Comes from England and Japan it is over. The technology is in the USA and in Israel. But then again countries already know this and deals are already made.
This whole discussion is ridiculous. If Trump is replaced by a Democrat or a RINO in less than three years, we'll all go back to being loyal little members of the global American empire. The RCAF has repeatedly supported the F-35. Shouldn't we trust the experts?
This is a generation beyond the F-35. The US equivalents are NGAD/F-47 and FA-XX. They're both going to be incredibly expensive and probably limited to the US only (like the F-22.)
This is a generation beyond the F-35. The US equivalents are NGAD/F-47 and FA-XX. They're both going to be incredibly expensive and probably limited to the US only (like the F-22.)
Apparently not, lol. The F-35 has been correctly relegated to to a "review", meaning the slooooooow-walk to a wimpering death. Who knows if we even complete the confirmed order for those outrageously expensive US controlled jets when we now see a $200m missile or drone is so much better.
Likud/Bibi have one overwhelming tool that supersedes any tech: a doctrine to dehumanize and kill an unlimited number of innocents, women and children, to get even one terrorist.
But it is OK to kill Jews, anytime, anywhere, in your view. Because, in your view, Jews must not protect themselves. Only Jew-haters, both muslim and any others may protect themselves.
and I'm far too smart for that embarrassing "anyone who criticizes Likud/Bibi" choices is an anti-semite (as are 99% of people), so stuff it.
What happened on October 7 was an abomination, and Bibi/Likud blew any goodwill by taking advantage of the situation (as all the worst politicians in the world do.)
Stuff it yourself. Yet again, in your view Jews are not permitted to defend themselves and are not permitted to create long lasting security relief for themselves. Bye.
It seems to me there are very few downsides to Canada going with the Saab Gippon airframe. The autonomy and the jobs that would be supported by a very good platform, one better suited to the Canadian climate and terrain, seems to have little downside except for perhaps some tactical issues that may be able to be addressed.
It's a small aircraft designed to a weapons paradigm from the late '70s and early '80s. A small aircraft can't carry as much payload; drag and weight from the payload affects its performance and range more; and a smaller nose means a smaller radar system with less detection range and sensitivity. It's also lacking the stealth features needed to survive modern air defenses and air combat.
I commend to you Robert Kaplan's "The Revenge of Geography"
The issues with NATO are long-standing and multi-faceted. Anyone wishing to fix them would be willing to engage in a serious discussion about the current strategic environment and how it might be jointly addressed. Such issues could include:
1. Chinese aggression via non-military means.
2. The changing nature of war as demonstrated in Ukraine and Iran.
3. Green stupidity.
4. The consequences of listening to and participating in the WEF.
At a garage sale came across a handy desktop printer made for printing tons of upvotes. Some comments are so good and of great quality that they deserve way more upvotes that they usually get. That is my way of giving them a boost so others notice that comment.
I disagree with this perspective in every possible way. First, the US is not only our border partner and neighbour, they are the world's dominant economy and military. Second, entering into a fictional "partnership" to build a brand new 6th gen fighter means an actual flying plane is a decade away or likely much longer. We cannot keep our current plane flying much longer, we already cannibalize used ones for parts. Third, how did the Iran conflict not demonstrate the utter weakness and lack of capacity of the EU and the UK? They under-armed and poorly led bureaucracies, in the same thrall as Canada with Net Zero and endless social programs. We can return to a program of competence and capacity, or we can pursue fanciful ideologies such as this.
First, we have a neighbour nobody on the street talks to because he's an asshole who makes choices that alienate everyone around him. It is what it is.
Second, we can shop for alternatives and we are.
Third... just... huh? The smart countries are sitting this one out for obvious reasons.
