Btw...Global TV interviewed Gen Tom Lawson yesterday and he absolutely trashed GlobalEye. Not a positive word to say about it. I thought it was so bad I had to check his biography to see if he was a Boeing shill.
Oh yeah, Lawson does not like the Globaleye lol. I can't speak personally, but I don't think he's a Saab fan. A lot of the RCAF guys aint the biggest Globaleye fans. Isn't the platform they wanted, would be shocked if he was different.
My problem with a lot of these guys is who are there major clients these days, who are on who’s board of directors & some have retired a second time & who are paying there second pensions. While I am sure they all have great opinions I am not sure all of them are giving an honest opinion for Canada.
Can you add a bit more on why L3 Harris is really pissed at losing to Saab? What makes them think they deserved the contract? Were they surprised and thought they didn’t have the opportunity to appropriately bid or is there a sense of entitlement?
Not to be a little gossip boy but the announcement came out of nowhere. Saab had a piece of paper to celebrate lol. L3 was told like a few minutes befofe the announcement.
As I can tell, they feel a bit upset that this wasnt conveyed to them, and that what they thought was a competition was downselected eithout amy warning or consultation. It comes off a bit disrespectful and unfair that they couldn't make their case to anyone.
Thanks. I would normally say put on your big boy pants and get over it, but they have half a point. However, they should be clued in enough to realize the politics and timing behind the situation however.
For L3 also, there could be some heat over other things. They got caught up in the 35 review. Some people innthe Geds are apparently treating them as outsiders because of their American nature. Lots of drama and such. Compounding grievances and such.
My view is that L3 should have at least seen this as a possibility. If the rumors are true that we are going with a mixed fleet, we would also downselect to the Globaleye. L3 could have tried to make their case but realistically Gripen/Globaleye was a package deal from the industrial benefit perspective. If the Gripen was announced would L3 actually think they could make the case for their option on AEWC.
Per his LinkedIn Lawson has done lobbying for Lockheed Martin among others so who knows? They have to be sweating the potential loss of 50+ fighters and any move away from American dependence is terrible from their perspective.
I wish in the interviews they would ask the interviewee if they have or are presently working for any companies involved in the discussion. As a minimum they should say Tom Lawson, retired head of defence staff and deputy head of NORAD AND self employed lobbyist with clients such as….
OK. Let’s talk. Background: Line backseater in the Voodoo where we spent most of our day training vs adversaries attacking our radar and radio systems. We learned to use procedures and counter EW techniques. Moved on to instructional tour which included air combat vs fighters, various Flag exercises, working with USN’s Top Gun and USAF FWS. CF-18 squeezed me out of front line fighters, moved into dedicated EW role with 414 Sqn flying Falcon stand-off jamming, EW Voodoo and ET-33 with pods. Also squeezed in being qualified as a USAF EWO, training on the RC-135 ISR, F-4G Wild Weasel and EF-111 Raven EW systems (all in simulator cockpits).
Post flying: EW project management to modify Challenger aircraft with EA and ISR capability to support training of Air Force and navy; then moved to air staff responsible for Air Force EW projects. Final tour heading the Air Force unit responsible for programming all fleets’ EW systems with mission data files (MDFs). Supported CC-130H tanker ops during NATO air denial ops and CF-18 during ops over Kosovo. Support included updating MDFs in between missions to respond to Serbian SAM threat changes. Development of ECM techniques and RWR s/w included real world testing vs threat radars, working with 410 Sqn CF-18s as well as rigorous testing in our classified, shielded lab in the CF EW Centre in Ottawa.
So…CDSEA. In a biz jet. I love the Global 6500. Glad to see it enter the inventory to replace the Challenger and begin our AEWC role. But as for conducting EA in a hostile environment…it’s a needed capability. For years I kept an image of one of our CF-18s taxing out of Aviano for Kosovo, with an EA-6 Prowler taking off on the background. Our jets did not fly without the Prowlers on station. A Prowler abort was a mission abort. EA in support of combat operations requires stand-off-jamming (SOJ) as well as stand-in-jamming (SIJ). SIJ is a none player for a Global 6500 CDSEA. SOJ is problematic if there is an airborne threat, or a long range SAM that forces the CDSEA to orbit at too far a range, or not at all if enemy fighters are a player. The Global 6500 just isn’t agile enough or fast enough to defend itself in a high threat environment. For those missions, the CDSEA could be a CF-39 with pods. The reason EA is difficult to integrate into a biz jet is the heat generated by the power sources. Notice how they get around that problem with the Growler. The power generators are integral to the ECM pod, driven by a propeller, not internal where heat dissipation is a significant design challenge. This was our findings when trying to make the Challenger an EW platform. The engineering solution was to strip insulation from the aircraft so that the heat would be drawn from the aircraft interior through the skin of the aircraft. For an operational aircraft, that would make it an ideal IR target.
