New Mars Forums

SpaceNut,

I made several attempts, but it kept saying "waiting for the meeting host to admit you".

SpaceNut,

Were you able to join the call?

SpaceNut,

There is no "hard evidence".  The person making the accusation claimed to have such evidence, but then later said she lied about that and never had any such evidence.  If such evidence does exit, giving a copy of it to the FBI would've been a great place to start.

Accusing someone of a crime is not "evidence" of anything.  An accusation of a 20+ year old crime by someone who had their entire deposition thrown out after she later stated that "she made it all up to draw attention to the Epstein case", doesn't help prove anything in a court of law, except that the person making the accusation is a proven liar, by her own admission.

This is why, in the complete absence of corroborating evidence, if someone merely accuses you of a crime, the government doesn't automatically throw you in prison.  Maybe you think an accusation alone is sufficient if it's made against someone you don't personally like, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that same "standard of evidence" applied to you.

RobertDyck,

How many times does hard evidence need to directly refute your personal beliefs before you question why you believe what you do?

Start by reading something that actually came from our government:
WhiteHouse.gov - National Security Strategy of the United States of America - November 2025

The section pertaining to Europe makes no claim about Europe or Europeans being viewed as a threat by the US government.  This is actual governance policy that guides American strategic decision making / military alliance strengthening / opposition to adversarial nations, as opposed to fleeting political rhetoric.

ODNI.gov - Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community - March 2025

There's scarcely a mention of Europe there, apart from threats to Europe from Russia and terrorists.  It's entirely focused on China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and non-state terrorist groups.

1. America's economy has not been destroyed by President Trump.  His economic policies have consistently improved American economic self-reliance and productivity.  Self-sufficiency ensures that America's economy cannot be greatly affected by external factors beyond its control.  President Biden's administration only furthered our self-reliance for advanced electronics tech, so there is no serious dissent on pursuit of these strategic goals, only how to best achieve them.  That means we'll continue to pursue self-reliance over globalism.
2. If America's trading partners are only interested in trading with America when there's a very lopsided benefit in their favor, then it's a bad business deal for America.  Many of America's "allies" are only interested in this kind of relationship with America- "I love American dollars, but I hate Americans and America."  An ever-growing number of Americans have had enough of that.  If you hate America that much, then stop doing business with America.
3. The average American worker has been "made much poorer" by perpetuating globalism and materialism.  Americans don't need an endless variety of meaningless choices to live well, and neither do the citizens of other nations.  I think most nations, certainly all of the most advanced economies, will ultimately benefit from the highest degree of self-reliance they can achieve.
4. The people who most frequently take freedoms from others are radical leftist collectivists.  Leftists have a dramatically better track record of impoverishing their own people and taking away freedoms as compared to any other political party more interested in economic prosperity than dogmatic party ideology.
5. Short of space aliens with the technology to travel between stars, America cannot be militarily defeated by external forces, only from within by its own people.  The only people trying to do that are universally leftists.  Nobody on the political right is attempting to destroy America from within.

RobertDyck,

US launches strikes against Islamic State in Nigeria | BBC News

The BBC reports that according to Yusuf Tuggar, Nigerian Foreign Minister, Nigeria and the United States conducted a joint military operation targeting ISIS terrorists in Northwest Nigeria who were murdering Nigerian citizens.  If you're going to lie about something, at least make sure it's not directly refuted by the government of the nation that America supposedly attacked.

I took a look at some macroeconomics indicators to see how America as a whole fared during 2025:

I looked at the EU's economic figures and projections for 2025 as well, and while not as good as Canada, they're still growing, too.

We're clearly capable of mining our own bauxite, because we've done so in the past:

22,000 * 0.14RMB/USD = $3,080 USD

Aluminum prices are now nearly equalized, no matter where you shop for it, which incentives domestic production.

