Saab is out, pending declaration of an open competition.

So much for my vacation.

It looks like Saab has declined to answer the Canadian government's "questionnaire".  To put it quite simply, Saab is not convinced that the Gripen will be given a fair shake, and that the F-35 is still predestined "winner". 

It's no real surprise. Even after declaring the program "reset", the Canadian government has kept close ties to the JSF program and continues to dump money into the program. This makes any auspices of impartiality completely unbelievable.  Other manufacturers remain unconvinced as well, asking for no less than a full, open competition.

Until a full and open competition is declared, it still appears that the "fix is in" for the F-35.  

Some interesting reading while I'm gone...

Just so I don't leave people completely in the lurch while I'm away, here are some interesting links to check out:

F-35 Reality Check: Part 1 and Part 2

Flightglobal's wealth of past Gripen articles.

The CDA institute's "Replacing the CF-18" Part 1 (Super Hornet) and Part 2 (The Gripen NG)


For those who haven't seen it, here is HBO's "The Pentagon Wars" lampooning the troubled development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and military procurement and development in general.

Also, Nova's documentary on the JSF's development: "Battle of the X-Planes"

And, a documentary on the Eurofighter Typhoon's troubled beginnings:  "Weapon of Mass Construction".

Also, I couldn't resist posting this. (Thanks David!)

On vacation!

Your Star Destroyer, or mine?

Just to let everybody know, I'll be out on vacation for the next week or so.  I likely won't be posting much, nor will I be able to get to your comments as often as I'd like.

I will be sitting on my butt, hopefully coming up with new material, and taking some (much needed) time off my "day job".

I hope everybody enjoys the beginning of summer, wherever you are!

How Saab could score huge PR points in Canada this summer.

Guess which ones won't be flying this year...

One of the most disappointing casualties of the USA's sequestration measures is its air show budget.  Not only are air shows being cancelled in America, but Canadian air shows will also miss out on seeing those impressive USAF and USN aircraft like the F-22, B-2 and C-5 Galaxy.  Perennial acrobatic favorites, the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels, will also be missed.

Let Canadians have a look up close!

But the show must go on.  Canada's acrobatic team, the Snowbirds, have a busy schedule this summer, and there are still plenty of air shows happening in Canada this year.

Extra points for flying in, instead of being towed in by truck.

Lockheed will no doubt begging around touting its F-35 Lightning II. It may even go so far as to bring out an impressive looking array of simulators and possibly even truck in its full size mock up.  If Boeing wants to show off the Super Hornet, it will likely have to do it on its own dime.

Saab should take this opportunity to show off its Gripen F demonstrator. Bring it over here for Canadians to see and learn about. Bring along a C/D model for an aerial demonstration.  Start with CANSEC, and then tour across the country.  Show Canadians an aircraft that flies, instead of a model or a mock-up.

Oh...  And if they want to invite any bloggers for a ride in a Gripen, that'd be okay.

EADS to South Korea: "Buy the Typhoon, and we'll help you build your own fighter!"

This is interesting...

KAI KFX Concept.

South Korea is not only currently in the market for a new fighter, but it is actively (now with help from Indonesia) developing its own indigenous stealth fighter (KF-X) for future production.  Candidates for the new fighter (F-X) include the Lockheed F-35A Lightning II, Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle, and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

F-35A (top) and F-15SE (bottom)

If South Korea decides to buy the F-35, Lockheed has offered to provide help with the KF-X, although how much of its technology it can share will be at the behest of the Pentagon.

Eurofighter Typhoon.

EADS, one of the contractors (and marketing source) for the Eurofighter Typhoon has now gone so far as to offer $2 billion along with a technology transfer if South Korea chooses the Typhoon over the two American jets.

I wonder if any of the five manufacturers vying for Canada's CF-18 replacement would be willing to help Canada develop an "Arrow II".

Happy Gripen customers.

Here's a nice little promotional video, with current Gripen customers singing its praises.  Yes, its shameless PR, but that's no different what Lockheed and Boeing are doing.

