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.

HELLFIRE

Dks01 In the late 80’s, the Mass ANG (104th FW) flew NORAD missions out of Otis and Loring in F-4D aircraft

Thanks for that pointer 🙂

Dks01 hoping to put an end to the ongoing courtship between the Canadian government and the Swedish firm Saab.

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

Hydraglass 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.

Sooo… if I’m keeping score right – and just to map out the decision tree – the options for the person in the proverbial hotseat are :

continue with the F-35 buy on the offchance a. Block 4 arrives in 5 years, b. Canada actually gets Block 4 out the gate and doesn’t need a 14day downtime to upgrade, and c. the price doesn’t go any higher…
continue to wait for the F-35, see what kind of deal we can get with the Gripen. Even if Canada were just to manufacture them – with an option to get X number of planes “in kind” for our troubles – that could be a possible win.
dump the F-35 entirely and go all-in on the Gripen. Problem of course is whatever cancellation fees and potential lawsuit(s) that’ll no doubt blow up in Canada’s face.
stall some more and fob this decision onto the next guy.

I’m reminded of the line from Jeffery Pelt, The Hunt For Red October : “Listen, I’m a politician, which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.” 🤣 🤣

Regards

Dks01

An excellent summary of the issue’s status as of 25/11/19 from Hill Times (paywall).

Sweden’s charm offensive continues in Ottawa today. The Swedes have brought their king and queen, deputy prime minister/industry minister, defence minister, and a group of business executives to the capital this week in the hope of selling Canada on the Saab Gripen fighter jet.

Yesterday, the Canadian and Swedish governments announced a “strategic partnership,” which consists primarily of promises to co-operate in numerous areas. The visiting King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia attended a state dinner with Prime Minister Mark Carney last night.

Today, the royal couple will take their turn playing host, with an evening reception for VIPs at the Château Laurier.

This morning at 9:50 a.m., Industry Minister Mélanie Joly will sit down for a public “armchair” talk in the Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa with Ebba Busch, Sweden’s deputy prime minister and minister of industry. At noon, Defence Minister David McGuinty will meet in private with his Swedish counterpart, Pål Jonson, at the Global Affairs Canada headquarters.

And at 11:30 a.m., Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne will participate in a public event with Sweden’s deputy prime minister in Kanata.

Canada is the belle of the ball in international defence circles, thanks to the increasingly ambitious procurement plans unveiled by prime ministers Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney. The South Koreans, Germans and Norwegians have come calling as well, with an eye fixed firmly on Canada’s planned submarine procurement.

Unfortunately for the Swedes, Canada is already engaged to another jet maker: Lockheed Martin, from whom we have promised to buy at least 16 F-35 fighter jets, and probably more—the fruit of a courtship that has dragged on some 20 years and counting.

Canada’s military establishment clearly want the F-35, and nothing but. Former Royal Canadian Air Force officers told the PMO as much in a letter sent earlier this week, CBC News’ Daniel Leblanc reported.

There has been some … unpleasantness between Canada and Lockheed’s home country, however. Enter the Swedes, with what Joly called an “unsolicited” and “very interesting” offer—cheaper jets, with a manufacturing process that will supposedly create up to 10,000 jobs in Canada.

Joly and co. know leverage when they see it.

“I don’t believe that we’ve had enough jobs created and industrial benefits done out of the F-35 contract. I think it’s not enough. I think Canadians expect more, and we should get more,” she told reporters yesterday.

MichelR

Dks01 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.

It wasn’t a great plane, but it found its niche. Not the only one. The 106 is really want they wanted with the 102. I wish I still had my old military aviation stuff around (from roughly 1978 to 1987), lots of in-depth coverage about stuff like this, like “Why did they keep those but not these” etc. I left home in ’87 and moved away for school, and when I asked my mother about all my books and magazines, they had… disappeared. Still pissed off about that. lol

Dks01

When the Arrow was cancelled, the RCAF sniffed around the F-106 but it was too expensive and required a lot of infrastructure support Canada did not have. Canada also looked at the A-4 Skyhawk and looked seriously at, to the point of drooling over, the Grumman F-11F-1F Super Tiger. But that aircraft was cancelled and we got used CF-101D aircraft from Uncle Sam’s Used Aircraft and Military Sales Office instead.

digitalfutur

When American trade policy is costing jobs in Canada, it’s irresponsible for our government to not demand that jobs be created in Canada in return for the billions spent on acquisition. The current F-35 contract has no such requirement. So if the Americans are unable or unwilling to change that for the next round of purchases, they’re not the only world manufacturer, any more than Boeing is for passenger sets. Public policy does not operate in a vacuum.

