CanucksCorner.com Forums

I think the main reason Carney is interested in the Gripen fighter jets is that they would be assembled in Canada and create Canadian jobs.
The fact that they cost less than half of what the F-35s do and eliminate the worry about a kill switch may help too.

I think it would be a smart move to have a mixed fleet.

There are pros and cons with everything. Placing all eggs in one basket is generally a bad idea.

Per wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 1:25 am I think the main reason Carney is interested in the Gripen fighter jets is that they would be assembled in Canada and create Canadian jobs.
The fact that they cost less than half of what the F-35s do and eliminate the worry about a kill switch may help too.

I think it would be a smart move to have a mixed fleet.

There are pros and cons with everything. Placing all eggs in one basket is generally a bad idea.

I'd agree with that. Carney needs a win here, and pivoting away from Trump's USA towards something that they can sell as a near-equivalent product that also has economic benefits for the working Canadian taxpayers does fit that bill.

The Gripen is nowhere near the class of the F-35 though. It's not even close despite some of the information out there.

Here's what I've found.....

Based on recent, high-level, and, in some cases, leaked, evaluations—particularly from the 2021 Canadian Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP)—the SAAB Gripen (specifically the E/F model) stands very little chance in a direct, head-to-head combat scenario against the F-35 Lightning II.

The Gripen has a much lower cost per flight hour ($8,000–$12,000) compared to the F-35 ($33,000–$50,000).

The Gripen is designed to operate from remote,, unimproved airfields and even public roads, making it highly effective for Arctic, quick-reaction, or dispersed defense scenarios.

Despite a strong campaign by SAAB highlighting cost and operational benefits, Canada ultimately selected the F-35, concluding that for high-end combat, the F-35 was essential.

Personally, I think that selecting the Gripen for a political win should be a chargeable offence akin to treason. Military equipment is required to protect the nation and to give the Armed Forces personnel who operate said equipment the best chance of succeeding in their mission AND returning home.

That being said, I do think that the mixed fleet makes sense, and the documented ability to operate from remote, unimproved, airfields, makes this a very smart option if they decide to roll with a mixed bag.

As I said previously, cut the F-35 order in half and use the same total bag of money to purchase other fighters. Instead of 88 fighters total there would be enough money kicking around to come close to doubling that total.

I do agree on the mixed aircraft concept, but let's make a decision on the "science" to use a political term. Carney's blustering is all politics. I tend to trust military experts over economists on these areas.

And, don't believe all the rhetoric, such as.

"The Gripen is designed to operate from remote,, unimproved airfields and even public roads, making it highly effective for Arctic, quick-reaction, or dispersed defense scenarios."

This works in road accessible locations, like almost all of Sweden. But, Canada has terrible access to our Northern areas. If you don't have 1000m of paved runway, and a fuel truck, and a service/ammunition truck, you are out of luck. I don't see the Gripen being any more useful in the arctic than the F-35.

The fact that we are only being force fed the Gripen should raise alarm bells. The Rafale, Typhoon, and the Korean kf-21 should all be added into the competition for the F-35's lil brother. You can't use the same criteria for these planes as we did originally, or, we are cutting the F-35 order in half, just to have the F-35 also win the 2nd competition, and we are back to 88 F-35s.

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 1:59 pm
The Gripen is designed to operate from remote,, unimproved airfields and even public roads, making it highly effective for Arctic, quick-reaction, or dispersed defense scenarios.

This is the thing, you know. Sweden has always assumed that in a war against russia, our airports would be destroyed within the first week. Thus our aircraft need to be able to operate from makeshift runways and be serviced by a crew of 2-3 men. This has also factored into the construction of our highways. They are meant to be able to serve as airstrips if necessary.

And they outperform russian fighter jets in every concievable measure there is. Which is what matters.

Complicated aircraft that need tender care by a large crew and an airport to operate from would not cut it for us.
We have had to plan for guerilla warfare.

Now, I get it that Canada has never had to consider the risk of an all out attack by a nearby superpower. But maybe you do now?

One of the longest airstrips in the world is the highway between Havana and Santa Clara, Cuba.

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 5:38 pm "The Gripen is designed to operate from remote,, unimproved airfields and even public roads, making it highly effective for Arctic, quick-reaction, or dispersed defense scenarios."

This works in road accessible locations, like almost all of Sweden. But, Canada has terrible access to our Northern areas. If you don't have 1000m of paved runway, and a fuel truck, and a service/ammunition truck, you are out of luck. I don't see the Gripen being any more useful in the arctic than the F-35.

This is a SAAB Gripen taking off from a Thai road. You don't need 1000 m. 500-600m should be enough.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... _thailand/

Per wrote: ↑Fri Feb 06, 2026 6:39 am

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 5:38 pm "The Gripen is designed to operate from remote,, unimproved airfields and even public roads, making it highly effective for Arctic, quick-reaction, or dispersed defense scenarios."

This works in road accessible locations, like almost all of Sweden. But, Canada has terrible access to our Northern areas. If you don't have 1000m of paved runway, and a fuel truck, and a service/ammunition truck, you are out of luck. I don't see the Gripen being any more useful in the arctic than the F-35.

This is a SAAB Gripen taking off from a Thai road. You don't need 1000 m. 500-600m should be enough.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... _thailand/

But, you do need to get the trucks there. We don't save basic infrastructure in about 95% of Canada once you get 300 kms north of the American boarder. I just don’t see it being an effective solution in a barren wasteland.

The F-35 has won two overly long procurement procedures under two governments lead by two different political stripes and been delayed more than 10 years. A spat with the leader of the free world doesn't change those needs.

Reality is, if anything is being learned from current conflicts, buy the minimum and invest the rest in drones.

Topper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 06, 2026 8:03 am

Reality is, if anything is being learned from current conflicts, buy the minimum and invest the rest in drones.

Very good point.

Also, start mass producing netting

I'm guessing if Canada had drones, they could only reach one other country? (maybe Greenland and eastern Siberia as well)

Remote-controlled drones can be jammed, which is why in the Ukraine war they run off very long (~40 km) spools of fiber-optic cable. They can't go any further than that without repeaters. The countryside there is covered with spent fibre-optic cable. So I doubt they're useful for anything but short range warfare, ie not Greenland or Siberia.

If the US invade we have no chance anyways (unless we can establish a superior drone force), so we're better off spending on defense of the Arctic, whether that's planes, ships, or subs (we don't have any of those, do we?).

Topper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 06, 2026 8:03 am Reality is, if anything is being learned from current conflicts, buy the minimum and invest the rest in drones.

^ This

Warfare isn't about hyped up specs and price tags anymore. It's about systems integration that allow more inexpensive hardware to dominate more traditional ones.

Satellites, advanced radars and other systems along with long range missiles can target and lock on from hundreds of kms. Cheaper jets, larger squadrons can easily overwhelm even technically more "advanced" fighters. There will be no Top Gun dogfighting.

Drones, hypersonics etal. can take out whole battalions of men, tanks and even destroyers and carriers.

Of course, Canada will have no access to those weapons, but I agree, they should invest in the minimum and in homegrown drones.

5th, interesting... I agree with your 2nd paragraph. We know who the invaders would be. It would be folly to be used as a NATO-like country elsewhere, just defend our own Arctic sovereignty. Yeah, we don't have shit.

Our only defense is to bite that pillow with authority!

"Mark, eat feathers"

(Say it in the OrangeMan's voice)