Sorry fellas, I did comment on this before here and again: The F35s are way way more superior than the Gripens for any conflict that doesn’t involve fighting the Americans.
If we have to fight the Americans, then we ain’t winning with planes (regardless of whether they are gripens or F35s). In that case, we’re winning with drones (a combination of Ukraine + Iran + Afghanistan).
Quite a few folks pointed to how F35s could be grounded simply by a potential remote kill switch. Again, if we have to fight the Americans, planes aren’t going to be useful in any manner. Our airstrips, maintenance facilities, fuel depots, all of it would be targeted and destroyed first. Gripens, F35s, it doesn’t matter - our planes would be grounded.
Ah sure, MOVING FORWARD, we should not make the mistake of purchasing American stuff again. But for the F35 program, backing out right now would hurt us more, no?
I mean the Danes have an even bigger reason than us to not buy F35s, and even they still went ahead with it in Oct 2025.
Now yes, using “we’ll buy Gripens instead of F35s” as a bargaining tool for the tariffs nonsense is definitely a good idea. Cuz uk, the US defense manufacturers and the GOP are close, and a threat to the flow of money could be useful to make the negotiations happen in our favor.
But if we’re looking at this from the standpoint of pure good faith, where we only look at defense capabilities for ourselves and NATO (through our armed forces), then the F35s are just better, no?
Sure, the SAAB offer to manufacture Gripens in Canada sounds really good. Better for our economy, our pockets. But in terms of raw defense capabilities? Not that much better, is it? Imo, it would just be a bad faith act to ourselves and our NATO allies, where we write “oooh we spent on defense” on paper, but didn’t actually better our capabilities.
Again, please be kind in the responses. I’m NOT a defense analyst, professional or amateur. Knowledge in this matter is low for me. I’m just looking at different opinions presented online and synthesising my own understanding/opinion.
But for the F35 program, backing out right now would hurt us more, no?
We’ve already paid for some of them. The question is if we should buy the rest of the 88, or cut our losses.
I mean the Danes have an even bigger reason than us to not buy F35s, and even they still went ahead with it in Oct 2025.
They also have different needs, don’t forget. It’s a tiny country in the heart of Europe. The Gripen’s one advantage means little there, and there’s no situation they would be up against the US alone.
In that case, we’re winning with drones (a combination of Ukraine + Iran + Afghanistan).
Even that way is iffy. Drones are supposed to be expendable, so you need to build a lot to fight like Ukraine, and have an organised way to deploy them en mass across a front line. We aren’t going to keep a serious American invasion out of our populated areas long enough for that.
In Iran, the US fights entirely from the air with as little risk to American lives as possible. Since we share a border, that’s not really an option for them, if they invade.
Think more Afghanistan, but with unmanned suicide bombers.
Our airstrips, maintenance facilities, fuel depots, all of it would be targeted and destroyed first. Gripens, F35s, it doesn’t matter - our planes would be grounded.
The trick with the Gripen is that it doesn’t need any of that. Just enough people to move it and it’s bombs around, fuel in jerry cans and a dirt runway.
It still costs a lot, though, so the general point about planes being a weird tool for the job applies.
But if we’re looking at this from the standpoint of pure good faith, where we only look at defense capabilities for ourselves and NATO (through our armed forces), then the F35s are just better, no?
Yes.
Or, pretty close. Yes unless NATO is itself in a guerilla war, against aliens, or something.
I’m NOT a defense analyst, professional or amateur.
Me neither, not by a long shot. From the various analyses I’ve consumed over the last few months, the suggestion is that the F35 is superior if you’re attacking another country, but the Gripens just might have the edge defensively.
Our airstrips, maintenance facilities, fuel depots, all of it would be targeted and destroyed first.
This arguably gives the Gripen an edge, since its most famous feature is that it can be deployed relatively easily from highways and other non-standard surfaces.
But yeah, if you set aside the issue of American relations, there are some pretty big questions of doctrine to sort out.
but the Gripens just might have the edge defensively.
Under the very specific conditions where operating it out of the bush is worthwhile, maybe.
If we’re fighting, I dunno, Algeria or Japan in Canadian airspace, the F-35 is still much superior. We have a good chance of defending our airfields against them, and once it’s up the plane has been been compared to a soccer player that’s invisible.
It’s just that if we’re defending ourselves (as opposed to Lithuania) against anything, it’s probably against the US.
Under the very specific conditions where operating it out of the bush is worthwhile, maybe.
The idea was always that the russians will destroy our airbases first and to have the ability to use a road in the middle of nowhere with a minimal crew for maintenance. Optimized for having a large hostile country invading us. Canada currently has a large hostile country nearby, so… it makes sense.
Yes, no disagreement here. If it works in practice in a modern, sensor-rich environment is an open question, though, at least as far as the public knows. And, how much helping our European allies matters, is also a factor. So, there’s still arguments for both sides.
