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.

GrumpyCanadian

HELLFIRE Going back to this, I just read that in a meeting between Avro management (Gordon personally, among others) and the Conservative government, he mentioned that an Avro delegation led by Fred Smye had secured the MA-1 fire-control system at virtually no cost. The Conservatives tried to portray that as some sort of deception, in spite of Gordon’s willingness to put it in writing, with a revised, lower per-copy price due to other savings they had been able to realise. Basically, the decision to cancel had already been made, in spite of not being official/public yet, and they would do/say anything to make that look like the appropriate course of action; even pay over $1 million more per jet for the U.S.-made “replacements”. None of the figures I have seen include whatever may have been paid for the used F-101 units that were to accompany BOMARC, either.

GrumpyCanadian

Dks01 I absolutely intend to do that. I found that page when you first mentioned him (before you posted the link), but haven’t had the time to sit down and pay attention to it just yet.

I will note that he would be the only person I have ever heard of who was willing to portray BOMARC in anything resembling a positive light (if that is indeed what he does). I have spent a while reading about this, and everything mentioned is gleaned from my small collection of books, each with references, de-classified documents, interviews with people who were there, etc.

GrumpyCanadian

MichelR The article mentions that the whole thing is contingent on approval from the United States, and also depends on their willingness to have some of their fighters serviced in Mirabel:

But for the Mirabel project to move forward, sources said Canada will need to purchase the full fleet of 88 F-35s and the United States will need to confirm that it will use the Mirabel facilities as an “overflow” centre when its sites in North Carolina and Utah are full.

I wouldn’t necessarily bet that that will happen as planned.

Surprisingly, it seems the Quebec government is somewhat in agreement with Ottawa, for once:

The Quebec government is aware of L3Harris’s project in Mirabel, but is also assessing the potential benefits to Quebec from the purchase of Gripen fighter jets.

Even if we were to go with the F-35, that doesn’t mean that Quebec won’t decide that there is no money to help fund the modernisation work.

MichelR

GrumpyCanadian Legault likes to throw money at stuff.

Assembling the Gripen could potentially be more beneficial, but there are a lot of question marks either way.

Dks01

GrumpyCanadian As have I. Maloney goes into a deep, deep dive into the BOMARC, including uncovering the reasons the RCAF wanted the BOMARC AND the Arrow. The badmouthing of the BOMARC is largely tied up in the nuclear politics of Diefenbaker and Pearson. If more fully developed it would have been a credible anti ICBM defence. You should also read the books by Dr. John Coldwater on Canada’s nuclear forces. He does a deep dive into every single nuclear weapons facility in Canada, the good and the bad.

MichelR

Dks01 Dr. John Coldwater

Coffee kicking in, I just noticed you wrote Coldwater instead of Clearwater. 😃 Must be a Cold War thing. hehe It’s good reading.

Dks01

MichelR Yes, you are correct. John Clearwater. Unfortunately he passed away too soon. His complete list of books are here.

Dks01

For a deeper dive into the various nuclear weapons systems in historical context, “Continental Defense in the Eisenhower Era: Nuclear Antiaircraft Arms and the Cold War” by Christopher J. Bright is another essential read. Bright is an American scholar with a broad interest in US strategy, intelligence and nuclear weapons.

Dks01

MichelR Both Saab and Hyundai are playing on underlying Canadian anti-Americanism to promise us the moon. we may end up with mouldy cheese.

MichelR

Dks01 I somehow doubt Saab would create 10,000 jobs. Depends on what’s under those numbers. And, of course, it depends on how successful the plane will be on the export markets. We’re not talking smartphones here. Limited market, ultimately. They’re expensive planes that most countries keep for decades.

GrumpyCanadian

MichelR Legault likes to throw money at stuff.

You mean that he likes to throw money at (almost) all of the wrong things. My biggest worry is that it depends on taking the full order of F-35s, and is further dependent on U.S. approval and the servicing of U.S. military equipment. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility that they would “agree” to get us to commit to the purchase, then pull the rug out from under us (again); giving them what they wanted (sell more jets), while leaving us with another Northvolt-type situation.

GrumpyCanadian

MichelR There was a clip from an interview with one of the senior types at Bombardier on the evening news today (Monday). He seems to like the idea (predictably), and appears to consider the employment numbers to be somewhat credible. In the clip, he pointed out that you have to consider the long-term servicing of the jets, as well, as part of those numbers.

The “whole” interview was for the 23:00 broadcast, but I don’t have any interest in CTV’s late news, after what they did to Laflamme. I haven’t looked if they have just the interview video, without the rest of the newscast, on the Web site.

GrumpyCanadian

Dks01 The badmouthing of the BOMARC is largely tied up in the nuclear politics of Diefenbaker and Pearson. If more fully developed it would have been a credible anti ICBM defence.

It’s not just political; it had some deal-breaking shortcomings. It was also never designed to be an anti-ICBM system; it was a system against incoming “manned bombers”, and had limitations there, too. For instance, it couldn’t track moving targets well, post-launch. Once a missile was fired, if the bomber took aggressive evasive action, it would miss. I don’t know if they ever compensated for that (or if they could at all). The U.S. intended to conduct anti-ICMB R&D post-BOMARC, and wanted our participation in that, too.

