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 'ally' which

* Arbitrarily slapped high tariffs on all goods from Canada while exempting Russia and Belarus.

* Threatened to take over the country by force.

* Officially suspended the Permanent Joint Board on Defense between US and Canada because of criticism of US foreign policy by the Canadian PM

▲

daneel_w an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> "Even if American equipment is superior ..."

To address the article's context, is the E-3 Sentry superior to the Erieye/GlobalEye?

▲

bigfatkitten 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	nradov a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Delivery schedules are also likely a factor. Assuming the USAF actually orders the E-7, they'll probably get first priority on the Boeing production line. Any export orders would have to wait.
	▲	stackghost 17 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>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 a long time since I took my electronic warfare courses, but in a situation where the radar is expected to spot small drones and other targets I would prefer a higher frequency radar. It should be noted that the US military itself didn't want the Wedgetail in favor of a space-based solution, until Hegseth forced them for publicity reasons.

▲

nickff an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The comparable aircraft is the more modern E-7 Wedgetail, which has many features that are superior for Canada's use case (notably including range and NORAD integration). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail

Canada has unfortunately been in conflict with Boeing since before either of Trump's terms, originally triggered by Boeing's trade complaints regarding Bombardier's government subsidies.

▲

munk-a an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Even if American equipment is superior

I'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.

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't even the only rationale for this - in 2017 the US imposed extremely heavy tariffs on Bombardier that bankrupted the majority of the corporation.

	▲	jleyank 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They also make the underlying bird, so parts aside from the electronics are native.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

866-RON-0-FEZ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We call this confirmation bias.

The Saab is likely cheaper to operate as it's a smaller plane and Canada only has to patrol its northern border.

▲

danesparza an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"We call this confirmation bias".

I'm genuinely curious to know what you think the author's pre-existing beliefs are.

You seem to have a few of your own: "Canada only has to patrol its northern border"

	▲	866-RON-0-FEZ an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> You seem to have a few of your own: "Canada only has to patrol its northern border" Another belief I hold is that you didn't care to click the link or read past the title because it literally states "aircraft to patrol Arctic territory" in bold font in the sub-heading. You're being deliberately obtuse with nothing constructive to add to this discussion.
	▲	jsLavaGoat an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You're not curious. You know what it is. Why is it so hard to say? It's "America bad." And fine, buy all of your military hardware elsewhere. When will you be leaving NORAD and NATO then? Of course you won't. So this is performative.

▲

mikeyouse an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Canada only has to patrol its northern border.

At what point on this current trajectory in the US would that change... mostly facetiously, but not entirely..

	▲	petcat an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

cmrdporcupine an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You missed the absolutely huge one: that the plane it's based around is a Bombardier aircraft manufactured here in Canada.

And in general this is how Saab has tried to court us -- by making promises (how real is unclear) to bring manufacturing jobs to Canada to build things.

That is something the US has not done, will not do, and most importantly cannot do under Trump/Bissent/etc.

Canada is very unlikely to be invaded, so the actual military effectiveness / superiority is only one factor. Reducing unemployment and enhancing our manufacturing sector is as or more important.

▲

lysace an hour ago | parent [-]

> Canada is very unlikely to be invaded

Except from the south.

	▲	cmrdporcupine an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.