Search results

We are going from 5 Polaris to 9 Huskies. That alone is an 80% increase in capacity in that fleet. With AAR specifically, we are going from 2 Polaris tankers with 88 000 lbs of fuel capacity to 8 Husky tankers with 111 000 lbs of fuel capacity. It's over 500% increase in fuel offload...

Sure. And the AOPS. But those will all either have organic helicopters and/or VTOL drones onboard. And subs aren't generally followed around by aircraft. So again, what's the gap here? Do you think every combatant is followed around by fighters? Also, I'm not sure I'd call the CMMC a...

To begin with the naval growth is not as substantial as you think. We are going from 12 Halifax Class and 4 Tribals to 15 RCDs. Next, those ships will all have a maritime helicopter and surveillance drone onboard. Beyond that, the combination of P-8s, MQ-9s and satellites (DESSP) that is...

Not only are we buying more, the capabilities of what we are buying are substantial. Compare a Husky and a Polaris. Or a P-8 and an Aurora. There's a weird obsession among the chattering classes on straight numbers and manned platforms. Not much discussion on capability. Particularly...

Not sure why they follows. Fleet sizes are based on tasks.

Not sure where people come up with this stuff. Video of a Hornet departing Castlegar with an even shorter runway: Load is a big part. But fighters can adjust tactically to use smaller airfields. They just go light on gas and hit the tanker as soon as they are airborne. Which is a rather...

Colombia's recent deal was €182M per aircraft. That's obviously more than the aircraft, but the idea that we'll buy Gripens for US$120M is patently wrong. And Colombia isn't asking them to indigenize production. That adds cost...

Former CRCAF not helping here. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadian-fighter-jets-f-35-mixed-fleet-defence/ I get his intent. I don't think it helps.

Are they wrong?

Partly politics like you mention. But also partly because we insisted that all deliveries be TR3 and Block IV ready. And also because of the massive infrastructure renewal we knew was required.

Giddy up. Time to grow CSpO beyond Nine Eyes. More interestingly we're also developing a sovereign launch capability. Something our Commander has pushed for. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-rocket-launch-milestone-nova-scotia-spaceport-halifax/

No major Canadian player. The Swedes gave talked about making an unmanned Gripen derivative. So maybe ahead of us.

All of this can be done by drones or CCAs for half the cost and man hours.

Truly insanity for Canada to use a > $100M fighter as an air show plane.

But that's not the reason the F-35 order is being cut. We're still buying lots of kit from the US. It's economic benefits. And for better or worse, economic benefits are a large part of defence procurement everywhere. It's not like the Americans themselves don't do the same thing.

To be fair, we can repurpose some of that infrastructure for other aircraft if needed. There might be some separation requirements. But not impossible. No different than when Americans send F-35s to allied bases. Also, if they are buying more total aircraft, there will have to be more...

Point here is that those capability compromises aren't relevant to most situations today. And definitely not relevant to us. And the majority of folks who bring it up? They do so in bad faith, trying to insinuate that the F-35 is a compromise not worth purchasing.

The weird part is that this transaction is rather one sided. What is Sweden buying from us?

The only time upgrades aren't possible is when the mold line (physical configuration) changes. Those are far less frequent. All of our orders are after the latest change (Tech Refresh 3 (TR3). It's not anticipated that there will be another TR for another 10-15 years at least. And even then...

The tech transfer is great for business. It's iffy for development. NRE is expensive. Especially if you really want to make substantial improvements. The US just spent $16.5B developing the Block IV for the F-35. They can do that, because the cost will be spread over hundreds to thousands...