Canada Defence Force

[John Fedup]

Apparently the G&M paper has reported these planned government cuts for all departments to help fund the new defence commitments Carney has promised. You can bet all the Trudeau hires that increased the federal civil service by 40% during his decade in office will be out in full force trying to convince the electorate to screw defence in order to preserve their jobs and maintain junior's socialist/multicultural agenda.

Canadian government seeks billions of dollars of savings over next three years

 

[OldTex]

It is being reported in army-technology that Canada is seeking to buy JLTVs from the US. Given the strained relations at the moment it begs the question of what other alternative vehicles were considered, even domestic options.

Canada seeks $160m JLTVs sale from US
The Canadian Government seeks to buy up to 60 JLTVs and up to nine JLTV cargo trailers.

This proposed FMS follows Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney’s announcement of a new defence spending plan in June 2025. Credit: US Army.

The US State Department has agreed a potential $160m foreign military sale (FMS) of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs) and associated equipment to Canada.
Canada seeks to procure up to 60 JLTVs and up to nine JLTV cargo trailers.
The package also includes a suite of non-major defence equipment items such as communication and mobility equipment, enhancements for lethality and survivability, spare parts, special tools and test equipment, maintenance trainers, and comprehensive training and support services.

 

[John Fedup]

It is being reported in army-technology that Canada is seeking to buy JLTVs from the US. Given the strained relations at the moment it begs the question of what other alternative vehicles were considered, even domestic options.

Canada seeks $160m JLTVs sale from US
The Canadian Government seeks to buy up to 60 JLTVs and up to nine JLTV cargo trailers.

This proposed FMS follows Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney’s announcement of a new defence spending plan in June 2025. Credit: US Army.

The US State Department has agreed a potential $160m foreign military sale (FMS) of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs) and associated equipment to Canada.
Canada seeks to procure up to 60 JLTVs and up to nine JLTV cargo trailers.
The package also includes a suite of non-major defence equipment items such as communication and mobility equipment, enhancements for lethality and survivability, spare parts, special tools and test equipment, maintenance trainers, and comprehensive training and support services.

You have to factor in the glacial military procurement process here. This acquisition was likely started during the Trump 1 term and made progress during the Biden era before things turned to $hit. Other proposals would have been considered. To terminate means years of using obsolete kit until an alternative is decided upon and delivered. The same problem is applicable to the F-35 review except it is worse should a cancellation occur as there is no viable replacement option IMO.

 

[koxinga]

So, the mixed fleet suggestion seems to be well and alive.

Saab CEO confirms talks with Ottawa, Bombardier for Gripen fighter jet production

Talks to continue during royal visit by Sweden’s King and Queen to Canada next week

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

So, the mixed fleet suggestion seems to be well and alive.

Saab CEO confirms talks with Ottawa, Bombardier for Gripen fighter jet production

Talks to continue during royal visit by Sweden’s King and Queen to Canada next week

www.theglobeandmail.com

Gripen mentioned, likely unserious proposal.
No real escape from buying the F-35. Just a matter of when.

 

[John Fedup]

Gripen mentioned, likely unserious proposal.
No real escape from buying the F-35. Just a matter of when.

F-35s will be acquired, 16 already paid for. The question is what about the other 72? The trade impasse combined with the the rising anti-US sentiment (well deserved IMHO) is putting political pressure on the Carney government to retaliate with something other than tariffs. Given the F-35 program delays (block4, TR3, and ECU) along with cost per flight hour and rising price, the F-35 is an easy target. A mixed fleet is looking more likely with every word out of IOTUS's mouth. Guessing a minimal number to meet NORAD commitments that will only increase after 2028 or Trump dies assuming the follow-on government isn't as anal (questionable assumption)!

 

[BostonMartin]

Gripen mentioned, likely unserious proposal.
No real escape from buying the F-35. Just a matter of when.

2026 (for the first 4 units.)
The question isn't when, it's how many more after the first 16 are delivered.

I think it's serious and Saab is coming to Canada, Carney wants the jobs here and the Ukraine deal changed things.

 

[John Fedup]

2026 (for the first 4 units.)
The question isn't when, it's how many more after the first 16 are delivered.

I think it's serious and Saab is coming to Canada, Carney wants the jobs here and the Ukraine deal changed things.

