Updated: Canada picks F-35 as CF-18 fighter replacement

queb · Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:34 pm

https://leehamnews.com/2021/12/06/ponti ... mpetition/

"Canada inserted clauses into future procurements that disqualified companies that took actions detrimental to Canada’s aerospace interests. This was widely called the “Boeing amendment.” Boeing previously was disqualified from bidding on Canada’s aerial tanker replacement"

bikerthai · Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:03 pm

Kind of sad really. Boeing had strong commercial presence in Canada and for a time merged with a Candian aircraft manufacturer.

But since then they slowly reduced their presence.

Seems like they preferred to work with the Austrailians.

bt

johns624 · Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:55 pm

queb wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/12/06/pontifications-retrospective-of-kc-x-tanker-competition/

"Canada inserted clauses into future procurements that disqualified companies that took actions detrimental to Canada’s aerospace interests. This was widely called the “Boeing amendment.” Boeing previously was disqualified from bidding on Canada’s aerial tanker replacement"

Kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face, eh? What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

bikerthai · Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:08 pm

johns624 wrote:
What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

Well, if they delay the replacement long enough, they can choose the A320 MMA (if the French can ever get it off the ground) or a less capable platform.

Although from what I hear, it is on their radar and they are reconciling with the P-8A end of line. If more international buyer keep stepping in, the decision can keep on being pushed back.

bt

queb · Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:29 pm

bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

Well, if they delay the replacement long enough, they can choose the A320 MMA (if the French can ever get it off the ground) or a less capable platform.

Although from what I hear, it is on their radar and they are reconciling with the P-8A end of line. If more international buyer keep stepping in, the decision can keep on being pushed back.

bt

Or Saab Swordfish based on Global 6000

johns624 · Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:53 pm

queb wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

Well, if they delay the replacement long enough, they can choose the A320 MMA (if the French can ever get it off the ground) or a less capable platform.

Although from what I hear, it is on their radar and they are reconciling with the P-8A end of line. If more international buyer keep stepping in, the decision can keep on being pushed back.

bt

Or Saab Swordfish based on Global 6000

I'm sure that keesje will draw something up for them that they can pay all the development costs on...

744SPX · Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:58 pm

No need to buy P-8's at all. The P-1 would be ideal, and like the Saab Swordfish, its a better ASW aircraft than the P-8.

johns624 · Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:17 pm

queb wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

Well, if they delay the replacement long enough, they can choose the A320 MMA (if the French can ever get it off the ground) or a less capable platform.

Although from what I hear, it is on their radar and they are reconciling with the P-8A end of line. If more international buyer keep stepping in, the decision can keep on being pushed back.

bt

Or Saab Swordfish based on Global 6000

That must be why so many countries are buying them...

kitplane01 · Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:21 am

johns624 wrote:
queb wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/12/06/pontifications-retrospective-of-kc-x-tanker-competition/

"Canada inserted clauses into future procurements that disqualified companies that took actions detrimental to Canada’s aerospace interests. This was widely called the “Boeing amendment.” Boeing previously was disqualified from bidding on Canada’s aerial tanker replacement"
Kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face, eh? What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

Boycotts typically hurt both sides. Maybe this is just retribution, but maybe people will learn not to mess with Canada?

johns624 · Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:46 am

kitplane01 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
queb wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/12/06/pontifications-retrospective-of-kc-x-tanker-competition/

"Canada inserted clauses into future procurements that disqualified companies that took actions detrimental to Canada’s aerospace interests. This was widely called the “Boeing amendment.” Boeing previously was disqualified from bidding on Canada’s aerial tanker replacement"
Kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face, eh? What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

Boycotts typically hurt both sides. Maybe this is just retribution, but maybe people will learn not to mess with Canada?

Or, Canada will find out that they aren't as important as they think they are...

SeamanBeaumont · Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:56 am

johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face, eh? What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

Boycotts typically hurt both sides. Maybe this is just retribution, but maybe people will learn not to mess with Canada?
Or, Canada will find out that they aren't as important as they think they are...

Or more likely have to pay more but the adoring fans of Trudeau don't necessarily deal with facts.

kitplane01 · Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:16 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Boycotts typically hurt both sides. Maybe this is just retribution, but maybe people will learn not to mess with Canada?
Or, Canada will find out that they aren't as important as they think they are...

