Get lots of rest! Unfortunately, an Aviation Week article it’s behind a paywall but they report Bombardier is looking for an in country - ours - modification site for the 6500 series for GlobalEye installation.
Reading up on the A1, A2, A3 it really saddens me to think how far behind Canada is on some of this technology and how much catching up we have to do. I think it's absolutely imperative that we partner with like-minded countries like Sweden to help us bridge the gap. The fact that the Swedes are so eager to do business with us just seems like an opportunity we can't afford to pass up...GlobalEye should just be the appetizer
...and I haven't even finished reading the rest of the article yet...... 🤔
I think is all the more reason to go with a Mixed-Fleet, like 60 F35, and 60-70 Gripens. It makes so much sense from an industrial standpoint, an intellectual property standpoint, and being able help develop an aircraft suited to our needs. Going Gripen > CCA > 6th Gen fighter is just so logical.
All the more reason to have a dual fighter fleet - at least 65 Gripen to add to 65 ish (or a bit less) F-35s.
Build Gripen today, build CCA tomorrow, & use that partnership with Saab, as the bigger / moneybags partner, to guide the requirements definition for future developments. Just like a major G7 nation / NATO partner should be doing. (For the GCAP fans, great concept, but we will only ever be a minor player in that team, relegated to maybe supplying parts others don't feel to be sufficiently high value....)
I have a feeling Noah might have some interesting things to share regarding Gripen+CCA and Sweden in general over the coming days. Or at least I hope he does. We all know they are eager for Canada to join their burgeoning Gripen business. And sooner rather than later. Alas the deteriorating US trade situation adds a whole new dimension to these decisions. The window to get back to the bargaining table is narrowing but is still possible for a few more weeks. As things stand right now today I believe Trump would loudly declare his intention to block any Canadian order for Gripens. None of it will make any sense of course but his capacity for spite is kinda off the charts. Hell… he might even say we can’t have the f35 either. The man has no common sense whatsoever. Having said all that I’m still thinking this all gets resolved in the next two weeks and all this bluster is just noise. There are no winners here just bad outcomes for everybody.
I suee hope something finally gets announced. The USA blocking thr Gripen though.... Especially if we are still buying F-35s, would be a tremendous own-goal. It would validate our need to move further away from US ITAR equipment (so even further away the Gripen), & it would accelerate that move - by any means necessary. If they block even their continental partners... It would also scare away the europeans & other partners that are already having second thoughts.
That being said... Do I think the US admin is thinking about long term consequences? No... Not really. 😒
We could just go ahead and announce a Gripen order and essentially dare the US to block it while simultaneously proceeding with up to 88 f-35 as per the contract. Maybe it’s 50, 60, 70 or whatever we damn well decide within the bounds of the contract. We all know why invoking ITAR and kiboshing a Cdn order would be self-defeating but it would at least provide some clarity to Canada and our allies.
40ish F35 and 40ish Gripens built/assembled in Canada would mean our aerospace industry would have our fingers in both pies. But I seriously think the current US administration would pull the ITAR card on us in regards to the Gripen.
If we buy 65 F-35s, it is very hard for them to pull the ITAR & other cards, as that is what the GoC (under Harper) originally said we needed to fulfill our NORAD & other commitments. So buying a complementary fighter fleet would be a bonus on top of that.
& If they were to pull the ITAR card on the RCAF purchasing jets (either F-35 or Gripen)... It would simply confirm that moving to another partner is the right choice... & that we would need to dramatically accelerate that move.
We are going to struggle with anything more than 80 fighters, both pilot and maintainers. Plus the F35 throws more into the mix, a much higher physical and cypersecurity network around the aircraft. We are just grappling with the reality that our current airbase security infrastructure is nowhere near enough.
