Why the Saab Gripen NG is right for Canada

The Saab Gripen NG, capable and affordable.

 If we consider the F-35 not suitable for Canada's needs, what is the alternative?  Despite the argument to the contrary, there are plenty of options available.  Of course, each of those options offers different capability, cost, and political considerations.

Before announcing its selection of the Lockheed F-35, the Canadian powers-that-be briefly considered other fighter designs.  Whether they were given serious consideration or merely paid lip service is for others to debate.  One of those fighter designs was the Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripen (Griffon) NG.

Is the Saab Gripen right for Canada?  Not really...  But the Gripen NG (the NG stands for "Next Generation") is.

Earlier versions of the Gripen flown by the Swedish Air Force.

Designed during the last throes of the Cold War to replace Sweden's aging Draken and Viggen fighters, the Gripen was designed from the outset to be an affordable, easily maintained, easily deployed, multi-role fighter capable of   "JAS", which stands for Jakt (air-to-air), Attack (air-to-surface), and Spaning (reconnaissance).  Despite the availability of off-the-shelf multi-role fighters like the F-16 and MiG-29, Sweden made the choice to keep its proud tradition of self-reliance and neutrality.  It also chose to enter the international fighter sales market, as many countries looked to replace their aging Cold War eqiupment.

Although a perfect fit for Sweden, early JAS 39A/B versions of the Gripen proved to be ill suited for other country's needs.  Short ranged, with no mid-air refueling capability, and a limited weapon selection made it unpopular compared to other heavily marketed fighters.  Later versions, the JAS 39C/D allowed mid-air refueling and ability to mount any NATO weapon or electronics.

Saab Gripen NG technology demonstrator.

No longer content to play second fiddle to other manufacturers, in 2009, Saab introduced a new technology demonstrator.  Addressing the concerns of previous versions of the Gripen, this version was equipped with a more powerful engine, increased fuel capacity, AESA radar, helmet mounted optics, and an increased weapon payload.  The Gipen NG appears to be a formidable fighter, but has the unwelcome challenge of facing off against the massive marketing and political might promoting sales of the Lockheed F-35.

Is it fast?

The GE414 engine, as used in the Gripen NG and F/A-18

With an upgraded engine producing 20% more power than previous versions, the Saab Gripen NG will easily match previous versions' top speed of mach 2.  This makes it faster than Canada's current CF-18 (mach 1.8), and way faster than the F-35 (mach 1.6).  Although not as fast as fighters like the Su-35 or F-22, the Gripen should definitely be considered fast enough.  

Rendering of a Gripen carrying two massive belly tanks, four anti-ship missiles,  infrared tracking pod, two Meteor medium range missiles and two IRIS-T short range missiles.

Again, top speed is of little use if it can only be obtained for short periods of time.  Interception duties require a marathon runner, not a sprinter.  With that new, more powerful engine, the Gripen NG has been proven to supercruise, capable of achieving mach 1.2 with air-to-air missiles needed for interception duties.  

Saab has also developed massive 450 gallon external fuel tanks extending its range even further.  This gives the Gripen a combat radius of 1,300km as opposed to the F-35's 1,100km.  The F-35 has the option of external tanks, but again, this spoils its stealth.

All said, the Gripen would be much more suitable for interception duties than the F-35.  It would be able to reach its target much faster, and at a longer range.

Is it Fierce?

Gripen with air-to-air missiles.

In a word:  Yup.

Despite lacking a stealth design, the Gripen does have a rather small frontal radar cross section (RCS) compared to Canada's current CF-18.  Its use of  non radar reflective materials combined with its smaller size give it a RCS of 1/5th the size of the CF-18.  This doesn't even come close to the F-35 however, but the F-35 needs to make some serious trade-offs for its stealth, like internal weapon storage, higher maintenance, etc.

The Gripen NG's AESA radar

Enemy detection shouldn't be a problem for the Gripen NG, equipped with an AESA radar, infrared search and track system (IRST), forward looking infrared (FLIR), and a helmet mounted display similar to the F-35's.

The Gripen's IR OTIS IRST (infrared search and track) visible  at the base of the canopy.  

What about the F-35's data link?  Well...  Turns out Saab actually pioneered the use of data links in the 60's with the Saab Draken.  Newer Saab jets have continued to update its use, and currently the Saab Gripen is compatible with the LINK 16 standard used in NATO.  Information can be instantly exchanged between the Gripen and all friendly units.

