The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Nicely done.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Ottawa picks Sweden’s Saab early-warning aircraft tech over U.S. contenders

Prime Minister makes good on promise to reduce spending on American military gear
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Paywall free: https://archive.is/7xEb2

Now, let's see what happens with the CF-18 replacement program. If we're buying SAAB's awacs plane we might as well get some of their Gripens for a split fleet with a reduced number of F-35s.
Click to expand...
Well, that's good ews. Not sure how they'll manage to cover Canada with 6 airframes, but it's a lot better than 0 airframes
 
GTX said:
Better choice than the Sth Korean option IMHO
Click to expand...
Agreed. Now, onto fighters....

My vote is to skip the Gripen, and just buy the full allotment of F-35s and aim for this (and the incoming Boeing P-8A Poseidon) to be the final large purchase of US-made kit. In the 2050s we can begin to replace the F-35s with the GCAP, if it exists and makes sense for Canada. For now, the Airbus A400M Atlas looks like a good non-USA potential fit between the Hercs and Globemaster, while the Airbus H175M helicopter (Canadian designation CT-153 Juno) offers a competitor to Lockheed-Martin's Sikorsky catalogue.

 
Admiral Beez said:
Agreed. Now, onto fighters....

My vote is to skip the Gripen, and just buy the full allotment of F-35s and aim for this (and the incoming Boeing P-8A Poseidon) to be the final large purchase of US-made kit. In the 2050s we can begin to replace the F-35s with the GCAP, if it exists and makes sense for Canada. For now, the Airbus A400M Atlas looks like a good non-USA potential fit between the Hercs and Globemaster, while the Airbus H175M helicopter (Canadian designation CT-153 Juno) offers a competitor to Lockheed-Martin's Sikorsky catalogue.

Click to expand...
Well 30 F-35s are already committed to. The consideration of Gripens is purely political playing off the (valid IMHO) anger against the USA. Saab has been playing up the "we're not American" line big time. The frustration though is that if you look properly, the Gripen also has significant American content, starting with its F414 engine. Thus it is a false narrative. It will also give Canada a less capable, more expensive solution.
 
GTX said:
The frustration though is that if you look properly, the Gripen also has significant American content. Thus it is a false narrative.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the Canadian POV. It's not that we want zero American content in our military procurement, but that instead we want less American content. The Gripen meets this criteria just fine. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Excluding the incoming F-35 and P-8A Poseidon, the active inventory of the Royal Canadian Air Force includes approximately 288 aircraft manufactured by United States firms (including their branch assembly plants in Canada) out of an estimated total active fleet of 390 units. These are the CF-188 Hornet, CC-130J Hercules, CC-130H Hercules, CP-140 Aurora, CH-147F Chinook, CC-177 Globemaster III, CT-156 Harvard II, CT-145 King Air, CH-148 Cyclone, CH-139 Jet Ranger, and CH-146 Griffon. This means that American-made or origin platforms comprise roughly 74% of the entire RCAF fleet. It makes no sense to procure three quarters of our aircraft from a country that's taken an adversarial position on Canada.

I think Canadians would like to see any procurement after the F-35 and P-8 to go elsewhere, bringing US types to below 50% as we replace the US-origin rotaries (including the shite Cyclones) and add new Euro-origin and domestic types. These would include the Airbus CC-330 Husky, CC-295 Kingfisher, CT-153 Juno, and A400M Atlas (proposed), SAAB GlobalEye, Bombardier Global 6500, Leonardo M-346 Master, Pilatus CT-157 Siskin, and Grob CT-102B Astra. That's buys/options for approximately 90 aircraft, and at CAD $25 billion, represents a huge non-American buy by Canadian standards. It's still a long way from reducing American types to less than 50%, but it's a start.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
You misunderstand the Canadian POV. It's not that we want zero American content in our military procurement, but that instead we want less American content. The Gripen meets this criteria just fine. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you misunderstand my point. I wasn't saying zero American. I was talking about the messaging Saab (and others) are playing up to. There is a myth out there - that neither Saab or their supporters are correcting - that the Gripen is the non-USA solution. You obviously know the difference but many others don't and this is what is being played up to.
Admiral Beez said:
represents a huge non-American buy by Canadian standards. It's still a long way from reducing American types to less than 50%, but it's a start.
Click to expand...
My question would be why you believe going non/less-USA sourced is a goal?

Is it to diversify supply chains? If so, why? After all, one could argue that for Canada, being right next to the USA (with the world's largest Military and largest military industry) with a long land border and supposed long standing ally, it would make sense to integrate more closely, if only for logistics reasons. Verses going to say, Europe (I use this since it is the most common alternate put forward vs say, Japan or Sth Korea), where you have a greater distance (separated at least by an ocean) and multiple countries with less capacity.

Alternatively, if driven purely by frustration with the (especially current) US regime policies, actions and rhetoric, then that could arguably lead to a lesser pure capability. It is also this latter reason that I believe is being played up to be Saab and their supporters. I also believe the Canadian Govt is sensitive to this element which is why Saab are playing the game that they are.

It is interesting that neither the Eurofighter Typhoon nor the Dassault Rafale are being promoted even though I believe both would be far more effective alternates for Canada.

I should also point out that I am neither American nor totally against the Saab Gripen in this case. I actually like the platform and in other areas am strongly pushing for it to be selected. I just happen to believe that for Canada, the F-35 represents the best overall capability and value for money and believe that Saab and their supporters are being somewhat disingenuous in their promoting.
 
GTX said:
Sorry, you misunderstand my point. I wasn't saying zero American. I was talking about the messaging Saab (and others) are playing up to. There is a myth out there - that neither Saab or their supporters are correcting - that the Gripen is the non-USA solution. You obviously know the difference but many others don't and this is what is being played up to.

My question would be why you believe going non/less-USA sourced is a goal?

Is it to diversify supply chains? If so, why? After all, one could argue that for Canada, being right next to the USA (with the world's largest Military and largest military industry) with a long land border and supposed long standing ally, it would make sense to integrate more closely, if only for logistics reasons. Verses going to say, Europe (I use this since it is the most common alternate put forward vs say, Japan or Sth Korea), where you have a greater distance (separated at least by an ocean) and multiple countries with less capacity.

Alternatively, if driven purely by frustration with the (especially current) US regime policies, actions and rhetoric, then that could arguably lead to a lesser pure capability. It is also this latter reason that I believe is being played up to be Saab and their supporters. I also believe the Canadian Govt is sensitive to this element which is why Saab are playing the game that they are.

It is interesting that neither the Eurofighter Typhoon nor the Dassault Rafale are being promoted even though I believe both would be far more effective alternates for Canada.

I should also point out that I am neither American nor totally against the Saab Gripen in this case. I actually like the platform and in other areas am strongly pushing for it to be selected. I just happen to believe that for Canada, the F-35 represents the best overall capability and value for money and believe that Saab and their supporters are being somewhat disingenuous in their promoting.
Click to expand...
Objectively, the Typhoon and Rafale are not cheap. On the other end the single engine Grippen seems an odd choice for a huge country as Canada.
 
Frog said:
Objectively, the Typhoon and Rafale are not cheap. On the other end the single engine Grippen seems an odd choice for a huge country as Canada.
Click to expand...
None of the modern fighters - F-35, Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon etc are cheap. It is also hard to get exact comparisons since it also depends upon sustainment support, existing capabilities, industrial offsets/support etc etc. It is also hard to do a pure side-by-side capability achieved vs cost expended.
 
GTX said:
Sorry, you misunderstand my point. I wasn't saying zero American. I was talking about the messaging Saab (and others) are playing up to. There is a myth out there - that neither Saab or their supporters are correcting - that the Gripen is the non-USA solution. You obviously know the difference but many others don't and this is what is being played up to.

My question would be why you believe going non/less-USA sourced is a goal?

Is it to diversify supply chains? If so, why? After all, one could argue that for Canada, being right next to the USA (with the world's largest Military and largest military industry) with a long land border and supposed long standing ally, it would make sense to integrate more closely, if only for logistics reasons. Verses going to say, Europe (I use this since it is the most common alternate put forward vs say, Japan or Sth Korea), where you have a greater distance (separated at least by an ocean) and multiple countries with less capacity.

Alternatively, if driven purely by frustration with the (especially current) US regime policies, actions and rhetoric, then that could arguably lead to a lesser pure capability. It is also this latter reason that I believe is being played up to be Saab and their supporters. I also believe the Canadian Govt is sensitive to this element which is why Saab are playing the game that they are.

It is interesting that neither the Eurofighter Typhoon nor the Dassault Rafale are being promoted even though I believe both would be far more effective alternates for Canada.

I should also point out that I am neither American nor totally against the Saab Gripen in this case. I actually like the platform and in other areas am strongly pushing for it to be selected. I just happen to believe that for Canada, the F-35 represents the best overall capability and value for money and believe that Saab and their supporters are being somewhat disingenuous in their promoting.
Click to expand...
Regarding the logistics reasons. It would be interesting to see a comparative cost analysis for some categories of supplies. Probably, shipping from Europe is more expensive per weight unit, but how much? As I learned in my shipping-logistics-trade career, at a certain price of product your shipping costs become almost negligible. And a truck or train is not always faster than a ship if there are steps of transhipment, consolidation, repacking, a deficit of equipment, congestions, etc.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Only an American would need to ask that question. But in keeping with the non-political rules of the forum, I suggest you Google your question and you'll achieve the enlightenment you seek.
Click to expand...
I have already told you I am not American. I have offered some comments that you could respond to. My point is to be clear in the reasons why decisions are made and to recognise that some organisations/people such as those involved with the Saab Gripen are trying to exploit these.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I like the look of the KF-21. Had we bought Korean subs maybe we could have done a combo.
Click to expand...
I would caution anyone against Sth Korean purchases. Having had some direct experience with their offerings/follow up actions and related, be cautious with promises vs reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

cammerjeff
USAF awards contract for Ski Modification Kit for C-130J's to the Sierra Nevada Corp out of Colorado.
Replies
0
Views
172
cammerjeff
cammerjeff
K
About the NATO reporting names for the Su-27SM and the J-7
Replies
4
Views
833
KatsuAwa
K
K
Regarding the GRAU Index Designation System
Replies
0
Views
266
KatsuAwa
K
Elvis
Like the video says...
Replies
10
Views
749
Crimea_River
Crimea_River
N
What major advantages does Rafael brings to the table over updated Mirage 2000
Replies
9
Views
3K
Frog
F
Back