Now if we could get out of the f35s purchase that would be good. I like the idea of building the Saab jets here creating jobs and not using the usa software.
I agree, Fred. How much crap are we supposed to put up with. After today I have had enough of the bs coming out of the USA. Enough is enough. Someone has to take the bull by the horns. Politics is such a crap shoot. Stop playing stupid games.
While I DO share your sentiment, there are some reasons for purchasing some F35s.
As long as the Americans behave themselves, the aircraft is the gold standard right now for "Day 1" attack strikes -- In our case with the Arctic, taking out Russian land-based radar/missile guidance systems, anti-aircraft batteries (so that our Gripens can then fly in unimpeded), similar with naval vessels (the infamous "fishing boat" that's really a spy ship), etc.
But in pretty much all other regards, Gripens are better suited for the arctic -- can land on shorter runways, gravel/uneven runways, better with the cold ('guess the Americans don't know what a block-heater is . . . .), cheaper (by 75%) to maintain, can maintain it under a fabric car garage-like shelter rather than hardened hangers (okay, I'm getting silly here). Oh yes, and as you pointed out, we can help BUILD them! (and they're cheaper to purchase too). The radars provide more of a wide-angle view of the area being patrolled (the 35s are more narrowed and downward targeted, so they can blow up ground radar -- yes, they can still see other aircraft around them, they aren't "bombers" per se). And the part that is often left out of the discussion -- Gripens CAN work interoperably with NATO (and thus NORAD) aircraft, etc.
Currently with F35, there's a supply backlog on parts, and you have to rebuild the radar-reflective surfaces constantly (good news with that, though, is much of that material/components are made in Nova Scotia, at least!). So an F35 spends 80% of its time in the shop, rather than available to fly. Several other countries actually cannibalize some of their brand-new (or near-new) planes for parts, just to get birds back into the air (instead of waiting for parts to arrive). So if we purchase 88 of them, 20 would be "spare parts", 50 would be in the shop, and that leaves 12/2 (because we have to split these between Cold Lake and Bagotville) 6 at each CFB that can actually do work at any time.
Anyway, having SOME F35s do make some sense. But I'd plan to have Gripens do the "heavy lifting" and just keep the 35's for the first day strike (and then they can go and spend the rest of the war in the shop ;-) ).
(My comments here are just "arm-chair expert" rant, I do not work in the industry and just pick up on things pieced together from various sources of information. But yes, having fewer F35 & more Gripen would make far more sense, both from sovereignty and economic sense).
Having said that, 'guess we have to buy something to get our expenditures up to 3.5% (and then 5%) and F35 would certianly make that easier to hit (and shut up the US politicians, too. Interesting that the actual military people in NORAD don't really seem to care THAT much as to which fighter we have; they're just happy that we're buying SOMETHING).
Thanks for your response. But, do you really think the Americans are capable of behaving in a morally and reasonable manner. I dont think so. Not after today's bs, I have absolutely no faith in the USA. Enough is enough.
While they are all affected by "American Exceptionalism", many of them can and do behave somewhat constructively. We're seeing the country at an all-time low (though I suspect Canadians on/around 1920s, etc. when the US did all the tariff bs before, our predecessors would have said THAT was the all-time low of the time).
More to the point though -- and this is borrowing the "Carney Doctrine" from Davos -- the US behaves with others when COMMON INTERESTS align. So while they talk condescending to Canada about NORAD matters, there is alignment there with common concerns, and much of their military command in NORAD does honestly seem to care about cooperative relations. They're over the moon with our OTHR-A purchase (Over The Horizon Radar - Arctic), and a top general there actually said "doesn't matter which airframe Canada buys, while we prefer F35 {naturally}, we can work with Gripens, too. And with GlobalEyes (if we base two out of Resolute Bay, for example, they REALLY would be over the moon!).
Now, don't tell Pete Hegseth that NORAD generals are making such remarks, or he will start to "retire" them next.
So while I say all of this constructively, I do feel (and share) your anger/frustration. Believe me, in the first 60 days or so of Trump 2.0, I was really REALLY trying to figure out how to have the Snowbirds (or somebody) fly over the White House, and drop a zillion Grade A Canadian RAW EGGS on the place -- both to say we "egged the place" and two, that we had lots of cheap inexpensive eggs to waste on this, when an egg in the USA was worth more than a barrel of oil! ;-)
(don't get me started on the twit from New York who wants a bill passed to punish us for boycotting their alcohol . . . .)
This sub procurement has been incredible to watch, and does set new goal-posts for ANY procurement that Canada makes going forward. Why can't these be arranged as partnerships, where somehow there's more Canadian skin in the game, one way or another? Both Hanwa and TKMS came up with unbelievable proposals with value for Canada.
The Koreans had more visible pieces: Saving Algoma Steel's bacon with I-Beam construction plant investment, including doing it with "submarine-grade materials" for the manufacturing, having Hyundai set up a "heavy commercial/military vehicle" factory, in partnership with our auto parts industry (who are facing headwinds with USA in automobile manufacturing, due to "American content" rules). And both companies, I believe, were proposing clean-energy/battery/fuel cell work here as well. And I think TKMS (or rather, German government) worked out something with Volkswagen to do "something" with either increasing their battery research/production processes or assembling Audi vehicles here, details are vague.
But when Carney said that this was a tough decision, he meant it -- Joly et al really worked the bidders here for top deals, and both companies really sharpened pencils and thought out win/win proposals. It's really too bad that we couldn't buy both (well, that would be one sure way to get close to the NATO targets, but then we would have oodles of subs, possibly oodles of aircraft (if we buy full orders of F25 AND Gripens), and no drones/anti-missile systems . . . .
I think the next challenge, is how to do something with the Koreans in the spirit of what they were proposing. I can't figure out what the centre nexus would be (the "ship (or rather, boat) has sailed" on submarines). But some of what they were proposing was just so good on its own merit! I think most of our larger "capital ship" (or at least what would qualify as such from Canadian standards) projects are all assigned. But if we needed more support or secondary ships (special purpose), it would be great if some of this sub proposal (but without subs) could be rekindled.
Now if we could get out of the f35s purchase that would be good. I like the idea of building the Saab jets here creating jobs and not using the usa software.
Kathy, that's exactly why so many people are still talking about the Gripen.
The question isn't only which jet is best.
It's also where the jobs go, who controls the technology, and how much capability Canada can build at home.
That's a much bigger conversation than aircraft alone.
I agree, Fred. How much crap are we supposed to put up with. After today I have had enough of the bs coming out of the USA. Enough is enough. Someone has to take the bull by the horns. Politics is such a crap shoot. Stop playing stupid games.
While I DO share your sentiment, there are some reasons for purchasing some F35s.
As long as the Americans behave themselves, the aircraft is the gold standard right now for "Day 1" attack strikes -- In our case with the Arctic, taking out Russian land-based radar/missile guidance systems, anti-aircraft batteries (so that our Gripens can then fly in unimpeded), similar with naval vessels (the infamous "fishing boat" that's really a spy ship), etc.
But in pretty much all other regards, Gripens are better suited for the arctic -- can land on shorter runways, gravel/uneven runways, better with the cold ('guess the Americans don't know what a block-heater is . . . .), cheaper (by 75%) to maintain, can maintain it under a fabric car garage-like shelter rather than hardened hangers (okay, I'm getting silly here). Oh yes, and as you pointed out, we can help BUILD them! (and they're cheaper to purchase too). The radars provide more of a wide-angle view of the area being patrolled (the 35s are more narrowed and downward targeted, so they can blow up ground radar -- yes, they can still see other aircraft around them, they aren't "bombers" per se). And the part that is often left out of the discussion -- Gripens CAN work interoperably with NATO (and thus NORAD) aircraft, etc.
Currently with F35, there's a supply backlog on parts, and you have to rebuild the radar-reflective surfaces constantly (good news with that, though, is much of that material/components are made in Nova Scotia, at least!). So an F35 spends 80% of its time in the shop, rather than available to fly. Several other countries actually cannibalize some of their brand-new (or near-new) planes for parts, just to get birds back into the air (instead of waiting for parts to arrive). So if we purchase 88 of them, 20 would be "spare parts", 50 would be in the shop, and that leaves 12/2 (because we have to split these between Cold Lake and Bagotville) 6 at each CFB that can actually do work at any time.
Anyway, having SOME F35s do make some sense. But I'd plan to have Gripens do the "heavy lifting" and just keep the 35's for the first day strike (and then they can go and spend the rest of the war in the shop ;-) ).
(My comments here are just "arm-chair expert" rant, I do not work in the industry and just pick up on things pieced together from various sources of information. But yes, having fewer F35 & more Gripen would make far more sense, both from sovereignty and economic sense).
Having said that, 'guess we have to buy something to get our expenditures up to 3.5% (and then 5%) and F35 would certianly make that easier to hit (and shut up the US politicians, too. Interesting that the actual military people in NORAD don't really seem to care THAT much as to which fighter we have; they're just happy that we're buying SOMETHING).
Thanks for your response. But, do you really think the Americans are capable of behaving in a morally and reasonable manner. I dont think so. Not after today's bs, I have absolutely no faith in the USA. Enough is enough.
While they are all affected by "American Exceptionalism", many of them can and do behave somewhat constructively. We're seeing the country at an all-time low (though I suspect Canadians on/around 1920s, etc. when the US did all the tariff bs before, our predecessors would have said THAT was the all-time low of the time).
More to the point though -- and this is borrowing the "Carney Doctrine" from Davos -- the US behaves with others when COMMON INTERESTS align. So while they talk condescending to Canada about NORAD matters, there is alignment there with common concerns, and much of their military command in NORAD does honestly seem to care about cooperative relations. They're over the moon with our OTHR-A purchase (Over The Horizon Radar - Arctic), and a top general there actually said "doesn't matter which airframe Canada buys, while we prefer F35 {naturally}, we can work with Gripens, too. And with GlobalEyes (if we base two out of Resolute Bay, for example, they REALLY would be over the moon!).
Now, don't tell Pete Hegseth that NORAD generals are making such remarks, or he will start to "retire" them next.
So while I say all of this constructively, I do feel (and share) your anger/frustration. Believe me, in the first 60 days or so of Trump 2.0, I was really REALLY trying to figure out how to have the Snowbirds (or somebody) fly over the White House, and drop a zillion Grade A Canadian RAW EGGS on the place -- both to say we "egged the place" and two, that we had lots of cheap inexpensive eggs to waste on this, when an egg in the USA was worth more than a barrel of oil! ;-)
(don't get me started on the twit from New York who wants a bill passed to punish us for boycotting their alcohol . . . .)
Yes it was no coincidence that the submarine deal was announced shortly after the LNG deal with Germany.
Kevin, I agree.
At this level, these things don't happen in separate little boxes.
LNG, submarines, NATO, Arctic security, industrial jobs... they're all part of the same larger chessboard.
Germany gets energy security.
Canada gets defence capacity, jobs, and a stronger European partner.
That's not coincidence. That's strategy.
This sub procurement has been incredible to watch, and does set new goal-posts for ANY procurement that Canada makes going forward. Why can't these be arranged as partnerships, where somehow there's more Canadian skin in the game, one way or another? Both Hanwa and TKMS came up with unbelievable proposals with value for Canada.
The Koreans had more visible pieces: Saving Algoma Steel's bacon with I-Beam construction plant investment, including doing it with "submarine-grade materials" for the manufacturing, having Hyundai set up a "heavy commercial/military vehicle" factory, in partnership with our auto parts industry (who are facing headwinds with USA in automobile manufacturing, due to "American content" rules). And both companies, I believe, were proposing clean-energy/battery/fuel cell work here as well. And I think TKMS (or rather, German government) worked out something with Volkswagen to do "something" with either increasing their battery research/production processes or assembling Audi vehicles here, details are vague.
But when Carney said that this was a tough decision, he meant it -- Joly et al really worked the bidders here for top deals, and both companies really sharpened pencils and thought out win/win proposals. It's really too bad that we couldn't buy both (well, that would be one sure way to get close to the NATO targets, but then we would have oodles of subs, possibly oodles of aircraft (if we buy full orders of F25 AND Gripens), and no drones/anti-missile systems . . . .
Very exciting week!
Grant, what fascinates me is that both bids went far beyond submarines.
They were really pitching long-term industrial partnerships with Canada.
That feels like a major shift from the old procurement model of "buy the equipment and send the cheque."
The submarine decision is important.
The industrial strategy behind it may end up being even more important.
I think the next challenge, is how to do something with the Koreans in the spirit of what they were proposing. I can't figure out what the centre nexus would be (the "ship (or rather, boat) has sailed" on submarines). But some of what they were proposing was just so good on its own merit! I think most of our larger "capital ship" (or at least what would qualify as such from Canadian standards) projects are all assigned. But if we needed more support or secondary ships (special purpose), it would be great if some of this sub proposal (but without subs) could be rekindled.