Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft

[dimsum]

View attachment 86819

That’s the “fighter pilot” version, yes…

 

[GR66]

A 3rd possible AEW platform option for Canada?

GA-ASI Adds Saab Airborne Early Warning Capability to MQ-9B

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) is partnering with Saab to develop Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) capability for its line of MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft, which includes the SkyGuardian® and SeaGuardian® models, the United Kingdom’s Protector, and the new MQ-9B...

www.ga.com

General Atomics and Saab are partnering to offer an AEW version of the MQ-9B.

GA-ASI will pair Saab’s AEW sensors with the world’s longest-range, highest-endurance unmanned aircraft system (UAS), the MQ-9B. At sea or over land, the AEW mission package on MQ-9B will put air dominance within reach at a lower cost than legacy platforms.

The MQ-9B AEW solution will offer critical aloft sensing to defend against tactical air, guided missiles, drones, and other threats at a fraction of the cost of manned platforms. Operational availability for medium-altitude long-endurance UAS is the highest of any military aircraft, and as an unmanned platform, its aircrew are not put into harm’s way. AEW for MQ-9B will augment existing AEW fleets by extending their effective ranges. It also gives air forces that need AEW, but lack legacy platforms, a powerful and affordable means to counter threats.

Even if the systems aren't as capable as the manned alternatives, I wonder what quantity you could get for the $5 billion projected cost vs. the manned systems? Somewhat less capable but in larger numbers, unmanned and no new airframe to be supported by the logistics system. Worth the tradeoffs?

 

[Czech_pivo]

A 3rd possible AEW platform option for Canada?

GA-ASI Adds Saab Airborne Early Warning Capability to MQ-9B

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) is partnering with Saab to develop Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) capability for its line of MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft, which includes the SkyGuardian® and SeaGuardian® models, the United Kingdom’s Protector, and the new MQ-9B...

www.ga.com

General Atomics and Saab are partnering to offer an AEW version of the MQ-9B.

Even if the systems aren't as capable as the manned alternatives, I wonder what quantity you could get for the $5 billion projected cost vs. the manned systems? Somewhat less capable but in larger numbers, unmanned and no new airframe to be supported by the logistics system. Worth the tradeoffs?

Maybe a mixed bag?
Less manned AEW and then a bunch of these unmaned

 

[Maxman1]

A 3rd possible AEW platform option for Canada?

GA-ASI Adds Saab Airborne Early Warning Capability to MQ-9B

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) is partnering with Saab to develop Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) capability for its line of MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft, which includes the SkyGuardian® and SeaGuardian® models, the United Kingdom’s Protector, and the new MQ-9B...

www.ga.com

General Atomics and Saab are partnering to offer an AEW version of the MQ-9B.

Even if the systems aren't as capable as the manned alternatives, I wonder what quantity you could get for the $5 billion projected cost vs. the manned systems? Somewhat less capable but in larger numbers, unmanned and no new airframe to be supported by the logistics system. Worth the tradeoffs?

 

[KevinB]

A 3rd possible AEW platform option for Canada?

GA-ASI Adds Saab Airborne Early Warning Capability to MQ-9B

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) is partnering with Saab to develop Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) capability for its line of MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft, which includes the SkyGuardian® and SeaGuardian® models, the United Kingdom’s Protector, and the new MQ-9B...

www.ga.com

General Atomics and Saab are partnering to offer an AEW version of the MQ-9B.

Even if the systems aren't as capable as the manned alternatives, I wonder what quantity you could get for the $5 billion projected cost vs. the manned systems? Somewhat less capable but in larger numbers, unmanned and no new airframe to be supported by the logistics system. Worth the tradeoffs?

It’s an interesting idea.

However I tend to think that the sensors will be significantly worse than a manned system like the E-7 Wedgetail, simply as -9 platform can’t handle the size and power requirements for large AESA radars and the AI/ML systems required to analyze the data gathered, nor the C2 aspect.


Seems to be tailored to countries who don’t have expansive territories or search areas, or who can afford to have huge fleets of them.

 

[Good2Golf]

It’s an interesting idea.

However I tend to think that the sensors will be significantly worse than a manned system like the E-7 Wedgetail, simply as -9 platform can’t handle the size and power requirements for large AESA radars and the AI/ML systems required to analyze the data gathered, nor the C2 aspect.

The radar on a wedge tail is probably bigger than the entire fuselage of an MQ-9B…size = aperture = power & resolution & diversity (beam forming and EPM/ECCM).

 

[IKnowNothing]

It’s an interesting idea.

Seems to be tailored to countries who don’t have expansive territories or search areas, or who can afford to have huge fleets of them.

They use the AEW&C acronym, but reading the article I only see a hint of lipservice towards being a (barely) viable substitute to a traditional AWACS type aircraft.

I'm likely completely wrong, but the "vibe" I got was that the niche this is intended to fill is the same relative to ground based C-UAS /C-RAM sensors as legacy AEW&C is to ground based radar and control. Defensive sensors evolving to match the changing threat environment with more range, more coverage, and more survivability. Not as much to take over the active control of the airspace/ provide vectors etc.

 

[KevinB]

They use the AEW&C acronym, but reading the article I only see a hint of lipservice towards being a (barely) viable substitute to a traditional AWACS type aircraft.

TBH I think it’s more of a bolt on option to those who already have some.

