Canada needs to put the Gripen factory on an accelerated track, cancel the entire F-35 order, and move ahead with an immediate purchase of min. 50 Gripens using the F-35 funds to cover the gap and train up pilots until Gripens start rolling out of the factory.
Canada’s complete F-35 promise will cost the country $28,000,000,000 ($28B) with billions more needed to bring them up to full operational efficiency, and yet the Gripen costs only $65,000,000 ($65M) per aircraft, allowing us to buy 430 fully-functional Gripen jets instead of 88 partially functional F-35 jets.
Remember: tech superiority does not win battles. Sheer numbers do. WWII demonstrated this overwhelmingly on many different fronts, with many different technologies.
As just one example, the Germans had Tiger tanks that could face off against 6-8 Shermans at a time and win with barely a scratch on their hull, but when 10, 20, or even more came roaring over the hilltop for every Tiger that was fielded, their tech superiority ended being absolutely useless. They got overrun and overwhelmed with sheer numbers.
The F35 can be rendered equally as useless with enough Gripens in the air.
And the Gripens don’t come with a remote kill switch like the F-35 does.
Agree with everything you say, and yes quantity has a quality of its own, but I think that in addition we should fly the Gripens and the F35s that we have against each other and figure out how to beat the F35s with the Gripens. Then share that info with our new allies. If we need to modify or augment the Gripens then we can work with the Swedes to do that.
We can already figure much of that out from the technological specifications of the F-35. Simply looking at the capabilities can give us strong clues on how to neuter or at least limit the inherent F-35 advantages from a tech standpoint.
The rest of that comes down to how the pilot behaves, and what tactics they have been trained in. And this is where differences in training, corps attitudes, and even pilot personalities can dramatically affect performance.
And while I fully agree with you in regards to pilot training, our problem is that a Canadian fighter pilot is likely to behave (tactic chain, decision trees, emotional responses, etc.) considerably differently than an American fighter pilot. As such, while we need to train our pilots in Gripen jets against F-35 jets in combat-like scenarios, we need to do so against American pilots, not Canadian ones.
And that’s the tough part - how do we get the American administration to willingly play along with activities that are obviously meant to train our pilots to fight theirs, and gain a consistent toehold against pilots in F-35s even if it means losing a few Gripens for every one of their F-35s. It needs to be done with a great deal of subtlety and subterfuge.
I’m not suggesting we ask the Americans to help us discover exploits, and I’m sure there are more than just pilot-related exploits. These are very complex systems.
Competent pilots cost too. We need to invest in unmanned capabilities much more. All humans should just be behind their desks fighting a war remotely from Hawaii or something
The objective is not to win. Winning against America’s imperial might is impossible.
The objective is to make them bleed as much as possible. To make victory as phyrric and as painful for them as possible. And when going up against the most expensive war plane in human history, this means choosing the aircraft that can get as technologically close as possible with as many units as possible on a per-dollar-spent basis.
We can make them bleed much more with 420 fully-functional Gripens than we can with 88 partially-functional F-35s that can be remotely shut down against our will.
The US always wins the invasion but pretty much always loses the occupation.
Air power isn’t how you win, because it’s hard to hide a jet fighter. Assault rifles, RPGs, IEDs and a willingness to fight longer than they’re willing to is what’s needed to win the occupation.
Americans forget that Canadians served in Afghanistan. But I don’t. I know someone who diffused IEDs over there, pretty sure he knows how to build them if needed.
So? They are attacking Venezuela, Iran (it’s coming), Greenland (ie NATO), AND Canada - they will be stretched too thin and are run by incompetents. The rest of the world dumps the dollar and Us treasury bonds, the dollar is no longer the reserve currency for oil, and they are kneecapped. We do that and disrupt their supply chains and a big part of the problem is solved.
Canada needs to put the Gripen factory on an accelerated track, cancel the entire F-35 order, and move ahead with an immediate purchase of min. 50 Gripens using the F-35 funds to cover the gap and train up pilots until Gripens start rolling out of the factory.