Or more likely have to pay more but the adoring fans of Trudeau don't necessarily deal with facts.

Just curious (and not going to argue) but what would you have Canada done if anything when the Boeing vs Bombardier thing happened?

art · Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:49 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Or, Canada will find out that they aren't as important as they think they are...

Or more likely have to pay more but the adoring fans of Trudeau don't necessarily deal with facts.

Just curious (and not going to argue) but what would you have Canada done if anything when the Boeing vs Bombardier thing happened?

I think Boeing's objection to C Series was unfounded - C Series is was in a different seat capacity sector to 737, so offered no competition to a Boeing product. Boeing just wanted to stifle Bombardier in case it grew to be a competitor in the future.

Yes, good on Canada to 'sanction' Boeing.

johns624 · Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:18 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Or, Canada will find out that they aren't as important as they think they are...

Or more likely have to pay more but the adoring fans of Trudeau don't necessarily deal with facts.

Just curious (and not going to argue) but what would you have Canada done if anything when the Boeing vs Bombardier thing happened?

My comment had nothing to do with that. It really doesn't even have anything to do with the current fighter selection. I was mainly speaking of the future, where not seriously considering the P8 will put the Canadian military at a disadvantage.

bikerthai · Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:25 pm

The "sanction" will not impact the pricing of the P-8A if Canada decides to buy the P-8A, given that it will be FMS and get USN pricing.

Really I think it is good for Boeing to be "removed" from the competition so they can move on with other business opportunities instead of getting dragged on.

The F-35, minus the stealth coating and associated maintenance cost is still a good buy for most Air Force.

The Bombardier fight is history, specially now that the Boeing Embraser merger fell through.

Boeing will have plenty of future opportunities with Canada, with the F/T-7 and the Aussie built Loyal wingman.

bt

j-bird · Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:09 pm

An interesting article from CBC, summarizing the decision in front of Canada in quite interesting ways.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada ... -1.6296021

There are several things I find informative in the article, which is unusually well written for the popular press in Canada:

1. the use of the potential form here - the author (unintentionally or intentionally - it's not clear to me), says that Ottawa "could" choose a fighter this year. This is insightful, as Canada "could" also kick the can down the road until after the next election by extending the competition, reopening it, or dragging their feet on selection. This forum, with excellent insight, focuses strongly on the militarily practical but in small countries like Canada, that is often outweighed by the politically practical, and spending tens of billions on new fighter jets (which most Canadians never see) is going to be very unpopular in light of the continuing pandemic, and extreme taxation levels in Canada;

2. the clear articulation of the fork in the road that this decision brings - if it's a real decision, Canada is making a choice between continuing American industrial alignment (I don't think most of the military alignment will change one way or another), or a more "independent" path. Without any value judgment on the choice of aircraft, I feel that this government is seriously considering a more non-aligned approach. Control over IP is a key part of that, which Saab offers;

3. the message that the Saab is a real contender - it's obviously survived the "2 eyes" analysis - although it's suggested in the article that Lockheed is a foregoing conclusion (in which case this is a massively expensive exercise in time wasting). Even if Saab doesn't win, I wonder if advancing to the final round of the process in Canada will provide any credibility for other international sales? Again, I express no view on the merits of the two aircraft;

4. RCAF views - it is clear, as it has always been, that the RCAF want the JSF. This makes sense on many operational and strategic levels. It will be hard to ever know, but I am curious about the degree to which that view is important behind closed doors (i.e., do the politicians listen to the military - there's a long history of them not doing so, but still...); and

5. industrial benefits - curious how important this really is in the large scheme of things. Assembling Saabs in Halifax isn't going to provide many jobs in reality, and not in a jurisdiction that's politically important.

