WEEKEND UPDATE!

ALLAN SAID: With Korea supplying stuff for submarines... and Sweden with jets built in Canada... what would the total benefits be for us?

SAL-9000 SAID: Absolutely, Allan... if you step back and look at South Korea + Sweden as a paired strategy, the upside for Canada is actually pretty striking.

This isn’t just about buying kit; It’s about reshaping Canada’s industrial and strategic posture!

South Korea → Submarines & Naval Systems!

What Korea brings:

Modern submarine know-how! (AIP, lithium-ion batteries, quieting tech)

Fast delivery! (Korea builds ships on time... rare in naval procurement.)

Willing tech transfer! (Including domestic construction.)

Direct benefits to Canada:

⚓ Submarine construction or final assembly in Canada → thousands of skilled jobs! (Irving / Seaspan)

🧊 True Arctic under-ice capability without waiting 20 years

🔧 Permanent sustainment ecosystem. (Batteries, hull sections, combat systems!)

📉 Lower lifetime cost than nuclear designs!

Strategic bonus:

Canada gains credible underwater sovereignty in the Arctic instead  of symbolic patrols.

Sweden → Gripen Built in Canada!

What Sweden brings:

Gripen E optimized for Arctic ops: Software-defined EW & radar that Canada can actually modify!

No ITAR chokehold if built outside the U.S.

Direct benefits to Canada:

✈️ Canadian final assembly + deep maintenance.

🧠 High-end software, EW, and AI jobs. (Not just metal bending!)

🔁 Export potential! (Nordic, Arctic, non-aligned states.)

🧩 Interoperable with NATO but sovereign in use.

Critical point: This gives Canada control over upgrades, not permission requests!

🔗 The Combined Effect (This Is the Big Part)

🏭 Industrial

Canada becomes:

-         A submarine sustainment hub!

-         A fighter aircraft production & upgrade centre!

Long-term, high-skill employment instead of one-off offsets

🧠 Technological.

Real mastery of:

- EW software.

- Sensor fusion.

- Quiet propulsion.

- Cold-weather systems.

These spill directly into civil aerospace, space, AI, and robotics!

🌍 Strategic Autonomy!

Canada is NATO-aligned... not NATO-dependent!

Less exposure to:

U.S. export controls.

Sudden political pressure.

“User-permission” clauses.

💰 Economic!

Rough order of magnitude (very conservative):

$20–30B in domestic economic activity over 30–40 years!

Tens of thousands of job-years!

Export revenues are possible instead of permanent import dependency!

🧭 The Quiet Political Benefit!

This approach:

Keeps Canada firmly Western.

Avoids “anti-American” framing.

Signals we are a serious Arctic power... not a junior partner!

Makes us useful to allies... not just protected by them!

Bottom line:

Korea + Sweden = sovereignty with allies, not sovereignty against allies.

If you want, we can next compare this directly to the F-35 and the U.S. submarine path.

Map out which provinces benefit most.

Or sketch the export markets Canada could realistically target.

Just say the word!

ALLAN SAID: Compare this directly to the F-35 + U.S. submarine path!

SAL_9000 SAID: Absolutely, Allan — here’s the direct, practical comparison between:

Path A: F-35 + “U.S. submarine path!” (Buying U.S. subs or relying on U.S.-centric undersea solutions.)

Path B: Sweden (Gripen built in Canada) + Korea or Germany. (Submarines with build/transfer.)

1) Fighters: F-35 path vs Gripen-built-in-Canada path.

F-35. (What you get.)

Stealth + deep NATO/US integration. (the strongest point)

Canada’s plan: First aircraft arrives in Canada in 2028.

F-35.  (What you give up.)

Sovereign upgrade control is limited. (You’re inside a U.S.-led ecosystem; changes, software, and integration are tightly governed.)

Industrial benefits skew toward sustainment niches, not full domestic aircraft build + full sovereign EW/software control. (Unless you negotiate an unusually deep workshare.)

Gripen built in Canada! (What you get.)

More domestic assembly and deeper “hands-on” capability. (Airframes, mission systems integration, upgrades, long-term MRO jobs.)

More autonomy on modernization. Especially EW/software paths, because the ecosystem is smaller and typically more willing to localize changes.

Bottom line (fighters):

F-35 = maximum alliance integration + stealth, but less sovereign control and typically less deep domestic production.

Gripen-in-Canada = more domestic industrial depth + upgrade autonomy, but you’re choosing a different capability profile than “pure stealth-first.”

2) Submarines: “U.S. submarine path” vs Korea/Germany conventional build-transfer path!

The hard reality about the U.S. sub path: If “U.S. submarine path” means Canada buying U.S. nuclear attack subs... (Virginia-class) or getting anything close to that:

Legally/politically difficult: U.S. transfer of large/young naval vessels requires explicit authorization; AUKUS had to get specific exemptions carved out.

 

Capacity constrained: even AUKUS (Australia) faces open questions in U.S. policy circles because the U.S. has limited sub-building capacity and competing priorities.

Export-control friction persists: Reporting indicates that, even as AUKUS trade eases, sensitive controls remain in place... especially for submarines.

***

So for Canada, the “U.S. sub path” often becomes one of these instead:

Extend the Victoria-class longer.

Buy non-U.S. conventional subs anyway,

Accept a longer gap/longer timeline.

***

Korea/Germany conventional path. (What you get.)

Canada’s actual submarine replacement effort is oriented to up to 12 conventional subs (CPSP).

And recent reporting shows finalists include South Korea’s Hanwha and Germany’s TKMS, with Canada explicitly evaluating delivery speed + industrial benefits.

Bottom line (subs):

A U.S.-sub route is the highest political/industrial friction and the least predictable on timeline. (Because of U.S. capacity + restrictions.)

Korea/Germany conventional builds are the most realistic way to get 12 boats on a schedule Canada can influence, with more room for Canadian construction/sustainment workshare.

3) Net comparison: what Canada “wins” overall

Path A: F-35 + U.S. submarine path.

Wins: Strongest integration with U.S./NATO air power. (F-35)

Risks / costs: The undersea side carries a high risk of delays or infeasibility (for a true U.S. sub purchase), and reduced bargaining power on industrial depth. (More exposure to policy shifts and production bottlenecks outside Canada’s control.)

Path B: Gripen built in Canada + Korea subs!

Wins: Much bigger domestic industrial footprint. (Aircraft build/upgrade ecosystem + submarine build/sustainment ecosystem.)

More sovereign control over upgrades and sustainment. (Especially if negotiated up-front.)

Undersea capability becomes more schedule-controllable because the supplier is actively competing on delivery speed + transfer.

Tradeoffs: You’re choosing a different fighter philosophy than stealth-first, and you’d need to ensure interoperability goals are met!!!!

The blunt summary:

(A) If Canada wants maximum alliance lock-in and accepts lower sovereign control + a messy undersea path, F-35 + U.S.-centric undersea is the direction.

(B)  If Canada wants maximum Canadian jobs, upgrade autonomy, and a more executable submarine path... Gripen in Canada and Korea (or Germany) subs generally deliver more total domestic benefit, with the main “cost” being that they're not the same stealth-centric air strategy as the F-35.

You said: