|
|
|
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
EBT
Active Member
Instead of cheap insults why don't you tell me why Canada needs to buy HIMARS? We should not be buying military equipment that cannot conceivably be used for the defense of the Canadian mainland. Now I could make a case for long range missiles, but I wouldn't be buying them from the United States because they would be for the sole purpose of defending against the United States.
Yes, NATO countries are sucker nations. Trump has declared economic war on ALL America's "allies". No NATO country is immune and what is the response from NATO? To spend billions on American military equipment to give to Ukraine so the US can continue to prosecute its proxy war against Russia. This is handing Trump a big win-win. He can satisfy the hawks in his party who don't won't the war to stop while pacifying the large block of his supporters who oppose sending US tax dollars to Ukraine.
picard102
Senior Member
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I’m willing to give the Koreans fair shakes. Did Poland make a mistake with their recent Korean buy of K2 Black Panther tanks, K9 Thunder howitzers, FA-50 fighter jets, K239 Chunmoo MLRS, etc? Or Peru, did they make a mistake with their 2024 contract to buy half a billion in warships from HD Hyundai Heavy Industries? Their KAI KF-21 Boramae looks to be top drawer - maybe a better value than the F-35 (not that it's on the table).
If I was HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, I'd ask for permission from both Korea and Canada to sail my latest KSS-III submarine, the ROKS Shin Chae-ho from Korea, across the Northwest Passage to Halifax with a small group of RCN submariners and procurement types aboard. By next month the NWT Passage will be closed to shipping due to ice, and such a transit would demonstrate the KSS-III's AIP, arctic, habitation and long range capabilities. That's of course if Korea can lose a sub for a couple of months.
Last edited:
guavadelic
Active Member
You won't find many detractors of the quality of South Korea's military products. But it's one thing to invest in buying Tanks and Howitzers, and another in commiting to buy submarines. You'll be establishing a relationship for the next 50 years and relying on a supply chain that'll depend on peace in the Korean penunsila.
A lot of that can be mitigated by on-shoring a good chunk of the production but it's still a risk.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Same goes for buying from the Germans. Is Germany at greater risk of war with Russia than Korea with China? They both seem as likely or unlikely to me. Historically, Canada has deployed troops to maintain both South Korean freedom (26,000 Canadians deployed to the Korean War, over 500 KIA), and at the same time at its peak in the mid-1950s, about 10,000 Canadian troops were stationed in West Germany. Canada is well connected to both countries. With the rise of China and the coming collapse of Russia, Canada's defence needs will be looking towards the Pacific. To that end, Canada and South Korea signed a Defence Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2014; and more recently, Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy (2022) lists South Korea as a key security partner.
Last edited:
guavadelic
Active Member
EBT
Active Member
Carney toured a Korean sub today and said, "I will see you in 60 days," which suggests to me that the deal is going to Korea. I don't know why Carney would tip his hat like that. If a decision was made to buy Korean why not announce it at the APEC summit?
If indeed the contract goes to Korea, what will Canada get out of it? A Hyundai auto plant? Trump got the Koreans to agree to build a nuclear-powered sub in a Philadelphia shipyard.
guavadelic
Active Member
afransen
Senior Member
Yes, it was definitely a joke.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Are we looking at making Gripens for other countries?
I think we’re likely stuck with the F-35 buy, as Trump would go bananas. Otherwise, if we expand the RCAF we could operate two fighter types. Until we went all in on the Hornets, the albeit larger CAF always had multiple fighter types.
For example, in1980, the CAF operated roughly 90 CF-104 Starfighters, 60 CF-101 Voodoos, and 70 CF-5 Freedom Fighters, for a total of about 220 front-line combat aircraft. If Carney can increase the RCAF buy to 150 aircraft, I’d say we can go with F-35s and Gripens. That said, if we’re staying with 80 odd aircraft, then a single type makes the only sense.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
Maybe there is an argument for having cheaper to operate Gripens for more routine missions as F35 is very costly per flight hour--$30-$40k USD for F35 (per US air force) vs about $8k per flight hour for Gripen as per Saab. Particularly if Canada is looking to bulk up its air force beyond the committed F35s. Would Gripen be more suited to domestic defense (particularly far north) vs F35 for supporting NATO commitments in Europe and the like?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
For me the argument for the Gripen is that the F-35 will itself be obsolete in the 2040s when drones rule the skies over any battlefield, so we might as well get the cheaper, yet still advanced option. Inversely, the RCAF’s more common role has been countering Russian incursions over NORAD and turning over dirt over some desert-dwelling despot, both of which operate kit that the cheaper Gripen is okay to face.
At the end of the day, if the SAAB Gripen is good enough for NATO members Sweden, Hungary, Czech Rep and now possibly Portugal, along with operators in the Americas (Brazil and now Columbia) it should be good enough for Canada.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Nah. This is a Saab marketing pitch and political play. Their fighter is out of contention and their radar bird won't meet upcoming requirements either. Hence this pitch.
Different time period. Different threat environnement, reaction time, missions, etc. À lot of what light fighters used to then are done by drones today.
It's marketing nonsense. I have to regularly explain this. The F-35 comes with a lot more built in. Hence the higher costs. But to operate even a higher fraction of that ability requires Gripens to be supported by other expensive EW aircraft, carry targeting pods themselves and maybe use longer range munitions (more expensive). What matters is the system cost to deliver the necessary effect. Not the cost of individual pieces. And on this score, the F-35 is cheaper.
Put it this way. You have to change a light fixture. You need a certain number of tools. You can get that in a $30 multitool. Or you can buy $60 worth of tool where the screwdriver costs $10. What's the cheapest option for you to get the job done?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
It makes no difference anyway, if Carney announced the cancelation or reduction of the F-35 deal, Trump would unleash a tantrum against Canada. I wouldn't be surprised if he demanded that all F-35 components and investment in Canada be repatriated, and heck in a fit of rage could demand that GDLS-C move all production back home.
But I strongly suggest that we consider non-US sources (when available and up to the task) for future military procurement. For example, when we decide to scrap the garbage Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones, we should look to AgustaWestland for their Merlins, like we should have done in the first place.
But I strongly suggest that we consider non-US sources (when available and up to the task) for future military procurement. For example, when we decide to scrap the garbage Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones, we should look to AgustaWestland for their Merlins, like we should have done in the first place.
Last edited: