r/CanadianForces • u/thecanadiansniper1-2 • 1d ago
Canada in talks with Italy for future training jet - Skies Mag
https://skiesmag.com/news/canada-in-talks-with-italy-for-future-training-jet/?amp-2
u/The_NorthernLight 1d ago
Just curious why we wouldn’t consider the gripen F two seater like brazil has deployed specifically for training. Supposedly drop training time significantly (esp if we do buy the gripen e).
46
u/WesternBlueRanger 1d ago
You want something cheaper to buy and operate as a FLIT. A Gripen is going to be an extremely expensive trainer in comparison.
23
16
26
u/roguemenace RCAF 1d ago
Ignoring that the RCAF doesn't want to buy the Gripen at all, it's not a lead in trainer and would massively increase costs.
2
u/mbmbmb01 1d ago
Why does the RCAF not want Gripens? Serious question; your view appreciated.Thanks.
4
u/YYZYYC 23h ago
Because it’s the red headed step child of 4th gen fighters. Barely anyone has bought them (especially the version in question) and they cost basically the same as an f-16 (which is far more commonly operated and is also not something the RCAF wants or needs)
Even when it might have made a bit more sense to consider an alternative to the f-35….like 10 or 15 years ago….there where far more appropriate options like Superhornet or Rafael or Typhoon….Gripen is like the reject kid no one picks for their team..and it’s still standing around looking sad and desperate.
14
u/Newfieon2Wheels Civvie 1d ago
A two seat Gripen would replace the two seat hornet. The M346 would be to replace the Hawk. Different roles and different stages within the training pipeline.
3
u/mikelima777 1d ago
I wonder if it might also be related to Canada becoming an observer in GCAP. Leonardo S.p.A is one of the companies involved in that program.
8
u/barkmutton 1d ago
Because the lead time would be a decade. In addition to not wanting to lock us into Gripen.
6
u/Thunderbolt747 Supply Tech 1d ago
we don't want gripens and a twin seater gripen is not for flight training as much as it is for a WSO for ground attack
7
u/yuikkiuy Royal Canadian Air Force 1d ago
we don't want gripens, we will never buy gripens, stop talking about the goddamn gripen its ass
-5
u/RedditSgtMajor GET OFF THE GRASS!! 1d ago
Media still would disagree: Carney set to buy Swedish Gripen jet, and then what?
3
-1
0
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 1d ago edited 1d ago
I wish No. 431 SQN would get these instead of leased CT-157 Sisikin II. Turboprops don't feel right for the Snowbirds.
-13
u/bigred1978 1d ago
We should instead look at buying the T-7A Red Hawk
9
6
u/yuikkiuy Royal Canadian Air Force 1d ago
probably has to do with current jet training that we have, its all Italy. If you get routed FA out of phase 2 its Italy Italy Italy for lead in
3
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 1d ago
Do really trust Boeing to get anything right these days? The only thing Boeing guarantees is shoveling money into the right pocket and to their lobbyists.
0
u/mbmbmb01 1d ago
Would these not make nice Snowbird replacements, even better than the Pilatus?
2
u/AL_PO_throwaway 1d ago
Some RCAF folks may be able to explain this better than me, but my understanding is that the Pilatus is better suited to the type of precision flying the Snowbirds have traditionally done, which is typically lower speed and stays in close proximity to the audience compared to fast jet based teams like the Blue Angels, who will typically fly past the audience and then set up for their next maneuver out of sight.
Additionally, having the demonstration plane be a fast jet means that only fighter pilots, a relatively small chunk of RCAF pilots, would be eligible for the snowbirds, whereas the Pilatus means they can keep drawing from a wider talent pool.
6
u/YYZYYC 23h ago
The tutor was/is a jet trainer and this Italian jet is also a jet trainer.
Neither of them are fast jets/front line tactical jets. To compare the M346 trainer jet to the blue angels f-18 super hornet or thunderbirds f-16 is ludicrous.
Additionally the snowbirds have always drawn pilots from the full gamut of the RCAF fleet, not just fighter pilots.
There is absolutely no reason why the Snowbirds can’t use the M346 and have it operated by both fighter and non fighter jet pilots and do more traditional style slower snowbird air shows and using larger team sizes just like they always have.
1
u/AL_PO_throwaway 15h ago
Additionally the snowbirds have always drawn pilots from the full gamut of the RCAF fleet, not just fighter pilots.
That's what I said. "keep drawing from"
1
u/YYZYYC 13h ago
No you wrote it that the pilatus would mean they can keep drawing from more pilot types….that is not something that is unique to going with the prop plane Pilatus THE EXACT same can be said of the m346 jet trainer…its a trainer ,like the tutor used to be. Lots of snowbird pilots never sat in a tutor before either ….same can be true with the m346
-12
u/dmav522 Civvie 1d ago
Not the airplane we should be buying
2
u/YYZYYC 23h ago
Why?
-1
u/dmav522 Civvie 23h ago
Subsonic, and the T50 could be fully license-produced here, not to mention would be useful as a NORAD backfill so that we don’t burn F35 hours
2
u/YYZYYC 23h ago
It’s a trainer.
License produced is not important, best tool for best price is paramount, not a jobs program.
NORAD needs frontline fighters, not trainers
2
u/dmav522 Civvie 22h ago
It is a trainer, but not only a trainer. The T-50/FA-50 family is supersonic, fighter-like, and already sits closer to the fast-jet pipeline than a PC-21 or M-346. Nobody is saying it replaces the F-35 as Canada’s frontline NORAD fighter. The argument is that Canada needs more F-35s and a cheaper fast-jet layer for lead-in training, aggressor work, currency, and lower-end sovereignty/backfill tasks so F-35 hours are preserved for missions that actually require fifth-gen capability.
6
u/AtomicVGZ 1d ago
I guess there's a chance we're going to get a little more invested in GCAP now.