When I last looked at it both the Eurofighter & Rafale had large back orders extending to about 4-5 years. During our fighter competition they withdrew and didn’t want to put any work into norad compatability for something they thought was a done deal (F35).
Yeah, both have had a lot of success recently. It's good to see mind you, although it's likely we'll never know exactly what was said in these conversations, so it makes it hard for me to judge everyone.
RE French contributions - I would love to see the Anglo-French 40CTAS at least trialled for potential MEDCAV integration. Expensive yes but it appears to be scaling up and is deadly capable.
I don’t see the value in the River class. The type 26 was designed to be a good ASW ship and is. But we have made them technical destroyers though they are the least well armed of the Type 26 variants, and yet the Navy wants 15 @ 7 billion a piece and has provided little justification for these particular hulls and price. The corvette program is looking more like frigate which is better, but rather than properly arm them we are nerfing them so they don’t outshine the Type 26. If cost is the real consideration, then axing Rivers pays way for greater diversity in freeing capital.
The Navy seems to be pursuing no AAW ships or even OpMARS or NOMARS. If Australia at 2/3s our population with large coast can invest in a layered Navy of AAW, ASW and recognizing the lack of value proposition for the type 26, reducing their order and investing in a workhorse general frigate that are well armed. The UK is only building 8 type 26 frigates (despite more VLS still a frigate) though for a lot less, and are building Type 83 to provide AAW. They rightfully see these ships as hubs for OpMARS and are building Type 91, 92 and 93 to support the Type 83. Even their Type 26 are going to be given 2 modified Triton Trimarans with extra VLS and weapons to extend their ability, but are under no delusion that the 26 is a destroyer.
Our 26 has SPY 7 that with Aegis and can track more targets than CMS 330, true. But what was the point of giving them this radar if the ships don’t have the VLS capacity to allow them to carry and fire SM-3 or even SM-6 at distant targets. An updated Mogami at 32 VLS can fire SM-2, it would be similarly or better armed than the River at a small fraction of the cost. So why are we all in on these ASW Type 26 frigates as the only tier 1 for our Navy. Are we seriously aiming lower than AUS capabilities? Because I see nothing in the Navy ship replacement strategy that says it is trying not to.
So what do we do? BAE developed a variant of the Type 26 losing the mission bay for 64 VLS midship and retaining 2 boat launchers at each side. This would make the 26 at least an actual destroyer. Lose the Helicopter bay and go UV and incorporate CUBE track on Helicopter port area. But at 7 Billion a piece there is no way we can afford the extra VLS and missiles on top of this ship cost. If we greatly reduce their quantity and bought a couple Aegis AAW ships for cheaper then us building a river we could do 8 River, 4 AAW, and have 12 Aegis hulls. Plus have more money for investing in a good capable general purpose frigate/hub and make investments in OpMARS to better support and enhance our tier 1s. But this doesn’t seem to be the strategy, and unless the Navy starts addressing these costs and defficiencies in its “destroyers”, which I am pretty sure was solely for rationalization of cost, the River program is going to be in trouble.
A report was recently released that the HIMARS wouldn't start to be delivered to the Canadian Army till 2029. So a more logical approach is going for a mix fleet of Chumoos & HPRS systems. Chunmoos can be used by Canadian army units on Canadian soil while the HPRS can be used by Canadian troops deployed overseas. Like we can get the K239 Chunmoo anwhere between 2026 to 2028 while the Canadian Army can receive the HPRS around the 2029 - 2030 time frame 🇨🇦🇰🇷
Also in regards to the F-35, the Swedes are already have plans to replace the Gripen with a stealth fighter of their own by 2035 ... so why waste taxpayer money on a jet that will be replaced in a decade. Just commit to the full order of 88 F-35A stealth fighters, not to mention the infrastructure and training that is already being put in place for the CF-35A 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
2029 funny enough is still ahead of the timeline for when they expected LRPS to delivery! The other issue isnt the transportability but also the munitions. PRSM, compared to the current offerings, is just in a category of it's own.
CTM-X will help close that gap, but by the time ut comes online future PRSM increments will again surpass it. Add on the larger user-group, larger supply chain, and the fact the Americans apparently offered us future PRSM options? It was always gonna be HIMARS.
That isn't to disrespect Chunmoo mind you, I think it's a great platform and I'm impressed with how quickly Hanwha has been able to build out it's portfolio. Its just how things landed with what the RCA demanded.
I agree with buying the South Korean Chunmoos and Howitzers. When I read about our military proceeding with US HIMARS, all I could think was so much for diversifying our military. The South Korean ones are good quality, good price and deliverable sooner. As far as mixed fleet, is that necessary, several European countries like Poland and Estonia use them, so our troops having these in Latvia would be a good fit and having them sooner even better.
