Swedish Griffen vs American (Trump) F-35

[August1991]

1. Toronto Star: Buy the plane that is not Trump.

2. Ikea: Swedish for flimsy.

3. Why did Sweden join NATO?

=======

4. I am tired of this military-nationalistic system. Let's get along. 

[WestCanMan]

Don't you wanna assemble a fighter plane in your own living room? 

[ExFlyer]

18 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Toronto Star: Buy the plane that is not Trump.

2. Ikea: Swedish for flimsy.

3. Why did Sweden join NATO?

=======

4. I am tired of this military-nationalistic system. Let's get along. 

If you are gonna try and make some points...at least be familiar with what you are talking about,. 

It is the Swedish GRIPPEN...   LOL.  

""Griffen" is a legendary creature (griffin), a common given name, a place in Austria, or a surname associated with various notable individual. The mythical griffin is a creature with the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle"

[herbie]

A ridiculous post....

you can't build a top fighter jet with just an Allen key, Augie.

[paxamericana]

On 11/21/2025 at 8:40 PM, August1991 said:

Toronto Star: Buy the plane that is not Trump.

Translation; let us risk Canadian service member’s lives to spite Trump.

Edited November 23, 2025 by paxamericana

[John Stone]

7 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Translation; let us risk Canadian service member’s lives to spite Trump.

A bit dramatic.

What is desired is bang for the buck - the most in efficacy in terms of training, support, technology

OMG - that is the F35

[paxamericana]

17 minutes ago, John Stone said:

A bit dramatic.

What is desired is bang for the buck - the most in efficacy in terms of training, support, technology

OMG - that is the F35

Survivability is the most important feature. There is no point having a value proposition if the plane can’t even fly before it’s detected and shot down. There is no comparison between fifth gen and fourth gen whatever. 

[John Stone]

17 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Survivability is the most important feature. There is no point having a value proposition if the plane can’t even fly before it’s detected and shot down. There is no comparison between fifth gen and fourth gen whatever. 

Yes, coherent phased array systems have a difficult time detecting targets that display the cross-section of a golf ball. 

[suds]

The CF-18's have served us fairly well for over the last 40 plus years. It only makes sense to purchase the most technologically advanced fighters if we expect them to last the next 40 years. And our pilots who fly these things deserve the best. I'm no expert but I keep hearing the F-35's are the best of the best.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, suds said:

The CF-18's have served us fairly well for over the last 40 plus years. It only makes sense to purchase the most technologically advanced fighters if we expect them to last the next 40 years. And our pilots who fly these things deserve the best. I'm no expert but I keep hearing the F-35's are the best of the best.

The CF-18's have served us exceptionally well.

We need to consider ourselves first. Our responsibility is to Canada and NORAD...NATO is secondary.

[herbie]

Exactly. The decision should be made on what Canada will use them for. Nit fir what someone else wants us to use them for.

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Exactly. The decision should be made on what Canada will use them for. Nit fir what someone else wants us to use them for.

I don't think you fully understand Article 5 of the NATO covenant  - strength in numbers, one for all and all for one? 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Exactly. The decision should be made on what Canada will use them for. Nit fir what someone else wants us to use them for.

That would make sense if our government did not volunteer our military forces to hot spots around the world...

[herbie]

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

I don't think you fully understand Article 5 of the NATO covenant  - strength in numbers, one for all and all for one?

No, I don't think YOU do in the least. It has nothing to do with filling roles others wish us to, nor in spite of Trumpian bullshit and bluster anything to do with spending money.
It's a voluntary organization to defend the West backed by US nukes that has a suggested military spending target not a country club that marches to the tune of whatever fool is in the White House.

[August1991]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

No, I don't think YOU do in the least. It has nothing to do with filling roles others wish us to, nor in spite of Trumpian bullshit and bluster anything to do with spending money.
It's a voluntary organization to defend the West backed by US nukes that has a suggested military spending target not a country club that marches to the tune of whatever fool is in the White House.

I tend to agree.

NATO? Cold War? The Clinton, Bush, Yeltsin world is long gone.

Trump is an American first leader. Like Putin.

Welcome to the 21st century. 

[August1991]

Note to all:

Civilised Europe collapsed between 1789-1815.

In the world cataclysm of 1914-1945, Newfoundlanders lost much.

[User]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

No, I don't think YOU do in the least. It has nothing to do with filling roles others wish us to, nor in spite of Trumpian bullshit and bluster anything to do with spending money.
It's a voluntary organization to defend the West backed by US nukes that has a suggested military spending target not a country club that marches to the tune of whatever fool is in the White House.