The jobs issue is not important, in fact it may be a political negative if the jets are built in Quebec. Any reduction in the F-35 order will be strictly due to the IOTUS.

 

[koxinga]

F-35s will be acquired, 16 already paid for. The question is what about the other 72? The trade impasse combined with the the rising anti-US sentiment (well deserved IMHO) is putting political pressure on the Carney government to retaliate with something other than tariffs. Given the F-35 program delays (block4, TR3, and ECU) along with cost per flight hour and rising price, the F-35 is an easy target. A mixed fleet is looking more likely with every word out of IOTUS's mouth. Guessing a minimal number to meet NORAD commitments that will only increase after 2028 or Trump dies assuming the follow-on government isn't as anal (questionable assumption)!

Trump's term ends 2029 so any decision that hinges on his near term reactions needs to consider the longer term consequences. But then again, politicos makes decisions that affect their immediate electability so that's a kick-the-can-down-the-road discussion.

But looking even further into the future, there are some strategic implications. My opinion is the F-35 will remain the exportable mainstay of US fighter capabilities well into the 2030s and is very unclear if US 6th gen platforms (F-47, F/A-XX) will ever be exportable. I suppose if one is fine with a 5.5 gen F-35X and watered down CCAs, then that is ok. An alternative platform decision now could well be about hedging the future as much as it is about short term jobs.

 

[Terran]

Canadian defense procurement is very slow too. The Swedes may pitch but putting together a program?

 

[John Fedup]

Trump's term ends 2029 so any decision that hinges on his near term reactions needs to consider the longer term consequences. But then again, politicos makes decisions that affect their immediate electability so that's a kick-the-can-down-the-road discussion.

But looking even further into the future, there are some strategic implications. My opinion is the F-35 will remain the exportable mainstay of US fighter capabilities well into the 2030s and is very unclear if US 6th gen platforms (F-47, F/A-XX) will ever be exportable. I suppose if one is fine with a 5.5 gen F-35X and watered down CCAs, then that is ok. An alternative platform decision now could well be about hedging the future as much as it is about short term jobs.

Agree, the F-47 likely won't be exportable. The F/A XX seems to be in doubt at the moment. I am sure Tempest will be considered for the 2040s and beyond.

 

[John Fedup]

Canadian defense procurement is very slow too. The Swedes may pitch but putting together a program?

Time will tell if Carney is serious about speeding up defence procurement. As for a Saab program in Canada, doubtful. A small Gripen buy combined with another F-35 buy (15-20 more) would be sufficient until 2040. Then Tempest or whatever new aerial technology arrives afterwards could be considered.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

F-35s will be acquired, 16 already paid for. The question is what about the other 72? The trade impasse combined with the the rising anti-US sentiment (well deserved IMHO) is putting political pressure on the Carney government to retaliate with something other than tariffs. Given the F-35 program delays (block4, TR3, and ECU) along with cost per flight hour and rising price, the F-35 is an easy target. A mixed fleet is looking more likely with every word out of IOTUS's mouth. Guessing a minimal number to meet NORAD commitments that will only increase after 2028 or Trump dies assuming the follow-on government isn't as anal (questionable assumption)!

Yeah buying another American fighter that costs more and delivers half the capability that'll definitely show these Americans!

 

[John Fedup]

Yeah buying another American fighter that costs more and delivers half the capability that'll definitely show these Americans!

"buying another American fighter"???

 

[SolarisKenzo]

The Gripen is an ITAR intesive platform.

 

[John Fedup]

The Gripen is an ITAR intesive platform.

Yes, Gripen has significant US content but less than a F-35. As for pricing, somewhat less but hardly more. More importantly, operating costs are less and flight availability is probably better. The F-35 is a superior jet (when it is available) and will get better if block 4 gets delivered but other platforms may emerge around the same time LM gets their $hit together for block 4.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yes, Gripen has significant US content but less than a F-35. As for pricing, somewhat less but hardly more. More importantly, operating costs are less and flight availability is probably better. The F-35 is a superior jet (when it is available) and will get better if block 4 gets delivered but other platforms may emerge around the same time LM gets their $hit together for block 4.

If you're afraid the US will block a sale, neither option gives you a better position. It can block both just the same.

