"Using bright colours to drive the message home for the hard of thinking, the table-which was reportedly obtained by Radio-Canada-shows that the F-35 (represented in very nice and inviting green) is head and shoulders above the poor Gripen (represented mostly in a forbidding and dangerous red). Supporters of the F-35 have made much of the table; I mean, how can you argue with actual numbers?"
"Well, colour me skeptical. The table compares the two aircraft according to broad criteria such as: "Mission Performance," "Upgradability," "Sustainment," and others. But no explanation is provided as to what these categories mean or how the numbers for each aircraft were arrived at. This raises questions. For example, did the study compare the actual capability of the F-35 as it was in 2021, or the envisaged capability when its latest upgrade (known as "Block 4") is applied?"
"So, the question is, did the 2021 study compare an on-paper Block 4 F-35 (which doesn't yet exist) to the 2021 Gripen? It kind of matters. The problem is, the Block 4 upgrade is, according to a September 2025 study by the US government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than five years behind schedule and over $6 billion (US) over cost-and counting."
A confidential 2021 Royal Canadian Air Force table compares the American F-35 and Sweden's Gripen across broad criteria such as Mission Performance, Upgradability, and Sustainment. The table uses green to emphasize the F-35 and red to emphasize the Gripen, but provides no definitions or methodology for the scoring. The comparison may conflate current F-35 capability with projected Block 4 capabilities that are not yet fielded. A September 2025 US GAO study found the Block 4 upgrade more than five years delayed and over US$6 billion over budget, raising concerns about relying on projected performance.
Read at The Walrus
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]