"CONSCIOUSNESS" IS AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE "DIVINE SPARK" WITHIN US!
Toronto's Yorkville was a happening place back when I wore a younger man's clothes!
I was a DJ on the radio by then... [and I hung out in Yorkville every once in a while] but... the memory that still brings a smile to my face is hanging out with Rick Lauzon at the "Wreck Bar" on Saturday afternoons... getting high and watching the "Roadrunner" on the TV over the bar!
ALLAN:
What did Trump mean when he said Canada is "not allowed" to add a surcharge to electricity sent to the US in response to his tariffs?First, Trump said that he would add a 25 percent tariff to Canadian electricity consumed in the US. Raising the price in the US by 25 percent.
Then he lowered it to 10 percent.
Then he cancelled it.
Then he said that the US doesn't need Canadian electricity.
Then he applied aluminum and steel tariffs, and Ontario applied a 25 percent export tax on electricity to the US. (This is identical to Trump's 25 percent tariff on electricity, except Ontario gets the money, not Trump.)
The same people pay an extra 25 percent either way.
Then he says that he can't believe that Canada would stoop so low as to apply Trump's tax on electricity.
He says you can't do that, it's unethical. He says that he will declare a state of emergency in the 5 states affected by the tax.
Remember this is the electricity that he said the US doesn't need, but it's a state of emergency, when the price is raised, to what Trump proposed.
You can't make this stuff up.
So, I think he means that he himself should not be allowed to apply the tariff he proposed on electricity.
I suspect that it's another sign of his cognitive decline.
Did you actually expect Canadians to respond positively to Trump disregarding a trade agreement (that HE negotiated btw) and put 25% tariffs on Canadian imports?
What about stating outright that “Canada meant to be our 51st state”.
Let’s not forget disrespecting our Prime Minister by repeatedly calling him governor.
Then, of course, there is saying Canada is one of the nastiest countries to deal with. Lies about Canada charging 250% tariffs (sometimes more depending on the day he’s speaking) on American dairy products.
What about his incessant lies about “subsidizing Canada”?
Oh, and what about threatening to redraw the border between our two countries??
You say Canada should admit we were never a friend to the US.
Let me put this simply for you.
We have viewed you as our closest friend and ally for a century.
We thought of you as brothers and sisters.
We answered the call, again and again, for any support you needed from us.
This isn't a joke to us.
We're not overreacting.
We don't think he's just spouting these lies to cause chaos or negotiate a deal.
We wholeheartedly believe that our closest ally and friend is about to bring violence across our border, economically destroy us, and eliminate our way of life.
Jesse Watters on Fox News said he was personally offended that Canadians did not want to become American.
Well, guess what?
Most Canadians are personally offended that Americans have such little respect for Canada as a country that they would assume we would be “honoured” to be taken over by the United States.
Yes, I said taken over.
Let’s call it like it is.
Stop softening it by using the word annexation.
What Trump is suggesting by “annexing Canada” and “redrawing” the border between our two countries is an act of WAR!
Is that how friends treat each other?
We won’t even discuss the disrespect Trump showed our PM.
One can only imagine what Trump would do if we consistently referred to him as Premier Trump.
His arrogance and intentional disrespect towards the Canadian Prime Minister was disgraceful and unfitting of the office of the President.
Let’s discuss those dairy tariffs, shall we?
The reality is the Canadian Dairy Industry runs under supply management, so it’s all about managing the supply for the Canadian market... BUT there is an 18% allowance for imports and most of that 18% comes from the US.
That is tariff-free.
IF more than 18% is imported into Canada THEN there is a surcharge on CERTAIN dairy products and in SOME CASES that is 250%.
Even the US Dairy industry has said that has never actually happened.
In many categories, notably including milk, the U.S. is not even at half of the zero-tariff maximum.
Trump also made another claim that is simply false.
He told reporters that the situation with Canadian dairy tariffs was “well taken care of” at the time his first presidency ended, “but under Biden, they just kept raising it.”
In reality, Canada did not raise its dairy tariffs under then-U.S. President Joe Biden.
Simply put, Trump’s assertion that Canada kept hiking its dairy tariffs when Biden was in charge is, as usual, a LIE!
Trump just has his knickers in a twist because we have supply management policies in place that support Canadian farmers and protect its dairy, egg and poultry industries from foreign competition.
