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.
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.