My gripe with this argument for personnel, is to suggest that the CAF is unable to grow in size, particularly the RCAF… and yet, the argument seems to only apply to Gripen conversations as we add entire fleets of other new aircraft, and no one raises the pilot and technicians issue? Recruiting pilots and technicians is 100% a solvable problem. We could put more money into the training pipeline and expand our schools, we could triple pilot pay, hell in extreme cases we could CONSCRIPT pilots and technicians if it was really a priority. I see it as a challenge, not something that should stop us.
This is indeed something I've found frustrating. Mixed fleets of Helos, MPA & AEW aircraft etc don't seem to raise anyone's attention regarding personnel & training pipelines. But fighters? Ooh boy, everyone (esp. RCAF) piles out of the woodwork to say it can't be done.
Even worse, I've seen more than a few argue that the Fighter pilot training is so long & capacity constrained that it takes 10 years to train a pilot, & it would take 10-15 years to increasee our limited capacity. My question then is... What happens in a conflict? Are we stuck with our ~100 fighter pilots & no way to increase that, unless the war lasts 10 years? What happens to capacity if we lose a couple fighters, trainers or pilots? Does the RCAF have no plans at all, & no flexibility at all to increae throughput for contingencies? That is the part that scares me from all these fighter discussions. & The part that Gripen could actually fix - buy forcing the RCAF to build capacity & flexibility now, rather than once missiles are already flying & pilots are dying...
Bingo. And I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer from anyone on that question; which tells me it’s a bullshit problem thrown up by folks who “just don’t want it”, rather than having an actual reason.
Won't argue that increasing the number of fighters, & types will be a challenge... But I think it is a necessary one, especially if we have ambitions to contributing to NATO & global security... Current 88 F-35 force was something like NORAD commitment plus a 6-pack for NATO/Expeditionary. We need to look at rxpanding the RCAF commensurate with Army & RCN. Having 2 types is also a great hedge against technical or cyber issues grounding any 1 platform.
As for Cyber... Yes I understand F-35 comes with a lot of infrastructure & cyber security requirements. It also has fundamental vulnerabilities, given the amount of (mandatory) data interchange between user nations & the US & Lockmart.
Get lots of rest! Unfortunately, an Aviation Week article it’s behind a paywall but they report Bombardier is looking for an in country - ours - modification site for the 6500 series for GlobalEye installation.
Reading up on the A1, A2, A3 it really saddens me to think how far behind Canada is on some of this technology and how much catching up we have to do. I think it's absolutely imperative that we partner with like-minded countries like Sweden to help us bridge the gap. The fact that the Swedes are so eager to do business with us just seems like an opportunity we can't afford to pass up...GlobalEye should just be the appetizer
...and I haven't even finished reading the rest of the article yet...... 🤔
I think is all the more reason to go with a Mixed-Fleet, like 60 F35, and 60-70 Gripens. It makes so much sense from an industrial standpoint, an intellectual property standpoint, and being able help develop an aircraft suited to our needs. Going Gripen > CCA > 6th Gen fighter is just so logical.
All the more reason to have a dual fighter fleet - at least 65 Gripen to add to 65 ish (or a bit less) F-35s.
Build Gripen today, build CCA tomorrow, & use that partnership with Saab, as the bigger / moneybags partner, to guide the requirements definition for future developments. Just like a major G7 nation / NATO partner should be doing. (For the GCAP fans, great concept, but we will only ever be a minor player in that team, relegated to maybe supplying parts others don't feel to be sufficiently high value....)
I have a feeling Noah might have some interesting things to share regarding Gripen+CCA and Sweden in general over the coming days. Or at least I hope he does. We all know they are eager for Canada to join their burgeoning Gripen business. And sooner rather than later. Alas the deteriorating US trade situation adds a whole new dimension to these decisions. The window to get back to the bargaining table is narrowing but is still possible for a few more weeks. As things stand right now today I believe Trump would loudly declare his intention to block any Canadian order for Gripens. None of it will make any sense of course but his capacity for spite is kinda off the charts. Hell… he might even say we can’t have the f35 either. The man has no common sense whatsoever. Having said all that I’m still thinking this all gets resolved in the next two weeks and all this bluster is just noise. There are no winners here just bad outcomes for everybody.
