The major difference that they don’t cover is that the F-35 is designed, built and controlled by the United States, an adversary of Canada, already at economic war with Canada and with a declared objective to annex Canada and make it the 51st state of the United states, while the Gripen is designed, built and controlled by Sweden, a long standing ally of Canada with no hostile declarations or actions.
A delta wing optimizes for raw interceptor performance but it isn’t necessarily a design well optimized for high energy turns without bleeding speed, which is one of the benefits of adding canards.
The F35, F22, F15 style fat wing brought back close to fat horizontal and vertical wings allows for less energy bleed (speed loss) at higher angles of attack.
The F35 is mildly stealthy and chock full of endless cost overrun.
People need to tell their mps to order gripens.
So… I don’t watch videos; anyone have a bulleted list?
The only ones I know about are the LM supply chain, US telematics control and US-centric command and control system on the F-35.
In essence, every F-35 sold is a part of the US Air Force one way or the other.
Gripen is more versatile for our north and for various mission types.
If equally skilled pilots faced off one-on-one, the F-35 would beat the Gripen.
The Gripen perks include supply chain and industrial benefits of making jets in Canada for other partners around the world, making it the better nation-building investment.
The F-35s are currently behind in production schedule to other international buyers, with no guaranteed deadlines, or that the contracted quantity and loadouts will be what actually gets delivered.
I didn’t watch the video, but from what I have heard, by itself, the F-35 is a dog. It would be nothing without the large scale computerized logistics system that it was designed to be a part of.
The Gripen was a state of the art air to air combat aircraft. …40 years ago.
The gen 4 Gripen would maybe lose.
The F-35 is a missle/sensor truck.
The in-planning Gen5 Gripen would almost certainly win.
You can’t hit what you cannot see.
The F-35’s radar and EOTS make it so it sees anything less stealthy than itself first.
If you can see first and shoot first, you win the BVR fight. Full stop.
Not that this matters since if F-35s and grippens are shooting one another, the western world has ended as we know it.
Either way, Canada needs a homeland defense fighter, not a “join in and be part of coalitions that fight away from its shores” fighter.
The downside of not having the F-35 is mostly in not being able to effectively fly the same 5th generation tactics, and be part of the same deployments as the countries using them.
In Canada’s case, I don’t see them forming an armed coalition with the US so… not much lost.
You certainly can’t see the F35 given they’re not delivered, and when they are, their availability is so low there’s few chance you’ll see them in the sky. /s
The Gripen is apparently quite a bit cheaper than the F-35, both in terms of what it costs to buy the plane and what it costs to keep it in the air.
I think the gripen has a shorter landing distance, more tuned to the arctic and is more repairable.
Gripen has canards, which makes it look less cool. And really, isn’t that what matters?
We need diplomats. Not death machines.
I can only wish I were as much of an optimist as you are.
America has the strongest military and Canada and Greenland are on the chopping block.
Missile and drone program like Iran’s? Seems to work well enough against US air defences.
@Sunshine a lot…
