all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] 7 points 10 months ago

Of course they do. They donโ€™t want to be the 51st state of the USA. Chances of that becoming true increase the more they have planes that can be disabled remotely by the imperialistic Trump war machine.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 6 points 10 months ago

    Only 40% of F-35 planes are currently operational during non war times.

    Now imagine how difficult it would be to keep this in the air during war when US keeps the parts for their own planes.

    Now even further, imagine a world when the US is either a neutral party or an enemy, and zero of those planes are flying.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Interesting. I wonder why they're considering the Gripen instead of the Eurofighter Typhoon (German/British/Italian/Spanish) or Dassault Rafale (French). To be honest I really don't know what the differences would be.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The interesting feature of the gripen is it's ability to land on rural roads. Sweden has many of those and Canada also. Another interesting feature is it's maintainability, just 6 man crew, fuel and ammo on a road between nowhere is enough for the gripen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 7 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    I'm kinda shocked people have strong opinions on fighter planes of all things. I barely know those two models of plane exist. I would answer "don't know".

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    Do you know that the aircraft need servicing after every flight, otherwise it's grounded, and that supplies would come from the country of origin? US for F35. Sweden for Grippen.

    Does that change your outlook?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I guess, but I still wouldn't feel qualified enough to offer a confident answer. There are lots of factors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 4 points 10 months ago

    So in Europe there was a desire to send F35s into conflict in Ukraine. US said no by saying that servicing supplies would not be made available.

    Sovereign nations are unable to use their planes how they want to.

    Now with Gripen it might be a similar situation, but Sweden has been trustworthy thus far.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 10 months ago

    Big investments like this are often very politicized-even before Trump and all-because it's to a large degree just geopolitics. Gripen is in all likelihood the better alternative, but F35 has been considered an excellent choice for countries wishing to suck up to America. Until recently sucking up to America was considered good defense policy among parts of the political spectrum.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 2 points 10 months ago

    This is the way! Not as technologically advanced as the F-35, but much better than a switched-off F-35 anyway.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 2 points 10 months ago

    Can't believe 12% chose North Korea

  • source
  • [โ€“] -1 points 10 months ago*

    Jets is the least needed thing for a non existant threat

  • source
  • 8 comments in c/boycottus@lemmy.ca view that post
    [โ€“] 14 points 2 months ago

    To me it's the fighter jet equivalent of getting a Fairphone vs. iPhone. We won't be beholden to John Ternus and other US administration bootlickers, and in addition we'd have the ability to leverage Canadian expertise to make the Gripen better for all members. Like an iPhone, the F35 probably is a well put-together package, but we pretty much get it as-is with little control over operation and maintenance.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The f35 strikes me as being an impossible wartime asset. Itโ€™s tremendously complicated and needs a lot of support. Weโ€™re seeing in Ukraine that cheap assets can eliminate very expensive assets pretty easily, and as with previous industrialized wars, the ability to churn out many military assets beats technology.

    In the current political climate, no country (except perhaps Israel) should be part of the f35 failure of a program.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It's a long range plane. Stealth means you can gets hundreds of miles closer to long distance radar detection before they can see you, letting you see and hit the enemy plane before they can see you. You don't see Ukraine giving up on planes just because they can be hit by a drone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Thereโ€™s a big difference between โ€œgiving up on planesโ€ and giving up on the F35. For example, buying a simpler plane that can be manufactured in greater numbers, more quickly, at lower unit cost, that goes longer between scheduled maintenance, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 6 points 2 months ago

    Keep in mind that even a US NORAD commander has said that the F-35 is not the best fighter for North American defence.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 5 points 2 months ago

    This jet buying bullshit is porn for boomers.

  • source
  • [โ€“] 5 points 2 months ago

    Me too, ditch the F35

  • source
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 months ago

    How about ballistic missiles and drones?

  • source