Your analogy is not appropriate. The US has and is making trade and defence deals globally weekly. They looked at the world, determined (as many of us have been saying for decades) that global trade and in particular China's behavior is unsustainable. And then, to the shock of the WEF global elites, did something about it. There are no alternatives, be serious. The F35 is a fully functioning and battle tested platform with wide global support. The Gripen is at least a generation behind, and any new platform will take decades. In the meantime, the US already has a 6th gen fighter done and close to testing (F47) so it will continue to lead by decades. And, continuing to piss off and not align to our neighbour is childish behavior. The "smart" ones are sitting this out because they have zero choice. Zero. We couldn't field a single ship to deploy to Hormuz if we wanted to. So, take the only road available and then whine it's the fault of the US? That gets us absolutely nowhere.
It is my recollection that way back when the F-35 was being touted it was clear that it would be hellishly costly and the US wanted to get some other countries to participate. One of those countries (again, recollection) was the country to the north of the US. Who declined immediately.
So, as for sixth generation fighter, yes it may be useful to participate. May be. The issue for me is the definition of the project, yada, yada, yada but to get to that point Canada has to pony up some cash just to be at the table.
At best such a sixth gen aircraft is considerably more than a decade away so we just cannot look to that as today's weapon. Therefore, our choices are three: 1) F-35; 2) Gripen; and 3) nothing. I immediately discard option 3) as foolish and I then discard option 2) as foolisher, leaving the F-35. I know that many folks are upset at the US but I simply say, "Get over it!"
To summarize: perhaps the sixth gen project might, possibly, maybe be useful and something in which Canada should participate but that is not a tomorrow product but a next decade (at best) project and Canada needs the F-35 now.
Well put and I think a very good summary. Our current fighter fleet is badly out of date and in poor condition. We need an option now, as you note. We also desperately need to change our procurement system from a Liberal money distribution scheme to an actual purchaser of goods. At reasonable costs and on accelerated timelines. And that goes for ships, fighters, tanks and armored vehicles and so on. We are entirely unable to defend ourselves, or the Arctic, which should enrage and offend every single Canadian.
I didn't read this article as recommending GCAS as a substitute for F-35 or Gripen as a CF-18 replacement. Instead, it *is* more of a next-gen program that'll be fielded in 10-20 years' time. And it's about time for Canada to start thinking long term: by the time you're fielding a new system, it's time to be thinking about its replacement. Instead, the Canadian approach tends be finally procuring something when the existing capability is in terminal obsolescence or wear-out, and then wait until there's no choice but to replace *that* system.
Ironically, Canada positioned itself to do something similar when it joined the JAST program in 1996 that developed into the F-35, but the Chretien government mainly viewed that as an industrial policy move for the Canadian aerospace industry to participate rather than thinking about the implication that Canada would eventually buy the fighter. Failing to recognize that Canada had effectively selected its next-gen fighter in 1996 meant 3 successive governments dithering and bickering about alternatives. The Chretien government made no commitments or plans for buying any. The Harper government mused about Super Hornets before an abortive deal to buy F-35s. The Trudeau government likewise looked at every possible alternative while getting in pissing matches with Boeing over the C200.
Ken sez: To summarize: perhaps the sixth gen project might, possibly, maybe be useful and something in which Canada should participate but that is not a tomorrow product but a next decade (at best) project and Canada needs the F-35 now.
Ken sez: To summarize: perhaps the sixth gen project might, possibly, maybe be useful and something in which Canada should participate but that is not a tomorrow product but a next decade (at best) project and Canada needs the F-35 now.
GCAP is absolutely the sort of program Canada needs to join, and would be the sort of long-term thinking that's been absent from a lot of defense planning for decades. This doesn't address the current problems of the CF-18 tactical aircraft fleet rapidly approaching wear-out, but it sets Canada up for what replaces the replacement and sustaining a capable air force over the long term.
It'd be nice to see a fighter program with a timescale of decades because they're actually *developing* something over that time rather than just seeing successive governments delay and dither over making a decision on what to buy. It'd also be an important signal to pilots serving in the RCAF that the country is committed to providing them the equipment needed to be competitive and relevant: instead of looking at a future of flying increasingly elderly aircraft and decamping for better pay in the airlines, they could see a career where they're going to be part of a force that maintains its edge.