Does anyone have any sense on a decision timeline here?

johns624 · Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:27 pm

j-bird wrote:
1. the use of the potential form here - the author (unintentionally or intentionally - it's not clear to me), says that Ottawa "could" choose a fighter this year. This is insightful, as Canada "could" also kick the can down the road until after the next election by extending the competition, reopening it, or dragging their feet on selection. This forum, with excellent insight, focuses strongly on the militarily practical but in small countries like Canada, that is often outweighed by the politically practical, and spending tens of billions on new fighter jets (which most Canadians never see) is going to be very unpopular in light of the continuing pandemic, and extreme taxation levels in Canada;

4. RCAF views - it is clear, as it has always been, that the RCAF want the JSF. This makes sense on many operational and strategic levels. It will be hard to ever know, but I am curious about the degree to which that view is important behind closed doors (i.e., do the politicians listen to the military - there's a long history of them not doing so, but still...); and

Just a few points...
1. Dragging it out until after the "next election" makes no sense, since there was just one a few months ago.
2. Canada keeps pretending they're a "small" country, but they aren't. They have a Top 10 GNP. Compared to Australia, they are doing less with much more.
3. The politicians need to listen to the military. It's the pols who get countries into confrontations, which the military then needs to solve. Give them what they need. If you want to look at it realistically, the adversary will be near-peer. Do you really want to send your best into combat in a plane that may not be "good enough"?

j-bird · Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:09 pm

All good points for sure (and all that I agree with personally).

Our current government lives (like most governments I suppose) on opinion polls - very little policy seems to be driven by 'what is right' versus what wins votes. And the military has never fared well in Canada with this dynamic...

100% agree with you on size versus capability. This speaks to the mammoth inefficiency of our equipment acquisition programs and top heavy bureaucracy (versus the sharp part of the stick). The "small country myth" is one that has entered political debate in Canada over the last forty years and now colors much of our policy-making.

I would love to think that politicians will listen to the military... but haven't really seen that in my lifetime. Also, I suspect our current government has as a strongly held philosophy that Canada will not engage in adventurism again (ex: Afghanistan). This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - we under invest because we're not going to be active, so when the time comes, we can't contribute... so we don't need to invest etc.

ThePointblank · Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:53 pm

bikerthai wrote:
The "sanction" will not impact the pricing of the P-8A if Canada decides to buy the P-8A, given that it will be FMS and get USN pricing.

Really I think it is good for Boeing to be "removed" from the competition so they can move on with other business opportunities instead of getting dragged on.

The F-35, minus the stealth coating and associated maintenance cost is still a good buy for most Air Force.

The Bombardier fight is history, specially now that the Boeing Embraser merger fell through.

Boeing will have plenty of future opportunities with Canada, with the F/T-7 and the Aussie built Loyal wingman.

bt

Boeing is not part of any of the bid teams for the Future Aircrew Training Program. The two bid teams are Babcock-Leonardo Canadian Aircrew Training versus SkyAlyne Canada Limited Partnership (consisting of CAE and KF Aerospace).

kitplane01 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:40 am

j-bird wrote:
100% agree with you on size versus capability. This speaks to the mammoth inefficiency of our equipment acquisition programs and top heavy bureaucracy (versus the sharp part of the stick). The "small country myth" is one that has entered political debate in Canada over the last forty years and now colors much of our policy-making.

I would love to think that politicians will listen to the military... but haven't really seen that in my lifetime. Also, I suspect our current government has as a strongly held philosophy that Canada will not engage in adventurism again (ex: Afghanistan). This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - we under invest because we're not going to be active, so when the time comes, we can't contribute... so we don't need to invest etc.

What is the purpose of the Canadian fighter aircraft? It's not to stop an invasion of Canada. They could not stop America, and Russia would not dare.

Canada is a small nation militarily in the same sense that Poland was in 1939, or Belgium in 1914, or Korea in 1904, or ...

stratable · Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:54 am

kitplane01 wrote:
j-bird wrote:
100% agree with you on size versus capability. This speaks to the mammoth inefficiency of our equipment acquisition programs and top heavy bureaucracy (versus the sharp part of the stick). The "small country myth" is one that has entered political debate in Canada over the last forty years and now colors much of our policy-making.

I would love to think that politicians will listen to the military... but haven't really seen that in my lifetime. Also, I suspect our current government has as a strongly held philosophy that Canada will not engage in adventurism again (ex: Afghanistan). This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - we under invest because we're not going to be active, so when the time comes, we can't contribute... so we don't need to invest etc.

What is the purpose of the Canadian fighter aircraft? It's not to stop an invasion of Canada. They could not stop America, and Russia would not dare.

