3 ms·

> The Eurofighter has always been a formidable jet and the Gripen is a better single-engine fighter than the F-35 in most respects. From what I’ve read the Gri

> The Eurofighter has always been a formidable jet and the Gripen is a better single-engine fighter than the F-35 in most respects. From what I’ve read the Gripen has no stealth, isn’t as advanced on electronics, and is mainly built to be cheap and flexible. Some claim it is more maneuverable but others say the F35 is just as maneuverable. But the F35 just won’t need to ever get close for that to matter.

bigyabai 2y ago
Stealth is really a moot point. It's extremely expensive to maintain and compromises certain aspects of an airframe's design to maintain a minimal cross section. Again - this makes it a great weapon in contested airspace but a taxpayer burden for combat air patrol. Even Americans could barely justify the F-35 to themselves, in terms of pure maneuverability the F-16 still wins most simulated dogfights. In practice, Canada does not have to defend against a credible stealth-equipped adversary. The F-35 wouldn't even help them if they did. God willing, North America will not be the stage for World War III, so they also have no need to survive in contested airspace. Canada's defensive mission remains intercepting supersonic bombers, something the F-35 fundamentally cannot do. > But the F35 just won’t need to ever get close for that to matter. Nor does an Su-27 when it's radar silent and guided by passive EOTS: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/06/11/how-su-30-has-intercepted-the-f-35-he-came-almost-out-of-nowhere/ https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/06/11/how-su-30-has-intercep... The F-35 is not a super-jet. The F-22 exists for a reason; in terms of mission capacity the F-35 is basically an F-117 redesigned to suck less. It's a very cool plane that is fundamentally useless to countries that are not constantly molesting the borders of other nations.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > It's extremely expensive to maintain I’m not familiar. What does that involve? Is it maintaining paint or something? > Canada's defensive mission remains intercepting supersonic bombers, something the F-35 fundamentally cannot do. Why do you say the F35 cannot intercept a supersonic bomber? Or maybe how are you defining that characteristic? I would think it can just fly out to a range from where it can fire a missile and does not actually have to get up close. > Nor does an Su-27 when it's radar silent and guided by passive EOTS Thanks for sharing that link about the Su. It’s an interesting read but I wonder if there was some malfunction, because they mention restarting warning systems. > It's a very cool plane that is fundamentally useless to countries that are not constantly molesting the borders of other nations. I feel like there is some editorialization in here.
- numpad0 2y ago
  Isn't modern stealth is less about actually being invisible than about delaying response? Anyone can see it's there if you walk up to it, but if you had to walk up so close and deep into its weapons range to be sure, it serves its purpose, no?

bigyabai 2y ago

Stealth is really a moot point. It's extremely expensive to maintain and compromises certain aspects of an airframe's design to maintain a minimal cross section. Again - this makes it a great weapon in contested airspace but a taxpayer burden for combat air patrol. Even Americans could barely justify the F-35 to themselves, in terms of pure maneuverability the F-16 still wins most simulated dogfights. In practice, Canada does not have to defend against a credible stealth-equipped adversary. The F-35 wouldn't even help them if they did. God willing, North America will not be the stage for World War III, so they also have no need to survive in contested airspace. Canada's defensive mission remains intercepting supersonic bombers, something the F-35 fundamentally cannot do. > But the F35 just won’t need to ever get close for that to matter. Nor does an Su-27 when it's radar silent and guided by passive EOTS: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/06/11/how-su-30-has-intercepted-the-f-35-he-came-almost-out-of-nowhere/ https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/06/11/how-su-30-has-intercep... The F-35 is not a super-jet. The F-22 exists for a reason; in terms of mission capacity the F-35 is basically an F-117 redesigned to suck less. It's a very cool plane that is fundamentally useless to countries that are not constantly molesting the borders of other nations.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> It's extremely expensive to maintain I’m not familiar. What does that involve? Is it maintaining paint or something? > Canada's defensive mission remains intercepting supersonic bombers, something the F-35 fundamentally cannot do. Why do you say the F35 cannot intercept a supersonic bomber? Or maybe how are you defining that characteristic? I would think it can just fly out to a range from where it can fire a missile and does not actually have to get up close. > Nor does an Su-27 when it's radar silent and guided by passive EOTS Thanks for sharing that link about the Su. It’s an interesting read but I wonder if there was some malfunction, because they mention restarting warning systems. > It's a very cool plane that is fundamentally useless to countries that are not constantly molesting the borders of other nations. I feel like there is some editorialization in here.
numpad0 2y ago
Isn't modern stealth is less about actually being invisible than about delaying response? Anyone can see it's there if you walk up to it, but if you had to walk up so close and deep into its weapons range to be sure, it serves its purpose, no?