9 comments

  • khriss29 minutes ago
    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 &#x27;ally&#x27; which<p>* Arbitrarily slapped high tariffs on all goods from Canada while exempting Russia and Belarus.<p>* Threatened to take over the country by force.<p>* Officially suspended the Permanent Joint Board on Defense between US and Canada because of criticism of US foreign policy by the Canadian PM
    • daneel_w3 minutes ago
      <i>&gt; &quot;Even if American equipment is superior ...&quot;</i><p>To address the article&#x27;s context, is the E-3 Sentry superior to the Erieye&#x2F;GlobalEye?
    • 866-RON-0-FEZ25 minutes ago
      We call this confirmation bias.<p>The Saab is likely cheaper to operate as it&#x27;s a smaller plane and Canada only has to patrol its northern border.
    • munk-a11 minutes ago
      &gt; Even if American equipment is superior<p>I&#x27;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.<p>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&#x27;t even the only rationale for this - in 2017 the US imposed extremely heavy tariffs on Bombardier that bankrupted the majority of the corporation.
  • hnburnsy42 minutes ago
    Boeing and Airbus have tremendous backlogs...<p>&gt;As of March 31st, 2026, Airbus reported a commercial aircraft backlog of 9,031 aircraft. Based on the company’s 2026 delivery target of 870 aircraft, this represents approximately 10.4 years of production coverage.<p>&gt;Boeing’s commercial backlog stood at approximately 6,719 aircraft at the end of March. Using Forecast International’s production estimates, Boeing’s backlog equates to roughly 10.1 years of production coverage.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flightplan.forecastinternational.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;04&#x2F;14&#x2F;airbus-and-boeing-report-march-2026-commercial-aircraft-orders-and-deliveries&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flightplan.forecastinternational.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;04&#x2F;14&#x2F;airb...</a>
    • expedition3227 minutes ago
      Also for Canada ordering from America is like France ordering tanks from Germany in 1936.
      • cm218720 minutes ago
        Germany couldn&#x27;t switch off their tanks remotely in 1936
        • munk-a6 minutes ago
          They could refuse to supply replacement parts though and while reverse engineering critical replacements was easier in 1936 it was still a serious concern (especially when it came to figuring out where the capacity to do so would come from).
  • xattt1 hour ago
    It helps that the base plane is built in Canada, and that the PM made commitments to the Swedish king in November 2025.
    • kspacewalk243 minutes ago
      Worth noting that the base plane for one of the US-based contenders, the Aeris X by L3Harris, would also be the same Bombardier Global 6500 business jet.
    • 866-RON-0-FEZ39 minutes ago
      Or, consider that the smaller Saab better fits the mission profile for Canada, and may be cheaper to operate, all the while The Guardian is furiously beating off trying to turn this into a bigger story than it really is.
      • xethos14 minutes ago
        Cheaper to operate and mission-fit (debatable) is one thing, but the real question is: &quot;Would this have happened without the US president&#x27;s antics?&quot;
        • munk-a5 minutes ago
          Without the second election of Trump? It&#x27;s likely. Canada&#x27;s aircraft industry got majorly burned by the US in 2017 during his first administration and Biden didn&#x27;t significantly reverse the impact in any way.
  • jerlam1 hour ago
    The US doesn&#x27;t even use the Wedgetail, and has cancelled and then un-cancelled it:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aerospaceglobalnews.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;pentagon-e-7-wedgetail-funding-usaf&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aerospaceglobalnews.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;pentagon-e-7-wedgetail-...</a>
  • ge961 hour ago
    Bring back the Arrow
  • bigyabai1 hour ago
    Saab makes excellent AWACS systems, this strikes me as a good choice. It&#x27;ll be interesting to see if Canada also invests in the Gripen long-term, as a replacement for the aging CF-18 fleet.
  • moltar1 hour ago
    Now the interesting question to me is why is that a country with a tenth of population can have car, truck and military plane manufacturing yet Canada can’t, even with virtually all resources for inputs, including energy can’t.
    • petcat43 minutes ago
      Canada has many issues. First and foremost, their entire economy is basically 3 mineral extraction industries stacked on top of each other in a trench coat.<p>They are also (unfortunate?) to share a border with USA and be party to NAFTA. This makes it trivial for educated, professional Canadians to work in the US on a TN visa indefinitely. We know that the doctor and nurse brain-drain from Canada to the US has been ongoing for decades. But it&#x27;s actually every industry since US firms pay 2-3x more than equivalent Canadian firms.<p>The reality is that Canadians get very good, tax-payer subsidized educations and then immediately go to the US to work for 10+ years and only return later when they need to start drawing on the Canadian social services for things like healthcare and family care. And Canada itself got none of the benefits of that workforce in between.<p>I saw a figure recently that the US issued an all-time-high 800,000 TN admissions to Canadians in 2016. And then in 2023 it surged to nearly <i>1.3 million</i>.
