Derek 2.0

The Gripen NG doesn't have an established record, it's still conducting testing.........We haven't acquired a Hornet replacement yet because we've yet to order one.

All members can drop out of the program at any time.........yet not one single partner has.

I provided the link to the now canceled Swiss deal that highlighted the actual price of the Gripen NG.......get new sources.

Why do you say that? The Gripen's range and price tag oppose such a notion.

Both the Dutch and Italians haven’t left the program, and their reductions are more reaction to wholesale defence cuts imposed after/during the world economic crisis.

When carrying external stores, the Gripen is neither fast nor manoeuvrable……..as to patrol “long distances”, as already mentioned, the F-35 surpasses the range of the Gripen...... With all due respect, you don't understand the "stats". That’s because it’s not……the last purpose built, Western interceptors were the F-14 and the Tornado ADV…….both are no longer in use by Western Forces, and both were replaced with multirole aircraft, not a follow on interceptor. The Gripen NG costs more than the Super Hornet.......

The 80s era Gripen does have an established record........but Saab is marketing the Gripen NG, which doesn't.........And of course, it's not cheap , when based on the proposed Swiss deal, would have seen a per plane price over 110 million.......a production price tag more then the Super Hornet and F-35.

Or pointing to the Super Hornet as a "cheaper" alternative, when the USN (in 2013) was paying 70+ million a copy...........Or the resident "expert" that's suggests any pilot would be uncomfortable with a single engine type….I wonder, of those that flew the 4000+ single engine F-16s, how many felt uncomfortable?

I don’t suppose you realize that UHF/VHF radar has been around for decades? And that there have been effective countermeasures to it since the 1960s? Or that that such frequencies can’t be used to target weapons right? And of course, both the Russians and Chinese, despite their claims, are still developing their own stealth aircraft right?

So you’re stating univocally F-16 pilots feel unsure in flying their aircraft due to it’s single engine design….I don’t suppose you have a proof to support such a claim?

Exactly......It’s apparent how easy this ones points are to refute.

It is redundant…….so do you now acknowledge the Hornet and Super Hornet share little similarities? What "software" is that? And what faucet of the F-35 has been compromised? In the 1970s, during our then fighter competition, do you think our Government planned on conducting interdiction missions in the Persian Gulf, FRY and Libya decades later? But you suggested we purchase the Super Hornet......So what is the Super Hornet's record in the cold? Yet, as provided earlier, the single engine F-16 has the greatest safety record in the USAF.......So just to make this clear, you feel those that fly the Falcon feel unsafe due to it’s single engine? Is that what you're saying?

The engines are different, as like I said, the avionics and radar also.......both legacy and Super Hornets have different supply chains. What reports? As I asked, do you feel camouflage in general in obsolete? Why don't we need it? Using our current fleet’s operational history as a precedent going forward, clearly we will in the decades ahead. And what of the Super Hornet's performance in cold weather? What of the F-35? So you feel the F-16 is unsafe?

Like what? The radar, engines and avionics are completely different. How do you know it doesn't work? As I said, would you suggest camouflage in general is useless? What cold weather problems? And what is the record of the Super Hornet in "cold weather"? Are you suggesting the pilot's that have flown/fly the F-16 didn’t feel comfortable with it’s single engine? The Super Hornet fleet was grounded twice (1996 and 1998) due to it's engines......as such, would that make the Super Hornet unsafe?

And what is that per tail price when all the associated ECM and targeting pods are factored in? No they're not.....it's a different aircraft then our current fleet. Is camouflage “extra crap” our military doesn’t need? What's it service record in "cold weather"? And what does that mater?

Exaggeration does appear a common theme in your contributions…..So, what modern combat aircraft (outside of the F-35 of course) do you feel would best suit Canada and why?

I’m surprised that someone the claims to know about aircraft would suggest that any prop driven aircraft could intercept a TU-95.….even early, non-radar equipped jets, would have faced a significant degree of difficulty.

If the Wall never came down, the Gripen would have been a suitable replacement for our old Freedom Fighters and their intended role as reinforcements to Norway/NATO’s Northern flank……..of course more Hornets (then) would have been preferred.

Exactly......Sweden and Canada don't have similar requirements.

If that's the case, why would you suggest that a TU-95 could be intercepted by a Cessna?

Yet we were involved in the program, under Chrétien, years before the X-35 was even selected.

Yup......do you understand basic trig?

Are you suggesting, prior to the Harper Government, Canada didn't contribute any funds to the F-35?

That’s answered simply by asking how many air forces have/had the like requirements as the Swedes.

Well actually no you couldn’t………interceptions are an exercise in trigonometry.