By the time BOMARC was being installed in Canada, they had curtailed their use and declared it obsolete. Mission accomplished; they saved Boeing, and twisted our arms to help them pay for it (that wasn’t just a Conservative decision). Diefenbaker’s people had to insist that they keep production going long enough to deliver the system that we had been compelled to order.

The only interesting part of the whole mess was the AN/FSQ-7 computer that powered SAGE, designed by MIT and built mostly by IBM. The problem is that they installed those 3-megawatt behemoths in above-ground concrete buildings, making them vulnerable in a number of ways. Even then, SAGE had its limitations and other vulnerabilities.

Also, the BOMARC B units that we ended up with only had nuclear warheads, and they remained in U.S. custody unless needed and authorised. We couldn’t deploy the thing promptly without quite a procedure to arm it.

Dks01

GrumpyCanadian It was also never designed to be an anti-ICBM system; it was a system against incoming “manned bombers”, and had limitations there, too.

With all respect, that is not entirely accurate. Maloney outlines the development of the BOMARC as an anti-ICBM or ABM weapon from the late 50’s through the 60’s.

What can be said is that a lot of the pieces for an ABM system appear to have been in place in Canada, but there is nothing that connects them from an organizational, policy, or even a doctrinal standpoint. Lacking any further substantiating data, one could only tentatively conclude that BOMARC’s ABM properties were employable at the time, but probably not by Canadians.

It would have required better warning radar and a larger warhead, possibly into the megaton range, but the track was there. The ABM Treaty signed in May 1972 put strict limits on any ABM systems and led to the development of the Safeguard system, later shut down, and now Golden Dome (at least in someone’s imagination).

BTW, to bring this back on topic, the F-35 has been tested with inert B61-12 nuclear “shapes”. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that Canada’s F-35’s will be nuclear-capable, as our CF-188’s are now.

Dks01

GrumpyCanadian Also, the BOMARC B units that we ended up with only had nuclear warheads, and they remained in U.S. custody unless needed and authorised. We couldn’t deploy the thing promptly without quite a procedure to arm it.

That is not true. Canada’s BOMARCs sat in their launchers with live W40 warheads at all times (Clearwater, in “Canada’s Nuclear Weapons”, p.59). Clearwater also documents a number of DULL SPEAR and BROKEN ARROW incidents involving BOMARC warheads on their launchers. The warheads were maintained by the 425th Munitions Maintenance Squadron of the USAF, stationed within the secure area of the bases. Once authorization was received from higher command, launch was within two minutes.

MichelR

GrumpyCanadian You mean that he likes to throw money at (almost) all of the wrong things. My biggest worry is that it depends on taking the full order of F-35s, and is further dependent on U.S. approval and the servicing of U.S. military equipment. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility that they would “agree” to get us to commit to the purchase, then pull the rug out from under us (again); giving them what they wanted (sell more jets), while leaving us with another Northvolt-type situation.

All true, yes. And some of that 10,000 must be “indirect jobs” (suppliers, services, etc.) They didn’t go into much detail.

I do not trust the current U.S. administration one bit.

MichelR

GrumpyCanadian There was a clip from an interview with one of the senior types at Bombardier on the evening news today (Monday). He seems to like the idea (predictably), and appears to consider the employment numbers to be somewhat credible. In the clip, he pointed out that you have to consider the long-term servicing of the jets, as well, as part of those numbers.

I haven’t seen that interview yet. No cable here, so other than CBC News Network on Fibe TV, I try to grab news interviews and analysis on YouTube. I’ll look for it later, assuming they’ve posted it. Could be on their web site too.

Dks01

MichelR

Bombardier CEO statement. As Bombardier showcased its newest jet, the company CEO says he hasn’t “checked the math” on Saab’s claim its fighter jets would bring 10,000 jobs to Canada.

As Bombardier showcased its newest jet, the company CEO says he hasn’t “checked the math” on Saab’s claim its fighter jets would bring 10,000 jobs to Canada.

Saab has suggested its proposal could bring 10,000 jobs to Canada, which some industry experts have questioned.

Martel says he can’t confirm that number either.

“I think when they say 10,000, they probably also look at the whole maintenance after, and support and service,” he said. “I don’t know, I haven’t checked their numbers, but I’m assuming it includes all after-market and support for the next 30 years.”

He says Bombardier’s role in this project would involve assembly of the fighter jets. As part of its sales pitch, Sweden sent a high-profile delegation to Ottawa last month, including its king and queen, who sat down with CTV News for an exclusive interview.

Donoreo

Dks01 Reasonable assessment on the 10K number. Not 10K all at once, but over time.

GrumpyCanadian

Donoreo I don’t think anyone ever said that it would be 10000 jobs all at once. However, if we’re accepting the claim that the F-35 project already sustains 3000 Canadian jobs, why the scepticism when SAAB says that actually building the whole jet, and related industrial operations, servicing and on-going R&D will create 10K?

Now, when the U.S. has taken to slapping any cheek within reach, and distrust of them is growing, it should be an opportune time to help establish a non-U.S.-only industry, as separate from them as possible. Supporting a smaller European player doesn’t sound like a bad idea, either, in the same way that we would have appreciated more international support in the time of Avro.

Also, as we have long seen in the tech world, putting all of one’s eggs in a single basket isn’t a great idea from a security or vulnerability standpoint. Just as “everyone” using Windows has historically led to problems, the majority of countries flying the same model of military jet could ultimately prove to be disastrous, should it not deliver on its promises or have other major problems.

« Previous Page Next Page »