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

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/27/canada-sweden-saab-globaleye-aircraft

by tosh • 2 months ago

623 416 2 months ago

theguardian.com

jerlam• 2 months ago

The US doesn't even use the Wedgetail, and has cancelled and then un-cancelled it:

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/pentagon-e-7-wedgetail-...

xattt• 2 months ago

It helps that the base plane is built in Canada, and that the PM made commitments to the Swedish king in November 2025.

kspacewalk2• 2 months 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.

rozab• 2 months ago

That one has the disadvantage of not yet existing, although South Korea has ordered

866-RON-0-FEZ3• 2 months 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.

xethos• 2 months ago

Cheaper to operate and mission-fit (debatable) is one thing, but the real question is: "Would this have happened without the US president's antics?"

bigyabai2• 2 months ago

Saab makes excellent AWACS systems, this strikes me as a good choice. It'll be interesting to see if Canada also invests in the Gripen long-term, as a replacement for the aging CF-18 fleet.

jleyank15• 2 months ago

I think the F-16 would have been a good bird for Canada's needs. The F-18 had the advantage of two engines, which strikes me as a good thing in the Arctic. If these two are off the table, things like the Saab are reasonable. There's only 2-3 countries one needs stealth fighters for, and 30-40-ish won't matter in such cases.

switchbak6• 2 months ago

We've long pushed for 2 engines - which has made sense in the past. Even a successful ejection over the vast arctic would basically be a death sentence. Though some of our allies don't seem to have the same reservations, and it seems modern engines are a lot more reliable - certainly the F-35 only has one, so it looks like we're ok with it now.

The modern F-18's and the new F-15's would have also made sense, but agreed that modern F-16s would seem to be a nearly perfect fit if a single engine is now deemed acceptable. Given we like to keep equipment for as long as physically possible (and then some), the F-35 might have more runway (rimshot) in that regard though.

nradov4• 2 months ago

The F-16 lacks the range to operate effectively in Canada. They would need to load it up with multiple conformal or external fuel tanks, which wrecks performance, and would still need extensive tanker support.

switchbak6• 2 months ago

The F-35 always seemed like a funny choice for a mainline fighter for Canada. Even the US has invested in many more F-15EXs. Having a Hi/Lo mix makes sense for a larger force, but equipping a smaller force with only exquisite birds doesn't seem to make much sense.

Then again, this is Canada - sensible decision making in military procurement just isn't something that happens here.

But the economies of scale are such that at least the $$ isn't completely out of whack (for purchase at least, maintenance I'm not so sure of). I would wager that the cost of maintaining those ancient CF-18s is pretty high now too though.

jandrewrogers2• 2 months ago

The F-15EX is designed to be a stand-off missile truck that works in tandem with a network of forward-deployed stealth jets. This compensates for the relatively low ordnance load-out of stealth jets. A stealth jet can designate and cue a target from the front using an F-15EX as a missile launcher safely in the back since it is non-stealthy.

The F-15EX isn't a particularly survivable aircraft on its own. It is a plane you'd only use if you have stealth jets and you plan to do air combat at scale. It augments the capabilities of something like an F-35 but isn't something you'd add to your fleet unless you had a lot of stealth aircraft.

Animats• 2 months ago

From the article:

Saab is also in the running to sell Canada some of its Gripen fighters.

The Iran war has uncovered a vulnerability of the USAF's approach to basing. The USAF likes to build large, elaborate air bases. Many of the bases used to attack Iran have been hit by Iran.[1][2]

Large air bases are tough to defend from drones and missiles in quantity. There are anti-drone weapons, but now that drones are used by the thousands and tens of thousands, some of the attacks will get through. A major air base is a big, fat, soft target. Both the US and Russia have recently found this out the hard way. Air forces now need to disperse and hide. Saab, which stresses operating from minimal airfields and roads, has aircraft better suited to that.[3]

Stealth may not help as much, especially for fighters. Geometric stealth, which is designed to reflect radar beams to anywhere except straight back, doesn't help for bistatic and multi-static radar. All the players in the current wars have some of those systems now.

