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

[PrairieFella]

How would those fare enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, if one was to happen? US would likely send their F-35s, would Canada be allowed or able to fly cf18s? While every military has outdated kit, they tend to send their best to the front. I.e. Israel f35, not f15, initial strikes on Iran.

The CF18s were in Romania fairly recently, how would they survive if things got hostile?

Against what the Russians currently hold - probably pretty damn well. F35 is almost overkill for the still-prolific in Russian service MiG-29s and SU-27s.

 

[OldSolduer]

Against what the Russians currently hold - probably pretty damn well. F35 is almost overkill for the still-prolific in Russian service MiG-29s and SU-27s.

There's no such thing as too much overkill

 

[Remius]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-greenland-canada-missile-defence-9.7069059

Interesting piece on the F35 and Gripen in the context of IAMD. In particular about this not being about a fighter vs fighter thing but a fighter vs other shit that comes in fast and how that integrates into a larger system.

 

[OldSolduer]

There's no such thing as too much overkill

 

[ytz]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-greenland-canada-missile-defence-9.7069059

Interesting piece on the F35 and Gripen in the context of IAMD. In particular about this not being about a fighter vs fighter thing but a fighter vs other shit that comes in fast and how that integrates into a larger system.

The article is good at explaining there's an issue (Integration). Doesn't explain what the issue is. And despite preferring the Panther, I think we should explain why it's harder to integrate other systems.

I suspect it's different datalinks. But it could also be various CANUS security certification.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Room for us to join a SWE/GERM, SAAB/AIRBUS consortium? Do we have to buy Gripens to prove our intent?

Exactly what I'm thinking/ hoping is happening behind the scenes- but it would be nice to figure it out without the Gripens.

I don't think it does. And I say that as someone who is okay with this government (I like technocrats like Carney).

I don't think there's some great strategy or master plan here. The government is looking for any leverage it can with the US. And defence orders are huge. It's a critical sector for the US. And something our government can directly control. So if the US is going to bully industry into moving to the US, the government will seek more defence manufacturing employment here to compensate.

I would argue the depending on the scope and vision of implementation the second bolded segment contradicts the first.


I'm very likely wrong. This is just a theory built on me connecting some disparate dots and projecting hope onto it. But there's public reporting directly supporting Layer 1 and 2. Layer 3 and 4 are just logical extensions (fed by the coincidences around Canada/Swe and Swe/Ger discussions and the associated GCAP/FCAS rumours/ lack of commitment).

The lens I'm looking at things is primarily defined by immense respect for raw technocratic competence we have in the PMO right now. Carney's ambitious. He'll be planning on ~10 years (Trudeau/Mulroney/Chretien/Harper/Trudeau) to make his mark on the country and define his legacy. I think his plan was for that to be around the environment. But life is full of curveballs, the world changed, and if Davos is any indication he's embraced the "project" of re-defining Canada's place in the world as a leading middle power, both economically and geopolitically.

In the world today even just surface level, grudging commitment to the bare minimums results in tens if not hundreds of billions of extra defense dollars spent over "his" decade. Any competent business mind is going to recognize that the best way to accomplish that while mitigating the fiscal impact is to A- spend as much of it in country as possible and B-get other countries to spend some of their surge dollars here too. If ambition dictates more than just surface level, grudging commitment then the stakes get even higher as we lean in.

 

[ytz]

I'm very likely wrong. This is just a theory built on me connecting some disparate dots and projecting hope onto it. But there's public reporting directly supporting Layer 1 and 2. Layer 3 and 4 are just logical extensions (fed by the coincidences around Canada/Swe and Swe/Ger discussions and the associated GCAP/FCAS rumours/ lack of commitment.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. I do think the government has certain strategic intent. I just think they don't have the skill to execute well. In no small part, because defence hasn't been a major economic driver till now, so they don't know how to balance competing priorities. You have somebody like Joly who doesn't really care about the CAF at all. And I honestly don't believe the MND is a hardcore defender of CAF interests like say Peter Mackay was either. But they are all stuck with the reality that all the powerpoints that staff weanies like me produce can be ATIP'd in the future and show how disastrous some of these decisions are. So they are fumbling and trying to find a path. And that's not a bad thing. It's actually normal when you have competing interests. But I do wish they could think through long term so that we could look at how things like GCAP or CCAs could also be used to build that strategy independence the government wants.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The devil, as they say, is in the details. I do think the government has certain strategic intent. I just think they don't have the skill to execute well. In no small part, because defence hasn't been a major economic driver till now, so they don't know how to balance competing priorities. You have somebody like Joly who doesn't really care about the CAF at all. And I honestly don't believe the MND is a hardcore defender of CAF interests like say Peter Mackay was either. But they are all stuck with the reality that all the powerpoints that staff weanies like me produce can be ATIP'd in the future and show how disastrous some of these decisions are. So they are fumbling and trying to find a path. And that's not a bad thing. It's actually normal when you have competing interests. But I do wish they could think through long term so that we could look at how things like GCAP or CCAs could also be used to build that strategy independence the government wants.

Re: Confidence in cabinet ability- maybe I'm putting too much confidence in Fuhr and/or projecting my desire for him to have greater influence than he actually has.

If a Saab partnership is coupled with Canada, Germany and Sweden committing to a 6th gen alternative with us as a 20-30% partner, would that change your opinion on whether sub-optimal short term decisions are justified?

 

[ytz]

If a Saab partnership is coupled with Canada, Germany and Sweden committing to a 6th gen alternative with us as a 20-30% partner, would that change your opinion on whether sub-optimal short term decisions are justified?

Sure. But put it on paper. A lot of talk till now is rather vague promises. And none of it is really based on sixth gen stuff. Saab's actually offers centres around jobs creating by selling us Gripens and Globaleyes.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sure. But put it on paper. A lot of talk till now is rather vague promises. And none of it is really based on sixth gen stuff. Saab's actually offers centres around jobs creating by selling us Gripens and Globaleyes.

YTZ, this is not directed at you, because I know that you know:

Buying the Gripens requires the US to approve the sale, because the it contains US tech.

How does that free us from the grip of the US?

I do not know how to make this any clearer to the Gripen fanboys.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Sure. But put it on paper. A lot of talk till now is rather vague promises.

Fair

Saab's actually offers centres around jobs creating by selling us Gripens and Globaleyes.

And us and them collectively selling more Gripens and Global Eyes to others.

 

[ytz]

YTZ, this is not directed at you, because I know that you know:

Buying the Gripens requires the US to approve the sale, because the it contains US tech.

How does that free us from the grip of the US?

I do not know how to make this any clearer to the Gripen fanboys.

The entire discussion was never about sovereignty though. Notably, the government hasn't actually said they are considering Gripens because of sovereignty. Joly even asked LockMart to come up with a better offer for jobs. This is about jobs. A lot of the online crowd focused on the sovereignty angle are largely ignoring what has actually been said by the government.

Personally, I don't think the Americans would stop a Gripen sale. But who know with this administration. Why would Europe ever buy an American component again if the US did that? I think the likely consequences are impacts on all kinds of military to military co-operation. Not in the least because we will end up with a jet that can't talk to the F-35s they are moving to.

I am actually sympathetic to the argument that we need to diversify. But this is a rather dumb knee-jerk way to do this. I would argue for a smaller F-35 buy (~70 frames) with an immediate and generous commitment to GCAP. And an urgent effort on CCAs where we are behind as a military and where our industry has been behind too. But admittedly, I think like a staff officer, not a politician.