ALLAN SAID: Sal is SAAB's "system of systems," well on its way to being developed... and how does this influence Canada's decision to partner with SAAB?
SAL-9000 SAID: Absolutely, Allan. Short version: Yes, Saab’s “system of systems” is not a buzzword anymore... it’s largely built, fielded, and maturing.
And that matters a lot for Canada!
***
ALLAN SAID: Is Saab’s “system of systems” real... and how far along is it?
SAL-9000 SAID: Saab’s core idea is distributed, networked combat, where no single platform needs to do everything.
Instead, sensors, shooters, command nodes and allies are integrated into a single, resilient mesh!
Here’s where it already exists, not just on PowerPoint:
1. Gripen E/F as a flying node, not a lone fighter!
Saab designed Gripen E to:
- Fuse data from other aircraft, ships, ground radars, and NATO assets.
- Share tracks without needing constant satellite links.
- Keep fighting even if parts of the network are jammed or destroyed.
In other words: The jet is a participant... not the centrepiece! (A.I. is!)
2. Proven sensors already in service!
This system isn’t hypothetical:
GlobalEye AEW&C (airborne early warning) is operational.
Giraffe and Sea Giraffe radars are deployed worldwide.
Saab C2 systems already integrate air, sea, and land domains.
These plug together today... not in a 2040 roadmap!
3. Designed for contested, jammed environments.
This is key for Canada:
- Built assuming GPS denial.
- Built assuming satcom disruption.
- Built assuming electronic warfare first, not last.
That’s very Arctic-appropriate thinking.
ALLAN SAID: How does this influence Canada’s decision?
It cuts straight to sovereignty, survivability, and leverage.
1. Sovereignty: Canada controls the system.
With Saab:
- Mission software can be modified in Canada
- Data paths are not locked to U.S. servers
- Upgrades don’t require U.S. political permission
That’s a big contrast with U.S.-centric architectures.
2. Arctic realism.
Canada doesn’t need a jet optimized for a deep-strike over Iraq!!!!
It needs:
- Long-range sensing.
- Interoperability with NORAD and independent action.
- Fighters that act as relays for ships, drones, and ground radar.
Saab’s system-of-systems was built for sparse geography and harsh weather, not carrier decks!
3. Industrial return is structural, not symbolic.
A Saab partnership tends to mean:
- Canadian firms writing real code, not just bolting panels.
- Long-term domestic sustainment.
- Export-relevant skills, not one-off offsets.
That aligns with Canada’s stated industrial goals much better than black-box procurement.
4. Strategic flexibility.
A distributed system:
- Scales up or down
- Integrates with NATO without being dependent on it.
Can evolve incrementally, not in massive block upgrades.
That’s lower risk over a 40-year fleet lifespan!
Bottom line! (no hype)
Saab’s “system of systems”:
Exists...
Is operational...
Is evolving in the direction modern warfare is actually going...
For Canada, partnering with Saab isn’t just about an aircraft... it’s about choosing:
- Control over dependence.
- Resilience over centralization.
- Adaptability over rigidity.
SAL-9000 SAID: If you want, next we can contrast this directly with the F-35 ecosystem in the same system-of-systems terms... no politics, just architecture!
ALLAN SAID: YES!
SAL-9000 SAID: Absolutely, Allan. Here’s the clean, architectural comparison, system-to-system, with no procurement spin!
Saab system-of-systems vs F-35 ecosystem! (How they actually work!)
Core philosophy! (This is the real split!)
Saab:
- Distributed, sovereign, dependable.
- Many smart nodes. (Any node can fail without collapsing the system!)
Designed to fight without guaranteed satellites or GPS!
F-35:
- Centralized, exquisite, dependent.
- One highly capable node.
- Performance assumes intact networks. (This doesn't happen in real war!)
Designed for dominance with full U.S. ecosystem access!
Architecture side-by-side:
- Saab - System-of-systems!
- F-35 - Ecosystem Control... Nation-owned... U.S.-controlled!
Mission software... Locked/permissioned!
Data routing, Multi-path, flexible, centralized.
EW doctrine Primary weapon Defensive supplement.
