F-35 vs. Gripen

MaynardKrebs · 2025-11-01T03:43:33+00:00

I thought I’d start an entirely new thread to discuss the F-35 versus the Gripen so as to not hijack the submarine thread where some of the stuff has been discussed. We had spirited discussions about Gripen vs. F-35 in the old DSLReports forums. The version of the F-35 Canada has contracted for is called the Block 4 model. It is in deep trouble right now. The F-35’s critical Block 4 upgrade package is now five years behind schedule, expected in 2031, and $6 billion over budget, according to a scathing US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. The update includes over 75 major improvements like increased missile capacity and advanced electronic warfare. Facing these massive delays and cost overruns, the F-35 program now plans to reduce the scope of the vital Block 4 modernization. Why the F-35 Fighter Block 4 Upgrade Is Slipping The Pentagon’s modernization program for its flagship fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, is in trouble. The long-planned Block 4 upgrade, intended to equip the jet with new weapons, sensors, and computing power, is now running years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The Block 4 package is central to keeping the F-35 effective against emerging threats from China and Russia, whose advanced aircraft and integrated air defenses are closing the technological gap with the West. Without this program, the jet risks falling behind before the next war even starts. UNDERSTANDING THE BLOCK 4 UPGRADE In fighter jet terms, a “block” refers to a generation-wide package of hardware and software improvements. Block 4 is designed to deliver expanded weapons options, improved electronic warfare systems, and next-generation networking and sensor fusion—all aimed at maintaining air dominance well into the 2030s. The upgrade depends on the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) – a step that preceded the upgrade and outlines plans for installing a new computer in the plane, along with the software architecture that will power it and handle all the added capabilities that come with Block 4. Without TR-3, Block 4 simply cannot function. The original idea was that TR-3-equipped jets would have rolled off the production line in 2024, paving the way for a full modernization some two years later—but software integration issues have substantially slowed TR-3 deliveries. Originally, Block 4 promised more than 60 new capabilities for the jet—from the ability to fire longer-range air-to-air missiles to carrying new precision bombs internally. The upgrade would also include new radar systems and electronic-attack capabilities, as well as improvements to data sharing with other aircraft and network - much of which the Gripen E already has. Together, the improvements are designed to turn the F-35 into a networked combat hub that shares information and improves situational awareness, as well as a formidable stealth fighter - much of which the Gripen E already has - except the stealth bit. But if Canada is not a First-day-of-war combatant, which it is unlikely to be, then stealth is not as critical an issue for us as we are not going to be the ones beating back an adversaries air force In the first instance. Most of our effort is going to be done for sovereignty patrol on all our coasts, and possibly ground attack, Events in Ukraine show some of the futility of conventional ground attack aircraft of any type versus portable missile air defense systems, and much of the ground attack role has been taken over by long range missiles and a myriad of drones. More than likely, the bulk of our use will be maritime patrol and interdiction. THE DELAYS, COSTS, AND CAUSES According to the GAO, Block 4 costs have ballooned by more than $6 billion since the last estimate, bringing the total expected price tag to around $16.5 billion. Completion is now expected at least five years later than initially planned. First, there are the TR-3 delays. Hardware and software integration problems in Technology Refresh 3 have prevented the F-35’s onboard systems from running the new Block 4 applications. Until those computers are certified and fixed, the new jets cannot be delivered with full capability. There are worsened supply chain issues. that are contributing significantly more than previous delays. Then there’s the issue of power and cooling constraints. The additional electronics and weapons envisioned for the Block 4 upgrade require more power—and therefore more cooling. The current Pratt & Whitney F135 engine cannot fully support the new system without an upgrade program of its own, and that planned upgrade has been delayed until around 2031. The currently cut-backed version of Block 4 will include only a fraction of the original 66 capabilities, with the rest deferred for future increments of the upgrade. And this carries serious consequences. For F-35 operators, it means a growing capability gap. Without Block 4, the F-35 cannot integrate some of its most advanced new munitions and datalink systems that would allow this fifth-generation platform to counter next-generation Chinese and Russian defenses. Did I mention that Gripen E already has this operational and baked into its DNA? With every delay in the F-35, allied countries suffer setbacks to their operational plans, thereby complicating interoperability and increasing costs for training, sustainment, and logistics. I will fault Trudeau for not choosing the Gripen five years ago. By this point in time we would’ve had production happening in Canada, and our factory most likely would be contributing aircraft to Ukraine and other customers within a year or two of today. Having our own production line means that maintenance, repair, and overhaul could easily be done domestically. Canada has had a long history of both design development and productionOf indigenous aircraft, as well as production of fighter aircraft under license, Most notably, the F-86 Sabe and the F104 Starfighter. The Canadian produced Sabres and Starfighters were widely recognized as being better built than the ones produced in the United States.

