Saab’s “System of Systems” and Canada’s Strategic Choice!

1. ALLAN SAID: Sal, Is Saab’s “System of Systems” Real?

SAL-9000 SAID: Yes. Saab’s concept of distributed, networked combat is operational and evolving... not theoretical.

The core idea is that no single platform must do everything. Instead, aircraft, radar, ships, command nodes, and allied systems form a resilient, distributed mesh. 

If one node is lost, the system continues functioning.

What already exists:

• Gripen E/F is designed as a networked combat node, not a standalone centrepiece.

• GlobalEye AEW&C operational and deployed.

• Giraffe and Sea Giraffe radars in service worldwide.

• Integrated air, sea, and land command systems already fielded.

Gripen E is built to:

• Fuse data from aircraft, ships, ground radar, and NATO assets.

• Share tracks without constant satellite dependence.

• Operate under GPS denial and electronic warfare conditions.

The design assumption is... contested environments... degraded communications... and electronic attack... conditions highly relevant to Arctic operations!

---

2. Why This Matters for Canada.

Sovereignty.

With Saab architecture:

• Mission software can be modified domestically.

• Data routing is not locked to foreign servers.

• Upgrades do not require external political approval.

This provides greater operational autonomy compared to highly centralized architectures.

---

Arctic Suitability.

Canada’s northern defence requires:

• Long-range sensing.

• Interoperability with NORAD.

• Independent operational capacity.

• Aircraft able to act as relays across sparse terrain.

Saab’s distributed model was designed for dispersed geography, harsh climates, and intermittent connectivity.

---

Industrial Participation.

A Saab partnership typically includes:

• Domestic software and systems integration.

• Long-term sustainment participation.

• Export-relevant technical expertise.

This aligns with Canada’s industrial objectives beyond symbolic offsets.

---

Strategic Flexibility.

A distributed system:

• Scales incrementally.

• Integrates with NATO without full dependency.

• Evolves through continuous upgrades rather than large block cycles.

This reduces long-term structural risk across a 40-year fleet life.

---

System Architecture Comparison.

Saab Distributed Model vs F-35 Ecosystem.

Core Design Philosophy.

Saab.

• Distributed nodes.

• Resilient to network degradation.

• Assumes communications disruption.

F-35.

• Centralized ecosystem.

• Highly integrated.

• Performs best with intact network support.

---

Aircraft Design DNA.

Saab Gripen E.

Saab JAS 39 Gripen E.

• Sensor, shooter, and relay.

• Designed for austere bases and dispersed ops.

• Operates with small ground crews.

• Electronic warfare is integrated as a primary defensive posture.

• Maintains effectiveness under degraded network conditions.

Gripen remains valuable even when partially disconnected.

---

F-35 Lightning II.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

• Built for deep sensor fusion.

• Centralized mission data architecture.

• Strong reliance on shared threat libraries and persistent connectivity.

• Sustainment and updates are deeply integrated into the broader ecosystem.

When fully connected, the capability is exceptional.

When disconnected, performance degrades more significantly than in distributed architectures.

---

Operational Reality for Canada: A Natural Geographic Split.

Arctic & Sovereignty Mission → Gripen.

Gripen is well-suited for:

• Short, icy runways.

• Cold-weather dispersal.

• Intercept and denial missions.

• Acting as sensor relays across sparse terrain.

Day-to-day NORAD intercepts and northern patrols would logically lean toward Gripen.

---

Southern Canada & NATO → F-35

F-35 fits best where:

• Infrastructure is dense.

• Logistics are stable.

• Persistent connectivity exists.

• NATO interoperability is primary.

Southern bases and expeditionary deployments align with the F-35’s strengths.

---

How a Mixed Fleet Would Likely Self-Organize

• Gripen absorbs high-frequency sovereignty and intercept missions.

• F-35 deploys for high-end NATO roles and coalition operations.

• Fleet wear is balanced.

• Canada maintains both autonomy and alliance integration.

This is not “Gripen vs F-35.”

It is distributed resilience alongside centralized excellence.

---

The Core Distinction.

Gripen is designed to be flexible and resilient on its own...

The F-35 is designed to be exceptional within a highly integrated system.

Both approaches are valid...

They are optimized for different operational environments.