Czechoslovakia may be trying to negotiate a slightly more favorable lease arrangement, and South Africa is having a few troubles with staffing pilots (which would certainly happen with any other fighter), but all-in-all, Gripen costumers seem to be rather happy as a group.  Dont'cha think?

Canada's military shopping list:

Canada's military is in desperate need of equipment.  Years of tight budgets, cancelled projects and indifferent policy makers has left the Canadian Armed Forces with aging equipment.  At the same time, new technological breakthroughs like UAVs have yet to see widespread deployment in the forces.

To put things in perspective, here are some (not all) of the current replacement and procurement projects underway in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Improved combat uniforms.

SARP II small arms replacement project.

Multiple rocket launcher.

Automatic Grenade Launcher.

Anti-tank guns.

New M777 Howitzers.

New trucks.

APCs.

Infantry fighting vehicle.

LAV III upgrade.

Stealth Snowmobile (no, really!)

Arctic Patrol Ship.

Joint Support Ship.

Single Class Surface Combatant.

Amphibious Assault Ship (may be part of the SCSC project)

JUSTAS (UAV)

UCAVS.

Chinook heavy-lift helicopter.

Still waiting on those Cyclones...

Fixed-wing SAR (search and rescue)

Snowbird replacement.

CP-140 replacement (not yet official, but imminent.)

CF-18 replacement.

DND Headquarters will move into what used to be the Nortel campus .

Some of these projects, like the JUSTAS and UCAV, could easily be amalgamated.  Some new projects, like the Amphibious Assault Ship, may prove to be simply too expensive, while projects like the "Stealth Snowmobile" will prove too frivolous.  Others, like the Snowbird replacement, may face the harsh reality of budget cuts and be disbanded completely.

Some of these projects are hideously expensive.  The standouts here are the CF-18 replacement and the new navy warships.  Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy will see the Royal Canadian Navy through a much needed modernization, but its cost is estimated to be around $33 billion over the next 30 years.  Much has been said about the CF-18 replacement, with estimates for the F-35 approaching $46 billion.

With military budget cuts now the norm, Canada is going to have to make some very difficult choices when it comes to procurement.  The toughest decisions will be how to do (and buy) more, with less.

The F-35 will be a great strike fighter... But that's not what Canada needs.

Contrary to some of the posts I have made on this blog, I don't see myself as a "F-35 hater".  I prefer to see myself as a "F-35 realist".  There is simply no denying that the JSF program has been controversial, as well it should be for a government contract that is years behind schedule and billions over budget.  I have no doubt, however, that the F-35 will eventually make up the backbone of American air power, as well as playing a dominant presence in the rest of the world's air forces.  I also believe that the F-35 will be a formidable strike fighter when serving alongside F-22s, Typhoons, and Super Hornets.

My ire towards the Canadian F-35 selection is because it is simply not right for Canada's only multi-role fighter.  It's simply a matter of balance.  The JSF is a "Strike" aircraft first, meant to penetrate into enemy territory, drop bombs on enemy assets, and then return safely to base.  Some might argue that the F-35 will be a highly successful air-to-air fighter as well, but I'm not buying it.  Why?  Because so much of the aircraft is built around its ground attack role.

The F-35's EOTS.  

The F-35's equivalent to the IRST (infrared search and track), called EOTS (electro-optical targeting system) is on the bottom of the plane...  Facing down, towards ground targets.  This is because the EOTS also replicates the Sniper XR pod currently used for ground attack targeting.  If it works as advertised (in the above video) the EOTS promises great ground targeting abilities.

PAK FA prototype

Saab Gripen

Dassault Rafale

Su-35

Eurofighter Typhoon

Other multirole aircraft, especially those that focus on the air-to-air role almost invariably house their IRST systems just at the base of the cockpit...  Facing up, mimicking the pilots point of view. Why?  The better to see enemy aircraft, and then fire a missile at said aircraft, if needed. 

