Follow @SkillsGapTrain

• Thrust-to-Weight, Acceleration & Agility: Twin-engine Eurocanards like the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale F4 excel here. The Typhoon’s powerful EJ200 engines give it a very high thrust-to-weight ratio (it can supercruise ~Mach 1.2 and has T/W >1.15 at combat load) – we rate it near the top. Rafale is slightly smaller and lighter; its twin M88 engines still push it to 9G maneuvers with excellent agility. Both rate 8 –9★ in acceleration and sustained turns. The Saab JAS 39E Gripen (single GE F414 engine) has a lower thrust-to-weight than the Eurocanards, but its delta-canard design still yields agile handling – around 7 – 8★. The Lockheed Martin F-35A has a monstrous F135 engine giving ~43,000 lbf thrust, but its weight and high wing loading limit sustained dogfight performance (Eurofighter Typhoon analysis – Defense Issues) (Eurofighter Typhoon analysis – Defense Issues). It’s roughly on par or slightly below the lighter 4th-gens in kinematics (rated ~7★). Legacy designs like F-16V (Block 70) and F/A-18E/F Block III are known for agility – the F-16’s low weight and high thrust earn ~8★, and the Super Hornet’s optimized high‐alpha handling offsets its moderate thrust (~7★). The heavy F-15EX is extremely fast in a straight line (Mach 2.5 top speed), but as a big airframe its sustained turn rates are average (~7★). Emerging KF-21 Boramae uses two F414 engines (like a twin-engined Super Hornet), promising decent thrust and acceleration (~8★). HAL Tejas Mk2, a medium-weight delta-canard under development, should improve on the nimble Tejas Mk1; with an F414 engine and lower weight than Gripen E, we estimate ~8★ in agility. Future 6th-generation fighters (Tempest/FCAS) are expected to push these metrics to the limit (supercruise, thrust vectoring, etc.), so we give them a notional 10★ for raw performance.

• Stealth and Signatures: Only the F-35A and prospective sixth-gen jets are true low-observable platforms. The F-35’s design and radar-absorbent coatings make it “nearly invisible to enemy radar,” with a tiny radar cross-section (F-35 vs Rafale A Comprehensive Comparison for India’s Defense Modernization – Victor Growth). We assign the F-35 a full 10★ in stealth, as its radar signature and IR signature management are far superior to 4th-generation fighters. The upcoming Tempest/FCAS are likewise aimed at very-low observable profiles (10★). In contrast, 4.5-gen fighters like Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen E, etc., incorporate some signature reductions (composites, engine inlet shaping, IR suppressors), but they are not stealth aircraft. We rate Rafale slightly higher (~8★) in this area due to its small size and advanced SPECTRA electronic warfare suite – Rafale is described as “discreet rather than being stealthy in the sense of an F-22” (Rafale, Dassault-Breguet – FIGHTER PLANES). Typhoon and Gripen E also present moderately reduced frontal RCS (estimated on the order of 0.1–0.5 m²) and advanced jammers, earning ~7★. The Gripen’s integrated EW and towed decoys allow it to “blind and confuse the enemy” in networked teams (Gripen E-series | Saab), mitigating its non-stealthy airframe. The F/A-18E Super Hornet has some stealth shaping (e.g. fewer radar returns than a legacy Hornet) and carries a potent internal jammer; we give it ~6★. The F-15EX is the least stealthy (large airframe with no significant RCS reduction measures), perhaps ~4★ – it relies on brute force and standoff weapons rather than stealth for survival. The F-16V and Tejas Mk2 (neither designed with stealth in mind) rate similarly low (~5–6★), though Tejas Mk2 will incorporate “radar cross-section-reducing measures” and a Unified EW suite to improve survivability (HAL Tejas Mk2 – Wikipedia).

• Avionics and Sensor Fusion: The F-35A leads with its AN/APG-81 AESA radar, DAS 360° IR system, EOTS targeting, and sensor fusion that presents a single tactical picture to the pilot. We rate its avionics a full 10★. (Its ability to fuse radar, infrared and EW data is unmatched – Rafale’s excellent systems “do not have the same level of networked sensor fusion as the F-35” (F-35 vs Rafale A Comprehensive Comparison for India’s Defense Modernization – Victor Growth).) The Rafale F4 gets a strong 9★: it will upgrade the RBE2 AESA radar and SPECTRA EW, and already has IRST and excellent sensor integration. Rafale’s cockpit and data fusion were cutting-edge for 4.5-gen, and F4 enhances connectivity. Eurofighter Typhoon (Tranche 4+) now finally has an AESA radar (Captor-E) and existing PIRATE IRST (on some variants); its sensor suite is very powerful, but past variants had less sensor fusion than Rafale or F-35 (Eurofighter Typhoon analysis – Defense Issues). We rate Typhoon ~8★ for avionics – top-tier radar range and good EW, but a step behind the seamless fusion of F-35. Gripen E also features a modern AESA (Leonardo Raven ES-05) and IRST (SkyWard-G), plus an “intuitive HMC with AI” on its new Helmet display (Gripen E-series | Saab). Saab designed Gripen’s systems for quick upgrades and data link sharing; we give it ~8★. The new F-15EX has one of the largest fighter AESA radars (APG-82) and a modern EPAWSS self-protection suite. However, it lacks an internal IRST (carried as a pod) and isn’t built around sensor fusion the way F-35 is. We assign ~8★ – extremely potent sensors, slightly limited by the non-stealth platform. Similarly, the F/A-18E/F Block III has an upgraded APG-79 AESA, a long-range IRST pod and a new mission computer. Its “Glass cockpit” 10×19 inch display and Tactical Targeting Network improve situational awareness, making it one of the most advanced U.S. 4th-gens (8★). F-16V Viper upgrades include the APG-83 AESA and new mission computer; it’s fully interoperable but still an older airframe with fewer sensors (no built-in IRST), ~7★. KAI’s KF-21 will have an AESA (developed with Hanwha/Elta) and IRST, and is designed with sensor fusion in mind – we estimate ~8★ potential, though it’s unproven. HAL Tejas Mk2 plans to leverage technologies from India’s future AMCA program, including an integrated IRST and AESA, plus an indigenous tactical data link (HAL Tejas Mk2 – Wikipedia). Its avionics should be competitive (likely 7★) by late-2020s standards, though initial integration may lag Western rivals.