Meanwhile... you want to defeat the evil Russia... but what with?

[500channelsurfer]

Canada must absolutely go with the F35s.

As has been mentioned previously, the F35s are the best of the best. When leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping decide to infringe on our Arctic sovereignty, AND THEY WILL, we will need to scare them out and away with our capabilities. The Gripens may not be enough to do so. But they are 100% scared of F35s. 

We need to show them us landing F35s in Iqaluit and Alert, and show them we are there, and strong. Can a Gripen land in places like that? I doubt it. F35s can.

The purpose of a fighter jet is to defend the state it belongs to. A Gripens deal may be a better for the Canadian economy, but what good is an economy if its nation-state is susceptible to invasion? With the F35s there will be no risk of that. I hope the F35s deal can be amended to allow us full right-to-repair and technological control and sovereignty over the aircraft.

[TreeBeard]

13 hours ago, 500channelsurfer said:

We need to show them us landing F35s in Iqaluit and Alert,

The Saab fighter is better in the cold and has longer range. 

[WestCanMan]

On 11/22/2025 at 8:29 PM, herbie said:

A ridiculous post....

you can't build a top fighter jet with just an Allen key, Augie.

Idjit

[TreeBeard]

Also, the runway at Alert is too short for the F-35A.  So, you won’t be flying F35s to Alert.  
 

The Gripen would do fine, however.  

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Also, the runway at Alert is too short for the F-35A.  So, you won’t be flying F35s to Alert.  
 

The Gripen would do fine, however.  

F35B

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Also, the runway at Alert is too short for the F-35A.  So, you won’t be flying F35s to Alert.  
 

The Gripen would do fine, however.  

If the Grippen is better on all fronts, why do you think the Canadian military wants the F-35s?

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, 500channelsurfer said:

Canada must absolutely go with the F35s.

As has been mentioned previously, the F35s are the best of the best. When leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping decide to infringe on our Arctic sovereignty, AND THEY WILL, we will need to scare them out and away with our capabilities. The Gripens may not be enough to do so. But they are 100% scared of F35s. 

We need to show them us landing F35s in Iqaluit and Alert, and show them we are there, and strong. Can a Gripen land in places like that? I doubt it. F35s can.

The purpose of a fighter jet is to defend the state it belongs to. A Gripens deal may be a better for the Canadian economy, but what good is an economy if its nation-state is susceptible to invasion? With the F35s there will be no risk of that. I hope the F35s deal can be amended to allow us full right-to-repair and technological control and sovereignty over the aircraft.

America's industrial capacity dwarfs Sweden's, and until the planes actually arrive in Canada, all we're talking about is "What fighter planes will they be able to give us in 3-8 years?" 

If anything major happens within that time frame, it's not unlikely that Sweden or the US would say "These aren't available for sale abroad right now because we need them ourselves." (I'm pretty sure that we reneged on a deal to give the Saudis some armoured vehicles at one point recently)

America's larger standing air force and greater capacity means that they might be able to spare at least a few aircraft or increase production more dramatically than Sweden can. 

Also, 1) America's planes are more battle-tested, and real-world effectiveness is light years past theoretical effectiveness, plus 2) any new systems that are built by American contractors like Raytheon, etc, to upgrade fighter planes' capabilities, will be designed so that the first iteration of that system fits the F-35. It will probably require some re-sizing or tinkering to implement that same system on other NATO fighters.

It seems like an afterthought right now, but the F-18s that we currently have were upgraded many times over their decades of service, and no doubt the next batch of fighters we get will have to last us 40 more years. The easier, cheaper and quicker it is to update them, the better.

A last addition to that thought, any shortcomings that develop over the next few years with the F-35's capabilities, as adversarial aircraft, weapons systems, detection systems, etc grow stronger, will probably be brought to light sooner because they will be in action more than the Grippens - America's nose is always in something, Sweden's, not so much. If Grippens don't see a lot of battle, it could take them longer to find out which ways they're lacking, so upgrading them might lag by a generation. It only takes one chink in the armour to bring down a plane, or squadron, and we can't afford that. 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If the Grippen is better on all fronts, why do you think the Canadian military wants the F-35s?

Touché.

I think there's a lot of anti-Trump/America sentiment simmering behind these arguments in favour of the Grippen.

It's like when someone is no longer enamoured with their partner and all they see is that person's flaws. 

I guess I coulda just said it's confirmation bias, now that I think about it: "NYAH NYAH, TWUMPIE!"

Edited November 24, 2025 by WestCanMan