Edit:
All you have to do is check spot prices and futures in America, Canada, Europe, and China:

When our leftists are finished with their lies, lectures, and tantrums, we really should have a chat about the future.  You cannot BS your way through your entire life.  At some point, reality is what it is.  If this upsets you, that doesn't mean everyone and everything else is somehow wrong, it means your ideation is not reality-based.

RobertDyck,

President Trump is gone in 3 years, so the only real "factor" he represents is one that exists entirely inside your head.  America and Canada will still be here when he's out of office, as will all hostile foreign nations, so unless you think every American and Canadian leader from this point forward are going to engage in the same sort of pointless pissing contest, please come back to reality.  Leftists say mean things about President Trump, who responds by saying mean things about them.  It's free entertainment for people who aren't offended by everything.

Foreign national drug cartel gang members are not uniformed military combatants, nor are they civilians.  If they shoot at US Navy helicopters attempting to board their boats to seize the drugs or if they fail to stop when signaled to do so, then they will be shot in return.  We are not under any legal obligation to treat terrorists and drug smugglers as if they're fellow uniformed sailors or civilian merchant mariners, because they're obviously international organized criminal syndicates that extort, bribe, rape, rob, and murder people for sport.  If they quit behaving like criminals, we'd quit treating them that way.  Since they're not going to stop acting like criminals, we're not going to stop being the ones who prevent them from preying on other people.

We've seen leftists attempt to run over ICE Agents using cars, then whine and cry like petulant toddlers about ICE "shooting unarmed civilians" when they respond in kind to criminals who just tried to murder people who weren't even talking to them.  When you try to run over cops with your car, the cops will shoot you, whether you have a gun or not, whether you said anything to them about your reasoning or nothing at all.  That is how real world law enforcement works.

Similarly, if you want to fire off your AK-47 at US Navy helicopters signaling for you to stop, or simply refuse to stop because you don't want to go to prison for drug smuggling, then they will mow you down with their missiles and machine guns, whether you happen to fall into the water during that process, or not.  That is how we stop the activities of the drug cartels, not by allowing them to distribute their poison with impunity to kids and people suffering from mental illness.  People like you can complain incessantly about it or learn to accept that is how picking a fight with a wildly superior adversary tends to go.  Regardless, we know who these people are and what they're doing to us, and now we're finally refusing to look the other way because it's so out-of-hand.

President Obama allowed the CIA to launch Hellfire missiles into a cafe filled with people in a country we were not a war with, to kill one American who was suspected of being a terrorist- not any kind of immediate threat according to them, merely a suspected terrorist.  In point of fact, he droned more people than President Bush ever did by a significant margin.  President Biden's administration did the same thing.  You and people like you did not utter one little peep about them doing that.  Since you didn't care about it when a Democrat was doing it, you don't actually care about it when President Trump is doing it, either.

None of the arguments you've brought up seem to be centered around the viability of Fighter A vs Fighter B within the context of some realistic national defense scenario.  All your pointless "whataboutism" which has nothing to do with fighter jets is proving that you're not making an honest attempt to engage with the substance of this issue.

Try to put President Trump out of your mind long enough to maintain a coherent rationalization of national defense choices.  This is not a decision to make impulsively or because you don't like politician A, B, or C.  As of late, American politicians are here today and gone tomorrow.  The political pendulum ultimately swings towards the center.

1. Is the Gripen similarly capable to the F-35 for what Canada intends to use it for?

Canada's government evaluators have already said that it's not.  It's fairly obvious why it's not.  Perhaps what your government intends to use tactical fighters for, as it relates to projecting or merely defending the national sovereign power of Canada, is not what the average Canadian thinks they should use it for.  This is a more nuanced difference of opinion.  F-35s are stealthy offensive air superiority / strike / electronic warfare weapons at the forefront of tactical fighter design.  In this context, "stealthy" means substantial reduction of radar and infrared signatures useful for guiding interceptor missiles to shoot down fighter jets.  Shooting down a stealthy combat jet is not impossible, but the rate at which they'll be lost to enemy air defense systems is dramatically reduced when compared to non-stealthy jets.

