Phenomenal piece Noah. These pieces are the closest thing to a coherent explanation I've seen of the outlook and plans through the 2030s. And it's something all the staff at Carling are still grappling with. You're not far behind them in your understanding.
A very good article and the graphs helped much. I even understand much of it. From what I interpret here is a fully sovereign defence concept with a carve out for NORAD.
Can I assume these systems do not link with similar US systems? Given today’s environment I hope so. It would be interesting if any purchase of Gripen aircraft would require a modified data link or interoperability to the F35’s MADL. To me, that would fall under the NORAD carve out.
Yeah. MADL has always been an issue for any potential Gripen buy(along with ge engines)and Globaleye as well. It’s a literal Trump card for the Americans to get what they want. They basically own the Gripen. Best case they get on board with mixed cdn fighter fleet (which means full f35 buy + Gripen) and back that decision and help with MADL integration or they play hard ball. I’m guessing hardball. The US administration is basically a packed stadium of a-holes. I’m thinking MADL may be a no-go which complicates things. As always I believe that the trade talks will be a determining factor in how this all shakes out. We shall see.
MADL happened because the rest of NATO refused to invest in developing technology and standards for next-gen datalinks. And that's still true today. A lot of Canadians may wish for magical alternatives. But they don't exist. Datalinks are just one well known piece. There's foundational technologies and standards that were only ever invested in and developed by the US.
Part of the problem here is exactly discussions like we're having right now. All of the focus is on big ticket items like jets and ships. Nobody wants the thankless job of developing new datalinks. And I am guessing before problems with Trump, neither of you two knew what datalinks were. Paradoxically, running a defence policy based on emotional reactions to the latest outburst from the south won't actually yield the kind of independence you hope for.
True….there are no magical alternatives. And that’s the problem. Everybody refused to invest in the enabling technologies such as next-gen datalinks. Why? Because we were happy to the let the US do all the heavy lifting. And here we are today where these past decisions are coming home to roost. Sure big shiny objects do get most of the attention simply bc of their size and cost but i am aware that all of this hardware requires a myriad of other things to make everything work. As to the emotional reaction…guilty as charged. And running US defence policy based on the emotional reactions of the US president will lead to the independence that i hope for? We should make efforts wherever possible and over time to decrease our dependence on the US. The world has changed and it’s exactly this type of shock to the system that necessitates that we change with it.
You make good points! Yes, my knowledge of datalinks before the whole “let’s get Canada” movement was very poor. And your point of NATO and us thinking “let the Americans do it”, we’ll stay out of it and everyone is happy. Until Trump.
For my uninformed take, as a matter of sovereignty (however defined), I want a reasonable reset of defence and especially NORAD matters. If our contribution is MADL, continental links with interoperability, read AEGIS, so be it.
Notwithstanding the naivety on my part, I believe we need some great independence regarding choosing our own firearms in a potential North American gunfight. Some smart person, somewhere, a heretofore unrecognized techie, will figure out some data means of talking between separate systems.
> I believe we need some great independence regarding choosing our own firearms in a potential North American gunfight
Then pony up and make a multi-decade committment. There is only one country in NATO that truly thinks this way: France.
The conventional Canadian retort these days: "Buy Gripen" is beyond childish. A plane with an American engine, carrying mostly American made munition, using American standard datalinks (Link 16 is based on US MIL-STD) and chocked full of other ITAR'd components is not sovereign in anything but name. A Rafale on the other hand.....
Saab's marketing campaign has been incredible. They've convinced a lot of rubes that a play for business on their part, largely based on providing lower quality assembly work (that our industry don't want) is some kind of sovereignty play.
The French didn't even bother offering anything. Because they know that sovereignty isn't actually the issue. Jobs are. And those are jobs they don't want to give away. If you really care about a sovereign alternative to the US, they know you'll buy Rafales and you'll take a hit on the jobs too.
I will believe that Canadians care about sovereignty in defence when we stop talking about buying Gripens and start talking about buying Meteors, ASRAAMs, Storm Shadows, Milans, etc.
