Sunday Series: #1. Canada, True North Strong and Free!

***

Aviation Lovers is in Toronto!

The comparison between the top speeds of the Saab Gripen E and the Lockheed Martin F-35 highlights a fundamental difference in design philosophy. 

The Gripen E is a Mach 2.0 aircraft, capable of reaching speeds of approximately 2,450 km/h at altitude. 

In contrast, the F-35 is rated at Mach 1.6, or about 1,960 km/h. 

When you do the math, the Gripen’s top speed is exactly 1.25 times faster than that of the F-35 ($1.6 \times 1.25 = 2.0$). 

This "speed gap" is not an accident; while the F-35 was designed to prioritize low-observable stealth and sensor fusion, often trading raw speed for a smaller radar cross-section, the Gripen was engineered as a high-speed, agile interceptor capable of rapid response and "supercruise" (sustaining supersonic flight without using fuel-heavy afterburners).

For a country like Canada, this 25% speed advantage has practical implications for Arctic sovereignty. In the vast, open stretches of the North, the ability to close the distance to an unidentified aircraft quickly is a vital part of the "interception" mission that the Avro Arrow was originally built for. 

While the F-35 relies on being a "silent killer" that enemies never see coming, the Gripen E uses its superior kinematic performance and Mach 2.0 dash speed to reach a target area faster. 

This makes the Gripen a spiritual successor to the high-speed doctrine of the 1950s, providing the "sprint" capability necessary to police the world’s second-largest airspace effectively.

Canada's "Buy Canadian" Defence Push: What It Means for Building Saab Gripen E Fighters in Canada!

Canada’s “Buy Canadian” Defence Push: What It Could Mean for Building Saab Gripen E Fighters in Canada.

Canada’s military and government are signalling a stronger preference for Canadian industrial content in future procurement. That shift could materially affect any renewed debate about domestic production of the Saab Gripen E.

Why “Buy Canadian” Is Back on the Table.

In plain terms, “Buy Canadian” defence procurement is about keeping more of Canada’s defence dollars inside Canada. The logic is straightforward: stronger domestic supply chains, more skilled jobs, and greater resilience if international politics or exports disrupt access to parts and support.

In practice, this usually means favouring bids that deliver:

• Canadian final assembly (or major sub-assembly) rather than simple subcontracting.
• Canadian supplier networks that can deliver components and services over decades.
• Technology transfer. (So Canada isn’t locked into foreign-only upgrades)
• In-country maintenance and lifecycle support (MRO) to reduce strategic dependence.

If Ottawa becomes more serious about enforcing these goals, it will influence which aircraft programs are politically and economically attractive... especially on big-ticket platforms like fighters.

How This Connects to the Saab Gripen E Proposal.

Saab’s long-standing Canadian pitch has been built around industrial participation and domestic production options. A “Buy Canadian” shift tends to favour bids that can credibly deliver Canadian assembly, Canadian suppliers, and Canadian maintenance capacity.

That is why “Buy Canadian” messaging... if it becomes policy rather than rhetoric... could make a Canadian Gripen line more plausible, particularly if paired with a broader Canadian aerospace strategy! (training pipelines, export ambitions, and long-term maintenance hubs)

What Would Have to Be True for Gripens to Be Built in Canada.

A key reality: No company builds a major fighter assembly line without a committed order. If Canada were to pursue a Gripen option (either as a full replacement or as part of a mixed fleet), Ottawa would have to structure the deal to make domestic production unavoidable... not optional.

In practical terms, a Canada-built Gripen outcome would likely require:

1. A multi-decade order size large enough to justify a Canadian line.
2. Guaranteed Canadian content thresholds. (parts, labour, sustainment, upgrades)
3. Contract language that binds the production plan to milestones.
4. Clear sustainment commitments so Canada controls maintenance and availability.

The Catch: U.S. Components and NORAD Reality.

Even “built in Canada” does not automatically mean “independent of U.S. approvals.” Modern fighters typically rely on a multinational supply chain. If a platform includes U.S.-origin components (engines, sensors, avionics, weapons interfaces), U.S. export rules may still apply.

There’s also the strategic environment: Canada’s fighter force must remain highly interoperable with the United States for NORAD and broader allied operations. That requirement tends to favour platforms deeply embedded in U.S. and NATO systems.

This is why some Canadian defence debates drift toward a mixed fleet concept: maintain a core capability aligned to allied expeditionary operations, while also building an Arctic-focused force with maximum Canadian industrial participation.

Three Plausible Outcomes.

1) All F-35. (Simplest, But Less Canadian Industry)

If Canada commits fully to one platform already anchored in U.S.-led supply chains, Canada can still gain subcontract work, but final assembly and full sovereignty over sustainment are harder to guarantee.

