News   Apr 03, 2020
 6.4K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8K     4 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Calgary & Alberta Economy

Another fighter fleet to complement the F35, Grippens, Eurofighters or maybe both?
The western gap is in a bomber fleet that is slightly less capable than the new B21 stealth bomber imo, but can handle the ultra long length standoff and medium length cruise missles on mass that the fast jets can only carry one per air frame. Something that can get within 1000 km without needing a huge operation to clear the path. Doesn't need to be perfect, to get over the target to drop a bunker buster, but something in between an arsenal truck like the B52 and a high end stealth of the B21.

I think Canada has a unique need for an aircraft like that to protect sea lanes at ultra long range distances (5000 km), provide an ability to independently project power and contribute meaningfully during the initial phase of a crisis, and perhaps others would buy in small numbers (Australia comes to mind, they have recognized a similar gap for a long time).

With the USA being so random, we can't count on them providing the backbone for an intervention, and the Europeans don't need a similar aircraft. So it is our niche to fill if we want it.

Also much simpler to do when we don't need to source engines from other countries. Fighters are a whole different kettle of fish.
 
There is no chance we'd develop a fighter ourselves. We don't have the engineering and manufacturing capacity to build one, unless we are just going to give away tax revenue on a pet project of no value. Drones are much more interesting and maybe that's one we partner with some more industrial countries to build. We have aerospace talent (mostly in QC), abundant energy and Germany brings the tooling and machinery.

No developing a whole new fighter is a stretch too far for Canada right now, but assembling some Swedish aero-lego should be within reach.

Given that all of their gear is developed with the harsh winter climate in mind, Sweden really should be Canada's go-to when we need to buy foreign.

Biggest downside with the gripen for Canada is its still a single engine fighter, and Canada ha so much more range to cover than the gripen was designed for.

After Pakistan's demonstrated how garbage the rafale is, pretty much leaves the typhoon as the only other dual engine friendly fighter available. Probably more of a buy than build option though.
 
The western gap is in a bomber fleet that is slightly less capable than the new B21 stealth bomber imo, but can handle the ultra long length standoff and medium length cruise missles on mass that the fast jets can only carry one per air frame. Something that can get within 1000 km without needing a huge operation to clear the path. Doesn't need to be perfect, to get over the target to drop a bunker buster, but something in between an arsenal truck like the B52 and a high end stealth of the B21.

I think Canada has a unique need for an aircraft like that to protect sea lanes at ultra long range distances (5000 km), provide an ability to independently project power and contribute meaningfully during the initial phase of a crisis, and perhaps others would buy in small numbers (Australia comes to mind, they have recognized a similar gap for a long time).

With the USA being so random, we can't count on them providing the backbone for an intervention, and the Europeans don't need a similar aircraft. So it is our niche to fill if we want it.

Also much simpler to do when we don't need to source engines from other countries. Fighters are a whole different kettle of fish.

Interesting viewpoint, seems like kamikaze stealth drones or satellites might be the easiest win?

Getting that kind of reach and range takes a lot of logistics that I'm not sure Canada could support. USAF can do what they do with bombers because they have even more flying gas stations available.
 
Interesting viewpoint, seems like kamikaze stealth drones or satellites might be the easiest win?

Getting that kind of reach and range takes a lot of logistics that I'm not sure Canada could support. USAF can do what they do with bombers because they have even more flying gas stations available.
At 3.5% of GDP spend, thinking about what capabilities we can gain is important. Right now everything can be accomodated in the 2% bucket -- the new submarines, fighter air craft, navy destroyers. What is useful to us and our likely allies, thats the next 1.5%.

Admiral Topshee (head of the navy) explained that the big capabilities we need to buy are things we can't realistically procure during the first 2 years of a conflict and that would be useful during the first two years of a conflict. Potentially, and hopefully, having those capabilities contribute to not having the conflict at all by increasing the cost of aggression, and by diversifying the deterrence further beyond the potentially unreliable and random USA.

Big opportunities coming. Realistically for our partnership with europe, we should be looking at the most energy intensive part of processes (move the processes to energy, instead of energy to the processes), and the hardest to replace processes (Canada already leads on military grade optical sensors, communications hardware and computer processors) where a single plant in europe being wiped out would wipe out 100s of production lines due to a lack of inputs.

While we might end up with some new full production lines, we shouldn't ignore the boring parts of the supply chain just because they aren't as flashy.
 
Something to bare in mind as we become more of a tech city. With a tech boom, jobs don't always follow or at least not as many as you might think for being successful.


It is reasons like tech inherently using technology to have as few workers as possible is why I'm excited more for the Aerospace sector taking off (pun intended) even more. Also, if ATCO can continue to become even more of a modular juggernaut, shipping modules across Western North America then they've got some room to grow too; especially as modular construction gets more refined and better.
 
Something to bare in mind as we become more of a tech city. With a tech boom, jobs don't always follow or at least not as many as you might think for being successful.


It is reasons like tech inherently using technology to have as few workers as possible is why I'm excited more for the Aerospace sector taking off (pun intended) even more. Also, if ATCO can continue to become even more of a modular juggernaut, shipping modules across Western North America then they've got some room to grow too; especially as modular construction gets more refined and better.
Me too. Like everyone else, I like tech, but it's fickle and can disappear as fast as it can appear. It's nice to be diversified.
 
Something to bare in mind as we become more of a tech city. With a tech boom, jobs don't always follow or at least not as many as you might think for being successful.