On the F35 I disagree, by the same logic, the F47 is going to be available by 2030, so why buy an outdated and over priced F35 when its replacement is around the corner. Buy buying Gripen and setting up manufacturing facilities here, production could shift when that new version is available. Gives us good work horses now and stealthier workhorses later without all the attached strings that come with US fighters. We will still have some F35s in the interim.
Jeremy, going to have to disagree on the F35 comments… block 4 the version we ordered (the one you want to take to a war ) is 5 years behind & currently 6 billion over budget, the F35 currently has only about a 50% aircraft availability rate. They will only be able to fly out of cold lake or bagotville (only places that will have the us designed security hangers)….to get to the arctic they will have to fly with drop tanks….they need 5-6000’ runways….. the infamous f47….i doubt they will be available in 3 years…same country that built the f35..& how many years are they behind…the cost factor is unknown & no one knows if the us would even sell them…they never sold the f22. Far too many unknowns… at least you know what you get with the gripens. If a reliable 6 th gen comes along then look at a purchase….(gcas, french, swedish, us)
Did you mean to reply to ExoticSnake? My comments are in favour of the Gripen and disagreed with the OP that we should only buy F35. I doubt the F47 will be on time, my point was if the Gripen were being produced here we would have capability to adopt new Gripen design and build for our forces when it is ready. But to follow up, no having the F35 based at Cold Lake or Baggotville do not make them useful to get to Arctic or NORAD intercepts armed, and am unaware of fuel extenders for them. Gripen has them. I would prefer to see the Gripen posted at several Air Force bases around the country and specifically in the Arctic. They would be a good workhorse, do well for patrolling without fancy hangars or air strip conditions. I also feel people seeing our forces more makes them more apart of our lives, and fosters more pride, just as building the Gripen would do, and I turn might lead to more interest in joining the forces.
And I don't really see any of the "experts" addressing the abysmal availability numbers. That's the elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned.
I don't like the idea of putting all our eggs in the f-35 basket. Reduce the number of f-35s (though I'm not sure what that reduced number should be) and get a fleet of Gripens. I see the Gripen as complimentary to the f-35, not a replacement for it.
Noah - Love your work. BUT, you have to hire an editor. Your grammar and spelling are abysmal and if you wish people to pay for your product, the aforementioned must be improved. I do not mean to be insulting.
When I last looked at it both the Eurofighter & Rafale had large back orders extending to about 4-5 years. During our fighter competition they withdrew and didn’t want to put any work into norad compatability for something they thought was a done deal (F35).
Yeah, both have had a lot of success recently. It's good to see mind you, although it's likely we'll never know exactly what was said in these conversations, so it makes it hard for me to judge everyone.
RE French contributions - I would love to see the Anglo-French 40CTAS at least trialled for potential MEDCAV integration. Expensive yes but it appears to be scaling up and is deadly capable.
I do love the 40CTAS....
I don’t see the value in the River class. The type 26 was designed to be a good ASW ship and is. But we have made them technical destroyers though they are the least well armed of the Type 26 variants, and yet the Navy wants 15 @ 7 billion a piece and has provided little justification for these particular hulls and price. The corvette program is looking more like frigate which is better, but rather than properly arm them we are nerfing them so they don’t outshine the Type 26. If cost is the real consideration, then axing Rivers pays way for greater diversity in freeing capital.
The Navy seems to be pursuing no AAW ships or even OpMARS or NOMARS. If Australia at 2/3s our population with large coast can invest in a layered Navy of AAW, ASW and recognizing the lack of value proposition for the type 26, reducing their order and investing in a workhorse general frigate that are well armed. The UK is only building 8 type 26 frigates (despite more VLS still a frigate) though for a lot less, and are building Type 83 to provide AAW. They rightfully see these ships as hubs for OpMARS and are building Type 91, 92 and 93 to support the Type 83. Even their Type 26 are going to be given 2 modified Triton Trimarans with extra VLS and weapons to extend their ability, but are under no delusion that the 26 is a destroyer.
Our 26 has SPY 7 that with Aegis and can track more targets than CMS 330, true. But what was the point of giving them this radar if the ships don’t have the VLS capacity to allow them to carry and fire SM-3 or even SM-6 at distant targets. An updated Mogami at 32 VLS can fire SM-2, it would be similarly or better armed than the River at a small fraction of the cost. So why are we all in on these ASW Type 26 frigates as the only tier 1 for our Navy. Are we seriously aiming lower than AUS capabilities? Because I see nothing in the Navy ship replacement strategy that says it is trying not to.
