Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ytz]

For all that talk about bricking the F-35, here's level headed analysis from Prof. Justin Bronk of RUSI (I pulled out tweets from a thread):

On F-35 fears, I get it - there is real dependency.
But if all your targeting capacity, BLOS comms, penetrating/orbital ISR and the munitions you assume you’d fight with in a war are US-provided; then dependency on the US for MDFs and ALIS/ODIN for F-35 isn’t your main problem.

The F-35’s capabilities vs Russian air defences also cannot currently be replaced or replicated with other platforms.

For Germany it’s also worth remembering that the F-35 was bought for nuclear DCA role with US supplied B61 Mod 12 so 100% dependent on US whatever the aircraft.

Against the Russian IADS, the gap is very significant. Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen really weren't designed to operate against those systems. They complement the F-35 well and vice-versa against mixed threats. US hostility isn't a contingency that was previously planned for...

If the US is on Russia’s side, a credible plan B force for that scenario would take a decade and vast investment to generate. Uncomfortable but true

Not saying it shouldn’t or can’t be done, but we need a thorough capability audit and honesty about the results as a first step…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899040201894154459

So I hope we can get past the superficial idea that we can simply swap the F-35 for a Eurocanard and be fine. Mostly an idea usually from non-blue suiters.....

Planning for less dependency on the US will take time. And there's no better time to start than today.

 

[ytz]

Will also add this thread....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899051031675150681

 

[Kirkhill]

Churchill. Bristal Aerospace (Winnipeg) launched Black Bart rockets. Saw one launch in the 70's while on a Winter FTX.

Fort Churchill: Historic Sites of Manitoba: Fort Churchill (Churchill)

HMCS Churchill: Historic Sites of Manitoba: HMCS Churchill / CFS Churchill / Churchill Naval Base (Kelsey Boulevard, Churchill)

Magellan Aerospace, as the company is now known, is still in the rocket business for BAE.

Black Brant - Magellan Aerospace

One of the most popular sounding rockets ever built, the Magellan-designed family of Black Brants have played a leading role in scientific exploration since 1962. More than 1,000 Black Brants have been launched with a vehicle success rate above 98%. Designed and developed at Magellan Aerospace...

magellan.aero

https://magellan.aero/wp-content/uploads/CRV7%20Rotary%20Wing%20-%20Web%20Version.pdf

https://magellan.aero/wp-content/uploads/CRV7%20Fixed%20Wing%20-%20Web%20Version.pdf

The Winnipeg shop is still open apparently.

I would really like to see it activated as a Canadian Centre of Excellence for rockets - starting with a big order to replace the CRV-7s shipped from Dundurn to Ukraine. Apparently they make useful C-UAS weapons when combined with the BAE APKWS system.

 

[Kirkhill]

For all that talk about bricking the F-35, here's level headed analysis from Prof. Justin Bronk of RUSI (I pulled out tweets from a thread):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899040201894154459

So I hope we can get past the superficial idea that we can simply swap the F-35 for a Eurocanard and be fine. Mostly an idea usually from non-blue suiters.....

Planning for less dependency on the US will take time. And there's no better time to start than today.

Britain is dependent on US weapons. We now face a terrible choice

Donald Trump’s detente with Russia risks pushing Keir Starmer toward the Continent

www.telegraph.co.uk

The year is 2028 and masked Russian “little green men” start crossing the border of an eastern European country.

Nato’s Article 5 is invoked. In London, officials want to quickly deploy Britain’s F-35 stealth jets to the frontier – but there is a problem.

The US, unwilling to clash with Vladimir Putin, says it won’t support the deployment and refuses to provide communications support, logistics, or even spare parts.

Within a matter of weeks, the Royal Air Force’s most advanced aircraft risks being rendered inoperable along with other American platforms operated by the alliance.

This is the grim scenario that experts say Britain must now plan for as it grapples with the increasingly volatile whims of Donald Trump.

It has been made chillingly plausible by recent American decisions to cut off support to Ukraine, including both intelligence sharing and jamming software updates for Kyiv’s fleet of donated F-16 fighters.

In Germany, officials are wondering aloud about whether dozens of F-35 jets the country has purchased will also be vulnerable to a “kill switch”.

“The chances of a US government suddenly pulling the plug on US-supplied capabilities to Britain have gone from ‘don’t be ridiculous’ to ‘you’ve got to consider it’s a possibility’. That’s a sea change,” says Francis Tusa, an independent defence analyst.

“If you go back to the 1998 defence review and all the reviews since, the absolute assumption has always been that the UK’s defence fits into a US-led alliance.

“Now we face the possibility that the US is walking away and may no longer even be an ally.

“So the entire underlying assumption for UK defence has been destroyed, in about three weeks.”

Not everyone is quite so pessimistic. But there is a widespread feeling that something important has shifted.

“It’s definitely not a fuss about nothing,” agrees Professor Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi).

“I think it’s fair to say that in recent weeks, there has been a seismic shift in perceptions of America’s reliability as an ally.”

Despite the jets having been in service for more than a decade, Britain’s fleet is still only cleared to carry Paveway laser-guided bombs and medium and short-range air-to-air missiles made by US defence manufacturer Raytheon.

Testing to equip the aircraft with longer-range Meteor missiles – made by pan-European missile maker MBDA – are not expected to be complete until the late 2020s.

“When you want to put an American missile on there, it happens really quickly,” the source adds.

“Want to put a British missile like the Meteor on though? It is always slow-peddled.”

Perhaps they should talk to the Israelis.

Another example is the RAF’s decision to replace its Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 signals intelligence-gathering aircraft with three American-made RC-135 Rivet Joint planes in the early 2010s.

There was no real alternative available at the time, Tusa says, but the decision has left the UK “dependent on the US Air Force”.

“The US has all of the systems to exploit the intelligence – we don’t,” he explains. “So Rivet Joint comes back from a mission and we have to hand the data over to a US team for processing.

“If the US really wants to stop an F-35 operator from using those aircraft, without spares the fleet will be degraded and close to useless within a small number of weeks,” Tusa says.

The Trump administration is thought to have taken similar steps recently by abruptly cutting off support for Ukraine’s donated fleet of F-16 fighter jets, a key pillar of Kyiv’s air defences.

Without needing to remotely disable the aircraft, Washington is said to have dented their usefulness by refusing to provide updates to onboard radar jammers that protect the aircraft from Russian air defence systems.

Since Sir Keir Starmer announced defence spending would rise to 2.5pc of GDP by 2027, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has been keen to stress that they want the money to flow into British defence businesses – rather than foreign ones.

“Our security should never be at the mercy of shifting US politics,” says Grant Shapps, the former Conservative defence secretary. “This has been a long time coming, but the situation is clearly urgent today.

“To secure our future, Britain needs greater sovereign capability—from fighter jets to missile systems, we should be developing and building more at home.”

James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, is more cautious, arguing that people should “not get carried away with arguments about how the US might somehow decouple our deep defence ties”.

But he adds: “It’s clear we should be increasing our sovereign capability to give us industrial resilience and technological autonomy.

“In particular, this would enable us to maximise the economic upside of higher defence spending – delivering prosperity through rearmament.”