The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
123
Points
680
SeaKingTacco said:
So Sweden gets a veto on our foreign policy?

I ended up doing some light digging and found the Swedish Govt document on strategic export controls on Google.  Section 2.1 may be relevant: 

Under Section 1, second paragraph of the Military Equipment Act, military equipment may only be exported if there are security and defence policy reasons for doing so, and provided there is no conflict with Sweden’s foreign policy. 

Now, that may just be boilerplate and we may have the same wording on our arms exports, but that's still a possibility that Sweden may not export things if the mission conflicts with their foreign policy.  I am not a lawyer so I don't know how valid this argument is, to be honest.

https://www.government.se/4af0bf/contentassets/04dd1926300f41088b86238154b7708e/skr-2017-18-nr-114-eng-popularversion-002.pdf

 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
SeaKingTacco said:
So Sweden gets a veto on our foreign policy?

With SAAB offering a full technology transfer could we not work around this by setting up our own domestic spare parts production?

 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
123
Points
680
MilEME09 said:
With SAAB offering a full technology transfer could we not work around this by setting up our own domestic spare parts production?

Maybe.  Again, how big of a market are we talking about here? 

With the F-35, you're looking at many nations and a global supply chain of spares, etc.  If we don't choose the F-35, what will the ramifications be for current Canadian contracts?  I'm not sure what the answer is to that last question.
 

MTShaw

Jr. Member
Reaction score
2
Points
130
Dimsum said:
Maybe.  Again, how big of a market are we talking about here? 

With the F-35, you're looking at many nations and a global supply chain of spares, etc.  If we don't choose the F-35, what will the ramifications be for current Canadian contracts?  I'm not sure what the answer is to that last question.

We could split the buy.

The F-35 supply chain is very brittle because it passes through less stable countries like Turkey or the US.  :whistle:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
MTShaw said:
We could split the buy.

The F-35 supply chain is very brittle because it passes through less stable countries like Turkey or the US.  :whistle:

Except a split fleet would require a lot more investment, and a much larger airforce then we currently have. We are already hurting for pilots and techs, a split fleet won't help that.
 

MTShaw

Jr. Member
Reaction score
2
Points
130
MilEME09 said:
Except a split fleet would require a lot more investment, and a much larger airforce then we currently have. We are already hurting for pilots and techs, a split fleet won't help that.

I’ll defer to your expertise on force structure. My point is that none of the bids are ideal.

Lockheed said they may build a factory for the C-130 in the Vancouver area. That would win the industrial for me. Buy the supply chain is so brittle that they have yet been able to movie F-35 parts production out of Turkey.

The truly sensible one is the F-18 because it will be in service for 40 years because the Germans and the US Navy (whether they like it or not) will be using it for that long. But I have not idea if it’s the right one.

My Aphasia is locking up, so I hope what I wrote makes sense.

Michael
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
166
Points
780

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
72
Points
480
I think he was referring to the fact that the US does have a veto, in some respects, as to what our equipment can be used for.


In regards to Sweden, I'm with Dimsum.  I'm not a lawyer.  I don't know how legally binding that wording is.  But, I assume it would be fair to say that once we purchase the jets, and if they manufactured in Canada we obviously would be in a position to manufacture spare parts also -- we could use the jets for whatever the Government of Canada decided, whether it aligned with Sweden's foreign policy or not.

US equipment tends to come with caveats, especially when being sold to 'non-western, not always allies' countries.  I.e., Pakistan.


Thankfully, most western countries tend to have very similar moral codes when it comes to military force being used in the execution of their foreign policies, and we don't really have to worry about US or Swedish 'veto power'.  (We all avoid civilian casualties, abide by strict ROE, and are professional in our conduct.)
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
166
Points
780
CBH99 said:
I think he was referring to the fact that the US does have a veto, in some respects, as to what our equipment can be used for.

One could misuse the word ‘veto’ for a lot of things, ITAR, EAR, FDA, etc., but we shouldn’t.  Let’s at least be accurate in how defense production, acquisition and export & licensing policies are employed.  Restrictions/constraints perhaps, but veto give a clear impression of a one-sided arbitrary denial.

Regards
G2G

*edited for spelling
 

Drallib

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
2
Points
230
SAAB with more Industrial and Technological Benefits.

Saab proposes new Sensor Centre in Canada

At the AIx Space 2021 Conference, Saab announced that it has offered to establish a new facility in Canada as part of its offer for Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP).

This would be known as the Saab Sensor Centre and would be located in Vancouver, British Columbia, with a focus on sensor technologies such as radar. The Saab Sensor Centre would provide career opportunities for Canadian engineering talent in the Vancouver area, as well as offering research and development avenues for academia.

One of the proposed projects is to develop a Space Surveillance Radar (SSR) in Canada, in co-operation with other companies within the Canadian space industry. It is envisaged that this surface radar will target the global market for greater awareness of objects in the Earth’s orbit.

“So much of modern life and military capability depends on space-based assets. Today space is anything but empty when it comes to the Earth’s immediate vicinity with an increasing number of satellites and many more to come. We feel that Saab teamed with Canadian space partners are the perfect combination to co-develop a SSR for Canada and the global market,” said Simon Carroll, President of Saab Canada Inc.

A Saab radar demonstrator has been built and is the basis for a co-development opportunity of a SSR with Canadian companies and their world-leading expertise and knowledge. This demonstrator leverages radar technology as found in Saab’s military radars that operate across the world including on Canadian and US naval ships.

Saab, in co-operation with the Swedish government, has offered 88 Gripen E fighter aircraft, for Canada’s FFCP. The establishment of the Saab Sensor Centre is part of the associated Canada-wide Industrial and Technological Benefits program from Saab.

https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/saab-proposes-new-saab-sensor-centre-in-canada/
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
24
Points
430
Saab really going after the economic side of the assessment.....which based on Trudeau's priorities may be a really smart move. Especially with the cost inflation in all the Naval programs.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
103
Points
780
Saab really going after the economic side of the assessment.....which based on Trudeau's priorities may be a really smart move. Especially with the cost inflation in all the Naval programs.
Thats because the Gripen can't compete on capability.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
24
Points
430
The concern is that Trudeau doesn't care about that little detail. He's just looking for the most efficient way to buy votes with our own money....and more capable fighter jets is probably pretty low on that scale.
 

Drallib

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
2
Points
230
Regardless of what is selected, it will get the job done at the end of the day. I think it'll be the Gripen which will then be used for political reasons on what a benefit it is to Canada.

I'll still be pleased with whichever airframe we select.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
24
Points
430
Without getting into OPSEC, will they evaluate each contender against most likely future opponents? So Su-57, J-20, etc.?

I'm honestly very concerned we're selecting from a group of "peace dividend" designs that by the time they are adopted will be insufficient for the task. Given the massive investment we're talking about, I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on skipping a generation and instead buying into one of the 6g programs such as Japan's F-X, the UK/Spanish/Swedish Tempest or the Franco/German FCA which appear to be much better suited to dealing with the Su-57, J-20, etc.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
103
Points
780
Our Hornets will fall out of the sky before 6th Gen is ready. It also reinforces our ridiculous 20 year from idea to FOC procurement cycle.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
Our Hornets will fall out of the sky before 6th Gen is ready. It also reinforces our ridiculous 20 year from idea to FOC procurement cycle.

I just think we make it overly complex with studies and everything else. I am not an airforce person or a procurement specialist but in my mind wouldn't it be easy to create a flying compition that puts each aircraft to the test, best one wins?
 
Top