Gripen or F-35 for Canada?

[viper37]

Currently it is absolutely combat ready. That is simply not true to state otherwise.

I find it interesting that your "evidence" that the aircraft  "ain't combat ready" is that a simulator is not ready! Well done. Did you actually read the article or just the headline?

And if it *currently* performs at at a 4.5gen level, then by definition that is already superior to a 4th gen level....right?

And what is the Gripen? Oh right...a 4th gen fighter.

And yes, lord knows there has never once been a common frame for both carrier and non-carrier variants that was a successful fighter. F-4 Phantom? What a piece of shit that was.

Gripen E is 4.5gen level, like the F/A 18F.


And I did say the problem was making an aircraft carrier ready and vtol ready at the same time.  It's clear compromises had to be made.


Range without refueling might not be so important for a nation with aircraft carriers to move its aircrafts around, but I figure it might play in the criterias for Canada.  A plane like the Rafale could cross the ocean without refueling once.

I like that you look at a comparison page, say you "like it" and then conclude from it that absent stealth (which shows how little you understand what the 5th+ gen combat environment looks like - stealth IS the 5th+ gen combat environment) the Gripen is better....when the comparison you cite does not say that at all.

I never said the Gripen was a 5thGen fighter.

Instead, it says that the F-35 beats Gripen in nearly every single category that is relevant:
Better BVR
Better Avionics
Better Tech
Better radar
Better defense

Sure it beats it, not by much, but it beats it.  On paper.  All of this is theoritical, the latest live tests showed and F-16 outperforming the F-35.  I want to believe it's better now, after a few years or ironing out bugs.


And I did say the F-35 was the best fighter of the two.

I guess this just goes back to your previous comment: You like the Gripen because you imagine buying it might piss off the Americans. Which is rather amusing in and of itself, but a bit pathetic.

One of those pathetic foreigners commenting on the issue here....  Oh wait.  He's US Air Force.


Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.:
[/size][/size]The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' [fighter], we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight."[/size]"I want to moderate how much we're using those aircraft," Brown said.
[/size]Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force's roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn't bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.
[/size]Like I said, the US can afford multiple different aircrafts for many different purposes.  You could have a fleet of F-35 and F-22 maintaining air superiority in a fight against China and Russia and use an F-16-analog plane for operations in the middle east.  Canada could not afford the costs to maintain such a diverse fleet.
[/size]I don't know if the Gripen suits our needs.  I know the F-35 would, if it works.  But it's darn expensive.  Had the F-35 been ready 10 years ago, the picture would be different.  As of 2019, it wasn't ready for combat, and it still does not seem operational for all the missions it's supposed to accomplish.

If the cost per plane is similar, this is not an even close competition.

Since we do not yet know the costs, it's a bold statements to make as most sites make the Gripen E much cheaper than the F-35, a product many in your own army does not seem to like that much.

[viper37]

The "Made in Canada" label doesn't always work out well.  BC Fast Ferries anyone?

At this point, avoiding the potential problems with Trump 2.0 might be worth getting an inferior aircraft.

[viper37]

How much of a debate is there in Canada about whether or not Canada should even concern itself with the capability to participate in a US or NATO action in the future?

To participate in a US action: it depends.  The opposition to the 2nd Iraq war was pretty strong.  The opposition to the Balkan wars were pretty moderate.

To participate in a NATO action in the future: weak to moderate opposition.  I guess it depends against whom.  Russia has very good useful idiots, on the right and on the left.  I suspect opposition to a NATO intervention in Ukraine would be moderate.  Against China, weak opposition at best.  Against a middle east nation, moderate to strong opposition.

[grumbler]

I liked this site's comparison, but I don't know how accurate the cost part is:
https://aviatia.net/saab-gripen-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/

That's not the Gripen Canada is looking to buy.  And the cost part is inaccurate for both the F-35 and the new Gripen F (though it may be for the Gripen D it is using in its comparison).

There's a reason that everyone who's had to make the choice between the two has chosen the F-35.  That reason may not apply to Canada, but no one has found the Gripen F to be cheaper in lifecycle costs than the F-35.

The current plans is for the Gripen E.  Gripen F is a future possibility, in a mixed fleet.

I thought the E was the two-seat version.  My mistake.  In any case, the plane in the comparison is the JAS 39 C/D (see the length of 14.1 M). 

[grumbler]

Since we do not yet know the costs, it's a bold statements to make as most sites make the Gripen E much cheaper than the F-35, a product many in your own army does not seem to like that much.

We know the bid costs for the Finnish and Swiss competitions, and the F-35 was cheaper than the JAS 39 in both.  The slightly higher cost of the Gripen for Canada might be offset by the increased percentage of the cost to be spent in Canada, making its net cost lower.

[Jacob]

Jacob would be in an internment camp. 

I'm hoping to be a high level mediator, able to build trust with both side.

[HVC]

Jacob would be in an internment camp. 

I'm hoping to be a high level mediator, able to build trust with both side.

That sounds a lot like what a collaborator would say

[Jacob]

Jacob would be in an internment camp. 

I'm hoping to be a high level mediator, able to build trust with both side.

That sounds a lot like what a collaborator would say

... but it might not work. I guess we see the way the conflict might spiral out of control. So much distrust

[Valmy]

When it comes time for Jake to bayonet a Dane in the bloody battles on Hans Island will he hesitate? Probably. You are either 100% Canadian or NOT CANADIAN AT ALL!!!11

[crazy canuck]

In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.   

[alfred russel]

When it comes time for Jake to bayonet a Dane in the bloody battles on Hans Island will he hesitate? Probably. You are either 100% Canadian or NOT CANADIAN AT ALL!!!11

You are with us or against us!

[Valmy]

When it comes time for Jake to bayonet a Dane in the bloody battles on Hans Island will he hesitate? Probably. You are either 100% Canadian or NOT CANADIAN AT ALL!!!11

You are with us or against us!

By jingo you are correct sir!

[grumbler]

In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

[crazy canuck]

In the modern age - given the political instability of our neighbours to the South, and Canada's commitment to NATO - that could well occur again.  Hence the requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

There have been a number of NATO operations involving Canadian troops that have not involved the US.


A current example is the Canadian led battle group in Latvia.

The US is in NATO.  If you can work with NATO, you can work with the US.  The two are not exclusive.

very helpful

[Razgovory]

You missed a chance for a good laconic quip:  "Today".