MichelR

Dks01 It doesn’t. Viz Canada’s CF-18’s and the US F-15/F22/F35. But for a number of years both air forces flew the F-101B/CF-101B VooDoo.

Oftentimes it’s F-16s responding to NORAD calls. Not much advantage to stealth jets in NORAD, especially since they fall apart if you stare at them too long. We both used the Voodoo for a while, but again, it wasn’t unusual for the USAF to respond to NORAD calls with F-15s and F-16s, though that was more toward the end of Voodoo service in the USAF. We’re both still sitting here, so I guess it worked pretty well. We even had the CF-100 in service in the early years of NORAD (well, until 1981, but the Voodoo was the go-to jet from the early to mid-60s up to its retirement as the CF-18s started rolling in.

Ultimately it’s all electronic communications (to put it very simply). Jets can be equipped with the right electronic gear to communicate with the others, it’s always been done. Hell, even former Eastern Bloc countries that joined NATO had their electronics upgraded on some Soviet-era jets to be able to interoperate with Western NATO countries. Upgrades can also be made to use the same type of weapons.

Astyanax

MichelR Oftentimes it’s F-16s responding to NORAD calls.

You’re not going to want to show you got your feathers ruffled by sending up your top fighter plane to escort a clunker 70-year-old prop-driven Tupolev away from the ADIZ.

Dks01

MichelR You forget the F-106, which had the longest NORAD service, as well as the F-4 Phantom. Even the RCN’s Banshees were used in air defense in the 1950’s. There are a number of stories of RCN Banshees besting USAF B-52’s after finding a significant blind shot below and behind the massive bomber.

Dks01

Astyanax You’re not going to want to show you got your feathers ruffled by sending up your top fighter plane to escort a clunker 70-year-old prop-driven Tupolev away from the ADIZ.

For many years that was exactly what was done from the F-4 Phantom out of Iceland to the F-106, CF-101 and the CF-188, and F-15. The TU-104 may have been a noisy turboprop but it was still equipped with stand off cruise missiles. Currently the B-52 is being flown by crews whose grandfathers flew the very same aircraft.

Astyanax

Dks01 he TU-104 may have been a noisy turboprop but it was still equipped with stand off cruise missiles. Currently the B-52 is being flown by crews whose grandfathers flew the very same aircraft.

Hey I may have said it was a clunker but it was still flyin’ and could still nuke Seattle today just as well as it could back in the ’50s. That Bear may be old but it’s claws can still kill.

Dks01

Astyanax That Bear may be old but it’s claws can still kill.

As the war in Ukraine has shown.

taraf

Dks01 As the war in Ukraine has shown.

Blue on blue is still a kill, to some….

HELLFIRE

Dks01 as well as the F-4 Phantom

I remember the F-4 got its glory in Vietnam, but I don’t recall it doing NORAD duty for the US?

Quite a few NATO countries got F-4 as well.

Astyanax That Bear may be old but it’s claws can still kill.

aka “If It Hurts, It Works.” 😃 😃

Regards

Astyanax

taraf Blue on blue is still a kill, to some….

Who?

I don’t even think the Russians or the Chinese think that insanity.

Dks01

The brass are fighting back.