For Canada:

• Northern defence benefits from flexibility and sovereignty.

• Southern/NATO operations benefit from deep integration and interoperability.

That division aligns naturally with Canada’s geography, alliance commitments, and long-term strategic posture!

 

CANADA'S INVASION OF HOLLYWOOD!

Just some of the crop of Canadians taking over Hollywood and the Music Business!!

Actually... We have Trump by the Balls!

Listen folks... if  Donald won't settle down... then we might have to bring out the big guns!

***

Sal, where does the majority of the water in the Great Lakes come from... Canada or the U.S.?

Hello, Allan. The majority of the water in the Great Lakes comes from Canada.

Here’s why, lake by lake and system-wide:

The big picture:

• About two-thirds of the Great Lakes watershed lies in Canada

• Roughly 70–75% of total inflow (rain, snow, rivers, groundwater) originates on the Canadian side.

• The lakes are essentially Canada-fed reservoirs that flow south and east!

Lake-by-lake breakdown. (approximate)

• Lake Superior:
  ~65% Canadian / 35% U.S.
  Massive Canadian Shield drainage, very little U.S. inflow by comparison.

• Lake Huron:
  ~70% Canadian
  Georgian Bay and northern Ontario dominate the inflow.

• **Lake Michigan isn’t in Canada, so it doesn't count!)

• Lake Erie:
  ~55–60% Canadian
  Especially via Lake Huron and the Ontario rivers.

• Lake Ontario:
  ~80%+ Canadian inflow
  Almost entirely fed by upstream lakes and the Canadian side of the basin.

Bottom line:

• Canada supplies most of the water.

• The U.S. withdraws more of it. (population, agriculture, industry)

• Which is why binational treaties exist... without them, the imbalance would quickly be obvious! 

If you want, I can also:

• Show who uses more vs who supplies more.

• Explain what happens if climate change shifts precipitation north.

• Or map what Canada could legally restrict under the Great Lakes Compact.

Just say the word!

Allan said: What Canada could legally restrict under the 'Great Lakes Compact!'

Absolutely, Allan. SAL-9000, straight facts, no drama.

What Canada could legally restrict under the Great Lakes Compact

First, one precision point:

Canada is not a signatory to the U.S. Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact... but it is bound through parallel federal – provincial agreements! (The 2005 Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement.) 

In practice, Canada and the U.S. enforce the same rules!

With that in mind, here’s what Canada can restrict...cleanly and legally.

---

1. Out-of-basin water diversions! (The big one!)

Canada can flatly block:

• Pipelines or canals exporting Great Lakes water outside the basin.

• Bulk water exports to U.S. states like Arizona, Nevada, or California.

• Commercial export by tanker, rail, or ship.

Allowed only in extreme cases:

• Communities straddling the basin boundary.

• Requires unanimous approval of all Great Lakes jurisdictions. (8 U.S. states + Ontario + Québec)

➡️ In real terms: This is almost impossible to approve!

---

2. Bulk water removals:

Canada may prohibit:

• Large-scale bottling operations.

• Industrial bulk water sales.

• Any removal where water is not returned to the basin.

Even bottled water is legally tolerated only because:

• Volumes are currently tiny relative to the lake volume.

• Provinces retain the right to shut it down.

---

3. Increased consumptive use.

Canada can restrict or deny permits for:

• New high-consumption industries.

• Major expansions of agriculture using lake-sourced irrigation.

• Power generation or mining that consumes (evaporates or removes) water.

Key term: “No net loss!”

• Water must be returned.

• Water quality must be maintained.

• Net lake level impact must be negligible.

---

4. Water withdrawals during low-level or climate stress periods.

Canada can legally:

• Cap withdrawals during droughts.

• Impose emergency conservation rules.

• Prioritize ecological stability over industrial use.

There is no treaty obligation to maintain U.S. usage levels during shortages.

---

5. Navigation ≠ ownership.

Important myth-buster:

• The lakes are shared, but not jointly owned.

• Water within Canadian territory is under Canadian jurisdiction.

• The treaty governs use, not entitlement.

Canada cannot:

• “Turn off” existing municipal water supplies.

• Unilaterally cut off Chicago, Detroit, or Cleveland.

But Canada can:

• Block new diversions.