On the other hand is there a naval threat off of Canada’s coast and no enemy fighter escort? There the CDSEA can soak up electrons for the EWDB and possibly provide SOJ if it can truly stand-off outside of the naval SAM threat range. So I see a passive ISR mission for the Global 6500, but EA? Not so much.
Good context. But I'll add more from somebody still in.
What is emerging is the Canadian version of the Recce-Strike complex.
You have a set of sensors. Over the Horizon radar (AOTHR), satellites (notably the DESSP project replacing Radarsat), the Globaleye and soon CDSEA.
Then you have the emerging set of shooters. F-35s with JASSMs. River Class Destroyers with TLAMs. And HIMARS with PrSM.
Combine all of the above and you end up with a theatre level deep sense-strike complex that can put warheads on foreheads at over 300+km at a minimum. Further with naval scenarios. But also creates other options, like cyber attack through EA.
It's important to remember this platform is not meant to be a tactical SOJ. It's not a substitute for a Growler. It's first and foremost a theatre level SIGINT asset. The EA part is secondary, if we procure that functionality. Just like a Compass Call doesn't negate the need for Growlers with your strike package, CDSEA is not a substitute for a tactical SOJ/SEAD platform as part of the package in the future. It is, however, part of an emerging complex of layered sensors, shooters and effectors that can deliver at range.
Voodoo? That's so cool. My family was posted to CFB Chatham in the late '70s. Nothing beat the sound of two Voodoos taking off on a cold crisp January night when the afterburners lit.
A lot of good information there. You should repost this article with your comments, make it a bit more visible, maybe get some of this information in front of a few more people, get them to start chewing.
You highlight here one of my pet peeves with how every part of the government, but most particularly the military communicates what it thinks it want to do. Phillippe Lagasse has hit on the way that I used to communicate and develop systems. Develop the vision and then the principles that support that vision. When you have the vision and principles, the capabilities and the description of those capabilities in terms of capacity, time, and place can be described. If a capability doesn't directly support the vision and one or more principles, the capability is not required no matter how cool it is. The good part is that both the public and parliamentarians can see the vision and principles without having to to decode a slew of TLAs. I have a lot of enthusiasm for this process and think it is essential to do this exercise asap.
Nice article Noah.
Btw...Global TV interviewed Gen Tom Lawson yesterday and he absolutely trashed GlobalEye. Not a positive word to say about it. I thought it was so bad I had to check his biography to see if he was a Boeing shill.
Oh yeah, Lawson does not like the Globaleye lol. I can't speak personally, but I don't think he's a Saab fan. A lot of the RCAF guys aint the biggest Globaleye fans. Isn't the platform they wanted, would be shocked if he was different.
My problem with a lot of these guys is who are there major clients these days, who are on who’s board of directors & some have retired a second time & who are paying there second pensions. While I am sure they all have great opinions I am not sure all of them are giving an honest opinion for Canada.
This is what I was thinking last night. Lawson was gushing so much over the E-7 that I was sure he was working for Boeing.
They can’t always get what they want.
Can you add a bit more on why L3 Harris is really pissed at losing to Saab? What makes them think they deserved the contract? Were they surprised and thought they didn’t have the opportunity to appropriately bid or is there a sense of entitlement?
Not to be a little gossip boy but the announcement came out of nowhere. Saab had a piece of paper to celebrate lol. L3 was told like a few minutes befofe the announcement.
As I can tell, they feel a bit upset that this wasnt conveyed to them, and that what they thought was a competition was downselected eithout amy warning or consultation. It comes off a bit disrespectful and unfair that they couldn't make their case to anyone.
Thanks. I would normally say put on your big boy pants and get over it, but they have half a point. However, they should be clued in enough to realize the politics and timing behind the situation however.
Great article btw.
For L3 also, there could be some heat over other things. They got caught up in the 35 review. Some people innthe Geds are apparently treating them as outsiders because of their American nature. Lots of drama and such. Compounding grievances and such.
My view is that L3 should have at least seen this as a possibility. If the rumors are true that we are going with a mixed fleet, we would also downselect to the Globaleye. L3 could have tried to make their case but realistically Gripen/Globaleye was a package deal from the industrial benefit perspective. If the Gripen was announced would L3 actually think they could make the case for their option on AEWC.
Per his LinkedIn Lawson has done lobbying for Lockheed Martin among others so who knows? They have to be sweating the potential loss of 50+ fighters and any move away from American dependence is terrible from their perspective.
I wish in the interviews they would ask the interviewee if they have or are presently working for any companies involved in the discussion. As a minimum they should say Tom Lawson, retired head of defence staff and deputy head of NORAD AND self employed lobbyist with clients such as….