It’s worth mentioning there’s a third option to not buy any planes, and buy more RBS-70 MANPADs (Swedish shoulder-launched missiles for hitting aircraft) with the money. Or maybe a medium range SAM system. I don’t know who’s talking about “none of the above” right now, but if you want maximum guerilla firepower for the cost, that’s got to be up there.
Sorry fellas, I did comment on this before here and again: The F35s are way way more superior than the Gripens for any conflict that doesn’t involve fighting the Americans.
If we have to fight the Americans, then we ain’t winning with planes (regardless of whether they are gripens or F35s). In that case, we’re winning with drones (a combination of Ukraine + Iran + Afghanistan).
Quite a few folks pointed to how F35s could be grounded simply by a potential remote kill switch. Again, if we have to fight the Americans, planes aren’t going to be useful in any manner. Our airstrips, maintenance facilities, fuel depots, all of it would be targeted and destroyed first. Gripens, F35s, it doesn’t matter - our planes would be grounded.
Ah sure, MOVING FORWARD, we should not make the mistake of purchasing American stuff again. But for the F35 program, backing out right now would hurt us more, no?
I mean the Danes have an even bigger reason than us to not buy F35s, and even they still went ahead with it in Oct 2025.
Now yes, using “we’ll buy Gripens instead of F35s” as a bargaining tool for the tariffs nonsense is definitely a good idea. Cuz uk, the US defense manufacturers and the GOP are close, and a threat to the flow of money could be useful to make the negotiations happen in our favor.
But if we’re looking at this from the standpoint of pure good faith, where we only look at defense capabilities for ourselves and NATO (through our armed forces), then the F35s are just better, no?
Sure, the SAAB offer to manufacture Gripens in Canada sounds really good. Better for our economy, our pockets. But in terms of raw defense capabilities? Not that much better, is it? Imo, it would just be a bad faith act to ourselves and our NATO allies, where we write “oooh we spent on defense” on paper, but didn’t actually better our capabilities.
Again, please be kind in the responses. I’m NOT a defense analyst, professional or amateur. Knowledge in this matter is low for me. I’m just looking at different opinions presented online and synthesising my own understanding/opinion.
We’ve already paid for some of them. The question is if we should buy the rest of the 88, or cut our losses.
They also have different needs, don’t forget. It’s a tiny country in the heart of Europe. The Gripen’s one advantage means little there, and there’s no situation they would be up against the US alone.
Even that way is iffy. Drones are supposed to be expendable, so you need to build a lot to fight like Ukraine, and have an organised way to deploy them en mass across a front line. We aren’t going to keep a serious American invasion out of our populated areas long enough for that.
In Iran, the US fights entirely from the air with as little risk to American lives as possible. Since we share a border, that’s not really an option for them, if they invade.
Think more Afghanistan, but with unmanned suicide bombers.
The trick with the Gripen is that it doesn’t need any of that. Just enough people to move it and it’s bombs around, fuel in jerry cans and a dirt runway.
It still costs a lot, though, so the general point about planes being a weird tool for the job applies.
Yes.
Or, pretty close. Yes unless NATO is itself in a guerilla war, against aliens, or something.
Me neither, not by a long shot. From the various analyses I’ve consumed over the last few months, the suggestion is that the F35 is superior if you’re attacking another country, but the Gripens just might have the edge defensively.
This arguably gives the Gripen an edge, since its most famous feature is that it can be deployed relatively easily from highways and other non-standard surfaces.
But yeah, if you set aside the issue of American relations, there are some pretty big questions of doctrine to sort out.
Under the very specific conditions where operating it out of the bush is worthwhile, maybe.
If we’re fighting, I dunno, Algeria or Japan in Canadian airspace, the F-35 is still much superior. We have a good chance of defending our airfields against them, and once it’s up the plane has been been compared to a soccer player that’s invisible.
It’s just that if we’re defending ourselves (as opposed to Lithuania) against anything, it’s probably against the US.
The idea was always that the russians will destroy our airbases first and to have the ability to use a road in the middle of nowhere with a minimal crew for maintenance. Optimized for having a large hostile country invading us. Canada currently has a large hostile country nearby, so… it makes sense.
“Our” being Sweden?
Yes, no disagreement here. If it works in practice in a modern, sensor-rich environment is an open question, though, at least as far as the public knows. And, how much helping our European allies matters, is also a factor. So, there’s still arguments for both sides.
It’s worth mentioning there’s a third option to not buy any planes, and buy more RBS-70 MANPADs (Swedish shoulder-launched missiles for hitting aircraft) with the money. Or maybe a medium range SAM system. I don’t know who’s talking about “none of the above” right now, but if you want maximum guerilla firepower for the cost, that’s got to be up there.
Sorry yes I meant sweden.