• Weapons Payload and Armament: The twin-engine heavy fighters clearly carry the most. Boeing’s F-15EX is a payload beast – it boasts 12 external hardpoints and can haul up to 13,380 kg of ordnance (Boeing F-15EX Eagle II – War Wings Daily), including up to 22 air-to-air missiles or large hypersonic missiles. We award it 10★ in this metric. The F-15EX offers unparalleled “truck” capacity for munitions, outlifting even some WW2 bombers in total weight. F-35A is more moderate: internally it carries 4 missiles (or 2 bombs + 2 AAMs) for stealth missions, but can attach 6 more pylons externally when stealth is less critical. Max weapon load is about 10 tons (22,000 lbs) (F15-EX Overview, Specification, Performance | World Defense). We rate F-35A at 9★ for a balanced approach – ample payload and full integration of next-gen weapons (e.g. AIM-120D, AIM-260 in the future) but slightly less than the biggest fighters. Dassault Rafale can carry 9.5 tons externally on 14 hardpoints (French Air Force version) (Rafale Multirole Combat Fighter, France) – an impressive 9★. Rafale is cleared for a vast array of munitions (MICA, Meteor AAMs, SCALP cruise missiles, Exocet anti-ship, nuclear ASMP-A, etc.), giving it excellent multi-role firepower. The Eurofighter Typhoon comes close behind (~8★): it has 13 hardpoints and ~6.5 ton payload capacity (EuroFighter Typhoon / EF2000 – FIGHTER PLANES) (Aircraft Museum – Eurofighter Typhoon – Aerospaceweb.org). Typhoon can carry the Meteor BVRAAM and Storm Shadow cruise missile, but overall slightly less ordnance than Rafale or F-35. Among single-engine jets, the latest F-16V is remarkably capable (7★) – typically 6 missiles + 2 bombs + tanks in wartime loadouts (F-16 Fighting Falcon > Air Force > Fact Sheet Display). The Gripen E is smaller; it added two hardpoints over Gripen C for a total of 10, with about 5.3 ton payload (Aircrafttotal Encyclopedia). That earns ~7★ – enough for 4 Meteors + 2 IRIS-T + bombs, for example. F/A-18E/F Block III (8★) falls between the light and heavyweights: it has 11 hardpoints (including wingtip rails) and can carry ~8 ton payload (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Technical Data – Ultimate Specs) (F/A-18E Super Hornet, McDonnell Douglas – FIGHTER PLANES), including advanced weapons like AGM-88E, JSOW, AIM-9X, etc. KF-21 Boramae is designed for a 7.7 ton payload across 10 hardpoints (How KF-21 Boramae Solidifies South Korea’s Strategic Autonomy and …), about on par with Typhoon – we rate it 8★. Tejas Mk2 is expected to carry 6.5 tons on 11 hardpoints (HAL Tejas Mk2 – Wikipedia), a big leap over Tejas Mk1 – roughly 7★. Future sixth-gen fighters will prioritize internal carriage of weapons for stealth, but should accommodate novel weapons (lasers, cooperative drones) – we assign 10★ given their likely ability to employ next-gen armaments that maximize lethality.

• Future 6th-Gen Fighter (Tempest) 10★ 10★ 10★ 10★ 10★ = 50
• F-35A Lightning II 8★ 7★ 10★ 10★ 9★ = 44
• Dassault Rafale F4 8★ 9★ 8★ 9★ 9★ = 43
• Eurofighter Typhoon (Tranche 4+) 9★ 9★ 7★ 8★ 8★ = 41
• KAI KF-21 Boramae 8★ 7★ 7★ 8★ 8★ = 38
• Saab JAS 39E Gripen 7★ 8★ 7★ 8★ 7★ = 37
• Boeing F-15EX Eagle II 8★ 7★ 4★ 8★ 10★ = 37
• Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet III 7★ 7★ 6★ 8★ 8★ = 36
• HAL Tejas Mk2 7★ 8★ 6★ 7★ 7★ = 35
• Lockheed Martin F-16V Viper 8★ 8★ 5★ 7★ 7★ = 35

• Maintenance Demands & Cost: There is wide variation in operating cost. The F-35A, while advanced, is very expensive to fly and maintain – estimated around $35k per flight hour (F15-EX Overview, Specification, Performance | World Defense). Its stealth coatings and complex systems require significant upkeep (we rate it a low 3★ for maintenance). Eurofighter Typhoon and F-15EX are also costly to operate (on the order of $27k/hr for F-15EX) (F15-EX Overview, Specification, Performance | World Defense) and require many man-hours of maintenance. We give both around 4★ in this area. Dassault Rafale is somewhat more maintenance-friendly – France designed it for smaller ground crews and it lacks delicate stealth coating; its operating cost has been reported in the mid teens (thousands USD/hour), so ~6★. The Boeing F/A-18E/F is known as a reliable, carrier-hardened design – easier to maintain than the F-35. It costs perhaps ~$18k/hr, and benefits from decades of Navy logistical experience (we rate ~6★). The smaller single-engine jets shine in cost-efficiency: Saab’s Gripen was designed for low lifecycle cost and quick turnarounds. Gripen C reportedly can be serviced by a small crew (even conscripts) with rapid engine swap, and the new Gripen E continues this philosophy. Its cost per hour has been stated as roughly half that of larger twin-engine rivals – we give it a top 10★ for low maintenance burden. The F-16V (9★) also enjoys relatively low operating cost (historically ~$7–10k/hr) thanks to its single-engine simplicity and huge global parts availability. HAL Tejas Mk2 is expected to be moderate – it’s single-engine and India aims to improve maintainability over Mk1 (which had some issues). However, being new and not yet proven, we rate it ~7★ with a caution that India’s maintenance infrastructure is still growing. KF-21 Boramae (7★) should benefit from modern design techniques and South Korea’s high manufacturing quality, but as a twin-engine 4.5-gen its costs will be in the mid range (likely similar to an F/A-18E). Future sixth-gen fighters are likely to be extremely costly to maintain initially due to cutting-edge tech – we anticipate perhaps 2–3★ in the near term (unless revolutionary maintenance concepts are implemented to counteract their complexity).

