Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft (Saab Globaleye)

[ytz]

Oh come off it haha. The RCAF and RCN are rightfully getting major wins for a decade + at this point but large swathes of the Army are at a breaking point with equipment obsolescence and VOR. The army has been a "good corporate citizen" since the war ended. The ACSV is the only major thing off the top of my head that we've received post-war that wasnt a holdover of projects geared to Kandahar.

You're a 100% right. But honestly, I have some real questions on whether the CA understands the threat and opportunity here. I think the RCN absolutely does. And possibly personality driven by people like Topshee (navy version of Kenny). But gut feel just says the CA is way too leisurely (or maybe bureaucratic) to understand that they need to really make hay now. I wonder if the risk aversion is a factor. Or maybe just so preoccupied with CA Mod that they can't seem to land procurement proposals on the Minister's desk.

The one saving grace though is that so much of CA procurement can be done domestically. Or at least has numbers large enough to justify domestic assembly. That's ultimately what will push things through for y'all.

 

[ytz]

L3 Harris will be fine.

Lots of defence work to go around.

We can give them CDSEA as compensation. LOL.

 

[PrairieFella]

Can I interest you in a remuster ? The future looks good sea and in the air.

Ill pass thanks - as shitty as being a crewman can be sometimes, nothing beats leading a good crew lighting shit up on live ranges with an AFV or the camaraderie of a good squadron.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ill pass thanks - as shitty as being a crewman can be sometimes, nothing beats leading a good crew lighting shit up on live ranges with an AFV or the camaraderie of a good squadron.

I'll text you some pictures while I'm sipping cocktails in Chania, Crete and see if that can pry you away from Wainwright or what ever other unmerciful patch of ground they put you guys on lol

Enjoy that tank

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We can give them CDSEA as compensation. LOL.

It is entirely possible L3 Harris Canada could land that one. It is right up their alley.

 

[Furniture]

Oh come off it haha. The RCAF and RCN are rightfully getting major wins for a decade + at this point but large swathes of the Army are at a breaking point with equipment obsolescence and VOR. The army has been a "good corporate citizen" since the war ended. The ACSV is the only major thing off the top of my head that we've received post-war that wasnt a holdover of projects geared to Kandahar.

The RCN retired three destroyers, two AORs, and 8-10 MCDVs in the time since Afghanistan, a significant portion of the fleet. At the same time, half of the frigates are in some state of rebuild because they are now pushing 30+ years of heavy use, with at least another 10 for most of them, if they make it.

It has hardly been sunshine and roses for the other elements.

When the CA gets the ball rolling, there will be lots of announcements, and I suspect you'll have all the kit before the navy gets half of it's RCDs.

 

[PrairieFella]

I'll text you some pictures while I'm sipping cocktails in Chania, Crete and see if that can pry you away from Wainwright or what ever other unmerciful patch of ground they put you guys on lol

Enjoy that tank

Enjoy holdings counts while Im on the range shooting shit.

Gives and takes I suppose.

Neither here nor there as Im a toon. Thank my lucky stars for that lol.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Lawsuit is a small risk.

There's other projects talking about similar rug pulls.

My boss was just musing out loud yesterday about reputational risk and how long before some projects go no bid because others assume that the Canadian company automatically gets the contract?

The government has to decide if this is going to be policy and start formalizing it.

The article kind of touches on this, atleast tangentially.

Joly said in the interview that she’s not worried that potential vendors will be reluctant to deal with Canada if they feel ill-used by abrupt decisions: “To the contrary,” she said. “I’ve never seen so many European companies and American companies interested in becoming strategic partners.”

If we set a trend where any bidder in a procurement with a notable tie to Canadian industry is just going to be the winner regardless of the military implications, I think you are right in the fact that a lot of folks won't even bother entertaining our competitions.

Specifically regarding Saab vs L3Harris in this AEW aircraft project, I think the choice to immediately throw out weight into GlobalEye and snub AERIS X without seemingly much of a contest is short sighted. With the E-7 program having substantial issues and trust in the US dropping, I feel we've missed the option to put a notable competitor into the AEW market. It is a major advantage for Canada to get GlobalEye conversion and militarization in Canada given potential interest abroad, but there is a number of inherent capability and political disadvantages with Saab and GlobalEye that L3Harris and AERIS X could rectify.

If Canada could secure something with L3Harris along the lines of what Saab proposed (Militarization and integration of work within Canada alongside using a Bombardier platform) while fixing the issues like aerodynamic inefficiencies, a lack of in air refueling, lack of MADL/AEGIS interoperability and a few more things, Canada could have a relatively "home grown" competitor in the market that could give GlobalEye a run for its money.

It seems clear that politics and economic benefits totally trumped military capability in this project, hopefully that doesn't continue or the CAF will be in a bad place.

 

[Furniture]

The article kind of touches on this, atleast tangentially.



If we set a trend where any bidder in a procurement with a notable tie to Canadian industry is just going to be the winner regardless of the military implications, I think you are right in the fact that a lot of folks won't even bother entertaining our competitions.

Specifically regarding Saab vs L3Harris in this AEW aircraft project, I think the choice to immediately throw out weight into GlobalEye and snub AERIS X without seemingly much of a contest is short sighted. With the E-7 program having substantial issues and trust in the US dropping, I feel we've missed the option to put a notable competitor into the AEW market. It is a major advantage for Canada to get GlobalEye conversion and militarization in Canada given potential interest abroad, but there is a number of inherent capability and political disadvantages with Saab and GlobalEye that L3Harris and AERIS X could rectify.

If Canada could secure something with L3Harris along the lines of what Saab proposed (Militarization and integration of work within Canada alongside using a Bombardier platform) while fixing the issues like aerodynamic inefficiencies, a lack of in air refueling, lack of MADL/AEGIS interoperability and a few more things, Canada could have a relatively "home grown" competitor in the market that could give GlobalEye a run for its money.

It seems clear that politics and economic benefits totally trumped military capability in this project, hopefully that doesn't continue or the CAF will be in a bad place.

Alternatively, Canada chose an established platform with multiple user nations, and potentially the next NATO platform, over what is at this stage an orphan platform used by one airforce.

Maybe the RCAF/GoC learned from the whole Cyclone problem, and wanted to buy something is service, with a larger user community.

 

[KevinB]

You're a 100% right. But honestly, I have some real questions on whether the CA understands the threat and opportunity here. I think the RCN absolutely does. And possibly personality driven by people like Topshee (navy version of Kenny). But gut feel just says the CA is way too leisurely (or maybe bureaucratic) to understand that they need to really make hay now. I wonder if the risk aversion is a factor. Or maybe just so preoccupied with CA Mod that they can't seem to land procurement proposals on the Minister's desk.

The CA has been so used to getting stuff for a BG over the past couple of decades, as well as a structure to support that via symmetrical brigade groups. I think the changes to the CA in scale and diversity that this growth entails is going to take a lot longer for it to root, than the RCN and RCAF.

The one saving grace though is that so much of CA procurement can be done domestically. Or at least has numbers large enough to justify domestic assembly. That's ultimately what will push things through for y'all.

Honestly, very little for the CA financially makes sense to do domestically - the scale of acquisition is so small that few companies would setup a line for Canada. While the increase in scale will make some systems more palatable, Canada will either pay a premium for domestic production -- or the line will need to offer foreign sale to make it viable.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Alternatively, Canada chose an established platform with multiple user nations, and potentially the next NATO platform, over what is at this stage an orphan platform used by one airforce.

Maybe the RCAF/GoC learned from the whole Cyclone problem, and wanted to buy something is service, with a larger user community.

And that is a legitimate choice, although I’d point out that a lot of GlobalEye’s successes are still up in the air as far as NATO and a number of NATO nations go. It seems we are willing to give up capability and interoperability at home to suit economics, politics and interoperability abroad.

I don’t think L3Harris’s proposal is on anywhere near the amount of risk as Cyclone, and could serve as a valuable option in the wider marketplace.

 

[YZT580]

The CA has been so used to getting stuff for a BG over the past couple of decades, as well as a structure to support that via symmetrical brigade groups. I think the changes to the CA in scale and diversity that this growth entails is going to take a lot longer for it to root, than the RCN and RCAF.



