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"
The United States again provides a good reason for countries to create ties which excludes them. New tariffs are being imposed on pretty much everybody, this time the excuse being used is protecting exploited workers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2026, 12:25:00 PMThe United States again provides a good reason for countries to create ties which excludes them. New tariffs are being imposed on pretty much everybody, this time the excuse being used is protecting exploited workers.
shouldn't the US place tariffs on itself then?
If US policy made any sense, yes.
Looks like his backers asked for a new round of market manipulation.
Finish President suggests EU be expanded to include, among other countries, Canada
QuoteAmong his more unconventional proposals, Stubb floated the idea of bringing Canada into the EU framework, joking that it would be preferable for Canada to become "the 28th state of the European Union rather than the 51st state of the United States," referencing past comments by US President Donald Trump about Canada's status.
Absolutely correct
I think the Canada joining the EU is pretty far fetched, but don't let that stop anyone.
I also think that if Canada in whatever capacity joined the EU, there are two potential challenges:
- How do we avoid going down a path of armed conflict with the US when it goes through another one of its Monroe-we're-entitled-to-be-the-hemispherical-hegemon moments?
- Would it still be called the EU?
I'm all for deeper collaboration with Canada in whatever forms, but joining the EU would seem problematic given the US border.
There are "associated countries" already, right? Or at least, there was a tier between the EU and the EEA for those on a waiting list, so to speak.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2026, 02:52:58 PMI think the Canada joining the EU is pretty far fetched, but don't let that stop anyone.
I also think that if Canada in whatever capacity joined the EU, there are two potential challenges:
- How do we avoid going down a path of armed conflict with the US when it goes through another one of its Monroe-we're-entitled-to-be-the-hemispherical-hegemon moments?
- Would it still be called the EU?
By waving a big stick too.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2026, 02:52:58 PMI think the Canada joining the EU is pretty far fetched, but don't let that stop anyone.
I also think that if Canada in whatever capacity joined the EU, there are two potential challenges:
- How do we avoid going down a path of armed conflict with the US when it goes through another one of its Monroe-we're-entitled-to-be-the-hemispherical-hegemon moments?
- Would it still be called the EU?
Your first point exists no matter what we do so we might as well put ourselves in the strongest position possible.
We've always been more European than the Americans, so I don't see the second part is being much of a problem.
An economic and security close alliance makes more sense. Like an extremely comprehensive free trade agreement that also includes labor movement (work visas).
Given the problems with other countries not honouring court decisions in free trade agreements, maybe this loophole could be sealed too in such a deal...
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2026, 04:03:17 PMYour first point exists no matter what we do so we might as well put ourselves in the strongest position possible.
Yeah for sure, but "what we consider our client state sliding into a competing power's sphere of influence" is one of the classic reasons for kicking off war. I think the risk of armed conflict would be heightened during the hypothetical moment of joining.
QuoteWe've always been more European than the Americans, so I don't see the second part is being much of a problem.
So noted.
I think where we differ is that if the Americans are going to try to invade, the pretext does not matter much.
Might as well give them some pause for concern than just letting them pick us off as a single country.
The stickler in me would need a name change. Westen Democratic Economic Alliance, or something g like that. Although WDEA isn't a great acronym, someone needs to come up with a better one :P
A naming competition-what could possibly go wrong :D
Quote from: Norgy on June 04, 2026, 03:27:18 PMThere are "associated countries" already, right? Or at least, there was a tier between the EU and the EEA for those on a waiting list, so to speak.
I don't think so - I mean EEA countries all have free movement I don't think any of the accession countries (mainly the Balkans or Turkiye) have that.
Legally speaking the EU divides the world into "member states" who are within the "Union" (which includes the EEA) and "third countries". There's not a tiered or fractal pattern for countries to join into and it's something that the EU has generally resisted because membership is the leverage. I think Macron has gestured at a more a complex way of engaging with the wider world through the European Political Community - but it's not really been picked up and has more been treated as one of his eccentricities that everyone needs to indulge (he's right - they're wrong).
QuoteA naming competition-what could possibly go wrong :D
I've mentioned before but I've got a friend who worked in diplomatic/NGO circles in the West Balkan for a while. The US Senator who was drafted in to negotiate the name of Macedonia proposed the Republic of North Macedonia as one of his first suggestions as the name - I think almost 30 years later after many rounds of tortuous negotiation and, I think, the death of that Senator, both sides agreed that the Republic of North Macedonia would be acceptable :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2026, 05:27:13 PMA naming competition-what could possibly go wrong :D
I've got it! NATO will be available soon. Just change ot to North Atlantic Trade Organization. Think of all the money they'll save on stationary :D
Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2026, 06:32:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2026, 05:27:13 PMA naming competition-what could possibly go wrong :D
I've got it! NATO will be available soon. Just change ot to North Atlantic Trade Organization. Think of all the money they'll save on stationary :D
Perfect!
Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2026, 06:32:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2026, 05:27:13 PMA naming competition-what could possibly go wrong :D
I've got it! NATO will be available soon. Just change ot to North Atlantic Trade Organization. Think of all the money they'll save on stationary :D
Great!
From the Globe
QuoteGerman utility Uniper is exploring a potential deal that would strengthen the planned Ksi Lisims LNG project in British Columbia, as European interest grows in Canadian liquefied natural gas.
Uniper and Ksi Lisims said on Monday that they have signed a "letter of interest" detailing commercial terms for a pending supply and purchase agreement for two million tonnes a year of LNG.
Dusseldorf-based Uniper is seeking to increase its flexibility to schedule shipments of LNG globally.
Some background to this story, LNG plants in British Columbia for obvious geographical reasons were all targeting Asia as the market. The fact that we are becoming oriented towards Europe is a significant development.
QuoteThe Canadian government is in negotiations to buy about 30 Italian-made fighter-jet training aircraft and is sending a technical team to Rome later this week to discuss what may be one of Ottawa's biggest aerospace defence orders ever, two sources say.
Any deal would almost certainly be a government-to-government sale, as opposed to a company-to-government one, the industry and government sources added. The M-346 trainer jets are made by Leonardo SpA, the Italian defence giant whose shares are listed on the Milan stock exchange. But the Italian state owns 30 per cent of Leonardo, giving Rome enormous influence over the company's management and export sales.
Canada is now eligible to participate in Eurovision.
Just change the name to "planets got talent" already.
It's being reported the Canada is about to announce that Germany is these successful, bidder for the submarine purchase.
Here are some passages from an opinion piece in the globe explaining why Germany was the successful bidder. It's all about integration of Canada into the EU.
Quotethe strength of Germany's TKMS bid is technology transfer and integration into European defence networks. The German proposal would see the first submarines built in Europe, before transitioning to a complete local Canadian build for the later vessels. The bid aligns with Canada's growing engagement with European defence initiatives, including its participation in the European Union's Security Action for Europe (SAFE) $240-billion defence financing program supporting joint procurement and industrial co-operation. As the only non-EU participant in the initiative, Canada is uniquely positioned to deepen defence-industrial ties with Europe.
The decision to choose the German submarines has long-term strategic implications for Canada. Germany is one of Canada's closest partners within NATO, and TKMS submarines already form the backbone of European naval fleets. Choosing the German bid allows Canada access to European defence and industrial networks at a time when the continent is investing in its own security capabilities. Selecting TKMS means long-term co-operation and technology transfer between Canada and European partners across the Atlantic and the Arctic.
Seems reasonable to me.
The problem is the build queue. I've seen nothing that indicates that the German company is increasing their building capability, and they already have a full slate for the next 15 years or so.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2026, 02:56:03 PMThe problem is the build queue. I've seen nothing that indicates that the German company is increasing their building capability, and they already have a full slate for the next 15 years or so.
The reason you've not seen that is because that's not the plan. One of the reasons the Germans were selected is because they are proposing a technological transfer. The initial submarines will be built in Germany, but the balance of them will be built in Canada using the German tech.
One step closer to European integration. And definitely one step further away from the Americans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2026, 05:27:13 PMA naming competition-what could possibly go wrong :D
NATOy McNATOface?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2026, 04:09:35 PMQuote from: grumbler on July 06, 2026, 02:56:03 PMThe problem is the build queue. I've seen nothing that indicates that the German company is increasing their building capability, and they already have a full slate for the next 15 years or so.
The reason you've not seen that is because that's not the plan. One of the reasons the Germans were selected is because they are proposing a technological transfer. The initial submarines will be built in Germany, but the balance of them will be built in Canada using the German tech.
Do you have a source for that? One of the big arguments in favor of the Korean bid was that they, unlike the Germans, would build in Canada. The news reports I have seen indicate that the Germans and Dutch will give up four building slots so that Canada can get their first sub by 2036, but that delivery of the 12th will be 2050 at the very earliest.
QuoteOne step closer to European integration. And definitely one step further away from the Americans.
This isn't a step away from the Americans because the US wasn't ever in the running. It's a step away from South Korea.
Koreas building commitment was for some steel components IIRC. Investment in algoma to build girders, not finished subs.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2026, 04:28:53 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2026, 04:09:35 PMQuote from: grumbler on July 06, 2026, 02:56:03 PMThe problem is the build queue. I've seen nothing that indicates that the German company is increasing their building capability, and they already have a full slate for the next 15 years or so.
