Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

Post by lobocinza » Thu, May 28, 2026, 12:56 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #428

ifwinterco wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% true and I agree with all of it, but I would just add that for fighter jets specifically the calculus is a bit different. Unless you want to buy Chinese jets your choices are either F35s or a big step down to 4th generation fighters that are materially worse in terms of capability. Modern 4th gen fighters are still very capable, cheaper, simpler and more reliable, but if you ever do end up facing an adve…

Given the state of missile tech, is that as relevant anymore? If you strap a missile on to a Cessna that can take down a 5th gen fighter before it knows you're there. Doesn't really matter what fancy doodads the latest and greatest jet has. Further if your 5th gen jets are relying on tech from your adversary....

Post by hylaride » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:03 PM UTC

MegaDeKay wrote: post #209

hylaride wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are extremely expensive programs that the Swedes have historically been willing to pay to maintain as much neutrality as possible in their defence procurement system. A Saab Gripen has almost the same flyway cost as an F-35 because of manufacturing scale differences (maintenance is far cheaper, though) and the Gripen is far less capable (it is one of the best western fighters if a full blown war happens and you…

There were plenty of good reasons to cancel the Arrow: it was very difficult to fly, it burned fuel like crazy, it had poor maneuverability, etc. A friend of mine is considered an expert on its history and is convinced it was the right call, despite going into his research as a huge fan of the plane.

Post by funnym0nk3y » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:27 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #428

ifwinterco wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% true and I agree with all of it, but I would just add that for fighter jets specifically the calculus is a bit different. Unless you want to buy Chinese jets your choices are either F35s or a big step down to 4th generation fighters that are materially worse in terms of capability. Modern 4th gen fighters are still very capable, cheaper, simpler and more reliable, but if you ever do end up facing an adve…

Given the state of missile tech, is that as relevant anymore? If you strap a missile on to a Cessna that can take down a 5th gen fighter before it knows you're there. Doesn't really matter what fancy doodads the latest and greatest jet has. Further if your 5th gen jets are relying on tech from your adversary....

Post by GJim » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:33 PM UTC

pirates wrote: post #449

GJim wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their use of the word "probably" rather suggests they did miss it. By a country mile.

No, I think you missed it by a country mile. “Probably” was meant in the sense of “out of all the things the gulf states have reason to be mad at the US about, starting the conflict is ‘probably’ (obviously, lol) the thing they’re most unhappy with”. They weren’t saying the US “probably” started the conflict.

Post by chimprich » Thu, May 28, 2026, 1:48 PM UTC

simondotau wrote: post #425

Lapel2742 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mind you, it's one man, and not the nation or state, but he does have a lot of backers. My 2ct: He is the duly elected leader in a representative democracy. He speaks on behalf of all U.S. Americans, he acts on behalf of all U.S. Americans, and all U.S. Americans share the same responsibility for the actions of his government. He isn't the only problem, though. It has now been proven that the U.S. Constitution is n…

People outside the US understand that Trump is a temporary phenomenon. And there's no evidence that Trump has any interest in post-Trump politics, except insofar as it insulates him from repercussions.