So yes, there is a 250% tariff after the quota has been exceeded, BUT it has never actually been exceeded, so that tariff has never actually been used.
Lastly, the tariffs Trump is so busy denouncing were negotiated by Trump himself in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA/CUSMA.
The agreement Trump touted as “the best trade deal ever made”.
PS: The US have exactly the same over tariffs in place.
Canada (and PM Trudeau’s associates) nasty??
That is laughable.
Those that Trump considers "nice" are doormats that roll over and agree with everything he says.
The minute someone says no, Trump reacts like a petulant child and has a tantrum; he threatens tariffs and spouts misinformation hoping they will bend to his will.
Guess what?
Canada will not.
Canada considers it a compliment that we are considered “nasty”.
It means we have self-respect.
Trump has directly threatened Canada’s sovereignty and the Canadian economy.
Trump has ridiculed Canadian leaders and insulted the Canadian people, all without provocation.
Canada has been a staunch ally and the largest trading partner for the US.
In return we are directly threatened by the US President.
Many Americans downplay Trump’s rhetoric, but Canadians don’t.
Canadians also know the people of the US put that racist, xenophobe in office and actions have consequences.
His lies, appeals to patriotism, and incitement of violence must be stopped before it is too late.
If you don’t the consequences are on you, the American people, and no one else!
And as for this nonsense about the U.S. “subsidizing” Canada because we run a trade surplus with it. This claim explains why Trump has gone bankrupt so many times.
He has no clue how economics works.
Subsidizing means giving something for nothing.
A trade deficit is not a subsidy.
We sell more to the US than we buy from the US.
That is a trade deficit.
Claiming it is a subsidy is like like claiming that you subsidize McDonald’s when you buy and eat a burger.
Did McDonald’s buy anything back from you?
Do you stand in the parking lot afterwards and scream that you should own the McDonalds because you have been subsidizing them every time you buy a Happy Meal?
Canada has never been your friend you say?
Canada sends firefighters, waterbombers and linesman every time there is a natural disaster in the US.
Canada has a history of offering financial aid and providing food and other relief supplies to the United States following natural disasters, often working through organizations like FEMA (which Drumpf is closing) and the Canadian Red Cross.
For example, in 2017, after Hurricane Harvey, Canada delivered over 27,000 pounds of relief goods to FEMA and thus to American citizens.
In 2005, following Hurricane Katrina, the Canadian Forces participated in a relief operation named Operation UNISON, dispatching ships carrying humanitarian supplies to the Gulf Coast.
Canada hosted thousands of Americans when planes weren’t allowed to land in the US on 9/11.
Canada spent billions and lost hundreds of soldiers supporting the US in Afghanistan.
Canada rescued US Teheran embassy staff and smuggled them out … the list goes on.
As a thank you Canada gets threatened with 51st state and redraw the border nonsense.
Who is not being the friend here?
So your little feelings are hurt because Canada is booing the American national anthem at sporting events and you don’t think we are your friend.
Canadians are not booing the American people, their teams or their players (except those who put our flag on their dressing room floor and/accuse us of cheating), we are booing your government and their unjustified policies.
Pull your head out of your ass and see what’s really happening!
Cate McEachern
%20-%20Copy.png)
The "Mrs. Herself" and I were talking about how the 'Uhmerican' people are divided 50 / 50 in their political inclinations and aspirations... with the stupid half naturally being the "Republicans!"
Anyway, the conversation then moved on to 'Marjorie Taylor Greene,' ...which made me remark that... "If I were married to that woman... she would be dead within a week!"
WELL! Didn't I immediately get shit for wishing someone else ill!
'Bad Karma' I was told!
***
O.K. THEN: Let's have a vote to see if I was right about this cunt! (and I don't say that lightly)
YOU DECIDE...
Now here's something ya don't see every day!!!!
A Florida woman is facing criminal charges after being accused of engaging in sexual activity with a Chihuahua and posting a video of it on social media.
On Friday, March 21, Logan Guminski, 27, of Ocala, was arrested and charged with sexual activity involving an animal and filming sexual activity involving an animal.
She was booked into the Marion County Jail and released after she posted a $10,000 bond.
Authorities learned of the alleged crime on Jan. 28, when Major Crimes Detective Jordyn Batts received an anonymous tip that Guminski had posted a video to Instagram depicting sexual activity with a dog, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.
***
THAT PLACE JUST GETS WEIRDER EVERY DAY, FOLKS!