The combination of F-35 capabilities largely replaces the capabilities provided by the F-14D, F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18E, and EF-18G.  It's not a neat and precise direct duplication of capabilities.  If you have F-35s, then you really don't need the capabilities provided by those other platforms, because their sensors and computers are nowhere near as capable.  F-35 was never designed as a F-15C / F-22A role replacement, but the weapons do the killing, not the aircraft itself.  By that metric, it's still a 9g capable jet that accelerates and recovers energy faster than Super Hornets, points the nose better than Vipers do during high-AoA maneuvering, and carries a large enough percentage of the Strike Eagle's ordnance load with equivalent internal fuel.

Most of what the Strike Eagle carries externally is fuel, rather than weapons.  Put another way, the F-35A with max internal fuel plus gun ammo plus 200lb pilot can still take off with a max ordnance load and remain below MTOW.  I'm not aware of a Gen 4 fighter with equivalent combat radius while carrying max ordnance.  Rafale is one of the best, but taking their 2,000km subsonic cruise range estimate in clean configuration, it still falls slightly short of the F-35A carrying 4X AIM-120 and 2X Mk84.  The Su-35 is the only fighter with greater usable combat radius, but with full internal fuel it's external stores capacity is reduced by half, so it can only carry 8,771lbs with max fuel and remain at MTOW.  For air intercept, not a problem.  For long range strike, it's carrying 4X 1,000kg bombs.  Put a pair of 600 gallon tanks under the wings of the F-35 and it will carry that same payload to at least the same distance.  Is it becoming apparent how much more usable the F-35 is as a tactical fighter?  All the rest of them tradeoff substantial range or ordnance load.  If they carry enough fuel to match or exceed F-35's range / combat radius, then their ordnance load reduces by a lot.  If they opt to carry a max ordnance load, then their range falls far short of the F-35 from lack of internal fuel and because carrying everything externally means drag increases quite a bit.  CFTs add substantial weight before you fill them.  When both range and carrying capacity is desired, designing a jet to carry more internal fuel from the outset is the correct solution.

Any fighter equipped with one F404 or F414 engine has less than half the dry thrust of the F-135.  There is no possible way for it to provide the same well-rounded mix of speed, maneuverability, range, and ordnance carrying capacity.  Something must be sacrificed.  Gripen didn't want to sacrifice speed or maneuverability or carrying capacity, so it sacrifices range on internal fuel.  Gripen can carry a lot more fuel externally, but then it's no longer a Mach 2 capable fighter, no longer similarly maneuverable to an aerodynamically clean stealth fighter, and ordnance gets swapped for drop tanks.  Viper / Gripen / Fulcrum can out-turn the F-35A when the Viper / Gripen / Fulcrum is in an airshow configuration, which also makes it useless for combat.  The same applies to the MiG-29 and Su-35.  They all look great on paper until you realize that combat is not a board game.