So, as in WWII, air operations anywhere near the enemy require dispersal.

[1] https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-strikes-us-bases-mid...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/world/middleeast/iran-str...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E

moltar4• 2 months 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.

toxik• 2 months 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't just start a fighter jet business.

michaelscott• 2 months ago

It does with Volvo, although I couldn't say how big it is relative to global industry. Within Europe it's a large player

gmueckl• 2 months ago

Why are you discounting Volvo?

OakNinja• 2 months ago

Volvo still produces cars in Sweden. Koenigsegg still build their cars in Ängelholm.

andrewstuart• 2 months ago

> Sweden does not have a car industry.

Apart from Volvo, Koenigsegg and Polestar and Scania. Apart from that, you’re right.

Danox• 2 months 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….

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.

throwa356262• 2 months ago

What do you mean Sweden does not have a car industry?

Volvo and Polestar have their HQ in Sweden and huge manufacturing plants. They also develop platforms for some other Gealy brands including Link&co and IIRC also Zeeker.

And then there is the Koenigsegg...

jleyank15• 2 months ago

Looking at Ford, GM, and Stellantis, one can say the US doesn't really have an auto industry either. Certainly not a car industry.

moltar4• 2 months ago

Volvo, used to have Saab. Scania trucks.

soupbowl• 2 months ago

Because Canada has been poorly managed for a long time by all political parties that have been voted in.

energy123• 2 months ago

Resources curse

bawolff6• 2 months ago

There are trade offs in all things. Trying to do everything yourself does also have a cost. It is not neccesarily better.

tredre32• 2 months ago

Not that it invalidate your point, but Sweden has 1/4 the population of Canada, not 1/10.

petcat6• 2 months 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.

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's actually every industry since US firms pay 2-3x more than equivalent Canadian firms.

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.

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 1.3 million.

turtlesdown112• 2 months ago

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.

This citation is an order of magnitude off. The US doesn't really track/release visa numbers well, what you're citing might be the number of individual entries using a TN visa - visaholders go back and forth, it's not the total number of visa holders.

DHS estimates 130k Canadian visaholders in country in 2024. https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/nonimmigrant/populat...

Canada has 22m workers, so 130k working in the States is nothing like what you're claiming.

their entire economy

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's hardly the entire economy. It's also diversified resource extraction, it's not dependent on oil, etc. Your claim is overblown.

kashunstva2• 2 months ago

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.

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.

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.

lbrito• 2 months ago

We know that the doctor and nurse brain-drain from Canada to the US has been ongoing for decades.

Its actually the opposite: it had been going on for some time, but has reversed for decades, and in recent years Canada has had _increasing gains_ of medical professionals from the US.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) reports annually on the number of physicians moving abroad and returning to active practice in Canada (CIHI 1996–2005). In the early to mid-1990s, net losses averaged 400 per year. More recently, the number of physicians leaving Canada has decreased significantly, resulting in net gains of between 30 to 60 per year. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2645159/#:~:text=Th...

dboreham• 2 months ago

Canada also supplies the US with most of its comedians.

hylaride3• 2 months 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't being met by others.

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).

MegaDeKay• 2 months ago

There were plenty of good reasons to cancel the Arrow: it was very difficult to fly, it burned fuel like crazy, it had poor maneuverability, etc. A friend of mine is considered an expert on its history and is convinced it was the right call, despite going into his research as a huge fan of the plane.

llm_nerd2• 2 months 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.

There are few examples where this isn't the outcome.

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 "doesn't make anything". They post ignorant nonsense about how Canada is resource extraction in a trench coat or similar nonsense.

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.

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.

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't explicitly barred from doing so).

yobbo• 2 months ago

Sweden had nothing like this

Not entirely true. AstraZeneca and ABB are examples that remain partly Swedish but many companies were merged into big multinationals and eventually marginalised.

moltar4• 2 months ago

Well, couldn’t you say the same thing about Sweden? Germany is right there. They could have bought Volvo, but they didn’t. Scania was independent for a long time and had actively protected from take overs, but eventually still succumbed to VW.

