News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.1K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.5K     0 

The Great Canadian Tariff Thread

The UK are in the process of designing a 6th gen fighter to replace the typhoon, we should get in on that. The Tempist is what it's called and Italy and Sweden are also involved. Any conflict in the future would likely be against China and / or Russia, so we will need to have the best of the best.
 
Big expensive planes are really three things:
  1. Fighter jets as a national security tool
  2. Fighter jets as an industrial policy tool
  3. Fighter jets as a trade policy tool
Obviously we want the best jets money can buy as a weapon. Some plane nerds can tell use exactly what the "best" means as it's always changing. Things like their level of tech and capability is part of this, but also their future reliability in some dark scenarios (i.e. if we are in a future trade war with the US, will they just stop maintaining the planes, putting national security at risk? Can we trust them?)

The second part is this abrupt change to a new world order of nationalist industrial policy - we might want a domestically produced airplane industry again in some capacity. Planes that can mostly or fully be built in Canada, and we get all the independence and funding recycling of all the money being spent here, the high-tech manufacturing jobs, and future options/industries that creates. If you need to invest $100B in a domestic airplane industry and $90B is spent domestically, it might be a better deal that spending only $70B of foreign planes but you only get $30B of that back through domestic spending.

And finally the planes are a trade tactic. If you aren't a reliable partner to us, why should you get a $70B+ fighter jet contract that comes will all sorts of strings and complications (i.e. we can't repair them ourselves)?

It might be that we need more than one type of plane to check all three boxes. Will this all be outrageously expensive? Absolutely - but that's the new world we live in. If you can't rely on your partners you might have to do it yourself at whatever cost it takes.
 
I've honestly always been critical of whether stealth is worth it. It requires high maintenance to keep working correctly, and radar is always getting better, especially when the US and China are actively attempting to develop radar that can identify stealth aircraft because both nations have stealth capable aircraft. Stealth aircraft also have less mounts to carry weapons, and are typically less aerodynamic and agile. We also have to think about what we're planning to do with these planes. Canada has no aircraft carriers and if our relationship with the USA is bad, will they end up mostly used to protect the homeland? Also as mentioned with a flick of a switch the US can disable much of the electronic features on the F-35 remotely.

The SAAB Gripen should have been chosen from the start. It's a capable fighter, and the production was set to be in Canada, which will give us the opportunity to develop our own military industry, which is much more of an importance now.
 
Roaring Flames said:
The SAAB Gripen should have been chosen from the start. It's a capable fighter, and the production was set to be in Canada, which will give us the opportunity to develop our own military industry, which is much more of an importance now.
Click to expand...
I think that's the opportunity. If you are going to spend tens of billions of dollars, might as well learn something along the way through the jobs, skills and tech required to build advanced planes. Perhaps position a domestic jet program as the stepping stone to a more high-tech plane and drone program.

In more normal times, military investments have terrible ROI, so just buying stuff "off the shelf" was a reasonable and economically efficient way to go. But in a world of trade wars and collapsing trust, the domestic premium looks more like a strategic asset. Won't be cheaper than in the low cost, free-trade era but might still be the better way to go - or might be the only real choice in the end anyways.
 
CBBarnett said:
I think that's the opportunity. If you are going to spend tens of billions of dollars, might as well learn something along the way through the jobs, skills and tech required to build advanced planes. Perhaps position a domestic jet program as the stepping stone to a more high-tech plane and drone program.

In more normal times, military investments have terrible ROI, so just buying stuff "off the shelf" was a reasonable and economically efficient way to go. But in a world of trade wars and collapsing trust, the domestic premium looks more like a strategic asset. Won't be cheaper than in the low cost, free-trade era but might still be the better way to go - or might be the only real choice in the end anyways.
Click to expand...
Have to keep in mind that yesterday Carney met with Zelensky and Zelensky's statement out of that meeting had a very interesting last paragraph:

Additionally, we discussed the development of bilateral relations between our countries. Canada is interested in military-industrial and defense cooperation. Throughout this war, we have gained significant experience in the production of EW systems, long-range missiles, and drones. Ukraine is ready for joint production.

