Shanker describes the direction of flow and future positioning so well that layman and strategist agree – the move to Saab is a veritable no-brainier.r
- Canada still needs something like NORAD because some part of destiny is geography and Russia will always be tempted to strike out of its confines.
- Canada may need something more because the geographic component of destiny for the US points to the North.
- Canada’s only defense against US military pressure, as revealed by latest war-gaming is asymmetric war - tiny units deep in Shield country, the Rockies, and the North-west passage.
What are Canada’s top-line opportunities to counter US pressure?
- “Porcupine” capabilities supplied by EU and possibly China
- EU nuclear umbrella integration
- NATO with reduced US dependency
The NATO option is clearly the shortest path.
(Apologies for the line-spacing. IOS is cranky today)
Disagree about Russia. Russia is in no position to be tempted to do much of anything. Ukraine’s ragtag determined defense has shown Putin’s Russia to be a paper tiger — with only its last-ditch nukes keeping everyone’s close attention.
We should thank Ukraine for exposing the myth of Russia’s fighter jets — after 4 yrs of grinding battle where are the vaunted Russian jets that were the motivation for the F-35?
Weapons manufacturers will have to invent a new boogeyman to replace Russia in order to justify their expensive and complex military hardware.
And using China as a military boogeyman is a non-starter: China holds enough financial levers to manipulate events in its favour without having to resort to force.
Saab Gripen for Canada -- instead of "leasing" any more F-35s.
- Saab wants to expand its Gripen production. Saab wants to _build modern Gripens under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past. Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the CF-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Why buy defence hardware from an unstable vendor that has TWICE-elected a leader who is hostile to its NORAD partner?
Current US president got _multinational Stellantis to fold like a cheap suit so how secure are any _Canadian jobs that depend on US-based LockheedMartin?
US has some unresolved issues -- current president was elected not once but _TWICE. Upcoming elections will still include the voters that put him in office so it might be some time -- if ever -- before US returns to friendliness of past generations. Best to steer clear until then.
What use is the F-35 as a common NATO jet if the F-35 vendor threatens to abandon NATO? How can NATO be expected to trust the F-35 vendor ever again? What happens to the global F-35 supply chain if the F-35 vendor becomes surly? What happens to F-35 sales when clients start having second thoughts about buying (leasing?) F-35s from a surly vendor nation?
- F-35 has "gee whiz" features but Gripen does the job well enough.
Canadian taxpayers drive inexpensive reliable Civics and RAV4s -- cars that get the job done -- cars that are built in Canada -- so why should Canadian taxpayers have to buy flying Ferraris from a hostile vendor?
- F-35 seems to take 10 times the effort to keep flying than Gripen (ref: Swiss, RAF).
Would you rather your air force pilots be in the air gaining flight hours or sitting on their hands waiting for their hangar queen to come out of the shop?
- Equipment purchases of this size are also about economic benefit.
For proof look no further than US defence budgets: US politicians all try to make sure defence spending goes to their districts. If US takes that approach then why should Canada be any different?
A fascinating (half-)report, Shankar. Much easier to talk about these things than to actually *do* them ... time, money, economic, political considerations weave conflict.
That Canada (and Europe) need to consider what it means to separate from what used to be the most stable of allies breaks my heart. What hath Trump wrought?
I know, sir. I want what is good for the United States as well. But there is now no way to achieve that without allies reducing their dependencies in key areas.
As for Trump, these people have no clue. The Project 2025 blueprint is an economic disaster of manic proportions. I still can’t believe that group had economists working on it. It looks far more like an oligarch project aimed at 2028.
I think we will be forced to buy at least some of the F35 aircraft, but should also buy the Gripen, which could be manufactured here in Canada. Not ideal, and surely expensive to operate both, but possible.
The investment needed is much more than what is imagined here. There’s a reason why our NATO allies in Europe are buying the F-35. How are those Gen 4 fighters of Iran doing?
It's not that complicated. When (not if) we announce the Gripen as the fighter platform for the next several decades, the cabal of people running the US will lose its collective mind .