Look at the size of the tail surfaces on the F-35s, then compare them with the size of the wings on the Gripen.  The only downside is that it takes a huge amount of thrust to drag something that large through the air at high subsonic speed.  The upshot is that with full fuel and weapons, when attached to the F-35's lifting body airframe, its ability to sustain a turn at altitude without losing speed and then altitude is much greater.  The same thing that makes Gen 4 Russian and European fighters so aerodynamically efficient is the same thing that limits them after you load them up with fuel / weapons and take them to altitude.  At lower altitudes, say 15,000ft or less, they'll perform a lot better against the F-35, but nobody flies expensive tactical fighters at low level these days because nobody can afford to lose them to ground fire.  At 20,000ft, effective ground fire from MANPADS and AAA is very fleeting, and nonexistent at 30,000ft.  The Indians learned all about their Flanker's "ability to turn at altitude" against F-22 and F-35 lifting bodies at Red Flag.  They don't have much.  Their fighters are literally falling out of the sky at 30,000ft, even in full afterburner.  Razor thin wings are efficient in high speed straight-and-level flight, but not "high lift".  Take away significant forward airspeed in thin air and you take away the lift as well.  One hard maneuver and they're losing altitude fast, because the drag from broadsiding "big wings" at 600mph slows them down so fast.  Splitting lift between body and wings is what allows the F-22 and F-35 to maneuver as well as they do at high altitudes.  At lower altitudes, the traditional "big thin wings" air superiority fighter aerodynamics works better due to air density and relative speed necessary to maintain lift, but the lifting body doesn't work substantially worse, it simply won't be as fast for any given amount of thrust at any altitude.  All real air combat involving maneuvering takes place between 300 and 600mph.  At only 300mph, neither the Fulcrum nor the Flanker are still "flying" at 30,000ft, they're stalling, which is why they lose altitude so fast that F-22 and F-35 pilots at Red Flag had to employ air brakes to avoid over-shoot in a turn-and-burn dogfight.

Flankers and Tomcats do generate some body lift.  All Gen 5 fighters (F-22, F-35, F-47, Su-57, Su-75, J-20, J-35, X-2, KF-21, AMCA, TF-X) are deliberately designed as lifting bodies from the word "go".  Either all aerodynamicists don't understand what they're after, or Gen 5 is synonymous with "still turns really well at high altitudes where dogfights start, even though it's slower at all altitudes".  Gen 4 loses altitude following hard maneuvers at higher altitudes.  Why else do you think Gen 3 dogfights almost inevitably ended up "on the deck" if the fight continued for any length of time?  Small wings, high wing loadings from heavy airframes built for Mach 2 speed and acceleration loading, lower thrust relative to weight, plus heavier avionics and weapons on top of that, all conspired to help drag and gravity do what they do.

Use case really does matter quite a lot.  If Canada never intends to fly their fighter jets against an adversary equipped with stealth fighters or integrated air defense systems, then I don't think you need F-35s, even if Lockheed-Martin and the US government are in fact pressuring Canada to purchase the fighters that they previously agreed to purchase.

I understand that you want the capability to shoot down bombers if they attempt an incursion into Canadian air space or attack Canada.  That is a completely understandable desire.  I would want the same thing for my country.  The fact of the matter is that missiles, not the fighter itself, is what performs the shoot-down.  Long range air intercept missiles are faster than any fighter jet, period.  AIM-260 flies at Mach 5 and range against a bomber is in excess of 150 miles.  AIM-174B flies at Mach 3.5 and range is about 250 miles.  You don't have to get that close to launch.  If either of those missiles were launched at a high altitude bomber or long range missile coming in at Mach 2+, then it's attacking an ideal target- a large radar return associated with an airframe not capable of significant maneuvering relative to any air intercept missile.  If the fighter that launched it was cruising along at "only" 550mph and 30,000 to 40,000ft, then that is also ideal.

If Russian bombers did attack Canadian military assets or population centers, even if the attack used conventional rather than nuclear weapons, do Canadians want the capability to retaliate by bombing Russian air bases?

If so, then having F-35s is no longer optional.  Gripens are not likely to survive a strike on a major air base, nor any other target defended by integrated air defense systems, such as a destroyer or frigate.

2. Is the Gripen more or less sustainable if Canada attempts to deploy and operate it the way Sweden does?

The Swedes have their own unique approach to distributed lethality.  I admire what they've done, but no other air force operates the way they do, so there must be significant tradeoffs involved.  Perhaps Canada can operate combat jets the way the Swedes do, and perhaps that's even ideal for Canada, but you'd better test that theory before signing contracts.

3. Are there any actual considerations or concerns, not related to political beliefs or cost, which you think the F-35 doesn't address for Canada?