Canada’s complete F-35 promise will cost the country $28,000,000,000 ($28B) with billions more needed to bring them up to full operational efficiency, and yet the Gripen costs only $65,000,000 ($65M) per aircraft, allowing us to buy 430 fully-functional Gripen jets instead of 88 partially functional F-35 jets.
Remember: tech superiority does not win battles. Sheer numbers do. WWII demonstrated this overwhelmingly on many different fronts, with many different technologies.
As just one example, the Germans had Tiger tanks that could face off against 6-8 Shermans at a time and win with barely a scratch on their hull, but when 10, 20, or even more came roaring over the hilltop for every Tiger that was fielded, their tech superiority ended being absolutely useless. They got overrun and overwhelmed with sheer numbers.
The F35 can be rendered equally as useless with enough Gripens in the air.
And the Gripens don’t come with a remote kill switch like the F-35 does.
Agree with everything you say, and yes quantity has a quality of its own, but I think that in addition we should fly the Gripens and the F35s that we have against each other and figure out how to beat the F35s with the Gripens. Then share that info with our new allies. If we need to modify or augment the Gripens then we can work with the Swedes to do that.
We can already figure much of that out from the technological specifications of the F-35. Simply looking at the capabilities can give us strong clues on how to neuter or at least limit the inherent F-35 advantages from a tech standpoint.
The rest of that comes down to how the pilot behaves, and what tactics they have been trained in. And this is where differences in training, corps attitudes, and even pilot personalities can dramatically affect performance.
And while I fully agree with you in regards to pilot training, our problem is that a Canadian fighter pilot is likely to behave (tactic chain, decision trees, emotional responses, etc.) considerably differently than an American fighter pilot. As such, while we need to train our pilots in Gripen jets against F-35 jets in combat-like scenarios, we need to do so against American pilots, not Canadian ones.
And that’s the tough part - how do we get the American administration to willingly play along with activities that are obviously meant to train our pilots to fight theirs, and gain a consistent toehold against pilots in F-35s even if it means losing a few Gripens for every one of their F-35s. It needs to be done with a great deal of subtlety and subterfuge.
I’m not suggesting we ask the Americans to help us discover exploits, and I’m sure there are more than just pilot-related exploits. These are very complex systems.
Competent pilots cost too. We need to invest in unmanned capabilities much more. All humans should just be behind their desks fighting a war remotely from Hawaii or something
Canada and EU really need to reconsider their option on this.
Both are waste of time and money. US has over 2000 fighter jets. In hand.
The objective is not to win. Winning against America’s imperial might is impossible.
The objective is to make them bleed as much as possible. To make victory as phyrric and as painful for them as possible. And when going up against the most expensive war plane in human history, this means choosing the aircraft that can get as technologically close as possible with as many units as possible on a per-dollar-spent basis.
We can make them bleed much more with 420 fully-functional Gripens than we can with 88 partially-functional F-35s that can be remotely shut down against our will.
The US always wins the invasion but pretty much always loses the occupation.
Air power isn’t how you win, because it’s hard to hide a jet fighter. Assault rifles, RPGs, IEDs and a willingness to fight longer than they’re willing to is what’s needed to win the occupation.
Americans forget that Canadians served in Afghanistan. But I don’t. I know someone who diffused IEDs over there, pretty sure he knows how to build them if needed.
And they can’t deploy them all at the same time on the same target, unless they risk being vulnerable elsewhere
It’s a lot harder for America to accept attacking Canada is the casualties will be 100,000 instead of 10,000
So? They are attacking Venezuela, Iran (it’s coming), Greenland (ie NATO), AND Canada - they will be stretched too thin and are run by incompetents. The rest of the world dumps the dollar and Us treasury bonds, the dollar is no longer the reserve currency for oil, and they are kneecapped. We do that and disrupt their supply chains and a big part of the problem is solved.