Also, Canada lost many things w/o US acquisitions. What happened to Corel? Nortel? Research in Motion?

kashunstva2• 2 months 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)”.

joering22• 2 months ago

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.

tored• 2 months ago

As a Great Power, Sweden had a great need for engineers to build forts, canals and other important infrastructure for the Kingdom.

These engineers came in handy when the Industrial Revolution started.

Thus Sweden has a long history of manufacturing industry.

ge96• 2 months ago

Bring back the Arrow

lwansbrough• 2 months ago

Something new please. We should be looking forward not pining for what could have been.

The future of air superiority, particularly with respect to sovereign defence is passive or quantum radar, autonomous A2/AD and directed energy.

8note7• 2 months ago

we can still call it an arrow though

or a whole series of arrows

stackghost6• 2 months ago

The Arrow would be a terrible, terrible aircraft for today's world.

It was built to shoot down Soviet bombers coming over the North Pole. It could not perform air superiority missions because it was too big to be agile. It could maybe be a strike fighter, but generally its reputation overstates just how good it would have actually been.

jmclnx• 2 months ago

as the country seeks to reduce reliance on US defense firms

I wonder why ? I think we may be seeing a lot more of this.

Maybe we will get to see what US Corporations value more, real paying customers or large tax cuts w/stock buy back curtsy of US Gov Monetary Support.

hnburnsy• 2 months ago

Boeing and Airbus have tremendous backlogs...

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.
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.

https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airb...

mpol• 2 months ago

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.

Zigurd2• 2 months ago

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.

advisedwang• 2 months ago

Do military versions of aircraft use the same production lines, and the same production queue, as commercial aircraft?

balderdash• 2 months ago

As I recall they do - with many being delivered “green” to the integration upfittet but I think the 737’s for the p-8 is actually assembled separately just for the military

nradov4• 2 months ago

It's not just the final production line that matters, but the whole supply chain. Boeing frequently has new airframes sitting and waiting for parts from suppliers.

sleepyguy• 2 months ago

What does a commercial backlog have to do with an aircraft for military purposes? I'm sure there is a different lane for military aircraft. Anyone ordering an aircraft for military purposes is not going to sit on the same waiting list as a commercial airline.

Canada is aligning itself with it's European Allies. Several EU NATO members have chosen the same aircraft over Boeing.

manquer• 2 months ago

Airbus reported a commercial aircraft backlog of 9,031
10.4 years of production coverage

Kinda true, airlines and manufacturers like to do big order announcements/deals for their future needs of few years all upfront. If Airbus suddenly delivered all 9k aircraft most airlines simply cannot afford it, or take possession and use them even.

For example Indigo is Airbus only operator with a fleet of 450 today and has around 920 more Airbus aircraft (10% of the book) on order. Neither Indigo or Indian aviation sector( of which Indigo is 60%) can triple the capacity today . India need serious upgrades (Terminals, Runways, Gates, new airports) coming online and also demand maturing, i.e. more people can afford to fly for that kind of volume to make sense which even the best scenario will happen over the next decade.

For more mature/slow growing airlines it is function of existing fleet age and the optimal point each aircraft is retired/sold , doing it too early will make them unprofitable .

It is a less a backlog and more their next 10 years of committed sales.

P.S. There is whole other industry aspect around Buy-Sell-and-leaseback financial engineering that can drive order volumes a bit. The backlog/order book also have commodity futures aspects.

khriss2• 2 months 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 '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

866-RON-0-FEZ3• 2 months ago

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.

mikeyouse• 2 months ago

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..

danesparza2• 2 months ago

"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"

asdff12• 2 months ago

Open a history book. They do a lot more than patrol the northern border. Canada was involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq 1 and 2, Fall of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libyan civil war, Iraq civil war, Syrian civil war and ISIS conflict, Yemeni civil war, and a smattering of other conflicts over the past century.

munk-a3• 2 months ago

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.

jleyank15• 2 months ago

They also make the underlying bird, so parts aside from the electronics are native.

bluegatty8• 2 months ago

There are a ton of considerations, starting with 'Doctrine', then tactics, other equipment, integration, other kinds of dependencies. So many things.