• Sortie Generation & Spares: In a prolonged conflict (sustained ops), Canada needs fighters that can generate frequent sorties and be kept serviceable with a robust supply chain. Saab’s Gripen again scores a full 10★ here – it was designed for high sortie rates, with a combat turnaround time of 10–20 minutes (Gripen E-series | Saab) (refuel/rearm) and minimal support infrastructure. It also has a reputation for high availability in Swedish service. The widely used F-16 also scores very high (9★) – many air forces achieve mission-capability rates ~80%+ with it, and spare parts are abundant worldwide. Boeing’s F/A-18E/F is a Navy workhorse built for quick deck turnarounds; it reliably generates sorties for carrier air wings, so we rate it ~9★ (especially if Canada leverages U.S. Navy supply chains for parts). The F-15EX, although large, benefits from an established F-15 supply system and newer digital diagnostics – it should improve on the aging F-15C’s readiness. We give it ~8★ (the USAF is buying it partly for its maintainability and immediate availability). Rafale has demonstrated high sortie rates in combat ops (e.g. French deployments in Mali); with France and other export users investing in sustainment, it earns a strong 8★. Typhoon, on the other hand, had a troubled maintenance record early on – multiple nations managing the fleet led to spare parts shortages. Availability has improved (the Typhoon force is now more mature), but it’s still maintenance-intensive, so around 6★. KF-21 is untested in service; being new, initial sortie rates might be lower until kinks are worked out. But South Korea’s well-organized industry could keep spares flowing – we estimate ~7★. Tejas Mk2 is also an unknown for sustained ops. Given the Indian Tejas Mk1 fleet is small (making spares a challenge) and India’s logistics have struggled in the past, we conservatively rate Mk2 about 5★ in sortie generation until proven otherwise. The F-35A has had issues with spare parts and fleet availability (mission-capable rates around 60–70% in early years). As the global fleet grows and logistics system (ODIN) improves, these numbers are getting better. We assign ~6★ – decent but not yet at legacy fighter levels. Sixth-gen fighters will be few and highly complex in their early years, likely limiting sortie rates (perhaps 5★) until their support ecosystems mature.

• Training & Transition: Here we consider how easily RCAF pilots and crews can transition to the jet. The Super Hornet Block III is the clear winner (10★) – it is essentially a evolution of the CF-18 Hornet Canada has flown for decades. Pilot conversion would be straightforward, and existing ground crew skills/tools would carry over significantly. Similarly, the F-16V (8★) and F-15EX (7★) use well-understood U.S. systems and English documentation, making training relatively quick (though Canada hasn’t operated single-engine jets or F-15s before, the U.S. could assist with established training programs). The F-35A (7★) is a leap in technology that requires extensive simulator training (no two-seat variant exists), but many allied forces have successfully transitioned pilots to it. Canada would benefit from the joint training infrastructure among F-35 operators. European fighters pose a bit more transition challenge simply because Canada has never used them. Typhoon (7★) would require training in Europe or bringing instructors over, but the RAF and others have well-defined programs, and it’s a NATO-standard jet. Rafale (6★) might be slightly harder: only France (and a few export users) operate it, so training pipelines are less international. Language and unit conversion (metric) differences in documentation could require adjustment (though Rafale can be Anglicized for export). Gripen E (9★) is known for its user-friendly interface and was even designed for short learning curves for reserve pilots. Saab could set up a comprehensive training program in Canada (they’ve offered partnership in past competitions). The smaller size and excellent handling of Gripen make it a relatively forgiving jet to fly, easing pilot training. KF-21 (6★) by 2026–28 will have ROKAF training established, but as a brand-new type with no Western operators initially, Canada would largely have to rely on South Korean instructors and newly written manuals – a modest hurdle. Tejas Mk2 (5★) would be the most foreign option: India’s training and maintenance philosophy differs, and no Western nation has experience with it. Considerable effort would be needed to develop a curriculum from scratch and translate know-how to Canadian context. Lastly, sixth-gen fighters (approx 4★ for training) will introduce novel systems (e.g. AI copilots, optionally manned capabilities) that even seasoned pilots will need significant retraining to master. Early units will likely be flown by elite pilots with specialized training, so a broader force transition would be challenging initially.

• Interoperability (NORAD/NATO & Arctic Ops): All candidates are at least NATO-compatible (able to use Link 16, IFF Mode 5, etc.), but North American defense has specific demands. U.S.-made aircraft (F-35, F-15EX, F/A-18, F-16) naturally get top marks (9–10★) in NORAD interoperability – they can plug into US/Canadian command networks with minimal modification. The F-35A is already operated by the U.S. and allies in Arctic conditions (Norway, Alaska) and has secure datalinks that allow it to function as a “sensor-shooter” node in NORAD. We give it 10★ for seamless integration. The Super Hornet also rates 10★ – it shares much with the CF-18 in operational concept and can operate from cold-weather bases with appropriate prep. It’s fully NORAD-capable (U.S. Navy has even forward-deployed Super Hornets in Alaska exercises). F-15EX and F-16V both get ~9★; they would be new to RCAF but are American fighters well understood by NORAD. An F-16 or F-15EX could carry AIM-9/AMRAAM and use standard NORAD identification systems out of the box. The one slight drawback for F-16 in Canada is its shorter range – Arctic patrols might require tanker support or additional fuel tanks (CFTs) in scenarios where an F-15EX’s bigger fuel load would not. European jets are also broadly interoperable, but integration into NORAD would need some additional work. We assign Typhoon 8★ – the RAF and RCAF operate together often, and Typhoon has been deployed for NATO Air Policing in northern regions. It would need adaptation to some NORAD-specific data networks, but nothing insurmountable. Similarly, Gripen E (8★) now fully supports NATO standards (Sweden is joining NATO). Gripen was designed for austere base ops in Sweden’s north, so it can handle cold weather and dispersed operations (even road bases) – an asset for Arctic use. Rafale earns about 7★: France is a NATO member, but Rafale has some unique French datalink systems in addition to Link 16. It would require integration of NORAD specific comms/IFF gear. Operating Rafale in extreme cold would likely be fine (it’s been tested in winter conditions to some extent, and operated from –30°C airfields in France), but Canada might need to work with Dassault to certify it for sustained Arctic deployments. KF-21 Boramae (6★) being a non-NATO Asian aircraft is a bit of an outlier – it uses some U.S. tech (so likely Link 16 capable), but integrating it into NORAD would be novel. Canada would have to ensure common encryption and identification systems are added. Arctic-wise, South Korea doesn’t operate in sub-zero extremes routinely, so additional cold-weather testing and modifications (e.g. heaters for avionics, de-icing) might be needed. HAL Tejas Mk2 (4★) is the least aligned – India is not part of NORAD or NATO, and Tejas would require major integration efforts to add Western datalinks and friend-foe identification. This poses security questions as well (the US might be hesitant to share NORAD network details with an Indian platform). Furthermore, its range and payload would be challenged by Canada’s vast Arctic – it’s not optimized for long-distance interception of Russian bombers, for example. Future sixth-gen fighters (Tempest or FCAS – ~8★) would be operated by close Canadian allies (UK or a European consortium). If Canada were to acquire Tempest for example, interoperability with NATO would be excellent. NORAD integration is a bit uncertain only because the US is pursuing its own NGAD fighter – a different system – but standard protocols would surely be supported for coalition operations. As for Arctic capability, these jets will be designed for high reliability in varied climates, but it might take time to accumulate cold-weather operating experience.

• Saab JAS 39E Gripen 10★ 10★ 9★ 8★ = 37
• Lockheed Martin F-16V Viper 9★ 9★ 8★ 9★ = 35
• Boeing F-15EX Eagle II 4★ 8★ 7★ 9★ = 28
• KAI KF-21 Boramae 7★ 7★ 6★ 6★ = 26
• F-35A Lightning II 3★ 6★ 7★ 10★ = 26
• Dassault Rafale F4 6★ 8★ 6★ 7★ = 25
• Eurofighter Typhoon (Tranche 4+) 4★ 6★ 7★ 8★ = 25
• Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet III 6★ 9★ 10★ 10★ = 25
• HAL Tejas Mk2 7★ 5★ 5★ 4★ = 21
• Future 6th-Gen Fighter (Tempest) 2★ 5★ 4★ 8★ = 19

• Manufacturing & Technology Transfer: Acquiring an advanced fighter can either mean buying off-the-shelf with minimal local work (typical for U.S. jets) or negotiating co-production/tech transfer (often offered by European makers). Saab’s Gripen E is outstanding in this regard (10★). Saab has a track record of tech transfer – for example, Brazil is building Gripen under license with substantial technology sharing. For Canada, Saab promised significant local production and even the possibility to integrate Canadian-specific systems (Rafale, Dassault-Breguet – FIGHTER PLANES). Gripen’s software architecture is published and modifiable by the customer, providing true sovereignty. Similarly, HAL Tejas Mk2 would likely come with generous tech transfer (9★) – India has sought partners and would welcome Western collaboration. Canada could potentially co-develop certain systems and get deep insight into the design. Dassault with the Rafale also tends to offer local assembly and workshare (e.g. in the India deal, they offered to invest heavily in Indian aerospace). We rate Rafale ~8★ for manufacturing/tech transfer – a Canadian Rafale order could see assembly in Canada and access to some French technology, albeit France might keep certain crown jewels (like engine tech) under wraps. The multi-nation Eurofighter Typhoon program is more complex to navigate. Tech transfer is possible (the consortium offered it to India’s MMRCA tender), but splitting production of 88 jets among four partner nations plus Canada could be inefficient. Still, some Canadian industry participation could be arranged (score ~7★). South Korea’s KF-21 is another intriguing case – Korea is keen to export the jet and might be open to a partnership. We give it ~8★ for potential TOT: a Canada-Korea deal could involve co-production, given the KF-21 program itself involved tech collaborations (ROK partnered with Indonesia, and integrated European missile tech like Meteor (Meteoric success in Korea | MBDA)). However, any U.S.-derived components (like the engine) would require U.S. export approval. The U.S. fighters generally score low here. An F-35A purchase, as a Foreign Military Sale, would bring very little direct production to Canada – the jets would be built in Fort Worth. Canada is already part of the F-35 program industrially (Canadian firms build components for all F-35s as part of the partnership), but this workshare is not tied to a specific Canadian order (and in fact Canadian firms have won ~$2 billion in F-35 contracts even while Canada delayed purchasing). We score F-35 about 4★: Canadian industry does benefit (e.g. Magellan Aerospace makes F-35 parts), but there is no technology transfer of the aircraft’s design/IP itself. The same goes for Boeing’s Super Hornet (4★) – Boeing might subcontract some work to Canadian companies (as it did for past CF-18s), but the critical tech remains U.S.-controlled. F-15EX is even more limited (3★) since it’s a less likely choice for tech transfer; Boeing’s line is busy with USAF orders, and any Canadian role would be minimal (maybe component maintenance or a small piece of the supply chain). F-16V (4★) is near end-of-line for new production – Lockheed might offer assembly of a few in Canada, but more likely they’d be built in South Carolina with minor Canadian subcontracting. Future 6th-gen programs present a huge opportunity if Canada joins as a partner. The UK-led Tempest consortium, for instance, has Italy and Japan on board and is open to other partners investing. Canada could negotiate a share of development (avionics, manufacturing of components) – yielding high tech transfer (perhaps 8★). If Canada waits until Tempest/FCAS is a finished product and simply buys it, then tech transfer would be low – but here we assume the more ambitious scenario of partnering early for maximal industrial benefit.