Upgrade model Incremental Block-based.
Industrial access Deep Shallow.
Aircraft role!
Saab: Gripen E.
Saab designed Gripen E as:
- A sensor, shooter, relay, and controller.
- Able to cue missiles fired by other platforms.
Useful even when not firing weapons itself.
The aircraft is valuable even if it never pulls the trigger.
Lockheed Martin: F-35
Lockheed Martin built the F-35 Lightning II as:
- A stealthy information vacuum.
- Optimized to collect, fuse, and pass data upward.
- Lethality is tied tightly to stealth integrity and connectivity.
The aircraft’s value drops sharply if cut off.
Command & data backbone:
Saab.
- Global Eye is already operational.
- Ground, naval, air, and space sensors are treated as equals.
- Data shared laterally... not always “up!”
- If one node dies, others reroute!
F-35.
ODIN (formerly ALIS) is the nervous system.
- Centralized logistics, mission data, threat libraries.
- Long-term sustainment, visibility remains U.S.-based.
- If the backbone is disrupted, everything is disrupted!
Arctic reality check! (This is where Canada matters.)
Saab advantages:
- Works with sparse radar coverage.
- Accepts intermittent comms as normal.
- Designed for cold-weather dispersal ops.
Plays well with ships, drones, and ground radar!
F-35 challenges:
- Relies on persistent connectivity for full capability
- Designed around large, secure bases.
- Cold-weather ops are slowly improving... but not native!
Strategic consequences for Canada!
Choosing Saab means:
- Canada owns its air combat brain.
- Indigenous upgrades are possible.
- Electronic Warfare - first defence posture.
- Easier integration with non-U.S. partners.
Choosing F-35 means:
- Maximum NATO standardization.
- Best stealth strike capability.
- Deep dependence on U.S. sustainment and data flows.
- Limited sovereign modification.
Bottom line!
This is not:
“Gripen vs F-35.”
It is:
Distributed resilience vs centralized supremacy.
For a country defending:
- Vast territory.
- Sparse infrastructure.
- Harsh environment.
- Long timelines.
…Saab’s system-of-systems maps more cleanly onto Canada’s strategic geometry!
SAL-9000 SAID: If you want, next we can:
Map both systems onto a Canadian Arctic scenario, or...
Break this into a blog-ready comparison table, or...
Examine how mixed fleets (Gripen + F-35) would actually behave.
Just say the word!
ALLAN SAID: I thought the Gripens could be used in the Arctic... and the F-35's down south... and for NATO duties!
SAL-9000 SAID: You’re absolutely right... that geographic split is the most natural, efficient, and politically realistic way a mixed fleet would actually be used.
What you described is how air forces tend to behave once theory meets budgets, weather, and alliance politics.
Let’s lay it out cleanly.
The natural division: north vs south:
Gripen → the Arctic & sovereignty mission.
Built almost exactly for this role.
Using Gripen E in the Arctic makes sense because it:
- Operates from short, icy, dispersed runways.
- Needs less ground infrastructure.
- Can be turned around by small crews in extreme cold.
-b Is optimized for intercept, EW, and deny-access... not deep strike... in other words... defence!
Can act as a sensor relay across vast, sparse terrain
In practice:
Alert fighters in the North would be almost entirely Gripen.
Day-to-day NORAD intercepts = Gripen.
Arctic patrols = Gripen.
Dispersed forward bases = Gripen.
This gives Canada continuous northern presence without burning elite assets!
F-35 → southern Canada + NATO.
That’s where the F-35 Lightning II actually fits best.
Down south and overseas, the F-35 benefits from:
Large, well-supported bases.
Stable logistics.
Persistent connectivity.
Close integration with allies.
So realistically:
Southern Canadian bases host most F-35s!
They train primarily for NATO expeditionary roles.
They deploy to Europe for air policing, deterrence, and alliance ops.
They provide Canada’s “gold standard” NATO contribution!
This keeps Canada maximally interoperable without forcing the F-35 into roles it’s not optimized for.
How this behaves operationally.
NORAD reality:
Gripen owns the intercept mission!
F-35 only flies north when something unusual or high-end appears!