Canada is a small nation militarily in the same sense that Poland was in 1939, or Belgium in 1914, or Korea in 1904, or ...

Defending Canada from whomever might attack, almost any sovereign country would do that (New Zealand may be a notable exception). And contribute to international missions.

SeamanBeaumont · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:05 am

stratable wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
j-bird wrote:
100% agree with you on size versus capability. This speaks to the mammoth inefficiency of our equipment acquisition programs and top heavy bureaucracy (versus the sharp part of the stick). The "small country myth" is one that has entered political debate in Canada over the last forty years and now colors much of our policy-making.

I would love to think that politicians will listen to the military... but haven't really seen that in my lifetime. Also, I suspect our current government has as a strongly held philosophy that Canada will not engage in adventurism again (ex: Afghanistan). This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - we under invest because we're not going to be active, so when the time comes, we can't contribute... so we don't need to invest etc.

What is the purpose of the Canadian fighter aircraft? It's not to stop an invasion of Canada. They could not stop America, and Russia would not dare.

Canada is a small nation militarily in the same sense that Poland was in 1939, or Belgium in 1914, or Korea in 1904, or ...

Defending Canada from whomever might attack, almost any sovereign country would do that (New Zealand may be a notable exception). And contribute to international missions.

Canada is a member of NATO and obliged under that treaty to meet specific military requirements including collective defense, https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

They also have a separate agreement with the US to maintain and police the North American Airspace https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-te ... ?id=101015

What other reasons should there need to be?

j-bird wrote:
Control over IP is a key part of that, which Saab offers;

The Saab con... What IP do they have access to that Canada actually needs or wants? Given the jet is made from parts across the globe including a US engine and an Italian radar what IP Saab can actually provide is limited.

kitplane01 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:06 am

stratable wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
j-bird wrote:
100% agree with you on size versus capability. This speaks to the mammoth inefficiency of our equipment acquisition programs and top heavy bureaucracy (versus the sharp part of the stick). The "small country myth" is one that has entered political debate in Canada over the last forty years and now colors much of our policy-making.

I would love to think that politicians will listen to the military... but haven't really seen that in my lifetime. Also, I suspect our current government has as a strongly held philosophy that Canada will not engage in adventurism again (ex: Afghanistan). This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - we under invest because we're not going to be active, so when the time comes, we can't contribute... so we don't need to invest etc.

What is the purpose of the Canadian fighter aircraft? It's not to stop an invasion of Canada. They could not stop America, and Russia would not dare.

Canada is a small nation militarily in the same sense that Poland was in 1939, or Belgium in 1914, or Korea in 1904, or ...

Defending Canada from whomever might attack, almost any sovereign country would do that (New Zealand may be a notable exception). And contribute to international missions.

Can you say more about "whomever might attack"? Because again they cannot beat the US, Russia wouldn't dare, and Denmark just won't. If you want to spend tens of billions of $$$, you should have a threat to model against.

When was the last time Canada sent fighters on an international mission?

Seriously, to spend this kind of money requires a real justification beyond "that's what nations are supposed to do".

stratable · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:10 am

kitplane01 wrote:
stratable wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

What is the purpose of the Canadian fighter aircraft? It's not to stop an invasion of Canada. They could not stop America, and Russia would not dare.

Canada is a small nation militarily in the same sense that Poland was in 1939, or Belgium in 1914, or Korea in 1904, or ...

Defending Canada from whomever might attack, almost any sovereign country would do that (New Zealand may be a notable exception). And contribute to international missions.

Can you say more about "whomever might attack"? Because again they cannot beat the US, Russia wouldn't dare, and Denmark just won't. If you want to spend tens of billions of $$$, you should have a threat to model against.

When was the last time Canada sent fighters on an international mission?

Seriously, to spend this kind of money requires a real justification beyond "that's what nations are supposed to do".

Canada will be ready to defend itself against anyone that might attack, regardless of how unlikely. As would any other nation.
Canadian fighters took part in Operation Impact against ISIS for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Impact

As SeamanBeaumont mentioned above, Canada also has NATO and NORAD obligations.

j-bird · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:21 am

Again, great points all.