• Life-Cycle Cost (30-year): This overlaps with operating cost but also includes acquisition, upgrades, and overhaul costs over decades. The F-15EX and similar twin-engine “heavy” fighters will incur the highest life-cycle costs (we give F-15EX 3★). It’s a relatively cheap airframe to acquire ($80M range) but fuel, spares, and upgrades over 30 years for a fleet of heavy twin-engine jets add up tremendously. Typhoon, while somewhat smaller, is known for high lifecycle cost as well – maintaining a Typhoon squadron has been more expensive than legacy F-18s or F-16s (score ~5★). The F-35A has a high upfront cost and initially high operating cost, but its proponents argue software-driven upgrades will keep it capable longer (it’s intended to serve till 2070). Still, as of now, its 30-year life-cycle expenses are projected to be enormous (in U.S. service, tens of billions). We rate it ~4★. Rafale’s life-cycle cost is medium-high (twin-engine but designed for lower maintenance). France plans iterative upgrades (F5, F6 standards) which Canada would have to pay to adopt – overall ~6★. The Super Hornet (6★) and KF-21 (7★) sit in the middle – not as cheap as a single-engine light fighter, but less costly than the top-tier stealth or air-superiority jets. The Super Hornet has a known supply chain and reasonable flying hour costs, reducing surprises in long-term budgeting. KF-21 might have a lower sticker price than Western 5th-gens and could be economical to operate if South Korea achieves its cost goals. On the economical side, Gripen E (9★) stands out – its acquisition cost is relatively low (Saab’s bids have undercut competitors) and it was built for efficient upkeep. Over 30+ years, a Gripen fleet would consume far less budget than an F-35 or Typhoon fleet, according to most analyses (Just How Stealthy Are France’s Rafales F4.2s? – The National Interest) (Rafale, Dassault-Breguet – FIGHTER PLANES). The F-16V (8★) also offers a proven low lifecycle cost – many countries have kept F-16s relevant through upgrades at manageable expense. Tejas Mk2 is a bit of a wild card – it’s intended as a low-cost solution for India, so presumably acquisition and parts would be cheaper (labor costs in India are low, and they are using some COTS systems). If reliability issues are ironed out, its life-cycle could be fairly low (we estimate 6★). Sixth-generation fighters (Tempest/FCAS) will likely have very high development and acquisition costs – on par with or exceeding F-35. Only if multiple partners share the burden will it be feasible. Life-cycle for a 6th-gen, including next-gen engine tech and advanced systems, could be very high. We assign just 2★ here, reflecting that being on the bleeding edge is expensive (though it may pay off in capability).

• Sovereignty & Upgrade Independence: This measures how free Canada would be to upgrade or use the jets without foreign restriction. The Gripen E leads at 10★ – Sweden is known for allowing customers to integrate their own weapons and modify software. (Brazil, for instance, will integrate indigenous weapons on its Gripens.) Canada would receive source codes and could locally upgrade avionics if needed. The HAL Tejas Mk2 also scores high (~9★) as an indigenous Indian design not tied to U.S. ITAR restrictions (aside from the engine). If Canada had the rare path of operating Tejas, India would likely be flexible in co-developing new features (and politically, India isn’t in a position to dictate terms to Canada). Rafale offers a high degree of autonomy as well (9★) – once delivered, France doesn’t put end-use shackles on it. For example, Dassault integrated an Israeli helmet on Indian Rafales at India’s request. France also maintains its fighters independently of the U.S., meaning no foreign approval would be needed for Canada to use Rafales in any scenario. Eurofighter (7★) is a bit more complicated – partner nations must agree on major changes, but export customers like Saudi Arabia have gotten custom Typhoon modifications via BAE. Canada would depend on the Eurofighter consortium for certain upgrades, but could likely establish some in-country capability for integration. U.S.-made fighters score much lower. An F-35A is tied to a centralized, U.S.-controlled upgrade cycle – Canada could not independently modify its F-35s (even adding a new weapon requires JPO approval and software updates). Moreover, sensitive systems are “black boxes.” We give F-35 around 2★ for sovereignty, since it’s the epitome of a globally shared system managed by the U.S. DOD. The F-16V and F-15EX are also U.S.-controlled (3★). While less software-driven than the F-35, any significant change (say integrating a European missile like Meteor on F-16) would require U.S. permission and contractor support. The F/A-18E (4★) is slightly better only because it’s a more analog airframe – Canada could do things like weapons tests on its own to a limited degree, but core systems would still be under Boeing/USN configuration control. KF-21 (7★) lies in between: it’s not American, so U.S. export law wouldn’t directly govern it (except the engines and some avionics). South Korea might be open to Canada making its own modifications, though much of the jet’s tech is Korean-proprietary. Still, as a partner, Canada could insist on the ability to certify its own upgrades. Sixth-gen fighters could offer high sovereignty if Canada is a core partner (8★) – co-developers have full insight and influence. For example, Britain, Italy, and Japan will all have a say in Tempest and be able to customize it for their needs. If Canada bought in at a later stage, it would be less independent (closer to how F-35 partners still rely on the U.S.). But here we assume a partnership scenario granting substantial control.
• Export Potential & Offsets: This considers whether buying the jet could bring economic offsets beyond domestic needs – e.g. part of a larger export program or re-export opportunities. The F-35 scores a decent 7★ because Canadian companies are already profiting from global F-35 sales (and these would continue and likely increase after Canada formally acquires F-35s). However, Canada can’t independently export F-35s – that’s U.S. controlled. Gripen (8★) offers Canada a chance to become a manufacturing hub for any North American or future NATO Gripen orders. While Gripen hasn’t won many recent contracts, if Canada and Brazil and Sweden all operate it, maintenance and upgrade business could be shared. Saab’s openness means Canadian industry could even lead future upgrades and then sell that expertise elsewhere. KF-21 (8★) also could open new markets – if Canada joined, the “Global team” could pitch it to other nations (perhaps in the Middle East or Asia). Canadian industry might then produce components for those exports, gaining revenue. Rafale (7★) and Typhoon (6★) have some export traction (Rafale in particular has new customers like UAE, Indonesia). If Canada built or serviced parts, it could feed into those global fleets. For instance, Canadian firms might produce Rafale spares for the French or other air forces – an economic offset beyond just domestic fleet support. Boeing’s Super Hornet (5★) and Lockheed’s F-16V (5★) are near the end of their sales life, so not much export potential remains. (Boeing failed to secure the Indian Navy deal and U.S. production will wind down; F-16 is still selling to a few countries, but production will likely cease once F-35 proliferates.) Thus, few new offset opportunities exist beyond initial purchase (though Boeing/Lockheed would likely involve Canadian suppliers in the broader supply chain as minor offsets). F-15EX (4★) is primarily a U.S. Air Force program (no one else has ordered it new yet). There’s little likelihood Canada could export it, and Boeing probably wouldn’t shift significant workshare for a small additional order. Tejas Mk2 (6★) could be interesting: if Canada became a partner, it might actually boost Tejas’s credibility and lead other countries to consider it. Canadian and Indian industries could co-market the Tejas (for example, to smaller nations looking for affordable fighters). This is speculative, hence a moderate 6★. A 6th-gen fighter program, if joined, offers huge industrial offset potential: we give 9★. Such programs plan to produce hundreds of jets for multiple nations – Canadian aerospace firms would be in on the ground floor, meaning decades of high-tech jobs and possible export revenues (Canada could, for instance, build major assemblies for all Tempests or be the sustainment center for North America, etc.). It’s a long-term and high-investment proposition but aligns with developing domestic aerospace excellence.

