IS HE CORRECT?

>>31864063

Canada will do what we say and they can be annexed otherwise.

But seriously, does Canada even have 300 qualified fighter jet pilots? If not, are they going to spend the money to train them? Spend the money maintaining 300 planes versus 65? More is not always better.

But would 65 Gripen's be better than 65 F-35's for Canada's paltry defense needs? Sure. Cheaper too.

>>31864063
>300 Gripens

Does this idiot also think Canada could hypothetically handle 300 Hornets with their current budget? Because they can't. It doesn't work that way. You couldn't buy 300 Gripen Es for the price of 65 F-35s anyways, not even close.

File: 1477265569336.png (116KB, 300x295px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 300x295px

>>31864097
>But would 65 Gripen's be better than 65 F-35's for Canada's paltry defense needs? Sure. Cheaper too.

File: fedaf5ba0f633f388dd2e02783397572938423d4531cf81a085bb4ecb61eadcc.jpg (87KB, 639x624px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 639x624px

>>31864225

But wait, there is more!

>>31864240
It's a silly argument anyways, since the recent Defense report to the Canadian parliament essentially confirmed that Canada must buy an American fighter. So the options are Super Hornet or F-35.

>>31864259
That's not even the main problem, the Gripen is a single engine jet.

Dual engines are a must for Canada due to Siberia-tier arctic wasteland airspace.

>dumbasses don't understand complex topics
>military procurement, air combat, and O&M are complex topics
>dumbasses aren't aware that they don't understand the topics they don't understand

>>31864284
If you want dual engines then you're basically choosing the Super Hornet. It's hardly a bad option, and it will still be very interoperable with the US considering they're planning on using it into the 2030s at least, but you are still basically making your choice there based on that variable.

>>31864063

>retard thinks numbers are everything
>retard doesn't understand that 65 F-35s in full A2A loadout will trash 300 Gripens every day of the week.

>>31864063
>Canada
>300 Gripens

Sweden has like 8million inhabitants, and their fleet consists of like 150 Gripens.
Canada has to have majorly fucked their military budget if they can only afford 300 of them, with a population many times the size of Sweden's population.

>>31864696
Canada has (despite it's current abysmal state) a far larger Navy to spend money on. Ships are expensive AF. Hell even when they first got them, Canada never had 150 Hornets.

>>31864063
So, the f35 was able to take down 5 f15Es in a mock battle.

So 65 f35s would be able to take down (theoretically) 325 enemy jets.

So yes, 300 would be inferior to 65 F

Shere numbers doesn't really work when it comes to 4th gen+ jets

>WE COULD FOR THAT PRICE BUY 100000000000 SOPWITH CAMELS
>OUR BIPLANES WOULD BLOT OUT THE SUN
>HOW COULD F-35 EVEN COMPETE?
>F-35 BTFO, F-35FAGS ON DAMAGE CONTROL
>muh avro ;_;