Drones are our best defense in the arctic and off our coasts. The costs of putting people in the north permanently is astronomical. A drone base with minimal people is probably the way to go. Electronic Warfare (EW) is also an opportunity to start to make up for what you lose in not having a fleet of F-35s. We'll obvious still end up with some F-35s, as we spent the money and being their neighbour we cannot completely abandon the US. Diversifying away from them and into the warm embrace of Europe and other allies is the right move.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Drones are our best defense in the arctic and off our coasts.
Click to expand...
Our first line of defence (beyond 5-eyes signals intelligence) are our surveillance satellites, the RadarSAT series. The series can reimage any spot on earth once a day, and the arctic every 4-6 hours (the further north, the more passes per day). It uses a search mode to image ocean approaches and the arctic, giving weeks to months (something approaching through ice) of notice of shipping approaching Canada.
 
darwink said:
Our first line of defence (beyond 5-eyes signals intelligence) are our surveillance satellites, the RadarSAT series. The series can reimage any spot on earth once a day, and the arctic every 4-6 hours (the further north, the more passes per day). It uses a search mode to image ocean approaches and the arctic, giving weeks to months (something approaching through ice) of notice of shipping approaching Canada.
Click to expand...
Signals is one thing, but they cannot do anything about something that's there.
 
Mountain Man said:
We have planes that can carry missiles for sure, but how old are they?
Click to expand...
Continually upgraded on the inside, which is what counts. Defeats the new kids on the block in anti-submarine competitions. We're also buying new air frames, as the existing ones can only be kept in the air for so long.
 
darwink said:
We have plenty of planes that carry air to surface missiles. Canada has entirely adequate capability in the arctic.
Click to expand...

Does Canada have the missiles though?

While palletized munitions systems like rapid dragon are a game changer in turning transport planes into pseudo-bombers, its just a cage and a parachute without the munitions...

While it's sort of nice to see this wave of nu-patriotism getting more Canadians thinking about the importance of indigenous military assets, I suspect few understand the amount of work and time required to make that a reality. It's going to take well over four years for most systems.

That said, I do believe an imperial Canada might be the only effective counter to neo-imperial America. Not sure how much support that would have amongst the voting public though..
 
Roaring Flames said:
I've honestly always been critical of whether stealth is worth it. It requires high maintenance to keep working correctly, and radar is always getting better, especially when the US and China are actively attempting to develop radar that can identify stealth aircraft because both nations have stealth capable aircraft. Stealth aircraft also have less mounts to carry weapons, and are typically less aerodynamic and agile. We also have to think about what we're planning to do with these planes. Canada has no aircraft carriers and if our relationship with the USA is bad, will they end up mostly used to protect the homeland? Also as mentioned with a flick of a switch the US can disable much of the electronic features on the F-35 remotely.

The SAAB Gripen should have been chosen from the start. It's a capable fighter, and the production was set to be in Canada, which will give us the opportunity to develop our own military industry, which is much more of an importance now.
Click to expand...

I really like the gripen, for many of the same reasons, but its not exactly free of American influence..

1000006338.png
 
InfrastructureEnthusiast said:
Does Canada have the missiles though?

While palletized munitions systems like rapid dragon are a game changer in turning transport planes into pseudo-bombers, its just a cage and a parachute without the munitions...

While it's sort of nice to see this wave of nu-patriotism getting more Canadians thinking about the importance of indigenous military assets, I suspect few understand the amount of work and time required to make that a reality. It's going to take well over four years for most systems.

That said, I do believe an imperial Canada might be the only effective counter to neo-imperial America. Not sure how much support that would have amongst the voting public though..
Click to expand...
Yeah. The Aurora can and does carry Harpoons, a mid range anti-ship cruise missile. No need for any of these weird jury-rigged things. Have plenty of conventional capacity.
 
darwink said:
Yeah. The Aurora can and does carry Harpoons, a mid range anti-ship cruise missile. No need for any of these weird jury-rigged things. Have plenty of conventional capacity.
Click to expand...

These Harpoons? The American made munition that definitely doesn't have any kind of hidden kill switch that renders it useless if fired at or near American assets?

1000006349.png


I'm also not sure a prop plane with 40 year old missiles is what I'd send out to greet a Chinese destroyer.

As I said before, the change in Canadian attitudes on these matters is refreshing, but they have to be tempered with a healthy does of realism.

Most of the capability gaps are going to be near impossible to close in any reasonable amount of time...
 
Not the same, but similar. And yeah, missiles are continually upgraded. Almost 50 years old for the first iteration, and 15 years for the Block II.

Developed more recently doesn't mean better.

And yeah, I am not worried about some destroyers at the edge of their range limping through first year ice. In that situation the eventual humanitarian rescue and prevention of an oil spill is more of a concern than anything else.

As for Canada vs. USA, it matters little. Dreams of some sort of maple dawn are just that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top