Why not WMD-7, instead?

Maybe they are already familiar with the damocles capability from seconded personnel with uae and saudi airforces? So they know the difference of WMD-7 and damocles to prefer the damocles?

Equally astonishing is the initial tranches of the Gripen i.e. Gripen A/B which was entirely retired just 15 years after the first delivery (though plenty of those were later resold on the second hand market).

No gripen A/B was resold on the secondhand market. Most (A versions only) was stripped of its parts (engine, landing gear, ejection seats, radars etc) for gripen C/D rebuild programme. Those rebuild C/D for sweden and export is based on new airframe (stonger, air refuelling attachments) with those parts stripped from Gripen A (2 gripen A for each gripen D)

Well Canada doesn’t have a hostile nuclear armed country led by a crazy santa claus on its borders.

What does this have to do with the Su-33? I mean, what’s the point that you’re trying to make?

My point is, all the talk about su-33 is a better choice than the Su-30sm for a su-24 replacement in crimea, which started in thread #338, is pure fantasy

The Russian navy’s choice of the su-30sm as a replacement of the su-24 (so it is not related to any carrier capable aircraft in the 1st place) could mean that they wanted a multi role aircraft in crimea to replace the su-24, and the su-30sm role as a long range strike aircraft is good enough as a replacement of su-24 capabilities.

A mixed fleet of fighters would be the best compromise for Canada. I would forsee a squadron of f-35 along with 3 squadrons of longer ranged air superiority fighters. My personal preference would be used tranche 1 typhoons but anything from f-15s to super hornets with conformal fuel tanks would be fine.

The fighter fleet would then be supported by a330mrtt tankers (something for the francophones) and bombardier global 6000 erieye-ng AEW&Cs.

10 units of the largest fighter to replace the freedom fighter. For those who had guessed until so, the utopia of a lightweight fighter is dead.
It’s now all about affordability and perfs on your market (what has always been – the lwf solution is gone but the need remains identical).

The f-5 replacement is to fulfil the requirement of defending a country whose width end to end is longer than the whole of EU. Not exactly a requirement to replace the capability of the f-5 as is. That is why they have gone with a long range fighter like the su-35. There is still places where lightweight and cheap fighters could still be useful.