https://skiesmag.com/features/saab-grip ... et-canada/
Avatar
BY JAMIE HUNTER | JANUARY 12, 2021
Estimated reading time 14 minutes, 12 seconds.
“Gripen E meets and/or exceeds all of the Canadian requirements. It’s an efficient, modern fighter, and it’s the latest development on the market.” So says Anders Håkansson, Saab’s deputy campaign director for the company’s participation in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).
Canada’s protracted search for a new fighter aircraft to replace its aging McDonnell Douglas CF-188 Hornets has narrowed to a field of three competitors. The U.S. manufacturing giants of Boeing and Lockheed Martin are respectively offering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35A Lightning II, with Sweden completing the trio with Saab’s latest incarnation of Gripen — the single-seat E variant.
While Saab is often cited as an excellent model for cost-effectiveness — company marketing literature refers to Gripen E as “the smart fighter” — actual capability is sometimes overlooked. So, does Gripen E have the requisite muscle to give the U.S. heavyweights a run for their money in this important campaign?
The Canadian Requirement
The complex saga of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF’s) CF-188 recapitalization project includes Canada becoming a partner in the multinational F-35 program back in 1997. This enabled Canadian industry to gain a foothold in the global supply chain for the stealthy fighter, and Canada ultimately planned to purchase 65 F-35As. But the then-Prime Ministerial candidate Justin Trudeau pledged to overturn the F-35 deal — forcing a competition rather than a straight, non-competed acquisition of Lightning IIs.
Fast-forward to July 31, 2020, and formal responses to a request for proposal were submitted to Ottawa by the three remaining interested parties in the FFCP. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale had already withdrawn from the race, making this a three-way chase for the prized contract.
The $11 to $15 billion FFCP calls for 88 fighters to be procured through an open competition, with the aircraft required to enter service from 2025 and be sustained to around 2060. Canada will select a winner by late 2021 using a formula that assigns 20 per cent to industrial offsets, 20 per cent to cost, and the remaining 60 per cent to overall capability.
As the sole non-U.S. candidate, Sweden’s Saab appears to be an outsider — maybe even a stalking horse. However, Saab is heavily committed to Canada with a strong, but understated, offering that shouldn’t be underestimated.
While Gripen E’s moniker aligns it with the lineage and ethos of its Gripen A-D predecessors as capable but “affordable” fighters, the E is a very different beast in many ways. With seven aircraft now in various stages of flight-testing, one aircraft now at its Brazilian test centre, and initial deliveries to the Swedish Air Force planned for 2023, Gripen E’s program is gaining momentum.
Gripen E is a subtly beefed-up variant of the original Gripen in terms of airframe, but under the surface it couldn’t be more different. With 10 external hardpoints, Gripen E can carry up to seven MBDA Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missiles — a weapon that has been eyed enviously by the U.S. in comparison to its AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
Combined with the Leonardo ES-05 Raven radar, it gives Gripen E impressive detection and engagement ranges. On top of the nose sits a Leonardo Skyward G infrared search and track (IRST) sensor for passive tracking and targeting.
The cockpit features an 18-by-nine-inch-wide area touch screen display, and the pilot operates in an immersed world of fused data that is constantly updated via a fighter-to-fighter data link — as well as connectivity to other agencies via Link 16. Sweden has been working in this connected world for decades, reaching way back into the era of Saab’s Viggen fighter.
Meeting the Canadian Requirement
According to Håkansson, Saab’s assessment is that Gripen and its offer to Canada meets and/or exceeds all of the stated requirements, including meeting Canada’s obligations under the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) mission of providing air defence for Canada and the U.S. Though program officials cannot reveal the exact parameters, which remain classified.
The geographic scale of Canada must mean that range and endurance are two significant factors. With a 40 per cent growth in internal fuel capacity, Saab has clearly set out to address any perceived shortcomings of the earlier Gripens.
“Part of the reason we developed Gripen E was with range and endurance in mind — plus the more powerful F414 engine and other modifications,” said Håkansson.
One of the aces up Gripen E’s sleeve is its electronic warfare system. It’s completely new and provides what Saab refers to as a “digital shield.”
“The idea was not to build a geometrically stealth aircraft that would be obsolete long before the life expectancy of the fighter, due to continuously and exponentially growing new technologies that target geometrically stealth aircraft,” explained Håkansson. “We added an EW system that solves the issue electronically, and that will continue to develop exponentially because no one knows what threats are evolving.”