We've already covered why the F-35 costs more to own and operate.  It does more.  In the world of fighter jets, you typically get what you pay for.  Fat Amy, as we call her, is an exceptionally capable fighter jet.  She has to be larger than her contemporaries to provide those capabilities, but all characteristics useful for real world air combat and tactical strike have been rolled into a single design so an entire strike package and purpose built air superiority fighter don't require at least 4 distinct airframes (air superiority, strike, electronic warfare, airborne tanker).  When the Block 4 and Block 5 technology refreshes are completely rolled out, no other operational multi-role fighter, to include the F-22, will be in the same class as the F-35.

If you're at all concerned about what the Russians and Chinese may attempt to use against Canada to usurp Canadian sovereignty, in terms of air power, then the F-35 is the most potent counter to their designs on Canada, currently on-offer from the Western World.

If I wasn't completely confident that the F-35 could perform as advertised, then I would simply say-so.  I won't "go along to get along" with anyone or anything.  If I see anything that makes me question whether or not something actually does what it purports to do, then I will point it out loudly and proudly.

Most recently, Israeli F-35s destroyed Russian-made Iranian S-300 and S-400 integrated air defense systems in preparation for American B-2 strikes against Iranian Uranium enrichment facilities, as well as various lower tier air defense systems, protecting Iran.  They completely dismantled Iran's air defense networks and lost no planes in the retaliatory strike from any causes.  Whether or not Iran was even aware of their presence is unknown, but presuming they were, nothing effective was done to stop Israel's F-35s.  This latest strike mirrors results achieved by earlier strikes and recon missions against Russian forces in Syria.

As more and more evidence of suitability to purpose accumulates, beyond mere exercises against American and European integrated air defense system operators who are actively searching for those F-35s to conduct simulated "shoot-downs", it's becoming increasingly apparent that the F-35 does exactly what it was designed to do.  All existing S-300, S-400, or derivative air defense radars and interceptor missiles, are inadequate as air defense measures against any nation equipped with F-35 stealth strike fighters.

Whether or not the Russians and Chinese have somewhat more capable systems than their export models, it's unlikely that essential core functionality is missing, because purchasing them would serve no purpose.  The Indians are now considering western alternatives as well, because so little of what has been claimed by Russia and China is apparent from real world performance in combat.

Do I think Canada should purchase F-35s if they only want to shoot down incoming bombers and missiles?

In a word...  No.

If that is the only role Canada wants to use tactical fighters for, then truck loads of money could be saved by purchasing more capable air defense systems.  The combination of Patriot and THAAD provides more credible real-world air defense capability against bombers and missiles, dollar-for-dollar, than any kind of fighter jet.  Radars and missile batteries are less costly to maintain.

If you don't like the pure air defense missile battery solution, then Shield AI's stealthy X-Bat supersonic VTOL drone is probably also a better anti-bomber solution than Gripen since it does not require trained pilots or runways.

If you want to develop home-grown light fighters or micro fighters, those would probably best fill the air defense role for Canada.

RobertDyck,

The US isn't sending our military to invade Canada, so this entire line of argumentation is spurious in nature.

The mainstream media has always been such a reliable source of misinformation.  It's good for terrorizing people who are already ignorant and angry or afraid, but not much else.  Did you truly learn nothing from COVID?

If you buy a Swedish fighter jet using an American engine and American avionics, and the same American aircraft weapon systems like the AIM-120, how exactly does that help Canada become independent of US military parts sources?

If there was to be an invasion of Canada, President Trump would cut off F135 engine repair parts, but not F414 engine parts?

Perhaps more importantly, even if there were ways around the engine and avionics parts problem, do you think we'd keep selling AIM-120s to Canada so they could be fired back at American pilots?

Do you understand how absurd all of that sounds?

What happens if Canada withholds parts since some F-35 parts are only made in Canada?

As you circle through your list of irrational arguments, your logic loop keeps closing around you, ever-tighter, like a python.

Has this actually changed?

