Comment by hylaride

Comment by hylaride 11 hours ago

As a Canadian, I have mixed feeling about this. You can develop and build domestic defence industries, but it only becomes economical if you can develop an export market. Even then, the inputs for parts/resources are still global.

Sweden has one heck of a domestic defence industry, but it's tailor made for its requirements and expensive. The SAAB Gripen is one of the best planes in the world for what it was designed to do: operate dispersed off of regional roads when your main infrastructure is destroyed or unavailable. But its flyway cost is the same as an F-35 because hundreds have been built instead of thousands. And the Gripen's engine is still from General Electric.

The NLAW anti-tank weapon is a good example of export success. It was developed jointly with the British and has had a lot of exports and proven success in Ukraine.

On top of that, Canada's defence civil service is terrible at procurement. Even when we buy foreign, we manage to drive up the costs to the point where its rediculously price just to shove in some domestic "advantage", rather than focusing that money on stuff we are really good at (we tend to kick ass at sonar and anti-sub tech, for example).

rjsw 10 hours ago

The Gripen could have been designed around the EJ200 or Snecma M88 instead.

Reply View 0 replies

lupusreal 8 hours ago

Domestic development is an investment in your own country, it develops and pays skilled labor and supporting industries. When you buy jets from America, virtually all of that money is gone from Canada forever, funneled into America with Canada getting nothing out of it besides a jet which will need spare parts also from America, technicians from America, and after some years will need to be replaced with another American jet because after you've stabbed your own domestic industry in the back now you have no other choice than to continue buying foreign.

Reply View 4 replies

hylaride 5 hours ago

By that argument we should do that with everything. Maybe...with tariffs? /s
Doing that is more expensive and means we get us less for more - and we'd almost still rely on other countries for components and resources. All being equal, it is better to buy foreign goods cheaper and then have money leftover to focus on investing what you're good at. Canada is too small to economically fully design and build a modern plane, engines, missiles, radar, etc to compete with the US, China, etc. We certainly can't afford to do that with everything else, as well.
There are absolutely overriding strategic and security reasons you may want to do some of this anyways, but as a general rule we'd be far better diversifying our defence alliances (eg buying a mix from France, Korea, Japan, US, UK, etc) plus having something really good to offer said allies so we can be interdependent. Countries (including the US as we're learning) are not more powerful when they go it alone.
Protected industries almost always get lazy and noncompetitive. Canada is building our own version of the Type 26 frigate for almost double the cost per boat of Australia and the UK (which already ate the design costs!) despite the fact that we're going to be building the most of them so we should in theory scale cheaper. There are some reasons for that (they will be the most capable type 26's afloat), but it's mostly just because the government wants to subsidize Irving and east coast shipbuilders and there's no real scale or expertise because they literally can't market their work outside of Canada.

Reply View | 3 replies
- lupusreal 4 hours ago
  
  The argument is that naively looking at the price tags of domestic and foreign weapon systems doesn't tell you the true costs to the country. A dollar given to a foreign country costs much more than a dollar spent inside your own economy.
  This is hardly even a novel or controversial point. Any defense spending expert will tell you this. Even that trendy Perun guy that reddit loves has made this precise point.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  hylaride an hour ago
  
  If this were true, Argentina would be super rich and Singapore would be super poor.
  But it is not because just “keeping a dollar in your country” chasing less productive work/goods causes productivity and competitive problems the more it happens and longer it goes on.
  There are plenty of defense experts who’ll say the opposite of what you say they will (though they’re open to exceptions for security reasons).
  It is better to buy cheaper/better stuff abroad and have others do the same for your competitive stuff.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  lupusreal an hour ago
  
  You are being deliberately obtuse. Investing in domestic production isn't an infinite money hack, that isn't the argument. The argument is that you cannot make a apples-to-apples dollars-to-dollar price comparison to see how much it will cost your country to outsource production of hardware. With the benifit of hindsight, we know that Diefenbaker's decision spelled the death of Canada's aerospace industry. Their engineers moved to America or left their careers behind. The cost to Canada of buying American jets was considerably more than the sticker price of those jets.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

mrguyorama 5 hours ago

Russia's weapons exports have cratered (because their products aren't living up to the hype) and US exports will be shakey since countries can't trust us anymore.

South Korea was already finding export success in Europe for general military equipment. Eastern Europe is paying big bucks to not be Ukraine 2. The market is ripe for new entrants.

Meanwhile NATO has been stuck with 80s equipment with a hundred upgrade packages for quite some time. It's a great time to offer brand new products. Specifically tanks and AFVs are an open market right now. Anti-Air is also an open market, since Russian units are all exploded in Ukraine so they don't exactly have any stock to export and the Patriot is good but expensive and from an untrustworthy partner.

Reply View 0 replies

cmrdporcupine 11 hours ago

"On top of that, Canada's defence civil service is terrible at procurement."

You could remove "defence" from that and describe almost every large company or gov't in this country, too.

We need a moral and civil reform in this country, to really build again like we used to. Civic spirit revival.

Look at the joke of the Eglinton LRT, or even more so the Hamilton LRT. Even when we commit to building things, it turns into a swamp of mismanagement and a game of political hot potato.

Most embarassing thing about the Eglinton LRT is it sounds like its our (software) profession that is to blame for the latest series of dysfunctions. I'm disgusted.

Reply View 1 reply

hylaride 5 hours ago

Yeah, I was trying to remain in scope to defence-related issues, but I don't disagree with you. I'm holding out some small sliver of hope that all the recent geopolitical events will finally wake us up, but I'm not holding my breath.

Reply View | 0 replies