Finally, this is a step that aligns with Mark Carney's Davos speech advocating for a coalition of "middle powers" to counter US and Chinese hegemony. Canada's a good fit to work with the UK, Japan, and Italy.
Mark Carney is a proven liar and worse, everywhere he goes. He is now temporarily in Canada, to destroy Canada. With the help of chicken wing chicken shit bullshit voters, he is succeeding.
Looking across the pond. Repeatedly protests across the EU (Ireland most recently ) over basic human rights to self determination. A closer link with Brussels and the EU is not in Canada’s best interest. A future with less freedom, isn’t what our children need. From a technological perspective AI and drones are the future. not aircraft limited by the fragile
human form. All this considered , our own course independent of the power structures that have lorded over us for hundreds of years. What Canadian wishes to be a resource colony for European interests again?
How do we become a resource colony, other than how we are a resource seller everywhere?
I agree that insanely expensive planes make little sense, however I love the idea of building economic partnerships (a.k.a. finding customers without tariffs/duties) everywhere.
"Even in the depths of the Cold War they were not adverse to doing things that were for their own benefit — even at the expense of us erstwhile allies."
When, one wonders, and since they were pushed into WWII by the Japanese, has the U.S. undertaken any exercise that was not for themselves first?
DT's nonexistent impulse control, and narcissistic self-interest resulted in a shock to our comfy construct. That the spin on U.S. hegemony and military action as some altruistic blanket of benevolence persists is mystifying.
Good column that makes us take a harder look at where we're at, and not at. Emphasis on the 'not at' part. The united states was a reliable partner once, now they are drunk at the wheel and the guy driving is buried in McDonald's garbage and ranting fake news fake news. We cannot buy from the USA any longer. It might be the economic superpower but a lot would argue that China owns that title now. Very simply, the USA can no longer be relied on. The White House is literally working from the dictator's playbook. What that ultimately looks like at the end of the day is still playing itself out.
This makes us unsafe. The times have changed and so must we. Rearming is one thing, rearming for the real damned good chance that Canada will be a theater of war that is, for me, building up a head of steam. Lots might disagree, but for me, Canada has been a shit partner and it's effing typical that a reality tv star pussy grabbing lunatic was the one to light a fire under Canada's ass.
Buy someone else's planes please. USA is closed to business and it's self inflicted. Also, lets build weapons from small arms to surface to air missiles in Canada. Let's build APC's and open the process up to anyone as well as Irving for ship building.
A domestic war industry which we currently do not possess and have not since the second world war. Time to create one. (In places other than Quebec and Ontario thank you very much.)
I agree it is good for Canada to be involved in this, and maybe even a future buyer. But I think it is very unlikely, and even unproductive, for work share to come to Canada. The existing workshare was a complex and contentious negotiation, and such a push could kill the program. I think this serves better as a hedge to ensure an alternative supplier to the US for 6th gen capabilities exist, and purchases of the fighter as leverage to increase Japanese/UK/Italian purchases of aircraft we are better suited to producing (ISF, long range drones, possible transport).
I would love to see Canada join this program. It is past time we broke the strangle hold Lockheed Martin and other US primes have on the CAF. To do so we likely need stronger rules governing the employment of senior CAF members after they retire.
By the time help
Comes from England and Japan it is over. The technology is in the USA and in Israel. But then again countries already know this and deals are already made.
This whole discussion is ridiculous. If Trump is replaced by a Democrat or a RINO in less than three years, we'll all go back to being loyal little members of the global American empire. The RCAF has repeatedly supported the F-35. Shouldn't we trust the experts?
Nah. That's over.
This is a generation beyond the F-35. The US equivalents are NGAD/F-47 and FA-XX. They're both going to be incredibly expensive and probably limited to the US only (like the F-22.)