I 100% agree we should be fulfilling our NATO and NORAD obligations. But the reality is, these are not specified in a concrete way, and this has allowed Canada to "free ride" (to use perhaps an overly harsh criticism) on both NATO and NORAD. I believe Canada has had trouble for some years maintaining both pilot proficiency and aircraft availability, leading to a lack of alert aircraft, and certainly neither organization has crumbled given our lack of support (2018 Auditor General report).

Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be doing these things (quite the opposite...), but it is interesting to contemplate the impact of real politics (and to put it another way, meeting or not meeting NATO/NORAD commitments doesn't matter to voters in Canada) on defense procurement. Again, I'm the last person that thinks that should be the case, but I'm also a small outlier in terms of support for the military in Canada (and yes, I was in the army back in the 1980s, when we were told to change out of our uniforms to go off base, to avoid "creating trouble")...

In terms of IP, yeah, I don't think it's the engines or the radar - I think it's actually access to the source code for the operating software that's key. Has been a problem before for kit like Apaches. Software drives everything these days...

kitplane01 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:22 am

stratable wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
stratable wrote:

Defending Canada from whomever might attack, almost any sovereign country would do that (New Zealand may be a notable exception). And contribute to international missions.

Can you say more about "whomever might attack"? Because again they cannot beat the US, Russia wouldn't dare, and Denmark just won't. If you want to spend tens of billions of $$$, you should have a threat to model against.

When was the last time Canada sent fighters on an international mission?

Seriously, to spend this kind of money requires a real justification beyond "that's what nations are supposed to do".

Canada will be ready to defend itself against anyone that might attack, regardless of how unlikely. As would any other nation.
Canadian fighters took part in Operation Impact against ISIS for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Impact

As SeamanBeaumont mentioned above, Canada also has NATO and NORAD obligations.

There is no answer to this question. There is no one who's going to attack Canada such that Canada's fighters will decide the outcome. It's not the US, Russia, or Denmark. It's not the mysterious "whomever".

Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia. Because "treaty obligation" is not really as good a motivation as "expanding Chinese Navy". That Canada's politics is not laser focused on having an effective military seems understandable.

I didn't know about Operation Impact (thanks). But that's 7 fighters. Did they do anything a drone, a used F-16 or a new T-50 couldn't do?

stratable · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:23 am

j-bird wrote:
Again, great points all.

I 100% agree we should be fulfilling our NATO and NORAD obligations. But the reality is, these are not specified in a concrete way, and this has allowed Canada to "free ride" (to use perhaps an overly harsh criticism) on both NATO and NORAD. I believe Canada has had trouble for some years maintaining both pilot proficiency and aircraft availability, leading to a lack of alert aircraft, and certainly neither organization has crumbled given our lack of support (2018 Auditor General report).

Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be doing these things (quite the opposite...), but it is interesting to contemplate the impact of real politics (and to put it another way, meeting or not meeting NATO/NORAD commitments doesn't matter to voters in Canada) on defense procurement. Again, I'm the last person that thinks that should be the case, but I'm also a small outlier in terms of support for the military in Canada (and yes, I was in the army back in the 1980s, when we were told to change out of our uniforms to go off base, to avoid "creating trouble")...

In terms of IP, yeah, I don't think it's the engines or the radar - I think it's actually access to the source code for the operating software that's key. Has been a problem before for kit like Apaches. Software drives everything these days...

A primary NATO requirement is to spend 2% of GDP on defense, as the Trump administration liked to remind Germany of.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

johns624 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:25 am

kitplane01 wrote:
stratable wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

What is the purpose of the Canadian fighter aircraft? It's not to stop an invasion of Canada. They could not stop America, and Russia would not dare.

Canada is a small nation militarily in the same sense that Poland was in 1939, or Belgium in 1914, or Korea in 1904, or ...

Defending Canada from whomever might attack, almost any sovereign country would do that (New Zealand may be a notable exception). And contribute to international missions.

Can you say more about "whomever might attack"? Because again they cannot beat the US, Russia wouldn't dare, and Denmark just won't. If you want to spend tens of billions of $$$, you should have a threat to model against.

When was the last time Canada sent fighters on an international mission?

Seriously, to spend this kind of money requires a real justification beyond "that's what nations are supposed to do".