The reason you've not seen that is because that's not the plan. One of the reasons the Germans were selected is because they are proposing a technological transfer. The initial submarines will be built in Germany, but the balance of them will be built in Canada using the German tech.
Do you have a source for that? One of the big arguments in favor of the Korean bid was that they, unlike the Germans, would build in Canada. The news reports I have seen indicate that the Germans and Dutch will give up four building slots so that Canada can get their first sub by 2036, but that delivery of the 12th will be 2050 at the very earliest.
QuoteOne step closer to European integration. And definitely one step further away from the Americans.
This isn't a step away from the Americans because the US wasn't ever in the running. It's a step away from South Korea.
Yes, the text of the article I provided almost immediately above your post.
The Koreans were not proposing a technology transfer. What they were proposing was that Korean companies would enter Canada to build, but of course, all the commercial benefits flow back to Korea. We basically just become a branch plant. That's the same thing the Americans want for us, and no thanks.
And it's a step away from the Americans because every step towards the Europeans is a step away from the Americans
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2026, 05:16:54 PMYes, the text of the article I provided almost immediately above your post.
That article seems to be paywalled, but is listed as an opinion piece in any case. I've seen no source that says that the Germans/Norwegians are going to help set up a submarine shipyard in Canada. The CBC says that they are not.
QuoteThe Koreans were not proposing a technology transfer. What they were proposing was that Korean companies would enter Canada to build, but of course, all the commercial benefits flow back to Korea. We basically just become a branch plant. That's the same thing the Americans want for us, and no thanks.
The Koreans were, of course, offering technology transfers, especially around the sub and armored vehicles.
QuoteAnd it's a step away from the Americans because every step towards the Europeans is a step away from the Americans
A step towards Korea would equally be a step away from the Americans. I can understand the appeal of going with NATO compatibility, and so think that the Canadian decision makes some sense, but there's no way, IMO, that Canada is going to end up with 12 Type 212CD subs. TKMS has two slips able to build the sub, and each sub is on the slip for four years. Two subs every four years, 24 subs to be ordered... you do the math.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2026, 06:23:53 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2026, 05:16:54 PMYes, the text of the article I provided almost immediately above your post.
That article seems to be paywalled, but is listed as an opinion piece in any case. I've seen no source that says that the Germans/Norwegians are going to help set up a submarine shipyard in Canada. The CBC says that they are not.
QuoteThe Koreans were not proposing a technology transfer. What they were proposing was that Korean companies would enter Canada to build, but of course, all the commercial benefits flow back to Korea. We basically just become a branch plant. That's the same thing the Americans want for us, and no thanks.
The Koreans were, of course, offering technology transfers, especially around the sub and armored vehicles.
QuoteAnd it's a step away from the Americans because every step towards the Europeans is a step away from the Americans
A step towards Korea would equally be a step away from the Americans. I can understand the appeal of going with NATO compatibility, and so think that the Canadian decision makes some sense, but there's no way, IMO, that Canada is going to end up with 12 Type 212CD subs. TKMS has two slips able to build the sub, and each sub is on the slip for four years. Two subs every four years, 24 subs to be ordered... you do the math.
I'm glad you are doing your own research. Can you set a source that says that the quoted piece of the article is wrong?
Also, it astound me that you're missing the fact that Canada is quickly integrating with Europe on a number of fronts.
But I suppose that's all to The good. I guess we should stop advertising the fact that we are rapidly moving away because maybe the Americans might try to stop us.
So yes, you're right, nothing to see here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2026, 06:29:47 PMI'm glad you are doing your own research. Can you set a source that says that the quoted piece of the article is wrong?
The CBC piece that I liked says just that.
QuoteAlso, it astound me that you're missing the fact that Canada is quickly integrating with Europe on a number of fronts.
Also, it astounds me that you hva e to engage in so much projection about what I miss that you pay no attention to what I am actually saying. I am not missing the fact that Canada is quickly integrating with Europe on a number of fronts, I'm applauding it (with appropriate caveats).
QuoteBut I suppose that's all to The good. I guess we should stop advertising the fact that we are rapidly moving away because maybe the Americans might try to stop us.
So yes, you're right, nothing to see here.
I think that you are exaggerating the impact of your posts on US national policy.
Discussing this with you is painful. You asked me for a source for what I was saying. I gave it to you in fact, I given it to you before you asked for it.
And now you spent all afternoon, trying to prove that what I posted, or rather quoted from globe and mail is wrong.
