Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

QUADRILATERAL Joint Statement on Canada becoming an Observer to GCAP - Canada.ca

Official announcement today that Canada is joining GCAP as an Observer, currently doesn't mean much but we shall see if something comes from this.

Funnily enough, La Presse put out a story on the same day GCAP was announced showcasing Bombardier disinterest in a potential Gripen partnership with Saab.

La Presse à Farnborough | Bombardier n’a pas d’intérêt à assembler des chasseurs suédois

The Swedish company Saab may have speculated that its business partner Bombardier could assemble its Gripen fighters in Canada if the federal government gave it the mandate to renew part or all of its CF-18 fleet. But Bombardier would gain absolutely nothing, quite the contrary. "We already have our hands full," agrees its CEO, Éric Martel.

Bombardier has left the door open to its partner Saab, with whom it has very successfully developed the Global Eye mission aircraft, but Éric Martel confirms that Bombardier would gain nothing by simply assembling aircraft for Saab, without any other added value.

Rather than planning the assembly of a few dozen Gripen fighters, Bombardier is planning to open a new plant where it will do the electronic wrapping of the Global Eye and the installation of radars, which is normally done by its partner Saab in Sweden.

Bombardier must also not alienate the United States, which remains its main market. If the Saint-Laurent company starts assembling fighters and takes the contract away from Lockheed Martin, Donald Trump could very naturally decide to impose juicy punitive tariffs on the business jets that the company sells in the United States.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
SAAB's been using the name GlobalEye for Erieye ER (updated version with GaN TRMs) on a Global 6000 or 6500 for over ten years.

First order was from the UAE in 2015, initially for two & eventually for five. First delivery was 2020. Sweden ordered two, plus two options, in 2022, France the same in 2025 - then Trump opened the floodgates. Sweden now has three on firm order & the Netherlands has signed a letter of intent to take up the second Swedish option, to be operated jointly with the Swedish three. NATO is negotiating an order for up to ten, Canada wants six, & an unnamed Middle Eastern country has ordered two.

I make that 12 firm orders, two options, & 17 under negotiation, for six countries plus the NATO AEW consortium. The Netherlands is part of that consortium, but reported to also want an aircraft under national control.

There are also eight other countries operating 33 older Erieye radars on lower performance aircraft: Six SAAB 340, 17 SAAB 2000, & 10 Embraer E-99.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I believe that Canadas choice of Global eye is the correct one for its purposes of border patrol , The Wedgetail is best as the attached article for a different role ,I believe that including the Wedgetail in Europe would be more advantageous but suspect politics come into selection
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I believe that Canadas choice of Global eye is the correct one for its purposes of border patrol , The Wedgetail is best as the attached article for a different role ,I believe that including the Wedgetail in Europe would be more advantageous but suspect politics come into selection
The NATO AEW consortium had selected E-7. Then the USA first withdrew from the consortium, & then cancelled the US purchase of E-7. The USAF managed to save its E-7 development project & the construction of prototypes, but it was very precarious. Hegseth seemed mad keen to cancel it completely. That led to the remaining consortium members losing all faith in the future of E-7 & abandoning their purchase. GlobalEye was the only more or less off the shelf alternative, & something was needed as soon as possible.

So yes, it was 100% politics - US politics. Trump & Hegseth made E-7 too risky, & European countries & Canada felt they had to drop E-7, because the unpredictable whims of the current US leadership meant they couldn't rely on it being available. GlobalEye's a sure thing.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
They are pretty different aircraft, with very different specs and capabilities. Given the fact that Canada has no AEW experience, I think Globaleye is probably the easiest to budget, man, acquire and bring into service.

I know there is US pressure, which is odd because the USAF doesn't operate this platform and the USAF had elements within it that fought hard against it. Across multiple administrations. They could have ordered this any time in the last 25 years+.

