Quote:
Originally Posted by casper
Well we could have had domestically assembled Saab fighter jets with Canadian developed software. Instead we went with a US fighter jet. A reasonable decision if at the end of the day we ended up with something better suited to the Air Forces needs.
|
Ever talked to anybody in our aerospace sector who doesn't work at an OEM? They don't want low skilled, low value added assembly work for 88 frames. They'd rather sell their widget and have it be on 2000-3000 F-35s. There's already a 1000 F-35s built.
Next, the Gripen would have been a poor buy for the RCAF. Small user pool. No capability growth room. Obsolete against higher end threats by 2040. It's a good complement to an F-35 with its EW suite and long range missiles. It's no substitute for an F-35 though. The F-35 has an entire continuous development program behind it that we are already benefiting from. Our F-35s will come with the ability to carry 6 missiles (vs 4 missiles for current versions). The F-35 has extra large generators built in to be able to support Directed Energy Weapons. The large user community ensures continued support. And inherent automation and stealth means it won't be obsolete for decades.
It's not just the tech. We let the bidders propose sensor pods and any weapons they wanted against the scenarios in the bid. They had to price in what they needed to accomplish the mission. Without stealth, you need more aircraft with more sensors and longer range missiles, on dedicated tasks, doing the same thing a small flight of 4 F-35s can do. So not only would we have had to buy more airplanes, more sensors and more weapons, we would also need the techs and supply chains to maintain and support all that. About the only thing the Gripen is b probably good for in Canada is a Lead-in Fighter Trainer (LIFT replacing the Hawk) and maybe if we ever set up reserve fighter squadrons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper
This time, there is a viable domestic product. Sweden is now part of NATO.
If we want to be at 2% (and I think we do), there clearly has to be domestic industrial benefits. We don't need every platform made in Canada, but where possible they should.
|
Bombardier is supplying the air frame. They aren't supplying the radar or doing the integration. And there's more than one radar contender. In fact, the Bombardier Global was the platform for two different bids to replace the NATO AWACS fleet. The Saab GlobalEye and the L3 Harris Conformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) using conformal cheek fairings instead of a dorsal antenna. They both lost to the Wedgetail. The L3 version is actually better than the Saab which lacks 360 coverage and air-to-air refueling capabilities. Should be noted that all three of the AUKUS partners and NATO will be flying Wedgetails by 2030 and the combined fleet in service will probably be 50 frames by 2035 vs maybe 15 frames for the GlobalEye.
If we want to help Bombardier we can simply give them an order for 3-5 Globals to replace the VVIP fleet. If we really want to push indigenous development, don't buy AEW aircraft that aren't competitive globally. Fund a SIGINT/ELINT aircraft that our allies might buy and fund the necessary modifications to facilitate air-to-air refueling. Buy 3-5 of these aircraft and Bombardier will have sold 6-10 Globals in total to the CAF and be positioned to sell more elsewhere.
Prev
Linear Mode