This is a generation beyond the F-35. The US equivalents are NGAD/F-47 and FA-XX. They're both going to be incredibly expensive and probably limited to the US only (like the F-22.)
not all the RCAF does.
And shiny-object syndrome is a thing.
Are you an aerospace engineer or a pilot? If not, perhaps you should leave the discussion to the experts.
lol
Apparently not, lol. The F-35 has been correctly relegated to to a "review", meaning the slooooooow-walk to a wimpering death. Who knows if we even complete the confirmed order for those outrageously expensive US controlled jets when we now see a $200m missile or drone is so much better.
Likud/Bibi have one overwhelming tool that supersedes any tech: a doctrine to dehumanize and kill an unlimited number of innocents, women and children, to get even one terrorist.
But it is OK to kill Jews, anytime, anywhere, in your view. Because, in your view, Jews must not protect themselves. Only Jew-haters, both muslim and any others may protect themselves.
Nope,
and I'm far too smart for that embarrassing "anyone who criticizes Likud/Bibi" choices is an anti-semite (as are 99% of people), so stuff it.
What happened on October 7 was an abomination, and Bibi/Likud blew any goodwill by taking advantage of the situation (as all the worst politicians in the world do.)
Stuff it yourself. Yet again, in your view Jews are not permitted to defend themselves and are not permitted to create long lasting security relief for themselves. Bye.
Well said.
It seems to me there are very few downsides to Canada going with the Saab Gippon airframe. The autonomy and the jobs that would be supported by a very good platform, one better suited to the Canadian climate and terrain, seems to have little downside except for perhaps some tactical issues that may be able to be addressed.
It's a small aircraft designed to a weapons paradigm from the late '70s and early '80s. A small aircraft can't carry as much payload; drag and weight from the payload affects its performance and range more; and a smaller nose means a smaller radar system with less detection range and sensitivity. It's also lacking the stealth features needed to survive modern air defenses and air combat.
Well, no downsides except obsolescence before delivery. Why obsolescence? The Saab product simply cannot match the specs of the F-35.
I commend to you Robert Kaplan's "The Revenge of Geography"
The issues with NATO are long-standing and multi-faceted. Anyone wishing to fix them would be willing to engage in a serious discussion about the current strategic environment and how it might be jointly addressed. Such issues could include:
1. Chinese aggression via non-military means.
2. The changing nature of war as demonstrated in Ukraine and Iran.
3. Green stupidity.
4. The consequences of listening to and participating in the WEF.
5. The corruption and subversion of the UN.
I see none of that in your in your article.
100 upvotes.
NS, you have been handing out hundreds and hundreds of upvotes recently! Come into a lotter jackpot of upvotes?
By the way, I also liked John's post.
At a garage sale came across a handy desktop printer made for printing tons of upvotes. Some comments are so good and of great quality that they deserve way more upvotes that they usually get. That is my way of giving them a boost so others notice that comment.
Stopped reading after WEF.
I disagree with this perspective in every possible way. First, the US is not only our border partner and neighbour, they are the world's dominant economy and military. Second, entering into a fictional "partnership" to build a brand new 6th gen fighter means an actual flying plane is a decade away or likely much longer. We cannot keep our current plane flying much longer, we already cannibalize used ones for parts. Third, how did the Iran conflict not demonstrate the utter weakness and lack of capacity of the EU and the UK? They under-armed and poorly led bureaucracies, in the same thrall as Canada with Net Zero and endless social programs. We can return to a program of competence and capacity, or we can pursue fanciful ideologies such as this.
First, we have a neighbour nobody on the street talks to because he's an asshole who makes choices that alienate everyone around him. It is what it is.
Second, we can shop for alternatives and we are.
Third... just... huh? The smart countries are sitting this one out for obvious reasons.