Of course, the F-35 will also have its EO DAS (electro-optical distributed aperture system) consisting of sensors located around the plane but this system is more defensive in nature.  Try as I might, there is little information to be found on the effective range of the EO DAS for use in "locking on" to an enemy fighter.  Traditional IRST's have a range of 50-80 km or more, depending on the target's heat signature. Whether or not the EO DAS can match this is likely "classified" for the time being.  Will the F-35's combination of EOTS and EO DAS match a traditional IRST in the ability to find, identify, and target enemy aircraft?  With both Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft in the pipeline, IRST abilities will become increasingly important for air-to-air engagements.

The F-35 shows of 2 2000lb JDAMs (in red)

Further proof of the F-35's predominant strike role can be seen in its weapon bay design.  By default, the F-35 is intended to carry 2 AMRAAM missiles, along with 2 other weapons internally.  The weapon bays themselves were designed to fit the 2000lb JDAM guided bomb.  Other weapons, like smaller bombs, Joint Strike Missiles, and can also fit based simply on the fact that they are smaller than the "bunker buster" JDAM.

1 AMRAAM, 1 bomb.

Needless to say, another AMRAAM can fit in the bomb "slot".  There is also talk about the ability for 2 AMRAAMs to fit there in the future, but so far there appear to be no definite plans.  Unlike the F-22, there is no current way to carry the heat seeking AIM-9 Sidewinder missile internally.  They can fit on an external pylon of course, but again, this renders the F-35 unstealthy.

The B-17, comparable payload to an F-35.

Of course, stealthiness is not always needed, so for that, the F-35 can store up to 18,000lbs worth of weapons when using external pylons.  This exceeds the Gripen, the Typhoon, even the Super Hornet's abilities as a "bomb truck".  To put this in perspective, when combined with the F-35's internal fuel storage, this give it better range and payload to a B-17 bomber!

CF-18s over Kosovo (top) and Libya (bottom).  Notice the light bomb loads.

But...  Canada hasn't had need of a bomber since WWII.  Recent ground attack missions in Libya typically saw CF-18s fitted with 2 guided bombs combined with AMRAAMs and Sidewinders for self defense.  The CF-18's service over Bosnia was to enforce a no-fly Zone, meaning strictly air-to-air, combined with similar (2 bomb) light strike missions.  Operations over Iraq during the first Gulf War were similar, providing air cover and light strike missions.

"Take off, Hoser!"  (CF-18 and Tu-95 Bear)

By far, the CF-18's most important role has been in air policing.  During the Cold War, and even since, the CF-18's main role has been to keep foreign aircraft out of Canadian skies.  Although they are credited with "punching above their weight" during coalition actions, they didn't provide any service that could not be performed by another allied fighter.  On the other hand, only Canadian fighters can defend Canadian airspace.  This mission requires fast jets with air-to-air capability.  The USAF has F-22s stationed in Alaska, an aircraft that's capable of supercruise, supermaneuverability, and carries a mix of IR homing and radar homing missiles.

The Sidewinder slinging, supercruising, supermaneuvering, F-22.  How the USA keeps their skies clear. 

Would the F-35's stealth and greater bomb load made much difference over Iraq, Bosnia, and Libya?  Doubtful.  Will it make a difference in the future?  Possibly, but it's hard to say for sure.

If the F-35 finally matures into the fighter it is designed to be, it will undoubtedly be one of the best strike aircraft the world has ever seen.  But is that what Canada needs?  Do we need the ability to carry B-17 equivalent bomb loads into enemy territory?  Do we need to sneak into enemy airspace undetected?  Does stealth help us intercept incursions into our airspace?  The answer to all these questions is "No."  The F-35 may be a very capable strike fighter, but what its capable of, Canada doesn't need.

Canada's needs seem to favor an aircraft capable of interception, aerial superiority, and light strike.  With the F-35's slower speed and questionable aerial superiority claims, the JSF may be overqualified in one area, at the expense of the other two.

Gripen for America? Wait... What?

Hold on.  Stay with me...

I am in no way suggesting that the USAF, USN, and USMC abandon the JSF in favor of the Saab Gripen.  No way that is ever going to happen, ever.  The USA has too much invested in the F-35 project at this point and it is simply "too big to fail".  The idea of Boeing and Lockheed, two of the US's largest defense contractors (and lobbyists) being passed up in favor of a foreign maker's design is simply too unrealistic.