• Saab JAS 39E Gripen 10★ 9★ 10★ 8★ = 37
• KAI KF-21 Boramae 8★ 7★ 7★ 8★ = 30
• Dassault Rafale F4 8★ 6★ 9★ 7★ = 30
• HAL Tejas Mk2 9★ 6★ 9★ 6★ = 30
• Future 6th-Gen Fighter (Tempest) 8★ 2★ 8★ 9★ = 27
• Eurofighter Typhoon (Tranche 4+) 7★ 5★ 7★ 6★ = 25
• Lockheed Martin F-16V Viper 4★ 8★ 3★ 5★ = 20
• Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet III 4★ 6★ 4★ 5★ = 19
• F-35A Lightning II 4★ 4★ 2★ 7★ = 17
• Boeing F-15EX Eagle II 3★ 3★ 3★ 4★ = 13

• AI & Network-Centric Warfare: Modern combat is increasingly about data-sharing and autonomy. The F-35 is a “flying sensor node” – it can link with other assets via the Multifunction Advanced Data Link and act as a battlefield “quarterback” (F-35 vs Rafale A Comprehensive Comparison for India’s Defense Modernization – Victor Growth). Its sensor fusion and computing power make it highly future-proof for network warfare (9★). It doesn’t yet have an onboard AI wingman, but its software is being continually upgraded and it’s already demonstrating the ability to coordinate with other platforms. The sixth-gen concepts are designed from the outset for AI and teaming – we give them 10★. Tempest, for example, is planned to have an “artificial intelligence co-pilot” to offload tasks, and the ability to control drone wingmen as part of a combat “cloud”. Among 4th/4.5 gen jets, the Super Hornet Block III and Rafale F4 are notable. The Block III has a new distributed targeting processor and Rockwell Collins TTNT datalink, enabling advanced multi-platform tactics (8★). The U.S. Navy is already using F/A-18Fs as testbeds to control unmanned refueling drones (MQ-25) and is exploring manned-unmanned teaming in its air wings – the Super Hornet can be a part of that transition. Rafale F4 also emphasizes connectivity – it will have new satellite and intra-flight datalinks to cooperate with UAVs and other fighters. France’s future SCAF system envisions Rafales working with “remote carrier” drones, so Rafale is being prepared to function in an AI-assisted environment (8★). Eurofighter Typhoon is getting upgraded datalinks and has been tested in some digital warfare exercises, but given its older design, we rate it ~7★ for network integration (effective Link 16, but not built around stealthy data-sharing like F-35).  Gripen E was designed with “silent networking” tactics – a flight of Gripens can share target data with one actively emitting and others passive (Gripen E-series | Saab). It also features an “AI-enabled” decision support in the cockpit (Gripen E-series | Saab). Thus, we give Gripen E a solid 8★ for digital warfare capability. The F-15EX (7★) has the latest communications as well (it’s being fitted with the Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System that can network with other sensors). Still, as a non-stealth, its role in a high-end network fight might be as a weapons truck cued by others. KF-21 (7★) is expected to be compatible with the latest networking (it will likely incorporate datalink systems to work with U.S. and ROK assets, and possibly control loyal wingman drones in the future). Tejas Mk2 (6★) will have modern avionics and an indigenous data link, but India’s networking tech is not as combat-proven as Western systems yet. The F-16V, while updated with data links, is limited by older hardware – it can exchange targeting data and work with 5th-gen fighters, but it’s not optimized as a central node (6★).

• Adaptability to Drone Swarms & Next-Gen Threats: Looking to a dystopian future battlefield – swarms of autonomous drones, hypersonic missiles, advanced air defenses – how well can these jets cope or contribute? The F-35 (9★) again is very strong: it’s already been used to cue surface-to-air defenses and could potentially control semi-autonomous drones with software upgrades. Its low observability helps it survive in zones swarming with sensors, and its sensor fusion + EW gives it a fighting chance against advanced threats. The F-15EX and Super Hornet get 8★ each here. The F-15EX can carry outsize weapons (like contemplated directed-energy weapons or large magazines of air-to-air missiles) that might be useful against drone swarms. It’s also being considered as a launch platform for hypersonic missiles – a key future capability (F15-EX Overview, Specification, Performance | World Defense). The Super Hornet’s involvement in the U.S. Navy’s naval integrated fire control suggests it can engage targets handed off from other sensors; with 11 hardpoints it could deploy counter-drone munitions (or even lasers/pods in the future). Rafale (8★) is on a clear upgrade path to stay relevant alongside France’s future stealth drones – in simulations, Rafales have teamed with unmanned combat air vehicles. Also, Rafale’s superb close-combat agility and Spectra suite could help it survive “knife-fight” engagements with swarming drones or cruise missiles. Typhoon (7★) has raw performance to intercept high-speed threats and has been tested firing Meteor missiles at difficult targets, but without stealth it will rely on standoff tactics against next-gen SAMs. Gripen E (6★) by virtue of its networking can contribute to swarming tactics (e.g. guiding friendly drones), but its small size limits how many anti-drone weapons it can carry at once. It is, however, relatively cheap to operate – in a prolonged drone-saturated war, having more airframes (Gripens) can be an advantage. Tejas Mk2 (5★) and F-16V (5★) are less suited to counter swarms or penetrate advanced defenses – they would likely play secondary roles (point defense, or rely on more advanced allies for stealthy strikes). KF-21 (7★) in later blocks is planned to have internal bays and better stealth, meaning South Korea clearly intends to evolve it for a higher-threat environment. It’s already integrating the Meteor missile for long-range engagements (Meteoric success in Korea | MBDA), and could in the future control loyal wingman drones (Korea has drone programs in development). Sixth-gen fighters, built with this in mind, rate 10★ – they are essentially being conceived as system-of-systems controllers (with swarming drones, advanced penetration aids, etc.) to handle the most daunting threat environments of 2040+.