It’s not like the F35 is the only fighter jet with NATO/NORAD compatibility.

https://www.saab.com/markets/canada/gripen-for-canada/interoperability
https://factually.co/fact-checks/military/gripen-vs-f35-interoperability-avionics-weapons-integration-5d7a8a

HELLFIRE

Dks01 Canada also looked at the A-4 Skyhawk and looked seriously at, to the point of drooling over, the Grumman F-11F-1F Super Tiger.

Huh, wasn’t aware Canada looked at those two planes. The A-4 Skyhawk – aka the “Tinker Toy” – I kinda get. The F-11 I barely remember, and according to Wikipedia barely had a 10year service record with the USN.

digitalfutur The current F-35 contract has no such requirement.

From the material I provided earlier, that’s a feature of the program, not a bug, specifically :

One of the prime objectives of the JSF program is to produce the most affordable 5th generation fighter jet possible.30 Early on, conventional offsets were identified as economically inefficient. Given this, the program office was of the view that it would be more efficient to select contractors on the basis of ‘competitive best value’ rather than national affiliation.

If Company A makes Widget B for C dollars, and Company B makes the same Widget for less… why go to Company A?

In Shorter Form : Cheap, Fast, Perfect. Pick Two And Only Two.

shrugs

Regards

Dks01

Interesting closed meeting noted. Possibly about the Global Eye aircraft. From Hill Times (paywall).

It’s the final day of the Canadian visit by the Swedes, and today they will shift base from Ottawa to Montreal.

King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia, Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch, and Defence Minister Pål Jonson will tour the Mila–Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute at 2:15 p.m. and later take part in a panel discussion on “Sweden-Canada Dialogue on AI Leadership and Innovation.”

Before flying back to Sweden, the monarchs will talk to the press about their state visit along with Busch and Jonson.

Politics This Morning has also been informed that some Swedish officials will attend a “closed meeting” at the Bombardier headquarters in Montreal. The names of the participants were not disclosed.

To recap, Swedish defence company Saab hopes to sell Canada a fleet of Gripen fighter jets. Saab is proposing to move some of the production of the Gripen and other aircraft to Canada as part of a deal.

Canada has committed to purchasing at least 16 F-35 fighter jets from U.S. giant Lockheed Martin.

Dks01

HELLFIRE In Shorter Form : Cheap, Fast, Perfect. Pick Two And Only Two.

In the larger scheme of things, bad politics and bad economics.

Dks01

HELLFIRE Huh, wasn’t aware Canada looked at those two planes. The A-4 Skyhawk – aka the “Tinker Toy” – I kinda get. The F-11 I barely remember, and according to Wikipedia barely had a 10year service record with the USN.

At that time, Canada had an aircraft carrier, the HMCS Bonaventure. The “Bonnie” as she was sometimes known, was a full suite anti-submarine carrier which was part of Canada’s North Atlantic fleet in support of NATO obligations in the Greenland-Iceland gap, among other tasks. The A-4 was tested on the Bonaventure in 1964. Canada did not buy it. The Bonaventure was decommissioned and scrapped in 1970.

The F-11 F Tiger was the earlier version of the Super Tiger. The engine was never powerful enough and it was unique in being one of, if not the only aircraft to shoot itself down. .

The F-11 F Tiger was flown by the USN’s Blue Angels until 1969 with one fatal crash at the Canadian International Air Show at the CNE in Toronto in 1966. I was at the air show and saw the crash.

GrumpyCanadian

HELLFIRE It’s interesting to note the differences between the offerings, though. For the F-35, Canada has had to pay for years, just for a chance at being part of the process. We then have to bid on contracts. What the Swedes are offering seems much more respectful from the start, and on the surface, seems to offers much more economic benefit for Canada.

With the F-35 programme, if we’ve been paying for the “privilege” of participating since Harper, they shouldn’t be able to pull the rug out from under Canadian companies just because we don’t order any more, beyond the initial 16; at least until those contracts are due to be renewed. Even then, unless another company submits a lower bid, they are inviting lawsuits if they play political games with the contracts (at the behest of Mr. President, for instance).