Often there are acute, specific needs, aka Canada has to land these all the time in the arctic, you need bigger hangars for the bigger gear, maybe we need 'more units for wider coverage' over large land mass.

Some gear is better v Russians, some gear for China threat.

Etc. Etc.

daneel_w• 2 months ago

"Even if American equipment is superior ..."

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

nickff2• 2 months ago

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.

bigfatkitten• 2 months ago

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.

cmrdporcupine8• 2 months ago

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.

lysace5• 2 months ago

Canada is very unlikely to be invaded

Except from the south.

throwaway2744812• 2 months ago

It's kind of insane they trusted us to begin with. Why?

asdff12• 2 months ago

Why trust anyone? Really what stops a Trump from getting elected anywhere else? The citizens seem smarter or less bigoted? Are you sure that will always be the case given the agitprop in every form of media and internet communication in every language on earth?

slavik81• 2 months ago

Americans were our brothers. We had been partners for over a hundred years.

khriss2• 2 months ago

Because Trump is a new, and (hopefully!) a one time phenomenon.

He is unique in that he seems to have absolute control over the Republican base which makes all internal party checks fail. The rest is provided by a hyper polarized media landscape and a conservative supreme court majority that seems to be open to radical upheavals. The combination of all three has rendered the constitutional safe guards ineffective. In other words, we seem to have run into an edge case in the US constitution.

The supreme court won't change materially in the near future and likely the polarization will continue, but it's hard to image someone in the future with such an absolute grip on either party. So, hopefully a soft restart of the system in 2028 will be the last of this edge case for a while. That's the hope, anyway!

The two countries have far more in common shared interests than differences, so odds are things will drift back to normal in the future.

carlosjobim2• 2 months ago

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

This is due to sanctions. There is no trade between Russia and the USA to put tariffs on.

usrusr• 2 months ago

Makes me wonder what the penguins of Heard and McDonald Islands would say about this

asdff12• 2 months ago

What is stopping the Swedes from electing a jackass? They seem smart for now? It happens in Europe too. All these weaknesses are liable for any country in a democratic model where executive is controlled via popular vote. Population is trivial to manipulate. This is the new world. Running to Sweden doesn't change the underlying issue of the ease of manipulating an electorate using technological affordances to capture a nation from the inside without a single shot fired.

vkou4• 2 months ago

Nothing, but when your spouse turns into an abusive piece of shit, breaking up with them and looking for a new one is the right call.

Sure, the new one might turn into one too, but that's no reason to stay with one who is definitely one.

Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. That's the obvious result of Trumpism - when you seek to turn every interaction into a short-term win for you, people simply stop doing business with you whenever they can avoid it.

Tens of millions of Americans voted for this guy three times, overwhelmingly twice - this is how the country wants to act.

If he and his cronies are removed from power and prosecuted and everyone pinkie swears to never go down this road again, maybe we can look into rebuilding some of that trust. In the meantime, you reap what you sow.

paddim8• 2 months ago

It can happen in Sweden too but it is less likely to. We don't have a president, we have a prime minister with limited power. We have a stronger democracy run by coalitions instead of a single party. One jackass is not enough in Sweden.

Paradigma11• 2 months ago

I do think first past the post is a big part of the problem. Combined with primaries dominated by the most radical parts of the population you have the recipe for very unhinged results.

adjejmxbdjdn2• 2 months ago

From a very practical PoV, the only military threat to Canada is from the U.S.

Even if the U.S. and Canada are enemies, if Canada is being attacked by a country that is not the U.S., then the U.S. will come to its defense because they don’t want another nation with the capability to attack Canada to have a North American presence.

So given that the U.S. is the only possible military threat to the U.S., and now that the U.S. has openly threatened Canada, it’s incredibly silly to buy weaponry from the only country that could militarily attack you and almost certainly won’t share repair material, parts, software source etc. and possibly has a kill switch.

detourdog• 2 months ago

The Gripen is also a very practical design and much simpler to support. Canada can host the data locally as opposed to in the USA. The F-35 is very sophisticated and but maybe to a fault. I'm reminded of how technically superior Germany's vehicles were in WW2. The simplicity and field serviceability the USA vehicles had made a difference in combat.