During this ongoing trade war with the United States, Canada was visited by Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week in an attempt to smooth over ruffled Canadian feathers!
Instead of helping the situation... Canadian officials put down a three-foot-long "red carpet" for Secretary Rubio to step onto because of a previous rainstorm... but in the puddle at the end of it... they dug a four-foot hole... which Marco immediately fell into... and had to be quickly rescued by his secret service detail!
I once met an American who hated Mexicans because he thought they all wanted to immigrate to the US, ....and he hated Canadians because they didn't want to immigrate to the U.S.
Here's another reason why we should NEVER join the U.S. of A.
We Canadians owe Donald Drumpf a tremendous show of thanks and appreciation!
There has NEVER been anyone in our entire history that has done more to bring Canadians together in solidarity and patriotism!
Thank You Donald!
***
This is long... really long... but I had SAL-9000 (my A.I.) conduct a comprehensive analysis of cancelling all F35s we haven't already paid for (16 of them) and instead examine all alternatives.
The winner, by far, turned out to be the Saab Gripen.
If Canada were to cancel its F-35 program, the best alternative among the Saab Gripen E, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Dassault Rafale would depend on several key factors, including cost, operational effectiveness in Canada’s environment, interoperability with allies, industrial benefits, and long-term sustainability. Let's break them down:
Canada’s fighter jet must excel in:
| Aircraft | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Cold-weather optimized, excellent electronic warfare (EW), low operating cost, dispersed basing capability (STOL runways) | Single-engine (safety concern over Arctic), limited combat experience, less interoperability with NATO |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | High-speed interceptor, strong NATO integration, superior dogfighting ability | High operating costs, older avionics compared to modern fighters, Arctic performance unproven |
| Dassault Rafale | Strong multirole capability, great range and payload, excellent sensors and EW | Less NATO integration, high upfront cost, maintenance complexity |
| Aircraft | NORAD Compatibility | NATO Compatibility |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Limited U.S. weapon integration, but can be modified | Some NATO nations use Gripen, but lacks deep U.S. integration |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | Well-integrated with NATO but not used by the U.S. | Strong NATO participation (UK, Germany, Italy, Spain) |
| Dassault Rafale | Less U.S. integration, primarily used by France | Used in NATO operations, but lacks full integration with U.S. |
Canada wants strong industrial offsets and low long-term costs.
| Aircraft | Upfront Cost | Operating Cost per Flight Hour | Industrial Offsets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Cheapest ($85M/unit) | $4,700/hr (lowest cost fighter) | Strongest industrial partnership (Saab offers domestic production) |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | Expensive ($100M/unit) | $18,000/hr (high cost) | Limited industrial benefits for Canada |
| Dassault Rafale | $95M/unit | $16,500/hr | France offers some industry deals, but not as much as Saab |
| Aircraft | Availability of Spare Parts | Future Upgrades |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Sweden may not have enough global support for long-term sustainment | Easy to upgrade, but limited supply chain outside Sweden |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | Heavily supported by European nations, long-term viability is good | Multiple nations continue investing in upgrades |
| Dassault Rafale | Only supported by France and a few buyers, long-term sustainment is a question | Future upgrades depend on French military priorities |
If Canada cancels the F-35, the best choice depends on priorities:
| Scenario | Best Aircraft | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest cost & best industry deal | Saab Gripen E | Cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, strong industrial offsets |
| Best NATO/NORAD integration | Eurofighter Typhoon | Strongest NATO ties, used by major allies |
| Best Arctic/Maritime fighter | Dassault Rafale | Best range, powerful multirole capabilities |
| Best long-term sustainability | Eurofighter Typhoon | Large user base ensures long-term upgrades |
But if interoperability with NATO/NORAD is the priority, then Eurofighter Typhoon makes the most sense.
If Canada wants a U.S. alternative, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III would be the most realistic option:
Would you like a deeper breakdown of potential political factors in this decision?
