Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 528 posts

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#141

Post by throw0101c »

jamie_ca wrote: post #117
petcat wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're rounding both ways to exaggerate your point. 2024 numbers, Stats Canada (via Wikipedia) has Alberta at 11.9% population, and 15.25% GDP. They (and Sask too) do swing on the higher end in GDP per capita, but it's not a 2:1 by any stretch.

> […] 15.25% GDP.

Which isn't that far off from BC's 13.80%:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#142

Post by nradov »

stackghost wrote: post #134
bigfatkitten wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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…

Was it just a publicity issue? There was a real risk of a capability gap in that all of the old E-3 airframes would have to be retired long before a space based solution could possibility come online. Plus in an era of anti-satellite weapons proliferation, a crewed aircraft might actually turn out to be more survivable.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#143

Post by karamanolev »

Zigurd wrote: post #120
mpol wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are facts. They do not mean that the people who ordered them today are wanting them today. If you need them in 10 years time, you need to order them today. It can easily change, if a flight company doesnt want to do business with Boeing or Airbus, they can cancel their pre-orders. Then the pre-order list might shrink really fast.

Indeed. Backlogs can evaporate. Can you imagine anyone taking delivery of a newly built 737 in 10 years? 7 years? Theoretically, that's part of the backlog.

Why not taking delivery of a current plane in 7 years? What do you think the development, testing, certification and production scaling timeline is of a brand new airframe?

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#144

Post by anthomtb »

lysace wrote: post #95
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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-c...

They really had to stretch for #4.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#145

Post by switchbak »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #103
e40 wrote: post #97

Over the last few months we've seen announcements of shifts from US-based supply chains to non-US-supply chains. As an American, I think this is prudent, based on what has happened in the last year and change. The US is no longer a reliable partner and this is what you do when that happens. 100 years from now, the last 15 months will be written about in no uncertain terms: this administration has loaded many footguns…

Look around you. What products do you own with a US supply chain and what has a Chinese supply chain.

How exactly is that related to their point about nations moving to alternative supply chains away from US based ones? They're saying the administrations actions are counterproductive, and driving away both money and influence from their allies.

And yes, most consumer goods from everywhere come from a Chinese supply chain ... but we're not talking about consumer goods here. We're talking in this case about military purchases. There aren't many western countries buying military hardware from China.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#146

Post by dessimus »

petcat wrote: post #135
dessimus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then by your arguments above, you're good with California leaving since they'd be a G6 nation on their own? Because as you would might say: I'm sure this Canadian government would love to see an "independent" California.

Texas has entertained the idea of seceding for 150 years. And they would be a G7 country if they did. But they would have to fight a war to do it. USA already went through this once. The only thing really stopping Alberta from leaving is whether or not BC, Ontario, and Quebec are willing to fight a war to stop it. And that gets a lot more complicated if the US also wants Alberta to go independent....

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if Canada wasn't willing to let Quebec leave, and they've tried with significantly more effort than Alberta ever has, then they're not going to let Alberta go.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#147

Post by stuxnet79 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #76
joering2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly to me the fact Canada is "retooling itself" knowing well that this nightmare should be over in less than 3 years, and most likely next President will be a Democrat, but yet they keep retooling, means their strong (reliable?) assumption is that Trump Administration won't leave the office at all, similar to how Putin stayed in power in what arguingly is a Democratic Country.

You're missing some of the history here. Canada's initial free trade integration with the US in the late 80s was controversial at the time, with opponents specifically predicting a slow erosion of sovereignty until one day Canada is forced to subordinate itself to the US. What Trump showed is that that concern was correct, although the erosion was fortunately not yet complete enough to force Canada's hand. The Canadi…

As an addendum to this post, this debate between Turner and Mulroney over (what would become) NAFTA captures some of the feeling of the time [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlvb9czZFXw

[2] https://www.c-span.org/program/international-telecasts/canad...

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#148

Post by stackghost »

petcat wrote: post #135
dessimus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then by your arguments above, you're good with California leaving since they'd be a G6 nation on their own? Because as you would might say: I'm sure this Canadian government would love to see an "independent" California.

Texas has entertained the idea of seceding for 150 years. And they would be a G7 country if they did. But they would have to fight a war to do it. USA already went through this once. The only thing really stopping Alberta from leaving is whether or not BC, Ontario, and Quebec are willing to fight a war to stop it. And that gets a lot more complicated if the US also wants Alberta to go independent....

>The only thing really stopping Alberta from leaving is whether or not BC, Ontario, and Quebec are willing to fight a war to stop it.

Unlike the individual US states, Alberta never joined Canada. It was not an entity that existed prior to Canada's confederation. Alberta was basically pencil-whipped into existence by carving out a chunk of an already existing territory (the Northwest Territory).

Despite American and Russian destabilization campaigns in Canada, there is no legal mechanism by which Canadian provinces can unilaterally secede.

>And that gets a lot more complicated if the US also wants Alberta to go independent....

Recent past polling overwhelmingly showed Albertans in favor of remaining in Canada. This latest frenzy is widely known to be a foreign influence operation.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#149

Post by switchbak »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #136
vitally3643 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a point? Saying that products with US based supply chains are rare does not somehow detract from the point of moving away from the ones that still exist. And they do exist, just not for consumers, or at least not at a price most people are willing to pay.

The point is that focusing on a rare us supply chain obscures the bigger picture.

It sounds like you're obscuring the point by muddying the water here.

Re: Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers

#150

Post by selectodude »

petcat wrote: post #135
dessimus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then by your arguments above, you're good with California leaving since they'd be a G6 nation on their own? Because as you would might say: I'm sure this Canadian government would love to see an "independent" California.

Texas has entertained the idea of seceding for 150 years. And they would be a G7 country if they did. But they would have to fight a war to do it. USA already went through this once. The only thing really stopping Alberta from leaving is whether or not BC, Ontario, and Quebec are willing to fight a war to stop it. And that gets a lot more complicated if the US also wants Alberta to go independent....

Texas would be a G7 nation for about a week if they seceded from the US. Being the logistics hub for a country only works if you’re part of that country.
Post reply on HN