A lot of this is true. France made a decision long ago and now call their own shots. It didn’t happen overnight thou. We may not be building them but we did just make a multi-decade commitment to procure submarines which will bring its own set of opportunities to Cdn industry not to mention filling a rather large capability gap.
As I don’t generally think of myself as a “rube”, thou some might disagree, I therefore take issue with some of your Gripen comments. I have advocated for a mixed fleet for a number of reasons but the biggie is the extraordinarily poor readiness rate of the f35. It is dismal which is why I believe a case can be made for the Swedish fighter. As a practical
matter, I don’t think it makes sense for the CAF to run a fleet that only ever has 30 or so fighters of any kind available and mission ready. Firstly Saab has offered to build a data centre here containing mission profiles etc under Canadian control. Secondly we get to assemble them ourselves(with the benefit of full ip transfer) and to say our industry doesn’t want the work isn’t true. They do. And it’s a start. And we get some workhorse jets for domestic and arctic defence instead of solely relying on an f35 fleet which will only have 36 mission ready jets available at any given time based on all available data from the global user base. Thirdly we can deepen our partnership with Sweden/Saab which would likely lead to tie-ins with Bombardier developing CCA’s for our fleet.
Of course the U.S. can block this if they choose to do so and there ain’t a damn thing we can do about it. Normally that possibility would be seen as utterly ridiculous. Not anymore. For me, the sensible path is F-35 + Gripen.
However, another viable and perhaps more likely option may be to go all in on GCAP and make do with whatever f35s we end up with and just keep moving forward.
There is no magic bullet here.
Only the promise of starting down a new road. But we at least have to choose to go down it.
I agree with your statements regarding Gripen. The future acquisitions of possibly both aircraft in addition to GCAP observer status and its timelines must be considered. The CF18 as modernized to 4.5 standards relies on its tired “chassis” and will deserve a long period of rest. Most current allied fighters are at 4.5 standards as well, I believe. So Gripen fits into this framework.
The RCAF needs timely action. I for one am not in favour of further subservient links to US military or defence aircraft producers. NORAD notwithstanding.
And subsequent to this mess with US trade and tariff actions, I am certainly not interested in their 6th gen “FU-47”.
I thank you two commenters for this polite discussion. Out.
Given the six gen platforms on the horizon perhaps the time to invest in a European datalink alternative has arrived ? Heck it’s probably being worked on as we speak. Big job and big investments required. But the strategic capability may demand it.
European alternatives to what? And invest in what?
The Europeans don't need our investment to build anything. They'll take it, if it's free money. But they don't need it to greenlight anything. And our DPS is clear that investment is focused on maximizing economic return and jobs inside Canada. It's not some anti-American document. Whoever creates the most jobs in Canada gets the contract. Sometimes that will be an European OEM. Other times an American OEM.
On the space side. We have some unique potential because of our geography and economic size. So we'll actually be ahead of Europe in some areas and they'll be a client or minority partner for some ISR and satcom projects.
My bad…I was referring to a European alternative to US datalinks(edited previous post). I’m not suggesting we develop next-gen datalinks by ourselves but with our European partners taking the lead. Datalinks are just one part of this. It’s the entire ecosystem(combat cloud, satcom, etc) that will be required in the future to feed data to all these weapon systems(6gen fighters). I’m talking partnerships and shared ip where possible. Trump may be the catalyst but making the investments in the technology required for an alternative next-gen datalink makes sense particularly as Canada and its allies are in the process of making generational investments in defence. As to the DPS, I have no problem with a balanced approach as it relates to procurement in fact it’s the only way forward right now. Canada has a lot to offer and we have an opportunity to chart a new course with greater independence moving forward. This can’t be done overnight and will require deep commitment over the next 30 years. I think we can do it.
Phenomenal piece Noah. These pieces are the closest thing to a coherent explanation I've seen of the outlook and plans through the 2030s. And it's something all the staff at Carling are still grappling with. You're not far behind them in your understanding.