If Canada were to cancel the F-35 program, the political landscape would heavily influence the choice of a replacement. Here’s a breakdown of how domestic and international politics would shape the decision:
| Aircraft | U.S. Relations Impact |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | U.S. might not block it outright, but could limit access to weapons and tech. |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | Slightly better than Gripen because it's used by NATO allies. |
| Dassault Rafale | Most politically risky; the U.S. might see it as a break from the alliance. |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | The safest alternative, as it’s a U.S. aircraft. |
✅ If Canada wants to avoid U.S. backlash, a U.S.-made jet (F/A-18 Super Hornet) would be the safest bet.
| Aircraft | NATO Friendliness |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Sweden’s NATO membership improves compatibility, but it’s still a limited NATO jet. |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | Strong NATO ties (UK, Germany, Italy, Spain all use it). |
| Dassault Rafale | Used by France, but not widely integrated into NATO. |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Used by multiple NATO nations and fully interoperable. |
Liberal Government’s Skepticism Toward the F-35:
Conservative Party Stance:
Public Perception & Costs:
| Aircraft | Likelihood of Political Support |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Popular among cost-conscious voters, but weak NATO integration may hurt its chances. |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | Strong NATO support, but expensive. Could be acceptable to a future Conservative gov’t. |
| Dassault Rafale | Unlikely to gain political traction; too closely tied to France’s independent defense policies. |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Middle-ground choice that satisfies both U.S. and fiscal concerns. |
| Aircraft | Industrial Benefits to Canada |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Strongest offer for Canadian manufacturing. |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | Some NATO production work, but limited benefits for Canadian industry. |
| Dassault Rafale | Some offsets, but no local production promise. |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Boeing could offer work to Canada, but not full production. |
✅ Best for Canadian jobs & economy: Saab Gripen E.
Would you like a deeper dive into any specific diplomatic consequences of choosing a non-U.S. aircraft?
If Canada cancels the F-35, the two most viable alternatives are the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III and the Saab Gripen E. Let's break down which is cheaper and which could be built in Canada in detail.
| Aircraft | Unit Cost (USD) |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $85 million |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $100-110 million |
Winner: Saab Gripen E
| Aircraft | Operating Cost per Hour (USD) |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $4,700/hr (lowest of any modern fighter) |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $18,000-$24,000/hr |
Winner: Saab Gripen E
| Aircraft | Estimated 30-Year Fleet Cost (USD) |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $20-25 billion |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $45-50 billion |
Winner: Saab Gripen E
A major factor in Canada’s decision is industrial benefits, including job creation and technology transfer.
✅ Verdict: Saab Gripen E could be built in Canada, creating thousands of domestic aerospace jobs.
⚠️ Verdict: Super Hornet would provide some Canadian jobs, but nowhere near what Saab is offering.
✅ Verdict: Super Hornet is the safer political choice, while Gripen is riskier but offers more independence.
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront Cost | $85M per jet | $100-110M per jet | Gripen |
| Operating Cost | $4,700/hr (very low) | $18,000-$24,000/hr | Gripen |
| Lifetime Cost | $20-25 billion over 30 years | $45-50 billion over 30 years | Gripen |
| Canadian Jobs & Industry | Could be built in Canada | Limited production in Canada | Gripen |
| U.S./NORAD Relations | Some risk with U.S. pressure | Fully aligned with U.S. and NORAD | Super Hornet |
| Interoperability | Needs minor modifications for full NATO/NORAD use | Fully NATO & NORAD compatible | Super Hornet |
| Cold Weather Performance | Designed for Arctic conditions | Good, but less optimized for extreme cold | Gripen |
| Weapons Compatibility | Requires some U.S. integrations | Fully compatible with NATO/U.S. weapons | Super Hornet |
For example:
If Canada cancels the F-35, the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III and the Saab Gripen E are the two most realistic alternatives. Let’s examine which aircraft makes the most sense when considering financial, political, and industrial factors.
| Aircraft | Unit Cost (USD) | Fleet Cost (88 Jets) (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $85 million | $7.48 billion |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $100-110 million | $8.8-9.7 billion |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Cheaper upfront cost)
| Aircraft | Operating Cost per Hour (USD) |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $4,700/hr |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $18,000-$24,000/hr |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Cheaper to operate)
| Aircraft | Total Cost Over 30 Years (USD) |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $20-25 billion |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $45-50 billion |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Lower lifetime cost)
Saab has offered to build the Gripen in Canada, which would:
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (More domestic jobs and technology transfer)
✅ Winner: F/A-18 Super Hornet (Less risk of U.S. retaliation)
| Aircraft | NATO Compatibility | U.S. Weapons Compatibility |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Moderate NATO integration | Limited U.S. weapons stockpile |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Fully NATO-compatible | Access to full U.S. weapons inventory |
✅ Winner: F/A-18 Super Hornet (Better for NATO/U.S. integration)
| Aircraft | Liberal Government View | Conservative Government View |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Fits Trudeau's past desire to avoid F-35, promotes jobs | Less aligned with pro-U.S. defense stance |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Keeps U.S. happy, good for NORAD | Supports NATO & U.S. alliance |
⚠️ Risk: If Canada picks Gripen under a Liberal government, a future Conservative administration could cancel the deal and revert to a U.S. aircraft.