8note7• 2 months ago

its currently doubtful that the US would come to canada's defense

maybe offer some targetting intelligence, but most likely the US government would look to sell out canada for peanuts, the same as trump has been looking for with ukraine, and now taiwan

chaostheory• 2 months ago

Russia is the other threat, but yes the US is the greater threat now

jandrewrogers2• 2 months ago

If the US decided to attack Canada then having Swedish 4th generation fighters instead of US 5th generation fighters will make literally no difference in the outcome. This isn't a serious calculus.

pfannkuchen• 2 months ago

while exempting Russia and Belarus

I thought they were sanctioned to hell and back. Do tariffs even apply as a concept?

cyanydeez• 2 months ago

aside from political alignment, theres a lot of geographic, budget and climate and stategic alignments that would put swdeen designers in the same headspace.

greenleafone72• 2 months ago

Vastly inferior and overpriced. From now till delivery the US will blackmail the buyer with delays and increase the agreed upon price at least 3 times. Standard practice.

poiuyt0982• 2 months ago

A lot of blame-trump-copium, itt

this has been happening before anyone even thought trump would run: in 2015 trudeau ran on cancelling the f35 purchase. So what did obama do to canadians?

Bender• 2 months ago

Awesome, the more suppliers, sources and competition the better. Might this bring prices down and quality up?

winfredJa• 2 months ago

Trump's damage to the USA will be studied extensively in the future.

SecretDreams2• 2 months ago

Depends how much it gets damaged. There's a world where they won't know how to read in the future.

hermitcrab2• 2 months ago

I guess insulting and threatening your allies isn't great for arms sales.

felooboolooomba2• 2 months ago

If people want to grasp the view of US in Europe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8qSZO4jvTI

(You can watch just the first minute to get the gist)

hermitcrab2• 2 months ago

Hadn't seen that before. Bloody marvellous.

golem142• 2 months ago

And speech was from 1yr ago. The view has probably not improved since ?

throwaway858254• 2 months ago

The US wedgetail order was canceled and Canada can't afford to fund the program on its own. But slop journalists will spin a geopolitical angle because it gets clicks.

e402• 2 months ago

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 and pulled the trigger, over ideologies which are just plain stupid. "America First" indeed. Soft power is power. "Forever" wars are wars we shouldn't be in. Retribution by POTUS acting like a 5 year old is disgusting no matter what party that person came from.

It will take decades to recover from what has and will happen during this administration's run. Let's hope the power they have ends in November 2026 and not Nov 2028.

throwaway858254• 2 months ago

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

e402• 2 months ago

Supply chains are not just components, but things like military planes. See referenced article.

jleyank15• 2 months ago

Guess the people writing on HN here don't have Mac's, iPhones or iPads or use whatever the watches are called.

vitally3643• 2 months ago

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.

switchbak6• 2 months ago

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.

SecretDreams2• 2 months ago

The supply chain of relevance is the critical software, infrastructure to run it, and ability to remotely kill it if an ally stops being an ally.

Nobody cares if their dollar store trinket was made overseas. And nobody would buy it if it was made in America because that same trinket would cost 5x.

People barely even care about their privacy these days, it seems.

But governments still seem to care about their military independence in the rare event they are at odds with an ally.

golem142• 2 months ago

Maybe the insanely expensive ($400 +, for no good reason) kitchen mixers?

Though, one can buy inexpensive chinese ones if one knows where to look.

felooboolooomba2• 2 months ago

no longer a reliable partner

That's putting it mildly. Threatening to invade allies justifies stronger words.

beanjammin• 2 months ago

I wish I shared your optimism that this will end with a vote.

standardUser• 2 months ago

As an American with mostly headline-level knowledge of Canadian politics, this Mark Carney seems unusually competent and effective, as far as heads-of-state go.

fatbird• 2 months ago

Will Ferguson wrote a book named _Bastards and Boneheads_ [0] that told the history of Canada's prime ministers as one or the other. The bastards made history, the boneheads are remembered for their folly.

Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau were bastards, and supremely consequential in Canadian history. Joe Clark and Paul Martin were boneheads.

Which ones Harper and Justin Trudeau are may be too soon to tell, but Carney is clearly a bastard.

[0] https://www.amazon.ca/Bastards-Boneheads-Canadas-Glorious-Le...

throwaway2744812• 2 months ago

Swimming downstream is easier than swimming upstream. Admitting basic reality we all talk about—eg that canada is a vassal state of the us—is only difficult until the cash river stops.

stuxnet792• 2 months ago

Mark is a technocrat. He started his political career after a long, successful stint as an economist and central bank governor. Nobody is perfect but he is about the best leader Canada can hope for to lead it out of the current funk it is in. Pivoting away from a long-term trading partner is not an easy process.

Frankly, the issues that Canada faces now stem from a long history of questionable policies, starting from when Diefenbaker shuttered the Arrow and stripped the talent and parts to be scooped up by Boeing, Lockheed et al all the way to when Mulroney & Reagan signed the FTA dooming Canada's private sector. None of this has been good for Canada's sovereignty and long term independence/success. A non-trivial amount of the SV luminaries that have started companies which showcase American inventiveness have a Canadian passport even though they don't advertise it.

The strained relationship with the US right now is actually providing ample opportunity for Canada to make some strategic long term bets without the "US foreign policy alignment" overhang. I'm optimistic.

Laurel1234• 2 months ago

He was the Governor of both the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada.

8note7• 2 months ago

bank of canada during the 08 problems, and bank of England over brexit, too

he's worked through a lot of emergencies

jleyank15• 2 months ago

We can also have a chuckle and imagine the kerfuffle in the US West Coast wanted to be the 11th provinces...

jameson• 2 months ago

Trust matters in business because it provides a sense of predictability

LightBug1• 2 months ago

Completely understandable.

It's like when your favourite restaurant gets taken over by new management, and you discover cockroaches and maggots in your Trenette al Pesto

You switch restaurants.

carlosjobim2• 2 months ago

Countries always use the threat of buying Swedish war planes as a bargaining chip to get a better deal from the US, or whoever they're really going to buy from. So these news are best believed when everything is signed, sealed, and delivered. This has been going on for at least 20 years with SAAB fighters.

From the article: "Saab is also in the running to sell Canada some of its Gripen fighters. Canada has a deal to buy 88 F-35 jets from Lockheed-Martin, but last year, after the US slapped tariffs on key Canadian imports, Carney asked the military to investigate whether it could cut back the order and buy some planes from another manufacturer."

Ask yourself: Why would a nation spill military secrets like this to the media? They're trying to put pressure on the US. Those Gripen fighters are in all likelihood staying in Sweden after all is said and done.

Waterluvian• 2 months ago

I feel a deep sense of pride and hope, palpably in my chest, when I get a week of news about how we're developing much closer ties with our European allies and divesting ourselves of the abusive American relationship.

Carney's Davos speech was powerful, but those words needed to be followed by actions, which I think we are seeing. I'm used to being so disappointed by politicians.

bluegatty8• 2 months ago

This is actually more likely a non-political procurement decision that looks like a political one.

This is the 'right size' for Canada and other nations - the US doesn't offer a true comparable, and, looks like the US balked at buying the 'kind of comparable' Boeing E7 putting it in jeopardy.

With European military renaissance and the SAAB gear proving itself in Ukraine ... well, you see the shift.

This is the shift writ large.

This is going to happen across all industries.

I don't think it's going to 'fundamentally' alter the landscape, but it will be a shift we don't come back from.

adjejmxbdjdn2• 2 months ago

In the past countries would buy American equipment even if it wasn’t the best fit because that would make you essentially an American ally. Being part of the U.S. ecosystem was valuable.

Unfortunately, over the last 1.5 years, the political value proposition has turned by 180 degrees. - Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing. But the U.S. has been tearing agreements left and right and the President has openly said he may not respond to a valid Article 5 invocation.

- Being a U.S. ally seems to bring even more threats from the U.S. as Canada and Europe are seeing

- Being a U.S. ally is no guarantee of protection even if you literally host American bases like the gulf countries are seeing. In fact, it’s only made them a target and the U.S. prioritized protecting Israel entirely over protecting any of the Gulf states.

The value proposition for buying U.S. weapons has become really bad at this point.

bluegatty8• 2 months ago

So I don't think 'buying US gear made you an ally' - it was just part of the package, and in some cases, the US would 'require allies' to buy.

The US Ambassador to Canada is openly threatening Carney right now with some procurement things - the 'Big One' is the F35.

This is Can PM Carney playing a decent card, and biding for time until the midterms, and then waiting out the 'lame duck' period.

'Border State Republicans' are badly upset with the anti-Canada situation, and will buck Trump if given the chance without massive repercussions.

Trump may not force the issue if he knows he's going to lose.

If we see Trump with conciliatory language towards Canada after the elections, it's because he knows he's been beat. Or if he just shuts up about it and let's the negotiations roll.

I give it 50/50.

But - to be very clear - the world is 'doing 1 nudge' away from the US - not 'breaking away'.

brightball• 2 months ago

Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing.

How much more is the US supposed to do in Ukraine beyond the $60-70 billion in weapons and supplies? Do we need to actually go to war with Russia?

PearlRiver• 2 months ago

I am getting the feeling that Americans don't understand that words have meaning. Trump insulting, threatening and bullying everones is supposed to be one big joke.

But we are talking about sovereign states here that have been around for centuries- they are neither amused nor cowed.

0xDEAFBEAD10• 2 months ago

Being a U.S. ally no longer guarantees that you will be protected by the U.S. as Ukraine is seeing.

The US never promised to protect Ukraine. It's often claimed that the Budapest Memorandum was a promise from the US to protect Ukraine, but this is misinformation. Read the memorandum for yourself if you don't believe me, it's not very long:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

ifwinterco4• 2 months ago

This is 100% true and I agree with all of it, but I would just add that for fighter jets specifically the calculus is a bit different.

Unless you want to buy Chinese jets your choices are either F35s or a big step down to 4th generation fighters that are materially worse in terms of capability.

Modern 4th gen fighters are still very capable, cheaper, simpler and more reliable, but if you ever do end up facing an adversary who has 5th gen fighters you'll be in trouble, so the trade off of choosing not to buy F35s is very real

bawolff6• 2 months ago

Being a U.S. ally is no guarantee of protection even if you literally host American bases like the gulf countries are seeing. In fact, it’s only made them a target and the U.S. prioritized protecting Israel entirely over protecting any of the Gulf states.

I think that is a little oversimplified. America did spend resources on defense of gulf states. They might feel it wasn't enough but it definitely wasn't nothing. I imagine defending Israel was probably a fair bit easier given the distance from Iran, and their domestic military being a lot more prepared and practised for missile defense, which may have translated to more effective results. Ultimately though i think there is a limit to how much America can reasonable do on defense once something like that starts.

Probably the thing gulf states could most reasonably be pissed about was starting the whole adventure in the first place without much regard for the fairly predictable consequences.

lysace5• 2 months ago

With European military renaissance and the SAAB gear proving itself in Ukraine

Btw, we just got this news report here in Sweden:

Sweden is giving Gripen jets to Ukraine

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/vr3znL/uppgift-sverige-...

Aftonbladet is Sweden's largest daily newspaper. They have a fairly strong track record on government and defense scoops.

The supposed announcement is tomorrow morning, local/CEST.

bluegatty8• 2 months ago

They are not likely 'giving' , Sweden just got $90B in locked up Russian money and those 'freebies' are going to come along with a major purchase order.

mmooss2• 2 months ago

As the OP says, Carney has a clear, explicit policy of reducing military (and also economic) dependence on the US, for obvious reasons. It's what Carney is best known for, his leading international affairs and economic policies.