Also, given that even the U.S. is cutting its orders for that cost-overrun-behind-schedule dud, they can hardly blame us for not ordering more, when that wasn’t guaranteed from the start. If someone has made us a better offer, they can either make an even more compelling one, or shut up.

This article goes over the cost/benefit issues, and again mentions that the Gripen would cost much less over its service lifetime: Saab offering 10,000 jobs, Joly says, as Canada’s F-35 review drags on

I’m beginning to wonder, though: with Ukraine now set to purchase the French Rafale, what does that mean for the possibility of Canadian-built Gripen units for Ukraine?

MichelR

GrumpyCanadian Our participation in the F-35 program predates Harper, if I remember correctly. That was one of the reasons invoked for them picking it without a proper competition.

The Brits have been having quite a few problems with their F-35s, including some being grounded for weeks+, waiting for parts. The supply chain appears to be a mess. Some countries are having buyer’s remorse, especially those where another plane won the competition but a visit for high-ranking U.S. politicians resulted in them throwing the results away and going with the F-35.

GrumpyCanadian

MichelR another plane won the competition but a visit for high-ranking U.S. politicians resulted in them throwing the results away and going with the F-35.

Yet Hoekstra has the nerve to rant about Ford’s ad being an attempt at interference in U.S. affairs and targetting the president? Are you the stove or the kettle, Pete?

And let’s not forget (ever!) the interference and manipulation by Eisenhower et al during the Avro years. That alone should be enough to compel us to tell Lockheed Martin to shove the F-35 somewhere, even if it weren’t a completely over-priced dud, which it is.

Donoreo

GrumpyCanadian The US is infamous for “do as we say not as we do”.

HELLFIRE

Dks01 In the larger scheme of things, bad politics and bad economics.

On the flip side, a camel is a horse designed by a committee. I still shudder at some of the stories I read how much of a gongshow the F(B)-111 program was till Admiral Tom Connelly flatly told Robert McNamera “There isn’t enough thrust in all Christendom to make a Navy fighter out of that airplane!” – https://theaviationgeekclub.com/there-isnt-enough-thrust-in-all-christendom-to-make-a-navy-fighter-out-of-that-airplane-how-f-111bs-death-led-to-the-birth-of-the-iconic-f-14-tomcat/

Dks01 The engine was never powerful enough

I’d laugh at that, but underpowered engines are the bane of any aircraft project. There’s a REALLY good burn about Westinghouse engines “put[ting] out less heat than Westinghouse’s toasters” for the F7U Cutlass – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F7U_Cutlass OUCH! 🔥 🔥

GrumpyCanadian seems to offers much more economic benefit for Canada.

Not in the weeds enough to assess, honestly.

Heck from a civilian POV, could possibly look at the Boeing 787 program. As I recall, Boeing may have designed it, but wanted it’s partners to ship them the parts so Boeing could literally snap it together. How much benefit you got out of that… ?

shrugs

My 00000010bits

Regards

Dks01

HELLFIRE How much benefit you got out of that… ?

Boeing had a large plant near the Toronto airport, formerly the AVRO plant, that made parts. They have four facilities in Canada, one of which makes composite parts for the 787 series aircraft. Canada also made/makes several niche aircraft such as bush planes and water bombers. De Havilland makes several of these.

GrumpyCanadian

Yet again, we see Hoekstra trying to engage in arm-twisting — really thinly-veiled threats — in favour of the F-35, with Lockheed Martin also implying that “economic benefit” may dry up if we don’t take the full order of jets.

Contrast that with the Swedish attitude and statements so far. Tell me: whose behaviour is closer to the behaviour that you would want in a friend?

The former Canadian General is back in the act, as well, singing about the horrors of a mixed fleet, and “yesterday’s technology tomorrow”. Well, General, if the Gripen represents yesterday’s technology, but is adaptable and exceptionally extensible, as coverage seems to suggest that it is, then the F-35 seems to be “today’s technology forever”, since even Lockheed Martin doesn’t seem able to modernise it beyond what they have already delivered.

Getting back to our dear friend Pete, I ask him to explain to me why, if the F-35 is such a phenomenal success, is the United States itself cutting back its own orders? If it’s that good, surely you want more of them. I await the announcement of the contract to purchase 500 more Block 4 units.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/f-35s-are-phenomenal-success-us-ambassador-says-as-canada-considers-swedish-fighter-jets/

HELLFIRE

Pretty much echos the same thing : https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/canada-is-playing-with-fire-over-f-35-fighter-deal/ – Canada Is Playing with Fire over F-35 Fighter Deal

But Ottawa is already contractually tied to 16 F-35s, with dozens of Canadian firms in the global supply chain.

