HELLFIRE While the author got some of the points about the stalling tactics mostly right (my opinion), I think it was a mostly fluff piece otherwise, and the author/journalist would do well to proofread before rushing to publish.
The article ignores the fact that the RCAF always wants everything, and always seems to specify the most expensive option. At the time, the RCAF said that the Arrow was the best jet for their purposes, that nothing else was suitable, and that the Bomarc was also a nice-to-have. We know that that isn’t what they got (for a number of reasons).
The article also makes a very presumptuous mistake in referring to everything else as inferior, without even enumerating the ways in which they are inferior, or for which tasks. Not even the staunchest proponent of the F-35 would argue with claims that the Gripen, in its current form, has a higher top speed and is more manoeuvrable; in some situations, that can make the difference between accomplishing a mission and dying in a ball of fire, and semi-stealth won’t save they day.
The software, maintenance and ties to U.S. infrastructure are also significant drawbacks, to say nothing of the more appealing industrial benefits of the SAAB offer. None of that even mentions Lockheed Martin’s reputation for not delivering on time, higher maintenance and operational costs, and their inability to evolve their own platform or source the equipment to make said evolution a reality. The Gripen is a design known to be extensible, that performs well, and that we can probably make arrangements to start having delivered (or built) by the time Lockheed Martin ever gets their act together on Block B. So far, none of that even mentions the recurring threats and criticisms against us from the same “friends” who want to sell us that jet.