A thread on how Canada can respond to tariffs by cutting the F35A order in half and buying the runner-up F39E to serve as the bulk of Canada's air power over the next 40 years. Using my slides from a previous RCAF Association debate & research from my @policy_school thesis.

Also true in Canada.

When the directors of the Queensboro Corp. -- the developer responsible for much of present-day Jackson Heights, Queens -- traveled to Europe in 1914, they were not afraid that borrowing from foreign models would produce a theme park. They were searching for better ways to build out Queens. Manhattan offered a cautionary example. Its residential buildings were often narrow and deep, with excessive lot coverage, inadequate light, and little meaningful open space. In Berlin and other European cities, the Queensboro directors found new innovations on the old perimeter block model: wide, shallow buildings aligned to the street, no side setbacks, and organized around large interior courtyards. They adapted that model in Jackson Heights, creating some of the finest residential areas in the country, combining extraordinary population density with abundant light, air, greenery, and shared open space. Then, rather than allowing the model to evolve and spread, American cities largely outlawed it through zoning and building codes. Setback requirements, lot-coverage limits, height restrictions, parking mandates, and increasingly rigid egress rules made it difficult or impossible to build new neighborhoods like Jackson Heights. We imported one of Europe’s most successful urban innovations, proved that it could work beautifully in an American context, and then effectively prohibited ourselves from building more of it.

If we’re going to be treated poorly regardless, then we might as well buy Canadian made military equipment.

America: "Hey, Canada, buy our military equipment. It's really good if you integrate with us!" Also America: "Hey, Canada, you are no longer allowed to militarily integrate with us." Hell of a sales strategy.

Gorgeous Gripen photos.

Idag drar fotbolls-VM igång som bekant. Ni missar väl inte det inofficiella VM för länder som har Gripen som sitt stridsflyg. Må bästa Gripenland vinna! @saab @FIFAcom @FIFAWorldCup #VM2026 #JAS #Säkpol 🇸🇪🇨🇴🇧🇷🇨🇿🇿🇦

Yikes.

It’s still a problem as the E-7 and the F-22 don’t have MADL today. But it’s first and foremost a political issue about getting approvals to install MADL, it’s not really a technical issue. Lockheed is selling a version of the Sniper pod that allows legacy jets to use MADL.

France is buying GlobalEye. Sweden has a mixed history working with Germany on Taurus. France could buy Gripens to replace the Mirage 2000 fleet. Sweden could buy FCAS; carrier fighters work on short dispersed runways. In many ways, FCAS makes sense for Sweden.

It’s perfectly reasonable to lament how hard it is to build major projects in Canada. It’s unreasonable to use that lament to justify inaction. We can fix our broken systems and build a better future.

It’s important to remember that the “recruitment crisis” is not about Canadians not wanting to sign up. It’s that too many want to join, resulting in backlogs and waiting lists. Follow @MarcKieley - his team is doing great work fixing the on-boarding bottleneck.

CV90, and all its variants, for Canada!

Maybe we should stop sending welfare cheques to elderly millionaires? OAS is the only major welfare program in the country that does not have an asset test.

A NATO order for GlobalEye would explain the urgency of Canada announcing our order at CANSEC.

Last year, we gave our Canadian Armed Forces members the biggest raise in a generation — because their pay should reflect the weight of their responsibilities.

A mixed fleet of ~140 would bring us back up to the original CF-18 fleet size and would be a welcome expansion of the RCAF fighter force. With the proliferation of low-flying propeller drones, an affordable mixed fleet with a 70mm anti-drone capability becomes critical.

Oh man there’s so much to unpack there. First it’s become a proxy between conservatives and progressives in many cases. Just another football to kick around. So it gets a religious-level fervor from certain types. Second is people actually suck at understanding spatial use. You can show them this graphic, explain how someone using an alternative means less people for them to fight, they won’t care. Third is some are allergic to any math, statistics, etc about how something helps anyone not them. Telling them something might help others, reduce injuries and deaths doesn’t matter if they think it’s not directly helping them. And fourth but probably not least, we’ve done a pretty crappy job rolling out a lot of bike infrastructure, creating added negatives that would be avoided if we just used the examples that work without Americanizing them.

While the “undisclosed location” bit is funny, check out the 70mm anti-drone rockets under the wings. This is a clear example of a lower cost aircraft flying a high value (but lower risk) counter-drone mission that’s only going to become more common in future conflicts.

Brazil always planned on ordering multiple lots of Gripens, COVID just delayed many military spending plans.

Any chance they'll fix it? It's upside down.