Canada went with Saab for our military aircraft. In part to reduce our spending/reliance on the US and to increase our ties to the EU.
This will be the first in a lengthy list of moves needed to move further away from the Americans and toward Europe.
Finally Charles III can be an EU head of state again.
Bring back the avro arrow!
Germany signed a long term LNG supply agreement.
I daresay that Europe will be happy to take as many primary products as Canada has to sell; just need to get the transportation routes sorted.
Yeah, getting the transportation infrastructure figured out is going to be the biggest step. As a nation, we are firmly oriented north south at the moment, that it will take a bit of doing. But there is certainly both the political and societal will to get it done.
Bring your checkbooks, Western Canada.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2026, 03:44:50 PMCanada went with Saab for our military aircraft. In part to reduce our spending/reliance on the US and to increase our ties to the EU.
This will be the first in a lengthy list of moves needed to move further away from the Americans and toward Europe.
I do believe the aircraft has proven to be JSF's superior in most tests as well.
Norway would definitely welcome even closer ties, Denmark too. Together we can sort out the Arctic.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 28, 2026, 09:00:10 AMBring your checkbooks, Western Canada.
The infrastructure we are talking about will mainly be built up in Quebec and through Ontario.
Quote from: Norgy on May 28, 2026, 09:07:19 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2026, 03:44:50 PMCanada went with Saab for our military aircraft. In part to reduce our spending/reliance on the US and to increase our ties to the EU.
This will be the first in a lengthy list of moves needed to move further away from the Americans and toward Europe.
I do believe the aircraft has proven to be JSF's superior in most tests as well.
Norway would definitely welcome even closer ties, Denmark too. Together we can sort out the Arctic.
Yes, the main reason the US offering was initially the front runner was our then need to integrate with them. That, of course, no longer holds.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 28, 2026, 10:11:09 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on May 28, 2026, 09:00:10 AMBring your checkbooks, Western Canada.
The infrastructure we are talking about will mainly be built up in Quebec and through Ontario.
I think he means provincial "bribes" are in the future.
The tests Canada ran in 2021 showed that the F-35 was vastly superior to the Gripen E in both mision capabilities and upgrade potential:
QuoteMost compelling was the mission performance metric; the F-35 scored a 97-to-22 percent advantage over the Gripen.
The gap widens further when considering the ability to continually upgrade an aircraft across its lifecycle: The F-35 scored 100 percent, compared with the Gripen's 28.
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/canada-f-35-fighter-debate-is-now-over/
The cost and political considerations, however, may favor the inferior aircraft, as Canada might not want to spend that much money (the F-35 is cheaper to buy but the Gripen far cheaper to operate) nor trust the US to provide them with ongoing technical support as relations freeze.
Personally, I think that a missile truck like the F-15EX would be a better buy, if they can get it for less than the ludicrous prices the USAF is paying for it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2026, 10:24:03 AMThe tests Canada ran in 2021 showed that the F-35 was vastly superior to the Gripen E in both mision capabilities and upgrade potential:
QuoteMost compelling was the mission performance metric; the F-35 scored a 97-to-22 percent advantage over the Gripen.
The gap widens further when considering the ability to continually upgrade an aircraft across its lifecycle: The F-35 scored 100 percent, compared with the Gripen's 28.
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/canada-f-35-fighter-debate-is-now-over/
The cost and political considerations, however, may favor the inferior aircraft, as Canada might not want to spend that much money (the F-35 is cheaper to buy but the Gripen far cheaper to operate) nor trust the US to provide them with ongoing technical support as relations freeze.
Personally, I think that a missile truck like the F-15EX would be a better buy, if they can get it for less than the ludicrous prices the USAF is paying for it.
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.
It seems like the decision calculus has changed a lot, now favouring deals that promote more diversification of allied supplied chains and domestic industrial benefit. I think Canadians would be more than happy with a lesser plane that accomplished that.
The submarine decision is expected by end of June and will be a big one.
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 see Sweden are donating Gripens to Ukraine. That would probably be a good lithmus test for that particular plane.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 28, 2026, 10:46:43 AMShockingly, 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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2026, 07:01:11 PMIn 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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2026, 10:12:44 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 28, 2026, 10:46:43 AMShockingly, 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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2026, 01:52:01 PMI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Josquius on May 30, 2026, 07:56:32 AMGiven 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.
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
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2026, 11:13:14 AMNorway 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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2026, 05:13:59 PMQuote from: viper37 on May 30, 2026, 11:13:14 AMNorway 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"