So which are the select few countries do you think that should have a military?

johns624 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:29 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia. Because "treaty obligation" is not really as good a motivation as "expanding Chinese Navy". That Canada's politics is not laser focused on having an effective military seems understandable.

Canada considers China an adversary. Just because a country doesn't have land borders with you doesn't mean they can't be threatening.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/26/trudeau-s ... ted-front/

LyleLanley · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:35 am

kitplane01 wrote:
There is no answer to this question. There is no one who's going to attack Canada such that Canada's fighters will decide the outcome. It's not the US, Russia, or Denmark. It's not the mysterious "whomever".

Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia. Because "treaty obligation" is not really as good a motivation as "expanding Chinese Navy". That Canada's politics is not laser focused on having an effective military seems understandable.

I didn't know about Operation Impact (thanks). But that's 7 fighters. Did they do anything a drone, a used F-16 or a new T-50 couldn't do?

It pains me that all that makes sense to you.

kitplane01 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:35 am

johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
stratable wrote:

Defending Canada from whomever might attack, almost any sovereign country would do that (New Zealand may be a notable exception). And contribute to international missions.

Can you say more about "whomever might attack"? Because again they cannot beat the US, Russia wouldn't dare, and Denmark just won't. If you want to spend tens of billions of $$$, you should have a threat to model against.

When was the last time Canada sent fighters on an international mission?

Seriously, to spend this kind of money requires a real justification beyond "that's what nations are supposed to do".
So which are the select few countries do you think that should have a military?

The one's where the military would be useful????

Back during the Cold War, I think Canada was doing it's part to help democracy (and that mattered).

Some countries have a military to because they perceive an existential threat (Taiwan, Israel, either Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Finland, etc. ) or because they wish to be able to intervene somewhere and make the world a better place (France, UK, etc), or because they fear internal problems (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, North Korea, etc)

But none of those reasons apply to Canada. In particular, I don't see (and you can correct me here) that Canada has much interest in sending serious forces to fight abroad. So don't pay for serious forces.

SeamanBeaumont · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:36 am

j-bird wrote:
In terms of IP, yeah, I don't think it's the engines or the radar - I think it's actually access to the source code for the operating software that's key. Has been a problem before for kit like Apaches. Software drives everything these days...

Do you think Canada will change the operating software themselves without talking to Saab or Swedish Air Force or Brazillian Air Force? By so doing they fork their software from the main branch and have to restest and validate every change they make across the flight envelope... by themselves... Can you name a single program where Canada does this today? Like every other program they are in the canucks will join the sustainment group and jointly contribute to software updates. Strength in numbers, only single testing required. Anyone saying they need access to source code doesn't understand what that actually means.

stratable · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:39 am

kitplane01 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Can you say more about "whomever might attack"? Because again they cannot beat the US, Russia wouldn't dare, and Denmark just won't. If you want to spend tens of billions of $$$, you should have a threat to model against.

When was the last time Canada sent fighters on an international mission?

Seriously, to spend this kind of money requires a real justification beyond "that's what nations are supposed to do".
So which are the select few countries do you think that should have a military?

The one's where the military would be useful????

Back during the Cold War, I think Canada was doing it's part to help democracy (and that mattered).

Some countries have a military to because they perceive an existential threat (Taiwan, Israel, either Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Finland, etc. ) or because they wish to be able to intervene somewhere and make the world a better place (France, UK, etc), or because they fear internal problems (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, North Korea, etc)

But none of those reasons apply to Canada. In particular, I don't see (and you can correct me here) that Canada has much interest in sending serious forces to fight abroad. So don't pay for serious forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... nary_Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_the_Cold_War

https://www.warmuseum.ca/learn/canada-a ... istan-war/

Canada has and will continue to contribute to international missions. As Johns624 says, China is the current primary adversary.
The Western democratic world will work together against this threat. No offense but I am done responding to this for now.

kitplane01 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:41 am

johns624 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia. Because "treaty obligation" is not really as good a motivation as "expanding Chinese Navy". That Canada's politics is not laser focused on having an effective military seems understandable.
Canada considers China an adversary. Just because a country doesn't have land borders with you doesn't mean they can't be threatening.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/26/trudeau-s ... ted-front/

Canada has four submarines. Not one has been able to make an operational cruise in two years. This is their level of effort for the serious threat you describe.