2) Mixed Fleet. (Most Politically and Industrially “Balanced”)

A mixed fleet approach could allow Ottawa to keep strong interoperability and still secure domestic production and sustainment work on a second platform. If “Buy Canadian” becomes a serious priority, this scenario becomes more attractive.

3) All Gripen. (Maximum Industrial Benefit, Highest Political Friction)

A Canada-built Gripen fleet could maximize Canadian industrial participation, but it would face heavier scrutiny on interoperability, U.S. component exposure, and long-term political sustainability.

Bottom Line.

If Canada’s defence establishment truly prioritizes domestic content, it naturally increases pressure to choose procurement paths that create real Canadian production and sustainment capacity. That dynamic makes the idea of building Saab Gripen E fighters in Canada more plausible... but only if Canada is willing to structure an order large enough, strict enough, and long enough to force the outcome.

If Ottawa wants sovereignty, it has to buy sovereignty... on paper, in contract clauses, and in actual industrial infrastructure.

Here's one Canadian solution that will help things along!!!

I was curious to see if anybody would take my suggestion to only buy the first batch of F-35s from the States... ["That we already paid for!"]  ...then we could look around for something that was better [And cheaper] for Canada!

So, I asked the Perspective Research Department's A.I. SAL-9000: (HAL-9000's Twin... Along with CAL-9000!)

Sal: Which is better for Canada... Gripen E-series jets, the Dassault Rafale, or the Eurofighter Typhoon?

SAL said:

Certainly, Allan. Here's a comprehensive three-way comparison of the Saab Gripen E, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon, specifically tailored to Canada's defense, financial, industrial, and political needs in 2025. I’ve broken this down by major factors that Canada must consider when selecting a fighter platform.

---

🇨🇦 Canada's Needs Summary

Before diving in, let’s remind ourselves of Canada's unique defense profile:

• NORAD obligations require long-range patrol and interoperability with the U.S.

• NATO commitments require multirole flexibility and combat-readiness.

• Sovereignty enforcement over vast Arctic and maritime zones.

• Budget sensitivity and industrial offsets (jobs, tech transfer).

• Desire to reduce U.S. dependency under current trade/political strains.

---

✈️ Overview of the Jets

Jet	Origin		Cost	Multirole?	NATO-Interoperable?
Saab Gripen E	Sweden		$85–95M CAD	Yes	Fully NATO-capable
Dassault Rafale F4	France		$100–120M CAD	Yes	Yes
Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4/5	Germany/UK/Italy/Spain		$130–150M CAD	Yes	Yes

---

🔧 1. Operational Capabilities

Category	Gripen E	Rafale F4	Eurofighter Typhoon T4/5
Range (combat)	~1,500 km	~1,800 km	~1,390 km
Max Speed	Mach 2	Mach 1.8	Mach 2
Payload	7.2 tons	9.5 tons	9.0 tons
Radar	AESA (Raven ES-05) + IRST	AESA (RBE2-AA) + IRST	AESA (Captor-E) + IRST
Stealth / RCS	Low RCS, small frame	Moderate stealth	Larger RCS, no stealth shaping
Suitability for Arctic Ops	Excellent	Good	Moderate (cold weather upgrades exist but limited field use)

➡️ Verdict: Gripen E is ideal for cold-weather, dispersed operations. Rafale leads in payload and versatility. Typhoon is the fastest but was originally designed for air dominance, not strike flexibility (improved since Tranche 3/4).

---

🛠️ 2. Industrial Benefits to Canada

Category	Gripen E	Rafale	Eurofighter
Tech Transfer	High – Sweden offers full IP transfer	Medium – France offers partial transfer	Low – Euro consortium unlikely to share deep tech
Domestic Assembly	Possible (Brazil & Czech deals had local assembly)	Limited – Dassault resists foreign assembly	Unlikely – complex supply chain across Europe
Canadian Jobs Potential	High – Saab committed to local production	Medium – Dassault offers offsets	Low – Mostly European jobs
Export Collaboration	Yes (Saab promotes joint export deals)	Possible, but France retains control	No – tight European export control

➡️ Verdict: Gripen E is the best option if Canada wants domestic production and long-term tech independence. The Rafale is decent but more centralized. Eurofighter is European-centric and less flexible industrially.

---

💰 3. Cost and Logistics

Category	Gripen E	Rafale	Typhoon
Acquisition Cost (fleet of 88)	~$8–9B CAD	~$10–11B CAD	~$12–13B CAD
Operating Cost/hr	~$7,500 CAD	~$17,000 CAD	~$20,000+ CAD
Maintenance Footprint	Low (single engine, modular design)	Medium (twin-engine, complex avionics)	High (expensive parts, complex logistics)
Lifecycle Cost (30 years)	Lowest	Mid	Highest

➡️ Verdict: Gripen E wins on affordability and ease of maintenance. Rafale is acceptable but costly. Typhoon is expensive both upfront and over time.