The embedded system combines active and passive systems to help protect the aircraft, which is cleverly combined with a 360-degree spherical missile approach warning system. “We have an airframe that is stressed for 8,000 hours . . . and Gripen E has the most advanced sensor fusion,” he said. “You can put the aircraft into an automatic mode and it suggests almost everything to the pilot so they can concentrate on the big picture, as well as the details.”
Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover
“The jewel in the crown is our avionics system — and that you cannot debate. No one else has that,” declared Håkansson.
Saab’s Johan Segertoft led a team that masterminded Gripen E’s revolutionary agile avionics architecture, which is attracting huge interest from other aerospace manufacturers. Saab set out to build a system that acknowledged computer technology is advancing like never before, with a mindset of embracing exponential growth in software code.
“Gripen E is the vessel that will bring you to the fight,” explained Segertoft. “The computer power is what will win and take the pilot home.”
He asserted Gripen E’s avionics design is truly unique, already realizing the type of agile performance desired by U.S. manufacturers. Saab’s approach has been explained as being akin to applications on a smartphone, where the operator tailors applications to their own preferences and without regard to hardware considerations that otherwise would slow the implementation. This means customers can design and develop their own software, enabling rapid introduction of new technologies and systems to deal with ever-evolving threats.
Explaining traditional avionics architecture, Segertoft said: “To solve an upgrade requirement, the operator today buys a new piece of equipment, such as a new radar, bolts it onto the aircraft and puts a new screen in the cockpit.”
To further explain this approach to upgrades, he used the analogy of buying an iPhone, but to get a new application on it you have to send it back to Apple and wait for three to five years to get it back! However, that is the legacy approach to complex integration issues in a highly regulated world. Safety in the aeronautical industry drives enormous cost.
While most modern avionics systems separate safety-critical elements from the tactical side, Gripen E has harnessed the ability to take both and run them seamlessly as onboard computers are upgraded. This allows Gripen E to immediately benefit from the exponential increase in computing capacity.
Saab said between the first flight of the prototype Gripen E (serial 39-8) on June 15, 2017, and the first flight of the second aircraft (39-9) on Nov. 26, 2018, all of the onboard computers were changed to upgraded systems providing more computer power.
“Changing computers like this is typically calculated in years — we measure it in days,” explained Segertoft. “We changed hundreds of software components — 40 per cent of which were certified to the highest level — all without compromising airworthiness. Our vision has always been coding in the morning and flying it in the afternoon, and we are very pleased with where we are.”
This philosophy makes it easy to add, delete, and modify coding, or to include third-party or partner involvement. Brazil, the first export customer for Gripen E, is already developing software and feeding it back into the main development program in Sweden.
Patrick Palmer, Saab’s executive vice-president of marketing and sales in Canada, said: “The avionics are a unique feature that we have created through years of engineering work. We are now offering Canada the sovereign capability . . . to sustain, upgrade, and enhance through the whole life of the fighter.
“This is not just about aircraft performance; you also have to be able to upgrade the aircraft under specific rules and regulations. We have designed the weapons suite [offered in FFCP] to meet Canadian requirements, but there are many options we can offer in future — any weapon on the market — and our avionics make it really easy to integrate them.”
Capable and Affordable?
Not only does Gripen E offer impressive features, but Saab also said the aircraft has the lowest associated maintenance costs. “It has been designed into the aircraft from day one, it was a driving factor,” said Håkansson.
The aircraft is designed to be serviced and turned around by a small team, even in austere locations. Referring to operations in Arctic conditions, Håkansson said Gripen was “born in the snow.”
Saab has a proven track record when it comes to local industry participation and offset agreements. It has formed a Canadian industrial team combining IMP Aerospace and Defence, CAE, Peraton Canada and GE Aviation. “To build, sustain, and upgrade in Canada is something we have solved through our avionics system and with Canadian employees,” said Håkansson. “The focus of our business is that we will bring a lot of new business through high value Canadian jobs that will further Canada in its knowledge.”
Clark Bain, senior VP of strategic development at IMP, said: “The relationship we have with Saab… they are very open to transferring genuine knowledge. For IMP, not only are we going to build Gripen in Canada, we’re also going to get the benefit of all that technology and knowledge transfer.
“This is going to be the first time in generations a fighter will have been built in Canada. Saab has a network of partners and suppliers across the country, so certain parts will be manufactured within the country, and then we will assemble the aircraft, support the integration activity, and initial flight trials. In terms of final assembly and integration tests, that’s all happening in Canada.”
