Canada interested in Gripen.

Interesting reading....

Will probably stir up some feelings here ;)

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/07/why-canada-should-buy-the-saab-jas39-gripen-e-next-generation-fighter/

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

gripen in canada? That would be the day. Its too short ranged for the requirements.

Putting the pressure on lockheed to bring down the prices, we've seen this before.

Well, it's a doctrinal question I guess: works as a point-defence fighter. But of course only if that is what they want to get. :P Also, they've supposedly done a lot of work on range for the E/F version though I haven't seen any real numbers given. (There was mention of moving cannon and landing gear around in order to accomodate larger fuel tanks.)

gripen in canada? That would be the day. Its too short ranged for the requirements.

 

Putting the pressure on lockheed to bring down the prices, we've seen this before.

Yeah, it's just a journalists view of it, but his points are never the less interesting.

But then we have politicians...and they can always throw things either way.:megalol:

Range would not be a reason to choose the F35 over the NG Gripen as I understand it has less of it.

F-35 has more range. The Gripen for Canada is a joke. We need a fighter with a pretty significant payload, and the Gripen does not measure up.

Edit: That article is written from a position of ignorance.

I think is a smart and good decision. The Gripen is cheaper, logic and efficient. At the other hand the F-35 is expensive, unlogic and not efficient at all. Also is not good idea have the canadian army full of USA hardware.:thumbup::smartass:

I don't know where he gets the numbers to say Eurofighter and Gripen NG are almost equal,but

unless the gripen NG has a significant greater airframe and much more powerfull engine, it fells short of the Eurofighter in almost everything,that compared with 2013 eurofighters,by 2017 Eurofighters might very well receive AESA,cft and Upgraded engines.Anyway I'll take a look of what I find about the new version of the Gripen with all his new upgrades.

Also is not good idea have the canadian army full of USA hardware.:thumbup::smartass:

Yeah, they might end up having to co-operate and stuff, and that's no good when it comes to air defence!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAD

;)

F-35 has more range. The Gripen for Canada is a joke. We need a fighter with a pretty significant payload, and the Gripen does not measure up.

 

Edit: That article is written from a position of ignorance.

Admittadly, I'm no expert so I won't argue.

Out of curiosity....

What is the (expected) combat radius (this must be the most important range, right) of the F35 and the NG Gripen?

Seems I find different info everywhere.

584 nm for F35 and 700 for NG

But that is probably with droptanks on the NG and internal only on the F35?

But if you put droptanks on the F35, then there is not much payload to put on it?

Gripen might not be the best for canada (but cheapest), but nor seems F35 seem to be :huh:

Seems EF might have a chanse for once. ;)

Nah, Lockheed with set them up with new super hornets instead.:lol:

The F-35 can do 584nm without fuel tanks. It can do this flying high most of the time, thus not losing range to a 'lo' profile segment.

It flies without external stores if it doesn't need them - in other words, it's a pretty fuel-efficient aircraft while carrying two bombs (or more SDBs) and two 120's (or just 4 120's plus a pair of 9X's on the wingtips if you want them there).

It can accommodate 6 external pylons IIRC for fuel tanks and more armament if need be.

There's no point in the F-18E/F. It'll be obsoleted well before the F-35 is... why would Canada make such a move when they refresh aircraft every 30-40 years? Silly move. Parts would become harder to get earlier, it isn't stealth, the technology on it isn't quite as advanced, and so on and so forth. The F-35 is the only plane for Canada.

Well, lockheed if offering Brazil F/A 18, not F35 . So why would they not offer Canada the same if F35 get to expensive. Keeping a plane up to date is simple...just look at B52 ;)

I agree that F35 is the most probable solution though.

Well, lockheed if offering Brazil F/A 18, not F35 . So why would they not offer Canada the same if F35 get to expensive. Keeping a plane up to date is simple...just look at B52 ;)

I agree that F35 is the most probable solution though.

What does Brazil have now? F-5 and Mirage 2000 and is the F-18 better....I'd rather have the F-18. Keeping a plane up-to-date isn't simple. You don't see what goes on behind the scenes, the B-52 takes a lot of work to fly. Being 50+ years old takes a toll on everything.

Oh sure, why not keep up those CF-18's then, can't be that hard or that expensive, just like the B-52's ;)

The F-35 is built to reduce operational costs in many ways. You bring in fewer fighters, fewer support aircraft, which means fewer tankers, jobs might get done with fewer sorties, so less overall fuel, maintenance etc.

Well, lockheed if offering Brazil F/A 18, not F35 . So why would they not offer Canada the same if F35 get to expensive. Keeping a plane up to date is simple...just look at B52 ;)

I agree that F35 is the most probable solution though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Brazilian_military_aircraft yupp looks their contract for the mirage's will end this year.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/?id=3&epslanguage=en < For brazil?

but then i saw this.