Honestly, very little for the CA financially makes sense to do domestically - the scale of acquisition is so small that few companies would setup a line for Canada. While the increase in scale will make some systems more palatable, Canada will either pay a premium for domestic production -- or the line will need to offer foreign sale to make it viable.

spoken like a certified member of the big place and I understand where you are coming from however there is always a "but". Just down the road from the family acreage in Saskatchewan (4 sections I think we were visiting family only) a chap had a single quarter that he planted in wheat. He used an old scythe style 8 ft. mower, a rake and a binder. Every year he and his wife went south to their condo to escape winter. His profits were higher on his single quarter than most of his neighbours achieved on a section or more. How, I am glad you asked. He sold his product to all the country fairs and threshing derbies for far more than the grain was worth. You don't need to be big, or have a big market you simply have to have a product that others will want. e.g. Ukraine and its drones or Sweden with its CV90s.

 

[ytz]

Honestly, very little for the CA financially makes sense to do domestically - the scale of acquisition is so small that few companies would setup a line for Canada. While the increase in scale will make some systems more palatable, Canada will either pay a premium for domestic production -- or the line will need to offer foreign sale to make it viable.

I don't see this.

Sure. Can't make HIMARS in Canada. But we can make logistics trucks here. We can keep buying LAVs here. We can get GDLS to stand up an armoured tracked program. Etc. I think the proportion of what the CA can build in Canada is higher on a tonnage and dollar terms than the RCAF.

 

[KevinB]

spoken like a certified member of the big place and I understand where you are coming from however there is always a "but". Just down the road from the family acreage in Saskatchewan (4 sections I think we were visiting family only) a chap had a single quarter that he planted in wheat. He used an old scythe style 8 ft. mower, a rake and a binder. Every year he and his wife went south to their condo to escape winter. His profits were higher on his single quarter than most of his neighbours achieved on a section or more. How, I am glad you asked. He sold his product to all the country fairs and threshing derbies for far more than the grain was worth. You don't need to be big, or have a big market you simply have to have a product that others will want. e.g. Ukraine and its drones or Sweden with its CV90s.

You know BAE owns the CV-90 right? The second largest Defense Company in the world.
Bad analogy

I don't see this.

Sure. Can't make HIMARS in Canada.

You could - honestly that would probably make sense as LocMart could sell them both to Canada and to folks who don't want to buy something direct from the USA..

But we can make logistics trucks here.

Yes, and the issue is as we have seen repeated again and again and again is that the CA will buy 1/2 of what is needed, the line closes, and then the fleet rusts out.
One may also look at the CA's current Logistics truck program and wonder who on earth spec'd it.

We can keep buying LAVs here.

One may ask how many LAV does Canada really need.

We can get GDLS to stand up an armoured tracked program.

GDLS makes a lot of tracks already -- down here.

Etc. I think the proportion of what the CA can build in Canada is higher on a tonnage and dollar terms than the RCAF.

There is needs to be huge investment in a domestic defence infrastructure.

 

[Furniture]

And that is a legitimate choice, although I’d point out that a lot of GlobalEye’s successes are still up in the air as far as NATO and a number of NATO nations go.

GlobalEye has three confirmed NATO operators, one planned NATO operator, three more potential NATO operators, and three more non-NATO potential operators.

Phoenix has zero confirmed NATO operators. Italy is the only NATO user of the L3Harris system similar to Phoenix, but on Gulf Stream platform like Israel and Singapore. The RoK will be the sole user of the system on the Bombardier platform, which could easily have integration issues.

There are currently five operational GlobalEyes, with five more currently on order, and another three options for aircraft available for France and Sweden. RoK has ordered four Phoenix, which means that by the time the RoK gets their aircraft the GlobalEye will likely have more than twice the operational numbers. Canada's potential purchase would push it to four times the number of Phoenix aircraft in operation.

It seems we are willing to give up capability and interoperability at home to suit economics, politics and interoperability abroad.

This seems to be the line tossed out when anything that isn't American is bought. If America can be interoperable with NATO and their other allies abroad who use different kit, they can be interoperable with us if we buy kit that isn't American.

