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

[GR66]

Launch a competition and invite Rheinmetall, Elbit and Hanwha to the party and see if Boeing complains about being excluded. And how long it takes for the Donald to react.

While the final price is still being negotiated, we already have approval from the US for FMS of 26 x HIMARS launchers. Does it make much sense to cancel that in order to re-open the program and expect any defence contractor to set up a production facility in Canada for 26 units of what is essentially a highly modified truck? You can hypothetically say that we could build a couple of hundred HIMARS instead but Canada is only looking for 26 and unless that changes I don't see a domestic production line making sense.

Just like with the T-7's mentioned above, I think we would be much further ahead setting up a facility here for the production of the munitions for HIMARS rather than a small number of the actual platform. The package we requested from the US only includes 132 x GMLRS, 132 GMLRS Alternate Warhead and 64 x ATACMS pods. With 26 launchers that only amounts to just over 10 x rocket volleys of GMLRS (both types) for the entire fleet and 2.4 ATACMS missiles per launcher. That's a laughable number of munitions if we were to get into a major conflict. Would that even last us a week?

I'll continue to bang the drum on the idea that Canada doesn't have enough domestic demand to support production of most (not all) major weapon platforms but instead we should focus on mass production of munitions for those platforms. That's where the foreign demand lies. Just like printer companies...they don't make their money on the printers, they make their money on the ink cartridges to feed the printers.

Has there been any US opposition to the German and Korean competition to build subs in Canada?

Does the US build conventional submarines? No, so what would their opposition be based on?

 

[Kirkhill]

While the final price is still being negotiated, we already have approval from the US for FMS of 26 x HIMARS launchers. Does it make much sense to cancel that in order to re-open the program and expect any defence contractor to set up a production facility in Canada for 26 units of what is essentially a highly modified truck? You can hypothetically say that we could build a couple of hundred HIMARS instead but Canada is only looking for 26 and unless that changes I don't see a domestic production line making sense.

Just like with the T-7's mentioned above, I think we would be much further ahead setting up a facility here for the production of the munitions for HIMARS rather than a small number of the actual platform. The package we requested from the US only includes 132 x GMLRS, 132 GMLRS Alternate Warhead and 64 x ATACMS pods. With 26 launchers that only amounts to just over 10 x rocket volleys of GMLRS (both types) for the entire fleet and 2.4 ATACMS missiles per launcher. That's a laughable number of munitions if we were to get into a major conflict. Would that even last us a week?

I'll continue to bang the drum on the idea that Canada doesn't have enough domestic demand to support production of most (not all) major weapon platforms but instead we should focus on mass production of munitions for those platforms. That's where the foreign demand lies. Just like printer companies...they don't make their money on the printers, they make their money on the ink cartridges to feed the printers.

Does the US build conventional submarines? No, so what would their opposition be based on?

No. It doesn't make any sense to open up factories for the typical Canadian defence buy. It never will.

It does make sense to turn on the taps at GDOTS in Quebec and produce the rounds they are licenced to build in mass quantities.
It does make sense to get Magellan building CRV-7s by the milions.
It does make sense to start turning out micro-turbines and ramjets.

And then using them for barter.

Like gold, oil and minerals, you can stock pile your dollars. Unlike gold, CRV-7s and CG-84 rounds have immediate utility.

PS - it is hard to stock pile gases like Natural Gas, Methane and Hydrogen.

PPS - and it is harder to stock pile electricity.

 

[Kirkhill]

Does the US build conventional submarines? No, so what would their opposition be based on?

Why aren't we paying our fair share to be a good 5-Eyes partner and buy into the AUKUS programme?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Why aren't we paying our fair share to be a good 5-Eyes partner and buy into the AUKUS programme?

Probably because we can't wait a good decade or two for submarines .

 

[Nvlgzr]

Why aren't we paying our fair share to be a good 5-Eyes partner and buy into the AUKUS programme?

I don’t think we were invited.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thinking about the USS Charlotte and AUKUS.

Apparently the crew of the Charlotte is about 120 or so.
The Aussies had 3 onboard.

Five-Eyes by Population

US - 342,000,000
UK - 70,000,000
Cda - 42,000,000
Aus - 28,000,000
NZ - 5,000,000

If we required one Kiwi on board every boat we would need 6 Aussies, 8 Canucks, 14 Brits and 68 Yanks.

1 + 6 + 8 + 14 + 68 = 97

And we are pretty close to a boat load of shared 5 Eyes responsibility.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don’t think we were invited.

Probably not. Justin and Jacinda were just a bit too sympatico.

 

[GR66]

Why aren't we paying our fair share to be a good 5-Eyes partner and buy into the AUKUS programme?

A number of people much smarter and experienced than I have listed the challenges that would be faced in operating and supporting nuclear submarines vice conventional ones.

 

[KevinB]

I don’t think we were invited.

Certain caveats were made, but there was interest if Canada could follow through on security issues.

A number of people much smarter and experienced than I have listed the challenges that would be faced in operating and supporting nuclear submarines vice conventional ones.

I still think that 12 VA, or AUKUS class boats would be better for Canada.
Yes the price would be significant. But it would also give actual true under ice ability.


Canada has an awful lot of water above and beside it. Lots of ice too.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nuke boats are not on the table and not even close to being on it. perhaps had we bought the Barbels instead of the O-boats, then we might have been more in the USN sub circles.

 

[GR66]

Certain caveats were made, but there was interest if Canada could follow through on security issues.


I still think that 12 VA, or AUKUS class boats would be better for Canada.
Yes the price would be significant. But it would also give actual true under ice ability.

View attachment 98835
Canada has an awful lot of water above and beside it. Lots of ice too.

I'm not expressing a preference for conventional vs nuclear, just pointing out that people much, much more knowledgeable than I on the matter have expressed that the RCN doesn't currently have the safety the culture required to run a SSN fleet and that the costs in infrastructure, support and manpower would put Avro Arrow-type cost burdens on the CAF that would seriously limit our other military capabilities.

Besides, with the US, the UK and Australia all in line for nuc boats there is no way we would get any before our Victoria's have to be retired.

This line of discussion would probably be better off in the submarine thread.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Why aren't we paying our fair share to be a good 5-Eyes partner and buy into the AUKUS programme?

Putting aside all of the countless problems with the RCN operating SSN’s, the Australians are already in a bad place as far as the US produced submarines they are waiting for. If you think the TKMS delivery timeline is bad, the US SSN delivery is like double or triple that.