IMP will absorb this knowledge so it can manufacture and support the aircraft through their life. IMP already has a close and longstanding relationship with the RCAF, and it expects to continue this theme if Gripen is selected for Canada — spearheading the sustainment of the aircraft and the sovereign control in Canada.
“When this competition first came about, we looked at which teams we may want to join,” said Bain. “It was pretty clear to us that easily the best value for Canada was going to be Gripen, and now COVID-19 means affordability is even more important.”
While Saab cannot to go into detail, its existing relationship with Brazil as the first export customer for Gripen E is a good indicator of what it has offered to Canada. Brazil has genuine, close involvement and is spearheading development and manufacturing of the two-seat Gripen F.
For Canada, the evaluation process for its new fighter is expected to continue into 2021, with an award sometime in 2022 — in time for deliveries from 2025. Despite Canada’s obvious political pressure to buy an F-series fighter from its neighbour, Gripen offers a compelling case to meet the country’s needs and boost industrial know-how.
Why Saab’s Gripen E could make perfect sense for Canada
- Scudrunner
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:18 am
- Location: Drinking Coffee in FBO Lounge
- Contact:
5 out of 2 Pilots are Dyslexic.
-
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:29 pm
- Contact:
No doubt a great great aircraft, but one often overlooked piece is the logistical support package that it may require.
Soory gents, Canadians often think of their military as defensive in posture, not offensive. You have a massive commitment to NATO, and NATO has gotten in to a few tussles over that last number of years: OEF and OIR come to mind. One of the heaviest lifters in those fights is the US, (I'm not bragging, but I'm trying to lead you to the point). The US built and used F18 is a known quantity, the logistical support train overseas is a mile long, and the ability to sustain the fight is well established.
The Swedes, (good God I love their women..) will have to supply a logistical package in the forward environment. Imagine a fuel pump going out on the Gripen's fancy engine. If the maintainers have one on the shelf, great. If not, one will have to come from somewhere. The aircraft will be non-mission capable until that fuel pump can be installed.
The assumption is that the CanFor dudes, and the USN/USMC/USAF will be co-located on the field. Having a General command you to give up a fuel pump to your northern neighbors, so they can get their aircraft back in the fight, happens all the time.
You're looking at 5-6 hours of downtime, vs days.
Or is it based solely on unit acquisition cost?
We shall see, just like the helicopter fiasco.
Soory gents, Canadians often think of their military as defensive in posture, not offensive. You have a massive commitment to NATO, and NATO has gotten in to a few tussles over that last number of years: OEF and OIR come to mind. One of the heaviest lifters in those fights is the US, (I'm not bragging, but I'm trying to lead you to the point). The US built and used F18 is a known quantity, the logistical support train overseas is a mile long, and the ability to sustain the fight is well established.
The Swedes, (good God I love their women..) will have to supply a logistical package in the forward environment. Imagine a fuel pump going out on the Gripen's fancy engine. If the maintainers have one on the shelf, great. If not, one will have to come from somewhere. The aircraft will be non-mission capable until that fuel pump can be installed.
The assumption is that the CanFor dudes, and the USN/USMC/USAF will be co-located on the field. Having a General command you to give up a fuel pump to your northern neighbors, so they can get their aircraft back in the fight, happens all the time.
You're looking at 5-6 hours of downtime, vs days.
Or is it based solely on unit acquisition cost?
We shall see, just like the helicopter fiasco.
Twin Beech restoration:
www.barelyaviated.com
www.barelyaviated.com
- Scudrunner
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:18 am
- Location: Drinking Coffee in FBO Lounge
- Contact:
Lets face it if we (Canada) get into it anywhere the boys and girls sporting the Stars and Stripes will be beside us (if not then we are really fucked )
So big brother USA comes through with the wiz bang F22 and B2's for air superiority and then Canada and the others follow is kind of how I see it going.
Canada has a choice you either be a contained power with all those capabilities or you're a player on the team NATO.
Wasn't it about a year ago the pulled the trigger and they have already been operating them for 6 months?
But again no politics was involved in handing money to Bombardier. Personally I would have bought the Global 7500 because its far more capable and just better. However the optics of that wouldn't have been good because its not a political move at all of course.
So big brother USA comes through with the wiz bang F22 and B2's for air superiority and then Canada and the others follow is kind of how I see it going.
Canada has a choice you either be a contained power with all those capabilities or you're a player on the team NATO.
It's amazing how fast they procured those Challenger 650 to take Trudeau to Barbados in when someone finally said the old 601 aren't up to it anymore.
