Search results

We already have Marines, they're called Lorne Scots.

I was talking about the idea of buying it just for the Snowbirds. The few countries that do use fighter jets instead of trainers just use their standard jet, not a bespoke jet bought just for demonstration purposes. There's also a bit of confusion on the specs of the Gripen. A lot of figures...

Except we'll be retiring ships as the new ones arrive, so the crews will just transfer over. Air force techs aren't allowed to hold quals on two different airframes, so we would be splitting up our already limited number of fighter jet techs to work two fleets.

I thought it was obvious, because the Gripen E is what we've been offered. Well, you're wrong. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saab-sweden-canada-fighters-f35-9.6987069 They've built eleven in the past decade, where did you get this 15 a year figure? How about we take this to the proper...

We don't have enough manpower and resources to start up two fleets. We just don't. If we go pure F-35, it's still going to be chaos for the next few years, F-35+Gripen will be a logistical nightmare. And remember, those other nations adopted the F-35 in addition to an existing fleet, they...

Then why are we considering buying the jet that failed our competition. Twice. The Gripen was designed around domestic operations in Sweden with export as an afterthought. That's why Sweden is the only western nation to use it. Difference is, they aren't buying new ones. The last F-16 was...

The US is unique in that way because of the sheer amount of fighter jets they have.

Both of whom just use their standard fighter jet, which can be readied for combat service in under 72 hours, not a bespoke jet bought exclusively for the teams. But if you are going to use something not already in the inventory, it should at least be something actually cheap, which a $150+...

This is just like the Arrow all over again. A plane that won't fit our needs, will cost far more than promised, will be completely obsolete within a decade, yet people have gotten this romantic fantasy about it. Saab's offers are ridiculous and will never pay off. Their plane lost our...

Yes, and? Those aren't used exclusively for air shows like the Tutor is (and even that was originally our trainer plane before it became obsolete in that role). They're active duty aircraft seconded for demonstrations.

In other words, screw over their existing customers. Everything Saab has offered seems desperate.

Saab must really think we're idiots to suggest it could start deliveries in three years.

No. A Gen 4 fighter jet as a lead-in trainer is insane and wasteful. An actual trainer like the T-7 or T-50 is far more appropriate.

Which is also their combat plane, and each one can be returned to combat duty within 72 hours. Buying a plane  just for demonstration purposes would be pointless. Whatever we get for the new trainer to replace the Hawk should also replace the Tutor. I'm not sure I follow. If we want a light...

A Gripen is way overkill for a trainer and demonstration plane.

Gen 4 is obsolete. It's time to upgrade. It's not cheaper. Saab's claims are nonsense. That $8,000 per hour won't even fill the tank. If we want something cheap for low intensity, friendly skies COIN op missions, there are better options. We can add guns and bombs to trainers, like the AT-6...

They ordered it in 2014, and have had ten delivered since then, and that's with a domestic aerospace industry cooperating. Saab promised 14,000 jobs, about 200 have materialized. The costs keep rising because of the delays.

They told Brazil the same thing. How's that working out for them.

And Sweden's neighbour, Finland, now a NATO member, evaluated the Gripen and F-35 and picked the F-35, finding it was actually cheaper due to Saab massively underestimating the costs of the Gripen.