15 ms·

I can understand why this change happened. Even if American equipment is superior, there is a lot of value to not depending on a supposed 'ally' which * Arbitr

• greenleafone7 5mo ago
  Vastly inferior and overpriced. From now till delivery the US will blackmail the buyer with delays and increase the agreed upon price at least 3 times. Standard practice.
• 866-RON-0-FEZ 5mo ago
  We call this confirmation bias. The Saab is likely cheaper to operate as it's a smaller plane and Canada only has to patrol its northern border.
  • mikeyouse 5mo ago
    > Canada only has to patrol its northern border. At what point on this current trajectory in the US would that change... mostly facetiously, but not entirely..
    • petcat 5mo ago
      Canada would only have to patrol its southern Alberta border /s No coincidence that Albertans are sparking up the seceding issue again. When 10% of the population produces nearly 20% of the country's GDP it's a breeding ground for contempt. And it also seems like Albertans are the butt of a lot of jokes from the other Canadians anyway. I'm sure this US government would love to see an "independent" Alberta.
      • squigz 5mo ago
        > And it also seems like Albertans are the butt of a lot of jokes from the other Canadians anyway. This is hardly my experience as a Canadian. They're not Newfoundlanders, for crying out loud...
        • kergonath 5mo ago
          I thought Québec-bashing was a national sport.
      • rubayeet 5mo ago
        This is false. Alberta is NOT the economic engine of Canada, that’s a huge misconception of a group of Canadians (mostly Albertans) [0] [0] https://youtu.be/5lSJpqA8RU4?si=fxwKpUFFKO7gK63E https://youtu.be/5lSJpqA8RU4?si=fxwKpUFFKO7gK63E
        • cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
          You're right but you should cite something other than the CBC, since it will just be immediately dismissed by the biased as biased. Alberta is very important economically. I'm from there. Ontario (I live there) and Quebec and BC are also massively important. And fanning the flames of disinformation and playing grievance politics to make Albertans feel discriminated against has become an extremely serious problem. Wab Kinew was very eloquent on this topic yesterday.
          • jleyank 5mo ago
            I would think Ontario is the centre of Canada as it has the most people and the financial centre. Google's AI says 38% of GDP. And the problem Alberta faces is who wants to separate, what do they want to do afterwards and what ground do they actually own (vs. treaties that predate Alberta). When Alberta at least catches up to Quebec in practicing being independent (runs its own police, collects its own taxes, has its own pension system, maintains foreign services, ... They might decide the extra taxes to pay for such is less "fun". And they need a border to ship stuff through.
  • danesparza 5mo ago
    "We call this confirmation bias". I'm genuinely curious to know what you think the author's pre-existing beliefs are. You seem to have a few of your own: "Canada only has to patrol its northern border"
    • jsLavaGoat 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      • factotvm 5mo ago
        No, it’s a lost sale.
      • wat10000 5mo ago
        The American head of state threatened to invade and annex the country, and you boil that down to a sarcastic "America bad"?
      • jleyank 5mo ago
        Erm, they can stay in NATO with the other European members just fine. It's the US that is making noises about leaving. NORAD is another matter, but the US and Canada can each run their own radars - the targets are south of the 49th parallel for the most part.
      • _verandaguy 5mo ago
        Historically, it isn't Canada that's been threatening to leave NATO.
        • jsLavaGoat 5mo ago
          That's true. But if America is so bad, why are you still in it? I'm an immigrant to the US. I'm sorry you are so ready to throw away what people went through hell to get.
          • _verandaguy 4mo ago
  • asdff 5mo ago
    Open a history book. They do a lot more than patrol the northern border. Canada was involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq 1 and 2, Fall of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libyan civil war, Iraq civil war, Syrian civil war and ISIS conflict, Yemeni civil war, and a smattering of other conflicts over the past century.
    • jleyank 5mo ago
      Canada, as a commonwealth country, was involved in ww I and ww ii years before the us decided to get involved. Or more involved than selling arms.
• munk-a 5mo ago
  > Even if American equipment is superior I'd mention that whether a piece of tech can beat another one on one is a consideration but a larger concern is how maintainable your fleet is. Canada is specifically moving to grow ties with the EU (and has joined their defense industry network) which really incentivizes having a fleet that is a similar makeup to other European countries. The tariffs and international unpredictability of the US is one motivator - but growing closer to EU markets is also a specific focus of the Carney government. The current Trump administration isn't even the only rationale for this - in 2017 the US imposed extremely heavy tariffs on Bombardier that bankrupted the majority of the corporation.