It is reasons like tech inherently using technology to have as few workers as possible is why I'm excited more for the Aerospace sector taking off (pun intended) even more. Also, if ATCO can continue to become even more of a modular juggernaut, shipping modules across Western North America then they've got some room to grow too; especially as modular construction gets more refined and better.
I'd argue that tech can be just as volatile as O&G. in the early 2000's tech crash, San Jose was hit hard and so were Canadian tech hubs like Ottawa and KW. I'd rather see Calgary continue to diversify its economy, with aerospace, distribution, film industry, etc increasing their share of the pie along with tech.
 
I'd argue that tech can be just as volatile as O&G. in the early 2000's tech crash, San Jose was hit hard and so were Canadian tech hubs like Ottawa and KW. I'd rather see Calgary continue to diversify its economy, with aerospace, distribution, film industry, etc increasing their share of the pie along with tech.
Agreed. Tech jobs are super fluid and can often be done from anywhere on the planet, probably more so than any other industry. Ottawa for example was a legitimate global tech hub on the 80's and 90's with R&D powerhouse BNR, and companies like Nortel, Mitel, Corel, Newbridge, Gandalf, Mosaid and Cognos all doing their R&D, support, and their manufacturing in Ottawa. Nortel had other campuses on other cities, but were heavily entrenched in Ottawa. For a while Ottawa was considered the 4th largest tech hub in the world after Silicon Valley, Tokyo and Boston area. Things changed quickly.
Ottawa's still a tech hub, but the majority of jobs now are software development related for the public sector, and far less tech jobs than cities like Tor, Van, Mtl, who also have a lot of tech jobs related to software development and support. Calgary of course is also in the same boat, and it's good to have those jobs, but also good to have other less fluid jobs.
 
Me too. Like everyone else, I like tech, but it's fickle and can disappear as fast as it can appear. It's nice to be diversified.
I'd argue that tech can be just as volatile as O&G. in the early 2000's tech crash, San Jose was hit hard and so were Canadian tech hubs like Ottawa and KW. I'd rather see Calgary continue to diversify its economy, with aerospace, distribution, film industry, etc increasing their share of the pie along with tech.
To some extent, economic diversity is a product of metropolitan size in a open, market economy. While the "lead" primary industries are great things and get all the attention (Calgary/Alberta's historical obsession on O&G is best example of this), huge swathes of economic activity come from more regular stuff that scales with population, and becomes more profitable and efficient with agglomeration. More people, more markets, more diversity, being close together is good for the economy, generating more opportunity though it's own size.

Tech is often discussed like a "lead" primary industry due to the outsized influence in culture that the VC/Silicon Valley hyper-growth mega-cap stock narrative has. But in practice, most tech jobs are often way more boring and more of a secondary service that gets imbedded within any other industry that keeps chugging along and aren't 100% correlated with the tech-specific mega-boom/busts.

Put another way, we don't need to attract the next Amazon HQ (lol that was a fun corporate scam) to have some tech job growth. Calgary might actually might be better off not relying on random unicorn bubbles of inflation and collapse to create a stable city economy - again, Calgary should know this lesson better than anyone!

Over-reliance on a single primary industry bleeds into urban development and design problems too. All our efforts to get downtown Calgary to be more attractive, vibrant and livable wouldn't have been needed to the same cost/effort if downtown was designed to be more attractive, adaptable and resilient all along. For all the benefits and drawbacks that came with it, we did what most places did - fell for the temptation to design the whole city around a single, white collar industry and listened a little too closely to office developer schemes. Now we've been at 30% office vacancy for 10 years and are spending lots of effort and money retrofitting our single-use downtown back to health.

This is why the basics are so important to insulate a city from the boom/busts - always plan and promote diversity (diversity of markets, people, industries, jobs, lifestyles all need to be supported not just the dominate primary ones), maintain an attractive quality of urban life, create sustainable levels of affordability, increase the adaptability of buildings and education systems, build a solid public transportation and infrastructure networks, improve regional and national connectivity to other population centres etc.
 
Agreed. Tech jobs are super fluid and can often be done from anywhere on the planet, probably more so than any other industry. Ottawa for example was a legitimate global tech hub on the 80's and 90's with R&D powerhouse BNR, and companies like Nortel, Mitel, Corel, Newbridge, Gandalf, Mosaid and Cognos all doing their R&D, support, and their manufacturing in Ottawa. Nortel had other campuses on other cities, but were heavily entrenched in Ottawa. For a while Ottawa was considered the 4th largest tech hub in the world after Silicon Valley, Tokyo and Boston area. Things changed quickly.
Ottawa's still a tech hub, but the majority of jobs now are software development related for the public sector, and far less tech jobs than cities like Tor, Van, Mtl, who also have a lot of tech jobs related to software development and support. Calgary of course is also in the same boat, and it's good to have those jobs, but also good to have other less fluid jobs.
While tech jobs are fluid, I don't think Ottawa's issue was tech but rather the big and well funded telecom players collapsed, and with it went the whole ecosystem. Toronto's finance industry is also supported primarily by the 5 banks, they hire lawyers, marketing, PR, sell funds for other providers, etc. If they collapsed, the financial centre status would disappear quickly too. Tech is more prone to these collapses like Oil and Gas because by its nature it is fast moving and legacy companies are eliminated unless they can reinvent themselves... like Oracle.
 

Back
Top