Military leaders warn that shifting the remaining 72 jets to a European type would create an expensive, inefficient mixed fleet and weaken NORAD and Arctic defense, trading real capability for short-term political theatre.

Article points out – rightly so, I think – the F-35 isn’t just a fighter but “an intelligence-gathering, stealth-enabled, data-fusing node.” D**n problem remains

a. which Block has that full capability, and

b. which Block is Canada getting, especially with the Block 4 delays?

Within said article is this https://skiesmag.com/news/f-35-impact-canadas-economy/#:~:text=The%20Lockheed%20Martin%20F%2D35A%20Lightning%20II%20is,development%20costs%20and%20the%20final%20price%20tag. – How selecting the Lockheed Martin F-35 could impact Canada’s economy (Aug 12, 2020)

… Furthermore, under the rules of the JSF partnership agreement, to which Canada is a signatory, Lockheed Martin cannot offer traditional industrial and technological benefits (ITBs) to Canadian industry. … Though contracts are awarded on a “best value” basis among all participating countries … suppliers would be building parts not just for 88 aircraft, but likely for over 3,000. …

Not to say there couldn’t be arm-twisting and gamesmanship SOMEwhere along the chain…

Still like to hear what others thing of the 4 decision paths I’ve mapped out, or if anyone thinks there’s other option(s) I haven’t thought of.

Likewise I don’t know how the contracts may be structured… again, IMHO if Canada starts with a “build only” option on the Gripens – with options to buy X number down the line – that’s GOT to be a better way to get a WIN-WIN-WIN,no? And INFINITELY better than the “fobbing the decision to the next guy” option.

If I was a betting man, doesn’t matter which political party holds the reigns, they’d ALL default to option 4 as the least risky, politically speaking 🙄 🙄

Regards

GrumpyCanadian

HELLFIRE For me, the problem is that Lockheed Martin seems to have been fumbling ahead for years, with one problem after another plaguing the design. As least since Harper first wanted us to get into the programme, there were people saying that the F-35 was a dud that didn’t live up to the hype, and barely even provably provided stealth capability. Now they appear to be unable to deliver the Block 4 features that we’re contracted to receive.

With the Swedes being altogether nicer, more respectful and diplomatic, I would say commit to exploring that option as far as it will go; including production and ordering them for our use. Furthermore, I’d say take only up to 16 F-35s if and only if Lockheed Martin can deliver on all of the Block 4 features without it costing us any more; that is to say they eat any upgrade costs as a penalty for not delivering on time.

I would be interested in what others think of Hoekstra’s threats against NORAD. He implies that NORAD only works if we’re flying the same models. In at least one instance, that wasn’t the case, and NORAD lives on; Canada used the CF-100 for NORAD duty decades ago, while the United States never bought any (as usual). I see no reason that couldn’t happen again. Otherwise, they’re free to order a few squadrons of Canadian-built Gripens to ensure that we use the same jets.

GrumpyCanadian

HELLFIRE If I was a betting man, doesn’t matter which political party holds the reigns, they’d ALL default to option 4 as the least risky, politically speaking 🙄 🙄

Your option 4 doesn’t really work any more. We’ve waited longer than we should have as it is, and a decision needs to be made. However, that shouldn’t mean that we just give in to arm-twisting tactics from the usual suspects. We have to make the best decision for Canada, that brings the greatest economic benefit, beyond just getting new jets.

The Swedish minister even said that the purpose of the visit was not to get us to order their jet; that is a decision for us to make. He went on to stress that the production agreement is not contingent upon our ordering them for our use. Even then, that doesn’t mean that we should abuse the trust of the Swedes and still buy the American dud, particularly given Lockheed Martin’s ongoing difficulties with it’s long-term evolution; if they’re already having more growing pains, it implies to me that short-cuts taken earlier in the design process are impeding extensibility. Considering how long Canada tends to keep military equipment, that isn’t a positive sign.

MichelR

GrumpyCanadian The former Canadian General

Quick note on this one: It’s very common for former high-ranking officers to become lobbyists (official or not) for large defense contractor. So I take what he says with a grain of salt, without dismissing it outright. History is full of generals turned lobbyists, or simply “say something nice and we’ll give you a nice, well-paying job.” Not saying that’s the case here, but…

« Previous Page Next Page »