Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At least 30 years after the cancellation of the EH-101, there is hope on the air side what US/FVL and NATO/NGRC will finally give us a common helicopter for most roles.....

Chat yesterday within the RCN is that we are saddled with Cyclone because unlike Australia we are politically unable to say "This thing isn't working as advertised and we are divesting ourselves of this millstone and correcting the mistake".

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Chat yesterday within the RCN is that we are saddled with Cyclone because unlike Australia we are politically unable to say "This thing isn't working as advertised and we are divesting ourselves of this millstone and correcting the mistake".

DAR is holding off on any helicopter replacements till the 2030s because of FVL and NGRC. This is why we're doing the Griffon Life Extension. The Griffons have to get replaced first. But the goal is get them enough life till then. And soon after that the Cormorants and Cyclones. The goal is a single type. Two max. The Cyclone hasn't lived up to marketing. But it's more manageable than the Aussie problems with the NH90. It would be a substantial waste to buy any helicopter fleet right now, just 5 years before new rotorcraft come in with a stepchange in performance.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

DAR is holding off on any helicopter replacements till the 2030s because of FVL and NGRC. This is why we're doing the Griffon Life Extension. The Griffons have to get replaced first. But the goal is get them enough life till then. And soon after that the Cormorants and Cyclones. The goal is a single type. Two max. The Cyclone hasn't lived up to marketing. But it's more manageable than the Aussie problems with the NH90. It would be a substantial waste to buy any helicopter fleet right now, just 5 years before new rotorcraft come in with a stepchange in performance.

I hope you’re right! I won’t be serving when this all comes to pass.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

I hope you’re right! I won’t be serving when this all comes to pass.

I probably won't be in at that point either. But unless something changes (like a major fleet failure or wartime exigencies), the broad plan for rotary wing is to get long sought consolidation through technological change.

Let's face it, the Griffon is mostly useless in its role. Far worse than just about any other fleet. The Cyclone has issues. But it mostly does the job and will last till 2045. Same for the Chinook fleet. The Cormorant fleet is great but aging. So lining them up this means Griffon, Cormorant, Cyclone and Chinook in that order. The Cormorant and Cyclone repayments are in the same weight/capability class. So that's 1 type (medium). The big question is whether the Griffon replacement should be in the same class too. Or that's a second type (light). The Chinook and Hercules replacements could end up being combined in the 2040s (single heavy class).



https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...rcraft/fvl.htm

[Truenorth00]

Great video on how NATO-Russia conflict could develop:

• Video Link

[whatnext]

Canada has suspended funding to UNWRA after claims several of the staff on the UN agency payroll were involved in the October 7 attacks on Israel. The US, UK, Australia and Finland have done the same:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68104203

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Canada has suspended funding to UNWRA after claims several of the staff on the UN agency payroll were involved in the October 7 attacks on Israel. The US, UK, Australia and Finland have done the same:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68104203

UNWRA's opponents, especially in the USA, will have a heyday with this.

[casper]

Interesting take on the Canada - UK trade negotiations.

His argument, UK was desperate and caved in to Japan, EU, New Zeeland and Australia in trade negotiation and ended up in a poorer position than EU. Now farmers and others in the UK are paying attention and they can't get a deal done with the US or Canada.

• Video Link

[acottawa]

That’s probably partially true, which is why Canada was incompetent for not getting an early deal when the takings were good.

Also, Australia wasn’t asking for changes for hormone beef and Australia doesn’t have agriculture cartels, so it would have had fewer obstacles. Australia has a fairly straightforward deal to eliminate nearly all tariffs. Canada wants a lot of carve outs.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That’s probably partially true, which is why Canada was incompetent for not getting an early deal when the takings were good.

Also, Australia wasn’t asking for changes for hormone beef and Australia doesn’t have agriculture cartels, so it would have had fewer obstacles. Australia has a fairly straightforward deal to eliminate nearly all tariffs. Canada wants a lot of carve outs.

In hindsight, perhaps we shouldn't have lent them bureaucrats to help them relearn how to negotiate trade agreements.

[casper]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

In hindsight, perhaps we shouldn't have lent them bureaucrats to help them relearn how to negotiate trade agreements.

A factor is also the population of the UK trusted the government in power when they said BREXIT was going to be better for the UK. That failed and now they are in a much worse situation. It is going to be much harder for the UK government to see any trade deal to their population. The population learned to not trust simple solutions from the right leaning parties.

[Truenorth00]

I just came across this video of Australia's defence review. This is coming from their Labor government. In their strategy, they don't just talk about spending more. They talk about Cres they make to reallocate towards capabilities they need. Imagine having a conversation this mature in Canada:

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That’s probably partially true, which is why Canada was incompetent for not getting an early deal when the takings were good.

