$30,000,000,000 Question: Canada’s F-35 Debate Seems Paralyzed (www.19fortyfive.com)

submitted 2 months ago by Scotty@scribe.disroot.org to c/canada@lemmy.ca

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

I'd have figured that in a defensive engagement, land-based radars would provide a home-field advantage, so that stealth is not as useful as it would be on the offensive.

It's true that you don't want to be detected by an attacker either, but I believe that doesn't matter as much, since in an aerial engagement, the first one detected is the first one dead anyway.

So stealth is good, but not, like, as good over Canadian territory, as long as we're being supported by good detection.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Even when you already know where the target is, you still have to get within range to lock on and attack them. Generally speaking, if you're close enough to fire your missiles at them, they're close enough to fire their missiles at you. That means you still need to remain undetected until after your missiles away if you want the biggest possible advantage in air to air engagements.