EU Canada unification thread

[Jacob]

In selecting a plane, I reckon at least the following areas should be assessed:

• What are the intended roles of the plane, and which plane is superior in those roles? How big is the difference?
• What is the cost to acquire the plane? What are the maintenance cost?
• How cost efficient is the plane? If plane A is x1.5 better than plane B, but you get 5 hours in air per dollar from plane B compared to 1 hour for plane A (because, say, the unit and parts cost are lower, because infrastructure and training costs are lower, and/ or because fewer maintenance hours are required per flight hour), then you may get more impact per dollar from plane B even if plane A is better in a plane by plane comparison.
• What are the industrial and economic benefits from going with either option. Creating jobs and generating revenue is great, but being able to independently scale support and/or production has strategi value in its own.
• What are the alliance and political benefits of selecting either option.

I can't really speak to 1. or 2. I more than ready to believe that the F35 is a better plane than the Gripen in question on a plane by plane basis, but in terms of "mission accomplished per dollar" I'd love to see more analysis.

On point 3. my impression is that there are more benefits for Canada with the Gripen vs the American option.

On point 4. it heavily favours Gripen as Sweden and Europe still operate with a theory of "if you do business with and depend on us, that means we do business with you and give you considerations based on mutual trust". Conversely the current US administration seem to view doing business with and depending on them (say for parts and maintenance) as a weak point to be exploited.

Unless the F35 is significantly superior in terms of mission impact per dollar spent all in, I think the Gripen is probably the right choice.

[Norgy]

I see Sweden are donating Gripens to Ukraine. That would probably be a good lithmus test for that particular plane.

[grumbler]

Shockingly, a US based click bait organization says the US product is superior.

Also, you have lightly brushed away the "political considerations" but why we would we want to buy a weapon system that would make us entirely reliant on US manufacturers and suppliers? 

Lastly these are the surveillance aircraft.  The final decision on the fighters is forthcoming.  But given this decision, the fighter decision will likely go the same way.

Shockingly, you have read neither the linked article nor, indeed, my post.

It is the Canadian Air Force that, in a four-way flyoff, determined that the F-35 was vastly superior over the range of missions evaluated. I am waiting with baited breath your explanation for why the Canadian Air Force doesn't know what its mission is.

I have not "lightly brushed away" the political considerations at all.  In fact, I explicitly stated that they were likely a dominant factor in deciding on an airframe. Try responding to what I write rather than engaging in strawman arguments, if you are at all interested in a collegial discussion.

[grumbler]

In selecting a plane, I reckon at least the following areas should be assessed:

• What are the intended roles of the plane, and which plane is superior in those roles? How big is the difference?
• What is the cost to acquire the plane? What are the maintenance cost?
• How cost efficient is the plane? If plane A is x1.5 better than plane B, but you get 5 hours in air per dollar from plane B compared to 1 hour for plane A (because, say, the unit and parts cost are lower, because infrastructure and training costs are lower, and/ or because fewer maintenance hours are required per flight hour), then you may get more impact per dollar from plane B even if plane A is better in a plane by plane comparison.
• What are the industrial and economic benefits from going with either option. Creating jobs and generating revenue is great, but being able to independently scale support and/or production has strategi value in its own.
• What are the alliance and political benefits of selecting either option.

I can't really speak to 1. or 2. I more than ready to believe that the F35 is a better plane than the Gripen in question on a plane by plane basis, but in terms of "mission accomplished per dollar" I'd love to see more analysis.

On point 3. my impression is that there are more benefits for Canada with the Gripen vs the American option.

On point 4. it heavily favours Gripen as Sweden and Europe still operate with a theory of "if you do business with and depend on us, that means we do business with you and give you considerations based on mutual trust". Conversely the current US administration seem to view doing business with and depending on them (say for parts and maintenance) as a weak point to be exploited.

Unless the F35 is significantly superior in terms of mission impact per dollar spent all in, I think the Gripen is probably the right choice.

I think that this is a pretty good summary.  My observations on your observations are as follows:
1. The F-35 is a clear, almost overwhelming, victor in terms of mission performance, according to the RCAF.
2. Procurement costs seem to be a wash.
3. The Gripen is a clear winner here, close to overwhelmingly so. The only downside to the Gripen is that it results in a mixed fleet, since Canada is already committed to buying 30 F-35s.
4. The Gripen is clearly a winner in the proposed deals.  Canada already produces about $4 million worth of parts for each F-35, but the Gripen deal would significantly exceed that.
5. Political and alliance concerns mitigate against the F-35, given how unreliable the US government has proven to be.

I think that the Canadian government will go with the Gripen and will be right to do so.

[crazy canuck]

Shockingly, a US based click bait organization says the US product is superior.

Also, you have lightly brushed away the "political considerations" but why we would we want to buy a weapon system that would make us entirely reliant on US manufacturers and suppliers? 

Lastly these are the surveillance aircraft.  The final decision on the fighters is forthcoming.  But given this decision, the fighter decision will likely go the same way.

Shockingly, you have read neither the linked article nor, indeed, my post.