Enemy detection shouldn't be a problem, but what about bite?  While not in the same league as the super-expensive F-22, the Gripen should be able to handle itself in combat.  Being a small, lightweight fighter with plenty of power, canard-delta configuration and a low wing loading, the Gripen is more than capable in a tight turning dogfight.  Modern air combat strategy prefers to stay away from dog-fighting however.  Emphasis is placed on using powerful radars and accuarate, long range missiles to engage the enemy from a safe distance.

Gripen weapon selection.

If modern air combat dictates using advanced, long range missiles, then logic dictates we should equip the very best.  Oddly enough, the F-35 doesn't.  Designed around the American AMRAAM medium range missiles, the F-35 doesn't have much "wiggle room" for mounting larger, longer range missiles.  The Gripen, which mounts its missiles externally, doesn't have this problem,  Its compatible with just about any weapon or bomb used by NATO countries, and should continue to be so.

Weapon options for the Gripen NG.

Capable of carrying anything from a short range infrared missile to a standoff range cruise missile, with a 27mm cannon as backup, the Gripen offers similar firepower to the F-35.   Unlike the F-35, the Gripen offers much more flexibility and the ability to mount cutting edge current or future weapons like the MBDA Meteor and IRIS-T(more on these later).  

Is it Flexible?

Yes.  Ridiculously so.

Throughout the 20th century, Swedish military doctrine was one of self reliance, deterrence, and peacekeeping.  Knowing that it would stand little chance of fending off a superpower like the nearby Soviet Union, all Swedish military units were expected to perform while the country was under active occupation.  This meant that that Swedish aircraft were designed to operate, if need be, without the luxury of a proper airbase.

Airbase or cul-de-sac?  Yes.

The Saab Gripen can take off and land on 800 meters of two lane, snow covered highway.  It can be serviced from a transport truck.  Within ten minutes, five recruits and one technician can get it refueled, rearmed, and ready to fly again.  This means that a Canadian Gripen would be able to land at any Canadian airbase, even during lousy weather.  In a pinch, a Gripen could land at small civilian airports throughout the country.  In a real pinch, Ontario's 401 or a stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway would be enough.

Sweden, like Canada get's it fair share of snow.  No problem for the Gripen.

For foreign deployments as part of NATO peacekeeping forces, a group of ten Gripens can be supported by single C-130 Hercules, with room to spare in the Herc.

The Gripen fuels via a "probe-and-drogue" as currently used in Canada.

How about the aerial refuelling?  The Gripen utilizes a "probe-and-drogue" system as currently used by Canada's current CF-18, along with a great deal of NATO allies, including the U.S. Navy.  Although the older Sweden only A and B models had no inflight refuelling, the newer C and D models along with the "Next Generation" E and F models use the system.  They should have no problems refuelling mid-air from a RCAF CC-150 Polaris or even a CC-130 Hercules equipped with refuelling pods.  Just like the current CF-18 currently does.

Canada could use its many "Hercs" as aerial tankers.

The Gripen doesn't just promise to be low maintenance, it is low maintenance.  Flown for years by Sweden, South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and other countries, the Gripen has a proven track record for being a safe, economical platform.  The Gripen NG uses the same engine as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, making it a well proven and well supported engine.

Is it frugal?

During the last Canadian federal election, the cost of 65 F-35A Lightning IIs was a reported $9 billion.  This has since been scrutinized and clarified to anywhere between $13 biillion to $30 billion.  The truth is, we don't know how expensive the F-35A will be, and probably won't until it has finished development.

What we do know, is that Saab has offered to sell 65 Gripen NGs to Canada, with 40 years worth of maintenance costs for under $6 billion. Saab has also offered that, if Canada wishes, Gripen production could take place in Canada under contract with Bombardier.

The Canadair CF-5.  American design, built in Canada, then sold to other countries.

This offer has some historic significance for Canada.  In 1968, the RCAF began acquiring copies of the Northrop designed CF-5.  Designed as a low cost, low maintenance fighter (sound familiar?), the F-5 was intended for air forces that didn't have the budget for the cutting edge fighters of the day.  Instead of merely purchasing them, Canadian CF-5s were built by Canadair under license.  These Canadian made F-5s weren't strictly purchased by RCAF either.  Canadian CF-5s were purchased by Turkey, Greece, Venezuela, Botswana, and the Netherlands.