---

🌐 4. Geopolitical and Strategic Fit

Factor	Gripen E	Rafale	Typhoon
U.S. Independence	High	High	Medium (UK is a U.S. ally)
Five Eyes Compatibility	Medium – improving	Medium – independent systems	High – UK is Five Eyes
NATO Interoperability	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent
Export Freedom	High – Sweden rarely restricts buyers	High – France acts independently	Medium – EU consortium restrictions
Diplomatic Leverage	Moderate	High (France is assertive)	Complicated (multi-country consortium)

➡️ Verdict: Rafale and Gripen give Canada independent leverage. Typhoon is too politically entangled for a truly sovereign Canadian procurement.

---

🧩 5. Integration and Future-Proofing

Factor	Gripen E	Rafale F4	Typhoon T4/T5
Open Architecture	Yes – easy to integrate 3rd party systems	Somewhat open	Closed – heavily Euro-standardized
AI/Autonomy Features	Yes (future-proofed for drone teaming)	Yes (F5 roadmap)	Improving with Project Centurion, but slower
Sensor Fusion	Very good	Excellent	Good
NATO Data Link / Interop	Full	Full	Full
Upgrades Timeline	Rapid (Saab has agile dev cycles)	On track for F5	Slow – needs consortium approval

➡️ Verdict: Gripen offers flexibility and agility. Rafale is well-integrated but slower to adapt. Typhoon suffers from bureaucratic inertia.

---

🏁 Final Summary and Recommendation for Canada

Criteria	Best Choice
Cost	Gripen E
Industrial Benefits	Gripen E
Multirole Combat Performance	Rafale
Range and Payload	Rafale
Sovereignty / Arctic Ops	Gripen E
Future Growth / Modularity	Gripen E
Political Independence	Tie: Gripen / Rafale
Ease of Integration into NORAD/NATO	Rafale / Typhoon

---

🏆 RECOMMENDED RANKING:

1. 🇸🇪 Saab Gripen E – Best for sovereignty, cost-efficiency, cold-weather readiness, and local industrial impact. A pragmatic choice for an independent and cost-sensitive Canada.

2. 🇫🇷 Dassault Rafale F4 – Excellent multirole capabilities and combat range, but costlier with fewer industrial concessions. Strong option if performance trumps price.

3. 🇪🇺 Eurofighter Typhoon – Advanced but expensive and politically complicated. Less suitable for Canada's independent defense and industrial goals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 15, 2025

Government Defence Review Recommends Saab Gripen E as Canada’s Next-Generation Fighter Jet

Ottawa, ON — Following a comprehensive defence capability review, Canada is poised to recommend the Saab Gripen E multirole fighter aircraft as the most strategic and cost-effective solution to replace the country’s aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets.

The review, conducted by independent defence analysts and experts in Arctic security, NORAD interoperability, and industrial policy, evaluated two leading contenders: the Saab Gripen E (Sweden) and the Dassault Rafale (France). 

The Gripen E emerged as the top recommendation for Canada’s evolving defence priorities!

“This aircraft is a perfect match for Canada’s operational environment, fiscal framework, and industrial ambitions,” the report states. “The Gripen E will strengthen our Arctic sovereignty, enhance NORAD integration, and bring high-value aerospace jobs back to Canadian soil.”

Key Highlights of the Recommendation:

Arctic-Ready: Designed for extreme weather, the Gripen E offers unmatched performance in northern environments—critical for Canadian sovereignty operations.

Interoperability: Fully compatible with NATO and NORAD systems, ensuring seamless collaboration with allies, especially the United States.

Economic Benefits: Saab has offered extensive technology transfer and the potential for domestic assembly, fueling Canada’s defense manufacturing sector.

Cost Efficiency: With one of the lowest operating costs among Western fighters (~$7,000/hour), the Gripen E allows Canada to sustain a full fighter fleet without burdening future defense budgets.

Strategic Shift Toward Sovereignty and Sustainability.

This recommendation marks a strategic shift away from reliance on expensive, high-maintenance platforms and toward agile, affordable, and sovereign defence capabilities. 

In a time of increasing global instability and Arctic competition, the Gripen E offers Canada independence, security, and control over its skies. “Canada must be prepared for tomorrow’s threats, not yesterday’s battles,” said one defense analyst close to the review. “The Gripen is the smart fighter for a smarter defence policy.”

Next Steps:

The final decision on procurement remains with the federal cabinet, which is expected to deliberate in the coming weeks. 

If approved, Canada could move quickly toward formal negotiations with Saab, potentially establishing Canadian assembly lines and long-term support infrastructure.

For media inquiries, interviews, or a full copy of the recommendation report, contact:

Media Relations – Department of National Defence

📞 1-800-DEFENCE

✉️ media@forces.gc.ca

🌐 www.canada.ca/defence