Flight availability isn't really better for any jet. It's more about your own force structure. Gripen isn't widely used, so the logistics you set up for it are less robust (so cheaper) and less strained.
The USAF is globally deployed and operates a huge fleet, so availability rates are currently at 50%.
Israel on the other hand has a small fleet (~50), has robust local maintenance capabilities which are all nearby, and while availability rates are classified - it has managed to operate a huge fleet of mixed aircraft for over 2 years at very high intensity with 0 crashes which is a factor directly tied to (& indicative of) availability.
For obvious reasons, Israel is a very good indication for what Canada can have.

Block 4 gets pushed back only because more and more stuff is added. With so many customers, there's a good selection of weapons and systems to choose from to fit on it. The Grip has a good selection as well but it can't really score any points over the F-35 here.

Canada isn't some tiny or poor nation. It can definitely afford to buy and run the F-35s. The only real reason to look away from the F-35 is politics. But since the Gripen can only really assist in CAP and will be far less useful in deployments, Canada's military capabilities will be less relevant for the US, which actually reduces Canada's bargaining power.
I can't see it as anything but an own goal.

 

[John Fedup]

If you're afraid the US will block a sale, neither option gives you a better position. It can block both just the same.

Flight availability isn't really better for any jet. It's more about your own force structure. Gripen isn't widely used, so the logistics you set up for it are less robust (so cheaper) and less strained.
The USAF is globally deployed and operates a huge fleet, so availability rates are currently at 50%.
Israel on the other hand has a small fleet (~50), has robust local maintenance capabilities which are all nearby, and while availability rates are classified - it has managed to operate a huge fleet of mixed aircraft for over 2 years at very high intensity with 0 crashes which is a factor directly tied to (& indicative of) availability.
For obvious reasons, Israel is a very good indication for what Canada can have.

Block 4 gets pushed back only because more and more stuff is added. With so many customers, there's a good selection of weapons and systems to choose from to fit on it. The Grip has a good selection as well but it can't really score any points over the F-35 here.

Canada isn't some tiny or poor nation. It can definitely afford to buy and run the F-35s. The only real reason to look away from the F-35 is politics. But since the Gripen can only really assist in CAP and will be far less useful in deployments, Canada's military capabilities will be less relevant for the US, which actually reduces Canada's bargaining power.
I can't see it as anything but an own goal.

Yes, jet procurement is really now a matter of politics and indeed both the F-35 and Gripen acquisitions can be derailed by the IOTUS, or a Canadian PM for that matter. While block 4 mission creep is a factor, it is more to do with LM's appalling software development record. Not sure who is to blame for the TR-3 hardware upgrade. Also, remember the ALIS logistics support software (another LM gem)....mega cluster-?uck which is now been replaced by ODIN. I assume ODIN is performing ok. ECU, still a distant goal. ITAR and IOTUS aside, the biggest problem with a US jet acquisition is the single option F-35. Only if NG or Boeing (preferably the former) had a viable 5th alternative fighter to LM. Politics would still be a factor but at least the performance issue would hopefully go away.

 

[spoz]

To block a Gripen sale to Canada would be a very unfriendly act, much more so than imposing tariffs. Many other third party platforms include ITAR issues; in Canada’s case the River class for example, and the US doesn’t block the sale of such to NATO or other close allies such as Japan or Australia. While the US might prefer that Canada operates the same jet as the US services, after pushing for NATO partners to increase spending it would be a US “own goal” to block a purchase by one of those countries. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen given who is in charge in the US, but it must be unlikely. So, it’s a Canadian decision which will presumably be made in accordance with what the Canadian government perceives as being in their own interests.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

To block a Gripen sale to Canada would be a very unfriendly act, much more so than imposing tariffs. Many other third party platforms include ITAR issues; in Canada’s case the River class for example, and the US doesn’t block the sale of such to NATO or other close allies such as Japan or Australia. While the US might prefer that Canada operates the same jet as the US services, after pushing for NATO partners to increase spending it would be a US “own goal” to block a purchase by one of those countries. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen given who is in charge in the US, but it must be unlikely. So, it’s a Canadian decision which will presumably be made in accordance with what the Canadian government perceives as being in their own interests.

About as likely as an F-35 block. Which is near 0.