This seems simple to me. Israel and Korea an even France care about their military in a way Canada does not.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... b-fleet-is

kitplane01 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:44 am

LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
There is no answer to this question. There is no one who's going to attack Canada such that Canada's fighters will decide the outcome. It's not the US, Russia, or Denmark. It's not the mysterious "whomever".

Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia. Because "treaty obligation" is not really as good a motivation as "expanding Chinese Navy". That Canada's politics is not laser focused on having an effective military seems understandable.

I didn't know about Operation Impact (thanks). But that's 7 fighters. Did they do anything a drone, a used F-16 or a new T-50 couldn't do?

It pains me that all that makes sense to you.

I'm so so sorry to have caused you pain. What you wrote was a totally useful comment. It really helped clear things up. I completely see the error of my ways. Thank you for your considered words.

SanDiegoLover · Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:51 am

j-bird wrote:
All good points for sure (and all that I agree with personally).

Our current government lives (like most governments I suppose) on opinion polls - very little policy seems to be driven by 'what is right' versus what wins votes. And the military has never fared well in Canada with this dynamic...

100% agree with you on size versus capability. This speaks to the mammoth inefficiency of our equipment acquisition programs and top heavy bureaucracy (versus the sharp part of the stick). The "small country myth" is one that has entered political debate in Canada over the last forty years and now colors much of our policy-making.

I would love to think that politicians will listen to the military... but haven't really seen that in my lifetime. Also, I suspect our current government has as a strongly held philosophy that Canada will not engage in adventurism again (ex: Afghanistan). This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - we under invest because we're not going to be active, so when the time comes, we can't contribute... so we don't need to invest etc.

RJMAZ · Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:51 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Can you say more about "whomever might attack"?

China could send missiles or drones through Canadian airspace to attack the US. China could also have submarines in Canadian waters. Having your borders penetrated by a foreign military without your permission fits the definition of being attacked.

Canada does not need a large military to defend such attacks. But saying Canada needs no military and to just let the USA do the job is absolutely ridiculous.

kitplane01 wrote:
There is no answer to this question. There is no one who's going to attack Canada such that Canada's fighters will decide the outcome.

Based on your ridiculous argument only the US should have a military. The US military at full strength is the only country that can decide the outcome of any conflict.

In the first Gulf War if the UK didn't fight the western coalition would have still won. If France didn't fight the western coalition would have still won. The UK or France did not decide the outcome so they too should get rid of their military.

Every western country should just demilitarise and sign a defense agreement with the US government as all of their militaries would never decide the outcome if attacked by Russia or China.

kitplane01 wrote:
Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia.

Australia has a much larger coastline facing the approach path of the potential enemy (China). Australia also doesn't have USAF fighters stationed a couple hours flight time away. This is a very obvious answer. Why do you even ask such questions?

SeamanBeaumont · Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Australia has a much larger coastline facing the approach path of the potential enemy (China). Australia also doesn't have USAF fighters stationed a couple hours flight time away. This is a very obvious answer. Why do you even ask such questions?

The Aussies were also bombed 100+ plus times during WW2, airpower means something different to them...

bikerthai · Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:25 pm

There is one activity that Canada seems to do get involved in more often. It's peace keeping missions. So if procurement revolve around such missions, then it would be a good start, after border security of course.

Kind of appropriate to bring up France. France has no border with any threatning state. But it does have an outsized military.

bt

johns624 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:10 pm

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:
Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia.

Australia has a much larger coastline facing the approach path of the potential enemy (China). Australia also doesn't have USAF fighters stationed a couple hours flight time away. This is a very obvious answer. Why do you even ask such questions?

Just a geographical fact...Sydney is further from Beijing than Vancouver is. Maybe you should ask the Canadians why they aren't as concerned as the Australians?

bikerthai · Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:59 pm

johns624 wrote:
Maybe you should ask the Canadians why they aren't as concerned as the Australians?

Not a Canadian, but live near the border.

I would think extracting oil near the Austrailian coast would be technically easier than from the Canadian shale.

But the Canadian fisheries would be tempting for the Chinese fishing fleet.

bt

stratable · Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:56 pm

bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Maybe you should ask the Canadians why they aren't as concerned as the Australians?