If not, then you know President Trump is neither serious about invading Canada, nor is there any actual plan to invade Canada.  He's saying the things he's saying to get a rise out of your government's leadership after they've already done the same thing to him, repeatedly.  The fact that your ego and their egos are so fragile that they cannot tolerate the exact same jabs directed back at them says more about them and you than it does about him.  Please tell your leaders to come down off of their high horses before they fall off and look more pathetic than they already do, which, at this point, is already pretty sad.

RobertDyck,

Those values are based upon an entire series of assumptions about how the fighters are used and how many are used.

One of your home-grown "leakers" recently published a classified infographic attached to the findings of the F-35A and Gripen-E evaluation report.  The Gripen scored significantly worse in all categories, by Canada's own government.  The category where it scored the worst, relative to the F-35, was entitled, "Mission Performance".  The people your own government paid to evaluate it didn't think too highly of it.

Do you see how closely CPFH for the F/A-18E matches the Gripen-E, despite being a twin-engine jet flown from carriers?

Total CPFH for a twin-engine heavy fighter that gets the piss beat out of it by launching from and landing on aircraft carriers is only $3.6K more than the Gripen.

Saab is attempting to sell Gripens using 2017 F-35A O&M costs to anyone who will indulge them.  Don't take my word for it, though, read the reports.  We make them publicly available.  Our costs are true O&M costs per fiscal year across the entire fleet.  We provide total expenditures by category, hours flown, and number of jets in inventory.  F-35A averages 4.4-4.8 maintenance man-hours per flight hour.  These are NOT notional costing figures, they're what the American tax payers are on the hook for.

10MMH/FH for a non-stealthy Gripen with less advanced everything
vs
4.8MMH/FH for the F-35A, the most sophisticated fully operational fighter jet in the world

All Weights in Pounds, Ranges in Statute Miles (5,280ft per Statute Mile)
Engine(s); Empty; MTOW; Internal Fuel; External Fuel; Max Stores
Gripen E: 1X F414; 17,637; 36,376; 7,496; 7,798; 15,900
F-16C - 1X F110; 18,900; 42,300; 7,000; 12,240; 17,000
Rafale M - 2X M88-4E; 23,400; 54,013; 10,362-18,658 w/CFTs; 14,771; 20,900
Typhoon - 2X EJ200; 24,251; 51,809; 9,900; 5,386; 19,800
KF-21 - 2X F414; 26,015; 56,400; 13,227; UNKNOWN; 17,000
F-35A - 1X F135; 29,300; 65,918; 18,250; 8,160; 18,000
F/A-18E - 2X F414; 32,081; 66,000; 14,700; 13,056; 17,750
F-15EX - 2X F110; 35,500-40,000 (2X CFTs); 81,000; 13,550-23,750 w/CFTs; 12,240; 29,500
F-22A - 2X F119; 43,340; 83,500; 18,000; 16,320; 20,000

Max Fuel and Ferry Range
F-16C: 19,240; 2,620
Gripen E: 15,294; 2,500
F-15EX: 35,990; 2,400
Typhoon: 15,286; 2,350
Rafale M: 29,716; 2,300
F/A-18E: 27,756; 2,070
F-22A: 34,320; 2,000
KF-21: 13,227 *1; 1,800
F-35A: 26,410; 1,700 *2

Notes:
*1: KF-21 external fuel capacity is unknown, though external stores capacity suggests it can carry at least 2X 600 gallon external tanks.

*2: F-35A is plumbed to carry 2X 600 gallon non-stealthy external tanks on underwing pylons, so ferry range listed is on internal fuel alone.  AFAIK, you can't "dump" 600 gallon tanks.  If you decide to carry them, then they're staying on the wings, period.  This adds about 45% to total fuel capacity.  If we guess at the increase in ferry range as being 30% greater, meaning the drag penalty eats up 15%, then 2,210 miles seems quite reasonable.  If only 10% of the external fuel carried is consumed by the additional drag, then 2,295 miles.  Regardless, "rule-of-thumb" says that's where your ferry range falls.