✅ Winner: Tie (Gripen aligns with Liberal policies, Super Hornet aligns with Conservative/NORAD policies)
| Aircraft | Cold Weather Readiness | Arctic Deployment Suitability |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Designed for Arctic conditions | STOL (Short Takeoff/Landing) makes it usable on highways |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Good in cold weather, but not Arctic-optimized | Requires larger, prepared runways |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Better for Arctic operations)
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront Cost | $85M per jet | $100-110M per jet | Gripen |
| Operating Cost | $4,700/hr (low) | $18,000-$24,000/hr | Gripen |
| Lifetime Cost | $20-25 billion over 30 years | $45-50 billion over 30 years | Gripen |
| Canadian Jobs & Industry | Could be built in Canada | Limited production in Canada | Gripen |
| U.S./NORAD Relations | Some risk with U.S. pressure | Fully aligned with U.S. and NORAD | Super Hornet |
| NATO Compatibility | Requires some modifications | Fully NATO-compatible | Super Hornet |
| Cold Weather Performance | Optimized for Arctic ops | Good, but requires large runways | Gripen |
Would you like an analysis of combat capabilities or logistics requirements next?
With Sweden officially joining NATO, the Saab Gripen E will be fully integrated into NATO's command and control systems, logistics, and weapons compatibility. This significantly changes the comparison with the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III, especially in terms of political and military interoperability.
Let’s break down financial, political, and industrial factors under these updated conditions.
| Aircraft | Unit Cost (USD) | Fleet Cost (88 Jets) (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $85 million | $7.48 billion |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $100-110 million | $8.8-9.7 billion |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Lower upfront cost)
| Aircraft | Operating Cost per Hour (USD) |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $4,700/hr |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $18,000-$24,000/hr |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Much cheaper to operate)
| Aircraft | Total Cost Over 30 Years (USD) |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | $20-25 billion |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | $45-50 billion |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Lower total cost)
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (More domestic jobs & economic benefits)
⚠️ Super Hornet’s industrial benefits are minimal compared to Gripen.
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Much better for Canadian industry)
| Aircraft | NATO Compatibility | U.S. Weapons Compatibility |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Fully integrated (Sweden in NATO) | Will be able to use NATO-standard weapons |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Fully NATO-compatible | Full access to U.S. weapons |
✅ Winner: Tie (Both jets are now fully NATO-compatible)
| Aircraft | NORAD/U.S. Political Impact |
|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | U.S. may pressure Canada to buy an American jet |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Safe choice politically, keeps U.S. happy |
✅ Winner: F/A-18 Super Hornet (Less political risk)
| Aircraft | Liberal Government View | Conservative Government View |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Fits Trudeau’s cost-conscious policy, promotes jobs | Might be canceled by a Conservative gov't |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Keeps U.S. happy | Aligns with pro-U.S. Conservative defense policy |
⚠️ Risk: Gripen could face cancellation if political power shifts.
✅ Winner: Tie (Gripen aligns with Liberal goals, Super Hornet aligns with Conservative goals)
| Aircraft | Cold Weather Readiness | Arctic Deployment Suitability |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Optimized for Arctic conditions | STOL (Short Takeoff/Landing) makes it usable on highways |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Good in cold weather, but not Arctic-optimized | Requires larger, prepared runways |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Better for Arctic operations)
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront Cost | $85M per jet | $100-110M per jet | Gripen |
| Operating Cost | $4,700/hr (low) | $18,000-$24,000/hr | Gripen |
| Lifetime Cost | $20-25 billion over 30 years | $45-50 billion over 30 years | Gripen |
| Canadian Jobs & Industry | Could be built in Canada | Limited production in Canada | Gripen |
| U.S./NORAD Relations | Some risk with U.S. pressure | Fully aligned with U.S. and NORAD | Super Hornet |
| NATO Compatibility | Now fully NATO-integrated | Fully NATO-integrated | Tie |
| Cold Weather Performance | Optimized for Arctic ops | Good, but requires large runways | Gripen |
Would you like a combat capabilities comparison next?