So what do we do? BAE developed a variant of the Type 26 losing the mission bay for 64 VLS midship and retaining 2 boat launchers at each side. This would make the 26 at least an actual destroyer. Lose the Helicopter bay and go UV and incorporate CUBE track on Helicopter port area. But at 7 Billion a piece there is no way we can afford the extra VLS and missiles on top of this ship cost. If we greatly reduce their quantity and bought a couple Aegis AAW ships for cheaper then us building a river we could do 8 River, 4 AAW, and have 12 Aegis hulls. Plus have more money for investing in a good capable general purpose frigate/hub and make investments in OpMARS to better support and enhance our tier 1s. But this doesn’t seem to be the strategy, and unless the Navy starts addressing these costs and defficiencies in its “destroyers”, which I am pretty sure was solely for rationalization of cost, the River program is going to be in trouble.
A report was recently released that the HIMARS wouldn't start to be delivered to the Canadian Army till 2029. So a more logical approach is going for a mix fleet of Chumoos & HPRS systems. Chunmoos can be used by Canadian army units on Canadian soil while the HPRS can be used by Canadian troops deployed overseas. Like we can get the K239 Chunmoo anwhere between 2026 to 2028 while the Canadian Army can receive the HPRS around the 2029 - 2030 time frame 🇨🇦🇰🇷
Also in regards to the F-35, the Swedes are already have plans to replace the Gripen with a stealth fighter of their own by 2035 ... so why waste taxpayer money on a jet that will be replaced in a decade. Just commit to the full order of 88 F-35A stealth fighters, not to mention the infrastructure and training that is already being put in place for the CF-35A 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
2029 funny enough is still ahead of the timeline for when they expected LRPS to delivery! The other issue isnt the transportability but also the munitions. PRSM, compared to the current offerings, is just in a category of it's own.
CTM-X will help close that gap, but by the time ut comes online future PRSM increments will again surpass it. Add on the larger user-group, larger supply chain, and the fact the Americans apparently offered us future PRSM options? It was always gonna be HIMARS.
That isn't to disrespect Chunmoo mind you, I think it's a great platform and I'm impressed with how quickly Hanwha has been able to build out it's portfolio. Its just how things landed with what the RCA demanded.
I agree with buying the South Korean Chunmoos and Howitzers. When I read about our military proceeding with US HIMARS, all I could think was so much for diversifying our military. The South Korean ones are good quality, good price and deliverable sooner. As far as mixed fleet, is that necessary, several European countries like Poland and Estonia use them, so our troops having these in Latvia would be a good fit and having them sooner even better.
On the F35 I disagree, by the same logic, the F47 is going to be available by 2030, so why buy an outdated and over priced F35 when its replacement is around the corner. Buy buying Gripen and setting up manufacturing facilities here, production could shift when that new version is available. Gives us good work horses now and stealthier workhorses later without all the attached strings that come with US fighters. We will still have some F35s in the interim.
Jeremy, going to have to disagree on the F35 comments… block 4 the version we ordered (the one you want to take to a war ) is 5 years behind & currently 6 billion over budget, the F35 currently has only about a 50% aircraft availability rate. They will only be able to fly out of cold lake or bagotville (only places that will have the us designed security hangers)….to get to the arctic they will have to fly with drop tanks….they need 5-6000’ runways….. the infamous f47….i doubt they will be available in 3 years…same country that built the f35..& how many years are they behind…the cost factor is unknown & no one knows if the us would even sell them…they never sold the f22. Far too many unknowns… at least you know what you get with the gripens. If a reliable 6 th gen comes along then look at a purchase….(gcas, french, swedish, us)
Did you mean to reply to ExoticSnake? My comments are in favour of the Gripen and disagreed with the OP that we should only buy F35. I doubt the F47 will be on time, my point was if the Gripen were being produced here we would have capability to adopt new Gripen design and build for our forces when it is ready. But to follow up, no having the F35 based at Cold Lake or Baggotville do not make them useful to get to Arctic or NORAD intercepts armed, and am unaware of fuel extenders for them. Gripen has them. I would prefer to see the Gripen posted at several Air Force bases around the country and specifically in the Arctic. They would be a good workhorse, do well for patrolling without fancy hangars or air strip conditions. I also feel people seeing our forces more makes them more apart of our lives, and fosters more pride, just as building the Gripen would do, and I turn might lead to more interest in joining the forces.
Yes probably….guy with the bad eye sight too boot. Sorry mate.
And I don't really see any of the "experts" addressing the abysmal availability numbers. That's the elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned.
I don't like the idea of putting all our eggs in the f-35 basket. Reduce the number of f-35s (though I'm not sure what that reduced number should be) and get a fleet of Gripens. I see the Gripen as complimentary to the f-35, not a replacement for it.
Does anyone else get "you do not have access to this slido" when clicking the link?
Yup, I think it expired on Monday (um yesterday). OP?
Slido is sometimes mean. Should be fixed!
Noah - Love your work. BUT, you have to hire an editor. Your grammar and spelling are abysmal and if you wish people to pay for your product, the aforementioned must be improved. I do not mean to be insulting.
I like the mistakes because it proves the content is not ai generated.
Noah, keep typing at Mach 10 buddy, we know your just trying to get your stuff out