Wasn't it about a year ago the pulled the trigger and they have already been operating them for 6 months?
But again no politics was involved in handing money to Bombardier. Personally I would have bought the Global 7500 because its far more capable and just better. However the optics of that wouldn't have been good because its not a political move at all of course.
5 out of 2 Pilots are Dyslexic.
- Colonel
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
- Location: Over The Runway
I know everyone hates hates hates Stephen Harper - in many ways, he
was a forerunner of Trump in Canada - but he went ahead and just procured
some C-17's.
There was screaming screaming screaming from the Left that fucking hated
everything Stephen Harper did (I know, he's Satan, got that) and the bureaucrats
went fucking insane, because he showed that you didn't need them to get military
equipment - and GET IT FAST.
Dear Old Dad got in shit when they were getting the -104. The costs and delays
associated with change were prohibitive, in his opinion, so he said to take it "as-is".
The bureaucrats went fucking insane. A Colonel (not me) took him aside and
explained the facts of life to Dear Old Dad ... there was a huge collection of
bureaucrats that made a living, fucking up military equipment for Canada,
and if they took the -104 "as-is", all those bureaucrats would be out of a job.
Just like when Stephen Harper bought some C-17's "as-is". I know Canada
thinks he is Satan, but I think he was the best PM of the last 100 years.
And, that's probably why I don't live in Canada any more, and TC threatens
to take away my Canadian citizenship.
was a forerunner of Trump in Canada - but he went ahead and just procured
some C-17's.
There was screaming screaming screaming from the Left that fucking hated
everything Stephen Harper did (I know, he's Satan, got that) and the bureaucrats
went fucking insane, because he showed that you didn't need them to get military
equipment - and GET IT FAST.
Dear Old Dad got in shit when they were getting the -104. The costs and delays
associated with change were prohibitive, in his opinion, so he said to take it "as-is".
The bureaucrats went fucking insane. A Colonel (not me) took him aside and
explained the facts of life to Dear Old Dad ... there was a huge collection of
bureaucrats that made a living, fucking up military equipment for Canada,
and if they took the -104 "as-is", all those bureaucrats would be out of a job.
Just like when Stephen Harper bought some C-17's "as-is". I know Canada
thinks he is Satan, but I think he was the best PM of the last 100 years.
And, that's probably why I don't live in Canada any more, and TC threatens
to take away my Canadian citizenship.
45 / 47 => 95 3/4%
-
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:21 am
"Balance of payment" is a big thing in purchasing new aircraft. If you buy it off the shelf, all the money leaves the country.
If you can build it under licence, you're out the licencing fee but money stays at home.
However, as I understand it, the F-101 acquisition was a little different:
"The USAF indicated that it was prepared to make 56 F-101B interceptors and 10 F-101F trainers available (by employing Convair F-102 Delta Daggers in less demanding NORAD sectors) for Canadian purchase. The deal was delayed for over a year by negotiations over acquisition costs and offsets, as well as debate within the Diefenbaker government about Canada adopting nuclear weapons systems, which had been agreed to, in principle, in 1958. The financial arrangements were sorted out by Canada taking over the staffing and funding of 11 Pinetree Line radar stations within Canada that had formerly been operated and funded by the USAF. A detailed agreement signed in June 1961 covered the transfer of the aircraft, meant to equip five front-line squadrons (replacing nine CF-100 squadrons) and an Operational Training Unit (OTU)."
I never flew the Voodoo, but I think the deal worked out OK... (I did have a back seat ride in Comox in '67)
If you can build it under licence, you're out the licencing fee but money stays at home.
However, as I understand it, the F-101 acquisition was a little different:
"The USAF indicated that it was prepared to make 56 F-101B interceptors and 10 F-101F trainers available (by employing Convair F-102 Delta Daggers in less demanding NORAD sectors) for Canadian purchase. The deal was delayed for over a year by negotiations over acquisition costs and offsets, as well as debate within the Diefenbaker government about Canada adopting nuclear weapons systems, which had been agreed to, in principle, in 1958. The financial arrangements were sorted out by Canada taking over the staffing and funding of 11 Pinetree Line radar stations within Canada that had formerly been operated and funded by the USAF. A detailed agreement signed in June 1961 covered the transfer of the aircraft, meant to equip five front-line squadrons (replacing nine CF-100 squadrons) and an Operational Training Unit (OTU)."