It is the Canadian Air Force that, in a four-way flyoff, determined that the F-35 was vastly superior over the range of missions evaluated. I am waiting with baited breath your explanation for why the Canadian Air Force doesn't know what its mission is.

I have not "lightly brushed away" the political considerations at all.  In fact, I explicitly stated that they were likely a dominant factor in deciding on an airframe. Try responding to what I write rather than engaging in strawman arguments, if you are at all interested in a collegial discussion.

I read both.

The article you linked had nothing to do with the surveillance aircraft being purchased.  The author of the article is described as a long time contributor to the entity that puts out these sorts of articles on the internet (why I called it click bait).  And even if one were to consider it in relation to what is the best fighter for Canada, it's analysis did not take into consideration all of the factors would have thought (and hope) our government will take into considerations

Lastly, do you have an answer for why Canada should become more vulnerable to the Americans?

[grumbler]

I read both.

The article you linked had nothing to do with the surveillance aircraft being purchased.  The author of the article is described as a long time contributor to the entity that puts out these sorts of articles on the internet (why I called it click bait).  And even if one were to consider it in relation to what is the best fighter for Canada, it's analysis did not take into consideration all of the factors would have thought (and hope) our government will take into considerations

Lastly, do you have an answer for why Canada should become more vulnerable to the Americans?

Neither the F-35 nor the Gripen are surveillance aircraft. You seem to be confusing them with the Saab GlobalEye, which IS an AEW airplane.

I don't know why you think that being a "long time contributor to the entity that puts out these sorts of articles on the internet" somehow make the author's citation of RCAF data clickbait. If you disagree with the author's conclusions, take it up with the author.

I do not need to "have an answer for why Canada should become more vulnerable to the Americans."  Those are national policy issues and I don't have the information needed to second-guess any Canadian government decisions. I've already repeatedly made it clear that I think that the Gripen is the best choice for a new Canadian fighter, but that's not based on my evaluation of the costs and benefits of Canada becoming more vulnerable to the Swedes vs to the US.

[Bauer]

The one thing I'm interested in knowing is if maintaining a fleet of two separate fighter systems is a big hindrance or not.  Some analysts on tv say it is, but if not I'm fully supportive of the gripen for tranche 2.

If we also buy subs from Germany then Canada - Germany - Scandinavia are starting to build a nice little middle power coalition, and can cooperate in the arctic.

[Grey Fox]

I still think the finickyness of the F35 makes having a 2nd plane for Arctic operations necessary. Even before Trump, we would have relied heavily on the Americans to be able to patrol the Canadian arctic. That always have been a ridiculous idea.


Hopefully, we buy the South Korean subs.

[Josquius]

Given the likliest threat to Canada is a vastly more powerful nation having a plane that doesn't rely on a stable base to operate seems a sensible idea.
And that's even discounting the threat being the ones selling the base hog.

I have to wonder on whether the F35s better performance really matters too given what we've seen in Ukraine. How often are planes really going to be dogfighting in this day and age.

[Bauer]

Another factor is that Canada is almost certain to not require a plane for achieving air superiority over another country, so do we have any use case for the F35s extra performance?

[grumbler]

Given the likliest threat to Canada is a vastly more powerful nation having a plane that doesn't rely on a stable base to operate seems a sensible idea.
And that's even discounting the threat being the ones selling the base hog.

I have to wonder on whether the F35s better performance really matters too given what we've seen in Ukraine. How often are planes really going to be dogfighting in this day and age.

The ability to disperse fighter operations is a strong argument for Gripen.

The F-35 is not a dogfighter. It is optimized for beyond-visual-range combat, which the Ukraine experiences indicate is the wave of the future. Gripen is less effective at this, but still probably effective enough for Canadian needs.

[viper37]

Norway has proposed a joint submarine fleet with Canada.

Canada-Norway-Germany would essentially share the same boats, crews and facilities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-defence-navy-germany-canada-norway-9.7217410

[grumbler]

Norway has proposed a joint submarine fleet with Canada.

Canada-Norway-Germany would essentially share the same boats, crews and facilities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-defence-navy-germany-canada-norway-9.7217410

Operating the same model sounds like a good cost-savings measure, but sharing the actual hulls sounds like a bridge too far. For one thing, labelling the thousands of dials, gauges, switches, valves, etc would need to be in a common language, one unfamiliar to two of the three nations. Unfamiliarity with instrument language would be double-plus ungood in a submerged emergency.

[crazy canuck]

Norway has proposed a joint submarine fleet with Canada.

Canada-Norway-Germany would essentially share the same boats, crews and facilities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-defence-navy-germany-canada-norway-9.7217410

Operating the same model sounds like a good cost-savings measure, but sharing the actual hulls sounds like a bridge too far. For one thing, labelling the thousands of dials, gauges, switches, valves, etc would need to be in a common language, one unfamiliar to two of the three nations. Unfamiliarity with instrument language would be double-plus ungood in a submerged emergency.

English seems to be a good option. From the Norwegian Minister

"We are thinking of the submarine fleet not as a Norwegian fleet and a German fleet and a Canadian fleet, we were thinking of a common fleet"