Now that Sweden is in NATO, the Saab Gripen E will be fully integrated into NATO’s command and control systems, weapons, and logistics. This changes how it compares to the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III in combat.
Let’s analyze combat effectiveness based on key factors: air-to-air combat, air-to-ground attack, stealth, sensors, weapons, electronic warfare (EW), range, and survivability.
| Aircraft | Thrust-to-Weight Ratio | Turn Rate | Agility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | 0.98 (with full fuel and weapons) | Excellent instantaneous turn rate | Highly agile, small & nimble |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | 0.93 (with full loadout) | Good sustained turn rate | Stable but less agile than Gripen |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Superior agility and turn rate)
| Aircraft | Radar & Detection Range | BVR Missile Options | Combat Radius |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | AESA radar: ~300 km detection range | Meteor, AMRAAM, AIM-9X | 1,500 km |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | AESA radar: ~300 km detection range | AIM-120D AMRAAM, AIM-9X | 1,280 km |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Better missile selection & longer combat radius)
| Aircraft | Weapons Payload | Precision Strike Capability | Combat Radius |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | 16,500 lbs payload | Brimstone, Paveway, Taurus KEPD 350, JDAM | 1,500 km |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | 17,750 lbs payload | JDAM, Harpoon, SLAM-ER, LRASM | 1,280 km |
✅ Winner: Tie (Super Hornet has more payload; Gripen has more range and precision weapons)
| Aircraft | Radar Cross-Section (RCS) | Survivability Features |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Small (0.1-0.5m², harder to detect than Super Hornet) | Electronic warfare suite, decoys, small size |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | Larger (~1m² RCS, not stealthy) | Good armor, durable design, twin engines |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Better stealth and survivability through electronic warfare)
| Aircraft | Electronic Warfare Suite | Data Fusion & Sensor Networking |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Highly advanced EW suite (EWS-39) | Link-16, NATO-compatible, superior data fusion |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | ALQ-214 EW suite | Link-16, U.S. battle network |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Superior electronic warfare and data fusion)
| Aircraft | Combat Radius (Without Refueling) | Ferry Range |
|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | 1,500 km | 4,000 km |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | 1,280 km | 3,330 km |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Better range and endurance)
| Aircraft | Air Superiority | Ground Attack | Electronic Warfare | Maritime Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| F/A-18 Super Hornet | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ (Growler Variant) | ✔✔ (Better anti-ship missiles) |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (More versatile without requiring separate variants)
| Combat Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dogfighting (Agility & Maneuverability) | ✔ | Good | Gripen |
| Beyond Visual Range Combat (BVR) | ✔ (Meteor missile, better radar cross-section) | Good (AMRAAM but larger RCS) | Gripen |
| Air-to-Ground Attack | ✔ (Precision strike, Taurus missile) | ✔ (Larger payload, better anti-ship) | Tie |
| Stealth & Survivability | ✔ (Lower RCS, better EW) | ✔ (Twin-engine, durable) | Gripen |
| Electronic Warfare & Data Fusion | ✔ (Advanced EW, superior sensor fusion) | Good | Gripen |
| Range & Endurance | ✔ (Better range and endurance) | Decent | Gripen |
| Maritime Strike Capability | Good | ✔ (Better anti-ship options) | Super Hornet |
Would you like an Arctic operations or future upgrade potential analysis next?
With Canada’s vast Arctic territory and extreme climate, fighter jets must operate reliably in low temperatures, remote locations, and unpredictable conditions. Additionally, long-term upgrade potential determines how well the aircraft will remain relevant over the next 30+ years.
Fighters operating in Canada must handle:
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cold Weather Adaptation | Designed for Arctic conditions (Sweden’s similar climate) | Good but not Arctic-optimized | Gripen ✅ |
| Runway Requirements | Short Takeoff & Landing (STOL), can use highways | Requires large, well-maintained runways | Gripen ✅ |
| Survivability in Harsh Environments | Easy to maintain, modular parts, single-engine but highly reliable | Twin-engine for safety but harder to maintain in extreme conditions | Tie 🤝 |
| Range & Endurance for Arctic Patrols | 1,500 km combat radius, optimized for long endurance | 1,280 km combat radius, higher fuel consumption | Gripen ✅ |
| Ease of Maintenance in Remote Areas | Designed for rapid repair by small ground crews | More complex maintenance, requires larger support infrastructure | Gripen ✅ |
Super Hornet is still a capable Arctic fighter but is less suited for remote deployment.
