IMHO with its lower cost of acquisition, higher speed, lower hourly cost, longer range and the possibility of being assembled in Canada. It will be difficult for the voting masses to say the Gripen is not the right decision.
LM has a high priced, short legged, American built aircraft that has already been smeared.
Let the games begin.
The Gripen would only have a lower acquisition cost IF they were purchased from a Swedish production facility, and that lower acquisition cost is likely to be within about USD$5 mil. per aircraft of the F-35A acquisition cost. Going off the costs associated with the Brazilian facility producing some of their Gripens at ~USD$130 mil. per aicraft, then the LRIP Lot 10 F-35A costs of USD$89.2 mil. per aircraft are not anything I would consider as "high priced".
The combat radius of the Gripen might be greater than that of the F-35A, or it might be comparable. The info I have come across has a Gripen NG in a CAP configuration (which does not detail what the carried ordnance is) of 800 n miles +30 minutes on station, while the standard USAF listed combat radius for the F-35A is greater then 590 n miles, but does not detail exactly what the ordnance configuration is though I suspect it is the standard 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM's and a pair of 2,000 lb GBU-31 bombs. From my POV that is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison at best and even if the F-35A combat radius would be ~590 n miles in a configuration the RCAF would use, that still is a significant improvement beyond what the current RCAF fighter is capable of.
IMO the only possible area where the Gripen might be considered "the right choice" for Canada were if one placed the greatest importance on operating costs. Once the F-35A hits full rate production, I strongly suspect the acquisition cost would be either virtually the same as the Gripen or possibly even less than the Gripen.
The gov't of Canada will of course make it's own decision at some point, but I suspect the decision will revolve around what is most politically advantageous for those making the decision, as opposed to what would make the most sense from an economic or defence capability standpoint.
With that in mind though, the Canadian electorate could also end up holding the decision makers responsible if they make a choice to garner or retain political power and it ends up that the selection is significantly more expensive and/or less capable than other options. With that in mind, any Canadian fighter selection based upon construction taking place in Canada would IMO be risky, because the higher cost per aircraft (possibly as much as 50% more) could put a noose around the necks of those who made the decision.