We will be threatened with all manner of things-scuttling CUSMA, 100% sanctions, trade embargo, the dissolution of NORAD, involuntary deportation of any Canadian not a dual citizen as a national security risk-basically anything they can think of to bully us into staying with the overpriced, less than reliable in harsh climate, and expensive to operate/years late F35.
So if course we're delaying the decision until we have a new trade block to work with. All you have to do is look at Mark Carney’s air miles over the past 10 months.
The Americans should be thrilled at Canada buying the Gripen.
They have a solid order book for F35s delays on F16s and the Gripen has plenty of US tech such as engine and avionics. The Gripen will compete mostly against Russian planes in other export markets. Cost of operation is compelling for air forces already paying through the nose to maintain and upgrade old MIGs.
Big orders from Canada and Ukraine move the dial in terms of viability for other markets. The F35 didn't need the Canadian deal, they'll be flat out making them anyway.
Iran has shown the need for both high tech stealth and raw numbers. Gripen actually strengthens the American allied defensive posture and preserves the F35 as the only viable stealth option for export.
Nato has formally removed the USA from blocking any vote. it’s moving the headquarters to Europe in 18 months finance has been provided. Obviously USA wasn’t included
And who says we can't reverse engineer Gripen components, once we are doing assembly in Canada?
Why wouldn't we use our tech and aerospace know how to come up with domestic components, to cut the US out of our supply chain for our fighter jets, and completely on-shore our production?
After all, that's no more than the US is pledging to do with its key industries.
Shanker describes the direction of flow and future positioning so well that layman and strategist agree – the move to Saab is a veritable no-brainier.r
Great post, Shankar. Top line thoughts:
- Canada still needs something like NORAD because some part of destiny is geography and Russia will always be tempted to strike out of its confines.
- Canada may need something more because the geographic component of destiny for the US points to the North.
- Canada’s only defense against US military pressure, as revealed by latest war-gaming is asymmetric war - tiny units deep in Shield country, the Rockies, and the North-west passage.
What are Canada’s top-line opportunities to counter US pressure?
- “Porcupine” capabilities supplied by EU and possibly China
- EU nuclear umbrella integration
- NATO with reduced US dependency
The NATO option is clearly the shortest path.
(Apologies for the line-spacing. IOS is cranky today)
Disagree about Russia. Russia is in no position to be tempted to do much of anything. Ukraine’s ragtag determined defense has shown Putin’s Russia to be a paper tiger — with only its last-ditch nukes keeping everyone’s close attention.
We should thank Ukraine for exposing the myth of Russia’s fighter jets — after 4 yrs of grinding battle where are the vaunted Russian jets that were the motivation for the F-35?
Weapons manufacturers will have to invent a new boogeyman to replace Russia in order to justify their expensive and complex military hardware.
And using China as a military boogeyman is a non-starter: China holds enough financial levers to manipulate events in its favour without having to resort to force.
They are already talking up China's most recent stealth fighter as a replacement boogie-man for the Russian one.
The answer is simple: Trump’s mega-tantrum. I am sure the government is looking at all angles of our needs, but the shadow over everything is Trump!
Russia’s nukes are questionable, because warheads require maintenance which they don’t seem to do
Saab Gripen for Canada -- instead of "leasing" any more F-35s.
- Saab wants to expand its Gripen production. Saab wants to _build modern Gripens under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past. Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the CF-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Why buy defence hardware from an unstable vendor that has TWICE-elected a leader who is hostile to its NORAD partner?
Current US president got _multinational Stellantis to fold like a cheap suit so how secure are any _Canadian jobs that depend on US-based LockheedMartin?
US has some unresolved issues -- current president was elected not once but _TWICE. Upcoming elections will still include the voters that put him in office so it might be some time -- if ever -- before US returns to friendliness of past generations. Best to steer clear until then.