      • kashunstva20 minutes ago
        &gt; The reality is that Canadians get very good, tax-payer subsidized educations and then immediately go to the US to work for 10+ years and only return later when they need to start drawing on the Canadian social services for things like healthcare and family care.<p>You write this declaratively as if it describes a typical or representative case. In the 11 years I’ve lived in Canada, this isn’t representative of what I see.<p>The direction of migration of medical doctors likewise shows signs of reversal. I’m a physician and my wife is a surgeon. We left the U.S. over a decade ago and are constantly receiving inquiries from US physicians about immigration.
        • petcat17 minutes ago
          &gt; We left the U.S. over a decade ago<p>I&#x27;m assuming you were educated in Canada, and then you worked in the US (but now you don&#x27;t)?
      • turtlesdown1132 minutes ago
        &gt; I saw a figure recently that the US issued an all-time-high 800,000 TN visas to Canadians in 2016. And then in 2023 it surged to nearly 1.3 million.<p>This citation is an order of magnitude off. The US doesn&#x27;t really track&#x2F;release visa numbers well, what you&#x27;re citing might be the number of individual entries using a TN visa - visaholders go back and forth, it&#x27;s not the total number of visa holders.<p>DHS estimates 130k Canadian visaholders in country in 2024. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ohss.dhs.gov&#x2F;topics&#x2F;immigration&#x2F;nonimmigrant&#x2F;population-estimates&#x2F;fy24-nonimmigrant-pop-est" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ohss.dhs.gov&#x2F;topics&#x2F;immigration&#x2F;nonimmigrant&#x2F;populat...</a><p>Canada has 22m workers, so 130k working in the States is nothing like what you&#x27;re claiming.<p>&gt;their entire economy<p>Resource extraction is about ~10% of GDP, compared to 3-5% in the US and 1-2% in mainland Europe. Scandanvian countries have comparable resource extraction % of GDP. It&#x27;s hardly the entire economy. It&#x27;s also diversified resource extraction, it&#x27;s not dependent on oil, etc. Your claim is overblown.
      • llm_nerd26 minutes ago
        &gt;their entire economy is basically 3 mineral extraction industries stacked on top of each other in a trench coat<p>This is just laughable ignorant nonsense. There is no candy coating it, you clearly have zero idea what you&#x27;re yipping about.<p>&gt;And then in 2023 it surged to nearly 1.3 million.<p>LOL. No. Again, are you getting your facts from some far-right bullshit chamber?<p>Don&#x27;t just repeat nonsense.
        • lambdasquirrel16 minutes ago
          I used to have aspirations to move to Canada and I know folks who have tried to hire SREs in Toronto. While that post may sound hyperbolic, it is for all intents and purposes accurate. You can’t build an SRE team in Toronto because the talent pool is too shallow. It really is that bad. The story repeats over and over. The degree to which the US captured the Western countries through its dollar system is actually quite astounding and should terrify people.
          • llm_nerd11 minutes ago
            &gt;I used to have aspirations to move to Canada and I know folks who have tried to hire SREs in Toronto<p>Bizarre. It&#x27;s like having an American school me on Canadian healthcare.<p>Here I&#x27;m sitting, <i>in Toronto</i>, having hired for a number of software development teams, currently running my own operations, where every position gets an <i>enormously</i> deep volume of extremely capable candidates.<p>Shallow talent pool? Good god. Canadian technology salaries are depressed because there is an enormous volume of extremely qualified candidates for every job.<p>It&#x27;s not hyperbolic, it&#x27;s asinine bullshit. Every claim they made is factual nonsense, aside from the truth that working in <i>specific</i> areas of the US (silicon valley, NYC) can yield you a huge salary premium, though that is really kind of a thing of the past and this is like looking at old runes.
        • petcat18 minutes ago
          You can look here [0] for &quot;North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional workers (TN)&quot;<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ohss.dhs.gov&#x2F;topics&#x2F;immigration&#x2F;yearbook&#x2F;2023&#x2F;table25" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ohss.dhs.gov&#x2F;topics&#x2F;immigration&#x2F;yearbook&#x2F;2023&#x2F;table2...</a>
          • llm_nerd13 minutes ago
            Do you know what an admission is? A Windsor nurse working in Detroit would count as 300+ admissions over a year.<p>That does not remotely show what you think it does.
            • petcat6 minutes ago
              Ah, okay. So the problem is not that bad. It&#x27;s way overblown!<p>Meanwhile, the US continues to siphon off every Waterloo and U Toronto STEM grad to the US and American companies.
    • hylaride42 minutes ago
      These are extremely expensive programs that the Swedes have historically been willing to pay to maintain as much neutrality as possible in their defence procurement system. A Saab Gripen has almost the same flyway cost as an F-35 because of manufacturing scale differences (maintenance is far cheaper, though) and the Gripen is far less capable (it is one of the best western fighters if a full blown war happens and your bases are all destroyed, though). Sweden had unique defence requirements due to this that wasn&#x27;t being met by others.<p>Sweden was forced to take their defence seriously due to their geography and political will. Canada has had an easy ride and when the going got expensive, we cancelled our domestic programs (most famously the arrow, but also a lot of other stuff).
    • toxik1 hour ago
      Sweden does not have a car industry. The fighter jets are a different matter, very strong technical moat and need to prove the system in combat. You can&#x27;t just start a fighter jet business.
