Drives me nuts, Airbus does it with new build MRTT. Build and fly a green airframe to immediately disassemble it for conversion. They are literally stripping the airframe down to install structural reinforcement, wiring and other bits and bobs. A lot of time and effort could, be saved a lot if they did it on the FAL.
"will also be an area the RCAF fights on, and looks to a replacement down the line."
So, you think we are going to get the globaleyes as is, and the RCAF will have to modify down the road, rather than getting the 360 degree setup designed for us? I admit, all the specific radar models went a little over my head. But I do understand that one of the primary ways the Wedgetail out performed the globaleye was the 270 deg versus 360 deg coverage. I have great hope that the midair refuelling capability is designed in time to be added to them as well, but I understand that is more on Bombardier's plate, while the radar is more directly Saab. The other factor, not as many operator stations, feels a little nit picky than serious.
I agree. I think the big question is, if we're really in on GCAP, how long will it realistically take to start acquiring aircraft? If it's any length of time then we could swing the Gripen. If it's a shorter period of time then maybe we live with the F-35 only. Though on the other hand I really hate to lose the opportunity to build Gripens here. Glad I'm not the one having to make the decision. 😎
Why not just buy the 6 Globaleyes from Saab and but all 88 F-35s from Lockheed Martin ... that way we get to buy and build a Canadian based defense plan with a EU/NATO ally while at the same time buying the far superior 5th gen F-35 for long term use!!!
Given the F-35s very low availability rate I think it would make sense to augment the fleet with the Gripen. The Gripen can do a lot of the day to day NORAD and arctic patroling and free up the F-35s for other tasks.
While I generally agree, some of the arguments around the additional challenge to training pipelines of an additional airframe will place on the RCAF's personnel concerns me. As in, we will be straining to provide enough teachers to train new pilots on a single new airframe, and trying to do it for 2 at the same time may compromise both to a very sub optimal level. It would obviously only be a temporary bottleneck, but it might be a bottle neck exactly when we can least afford one, if Taiwan or Ukraine explodes into a more general conflict. I think that is the most legitimate argument against the Gripen. It doesn't win the argument, and it shouldn't be the only argument considered, but it can't be ignored either. In the end, I think it's a trade off that will need to be decided on other factors, like trade war related policy and diplomacy, or possibly where GCAP appears to be going. If we might be getting 6th gen tempests by the early 2040s, can we really afford to be splitting our training program 3 ways? Maybe we can, and maybe there will be no tempest jets until the 2050s or even later, but it's a factor we need to consider. Plus, the air force has to consider what will happen to overly ambitious procurements when the public interest shifts. Its understandable that they want to focus on scaling up what they consider the most vital capabilities, while avoiding potential distractions that might make that capability less potent. I happen to think that that mindset is overly cautious, but that is perfectly understandable after the neglect that the CAF has experienced over the last 30 plus years. Everyone wants this to be a new era in defense procurement, but the officers that learned under the old system are understandablely hesitant to trust and rely on the new paridiam lasting indefinitely. We are armchair procurement specialists, and these ambitious plans are harder to commit to for those who will directly bear the cost of failure. I'm actually glad they are so conservative, because we need a counterweight to those who want to jump in with both feet. Hopefully the 2 competing worldview will result in a compromise that we can all live with.
Drives me nuts, Airbus does it with new build MRTT. Build and fly a green airframe to immediately disassemble it for conversion. They are literally stripping the airframe down to install structural reinforcement, wiring and other bits and bobs. A lot of time and effort could, be saved a lot if they did it on the FAL.
Seems like a no brainer, would significantly increase margins for Saab, for Bombardier not so much unless they get a cut of the build.
Yep...was thinking the exact same thing
"will also be an area the RCAF fights on, and looks to a replacement down the line."
So, you think we are going to get the globaleyes as is, and the RCAF will have to modify down the road, rather than getting the 360 degree setup designed for us? I admit, all the specific radar models went a little over my head. But I do understand that one of the primary ways the Wedgetail out performed the globaleye was the 270 deg versus 360 deg coverage. I have great hope that the midair refuelling capability is designed in time to be added to them as well, but I understand that is more on Bombardier's plate, while the radar is more directly Saab. The other factor, not as many operator stations, feels a little nit picky than serious.
I agree. I think the big question is, if we're really in on GCAP, how long will it realistically take to start acquiring aircraft? If it's any length of time then we could swing the Gripen. If it's a shorter period of time then maybe we live with the F-35 only. Though on the other hand I really hate to lose the opportunity to build Gripens here. Glad I'm not the one having to make the decision. 😎
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I am sensing nuances of disagreement in the three official statements that you reproduced. Am I just imagining this? Of have I been Daniel Leblanced?
Why not just buy the 6 Globaleyes from Saab and but all 88 F-35s from Lockheed Martin ... that way we get to buy and build a Canadian based defense plan with a EU/NATO ally while at the same time buying the far superior 5th gen F-35 for long term use!!!
Given the F-35s very low availability rate I think it would make sense to augment the fleet with the Gripen. The Gripen can do a lot of the day to day NORAD and arctic patroling and free up the F-35s for other tasks.
While I generally agree, some of the arguments around the additional challenge to training pipelines of an additional airframe will place on the RCAF's personnel concerns me. As in, we will be straining to provide enough teachers to train new pilots on a single new airframe, and trying to do it for 2 at the same time may compromise both to a very sub optimal level. It would obviously only be a temporary bottleneck, but it might be a bottle neck exactly when we can least afford one, if Taiwan or Ukraine explodes into a more general conflict. I think that is the most legitimate argument against the Gripen. It doesn't win the argument, and it shouldn't be the only argument considered, but it can't be ignored either. In the end, I think it's a trade off that will need to be decided on other factors, like trade war related policy and diplomacy, or possibly where GCAP appears to be going. If we might be getting 6th gen tempests by the early 2040s, can we really afford to be splitting our training program 3 ways? Maybe we can, and maybe there will be no tempest jets until the 2050s or even later, but it's a factor we need to consider. Plus, the air force has to consider what will happen to overly ambitious procurements when the public interest shifts. Its understandable that they want to focus on scaling up what they consider the most vital capabilities, while avoiding potential distractions that might make that capability less potent. I happen to think that that mindset is overly cautious, but that is perfectly understandable after the neglect that the CAF has experienced over the last 30 plus years. Everyone wants this to be a new era in defense procurement, but the officers that learned under the old system are understandablely hesitant to trust and rely on the new paridiam lasting indefinitely. We are armchair procurement specialists, and these ambitious plans are harder to commit to for those who will directly bear the cost of failure. I'm actually glad they are so conservative, because we need a counterweight to those who want to jump in with both feet. Hopefully the 2 competing worldview will result in a compromise that we can all live with.