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Airframe Life Expectancy | 10,000+ flight hours (designed for long service life) | 6,000-8,000 flight hours (limited lifespan, may need replacements sooner) | Gripen ✅ |
| Upgrade Potential | Modular design allows for continuous software & hardware updates | Good but nearing the end of its design evolution | Gripen ✅ |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Better long-term adaptability)
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| AESA Radar | ES-05 Raven (upgradable, open architecture) | APG-79(V)4 (upgradable, but locked into U.S. system) | Gripen ✅ |
| Sensor Fusion | Best-in-class, integrates multiple sources in real-time | Good, but less advanced fusion than Gripen | Gripen ✅ |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (More flexible and future-proof)
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current NATO Weapons Compatibility | Meteor, AMRAAM, Taurus, Brimstone, JDAM | AMRAAM, JDAM, Harpoon, LRASM | Tie 🤝 |
| Future Weapons Compatibility | Can integrate any NATO weapons, independent of U.S. approval | Tied to U.S. approvals, may have restrictions | Gripen ✅ |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (More independence in future weapons integration)
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electronic Warfare System | EWS-39 (One of the best EW suites in the world) | ALQ-214 (Good, but not as advanced as Gripen’s system) | Gripen ✅ |
| Stealth Enhancements | Small radar cross-section (~0.1-0.5m²) | Larger radar cross-section (~1m², not stealthy) | Gripen ✅ |
✅ Winner: Saab Gripen E (Superior EW and passive stealth features)
| Factor | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cold Weather Adaptation | Optimized for Arctic ops | Good, but not Arctic-optimized | Gripen ✅ |
| Short Runway Operations | STOL (highway & ice runways capable) | Requires large, paved runways | Gripen ✅ |
| Maintenance & Logistics | Simplified maintenance, fewer ground crew needed | More complex maintenance needs | Gripen ✅ |
| Range & Endurance | Longer range (1,500 km combat radius) | Shorter range (1,280 km combat radius) | Gripen ✅ |
| Future Upgrade Potential | Designed for long-term upgrades | Good, but nearing end of design cycle | Gripen ✅ |
| Electronic Warfare & Stealth | Best-in-class EW suite, small radar signature | Good EW but larger radar cross-section | Gripen ✅ |
Would you like a final strategic recommendation for Canada’s fighter decision?
After analyzing financial, industrial, political, combat, Arctic operations, and future upgrade factors, the Saab Gripen E emerges as the best overall fighter choice for Canada. However, there are still political and strategic risks to consider. Let’s summarize everything into a final recommendation.
| Category | Saab Gripen E | F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III | Best Choice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront Cost | $85M per jet (cheaper) | $100-110M per jet (more expensive) | Gripen ✅ |
| Operating Cost | $4,700/hr (low) | $18,000-$24,000/hr (high) | Gripen ✅ |
| Lifetime Cost (30 Years) | $20-25B | $45-50B | Gripen ✅ |
| Industrial Benefits | Could be built in Canada, boosting jobs | Limited Canadian industry involvement | Gripen ✅ |
| Cold Weather Performance | Optimized for Arctic | Good, but not Arctic-optimized | Gripen ✅ |
| Short Runway Operations | STOL capability (can use highways) | Requires large runways | Gripen ✅ |
| Combat Effectiveness | More agile, longer range, better EW, best BVR missiles (Meteor) | Higher payload, better anti-ship weapons | Gripen ✅ |
| Future Upgrade Potential | Open architecture, long-term flexibility | Good but near the end of its upgrade cycle | Gripen ✅ |
| NATO Integration | Fully NATO-integrated (post-Sweden NATO entry) | Fully NATO-integrated | Tie 🤝 |
| U.S. Relations / NORAD | Possible U.S. pressure against non-American jet | Best choice for U.S. relations | Super Hornet ✅ |
✅ Benefits:
⚠️ Risks:
✅ Benefits:
⚠️ Risks:
Since choosing Gripen could provoke U.S. pressure, Canada should take steps to mitigate risks:
If Canada fears losing U.S. political favor, it could purchase a mixed fleet:
✅ Benefit:
⚠️ Downside:
While the F/A-18 Super Hornet is politically safer, the Saab Gripen E is objectively the best fighter for Canada in terms of:
Canada should choose the Gripen E while:
If Canada chooses the Saab Gripen E over the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III (or F-35), it must implement a strong political strategy to mitigate potential U.S. backlash, reassure NATO partners, and maximize national defense benefits. Below is a step-by-step strategy to ensure a successful Gripen acquisition while maintaining Canada’s geopolitical standing.