You raise a good point.
https://aoav.org.uk/2026/military-experts-or-arms-industry-insiders-uk-media-fails-to-disclose-defence-sector-links-in-nearly-60-of-cases/
OK. Let’s talk. Background: Line backseater in the Voodoo where we spent most of our day training vs adversaries attacking our radar and radio systems. We learned to use procedures and counter EW techniques. Moved on to instructional tour which included air combat vs fighters, various Flag exercises, working with USN’s Top Gun and USAF FWS. CF-18 squeezed me out of front line fighters, moved into dedicated EW role with 414 Sqn flying Falcon stand-off jamming, EW Voodoo and ET-33 with pods. Also squeezed in being qualified as a USAF EWO, training on the RC-135 ISR, F-4G Wild Weasel and EF-111 Raven EW systems (all in simulator cockpits).
Post flying: EW project management to modify Challenger aircraft with EA and ISR capability to support training of Air Force and navy; then moved to air staff responsible for Air Force EW projects. Final tour heading the Air Force unit responsible for programming all fleets’ EW systems with mission data files (MDFs). Supported CC-130H tanker ops during NATO air denial ops and CF-18 during ops over Kosovo. Support included updating MDFs in between missions to respond to Serbian SAM threat changes. Development of ECM techniques and RWR s/w included real world testing vs threat radars, working with 410 Sqn CF-18s as well as rigorous testing in our classified, shielded lab in the CF EW Centre in Ottawa.
So…CDSEA. In a biz jet. I love the Global 6500. Glad to see it enter the inventory to replace the Challenger and begin our AEWC role. But as for conducting EA in a hostile environment…it’s a needed capability. For years I kept an image of one of our CF-18s taxing out of Aviano for Kosovo, with an EA-6 Prowler taking off on the background. Our jets did not fly without the Prowlers on station. A Prowler abort was a mission abort. EA in support of combat operations requires stand-off-jamming (SOJ) as well as stand-in-jamming (SIJ). SIJ is a none player for a Global 6500 CDSEA. SOJ is problematic if there is an airborne threat, or a long range SAM that forces the CDSEA to orbit at too far a range, or not at all if enemy fighters are a player. The Global 6500 just isn’t agile enough or fast enough to defend itself in a high threat environment. For those missions, the CDSEA could be a CF-39 with pods. The reason EA is difficult to integrate into a biz jet is the heat generated by the power sources. Notice how they get around that problem with the Growler. The power generators are integral to the ECM pod, driven by a propeller, not internal where heat dissipation is a significant design challenge. This was our findings when trying to make the Challenger an EW platform. The engineering solution was to strip insulation from the aircraft so that the heat would be drawn from the aircraft interior through the skin of the aircraft. For an operational aircraft, that would make it an ideal IR target.
On the other hand is there a naval threat off of Canada’s coast and no enemy fighter escort? There the CDSEA can soak up electrons for the EWDB and possibly provide SOJ if it can truly stand-off outside of the naval SAM threat range. So I see a passive ISR mission for the Global 6500, but EA? Not so much.
Good context. But I'll add more from somebody still in.
What is emerging is the Canadian version of the Recce-Strike complex.
You have a set of sensors. Over the Horizon radar (AOTHR), satellites (notably the DESSP project replacing Radarsat), the Globaleye and soon CDSEA.
Then you have the emerging set of shooters. F-35s with JASSMs. River Class Destroyers with TLAMs. And HIMARS with PrSM.
Combine all of the above and you end up with a theatre level deep sense-strike complex that can put warheads on foreheads at over 300+km at a minimum. Further with naval scenarios. But also creates other options, like cyber attack through EA.
It's important to remember this platform is not meant to be a tactical SOJ. It's not a substitute for a Growler. It's first and foremost a theatre level SIGINT asset. The EA part is secondary, if we procure that functionality. Just like a Compass Call doesn't negate the need for Growlers with your strike package, CDSEA is not a substitute for a tactical SOJ/SEAD platform as part of the package in the future. It is, however, part of an emerging complex of layered sensors, shooters and effectors that can deliver at range.
Voodoo? That's so cool. My family was posted to CFB Chatham in the late '70s. Nothing beat the sound of two Voodoos taking off on a cold crisp January night when the afterburners lit.
A lot of good information there. You should repost this article with your comments, make it a bit more visible, maybe get some of this information in front of a few more people, get them to start chewing.
Those renderings of the 6500 in your article remind me of a the AEW Nimrod of the 80s with big nose and rear end.
You highlight here one of my pet peeves with how every part of the government, but most particularly the military communicates what it thinks it want to do. Phillippe Lagasse has hit on the way that I used to communicate and develop systems. Develop the vision and then the principles that support that vision. When you have the vision and principles, the capabilities and the description of those capabilities in terms of capacity, time, and place can be described. If a capability doesn't directly support the vision and one or more principles, the capability is not required no matter how cool it is. The good part is that both the public and parliamentarians can see the vision and principles without having to to decode a slew of TLAs. I have a lot of enthusiasm for this process and think it is essential to do this exercise asap.
https://substack.com/@debatingdefence/note/c-267201705?r=x56vk