-
While 16 F-35 fighters remain contractually committed for delivery starting this year, the full 88-jet procurement is stalled amidst trade friction with the Trump administration.
-
Rising program costs—now estimated at $30 billion—have reopened the door for Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen E.
-
The Gripen offers superior industrial benefits, including 12,600 domestic jobs and Arctic-optimized maintenance.
-
Ottawa must now balance the F-35’s unmatched NORAD interoperability against the Gripen’s economic sovereignty as the aging CF-18 Hornet fleet reaches its structur
They’re exceptionally reliable, and better than anything else at what they do. He went back on this word because he was actually put into rooms with airforce experts who made that clear, and he didn’t expect the US to turn evil at the time.
Cost Per Flying Hour F-35A: $36,000 - $48,000 USD Gripen E/F: $7,000 - $36,200 USD Difference: ~25-75% cheaper for Gripen (varies by source) Maintenance Hours Per Sortie F-35: 20-25 man-hours Gripen: 6-8 man-hours Difference: Gripen requires ~70% less maintenance labor Operational Availability (Readiness) F-35: 70-75% Gripen: High 90% range Difference: Gripen achieves roughly 2x readiness rate Total Lifecycle Cost (8,000-hour lifespan) F-35: ~$400 million (operations only) Gripen E: ~$180 million (operations only) Difference: F-35 costs ~2.2x more to operate
Nice. I’m guessing the F-16 would be closer to the F-35?
And then any other stealth aircraft is going to blow both out of the water.
They’re getting blasted out of the air in Iran right now. One confirmed with a second loss possible. How many F-16s has Ukraine lost in combat? I’m not saying the F-16 is a better aircraft than the F-35 but I think it does show that “stealth” isn’t all that and an “old” aircraft like the F-16 or (for that matter) Gripen, with a modern sensor and weapons load-out, is actually pretty similar in capability.
Then what’s dropping all the bombs straight onto Iran, lol?
Meanwhile, Ukraine keeps their F-16s well behind enemy lines fighting cheap drones.
I thought they said the F35s were terriblly expensive to maintain per hour of flying. Things can seem reliable in air if most of their time is on the ground getting replacement parts, and adjustments, but that quickly can lose a war by expenses.
They are very expensive per flight hour, yes, but that’s not the same thing as being unreliable. It’s a high end weapon with a high end price tag.
Yes, that’s my point, you can lose a war by expenses if your equipment needs a ton of preventative maintenance to stay reliable.
I mean, saying that any single factor is why you “lose a war” is completely ignoring how incredibly complex warfare is. No one loses a war because of one piece of equipment.
But if we were to take that framework as true, it would be just as fair to say that you can lose a war by having inferior equipment.
There are a lot of factors that go into military procurement decisions. That’s a part (albeit a small one) of why they take so damn long.
Yep but since Canada isn’t a super power like the USA it would seem prudent to go with the cheaper jet they were reviewing.
It would, if you’re not familiar with how the Canadian military operates.
We’re a small country. We’ve always had to punch above our weight in any military conflict we’re involved in. The most expensive, hard to replace, and hard to maintain element of any weapon system isn’t the weapon, it’s the human operator. So for our purposes, giving that human operator the best equipment possible has always been the better choice.
In air combat the better platform wins. Dogfighting is a thing of the past. You’re not beating highly superior aircraft with guts and barrel rolls. We know this, because we’ve tested it. We’ve studied it. There’s real hard science that goes into this stuff. If we have an aircraft that’s broadly on par with everything the Russians have, that’s a speed bump. They’ll bury our air force in numbers and not even notice. If we have an aircraft that’s vastly superior to everything the Russians have, that’s a real threat. They might still have the upper hand, for sure, but if our pilots are shooting theirs down at a ten, twenty or fifty to one rate (all realistic numbers for the kind of hypothetical match ups we’re talking about here) that suddenly becomes a very, very expensive war to contemplate getting yourself into.
Good point. Hopefully we have a drone program also.
I won’t get into that because I can’t recall which bits I can and can’t talk about, but the short answer is yes, we very much do. Both in terms of using them and combatting them.
Nope, you’re probably thinking of the F-22. The F-35 got it back down to reasonable hanger time and care, at the cost of a long, multi-trillion dollar development period.
Per the other commenter the Gripen is a bit cheaper yet, but that’s because it’s built like a car from the 70’s or something. All off-the-shelf parts combined in obvious ways with lots of allowances. The cost of that is it shows up to radar like a 70’s car. It’s basically just a very different aircraft for doing different things.