Not sure I follow your argument. I clearly said to keep the 88 F35's but to move to joining the UK/Japan next gen fighter project going forward. The US has clearly said that there next gen fighter won't be available to its Allies. so either way Canada will have to go elsewhere for the F35 replacement.
I don't think it is an especially wise or financially prudent idea to look at a 6th generation fighter for the RCAF anytime soon, particularly if we do infact get a full F-35 order. That kind of fleet will be relevant and very capable for many decades, which is going to be required for all of these vapourware and troublesome 6th gen programs to prove themselves worthy of serious consideration by the RCAF. We should be focusing on the F-35 and domestically produced drone wingmen escorts to bulk the combat capability of the force.
A number of people on here have said that the HIMARS is being slow walked on the US side. My suggestion is to swap out HIMARS for Chunmoo, which has been selected by a number of our NATO allies already. The SK's have shown interest in producing them here, that's a known fact. Has LM made any similar statements on producing HIMARS in Canada? What makes you think that the 'most vindicative and petty administration in recent history' would allow LM to produce HIMARS in Canada? You are of the belief that keeping the 25billion CAD contract for 88 F35's vs scrapping the 2.4billion CAD for the HIMARS would be that disastrous for Canada?
I have no interest in Chunmoo because it is unsuitable for our requirements, hence it losing to the HIMARS. One of the primary selling points of HIMARS is its mobility and the ridiculous array of very capable weapons it currently has and is actively being developed, including items like increasingly capable guided munitions and especially anti-ship missiles. Chunmoo does not have access to these weapons and in all likelihood will not in the future, we'd be stuck with sub-par Korean systems that currently don't exist or are in development. Chunmoo also doesn't have the mobility we are looking for without taking into consideration the paper truck mounted version, which I am skeptical about. I personally don't really care about trying to force LM to build trucks and missile tubes in Canada, there really isn't much value in producing the systems themselves. If we were talking about the munitions I think that is different however, the build part of the contract isn't especially worthwhile.
I think actively scrapping the most capable system in its class with the best munitions options in favour of an alternative in a time of political tensions and a major trade negotiation is very poor political form, and actively hurts the CAF capability wise.
There has been talk about HIMARS being slow walked, but nothing has actually backed this up anywhere besides the rumour mill in a very anti-US political atmosphere.
As for the production of light/heavy torpedoes within Canada, both the SK's and Germans have proposed this, what's your issue with that?
The K9 has been selected by a number of NATO and non-NATO allies already and is being produced in a number of those countries as well. it's also the only piece of equipment that can operate in 1m of snow, of which Canada currently seems to have alot of. A number of people on here have stated previously that the speed requirement added to the RFP was specifically geared towards a specific wheeled competitor.
Lastly adding the Redback, produced within Canada, would be such a bad thing for what reasons? The LAV can be continued to be used by the Reserves going forward.
I do not have an issue with producing torpedoes in Canada at all. I do have issues with producing K9 as presumably bringing in Hanwha to build a tracked system we have no interest in (or a slow, wheeled truck based system we also do not want) will be actively taking work away from GDLS Canada, who is already established with a substantial workforce, facility and capability in Canada who seems to be basically ear marked as the winner for the artillery procurement at this point. Given the largely European deployment focus for the program as well, I am not particularly moved by the idea we're going to be using these systems in the North and thus need to have them tracked?
I have issues just handing the contract off to Redback when we have a seemingly very competitive program that has a lot of platforms who are offering something similar to what the Koreans are giving us. Turning around and entirely opening our wallet to a single partner in Asia seems very sub-optimal to me, especially when we expect much of this equipment to be stationed in Europe and must be workable/interoperable with our allies forces there.
indiandefencereview.com