Instead of the mere promise of spread out military contracts building minor components, Canada would be find itself back in the fighter business.  Fielding a fighter made on Canadian soil, by Canadians would be a great source of national pride, regardless of where the fighter was designed.  Better still, if Saab is successful at marketing the Gripen to other countries, those fighters may just come off a Canadian assembly line, just like the CF-5 did years ago.

Even if Saab's promise of $6 billion turns out to be off, it would still be highly unlikely that a Gripen purchase would even come close to the price of an equal F-35A purchase.   With the money it saves, Canada could buy more than the minimum 65 jets required, perhaps even enough to replace the aging CT-114 Tutors used by a certain Canadian air acrobatics team.

What to buy with the money saved:  The stealthy X-47A UCAV.

Given the Gripen's cheaper operating and procurement costs, whatever could we do with all that leftover money?  That answer is easy, make a great fighter better by:

1. Training.  Give our military personal the instruction and practice required to be the very best.  Keeping a well staffed, well trained roster is of the utmost importance.
2. Better weapons.  Arm the RCAF Gripen with cutting edge missiles that offer the greatest accuracy and range.
3. UAVs.  Purchase UAVs to supplement Gripen, along with the rest of the RCAF fleet.

The training part is a self-explanatory.  Part of the reason for America's air dominance over Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea was simply due to its pilots being better trained than their enemy.  Canada has a proud history of fine pilots starting with Billy Bishop and Wilfred "Wop" May.  Let's keep that tradition going.

The MBDA Meteor currently being tested on the Gripen.

What about weapons?  First off, the MBDA Meteor BVR (beyond visual range) missile.  Currently finishing development, it promises to be a leap forward compared to the AIM-120 AMRAAM currently used on the CF-18 and F-35.  What makes the Meteor different is its use of a ramjet rather than a conventional rocket motor.  This allows it to alter its speed giving it better accuracy and range.  It uses a 2-way data link between it and its launching fighter to locate its target.  The Meteor will then alter its speed so that it ideally runs out of fuel just as it it hits its target.  Older missiles such as the AMRAAM use a rocket motor that propels them at fixed speed.  Any manoeuvres made cause it to lose energy and accuracy.  Once the rocket fuel is burned out, the missile quickly slows and becomes ineffective.

The Meteor was originally planned for the F-35, but in its current form, can't fit in the F-35's weapon bay.  A modified version is being considered, but so far there are no concrete plans.  The Meteor will be available, however on the Gripen and Typhoon.  It will also be available on the Rafale, but only with a one-way data link.

The IRIS-T, capable of acting as an "anti-missile missile".

For closer, WVR (within visual range) combat, there is the IRIS-T heat seaking missile.  Capable of operating off any fighter that can field the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the IRIS-T offers several improvements over the older missile.  It's groundbreaking feature, however is that it is capable of intercepting incoming missiles, providing the fighter with an extra mean of self defence.  When aided by helmet cueing systems like those used in the Gripen, the IRIS-T can be used to knock out an enemy missile, even if it is coming from behind.  It's important to not that the IRIS-T cannot be mounted in the F-35 weapons bay.

But what about ground targets?  The F-35's weapon bay seems better suited for either short-range Brimstone missiles or precision guided bombs.  These require the fighter to get deep into enemy territory to neutralize its intended target, violating enemy airspace and slipping through defences.  Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot from a safe distance?  Sounds like a job for a Stand-off munition, also known as a Air Launched Cruise Missile, or ALCM.

The Gripen armed with test versions of the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile.

Canada doesn't currently field any form of cruise missile.  Possibly due to budget reasons, possibly due to their reputation as possible nuclear weapons.  Costing up to and over a million dollars a piece, they seem like a rather expensive proposition.  Indeed, guided bombs are quite cheap in comparison.  One must ask however, in a high threat scenario, is it better to use up a $1 million dollar cruise missile, or risk a $100 million dollar jet (and the pilot inside) to neutralize a well defended target?  An ALCM equipped Gripen could launch its payload from 200, 300, even 500km away depending on the missile, taking out priority targets or softening defences enough other fighters to fly in with shorter range weapons.

