All Things Stealth

[Stuart Galbraith]

This is the problem. Yes, you can say not buying American. If if you are dependent upon US spares, it seems a bit of a wasted opportunity.

Otoh, Gripen is already compatible with Meteor, so there is that.

[R011]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is the problem. Yes, you can say not buying American. If if you are dependent upon US spares, it seems a bit of a wasted opportunity.

Otoh, Gripen is already compatible with Meteor, so there is that.

The RCAF 's main role is to defend the United States, so I'm not worried about sourcing spares, software upgrades, or kill switches.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, I take your point. May as well pick the cheapest option looking at it like that.

[DB]

6 minutes ago, R011 said:

The RCAF 's main role is to defend the United States, so I'm not worried about sourcing spares, software upgrades, or kill switches.

Is that before or after the glorious liberation of Canada from the threat of evil Chinese invasion?

Quote

War, war never changes...

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

That was quick, Russia is already claiming to have shot an F47 down....

https://x.com/KarinaVinnikova/status/1903141770298364379?t=G-r6v2_if75MxKDJKWV4Sg&s=19

[Dawes]

It remains to be seen whether Lockheed Martin will file a protest.

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, R011 said:

The RCAF 's main role is to defend the United States, so I'm not worried about sourcing spares, software upgrades, or kill switches.

If I ever run for office and we decide to annex Canada, I promise to re-activate something like the CF-105 program, run by a Canadian company and with all manner of modern stealthy doo dads to add a bit of competition between LockMart and Boeing. 

Edited March 22 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

You really have an unerring step at saying exactly the wrong thing.

[TrustMe]

16 hours ago, DB said:

Is that before or after the glorious liberation of Canada from the threat of evil Chinese invasion?

 

Canada's fighter force is oriented towards Russian bombers coming over the north pole to drop nukes over the US.

[Mighty_Zuk]

On 3/22/2025 at 8:19 AM, R011 said:

The other fighter shortlisted was the Gripen.  If they do decide not to buy the F-35, they might be able to buy the Swedish jet.

That depends a lot on what drives the decision to cancel the F-35 buy.

I'll start by saying I'm confident there is absolutely no real intention to cancel the F-35 buy. Just a political facade. I'm sure it's right on track.

But even if it's really cancelled, there could be the following motivations:

1. Standardize with Europe.
2. ITAR-free.
3. Piss off the US.

If you have any other motivation, feel free to suggest. I can't think of another one.
In that order, here's what cancelling the F-35 does:

1. Nothing, because F-35 exports to Europe are on track. And until GCAP and FCAS are in critical mass, the F-35 will remain the leading edge of European aerial power.
2. Rafale and Typhoon would do that, not the Gripen, due to powerplant. If the US had any intention of restricting usage, which I'm sure it won't, then it could block Canada's access to Gripens, or end their lives early by blocking parts and engine exports to Canada.
3. Again as opposed to the other options, that'd be a major and transparent bluff. 

17 hours ago, R011 said:

Gripen is the cheapest choice out there and as I mentioned was the other fighter shortlisted.  American components or not, it's not an American brand.

Yeah, it's not the best choice, but choosing it, assuming we do ditch the F-35 deal, would mean we don't need to go through another lengthy competition.

Gripen is really not the cheapest option. Maybe if you evaluate it based on flyaway cost, then sure I concede. If you evaluate it based on $/capabilities, then it's not in a good spot.

 

[urbanoid]

23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That depends a lot on what drives the decision to cancel the F-35 buy.

I'll start by saying I'm confident there is absolutely no real intention to cancel the F-35 buy. Just a political facade. I'm sure it's right on track.

But even if it's really cancelled, there could be the following motivations:

1. Standardize with Europe.
2. ITAR-free.
3. Piss off the US.

If you have any other motivation, feel free to suggest. I can't think of another one.
In that order, here's what cancelling the F-35 does:

1. Nothing, because F-35 exports to Europe are on track. And until GCAP and FCAS are in critical mass, the F-35 will remain the leading edge of European aerial power.
2. Rafale and Typhoon would do that, not the Gripen, due to powerplant. If the US had any intention of restricting usage, which I'm sure it won't, then it could block Canada's access to Gripens, or end their lives early by blocking parts and engine exports to Canada.
3. Again as opposed to the other options, that'd be a major and transparent bluff. 

Gripen is really not the cheapest option. Maybe if you evaluate it based on flyaway cost, then sure I concede. If you evaluate it based on $/capabilities, then it's not in a good spot.

 

It may not be cheaper even judging by just that (or if it is, not by much), but it's reportedly much, much cheaper to operate.

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

It may not be cheaper even judging by just that (or if it is, not by much), but it's reportedly much, much cheaper to operate.

1. Don't trust flight hour costs presented by different manufacturers. They may have different methodologies to count it.

2. Different mission parameters also introduce different operating costs. 

I personally always ignored flight hour costs. Say LM were to offer me a Gripen and an F-35, told me they're $20K and $40K respectively (flight hour cost), but in reality I have to run the Gripen much hotter because I'm constantly straining it with max fuel and ammo payloads, while the F-35 operates much more relaxed because it's always half loaded. What do?

[R011]

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That depends a lot on what drives the decision to cancel the F-35 buy.