I suee hope something finally gets announced. The USA blocking thr Gripen though.... Especially if we are still buying F-35s, would be a tremendous own-goal. It would validate our need to move further away from US ITAR equipment (so even further away the Gripen), & it would accelerate that move - by any means necessary. If they block even their continental partners... It would also scare away the europeans & other partners that are already having second thoughts.
That being said... Do I think the US admin is thinking about long term consequences? No... Not really. 😒
We could just go ahead and announce a Gripen order and essentially dare the US to block it while simultaneously proceeding with up to 88 f-35 as per the contract. Maybe it’s 50, 60, 70 or whatever we damn well decide within the bounds of the contract. We all know why invoking ITAR and kiboshing a Cdn order would be self-defeating but it would at least provide some clarity to Canada and our allies.
40ish F35 and 40ish Gripens built/assembled in Canada would mean our aerospace industry would have our fingers in both pies. But I seriously think the current US administration would pull the ITAR card on us in regards to the Gripen.
If we buy 65 F-35s, it is very hard for them to pull the ITAR & other cards, as that is what the GoC (under Harper) originally said we needed to fulfill our NORAD & other commitments. So buying a complementary fighter fleet would be a bonus on top of that.
& If they were to pull the ITAR card on the RCAF purchasing jets (either F-35 or Gripen)... It would simply confirm that moving to another partner is the right choice... & that we would need to dramatically accelerate that move.
We are going to struggle with anything more than 80 fighters, both pilot and maintainers. Plus the F35 throws more into the mix, a much higher physical and cypersecurity network around the aircraft. We are just grappling with the reality that our current airbase security infrastructure is nowhere near enough.
My gripe with this argument for personnel, is to suggest that the CAF is unable to grow in size, particularly the RCAF… and yet, the argument seems to only apply to Gripen conversations as we add entire fleets of other new aircraft, and no one raises the pilot and technicians issue? Recruiting pilots and technicians is 100% a solvable problem. We could put more money into the training pipeline and expand our schools, we could triple pilot pay, hell in extreme cases we could CONSCRIPT pilots and technicians if it was really a priority. I see it as a challenge, not something that should stop us.
This is indeed something I've found frustrating. Mixed fleets of Helos, MPA & AEW aircraft etc don't seem to raise anyone's attention regarding personnel & training pipelines. But fighters? Ooh boy, everyone (esp. RCAF) piles out of the woodwork to say it can't be done.
Even worse, I've seen more than a few argue that the Fighter pilot training is so long & capacity constrained that it takes 10 years to train a pilot, & it would take 10-15 years to increasee our limited capacity. My question then is... What happens in a conflict? Are we stuck with our ~100 fighter pilots & no way to increase that, unless the war lasts 10 years? What happens to capacity if we lose a couple fighters, trainers or pilots? Does the RCAF have no plans at all, & no flexibility at all to increae throughput for contingencies? That is the part that scares me from all these fighter discussions. & The part that Gripen could actually fix - buy forcing the RCAF to build capacity & flexibility now, rather than once missiles are already flying & pilots are dying...
Bingo. And I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer from anyone on that question; which tells me it’s a bullshit problem thrown up by folks who “just don’t want it”, rather than having an actual reason.
Won't argue that increasing the number of fighters, & types will be a challenge... But I think it is a necessary one, especially if we have ambitions to contributing to NATO & global security... Current 88 F-35 force was something like NORAD commitment plus a 6-pack for NATO/Expeditionary. We need to look at rxpanding the RCAF commensurate with Army & RCN. Having 2 types is also a great hedge against technical or cyber issues grounding any 1 platform.
As for Cyber... Yes I understand F-35 comes with a lot of infrastructure & cyber security requirements. It also has fundamental vulnerabilities, given the amount of (mandatory) data interchange between user nations & the US & Lockmart.