. I've stated repeatedly that all 5 planes have drawbacks and that all 5 planes are fully capable of sovereign air defence. I like Gripen a lot more as part of a mixed fleet....same for an F35 or even the F18. I like the typhoon (the plane, not the nightmare vendor consortium) and the rafale (candianized) a whole lot more if we have to buy a single type. There is no obvious solution yet. Right now I'm leaning EF.