I'll start by saying I'm confident there is absolutely no real intention to cancel the F-35 buy. Just a political facade. I'm sure it's right on track.

But even if it's really cancelled, there could be the following motivations:

1. Standardize with Europe.
2. ITAR-free.
3. Piss off the US.

If you have any other motivation, feel free to suggest. I can't think of another one.
In that order, here's what cancelling the F-35 does:

1. Nothing, because F-35 exports to Europe are on track. And until GCAP and FCAS are in critical mass, the F-35 will remain the leading edge of European aerial power.
2. Rafale and Typhoon would do that, not the Gripen, due to powerplant. If the US had any intention of restricting usage, which I'm sure it won't, then it could block Canada's access to Gripens, or end their lives early by blocking parts and engine exports to Canada.
3. Again as opposed to the other options, that'd be a major and transparent bluff. 

Gripen is really not the cheapest option. Maybe if you evaluate it based on flyaway cost, then sure I concede. If you evaluate it based on $/capabilities, then it's not in a good spot.

 

4.  Retaliate for  the new US tariffs and pressure Trump to cancel or reduce them 

[Dawes]

I believe that at one time Canada preferred a two-engined fighter for an extra margin of safety over the vast  northern reaches of the country. With the F-35 (or Gripen) that seems to be no longer the case (?).

[TTK Ciar]

If all the Canadians need is something that flies around Canada and intercepts suspicious radar blips, the F-35 seems like a really poor fit, and at a premium price.

Perhaps they've been feeling buyer's remorse for a while, and see the tariff kerfluffle as an opportunity to back out of a bad deal with a plausible justification.

[seahawk]

12 hours ago, Dawes said:

I believe that at one time Canada preferred a two-engined fighter for an extra margin of safety over the vast  northern reaches of the country. With the F-35 (or Gripen) that seems to be no longer the case (?).

Let it put it that way. The last tender was optimized for the F-35 to win. There was also some support for F-15EX or the European fighters within the Air Force.

[sunday]

21 minutes ago, TTK Ciar said:

If all the Canadians need is something that flies around Canada and intercepts suspicious radar blips, the F-35 seems like a really poor fit, and at a premium price.

Perhaps they've been feeling buyer's remorse for a while, and see the tariff kerfluffle as an opportunity to back out of a bad deal with a plausible justification.

The Gripen is quite short-ranged for the Canadian long distances.

Also, nice to see you back.

[R011]

10 hours ago, TTK Ciar said:

If all the Canadians need is something that flies around Canada and intercepts suspicious radar blips, the F-35 seems like a really poor fit, and at a premium price.

Perhaps they've been feeling buyer's remorse for a while, and see the tariff kerfluffle as an opportunity to back out of a bad deal with a plausible justification.

It's too late for buyer's remorse, and no reason to be remorseful.  The RCAF wants a multi role fighter, not a pure interceptor, and the  F-35 lifetime cost isn't much more, if at all, than Rafael or Eurofighter. This reconsideration is political, not economic or military.

If they do change their minds about the F-35, then they'll need to make a non competition selection as an Urgent Operational Requirement.  Gripen would be easiest to justify. Note the "if".  Most likely the reconsideration will take until after the 28 April election.

[TTK Ciar]

12 hours ago, sunday said:

Also, nice to see you back.

Thanks 🙂 it's good to see y'all, too!  I just needed a break.

[Ivanhoe]

https://realclearwire.com/articles/2025/03/25/waste_of_the_day_boeing_lacks_trained_and_experienced_employees_1099670.html
 

Quote

 

NASA’s inspector general later released an audit of Boeing’s Exploration Upper Stage launch system — a project unrelated to Starliner, but one that sheds light on deeper issues within the company.

The audit found “quality control issues” with Boeing’s work attributed to “the lack of a sufficient number of trained and experienced aerospace workers at Boeing.”

The Defense Contract Management Agency issued 71 Corrective Action Requests to Boeing between 2021 and 2023, asking the company to fix its quality control problems. But the company was “nonresponsive in taking corrective actions,” the inspector general wrote.

 

One of my college drinking buddies was involved in an audit of McDonnell-Douglas during the early days of the C-17 program. As I recall one of the findings was that the shop floor employees were relatively inexperienced, compared to the rest of industry.

One hopes the McDonnell factory in St. Louis will not run into similar problems.

[bfng3569]

some light humor.....

https://www.twz.com/air/rise-and-avenge-the-x-32-with-this-f-47-inspired-t-shirt

 

Edited April 4 by bfng3569

[sunday]

Poor "Monica"

[bfng3569]

 

https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-j-50-tailless-stealth-fighter-seen-in-new-imagery

 

Funky looking

 

 

[TTK Ciar]

As much as I understand and appreciate the need to prioritize stealth in the 21st century, I can't help feeling a little sad that peak aeronautical performance fighter jets are probably behind us.  We may never again see the likes of the F-16, F-20, F-15.

[sunday]

1 hour ago, TTK Ciar said:

As much as I understand and appreciate the need to prioritize stealth in the 21st century, I can't help feeling a little sad that peak aeronautical performance fighter jets are probably behind us.  We may never again see the likes of the F-16, F-20, F-15.

After the YF-12, F-107, and XF-108 things got different.