Boeing came to South Carolina by way of bailing out a ineffectual outsourcing partner.

I'm at least as happy in one as in a Boeing. And Boeing has begun to annoy me.

And Delta not pleased with Boeing complaining about Canada, whose jets they had bought. Also Delta bought same Euro jets 3 years ago.

Because they aren't exactly swimming in loose cash, and options like the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen C are even more expensive, iirc

They will probably end-up with the Super Hornet eventually, but Boeing has to back down on the Bombardier trade dispute first.

Canada is also in the market for heavy-lift helicopters, tankers and maritime patrol planes and the Bombardier-Airbus transaction will render the dispute moot. They just need to find a way to save face.

F/A-18E/F Unit cost-US$70.5 million

Unit cost-US$ 30–60 million for JAS 39C

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

I believe the Gripen has a much lower cost per hour of flight also.

The JAS-39 Gripen entered active service in 1997. It is a14 ton jet roughly comparable to the latest versions of the F-16. The Gripen is small but can carry up to 3.6 tons of weapons. With the increasing use of smart bombs, this is adequate. Often regarded as an also-ran in the current crop of "modern jet fighters", the Gripen is proving to be more competition than the major players (the F-16, F-18, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, MiG-29, and Su-27) expected. Put simply, Gripen does a lot of little (but important) things right and costs about half as much (at about $35 million each) as its major competitors. More importantly, Gripen also costs about half as much, per flight hour, to operate (compared to bigger twin engine aircraft). In effect, Gripen provides the ruggedness and low cost of Russian aircraft with the high quality and reliability of Western aircraft. For many nations this is an appealing combination. The Gripen is easy to use (both for pilots and ground crews) and capable of doing all jet fighter jobs (air defense, ground support, and reconnaissance) well enough.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20170504.aspx

I'm told Canada is more than normally impressed by the F-18's ability to fly after losing one engine, too. That seems to be a big thing for them to get past, regardless of the qualifications of the alternatives.

It could be hours before SAR reaches a downed pilot.

Back during the Cold War Canada operated single-engine aircraft in Europe but always operated twin-engine aircraft in the arctic.

Until you have flown over the top in daylight it is hard to comprehend just how remote it is.

After all, he's the best damn deal maker in the whole world!



If he did, he failed bigly.