Former high-ranking officers of the Canadian Armed Forces are mounting a defence of the planned acquisition of 88 American F-35 fighter jets, hoping to put an end to the ongoing courtship between the Canadian government and the Swedish firm Saab.

According to information obtained by Radio-Canada, a dozen former high-ranking officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force sent a letter to the federal government to reiterate the benefits of acquiring a full fleet of F-35s to meet Canada’s military needs.

The signatories are hoping to prevent the Canadian government from reducing its F-35 order and replacing that capability with Gripen-E fighter jets made by Saab, a Swedish industrial giant that promises to create thousands of jobs in Canada.

The letter, which has not yet been made public, was sent Monday to key government decision-makers involved in the fighter jet file, including the office of Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Dks01

HELLFIRE I remember the F-4 got its glory in Vietnam, but I don’t recall it doing NORAD duty for the US?

In the late 80’s, the Mass ANG (104th FW) flew NORAD missions out of Otis and Loring in F-4D aircraft for a short period. The aircraft were replaced by F15C aircraft.

taraf

Astyanax I don’t even think the Russians or the Chinese think that insanity.

The Russians have claimed kills in the Ukraine action that turned out to be friendly fire.

But I was actually talking about the fact that Russian casualties are more than 750k and well on track to exceed 1 million before the conflict is over. You say Russia’s still good at killing: I’m agreeing. But pointing out that most of the people that’ve been killed by their decision to invade Ukraine have been Russians.

Donoreo

Dks01 Former high-ranking officers of the Canadian Armed Forces

They may have financial incentives to say this. Just saying.

Hydraglass

Donoreo They may have financial incentives to say this. Just saying.

The “Former” in their title indicates they have left the armed services likely for greener pastures in private industry. Wouldn’t be surprised if more than one of them worked directly for or in companies that are involved in the F35 project in some way or another. They might be completely self serving and have nothing to do with what’s actually better for the country logistically, militarily, and financially in the long run.

Dks01

Donoreo Ya think?

Lawson previously worked as a part-time consultant for Lockheed Martin but is no longer affiliated with the company.

GrumpyCanadian

Dks01 Surely we can agree that “no longer affiliated with the company” doesn’t preclude still trying to maximise the dividends paid by the stock, etc. that they may still hold. As far back as when Harper was in office, there were accusations that the requirements were manipulated so that the F-35, even in its earlier iterations, was the only one that “optimally” satisfied all of them.

MichelR

Dks01 You forget the F-106, which had the longest NORAD service, as well as the F-4 Phantom. Even the RCN’s Banshees were used in air defense in the 1950’s. There are a number of stories of RCN Banshees besting USAF B-52’s after finding a significant blind shot below and behind the massive bomber.

Well yeah, the U.S. had so many different fighters through those years, some rather short lived, it’s hard not to forget some. The F-102 was kind of a dud and the F-106 evolved from it, a much better plane.

Side note on our carrier aviation since you mentioned the RCN. I came across this video about the HMCS Magnificent (1948-1957) this morning:

MichelR

Dks01 TU-104 may have been a noisy turboprop but it was still equipped with stand off cruise missiles

You mean the TU-95. The 104 is an airliner. I seem to recall that the 95’s propeller’s tips break the sound barrier, hence the noise. It’s pretty fast too and I guess you can say that, like the B-52, it could one day sport the colours of the United Federation of Planets, as these two bombers don’t seem to want to retire.

Dks01

You are correct. It is the Tu-95. And yes, the drone is from the prop tips going supersonic. But think about this for a moment. The TU-95 first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1956. It is still flying. On the other hand, the B-36, the last US propeller-driven bomber, first flew in 1946, entered service in 1948 and was fully retired by 1959.

Dks01

MichelR The F-102 was kind of a dud and the F-106 evolved from it, a much better plane

I am not sure I would call 1,000 F-102 aircraft built and in service from 1956 to 1979 in the USAF and beyond in Greece and Turkey a “dud”. The first version of the F-102 could not go supersonic. It needed the area-ruled fuselage. The TF-102 trainer was definitely an odd duck.

« Previous Page Next Page »