What use is the F-35 as a common NATO jet if the F-35 vendor threatens to abandon NATO? How can NATO be expected to trust the F-35 vendor ever again? What happens to the global F-35 supply chain if the F-35 vendor becomes surly? What happens to F-35 sales when clients start having second thoughts about buying (leasing?) F-35s from a surly vendor nation?
- F-35 has "gee whiz" features but Gripen does the job well enough.
Canadian taxpayers drive inexpensive reliable Civics and RAV4s -- cars that get the job done -- cars that are built in Canada -- so why should Canadian taxpayers have to buy flying Ferraris from a hostile vendor?
- F-35 seems to take 10 times the effort to keep flying than Gripen (ref: Swiss, RAF).
Would you rather your air force pilots be in the air gaining flight hours or sitting on their hands waiting for their hangar queen to come out of the shop?
- Equipment purchases of this size are also about economic benefit.
For proof look no further than US defence budgets: US politicians all try to make sure defence spending goes to their districts. If US takes that approach then why should Canada be any different?
Also worth mentioning on the historical timeline: Sputnik launched in October 1957; AVRO Arrow cancelled in February 1959.
We need to break that lock. Thank you, I look forward to reading tomorrow.
A fascinating (half-)report, Shankar. Much easier to talk about these things than to actually *do* them ... time, money, economic, political considerations weave conflict.
That Canada (and Europe) need to consider what it means to separate from what used to be the most stable of allies breaks my heart. What hath Trump wrought?
I know, sir. I want what is good for the United States as well. But there is now no way to achieve that without allies reducing their dependencies in key areas.
As for Trump, these people have no clue. The Project 2025 blueprint is an economic disaster of manic proportions. I still can’t believe that group had economists working on it. It looks far more like an oligarch project aimed at 2028.
The oligarchs clearly intend to reduce the 99.99% to serfdom, or worse.
It’s called leverage.
Carney will not make that decision until he renegotiates CUSMA.
I think we will be forced to buy at least some of the F35 aircraft, but should also buy the Gripen, which could be manufactured here in Canada. Not ideal, and surely expensive to operate both, but possible.
The investment needed is much more than what is imagined here. There’s a reason why our NATO allies in Europe are buying the F-35. How are those Gen 4 fighters of Iran doing?
Because of upcoming negotiations with Captain Orange…..
It's not that complicated. When (not if) we announce the Gripen as the fighter platform for the next several decades, the cabal of people running the US will lose its collective mind .
We will be threatened with all manner of things-scuttling CUSMA, 100% sanctions, trade embargo, the dissolution of NORAD, involuntary deportation of any Canadian not a dual citizen as a national security risk-basically anything they can think of to bully us into staying with the overpriced, less than reliable in harsh climate, and expensive to operate/years late F35.
So if course we're delaying the decision until we have a new trade block to work with. All you have to do is look at Mark Carney’s air miles over the past 10 months.
🇸🇪Heja Sverige!🇸🇪
The Americans should be thrilled at Canada buying the Gripen.
They have a solid order book for F35s delays on F16s and the Gripen has plenty of US tech such as engine and avionics. The Gripen will compete mostly against Russian planes in other export markets. Cost of operation is compelling for air forces already paying through the nose to maintain and upgrade old MIGs.
Big orders from Canada and Ukraine move the dial in terms of viability for other markets. The F35 didn't need the Canadian deal, they'll be flat out making them anyway.
Iran has shown the need for both high tech stealth and raw numbers. Gripen actually strengthens the American allied defensive posture and preserves the F35 as the only viable stealth option for export.
Plus of course NATO planes buy NATO weapons.
Nato has formally removed the USA from blocking any vote. it’s moving the headquarters to Europe in 18 months finance has been provided. Obviously USA wasn’t included
Go Gripen!
And who says we can't reverse engineer Gripen components, once we are doing assembly in Canada?
Why wouldn't we use our tech and aerospace know how to come up with domestic components, to cut the US out of our supply chain for our fighter jets, and completely on-shore our production?
After all, that's no more than the US is pledging to do with its key industries.