411
Six in 10 Canadians want to scrap contract for U.S. warplanes: Nanos poll
(www.theglobeandmail.com)
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
I believe the main reasons Gripen was rejected by the 2022 report was lack of any Stealth capability, rarer among allies, and higher cost. Practically, while the Gripen is a pretty good 4th gen aircraft, non-stealth aircraft really arn’t capible of combating any airforce with stealth aircraft, and so Canada would be pretty much limited to only fighting Russia or smaller regional powers, and no small part of Canada’s NATO focus is on deterrence in Asia, where Gripen can’t really do much.
That's a pretty absolute take. Can you back that up a bit? It lowers survivability, for sure, but even stealth aircraft aren't invisible, especially versus a technologically sophisticated adversary with cutting-edge sensors and networked warfare like we would be. The Gripen also has the advantage in that it can be operated from dispersed airfields with little supply chain, so it doesn't even have to spend too much time in the air - it was designed for a defencive war against a superior foe.
Wait, higher cost? What for? I might actually have to read that. You'd think the minimal supply considerations and it being an older aircraft would make it cheap.
From what I've heard it was basically a forgone conclusion. The airforce really wanted the F-35 from the start, and were probably still in denial about if the good times with the US would ever end.
Stealth aircraft arn’t invisible, but if you need to get within 50km to even know there is an enemy aircraft there while they can can shoot at you from 500km away you are not going to achieve much beyond slightly depleting the enemy missile supply.
It also means that the enemy now needs advanced radars to be deployed every 100km to even know you’re there, as compared to deploying 1/10 the radars at every 1000km for the same effect. If you want the coverage to know where the enemy is above your country and not just they entered it, that goes up by the square root.
As for cost, the main driving factor is that there are ~160 Gripens flying for 6 countries, and 1100 F-35s flying for 10 countries, plus another thousand or so on order by the US itself. When it comes to extremely intricate and complex development and tooling heavy devices like aircraft, economies of scale matter a lot.
Getting the Gripen E down to ~121m CAD was a remarkable achievement in economic efficiency, no seriously this was incrediblely impressive, that involved significant compromises for cost, nevertheless it doesn’t change that Lockheed Martin can sell a more capible fighter at ~117m CAD just by being able to have an actual assembly line and tons of spare parts.
Yeah, but in this scenario you're not sending continuous radar pulses out from your plane, because that would instantly give away your position. Electronic warfare stuff is still mostly classified, but I have to assume finding the enemy has long been a team effort, and now with networked warfare would be pretty seamlessly so. Which brings us to:
That's true, but in a defencive war they won't have much in the way of fixed radars themselves. Meanwhile, the Gripen seems vastly more survivable on the ground than a whole airfield capable of operating the F-35.
Without a bunch of information that's classified and a bunch that might not even be available I can't calculate myself how those factors balance. And, of course there's the elephant in the room of if our F-35s would even be able to fly in this scenario.
Oh, okay. That makes sense.