Gripen or F-35 for Canada?

[crazy canuck]

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

[viper37]

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). 

The two-seat version was not mass produced, I think.  I do not know if the newer F will be a two seat variant.

[viper37]

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.

these are ground operations, like traditional peacekeeping missions of the UN.


I can't think of any bombardment mission involving Canada alone, without US support.  We need facilities to rearm & repair, we can't land on aircraft carriers.  Despite France being part of NATO, Canadians pilots would be unable to communicate with them due to the language barrier.



No, seriously, I do not know if we ever worked out of France or UK aerial bases since WWII.

[grumbler]

None, but I'm not the one making the claim.

You are not claiming something about what Berkut suspects?  In English, the phrase "I suspect" isn't making a claim, it is describing what a person suspects.

[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.

very helpful

Yeah, it is kind of weird to discover that an educated Canadian does not know that, but you are welcome.

[grumbler]

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). 

The two-seat version was not mass produced, I think.  I do not know if the newer F will be a two seat variant.

There were certainly far fewer Bs and Ds produced than As and Cs.  I think that the Swedes just use the two-seaters for training (a quick counts says that about 30 of 250-odd planes ordered were of the two-seat variant), but the Thais and Brazilians are about 1/3 two-seaters (but that might be due to wanting more two-seaters early in the order for training). 

[crazy canuck]

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.

these are ground operations, like traditional peacekeeping missions of the UN.


I can't think of any bombardment mission involving Canada alone, without US support.  We need facilities to rearm & repair, we can't land on aircraft carriers.  Despite France being part of NATO, Canadians pilots would be unable to communicate with them due to the language barrier.



No, seriously, I do not know if we ever worked out of France or UK aerial bases since WWII.

Well at least, unlike Grumbler, you have the intellectual ability to recognize that Canada is involved in NATO missions that do not involve the US.

[grumbler]

Well at least, unlike Grumbler, you have the intellectual ability to recognize that Canada is involved in NATO missions that do not involve the US.

  First Rule of Holes.  You know perfectly well that I have never denied that Canada is involved in NATO missions that do not involve the US.  What I denied was that there was any "requirement that the fighters work with both NATO and the US," given that the US actually is in NATO.