And frankly, I don't care that you don't understand about the shift that is going on. It's par for the course for your nation.
All these defence deals seem endlessly complicated in contracts, side benefits, etc. which I personally can't sort out, or can anyone? I understand both deals were considered very competitive but I feel like strengthening long term partnerships with Europe is a better strategic decision for Canada.
Quote from: Bauer on July 06, 2026, 10:01:53 PMAll these defence deals seem endlessly complicated in contracts, side benefits, etc. which I personally can't sort out, or can anyone? I understand both deals were considered very competitive but I feel like strengthening long term partnerships with Europe is a better strategic decision for Canada.
Yeah, right now we're just getting the high-level political justification for why one bid was selected over the other and now comes to work of actually hammering out the contract and getting the high-level sentiments forged into actual contractual language.
Prime Minister said an interesting thing and that was that if a contract can't be reached with the Germans, then the second bidder will be engaged in negotiations.
Smart business move to make sure the Germans live up to the spirit of their bid during the contract formation negotiations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2026, 09:44:44 PMDiscussing this with you is painful. You asked me for a source for what I was saying. I gave it to you in fact, I given it to you before you asked for it.
And now you spent all afternoon, trying to prove that what I posted, or rather quoted from globe and mail is wrong.
And frankly, I don't care that you don't understand about the shift that is going on. It's par for the course for your nation.
Are you having a stroke? None of this has anything to do with which countries we are from.
I asked if you had a source for the claim that the later Canadian subs would be produced in Canada, because that claim is contrary to all the reports I have seen (including the CBC report I linked). You gave a fragment of an apparent opinion piece (I say apparent because it is paywalled and so I can't access anything bar the title and the header "opinion") and insist that that is true and the actual CBC news is wrong. It is possible that the opinion writer knows something that the CBC does not, but I have no evidence of that.
I am interested in this because delivery times have always been highlighted as a serious issue in the German/Norwegian build (to the point that, for Canada to get any subs at all in the next two decade, Germany and Norway had to give up hull from their allocation.
Now, I lack your intense personal emotional commitment to a specific answer to this question, but I didn't think that any of my questions are in any way a direct threat to your emotional wellbeing. I can see that I was wrong, and so won't continue to question, on Languish, the Canadian plan and its potential pitfalls.
I hope that makes you feel better.
Here is another piece from the Globe explaining the political rationale for choosing the Germans. Again, moving closer to Europe, and away from the US.
QuoteFor those who have followed Prime Minister Mark Carney's foreign policy, it shouldn't come as a surprise that when it came time for the federal government to choose a submarine supplier, it chose the European bidder.
Mr. Carney has gone around the world looking for trade and investment. But his geopolitical leanings have tilted heavily to Europe.
He often joins leaders of major European countries in foreign-policy statements on issues such as Ukraine and the Middle East, and has signed Canada up for the European Union's SAFE military-procurement financing mechanism. Canada is also slated to host the proposed Defence, Security and Resilience Bank for North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.
After all that, it would have seemed strange to choose the non-European, non-NATO bidder for one of Canada's biggest military purchases. Particularly when Mr. Carney is on his way to this week's NATO leaders' summit in Ankara, Turkey.
Most of the European leaders he will see there are dealing with some shared problems – the demand from U.S. President Donald Trump that they beef up military spending, even as he imposes trade tariffs and threatens more. They all need other allies and defence-equipment suppliers and customers.
On Monday, Mr. Carney talked about the need for middle powers such as Canada to build "strategic autonomy through partnerships amongst the like-minded" – in other words, non-U.S. democratic allies.
A senior Trump administration official had a bit of a meltdown on X where he tried to explain that pursuing a mental power strategy was a waste of time and that everybody wants to deal with the United States because they're the bestest. So we must be on the right track.
The globe interviewed a professor to respond to the posts.
QuoteFen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Mr. Colby's outburst is an example of what he calls the United States' "current bipolar disorder," where Washington under Mr. Trump has become unreliable for allies but still demands deference and attention.
He characterized U.S. foreign policy right now as "'We want to cut you loose, but we don't want you to cut us loose.'"
The bottom line, Prof. Hampson said, is that the Trump administration can't have it both ways. "You can't say to your NATO allies, 'You're on your own,' and then complain when they go out on their own."
The Trump regime is in a classic position. They see themselves dealing with entities they think are much weaker than them, or at least not in a position to operate without them, so they issue "do what we say or GTFO" ultimatums. In their minds, the "or GTFO" is merely there to provide the illusion of choice. The correct answer is "do what we say". They then get pissy when the parties start choosing "or GTFO".
Exactly