Canada wouldn't need to seriously break the bank to field ALCMs.  Spain ordered a total of 43 Taurus KEPD 350 ALCM at a cost of €60 million, or roughly $80 million, about the original estimated cost of a single F-35.  With a range of 500km, missiles like these could really keep our fighters a safe distance from enemy defences, performing a role of "aerial sniper".


If stealth is such a "must have" for certain missions, perhaps the money saved by procuring the Gripen over the F-35 would be wisely spent on stealthy unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) like the Northrup X-47A (which uses a Pratt & Whitney Canada engine) or the Dassault nEUROn, which was 25% developed by Saab.  UCAVs make much more sense for deployment to the high threat environments stealth designs are meant to counter.  Also, since they are much cheaper and require less time to develop, they can be more easily replaced as detection technology advances.


Cruise missiles are basically a form of UAV, a "kamikaze" UAV, but a UAV nonetheless.  So let's expand on this.

Canada is a big country with lots of wide, open space to monitor.  In order to maintain its sovereignty, Canada must maintain some sort of presence and keep a watchful eye over its land.  Flying high over miles of frozen tundra doesn't seem like best use of an expensive fighter aircraft does it?  Instead, let's give that job to a UAV.

The proposed "Polar Hawk" UAV.

 Northrop Grumman has proposed a variant of its RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV, dubbed the "Polar Hawk" to Canada as a HALE (High Altitude, Long Endurance) surveillance aircraft, capable of monitoring large areas efficiently.  Oddly enough, the U.S. has recently cancelled orders for the Global Hawk, as the U-2 spyplane is actually cheaper to operate.  This may lead to some bargain pricing on the Polar Hawk as Northrop tries to recover costs.  The U-2, a manned, single engined relic dating back from Cuban Missile Crisis, is certainly NOT suited for arctic patrols.

An marine patrol variant of the Global Hawk, the MQ-4C Triton.

Along with the Polar Hawk, Canada would be wise to also field the MQ-4C Triton, another variant of the Global Hawk built for maritime patrol.  The common platform would help offset some of the costs, which would be considerable at approximately $35 million per unit.  Of course, $35 million is a relative bargain compared to a jet fighter that would cost nearly $100 million.  It is an even bigger bargain compared to the aging CP-140 Aurora's logical successor, the P-8 Poseidon at nearly $200 million per copy.

A hypothetical replacement for the CP-140 Aurora, the "Argus II".

NOTE:  So far, little attention has been paid to the CP-140 Aurora and its need for a replacement sooner rather than later.  Although the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the most likely choice, the Canadian American Strategic Review website, CASR.ca has some rather interesting Canadian made proposals one based on the Bombardier Global Express, and another "Argus II" based on the Bombardier C-Series passenger jet.  Both of these are fascinating proposals that I would support.  (I'm not a huge fan of their proposal to scrap the F-35 purchase in favour of buying F-18G "Growlers" however.)

The future of stealthy strike aircraft, the X-47B UCAV.

In the near future, UAVs will continue to become armed UCAVs.  Although they are not yet, and may never fully replace manned aircraft, they are now part of the airpower landscape.  Canada needs to keep its options open.  UCAV's promise to be cheaper, more stealthy, and have a much quicker development cycle, bringing cutting edge technology to the battlefield sooner.  Future UCAVs promise to be cheaper and stealthier than the F-35.  Being unmanned, they are also a much more logical choice to send into high risk areas.  Canada had better leave some money in the coffers to procure UCAVs in the future, or risk getting left behind.

Conclusion:

Some assembly may be required:  The Ikea jokes would be everywhere!

Faster than the F-35, more fierce, more flexible, more frugal, and the option of building our own Gripens on our own soil.  Heck, we might even convince Saab to call the Canadian made Gripens Arrow IIs instead.  Sure, we might disappoint the American military industrial complex, and a few DND higher-ups may lose their chance at a future high paying lobbyist job for Lockheed Martin, but that seems like a small price to pay.  

In the end, we should be looking at getting the best fighter investment for our money.  If money was no object, we would have convinced the U.S. to sell us F-22s.  If all we need are new planes to fly, we can strap machine-guns to Cessnas.  What Canada needs is "bang-for-the-buck".  The Saab Gripen NG is the clear choice.

A Gripen standing over two UAV prototypes..

Best of all, by purchasing a truly affordable fighter, the RCAF would have money left over in the budget to not only improve pilot training, but buy some force multipliers like more advanced missiles and add some very useful UAV aircraft to the fleet.