Not a Canadian, but live near the border.

I would think extracting oil near the Austrailian coast would be technically easier than from the Canadian shale.

But the Canadian fisheries would be tempting for the Chinese fishing fleet.

bt

Canadian here. I think Canadians are just more quiet in expressing concerns - being polite and reasonable are big cultural values.
Trudeau coming out and directly saying that China is an adversary is a big step.
My impression is that Canadians across the country are concerned about China and have been for a while. I expect that defense spending will go up.
See the new Type 26 frigates. Obviously more could be done and as I've said elsewhere, if you commit to spending 2% of GDP on defense, then you should follow through.
That applies to a lot of NATO allies and I understand the US being vocal there since they're doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

johns624 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 5:38 pm

I was just pointing out the distances because some think that Australia is so much closer to China because "they're both over there somewhere".

LyleLanley · Tue Jan 04, 2022 6:37 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
There is no answer to this question. There is no one who's going to attack Canada such that Canada's fighters will decide the outcome. It's not the US, Russia, or Denmark. It's not the mysterious "whomever".

Why does Canada seem to care less about fighters than (for example) Australia. Because "treaty obligation" is not really as good a motivation as "expanding Chinese Navy". That Canada's politics is not laser focused on having an effective military seems understandable.

I didn't know about Operation Impact (thanks). But that's 7 fighters. Did they do anything a drone, a used F-16 or a new T-50 couldn't do?

It pains me that all that makes sense to you.

I'm so so sorry to have caused you pain. What you wrote was a totally useful comment. It really helped clear things up. I completely see the error of my ways. Thank you for your considered words.

All for the best, then. So long as it helped.

RJMAZ · Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:58 pm

johns624 wrote:
Just a geographical fact...Sydney is further from Beijing than Vancouver is. Maybe you should ask the Canadians why they aren't as concerned as the Australians?

Maybe you should stick to a geography forum. According to you it would also be a geographical fact that Russia is further away from a China than Australia. Pick a point in Russia up near Finland to take your measurement. We will ignore the fact they are neighbours as the distance is a geographical fact..

It is also a geographical fact that the UK is halfway around the world from Frence territory if we measure from a French atol in the south Pacific.

Australia has land a third of the distance from China compared to China to Canada's west coast. Christmas Island is only 1,640nm from the Chinese military base on parcel island.

Don't be silly and try and pick a point between Canada and China where the measurement path takes you over Alaska.

Darwin and the Chinese mainland is only 2,000nm away.

bikerthai · Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:27 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
The Aussies were also bombed 100+ plus times during WW2, airpower means something different to them...

Guess where many of those bombs landed. :ouch:

RJMAZ wrote:
Darwin and the Chinese mainland is only 2,000nm away.

And before anyone would ask, yes, Canada was also hit by the Japanese balloon bombs.

bt

BawliBooch · Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:04 am

johns624 wrote:
What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

A319 based MMA with Canadian electronics fitment.

queb wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/12/06/pontifications-retrospective-of-kc-x-tanker-competition/

"Canada inserted clauses into future procurements that disqualified companies that took actions detrimental to Canada’s aerospace interests. This was widely called the “Boeing amendment.” Boeing previously was disqualified from bidding on Canada’s aerial tanker replacement"

Not defending Boeing's actions at all - whatever they did was beyond despicable.

But as neighbors, Canada and the United States have to find a way to work together instead of getting into a pissing match.

Just my 2c!

johns624 · Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:18 am

BawliBooch wrote:
johns624 wrote:
What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

A319 based MMA with Canadian electronics fitment.

That will be cheap...

ThePointblank · Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:54 am

johns624 wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
johns624 wrote:
What are they going to do when their Auroras come due for replacement?

A319 based MMA with Canadian electronics fitment.

That will be cheap...

They are life extending the Aurora's right now, with consideration for replacing the T56 engines with new engines:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol21/n ... 26-eng.asp

johns624 · Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:59 am

ThePointblank wrote:
johns624 wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:

A319 based MMA with Canadian electronics fitment.

That will be cheap...

They are life extending the Aurora's right now, with consideration for replacing the T56 engines with new engines:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol21/n ... 26-eng.asp

It sounds like they will be in service for at least 55 years.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net