Potential U.S. Reactions:
✅ Countermeasures for Canada:
Potential NATO Reactions:
✅ Countermeasures for Canada:
To ensure NORAD compliance and prevent the U.S. from limiting intelligence-sharing, Canada should:
✅ Political Framing:
The Conservative Party of Canada may oppose Gripen, arguing:
✅ Countermeasures:
Since military procurement is often unpopular with Canadian taxpayers, Canada must:
If Canada faces extreme U.S. pressure, a mixed fighter fleet could be a compromise:
✅ Benefits of a Mixed Fleet Approach:
⚠️ Downside:
1️⃣ Announce Gripen as Canada’s "Arctic Fighter"
2️⃣ Lock in Canadian production agreements
3️⃣ Reassure the U.S. through NORAD/NATO commitments
4️⃣ Build strong domestic political support
5️⃣ Use a diplomatic offensive to counter U.S. pressure
✅ Final Verdict: Gripen E is Canada’s Best Fighter—If Politically Managed Correctly
Would you like a detailed public rollout plan for a Gripen E announcement? 🚀
If Canada selects the Saab Gripen E, a well-structured public rollout is crucial to:
Below is a step-by-step rollout plan covering timing, messaging, stakeholder engagement, media strategy, and contingency planning.
| Phase | Key Actions | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Announcement (Preparation & Leaks) | Build industry, military, and political support behind the scenes | 1-2 months before |
| Phase 1: Government Announcement | Official statement from the Prime Minister & Defense Minister | Week 1 |
| Phase 2: Industry & Military Support | Public endorsements from Canadian aerospace firms & RCAF officers | Week 2-3 |
| Phase 3: Reassuring Allies (U.S. & NATO) | Diplomatic talks with the U.S. & NATO partners | Week 3-4 |
| Phase 4: Public Outreach & Media Strategy | Interviews, press conferences, advertising | Weeks 4+ |
Before announcing the Gripen selection, Canada must privately secure endorsements from:
✅ Goal: Ensure that once the announcement is made, key stakeholders immediately reinforce the decision.
| Core Message | Public Justification |
|---|---|
| "Best Arctic Fighter for Canada" | Gripen is designed for cold weather, short runways, and Arctic patrols, outperforming competitors. |
| "Built in Canada for Canadian Jobs" | Gripen will be assembled in Canada, securing thousands of jobs and supporting local industry. |
| "Most Cost-Effective Option" | Gripen costs $20-25 billion less over 30 years, saving taxpayer money for other defense priorities. |
| "Fully NATO & NORAD Compatible" | Sweden’s NATO membership means Gripen is 100% NATO-integrated and works with NORAD. |
| "Ensuring Canada’s Sovereignty" | Unlike U.S. jets, Gripen will not be restricted by U.S. export controls on software or weapons. |
✅ Goal: Frame the Gripen decision as a patriotic, economically smart, and strategically necessary move.
✅ Goal: Make Gripen’s military and economic advantages indisputable through expert endorsements.
Before the announcement, Canadian officials should meet with U.S. counterparts (Pentagon, State Department, and White House) to:
✅ Goal: Avoid U.S. retaliation by reinforcing Canada’s commitment to NORAD & Five Eyes intelligence-sharing.
If the U.S. reacts negatively:
✅ Goal: Neutralize opposition by shifting the debate to jobs, cost savings, and sovereignty.
| Action | Objective |
|---|---|
| Frame Gripen as Canada’s Arctic Fighter | "Best for Arctic defense, best for taxpayers." |
| Secure Industry & Military Endorsements | Build a strong coalition of support before announcing. |
| Engage the U.S. Proactively | Offer alternative defense agreements to avoid diplomatic backlash. |
| Control the Narrative in Media | Use advertising, expert endorsements, and economic framing. |
.jpeg)