• Open Architecture & Modular Upgrades: As threats evolve, can the jet’s software and hardware be easily updated? Saab’s Gripen E is “revolutionary” in this regard – it has a modular avionics architecture separated from flight-critical systems, allowing rapid integration of new weapons and sensors (Gripen E-series | Saab). This has been demonstrated by Saab (they tout adding new capabilities in months rather than years). We give Gripen E 10★ for a truly open upgrade approach. The F-15EX also was built with an Open Mission Systems (OMS) architecture – the USAF can plug-and-play new sensors or weapons with minimal recoding. This forward-looking design choice earns the F-15EX 9★ (it would be 10★ if it weren’t still partly tied to older F-15E software for some functions). HAL Tejas Mk2 (8★) is expected to use an open architecture similar to Tejas Mk1A, which was designed to accommodate both Western and Russian weapons – indicating flexibility. KF-21 (8★) likewise has been engineered for growth (Korea will add internal weapon bays and possibly stealth coatings in future variants, implying the internal systems are adaptable to significant configuration changes). Rafale (8★) has seen consistent upgrade blocks (F1→F2→F3R→F4) – its design is fairly modular (e.g. adding the AESA radar was straightforward). While not “open source,” France’s full control means Canada could get upgrades through Dassault or even locally integrate weapons (with support). Typhoon (7★) has improved, but historically it was less modular – adding new weapons took multinational coordination. Newer Typhoon software is more flexible (the UK has done rapid integrations for exports), but it isn’t as easy as Gripen’s. The F-35A (5★) ironically scores low – it is extremely software-driven, but the code is tightly controlled by Lockheed Martin. End users cannot modify it on their own; all upgrades come in block releases. While the F-35 is certainly designed to be upgraded over time, it’s not “open” – Canada would be dependent on the joint program for enhancements. F/A-18E Block III (7★) has a new computing infrastructure that is more open than before, though still within Boeing/Navy oversight. It will remain adaptable enough to serve into the 2030s (the USN is integrating new weapons like anti-ship missiles, and potentially remote carrier control via the Block III’s network). The F-16V (6★) extends the F-16’s life with modern avionics, but the airframe is reaching its limits in terms of what you can bolt on (and being older architecture, it’s not as plug-and-play as newer designs). Future 6th-gens are expected to be highly software-defined – Tempest’s developers stress a “flexible software and hardware architecture” to quickly swap or upgrade modules. We assign 10★, assuming these programs follow through on the promise of platform agnostic mission systems (enabling frequent upgrades to stay ahead of threats).

• Geopolitical Alignment & Sustainability: From a strategic point of view, a fighter purchase must align with Canada’s alliances (NORAD, NATO) and ensure supportability for decades. The F-35A unsurprisingly gets 10★ – it is the NATO standard going forward, used by the U.S. and many allies. Choosing it cements defense ties with the U.S. (critical for NORAD). It will be sustained as a main frontline fighter through 2070 by the largest defense ecosystem in the world. The Super Hornet (9★) also aligns well with NORAD (commonality with U.S. Navy and Australian fleets) and would be a lower-risk political choice. However, the Super Hornet line is ending in the mid-2020s; long-term (beyond 2040) the global fleet will dwindle as users move to stealth jets. Still, Boeing’s commitment and the U.S. Navy’s use through the 2030s give confidence in sustainment. The F-16V (9★) is used by ~25 countries – a very aligned choice in terms of coalition operations. Its long-term sustainability is good through 2040s (Lockheed pledged support, and many nations will keep flying F-16s). By 2050, though, most F-16 operators (except perhaps smaller air forces) will have transitioned to newer jets, so Canada might face obsolescence issues late in life. F-15EX (8★) aligns with the U.S. too (USAF will operate ~144 of them). It’s less of a NATO standard (few U.S. allies use F-15s nowadays), but key partners like Israel, Japan, Korea, Saudi all operate F-15 variants – a broad user community. Politically, it’s a U.S. platform so interoperability and support are assured, but it’s seen as a stopgap by the USAF (bridging until NGAD). Rafale (7★) and Typhoon (8★) are aligned with European allies. Typhoon gets a slight edge because the UK (a close Commonwealth ally of Canada) and Germany, Italy, Spain all back it – Canada would plug into a consortium of NATO powers. That said, those nations plan to phase Typhoon out as they field 6th-gen replacements around 2040–2050. Support will continue at least through the 2040s. Rafale is France-centric (now joined by Germany/Spain for FCAS development, but Rafale itself is French-operated plus exports). Canada buying Rafale could strain Canada-U.S. defense industry relations a bit (as seen when some countries chose European jets over U.S., political pressure ensued). But operationally it would still integrate with NATO. France would undoubtedly support Rafale over 40+ years (they intend to keep Rafales in parallel with their future fighter into the 2070s). So sustainability is strong; the slightly lower score reflects the unique choice it would represent in North America (no NORAD partner uses Rafale). Gripen E (8★) is somewhat unique but now that Sweden is joining NATO (and with Brazil as a partner), it’s becoming part of the Western arsenal. A Canadian Gripen buy would strengthen ties with Sweden (and the UK, which also partners on some Gripen tech). It’s politically palatable – the U.S. might prefer Canada buy American, but Sweden is a close western partner so it wouldn’t be a major issue. Sustainability: Saab is committed to supporting Gripen into mid-century; however, being a smaller company, there’s a slight risk if very few countries use it (currently Sweden, Brazil, and maybe others in future). Overall, Gripen aligns with a strategy of self-reliance and interoperability on Canadian terms. KF-21 (7★) is a bold choice alignment-wise – South Korea is a non-NATO U.S. ally. Buying Korean could diversify Canada’s alliances (stronger Pacific partnership, aligning with a democracy in Asia). It would be a first, as no Western nation has bought a high-end Korean combat aircraft yet. The U.S. would likely approve (engines and weapons are American) and might even welcome burden-sharing in fighter production. The supportability of KF-21 would depend on South Korea’s dedication (which is high, since it’s their flagship program). With at least 120 units planned for ROKAF and possibly more for export, KF-21 should have a stable support life through mid-century. However, it lacks the guaranteed global network of a NATO-standard jet. Finally, sixth-gen fighters (Tempest or FCAS) score 9★. If Canada partnered with the UK’s Tempest, it would deepen 5-Eyes tech cooperation and ensure interoperability with a next-gen NATO system. It would, however, mean not aligning with the U.S. 6th-gen (NGAD) – but since NGAD is likely too costly/limited for export, partnering with Europe could be the only viable way for Canada to get a 6th-gen. Long-term sustainability of Tempest/FCAS is very high: these jets will be the cornerstone for their sponsoring nations and will have upgrade roadmaps stretching to 2080+. The slight caveat is the development risk and timeline uncertainty – but strategically, being part of a major development coalition could give Canada influence and secure its needs are met throughout the program’s life.