A very good article and the graphs helped much. I even understand much of it. From what I interpret here is a fully sovereign defence concept with a carve out for NORAD.
Can I assume these systems do not link with similar US systems? Given today’s environment I hope so. It would be interesting if any purchase of Gripen aircraft would require a modified data link or interoperability to the F35’s MADL. To me, that would fall under the NORAD carve out.
Yeah. MADL has always been an issue for any potential Gripen buy(along with ge engines)and Globaleye as well. It’s a literal Trump card for the Americans to get what they want. They basically own the Gripen. Best case they get on board with mixed cdn fighter fleet (which means full f35 buy + Gripen) and back that decision and help with MADL integration or they play hard ball. I’m guessing hardball. The US administration is basically a packed stadium of a-holes. I’m thinking MADL may be a no-go which complicates things. As always I believe that the trade talks will be a determining factor in how this all shakes out. We shall see.
MADL happened because the rest of NATO refused to invest in developing technology and standards for next-gen datalinks. And that's still true today. A lot of Canadians may wish for magical alternatives. But they don't exist. Datalinks are just one well known piece. There's foundational technologies and standards that were only ever invested in and developed by the US.
Part of the problem here is exactly discussions like we're having right now. All of the focus is on big ticket items like jets and ships. Nobody wants the thankless job of developing new datalinks. And I am guessing before problems with Trump, neither of you two knew what datalinks were. Paradoxically, running a defence policy based on emotional reactions to the latest outburst from the south won't actually yield the kind of independence you hope for.
True….there are no magical alternatives. And that’s the problem. Everybody refused to invest in the enabling technologies such as next-gen datalinks. Why? Because we were happy to the let the US do all the heavy lifting. And here we are today where these past decisions are coming home to roost. Sure big shiny objects do get most of the attention simply bc of their size and cost but i am aware that all of this hardware requires a myriad of other things to make everything work. As to the emotional reaction…guilty as charged. And running US defence policy based on the emotional reactions of the US president will lead to the independence that i hope for? We should make efforts wherever possible and over time to decrease our dependence on the US. The world has changed and it’s exactly this type of shock to the system that necessitates that we change with it.
Mr. Baranowski, I believe we were formulating our responses at the same time! The chickens have come home to roost, indeed.
Agreed.
You make good points! Yes, my knowledge of datalinks before the whole “let’s get Canada” movement was very poor. And your point of NATO and us thinking “let the Americans do it”, we’ll stay out of it and everyone is happy. Until Trump.
For my uninformed take, as a matter of sovereignty (however defined), I want a reasonable reset of defence and especially NORAD matters. If our contribution is MADL, continental links with interoperability, read AEGIS, so be it.
Notwithstanding the naivety on my part, I believe we need some great independence regarding choosing our own firearms in a potential North American gunfight. Some smart person, somewhere, a heretofore unrecognized techie, will figure out some data means of talking between separate systems.
> I believe we need some great independence regarding choosing our own firearms in a potential North American gunfight
Then pony up and make a multi-decade committment. There is only one country in NATO that truly thinks this way: France.
The conventional Canadian retort these days: "Buy Gripen" is beyond childish. A plane with an American engine, carrying mostly American made munition, using American standard datalinks (Link 16 is based on US MIL-STD) and chocked full of other ITAR'd components is not sovereign in anything but name. A Rafale on the other hand.....
Saab's marketing campaign has been incredible. They've convinced a lot of rubes that a play for business on their part, largely based on providing lower quality assembly work (that our industry don't want) is some kind of sovereignty play.
The French didn't even bother offering anything. Because they know that sovereignty isn't actually the issue. Jobs are. And those are jobs they don't want to give away. If you really care about a sovereign alternative to the US, they know you'll buy Rafales and you'll take a hit on the jobs too.
I will believe that Canadians care about sovereignty in defence when we stop talking about buying Gripens and start talking about buying Meteors, ASRAAMs, Storm Shadows, Milans, etc.
