Canadian fighter competition

[busnproplinerfan]

Need to start some wars to pay for these new fighters.

[Robin-42]

Roy Braybrook wrote a great article years ago in Air International about how fighters are picked and the rational. In Canada’s case we wanted some more fighters I forget some of the details, but it went down something like this. 

 

Military “We want to look at the following list”

Government “Why isn’t the F5 on it..”

Military “ Waste of time, it doesn’t meet a single one of our requirements.”

Government ”Add the F5”

They then did a paper study, F5 came dead last.

Military, we would like to test fly the following short list.

Government “Why isn’t the F5 on it”

Military “Still came dead last, we don’t want it.”

Government “Test fly it”

They then flew it, and the others.

Military “We want F4’s”

Government “Umm ya, that’s great, we are buying F5’s and building them in Montreal”

 

Nothing ever changes.

[Blimpyboy]

49 minutes ago, Robin-42 said:

Nothing ever changes.

 

You'll take what you're given and you'll like it.

Plus, you'll keep using it when it's well past its use-by date. You hear me...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[exdraken]

4 hours ago, Robin-42 said:

 

Nothing ever changes.

Thing is, the one who pays usually decides and sets the rules... problem is polititians decide, people pay what for the polititian seems best... 

[Hook]

On 8/13/2020 at 5:13 PM, Scooby said:

The Gripen is a non-contender. It won’t qualify. Third world fighter.

Sweden is a third world country..?

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Blimpyboy]

53 minutes ago, Hook said:

Sweden is a third world country..?

 

Damn neutrals!

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[exdraken]

3 hours ago, Hook said:

said:

The Gripen is a non-contender. It won’t qualify. Third world fighter.

Third world? Maybe third in likelyhood of order..

 

How do Gripen and Hornet compare in range?

The C/D might fall a bit short on payload. The E/F might do just right here...

[Blimpyboy]

Inasmuch as the term ‘generation’ represents anything meaningful in the whole gamut of aerial warfare, is the Gripen a fourth or fifth ‘generation’ fighter?

[Hook]

1 hour ago, Blimpyboy said:

, is the Gripen a fourth or fifth ‘generation’ fighter?

Fourth, by the most common use of the term.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Scooby]

17 hours ago, Hook said:

Sweden is a third world country..?

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Most the countries that purchased the jet are as were the failed bids. And not many have sold since they were first introduced in 1988, only 271 airframes sold.

[alex]

On 8/16/2020 at 3:41 AM, Robin-42 said:

Roy Braybrook wrote a great article years ago in Air International about how fighters are picked and the rational. In Canada’s case we wanted some more fighters I forget some of the details, but it went down something like this. 

 

Military “We want to look at the following list”

Government “Why isn’t the F5 on it..”

Military “ Waste of time, it doesn’t meet a single one of our requirements.”

Government ”Add the F5”

They then did a paper study, F5 came dead last.

Military, we would like to test fly the following short list.

Government “Why isn’t the F5 on it”

Military “Still came dead last, we don’t want it.”

Government “Test fly it”

They then flew it, and the others.

Military “We want F4’s”

Government “Umm ya, that’s great, we are buying F5’s and building them in Montreal”

 

Nothing ever changes.

Reminds me a bit of the USAF procurement of the tanker.... if the desired aircraft by the military does not fit the desired aircraft by politicians, cancel the process and change the requirements so that the desired one by politics wins...

 

Alex

[Dave Fleming]

7 hours ago, alex said:

Reminds me a bit of the USAF procurement of the tanker.... if the desired aircraft by the military does not fit the desired aircraft by politicians, cancel the process and change the requirements so that the desired one by politics wins...

 

Alex

 

And the process by which the RAF got the C17

[exdraken]

14 hours ago, Scooby said:

Most the countries that purchased the jet are as were the failed bids. And not many have sold since they were first introduced in 1988, only 271 airframes sold.

Czech republic, Hungary and also Tailand snd South Africa may beg to differ. The bid to Austria failed...because politic prefered/ were convinced to prefere the Eurofighter...

 

[Seahawk]

8 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

And the process by which the RAF got the C17

Why?  What did the RAF really want instead of the C-17, then?

[Slater]

Isn't Brazil building some Gripens under license?

[Dave Fleming]

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

Why?  What did the RAF really want instead of the C-17, then?

 

That was the thing, they wanted the C-17 but it wasn't the most competitive bid in the competition, so they cancelled the competition then worked out the leasing deal with Boeing and the USAF. A few years later the 'lease' was converted to a sale. 

[Seahawk]

1 minute ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

That was the thing, they wanted the C-17 but it wasn't the most competitive bid in the competition, so they cancelled the competition then worked out the leasing deal with Boeing and the USAF. A few years later the 'lease' was converted to a sale. 

Aha, I see.  Thanks for the explanation.  

[Blimpyboy]

Instead of dusting off the CF-105 and Avrocar, how about the Gregor FDB-1 as a candidate?

 

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/cancelled-gregor-fdb-1-180952402/

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Slater]

I think the USAF ought to buy a couple squadrons of Gripens for the aggressor role. 

[upnorth]

21 hours ago, Blimpyboy said:

Instead of dusting off the CF-105 and Avrocar, how about the Gregor FDB-1 as a candidate?

 

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/cancelled-gregor-fdb-1-180952402/

 

Or maybe just revist the Defender 😄

 

 

 

[Giorgio N]

11 hours ago, Slater said:

I think the USAF ought to buy a couple squadrons of Gripens for the aggressor role. 

Why? What advantage would they have over the F-16s and F-18s currently in use for the role? And even if they had an advantage, would this justify the cost of adding another logistic chain?

[Graham Boak]

Because the older aircraft are running out of hours?  The Gripen would be cheaper to operate per hour and would last longer?  Not that I think they should buy it, but those look like strong advantages.

 

Surely however the F-35 is primarily a fighter-bomber not an interceptor?  Who does Canada want to bomb?

[Slater]

They would put the "Dissimilar" in "Dissimilar Air Combat Training".

[upnorth]

51 minutes ago, Slater said:

They would put the "Dissimilar" in "Dissimilar Air Combat Training".

I think that's where the civilian contractors like Draken International and ATAC come into the picture.

 

With the kind of fleets groups like that have been able to put together and the willingness of militaries to pay them for DACT and other such training services, it looks like there isn't the kind of incentive their once was for militaries to have their own large scale aggressor operations.

[Giorgio N]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Because the older aircraft are running out of hours?  The Gripen would be cheaper to operate per hour and would last longer?  Not that I think they should buy it, but those look like strong advantages.

 

 

The problem is that adding a new type, particularly in small numbers, will end up adding so much cost that even if the Gripen is cheaper to operate the overall cost of such a program would make the improvement in cost-per-hour disappear. Using two types for which there is already an infrastructure in place that caters to many hundred aircraft is a big financial advantage. Rebuilding existing Falcons or Hornets would be much cheaper.

 

Yes, a new type would re-introduce proper "dissimilar" training, but in the end the Gripen is not really representative of any potential enemy type, not more than the existing F-16s and F-18s. And if US forces have to train against a Gripen, they can always train with those NATO partners that operate the type.

 

And of course there are the various civilian contractors that do operate different aircraft. Although there are today some doubts about the viability of fighting against types that are becoming less and less representative of potential enemy forces.