• Future 6th-Gen Fighter (Tempest) 10★ 10★ 10★ 9★ = 39
• F-35A Lightning II 9★ 9★ 5★ 10★ = 33
• Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet III 8★ 8★ 7★ 9★ = 32
• Saab JAS 39E Gripen 8★ 6★ 10★ 8★ = 32
• Boeing F-15EX Eagle II 7★ 8★ 9★ 8★ = 32
• Dassault Rafale F4 8★ 8★ 8★ 7★ = 31
• KAI KF-21 Boramae 7★ 7★ 8★ 7★ = 29
• Eurofighter Typhoon (Tranche 4+) 7★ 7★ 7★ 8★ = 29
• HAL Tejas Mk2 6★ 5★ 8★ 5★ = 24
• Lockheed Martin F-16V Viper 6★ 5★ 6★ 9★ = 26

• Lethality & Performance: Stealth fighters like the F-35 (10★ in stealth) dominate in survivability, while Typhoon and Rafale lead in raw agility (9★). F-15EX carries the heaviest punch (10★ payload) but is the least stealthy (4★). Gripen and F-16 offer balanced, if lower, combat performance at a fraction of the cost. Sixth-gen concepts promise to excel in all performance aspects (all 10★) if and when they materialize.

• Sustainment & Logistics: Gripen E stands out as the most sustainable (10★ in maintenance and sortie rate) – a design truly optimized for quick turnarounds and low operating cost (Gripen E-series | Saab). F-16 also scores high in efficiency. At the other end, F-35A and Typhoon would require deeper pockets and more maintenance manpower (3–4★ in cost). Super Hornet hits a sweet spot with high interoperability and easy transition for RCAF personnel (10★ training, 10★ NORAD integration), whereas a novel choice like Tejas Mk2 would involve steep learning and integration curves despite its theoretical low cost.

• Industrial Impact: Selecting Gripen or potentially partnering on Tempest could maximize Canadian industry involvement and tech gains (10★ tech transfer for Gripen). These options offer greater sovereignty – freedom to upgrade and adapt the jets nationally (Gripen and Tejas ~9–10★ independence, vs. 2★ for the F-35 which is tied to U.S. control). U.S. fighters provide less local industry growth (3–4★) but have guaranteed supply chains. Life-cycle costs heavily favour the single-engine lighter jets, aligning with a need to sustain prolonged operations without breaking the budget.

• Future Adaptability: The landscape of unmanned systems and integrated warfare is where 5th and 6th gen aircraft shine. The F-35, and future Tempest/FCAS, are built to excel in network-centric and AI-enhanced warfare (e.g. F-35 acting as a data hub (F-35 vs Rafale A Comprehensive Comparison for India’s Defense Modernization – Victor Growth)). They are rated 9–10★ in these forward-looking metrics. Legacy platforms are being adapted (Super Hornet’s new data links, Rafale’s connectivity upgrades), but they inherently have less growth margin for things like stealth drone control or extensive software-defined missions. Notably, the Gripen E and F-15EX were designed with open software architectures to allow continuous upgrades (Gripen E-series | Saab), making them unusually “future-proof” among 4th-gen jets (10★ and 9★ respectively in modularity).

• Fighter Jet Performance: 37
• Maintenance & Cost: 37
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 37
• AI/Network Warfare: 32
• Overall Composite Score: 143

• Fighter Jet Performance: 50
• Maintenance & Cost: 19
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 27
• AI/Network Warfare: 39
• Overall Composite Score: 135

• Fighter Jet Performance: 43
• Maintenance & Cost: 25
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 30
• AI/Network Warfare: 31
• Overall Composite Score: 129

• Fighter Jet Performance: 38
• Maintenance & Cost: 26
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 30
• AI/Network Warfare: 29
• Overall Composite Score: 123

• Fighter Jet Performance: 44
• Maintenance & Cost: 26
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 17
• AI/Network Warfare: 33
• Overall Composite Score: 120

• Fighter Jet Performance: 41
• Maintenance & Cost: 25
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 25
• AI/Network Warfare: 29
• Overall Composite Score: 120

• Fighter Jet Performance: 35
• Maintenance & Cost: 35
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 20
• AI/Network Warfare: 26
• Overall Composite Score: 116

• Fighter Jet Performance: 36
• Maintenance & Cost: 25
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 19
• AI/Network Warfare: 32
• Overall Composite Score: 112

• Fighter Jet Performance: 37
• Maintenance & Cost: 28
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 13
• AI/Network Warfare: 32
• Overall Composite Score: 110

• Fighter Jet Performance: 35
• Maintenance & Cost: 21
• Mfg & Tech Transfer: 30
• AI/Network Warfare: 24
• Overall Composite Score: 110

1. The apex air superiority fighter. The F-22’s combination of ultra-stealth (RCS ~0.0001 m²) (F-22 vs. F-35 vs. J-20 vs. Su-57: Which Stealth Fighter Is the Best? – 19FortyFive), supercruise speed, and agile maneuverability (thrust-vectoring for extreme agility (F-22 vs. F-35 vs. J-20 vs. Su-57: Which Stealth Fighter Is the Best? – 19FortyFive)) makes it deadly both BVR and WVR. In BVR, it typically sees and kills opponents first; in WVR, it can out-turn almost anything and has reliable high-off-boresight missiles. Its advanced AN/APG-77 radar and decent sensor fusion give good situational awareness (though not as comprehensive as newer F-35’s). F-22 pilots are highly trained and often rack up lopsided kill ratios in exercises. The Raptor’s drawbacks are more logistical – limited numbers and maintenance intensity – but one-on-one or in small group combat it is dominating. Modern war effectiveness: Top-tier air dominance, slightly limited by lack of multi-role flexibility (primarily an A-A fighter) and older networking (can’t share data as easily). Still, in a contested sky scenario, an F-22 force ensures air superiority if properly supported. Rank: 1st.

 

Fix the broken countries of the west through increased transparency, design and professional skills. Support Skills Gap Trainer.’

To see our YouTube Channel, click https://www.youtube.com/@skillsgaptrainer