But the JSF isn't the only military aircraft program on the go for the USA right now...

Recently celebrating 50 years as the USAF's supersonic trainer, the Northrop T-38 "Talon" has served as a trainer, chase plane, simulated aggressor, and even a stint in the USAF Thunderbirds demonstration team.  It's been used by the USAF, USN, and even NASA.  Based on the simple and low cost F-5 "Freedom Fighter", the T-38 certainly has had a long and successful run.

The T-38's time is coming to an end however, long out of production, it is set for replacement in the 2020 timeframe.  The Pentagon has initiated the early stages of the "T-X" program.  Early favorites are the BAE Hawk, KAI T-50 Golden Eagle, and Alenia Aeronautica's T-100.  The requirements call for a "high performance, two-seat military jet trainer aircraft" capable of:

...sustained high-G operations, air-refueling, night vision imaging systems operations, air-to-air intercepts, and data-link operations.

Ultimately, the T-38 replacement's job will be to prepare pilots for the Super Hornet, F-35, F-22, the upcoming F/A-XX, as well as future fighters for decades to come.  Needless to say, lower operating cost, high sortie rate, and commonality with existing US systems would certainly be a bonus as well.   Starting to sound familiar?

Two seat, common parts, cheap to run, high sortie rate...

The Saab Gripen was developed with much of the F-5's design philosophy; an affordable, "no frills" fighter aircraft requiring minimal maintenance.  The "NG" adds plenty of high tech (and likely expensive) gizmos bringing it to modern age, but the airframe remains mostly the same.  A two-seat JAS 39F, without IRST, weapon systems, and other "high-dollar" options could prove to be a suitable replacement for the T-38.

Gripen F cockpit.

F-35 cockpit.

The proposed Gripen E/F cockpit has many similarities with the F-35 cockpit, both forgo the traditional HUD (heads up display) in favor of a helmet mounted display.  Both move away from traditional dials and MFDs (multi-functional display) and instead place information on a large customizable touchscreen.  Both utilize "sensor fusion" and data-link capability.

As I have mentioned before, the Gripen F also utilizes the GE414 engine as used in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.  The possibility of carrier compatibility for the Gripen should also be considered a definite advantage for training USN and USMC pilots.

The USAF is also looking for a trainer that will allow an easier transition to the supercruising, high performance (and high flying cost) F-22.  The current T-38 is woefully inadequate, resulting in increased training hours needed for F-22 transition.  Needless to say, this isn't financially desirable. 

The Gripen is also well suited to the light attack role, as well as being an excellent choice for an "Aggressor" model to simulate enemy combatants.  It's similarities to the Chinese J-10 are almost uncanny.  Current aggressor aircraft are also simply not enough challenge for the F-22 and are likened to "clubbing baby seals".  This forces F-22s to pit against each other in order to be sufficiently challenged, again driving up costs.  A Gripen aggressor, especially fitted with AESA radar and IRST, would likely bridge this gap somewhat.  The F-22 is still likely the only viable aggressor suitable to simulate a PAK FA or J-20, however.

It could happen...  Maybe...

I believe that the Gripen E/F is the best choice for Canada, partly because Saab has offered to build them in Canada.  While 65-80 jets certainly doesn't seem like a large production run, that production line could easily be kept open for years with further export sales. A decontented Gripen F should be heavily marketed towards the USA as a replacement for the T-38.  With numbers approaching 1000, the T-X program would be highly worth it.  Some might say that the USA would never "buy Swedish-Canadian" after stepping away from the JSF program, but Canada has certainly bought enough American made military hardware in the past, present, and future, to render this argument moot.

Would a "Griffon Trainer"be a suitable T-38 replacement?  Only the Pentagon could say for sure, but I believe it would.  Better still if Canada could help them procure it.

[NOTE:  Since publishing this post, I came across this article, stating that Saab is considering a Gripen based trainer for the T-X competition.]