Your analogy is not appropriate. The US has and is making trade and defence deals globally weekly. They looked at the world, determined (as many of us have been saying for decades) that global trade and in particular China's behavior is unsustainable. And then, to the shock of the WEF global elites, did something about it. There are no alternatives, be serious. The F35 is a fully functioning and battle tested platform with wide global support. The Gripen is at least a generation behind, and any new platform will take decades. In the meantime, the US already has a 6th gen fighter done and close to testing (F47) so it will continue to lead by decades. And, continuing to piss off and not align to our neighbour is childish behavior. The "smart" ones are sitting this out because they have zero choice. Zero. We couldn't field a single ship to deploy to Hormuz if we wanted to. So, take the only road available and then whine it's the fault of the US? That gets us absolutely nowhere.
Agreement and 100 upvotes.
I agree with you .... but ...
It is my recollection that way back when the F-35 was being touted it was clear that it would be hellishly costly and the US wanted to get some other countries to participate. One of those countries (again, recollection) was the country to the north of the US. Who declined immediately.
So, as for sixth generation fighter, yes it may be useful to participate. May be. The issue for me is the definition of the project, yada, yada, yada but to get to that point Canada has to pony up some cash just to be at the table.
At best such a sixth gen aircraft is considerably more than a decade away so we just cannot look to that as today's weapon. Therefore, our choices are three: 1) F-35; 2) Gripen; and 3) nothing. I immediately discard option 3) as foolish and I then discard option 2) as foolisher, leaving the F-35. I know that many folks are upset at the US but I simply say, "Get over it!"
To summarize: perhaps the sixth gen project might, possibly, maybe be useful and something in which Canada should participate but that is not a tomorrow product but a next decade (at best) project and Canada needs the F-35 now.
Well put and I think a very good summary. Our current fighter fleet is badly out of date and in poor condition. We need an option now, as you note. We also desperately need to change our procurement system from a Liberal money distribution scheme to an actual purchaser of goods. At reasonable costs and on accelerated timelines. And that goes for ships, fighters, tanks and armored vehicles and so on. We are entirely unable to defend ourselves, or the Arctic, which should enrage and offend every single Canadian.
I didn't read this article as recommending GCAS as a substitute for F-35 or Gripen as a CF-18 replacement. Instead, it *is* more of a next-gen program that'll be fielded in 10-20 years' time. And it's about time for Canada to start thinking long term: by the time you're fielding a new system, it's time to be thinking about its replacement. Instead, the Canadian approach tends be finally procuring something when the existing capability is in terminal obsolescence or wear-out, and then wait until there's no choice but to replace *that* system.
Ironically, Canada positioned itself to do something similar when it joined the JAST program in 1996 that developed into the F-35, but the Chretien government mainly viewed that as an industrial policy move for the Canadian aerospace industry to participate rather than thinking about the implication that Canada would eventually buy the fighter. Failing to recognize that Canada had effectively selected its next-gen fighter in 1996 meant 3 successive governments dithering and bickering about alternatives. The Chretien government made no commitments or plans for buying any. The Harper government mused about Super Hornets before an abortive deal to buy F-35s. The Trudeau government likewise looked at every possible alternative while getting in pissing matches with Boeing over the C200.
Ken sez: To summarize: perhaps the sixth gen project might, possibly, maybe be useful and something in which Canada should participate but that is not a tomorrow product but a next decade (at best) project and Canada needs the F-35 now.
This is correct
Ken sez: To summarize: perhaps the sixth gen project might, possibly, maybe be useful and something in which Canada should participate but that is not a tomorrow product but a next decade (at best) project and Canada needs the F-35 now.
This is correct
The program is very real, and they were building the flying demonstrator as of mid-2024. https://www.twz.com/air/tempest-stealth-fighter-flying-demonstrator-takes-shape
GCAP is absolutely the sort of program Canada needs to join, and would be the sort of long-term thinking that's been absent from a lot of defense planning for decades. This doesn't address the current problems of the CF-18 tactical aircraft fleet rapidly approaching wear-out, but it sets Canada up for what replaces the replacement and sustaining a capable air force over the long term.
It'd be nice to see a fighter program with a timescale of decades because they're actually *developing* something over that time rather than just seeing successive governments delay and dither over making a decision on what to buy. It'd also be an important signal to pilots serving in the RCAF that the country is committed to providing them the equipment needed to be competitive and relevant: instead of looking at a future of flying increasingly elderly aircraft and decamping for better pay in the airlines, they could see a career where they're going to be part of a force that maintains its edge.
Finally, this is a step that aligns with Mark Carney's Davos speech advocating for a coalition of "middle powers" to counter US and Chinese hegemony. Canada's a good fit to work with the UK, Japan, and Italy.
Mark Carney is a proven liar and worse, everywhere he goes. He is now temporarily in Canada, to destroy Canada. With the help of chicken wing chicken shit bullshit voters, he is succeeding.
Looking across the pond. Repeatedly protests across the EU (Ireland most recently ) over basic human rights to self determination. A closer link with Brussels and the EU is not in Canada’s best interest. A future with less freedom, isn’t what our children need. From a technological perspective AI and drones are the future. not aircraft limited by the fragile
human form. All this considered , our own course independent of the power structures that have lorded over us for hundreds of years. What Canadian wishes to be a resource colony for European interests again?
everything changes...
How do we become a resource colony, other than how we are a resource seller everywhere?
I agree that insanely expensive planes make little sense, however I love the idea of building economic partnerships (a.k.a. finding customers without tariffs/duties) everywhere.
"Even in the depths of the Cold War they were not adverse to doing things that were for their own benefit — even at the expense of us erstwhile allies."
When, one wonders, and since they were pushed into WWII by the Japanese, has the U.S. undertaken any exercise that was not for themselves first?
DT's nonexistent impulse control, and narcissistic self-interest resulted in a shock to our comfy construct. That the spin on U.S. hegemony and military action as some altruistic blanket of benevolence persists is mystifying.
Good column that makes us take a harder look at where we're at, and not at. Emphasis on the 'not at' part. The united states was a reliable partner once, now they are drunk at the wheel and the guy driving is buried in McDonald's garbage and ranting fake news fake news. We cannot buy from the USA any longer. It might be the economic superpower but a lot would argue that China owns that title now. Very simply, the USA can no longer be relied on. The White House is literally working from the dictator's playbook. What that ultimately looks like at the end of the day is still playing itself out.
This makes us unsafe. The times have changed and so must we. Rearming is one thing, rearming for the real damned good chance that Canada will be a theater of war that is, for me, building up a head of steam. Lots might disagree, but for me, Canada has been a shit partner and it's effing typical that a reality tv star pussy grabbing lunatic was the one to light a fire under Canada's ass.
Buy someone else's planes please. USA is closed to business and it's self inflicted. Also, lets build weapons from small arms to surface to air missiles in Canada. Let's build APC's and open the process up to anyone as well as Irving for ship building.
A domestic war industry which we currently do not possess and have not since the second world war. Time to create one. (In places other than Quebec and Ontario thank you very much.)
Nnaaahh, I will pass up on this poor idea.
As someone who spends entirely too much time commenting about fighter jets in the comments at The Line, I strongly agree with this.
I realize this is somewhat orthogonal to the main thrust of this piece…
… But I would like to see more discussion about whether Canada should be focussing less on old style fighters, and more on drones.
I agree it is good for Canada to be involved in this, and maybe even a future buyer. But I think it is very unlikely, and even unproductive, for work share to come to Canada. The existing workshare was a complex and contentious negotiation, and such a push could kill the program. I think this serves better as a hedge to ensure an alternative supplier to the US for 6th gen capabilities exist, and purchases of the fighter as leverage to increase Japanese/UK/Italian purchases of aircraft we are better suited to producing (ISF, long range drones, possible transport).
No thanks.
I would love to see Canada join this program. It is past time we broke the strangle hold Lockheed Martin and other US primes have on the CAF. To do so we likely need stronger rules governing the employment of senior CAF members after they retire.