Gripen does the “truck driving.”
F-35 is the “specialist!”
NATO reality:
F-35 plugs in seamlessly with NATO strike, ISR, and deterrence.
Gripen stays mostly home, protecting Canadian airspace.
Canada avoids sending its sovereignty fleet overseas unnecessarily.
This avoids the classic mistake of trying to make every aircraft do every mission.
Strategic advantages of this split.
1) Canada keeps control where it matters most.
Northern defence is sovereign-first!
Mission software, EW posture, and basing are Canadian-led!
No political bottlenecks during domestic operations!
2) NATO gets what it actually values.
NATO doesn’t need Canada to send 100 fighters.
It needs:
A credible, modern, interoperable contribution.
Stealth, ISR, and high-end capability.
Thirty F-35s does that job perfectly.
3) Fleet wear and cost discipline.
Gripen absorbs the high-sortie, high-weather-stress flying.
F-35 airframes are preserved for missions where they add unique value.
Sustainment costs stay more predictable.
The quiet bonus: political and diplomatic balance!
This setup also:
Keeps the U.S. comfortable. (Canada still flies F-35)
Keeps Canada independent in the Arctic.
Keeps Europe engaged through NATO.
Avoids putting all eggs in one ecosystem.
It’s a hedged strategy, not a rebellion or a dependency.
Bottom line:
What you described isn’t just reasonable... it’s how the force would naturally self-organize:
Gripen = Arctic shield + sovereignty backbone!
F-35 = southern bases + NATO expeditionary asset.
ALLAN SAID: It seems that the Gripen is designed to be flexible... and the F-35 as part of a system!
SAL-9000 SAID: Yes... That’s a very clean way to put it, and it gets to the design DNA of both aircraft!
- Gripen is designed to be flexible on its own.
- F-35 is designed to be exceptional inside a system.
That single distinction explains almost everything we’ve been circling.
What “flexible” means in Gripen terms.
With Gripen E, flexibility is built into the aircraft and doctrine, not added later:
-
Can operate from roads, short strips, austere bases.
-
Small ground crews, fast turnarounds.
-
Mission systems designed to accept new sensors, weapons, and partners.
-
EW-first mindset: Adapt to the threat in real time.
-
Designed assuming communications will be imperfect.
If Gripen loses part of the network, it just shrugs and keeps flying!
That’s flexibility in the engineering sense, not just the tactical sense!
What “part of a system” means for the F-35.
The F-35 Lightning II is different by intent:
-
Built to sit at the center of a large, integrated combat ecosystem.
-
Relies on:
-
Shared threat libraries.
-
Centralized mission data.
-
Secure, persistent connectivity.
-
-
Sensor fusion is unmatched... when the system is intact!
-
Maintenance, updates, and sustainment are deeply system-linked.
When everything is connected, the F-35 is extraordinary.
When pieces are missing... capability degrades much faster than with Gripen.
That’s not a flaw — it’s a design tradeoff!
Why this matters specifically for Canada.
Canada operates in:
-
Vast territory.
-
Harsh weather.
-
Sparse infrastructure.
-
Politically sensitive sovereignty missions.
-
Two very different operational contexts. (Arctic vs NATO)
A flexible aircraft thrives where:
-
You don’t control all the nodes.
-
You can’t guarantee perfect comms.
-
You need constant presence.
A system-dependent aircraft thrives where:
-
Infrastructure is dense.
-
Allies are nearby.
-
Networks are intact.
-
Missions are planned and coalition-based.
Which maps exactly to:
-
Gripen → North
-
F-35 → South & NATO
The subtle but crucial implication!
This is why mixed fleets don’t blend evenly.
In practice:
-
Gripen pilots are trained to improvise within constraints.
-
F-35 pilots are trained to exploit a rich information environment.
Neither mindset is “better!”
They’re optimized for different realities!
Bottom line. (plain language)
-
Gripen: resilient, adaptable, sovereign-first, thrives in uncertainty.
-
F-35: integrated, exquisite, alliance-optimized, thrives in structure.
Canada happens to need both kinds of strength... but in different places!
No comments:
Post a Comment