The series has an excellent
description of the pros and cons of the various alternatives. Canadian Defence
Matter’s take on the options available can be found at http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.ca/2012/04/aircraft-choices.html.
The Gripen argument goes like this:
“Saab JAS 39 Gripen NG:
Arguments in favor of the Gripen are similar to those for the F-16. Its shorter
range and single engine, like the F-16, may not recommend it for long patrols
over arctic wastes but in sufficient numbers it would be perfectly capable of
mounting an air defence over major cities or supporting Canadian troop
contingents overseas. Some, undoubtedly misguided, parties might even consider
these efforts to be more important than protecting the tundra. The Gripen is a
modern aircraft, a relatively new design capable of being refitted with all the
latest bells and whistles as they become available.”
Much of Meema’s argument is
based on the relative costs involved. Needless to say, this is where the
arguments begin. Nobody even knows how much an F-35 is going to cost. Figures
for the Gripen are a probably a little more firm, if anyone is talking. One
thing that is known for sure is that Switzerland purchased the Gripen
based on the belief that it would be the most cost effective, if not to say cheapest.
For Canadian Defence Matters
the best thing about a Gripen buy would be the opportunity to buy a reasonable
number of aircraft. 65, the current maximum number quoted for an F-35
purchase is not a reasonable number. It fails to reach the critical mass needed
to sustain operations. Without adequate numbers any purchase becomes largely
symbolic and a waste of money.