      • Danox37 minutes ago
        Sweden had a native car industry they decommissioned themselves, in short, they basically gave up, but they’re not alone Australia, New Zealand did the same and so did Canada, but they’re starting to realize that they were a little bit hasty in giving up….<p>Then last, but not least the UK basically threw the towel in too on a wide assortment of industries, but they’re now discovering that that was a big mistake.
      • michaelscott59 minutes ago
        It does with Volvo, although I couldn&#x27;t say how big it is relative to global industry. Within Europe it&#x27;s a large player
        • distances56 minutes ago
          Scania is Swedish, too.
        • sedatk52 minutes ago
          A Chinese company owns Volvo since 2010 or so.
          • jwandborg0 minutes ago
            Volvo Cars is still headquartered in Sweden, and employ 22.4k people in Sweden out of 40k globally[1].<p>Given that the market for Volvo is global, it seems to me that Volvo Cars is still overwhelmingly Swedish, while at the same time being overwhelmingly controlled by Geely.<p>[1]; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.svt.se&#x2F;nyheter&#x2F;lokalt&#x2F;vast&#x2F;1000-personer-far-lamna-volvo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.svt.se&#x2F;nyheter&#x2F;lokalt&#x2F;vast&#x2F;1000-personer-far-lam...</a>
          • turtlesdown1125 minutes ago
            The car part of Volvo is owned by Geely, Volvo AB makes trucks, buses, etc.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Volvo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Volvo</a>
      • OakNinja57 minutes ago
        Volvo still produces cars in Sweden. Koenigsegg still build their cars in Ängelholm.
        • tredre343 minutes ago
          But by that metric Canada also has a car industry? Canada builds 1.5M cars annually.
      • gmueckl58 minutes ago
        Why are you discounting Volvo?
      • andrewstuart56 minutes ago
        &gt;&gt; Sweden does not have a car industry.<p>Apart from Volvo, Koenigsegg and Polestar and Scania. Apart from that, you’re right.
        • ChrisGreenHeur51 minutes ago
          If Saab wanted to they could spin up a car factory as well. But they are more interested in selling these airplanes the article is about.
      • diversen757 minutes ago
        [dead]
    • kashunstva11 minutes ago
      Canada has historically relied on a relatively stable trading relationship with the U.S. That relationship is a shambles. It remains to be seen how Canada retools itself; I imagine that we will see a blend of on-shoring and new trading sources. So it’s less of an issue of “can’t” and more “hasn’t (yet)”.
      • joering25 minutes ago
        Frankly to me the fact Canada is &quot;retooling itself&quot; 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&#x27;t leave the office at all, similar to how Putin stayed in power in what arguingly is a Democratic Country.
    • tredre344 minutes ago
      Not that it invalidate your point, but Sweden has 1&#x2F;4 the population of Canada, not 1&#x2F;10.
    • bawolff49 minutes ago
      There are trade offs in all things. Trying to do everything yourself does also have a cost. It is not neccesarily better.
    • soupbowl55 minutes ago
      Because Canada has been poorly managed for a long time by all political parties that have been voted in.
    • energy12349 minutes ago
      Resources curse
    • llm_nerd29 minutes ago
      We have a larger partner speaking the same language and with a largely synonymous culture and a heavily integrated economy as our neighbour. The moment a Canadian company sees success -- in optics, autos, science, medicine, weaponry, etc. -- it is absorbed by a larger US company and suddenly is no longer Canadian, and in many cases any Canadian operations will usually get choked out.<p>There are few examples where this isn&#x27;t the outcome.<p>This has happened across Canada for well over a century, across every sphere. And in the process the Canadian input is retconned out of existence and Americans ponder why Canada &quot;doesn&#x27;t make anything&quot;. They post ignorant nonsense about how Canada is resource extraction in a trench coat or similar nonsense.<p>Sweden had nothing like this, and they punch way above their weight class because of this. Though that has been changing, for instance with a Chinese company buying Volvo, etc.<p>The only protection against this is...protectionism, whether explicit controls or implicitly by ownership or funding structures. Canada became a leader in nuclear tech by the nuclear industry basically being government owned. It became a transportation powerhouse by a government owned railway. And so on.<p>Change is afoot. Carney has made significant efforts to stop just sending hundreds of billions to the US and most military procurement will focus on Canadian products and innovation. Which leads to lots of gnashing and screaming by propaganda rags like the US-owned PostMedia (yup, even a lot of our media gets absorbed by the US, at least where it isn&#x27;t explicitly barred from doing so).
      • yobbo7 minutes ago
        &gt; Sweden had nothing like this<p>Not entirely true. AstraZeneca and ABB are examples that remain partly Swedish but many companies were merged into big multinationals and eventually marginalised.
  • jmclnx53 minutes ago
    &gt; as the country seeks to reduce reliance on US defense firms<p>I wonder why ? I think we may be seeing a lot more of this.<p>Maybe we will get to see what US Corporations value more, real paying customers or large tax cuts w&#x2F;stock buy back curtsy of US Gov Monetary Support.
  • sourcegrift9 minutes ago
    [flagged]