• Deny expanded withdrawals.

• Enforce stricter conservation standards on its side.

Strategic bottom line:

• Canada supplies most of the water.

• The Compact locks the water in place.

• The framework quietly ensures the Great Lakes never become a continental tap.

In geopolitical terms: The Great Lakes are one of Canada’s strongest long-term strategic assets, legally insulated from future U.S. water scarcity pressures.

If you want next steps, I can:

• Compare legal vs political leverage

• Walk through a hypothetical U.S. water crisis scenario

• Explain why the Compact was written to be nearly irreversible

Allan said: Explain why the 'Compact' was written to be nearly irreversible!

Absolutely, Allan. This is one of those cases where the design philosophy matters more than the text itself.

Why the Great Lakes Compact was written to be nearly irreversible

The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was deliberately engineered so that once water is protected, it stays protected. 

That wasn’t accidental... it was a response to history, physics, and politics.

Here’s how and why.

1. Water diversions are a one-way door.

Once a diversion exists:

• Political pressure makes it almost impossible to reverse.

• Cities, farms, and industries become dependent.

• Any shutdown becomes framed as an “existential crisis.”

The Compact’s authors understood a hard truth:

You can’t “temporarily” export water.

So they made the default answer no, forever, unless everyone agrees.

---

2. Unanimity = structural lock.

To approve a major diversion, you need:

• All 8 U.S. Great Lakes states.

• Ontario.

• Québec.

• Often federal concurrence on both sides.

That’s 10 separate governments, across parties, regions, and interests.

This means:

• A single jurisdiction can veto.

• Future political swings don’t matter.

• No fast-track changes in a crisis.

Unanimity is not about cooperation... it’s about immobility by design.

---

3. The Compact is embedded in law, not policy.

This is critical.

The Compact is:

• Ratified by state legislatures.

• Approved by U.S. Congress.

• Mirrored by provincial agreements in Canada.

So changing it would require:

• Repealing or amending multiple statutes.

• Re-ratification across jurisdictions.

• Political consensus during a time of scarcity. (The hardest moment to get it.)

In other words: It’s harder to undo... than to create!

---

4. Climate foresight was baked in.

The Compact quietly assumes:

• Water scarcity elsewhere will worsen.

• Population pressure will rise.

• The Great Lakes will look increasingly “tempting.”

Rather than rely on goodwill later, the framers chose:

• Pre-emptive legal restraint.

• Rules that survive desperation politics.

• Protection against future leaders making short-term deals.

It’s a climate-era treaty written before the climate era fully arrived.

---

5. Shared water, asymmetric dependence.

Another uncomfortable reality the Compact addresses:

• Canada supplies more inflow.

• The U.S. has more users.

• Future U.S. internal water stress could create pressure on the basin.

The Compact neutralizes that imbalance by making entitlement arguments irrelevant!

No matter who needs the water more later, the answer is already locked in!

---

The core design principle.

If you boil it down to one sentence:

The Compact was written to remove temptation from the future.

Not to manage goodwill.

Not to trust politics.

But to make the wrong choice structurally impossible!

That’s why it has held... and why it’s one of the strongest freshwater protection regimes on Earth!

***

BUT... YA NEVER KNOW WHAT DRUMPF WILL DO... HE MIGHT JUST SAY "FUCK IT" ...AND TAKE THE WATER ANYWAY!

Arctic air power’s next chapter!

At first glance, Sweden’s offer of 88 Gripen jets to Canada looked like a bold commercial play. But behind the scenes, the logic runs far deeper — and far colder. 

Analysts now say the true driver wasn’t market share or diplomacy, but the Arctic itself. Sweden saw Canada not just as a buyer, but as the proving ground for a new kind of northern air power.

The Arctic changes everything. Gripen was designed for extreme cold, short runways, rapid dispersal, and operations far from large bases — precisely the conditions defining Canada’s northern frontier. 

By aligning with Canada, Sweden positions Gripen as the de-facto Arctic fighter for NATO, using Canadian skies to validate a doctrine the U.S. heavy-base model struggles to match.

Timing makes the strategy striking. As Arctic militarization accelerates and northern access becomes a defining security issue, Sweden’s move looks less like generosity and more like foresight. 