I never flew the Voodoo, but I think the deal worked out OK... (I did have a back seat ride in Comox in '67)
- Colonel
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
- Location: Over The Runway
All of a sudden, Barbados Beach Bunny is concerned about the taxpayer's money?!If you buy it off the shelf, all the money leaves the country.
You do realize that he thoughtlessly financially crippled the country for decades to come?
Really, you need to learn about this thing called "irony".
45 / 47 => 95 3/4%
-
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:21 am
"...concerned about taxpayers money..."
Unless you have information to the contrary, I do believe every government from back in the fifties was concerned with 'balance of payments'.
Harvard
Sabre
T-33
F-5
F-104
I do believe all were built in Canada under licence. I don't know what happened with the CF-18...
I don't understand the comment about Barbados... I've never been there. Flew the Tutor to the Bahamas in '67...
Unless you have information to the contrary, I do believe every government from back in the fifties was concerned with 'balance of payments'.
Harvard
Sabre
T-33
F-5
F-104
I do believe all were built in Canada under licence. I don't know what happened with the CF-18...
I don't understand the comment about Barbados... I've never been there. Flew the Tutor to the Bahamas in '67...
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:50 am
First: I've seen a lot of press about the Gripen coming from Skies Mag in the last little while. Let's not forget that they are a business that makes money off advertising revenue.
Second: After an extensive evaluation the RCAF landed on the f-35 as being the most capable and having a heavy share of industrial spin off revenue for Canada and we were already heavily invested in it. The deal was done and announced. And just like Chretien cancelled the EH-101 to replace the Sea King, Trudeau cancelled the F-35. So we pay millions in cancellation penalties and turn around and buy the EH-101 anyway, albeit for SAR but the cost of acquisition would have been much lower had we added the SAR platforms onto the EH-101 ASW order. For the fighter program we canned the F-35, bought RAAF decommissioned fighters (that still aren't online) and went back to the drawing board. I think the problem the Liberals have now is that they discovered that the F-35 WAS the RIGHT choice but can't admit they made a bad political decision. Instead we arrive at a point where our frontline fighters are pushing 40 years old!!! While the avionics and war-fighting kit has been updated, there comes a point after 40 years of Gz that an airframe becomes useless or cost prohibitive to repair.
The whole process is infuriating to the folks trying to do the job. The government spends more time trying to figure out how to get spinoffs for Quebec than it does in making sure its forces are equipped with the kit they need to do the job in a coalition environment.
The Challenger replacement is just a total let-down. Both in the speed that it was achieved and the fact that they picked the wrong airplane. The Global was the right pick. Again, morons...
So ANGRY!!!!!
Second: After an extensive evaluation the RCAF landed on the f-35 as being the most capable and having a heavy share of industrial spin off revenue for Canada and we were already heavily invested in it. The deal was done and announced. And just like Chretien cancelled the EH-101 to replace the Sea King, Trudeau cancelled the F-35. So we pay millions in cancellation penalties and turn around and buy the EH-101 anyway, albeit for SAR but the cost of acquisition would have been much lower had we added the SAR platforms onto the EH-101 ASW order. For the fighter program we canned the F-35, bought RAAF decommissioned fighters (that still aren't online) and went back to the drawing board. I think the problem the Liberals have now is that they discovered that the F-35 WAS the RIGHT choice but can't admit they made a bad political decision. Instead we arrive at a point where our frontline fighters are pushing 40 years old!!! While the avionics and war-fighting kit has been updated, there comes a point after 40 years of Gz that an airframe becomes useless or cost prohibitive to repair.
The whole process is infuriating to the folks trying to do the job. The government spends more time trying to figure out how to get spinoffs for Quebec than it does in making sure its forces are equipped with the kit they need to do the job in a coalition environment.
The Challenger replacement is just a total let-down. Both in the speed that it was achieved and the fact that they picked the wrong airplane. The Global was the right pick. Again, morons...
So ANGRY!!!!!
- Colonel
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
- Location: Over The Runway
Tradition is a big thing. Politicians use the military budget not primarily for the militaryThe government spends more time trying to figure out how to get spinoffs for Quebec than it does in making sure its forces are equipped
but to buy votes in their districts, with taxpayer money.
It's hard to be too cynical about this ... the Left assure us that this kind of political influence
by corrupt politicians never happens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin_affair
Just another corrupt day in Ottawa. Nothing to see here, folks. Business as usualEthics Commissioner Dion issued a report that concluded that Trudeau had contravened Section 9 of the federal Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressuring Wilson-Raybould
from the Barbados Beach Bunny.
45 / 47 => 95 3/4%
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post