I'm likely completely wrong, but the "vibe" I got was that the niche this is intended to fill is the same relative to ground based C-UAS /C-RAM sensors as legacy AEW&C is to ground based radar and control. Defensive sensors evolving to match the changing threat environment with more range, more coverage, and more survivability. Not as much to take over the active control of the airspace/ provide vectors etc.

I’m not thinking this is a good plan for a number of reasons.

 

[BdaDug]

Noah Gavin has a fresh article up on his substack site: Let's talk about AEWC
A nice overview article that introduces a second Bombardier-based option by L3Harris/IAI with an ELTA Conformal AEW&C (CAEW). This would provide 360-degree coverage rather than the current 240-degree coverage from Saab.

[Picture by Noah at CANSEC 2025] .

 

[Nvlgzr]

It appears that L3 is trying to put NATO lipstick on a non NATO product. It maybe possibly be a superior product ( I don’t know) but I suspect going forward NATO manufacturers will be given preference

 

[Rainbow1910]

It appears that L3 is trying to put NATO lipstick on a non NATO product. It maybe possibly be a superior product ( I don’t know) but I suspect going forward NATO manufacturers will be given preference

It is a tradeoff between the Phoenix (L3 Harris proposal) and the GlobalEye (Saab) at the end of the day.

GlobalEye is operated by the UAE, with France and Sweden also being planned operators in the future. The Erieye radar is operated by countless other nations on different platforms as well. Sweden is a NATO partner and fairly reliable as far as this stuff goes, although they are notable embellishers with regards to PR on their aircraft. Saab offers additional maritime surveillance radars, synthetic-aperture radars and electro-optical/infrared sensors to help negate the fact that GlobalEye's primary radar does not have a 360 degree coverage arc. Most importantly, the design does not currently feature the ability to refuel during flight.

Phoenix isn't operated by anybody currently, although its in service aboard Gulfstream jets with Israel, Italy, Singapore and the United States. The conformal sponsons on the aircraft provide it with additional room internally vs the GlobalEye, which its radar placements provides it with a native 360 degree coverage arc without needing additional add on arrays. The radar system itself is proven and the design is integrated with the ability to refuel in flight, something quite important for Canadian requirements. The big issue is that L3 Harris is partnering with South Korea and ELTA, an Israeli govt owned MIC subsidiary alongside the fact the aircraft hasn't actually flown. Potentially more capable than Saab's offering but politically risky and unproven.

E-7 is still the best option at the end of the day, but it seems politics will likely push Canada towards one of the Global 6500 offerings.

 

[GK .Dundas]

E-7 is still the best option at the end of the day, but it seems politics will likely push Canada towards one of the Global 6500 offerings.

Twas' ever thus .
Fu**kn politics.

 

[Underway]

Seems to be tailored to countries who don’t have expansive territories or search areas...

Its actually tailored to carrier ops particularly the UK carriers. Which is kinda the same thing you're talking about here. No need to cover an expansive territory or search area when you're just defending a Task Group. In this case the long endurance without air to air refueling is a plus.

 

[Underway]

E-7 is still the best option at the end of the day, but it seems politics will likely push Canada towards one of the Global 6500 offerings.

Talking to my AC Op Sgt about it, his main concern is range, altitude, speed and air to air refueling. The sensors "are all pretty much the same at the end of the day" in his opinion. And he wasn't worried about the space internally either. The new radars are so small comparative to previous versions he told me that there is plenty of room inside any of those aircraft.

One mans opinion. At least as an operator.

 

[brihard]

Talking to my AC Op Sgt about it, his main concern is range, altitude, speed and air to air refueling. The sensors "are all pretty much the same at the end of the day" in his opinion. And he wasn't worried about the space internally either. The new radars are so small comparative to previous versions he told me that there is plenty of room inside any of those aircraft.

One mans opinion. At least as an operator.

Can the aircraft generate enough electrical power to mount equivalently capable radars? I don’t know much about such things… But I guess in generator terms a jet engine is a jet engine?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Talking to my AC Op Sgt about it, his main concern is range, altitude, speed and air to air refueling. The sensors "are all pretty much the same at the end of the day" in his opinion. And he wasn't worried about the space internally either. The new radars are so small comparative to previous versions he told me that there is plenty of room inside any of those aircraft.

One mans opinion. At least as an operator.

No, sensors aren’t "pretty much the same at the end of the day." And what the aircraft can do with the information gathered from sensors is also not the same. The E-7 is the only credible platform for us.

 

[Underway]

No, sensors aren’t "pretty much the same at the end of the day." And what the aircraft can do with the information gathered from sensors is also not the same.

I know that. I'm (along with @Good2Golf ) the radar nerd here on the forum. One person whom I work with was commenting on one aspect of the aircraft.

The E-7 is the only credible platform for us.

As far as the E-7 radar is concerned, even the US are cutting orders. Because they are going space based based with their AEW&C. E-7 "are dead in the current anti air environment" (quote from Pentagon). So the E-7 apparently isn't the only credible platform depending on your requirements, there are others.

 

[GK .Dundas]

. The E-7 is the only credible platform for us.

I hate say but that is quite correct but also sadly irrelevant.
Yes, I'm a cynical Son of a B**ch . You see I read Canadian military history.

 

[dapaterson]

The RCAF behave as if they are a detachment of the USAF, to a degree that is increasingly bordering on treason.

 

[KevinB]

The RCAF behave as if they are a detachment of the USAF, to a degree that is increasingly bordering on treason.

Well NORAD does sort of encourage that.