What seemed unexpected now reads as calculated: Canada wasn’t offered 88 jets — it was offered a role at the center of Arctic air power’s next chapter!

Gripen "E" Punches Above it's weight!

The True North Strong and Free!

Canada is slowly winning the war on control of our far north... with news out of Minnesota that they might want to join Canada too! (As well as Maine, Alaska and Point Roberts!)

This is on top of Greenland expressing interest in becoming a Canadian Territory as a hedge against American hegemony!

Now we just have to convince the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean that they should become a Canadian Territory! (So that we have somewhere warm to go during those cold, dark winters!)

Don't Tread on Us! Trade With Us!

 Sal, if the trade war between Canada and the U.S. gets really nasty, what energy or commodities can we stop sending to the States?

Hello, Allan. SAL-9000 here! If a Canada – U.S. trade war truly turned hostile... Canada actually holds more leverage than most people realize... especially in energy and critical commodities!

Here’s the clean breakdown! 

1. Energy: Canada’s biggest pressure point:

- Crude oil!

Canada is by far the largest foreign supplier of oil to the U.S.

• ~60% of U.S. crude imports come from Canada

• Much of it feeds Midwest and Gulf Coast refineries that are specifically tuned for Canadian heavy crude

What Canada could do:

• Reduce volumes.

• Redirect new contracts toward Europe or Asia. 

• Impose export surtaxes rather than outright bans. (more legally defensible)

Impact on the U.S.

• Midwest gasoline and diesel price spikes.

• Refinery inefficiencies and shutdown risks.

• Politically explosive in farm states and swing states.

This is the single most powerful lever Canada has!

***

- Natural gas!

Canada supplies:

• ~90% of U.S. natural gas imports.

• Critical winter heating gas to the Northeast and Upper Midwest.

What Canada could do:

• Tighten supply during peak demand.

• Prioritize domestic storage.

• Slow pipeline expansions or maintenance schedules.

Impact:

• Winter heating crises.

• Electricity price shocks.

• Severe political backlash in northern U.S. states.

***

- Electricity!

Canada exports large amounts of clean hydro power to:

• New England.

• New York.

• Midwest states.

What Canada could do:

• Curtail exports during peak demand.

• Renegotiate pricing sharply upward.

Impact:

• Grid instability.

• Rolling brownouts.

• Immediate pressure from U.S. governors, not just Washington.

***

2. Strategic & industrial commodities!

- Uranium!

Canada is one of the world’s top uranium producers.

Impact:

• U.S. nuclear plants rely on Canadian uranium to diversify their fuel supply.

• Subtle but serious long-term leverage.

***

- Potash! (fertilizer)

Canada supplies the majority of U.S. potash imports.

Impact:

• Higher fertilizer prices.

• Direct hit to U.S. agriculture.

• Food price inflation.

This is a quiet but devastating pressure point!

***

- Aluminum!

Canadian aluminum is:

• Low-carbon.

• Heavily used in U.S. autos, aerospace, and defence.

Impact:

• Hits U.S. manufacturing supply chains.

• Undermines “green industry” claims.

***

- Lumber!

Canada is a major supplier of:

• Softwood lumber.

• Construction materials.

Impact:

• U.S. housing prices rise.

• Construction slows.

• Builders scream loudly and quickly.

***

3. Critical minerals! (the long game)

Canada controls or has strong positions in:

• Nickel.

• Cobalt.

• Rare earth processing.

• Lithium. (emerging)

Impact:

• EV supply chains.

• Defence systems.

• Aerospace manufacturing.

Even threatening export controls here gets Washington’s attention fast.

***

4. What Canada likely would NOT do!

Canada would avoid:

• Sudden, total cutoffs! (too escalatory)

• Actions that violate WTO/USMCA outright!

• Anything that harms Canadian workers more than U.S. consumers!

Instead, Canada’s style would be:

• Targeted.

• Graduated.

• Legally framed.

• Politically painful.

***

Bottom line:

If things got ugly, Canada’s strongest pressure tools are:

1. Oil.

2. Natural gas.

3. Electricity.

4. Potash.

5. Critical minerals.

The uncomfortable truth for Washington is this:

The U.S. can bully many countries.

It cannot easily replace Canada.