A lot of this is true. France made a decision long ago and now call their own shots. It didn’t happen overnight thou. We may not be building them but we did just make a multi-decade commitment to procure submarines which will bring its own set of opportunities to Cdn industry not to mention filling a rather large capability gap.
As I don’t generally think of myself as a “rube”, thou some might disagree, I therefore take issue with some of your Gripen comments. I have advocated for a mixed fleet for a number of reasons but the biggie is the extraordinarily poor readiness rate of the f35. It is dismal which is why I believe a case can be made for the Swedish fighter. As a practical
matter, I don’t think it makes sense for the CAF to run a fleet that only ever has 30 or so fighters of any kind available and mission ready. Firstly Saab has offered to build a data centre here containing mission profiles etc under Canadian control. Secondly we get to assemble them ourselves(with the benefit of full ip transfer) and to say our industry doesn’t want the work isn’t true. They do. And it’s a start. And we get some workhorse jets for domestic and arctic defence instead of solely relying on an f35 fleet which will only have 36 mission ready jets available at any given time based on all available data from the global user base. Thirdly we can deepen our partnership with Sweden/Saab which would likely lead to tie-ins with Bombardier developing CCA’s for our fleet.
Of course the U.S. can block this if they choose to do so and there ain’t a damn thing we can do about it. Normally that possibility would be seen as utterly ridiculous. Not anymore. For me, the sensible path is F-35 + Gripen.
However, another viable and perhaps more likely option may be to go all in on GCAP and make do with whatever f35s we end up with and just keep moving forward.
There is no magic bullet here.
Only the promise of starting down a new road. But we at least have to choose to go down it.
I agree with your statements regarding Gripen. The future acquisitions of possibly both aircraft in addition to GCAP observer status and its timelines must be considered. The CF18 as modernized to 4.5 standards relies on its tired “chassis” and will deserve a long period of rest. Most current allied fighters are at 4.5 standards as well, I believe. So Gripen fits into this framework.
The RCAF needs timely action. I for one am not in favour of further subservient links to US military or defence aircraft producers. NORAD notwithstanding.
And subsequent to this mess with US trade and tariff actions, I am certainly not interested in their 6th gen “FU-47”.
I thank you two commenters for this polite discussion. Out.
A lot of SATCOM projects are bandwidth purchased from the US. We can't afford to build global networks on our own.
Given the six gen platforms on the horizon perhaps the time to invest in a European datalink alternative has arrived ? Heck it’s probably being worked on as we speak. Big job and big investments required. But the strategic capability may demand it.
European alternatives to what? And invest in what?
The Europeans don't need our investment to build anything. They'll take it, if it's free money. But they don't need it to greenlight anything. And our DPS is clear that investment is focused on maximizing economic return and jobs inside Canada. It's not some anti-American document. Whoever creates the most jobs in Canada gets the contract. Sometimes that will be an European OEM. Other times an American OEM.
On the space side. We have some unique potential because of our geography and economic size. So we'll actually be ahead of Europe in some areas and they'll be a client or minority partner for some ISR and satcom projects.
My bad…I was referring to a European alternative to US datalinks(edited previous post). I’m not suggesting we develop next-gen datalinks by ourselves but with our European partners taking the lead. Datalinks are just one part of this. It’s the entire ecosystem(combat cloud, satcom, etc) that will be required in the future to feed data to all these weapon systems(6gen fighters). I’m talking partnerships and shared ip where possible. Trump may be the catalyst but making the investments in the technology required for an alternative next-gen datalink makes sense particularly as Canada and its allies are in the process of making generational investments in defence. As to the DPS, I have no problem with a balanced approach as it relates to procurement in fact it’s the only way forward right now. Canada has a lot to offer and we have an opportunity to chart a new course with greater independence moving forward. This can’t be done overnight and will require deep commitment over the next 30 years. I think we can do it.
Thank you for the information!