  • jleyank 5mo ago
    They also make the underlying bird, so parts aside from the electronics are native.
  • bluegatty 5mo ago
    There are a ton of considerations, starting with 'Doctrine', then tactics, other equipment, integration, other kinds of dependencies. So many things. Often there are acute, specific needs, aka Canada has to land these all the time in the arctic, you need bigger hangars for the bigger gear, maybe we need 'more units for wider coverage' over large land mass. Some gear is better v Russians, some gear for China threat. Etc. Etc.
• daneel_w 5mo ago
  > "Even if American equipment is superior ..." To address the article's context, is the E-3 Sentry superior to the Erieye/GlobalEye?
  • nickff 5mo ago
    The comparable aircraft is the more modern E-7 Wedgetail, which has many features that are superior for Canada's use case (notably including range and NORAD integration). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail Canada has unfortunately been in conflict with Boeing since before either of Trump's terms, originally triggered by Boeing's trade complaints regarding Bombardier's government subsidies.
    • 8note 5mo ago
      is norad integration actually important? norad might not exist in 5-10 years
      • nickff 5mo ago
        Canada has little used for airborne early warning outside of NORAD; the country has little independent air defense, and has not performed any foreign air superiority missions since the Cold Warz
  • bigfatkitten 5mo ago
    The E-3 is a dinosaur. The E-7 Wedgetail is a vastly more capable platform than the Erieye/GlobalEye in pretty much every way, but costs four times as much, and there are other issues with Canada and Boeing as have been pointed out by another commenter.
    • stackghost 5mo ago
      >The E-7 Wedgetail is a vastly more capable platform than the Erieye/GlobalEye in pretty much every way The airframe itself, perhaps. As for the radar, that remains to be seen. The E-7 uses an L-band AESA radar, whereas the GlobalEye's radar operates in the higher-frequency S-band. In general, higher frequencies are better for engaging smaller/faster targets, but perform worse in adverse weather conditions. It's been a long time since I took my electronic warfare courses, but in a situation where the radar is expected to spot small drones and other targets I would prefer a higher frequency radar. It should be noted that the US military itself didn't want the Wedgetail in favor of a space-based solution, until Hegseth forced them for publicity reasons.
• cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
  You missed the absolutely huge one: that the plane it's based around is a Bombardier aircraft manufactured here in Canada. And in general this is how Saab has tried to court us -- by making promises (how real is unclear) to bring manufacturing jobs to Canada to build things. That is something the US has not done, will not do, and most importantly cannot do under Trump/Bissent/etc. Canada is very unlikely to be invaded, so the actual military effectiveness / superiority is only one factor. Reducing unemployment and enhancing our manufacturing sector is as or more important.
  • lysace 5mo ago
    > Canada is very unlikely to be invaded Except from the south.
    • cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
      Or, as it turns out, from within. (Looking at you, Danielle Smith). But yes you're right. The only times we've been invaded were from that direction.
      • throwaway85825 5mo ago
        [flagged]
      • lysace 5mo ago
        > But yes you're right. The only times we've been invaded were from that direction. Looked it up: 4 Times the U.S. Invaded Canada https://www.mentalfloss.com/history/war/4-times-us-invaded-canada https://www.mentalfloss.com/history/war/4-times-us-invaded-c...
        • anthomtb 5mo ago
          They really had to stretch for #4.
      • red-iron-pine 5mo ago
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• throwaway27448 5mo ago
  It's kind of insane they trusted us to begin with. Why?
  • asdff 5mo ago
    Why trust anyone? Really what stops a Trump from getting elected anywhere else? The citizens seem smarter or less bigoted? Are you sure that will always be the case given the agitprop in every form of media and internet communication in every language on earth?
    • throwaway27448 5mo ago
      True. But we seem like the least trustworthy people on earth at the moment. After israel, anyway. Trump has nothing to do with it.
      • datsci_est_2015 5mo ago
        > Trump has nothing to do with it. Genuinely, what makes the US untrustworthy if not Trump? I’m curious what I may be missing.
        • throwaway27448 5mo ago
          > Genuinely, what makes the US untrustworthy if not Trump? We invaded Korea, and then Vietnam, and a few hundred other interventions that don't seem to be sanctioned by the international community. All because of a hardon for ideology that doesn't seem to actually reflect the interests of the people who live here.