Every time a similar story, of a country turning away from US trade, is posted HN, people post that it's not political. Not only is that claim thin and largely unsbustantiated, but why is it such a focus?

isodev• 2 months ago

likely a non-political procurement

How can this be true - the only reason humans still need military equipment of any sort is politics.

We are not fighting aliens, just stupid politicians that suddenly choose to throw people at a problem instead of using words.

lostlogin4• 2 months ago

I don't think it's going to 'fundamentally' alter the landscape, but it will be a shift we don't come back from.

That sounds like a fundamental change.

throw8756• 2 months ago

Canada will pay for this

fragmede2• 2 months ago

Yes. They're paying Sweden. It's in the title.

nl• 2 months ago

The Saab GlobalEye is based on the Bombardier Global 6500 airframe. Bombardier Aviation is a Canadian company.

For those who aren't aware, the Boeing E7 is yet-another-delayed-Boeing project.

The UK has bought it but it has been continually delayed: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/03/uk-defense-official-boei...

Australia flies it (an earlier version) but today announced they are also buying three Bombardier Global 6500: https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/bombardier-de...

ThePowerOfFuet• 2 months ago

Bombardier Aviation is a Canadian company.

Was. They are now part of Airbus, much like Bombardier Transport is now part of Alstom.

zgniatacz• 2 months ago

that is not true. Business jets are not part of divestiture to Airbus. Cseries was sold to Airbus.

ex1fm3ta• 2 months ago

Only C-Series program was sold to Airbus, Bombardier still makes private jet.

maxglute• 2 months ago

GlobalEye still ~20% US components, probably fall into US ITAR/EAR shenanigans territory if US wants to US.

bushbaba• 2 months ago

Saab uses the Bombardier Global 6500 here. Which is entirely manufactured in Canada. This is less politics and more about economics

dingaling• 2 months ago

Not 'entirely', the 6500's wings are made in Japan, the rear fuselage and tail in Northern Ireland and the engines in England.

gchokov• 2 months ago

The world is slowly moving away from the US. It's interesting because this administration main goal was to MAGA.. but it happened quite the opposite thing. It turns out, the world doesn't need much of the US products and services.

GJim8• 2 months ago

Here is some hard data to back that up; the Country Perceptions Index.

https://www.niradata.com/country-perceptions

Imustaskforhelp2• 2 months ago

This was interesting but it seems that it requires me to access to properly see the data of all countries (which requires me to contact them basically and perhaps be a business, not sure)

I would find it interesting if you can share with me hopefully a less restrictive chart than this. The data does seem interesting to me.

tialaramex• 2 months ago

The key word is "again". This was a nostalgia play, America was a big deal fifty years ago, therefore just wind back to fifty years ago and we're "Great Again".

This play seems insane because Time's Arrow points only one way, but it succeeded (in the sense that people supported it) because it's predicated on Facts Aren't True. It doesn't matter that Time's Arrow points future-ward, that's just a Fact not a Truth so we can just disagree.

Facts Aren't True can actually work for stuff where all you're doing is messing with people. Your Courts are just people and they can reject observable reality and substitute your own Truth with the Kavanaugh Stop, a week in jail becomes "brief" and your skin colour becomes "reasonable suspicion" for example. Your executives can pay themselves huge bonuses for imaginary success while concretely the company fails and eventually collapses. Stock markets can soar as the real economy they're "reflecting" buckles and fails.

"Facts Aren't True" is a stupid choice because unlike the people, Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about your Truth. So America won't actually become Great Again, but it is able to delude itself about this at a cost to its standing in the world and to its own future.

MagicMoonlight• 2 months ago

What are you talking about? The US is something like 70% of global company value. The whole world revolves around it.

stuaxo• 2 months ago

Is this the "multipolar world" that Russia keeps talking about.

jschveibinz• 2 months ago

While $3.6 billion is a big order, Boeing stock price is up 2% so the market (which has global participation) doesn't seem to view this as very negative in the short term?

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

Related Stories