While 16 F-35 fighters remain contractually committed for delivery starting this year, the full 88-jet procurement is stalled amidst trade friction with the Trump administration.
Rising program costs—now estimated at $30 billion—have reopened the door for Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen E.
The Gripen offers superior industrial benefits, including 12,600 domestic jobs and Arctic-optimized maintenance.
Ottawa must now balance the F-35’s unmatched NORAD interoperability against the Gripen’s economic sovereignty as the aging CF-18 Hornet fleet reaches its structur

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Let's step back a bit: stealth is about reducing the apparent size for radars. Being stealthy doesn't mean you're undetectable, but you will see a (non-stealth) enemy jet before it sees you. Then you fire a missile… and are instantly detected!
Air combat superiority will do only if you're still beyond missile range at that point. Otherwise the other side also shoots back a long range missile at you, and it's likely to end in mutual destruction. And even if it's not, you revealed yourself, so better not be outnumbered. That reduces the usage in air combat.

For air to ground, which is what happened here, same idea, except there are a lot of things you want to drop on a target that requires a certain proximity. The benefit of the F35 is it can theoretically take out air defence systems before being detected (again: providing the enemy radar does not have one of these next-gen fancy radars that can detect it). That's what happened in Iran… except that the whole scenario assumes once again conventional air defence: SAM batteries are typically massive and well "visible". They were destroyed before any jet would get close. But Iranians have APPARENTLY (I don't think that was clarified) used a much smaller launcher that conventional SAM, maybe even on man's shoulder, that was not destroyed, and worse: since it was optical/IR based, it didn't emit any radar signal and the F35 didn't see it coming (it didn't launch flares nor done any evasive move).

So, once again, the F35 niche app was to take out SAMs and that was revealed insufficient.

Now, was it an excess of confidence and could the F35 have performed its mission without exposing itself so much? We don't know. But the point is this is a flagrant demonstration of the limit of the "stealth" claims that often sound like a magic invisibility coat. I maintain: stealth does not have that many use cases!

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Air combat superiority will do only if you're still beyond missile range at that point. Otherwise the other side also shoots back a long range missile at you, and it's likely to end in mutual destruction. And even if it's not, you revealed yourself, so better not be outnumbered. That reduces the usage in air combat.

This simply isn't true. Long range air to air missiles have to lock onto a radar return. The enemy might be aware that you've launched a missile at them, and that might tell them where you are, but it doesn't give them a missile lock on you in return. If your stealth is better than their detection, return fire becomes significantly less likely to be able to accurately target you before your missile hits.