I don't know if Trump opened the flood gates. I think the key to recent sales have been:

  • Proven worth of AEW capability in Pakistan-India conflict and in Ukraine and in the Iran conflict - This is clearly a very relevant platform, while it is a command and control platform that isn't all it does, tracking low observable drones and munitions is now ultra important, to cue aircraft, ground defence, counter measures. Ground base sensors don't give you the look ahead you really need on LO objects, you only detect small drones quite close close enough to start hitting targets, many have radar returns the size of birds, so it creates an extreme clutter problem over land, and are often best found over sea expanses. In both the P-I conflict and the Iran conflict, the enemy has specifically gone after AEW platforms because they are so critical and give the forces who have them a real edge. Ukraine is more complicated because they are operating along borders, but that also shows how countries not directly involved in combat operations can help tremendously.
  • Airforce modernisations to LO platforms and long range munitions - It makes sense to have your main radar platform detached and not on the LO fighter platform. So airforces operating modern aircraft see this as much more critical going forward. Long range munitions need targeting information beyond what a normal fighter radar can typically give, hence the AEW platform.
  • Collapse of the E3 fleet avalibility - Not really a Trump thing - its 50+ years in the making. But the US is estimated to only have about 4-5 aircraft actually regularly flyable and of limited use in modern battlespaces against LO aircraft and drones and complex engagements. Even then this is now a high maintenance, fragile capability. But Under Trump it is clearer that no country can rely on the US even if they did have the capability.
  • Armed drone platforms - these type of aircraft are clearly valuable in that role - even though Globaleye hasn't demonstrated controlling combat capable drones yet, its clearly possible. Sitting in a nice comfy commercial jet for 6 hrs with multiple operators and a very powerful coms/radar makes sense as a node.
Globaleye I think makes more sense for Canada directly. Between UK and US there will be a fair number of E7s in that portion of the world.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Between UK and US there will be a fair number of E7s in that portion of the world.
I wouldn't be sure of that.

Until June 2025 the USAF was planning to buy 26 E-7. On 26th June Hegseth cancelled the programme. The USAF managed to keep development of two prototypes converted from secondhand 737s going, & in June 2027 five engineering and manufacturing development aircraft were approved, & Congress voted extra money to pay for them, contrary to government plans, which said they must be paid for using money diverted from other programmes.

That's 26, fully funded, down to 7, grudgingly funded. The E-7 is still an endangered programme for the USAF.

The UK has only ordered three (two of them now flying, the third being converted in the UK). Buying more to bring the number up the original requirement has been suggested, perhaps in conjunction with allies - but the only ally which is buying it is the USA, & at present there's no money there for more than seven & no guarantee of more.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hegseth wen back on what he said. The E7 has proven itself essential. They still see it as a stop gap, but essential. I think future orders are likely but in small batches, which is possible because of the 737 airframe. Its not dead.


So that gives the US 7 and the UK 3. Pretty terrible, but the UK has 3, may consider a 4th later, US is acquiring 2+7. But its pretty terrible for the US and the UK, they have sizeable air forces, and will likely be doing a lot of the fighting. But its still better than what they have currently which is zero.

Australia also has plans to replace the 6 it currently operates. Most likely with 6 newer more advanced versions, possibly more similar to the P8 airframe.

Realistically Canada's air force isn't big enough or modern enough to justify so much spending on high end E7 capability. It will be decades of decline and new platforms will take a long time to get up to speed and flying high hours, Even then the F-35 order is so small its barely training capability, not deployment capability, and beyond that there isn't any selected platform. They don't have existing AWACs capability (every existing E7 customer already was or had operated something like that and clearly saw themselves needful in that domain).

E7 key advantage is when the battle space is big and complex. If Canada is taking a self defence posture, that probably isn't them, their space is more vast open patrols. not battlespaces with thousands, or tens of thousands of contacts including civilian, lo munitions, commercial jets, ships, military ships, Ballistic missiles, surface to air systems etc.

Regarding E7 and Globaleye comparisons. Australia's E7 is still flying and running missions daily in the middle east from the UAE controlling the entire airspace in that area as an essential asset.

The UAE, which bought 5 Globaleyes, and is basically right in the middle of conflict, has instead deployed their globaleye, to India for exercises.

They are still trying to stand their capabilities up. And it really depends if you want a full platform based on battle management or something that does some light battle management but also patrol and monitoring.

E7 requires more humans, more money, more training, more active deployments. Its a bigger commitment. Its for bigger airspaces and bigger more complex more peer battlespaces.

Canada currently has no capabilities in that space, the US pressuring Canada to commit to a system itself hasn't been able to commit to is embarrassing.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The U.S may be going down another path instead of AWAC,S aircraft using satellites ,
That has sort of been the idea from the current administration. As the article mentions though, it remains to be seen whether such a system (or really, a system of systems) can be made to work as desired. Given that the initial funding for the first tranche is over USD$4 bil. there will also likely be a number of questions regarding cost, as well as oversight.

Me personally, I tend to suspect it might turn out a bit more like Reagan's Star Wars SDI rather than an actual, operationally useful capability.
 
Top