          • asdff 5mo ago
            Most of those were sanctioned by the international community. Look at the participants.
            • 5mo ago
• carlosjobim 5mo ago
  > * Arbitrarily slapped high tariffs on all goods from Canada while exempting Russia and Belarus. This is due to sanctions. There is no trade between Russia and the USA to put tariffs on.
  • usrusr 5mo ago
    Makes me wonder what the penguins of Heard and McDonald Islands would say about this
• asdff 5mo ago
  What is stopping the Swedes from electing a jackass? They seem smart for now? It happens in Europe too. All these weaknesses are liable for any country in a democratic model where executive is controlled via popular vote. Population is trivial to manipulate. This is the new world. Running to Sweden doesn't change the underlying issue of the ease of manipulating an electorate using technological affordances to capture a nation from the inside without a single shot fired.
  • vkou 5mo ago
    Nothing, but when your spouse turns into an abusive piece of shit, breaking up with them and looking for a new one is the right call. Sure, the new one might turn into one too, but that's no reason to stay with one who is definitely one. Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. That's the obvious result of Trumpism - when you seek to turn every interaction into a short-term win for you, people simply stop doing business with you whenever they can avoid it. Tens of millions of Americans voted for this guy three times, overwhelmingly twice - this is how the country wants to act. If he and his cronies are removed from power and prosecuted and everyone pinkie swears to never go down this road again, maybe we can look into rebuilding some of that trust. In the meantime, you reap what you sow.
    • asdff 5mo ago
      Run from the US. Create a new seat of power all you want. Putin will put in his manchurian candidate wherever the power lies. The fact this happened to the US is really a byproduct of its global position. So create a new global leader, and that will be the new target for capture via propagandizing the electorate and electing a sympathizer. Running never solves anything. The problem is still the problem, and is not getting addressed.
      • vkou 5mo ago
        Democracy in the US is sick at the best of times. It's a fundamental flaw in strong executive presidential republics, doubled down on by the legislatures ability to constantly redistrict in a way that advantages the incumbents, tripled down on by the lack of a plausible mechanism to have a non-confidence motion. Canada can't solve this problem inside US politics. Only Americans can, at any one of the three boxes. It can only work to disentangle it's critical dependencies, and to protect its own interests.
• OrvalWintermute 5mo ago
  [flagged]
• adjejmxbdjdn 5mo ago
  From a very practical PoV, the only military threat to Canada is from the U.S. Even if the U.S. and Canada are enemies, if Canada is being attacked by a country that is not the U.S., then the U.S. will come to its defense because they don’t want another nation with the capability to attack Canada to have a North American presence. So given that the U.S. is the only possible military threat to the U.S., and now that the U.S. has openly threatened Canada, it’s incredibly silly to buy weaponry from the only country that could militarily attack you and almost certainly won’t share repair material, parts, software source etc. and possibly has a kill switch.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  • detourdog 5mo ago
    The Gripen is also a very practical design and much simpler to support. Canada can host the data locally as opposed to in the USA. The F-35 is very sophisticated and but maybe to a fault. I'm reminded of how technically superior Germany's vehicles were in WW2. The simplicity and field serviceability the USA vehicles had made a difference in combat.
  • 8note 5mo ago
    its currently doubtful that the US would come to canada's defense maybe offer some targetting intelligence, but most likely the US government would look to sell out canada for peanuts, the same as trump has been looking for with ukraine, and now taiwan
  • chaostheory 5mo ago
    Russia is the other threat, but yes the US is the greater threat now
  • jandrewrogers 5mo ago
    If the US decided to attack Canada then having Swedish 4th generation fighters instead of US 5th generation fighters will make literally no difference in the outcome. This isn't a serious calculus.
• pfannkuchen 5mo ago
  > while exempting Russia and Belarus I thought they were sanctioned to hell and back. Do tariffs even apply as a concept?
• cyanydeez 5mo ago
  aside from political alignment, theres a lot of geographic, budget and climate and stategic alignments that would put swdeen designers in the same headspace.
• poiuyt098 5mo ago
  A lot of blame-trump-copium, itt this has been happening before anyone even thought trump would run: in 2015 trudeau ran on cancelling the f35 purchase. So what did obama do to canadians?