Conclusions:
The European fighter jets are remarkably fuel-efficient designs with long legs.  However, ALL fighter jets love the fuel.  Russian and Chinese fighter jets don't burn any less.  Whenever you say, "Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full", you're no longer going supersonic and your previously nimble fighter jet has all the maneuverability of a fuel truck, which is what you turned it into.

Despite claims to the contrary about European / Russian / Chinese fighters, American jets are the ones which are built like tanks.  Even Russian defense analysts have commented on how "over-built" American jets are, relative to Fulcrums and Flankers.  US Navy jets in particular are noted for their durability.  I can't speak intelligently on any other nation's jet design philosophy, but there is a notable difference in empty weight between comparable designs.

Airframe Design Service Life, Equivalent Flight Hours
MiG-21 / MiG-29 / Su-27: 2,000 to 3,500
Su-35: 6,000 (aspirational, according to the Russians)
Typhoon: 6,000
Rafale: 5,000, extension to between 7,000 and 9,000
F/A-18E: 6,000, extension to 12,000
Gripen E: 8,000
F-22A and F-35A: 8,000 (accelerated fatigue testing has shown no structural failures at 24,000)
F-16C: 8,000 (Block 40-52) 12,000 (Block 70/72)
F-15EX: 20,000 (highest deliberate airframe design service life for a tactical fighter that I'm aware of)

If Canada wants a non-stealthy twin-engine, two-seat, long-range, high-speed (Mach 2.9 max dash speed), high-capability tactical fighter with a full state-of-the-art sensor and electronics package, then the F-15EX Strike Eagle II best fits that description.  It carries more fuel than any other tactical fighter except the Chengdu J-20.  I would absolutely L-O-V-E to hand over our entire inventory of F-22As to Canada, but the Royal Canadian Air Force would bankrupt themselves trying to maintain those jets.  Fewer F-22s means more money for F-35s and F-47s.

Here's what I wish more people knew or understood about real world tactical fighter operations:

1. Situational awareness through sensor fusion and concise "dumbing-down" of information to only what you need to know RIGHT NOW, not having to manage the jet itself while you're trying to attack or evade something, seamless communications and networking, combined with raw sensor + compute + data sharing capabilities means more than any amount of stealth or raw speed / climb rate / maneuvering performance.  If the 1950s F-5 airframe was upgraded with all of that, minus the stealth, then it would still be a terrifyingly capable opponent, every bit as serious and lethal as a heart attack.  The fact that it couldn't out-climb the F-22 or fly as fast as the F-15 is almost entirely irrelevant to anything.  In 2025, you are fighting semi-automated and automated air defense systems much more than you're fighting actual human beings.  Enemy fighters are mostly a non-issue because there are so few of them, they're mostly sent out to attack targets vs defend them, everyone is so spread-out, and typical fights take place over seconds to minutes at most.

2. Big jets cost big money.  If your military can't eat the cost, then don't put that much metal in the air.  I'm dead serious, because that is literally the extent of the issue.  All jets are expensive.  Combat jets are really expensive.  The entire Free World needs more cost-effective fighters that don't mandate spending so much money on the basics, so that real combat training can be conducted by flying with greater frequency.  There's no point to buying them if you cannot afford to use them with regularity.  They're not lawn ornaments.  Nations with smaller military budgets can still afford to stuff the latest and greatest electronic gadgets into airframes that don't put them in a financial bind.  If you put the F-35's radar in the nose of the F-5 after removing the guns.

3. The idea that you can train differently from how you fight is pure nonsense.  You CANNOT economize on total cost of ownership by not flying the fighter regularly.  From both a mission readiness standpoint and equipment service life standpoint, once you start flying a combat jet, or any aircraft for that matter, the absolute worst thing you could possibly do is to quit flying it regularly.  Jet aircraft not undergoing an overhaul, that haven't flown more than a handful of hours during the last calendar year, may as well be destined for the Bone Yard.  The entire reason Navy combat jets didn't literally fall apart is that the maintainers are constantly taking them apart, replacing whatever little bits and pieces have failed, and then putting them back together so they can be flown again so that the entire cycle can repeat itself.  That process is normal and necessary.  Yes, it's a pain.  Yes, it appears to the untrained eye that the jet is "always broke".  Yes, it costs real money.  However, that is a vital part of the operational art.  They get good at doing it because they do it every single day.

If you fly any modern combat jet less than 200 hours per year, the odds are better than average that your aircrews are only proficient enough to not kill themselves flying the jet from Point A to Point B.  The first 150 to 200 hours is entirely devoted to maintenance of basic airmanship skills and represents the cost of entry into the world of combat jets.  At 250 hours, you can conduct training for a single mission type.  You need 300 to 350 flight hours per aircrew per year to maintain any kind of proficiency across multiple missions.  Let's say your Air Force has decided that your squadron will train for air intercept and tactical strike.  If you're not flying at least 300 hours per year to train for both of those missions, then I cannot take you seriously if you tell me your aircrews are mission ready, because any kind of realistic exercise will quickly demonstrate that they're not.

There is no software simulator that can teach you how to fuel and rearm the jet quickly, nor trace a faulty electrical cable.  You have to actually practice that to get good at it.  How might one accomplish that, you ask?  Fly the jet.  Practice the mission.  Figure out what works and what doesn't.  Practice fixing the jet by flying it until you break something.  If your ordies need half a day to read through a manual to assemble and hang a JDAM because nobody in your squadron has done it during the past month, that's a pretty serious problem if you intend to fly strike missions.  If your pilot hasn't briefed ingress and egress routes and "what-if'd" through alternative waypoints and secondary targets, then they're not proficient, either.  I don't care if they have a vague idea of what's involved.  I want them to be intimately familiar with every aspect of mission planning.  When we did this stuff before real combat missions over Afghanistan and Iraq, it took a half day of work for one officer who was doing it at least once per week, if not more often.

I'll write more about what I think a realistic modern day "light fighter" (twin engine, two-seat) and "micro fighter" (single engine/seat) involves for Canada, but broad strokes:

1. CFRP airframe fabricated using "Carbon Forging" vs extended duration vacuum bagging and autoclaving.
2. Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B engine, which delivers almost triple the fuel economy of the J85 turbojets that powered the F-5E, $1-2M per engine.  This is a non-afterburning turbofan engine, built in Canada, and primarily used in Biz Jets.  America has already used this engine to power the General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger combat drone.
3. Raytheon PhantomStrike AESA radar, around $1-2M and 119lbs.  This radar has already been used in the Kratos XQ-58 and Boeing MQ-28.  This lower cost and weight system still provides the ability to launch AIM-9X, AIM-120, presumably Raytheon's new Peregrine missile, JDAMs, JSOWs, and other common munitions like Hellfire.  It's a full-capability miniaturized Super Hornet radar.
4. High subsonic speeds for reduced operating cost and takeoff / landing / stall speeds to permit operation from austere facilities.
5. Strict adherence to a no-frills design, which includes foregoing stealth.  No unnecessary gadgetry or novelties will be included in these light fighter and micro fighter designs.  The temptation to load-up the jet with everything but the kitchen sink will be ever-present and someone will try to rationalize and sell their gadget idea.  To prevent the design team from creating miniature versions of the F-22 and F-35, both design and scope discipline are mandatory.

The more you reduce the scope of requirements, the faster you arrive at a workable and affordable solution.  Canada wants an afforable interceptor, but neither F-35 nor Gripen-E are truly affordable fighters which Canada could purchase in sufficient quantity.  They already have 16 stealth strike fighters for eliminating heavily defended ground targets.