Also, Australia wasn’t asking for changes for hormone beef and Australia doesn’t have agriculture cartels, so it would have had fewer obstacles. Australia has a fairly straightforward deal to eliminate nearly all tariffs. Canada wants a lot of carve outs.

I'm really not sure what we would have gained by cutting a deal earlier. I'm not even sure what the UK has to offer us on trade. Other than agricultural products, what exactly are we looking to export there? Seems to me they benefit a lot more from a real than we would, if agriculture isn't included. Is there some sector in Canada that really needs a deal with the UK to substantially open up exports?

The reactions are mostly focused around domestic politics. And while that's understandable, I have not seen a cogent explanation on why we need this deal. Beyond some vague appeal to CANZUK.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I just came across this video of Australia's defence review. This is coming from their Labor government. In their strategy, they don't just talk about spending more. They talk about Cres they make to reallocate towards capabilities they need. Imagine having a conversation this mature in Canada:

• Video Link

Is this the one?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Is this the one?

Yep. Sorry. Link fixed.

[Truenorth00]

Given Trump's recent comments on NATO, I'm going to re-emphasize this:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Slight tangent. Arguably, the biggest national security and foreign affairs problem Canada faces right now, is the return of Trump. There's the direct impact to us, on issues like trade and lately on all kinds of border security complaints from Republicans (some border state GOP are acting like Canada is as bad as Mexico). But a much larger issue is the willingness of Trump to simply roll over for adversaries. We will have a real crisis when he undermines NATO (all but inevitable). He doesn't have to quit, to simply undermine the treaty promises. This could embolden Putin to attack the Baltics or Poland. Going to war without the US, would be a first for Canada, in the post-WWII era. And for all his rhetoric on China, I actually don't think he'd go to war there either. He'd probably be willing to cut some deal where Taiwan is left undefended in exchange for some industry being repatriated to the US. These are scenarios Canadians should be discussing, but I see nothing other than hopes and prayers about Biden getting re-elected.

[whatnext]

An interesting piece in the NY Times by Thomas Friedman on the global struggles currently playing out in Ukraine and Israel. He references a speech Chrystia Freeland gave at a NATO event in Davos:

…. to the Ukraine issue at Davos this year, Canada’s deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, noted that it is we, the West, who should be thanking the Ukrainians, not forcing them to beg us for more weapons.

She also eloquently formulated the stakes: “What Putin wants is to transform the world order” that evolved since World War II and the post-Cold War — where “the competition between nations was about who can be richer and who can help their people prosper the most. … Putin hates that world because he loses in that world — his system is a loser in a peaceful, global, wealth-enhancing paradigm. And so what he wants is to move us back to dog-eat-dog, to a 19th-century, great power competition, because he thinks he can, if not win, be more effective there. … Let’s not think that this is a Ukrainian problem; this is a problem for us all.”

She is exactly right…..

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/o...r-ukraine.html

[Truenorth00]

The disappointing thing is politicians like Freeland say all the right things and then go home and do the bare minimum. We have generals in Europe saying war with Russia is imminent. Yet, neither their governments or ours are acting like it. And the bizarre reality is that this might only embolden Putin.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm really not sure what we would have gained by cutting a deal earlier. I'm not even sure what the UK has to offer us on trade. Other than agricultural products, what exactly are we looking to export there? Seems to me they benefit a lot more from a real than we would, if agriculture isn't included. Is there some sector in Canada that really needs a deal with the UK to substantially open up exports?

The reactions are mostly focused around domestic politics. And while that's understandable, I have not seen a cogent explanation on why we need this deal. Beyond some vague appeal to CANZUK.

We ship a lot of metal to the UK (over $9bn worth in 2022), but there are no tariffs on that. One of their biggest exports to us is vehicles, and those could face tariffs after April, without a deal.

Our current agricultural exports are about $695m, of which $306m are cereals. There's also $241 of wood. The full list is here.

The UK sends us less - just over $300m of agricultural products, but also $277m of beverages. (They send us $33.35m of 'miscellaneous edible preparations'. I'm guessing that's Marmite). List here.

I guess if we end up in a trade war we stop sending them gold, uranium, cereals and maple syrup, and they hold back the Bentleys, McLarens and Jaguars, Scotch, and Marmite.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm really not sure what we would have gained by cutting a deal earlier. I'm not even sure what the UK has to offer us on trade. Other than agricultural products, what exactly are we looking to export there? Seems to me they benefit a lot more from a real than we would, if agriculture isn't included. Is there some sector in Canada that really needs a deal with the UK to substantially open up exports?

The reactions are mostly focused around domestic politics. And while that's understandable, I have not seen a cogent explanation on why we need this deal. Beyond some vague appeal to CANZUK.

UK is our third biggest export market after the U.S. and China. We had free trade for a decade with CETA and the post Brexit continuation deal which has expired. I think the larger concern is losing exports.