Also, politics is at the heart of every defence purchase, who it makes sense for it to be at the heart of this one. America can't go around trying to bully its allies, and expect there to be no consequences. There is also the reality that Canada doesn't sell military kit to Israel at this time, so buying Israeli radars for our AEW&C aircraft would be a pretty "bold" political play...

I don’t think L3Harris’s proposal is on anywhere near the amount of risk as Cyclone, and could serve as a valuable option in the wider marketplace.

Who would have guessed that Sikorsky would make such a lemon back in the day? It was deemed an acceptable risk at the time.

As for the wider marketplace, SAAB seems to have a larger share of the global market for AEW&C aircraft than L3Harris, so why would Canada buying them magically make it more attractive? Every single nation that bought GlobalEye has bought them in a world where an L3Harris option already existed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have to wonder that if we go with the KSS, that buying the Gripen will be their nod to the EU and if we go with the RCH turret that would be the 2nd prize for the Germans?

 

[Maxman1]

I have to wonder that if we go with the KSS, that buying the Gripen will be their nod to the EU and if we go with the RCH turret that would be the 2nd prize for the Germans?

There's always the Leopard 2A8, CV90, BvS10, and so on.

 

[Underway]

You're a 100% right. But honestly, I have some real questions on whether the CA understands the threat and opportunity here. I think the RCN absolutely does. And possibly personality driven by people like Topshee (navy version of Kenny). But gut feel just says the CA is way too leisurely (or maybe bureaucratic) to understand that they need to really make hay now. I wonder if the risk aversion is a factor. Or maybe just so preoccupied with CA Mod that they can't seem to land procurement proposals on the Minister's desk.

The one saving grace though is that so much of CA procurement can be done domestically. Or at least has numbers large enough to justify domestic assembly. That's ultimately what will push things through for y'all.

5000 LAV's, 500 Medium Cavalry vehicles, HIMARS, 100 SPGs, 100ish 120mm mortar vehicles, new C7 program advanced a year in timing, MINERVA program, 1000s of new LUV, the TAPV LCAV program and so on.

The army is in on it. They are just... as armies are, slower. Their big difference is they have to completely reinvent how they expect to be fighting when moving to the Divisional model. And then fit the equipment into that. That takes time. The airforce and navy just need to add platforms to their already existing structures and scale up (they probably just creeped our threads here for ideas). The army's process is much more challenging.

 

[Underway]

So he and his successor had evidence based plans to present when the government came calling. I am kinda sad he never got the job after seeing what he did with the RCAF.

RCN was way ahead on this year's ago when I was in Ottawa.

RCAF learned quickly to have the same information available when briefing up.

CA still doesn't even know how many and what vehicles they have in inventory, let alone full fleet availability and maintenance...

When you have the data getting the funding is a lot easier. Lol

 

[KevinB]

5000 LAV's, 500 Medium Cavalry vehicles, HIMARS, 100 SPGs, 100ish 120mm mortar vehicles, new C7 program advanced a year in timing, MINERVA program, 1000s of new LUV, the TAPV LCAV program and so on.

Any may wonder if that is just throwing shit at the wall though.
5k LAV’s for what?
I mean that just seems to me like green welfare for GDLS London as opposed to an actual fielding plan based on requirements.

The army is in on it. They are just... as armies are, slower. Their big difference is they have to completely reinvent how they expect to be fighting when moving to the Divisional model. And then fit the equipment into that. That takes time. The airforce and navy just need to add platforms to their already existing structures and scale up (they probably just creeped our threads here for ideas). The army's process is much more challenging.

The Army has constantly sold itself short. The shortsightedness of the just a BG model and symmetrical brigades when it was clear under SSE that more was required.

Selling off key capabilities in terms of AD, M109’s, and gutting the Combat Support Companies of needed enablers all to retain 9 BN’s with rifle companies, and handing off mortars to the Artillery isn’t the sort of thing that gives one a warm and fuzzy that the Army saw itself as anything more than a COIN force below the Bde level.

I am hoping that the Army will reinvent itself as a full LSCO force and look to a Corps operational formation as the peacetime minimum. With the ability to deploy Divisions with enablers across the globe. Which will require varied Divisions, and grossly improved CSS, and C6ISR.