Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft

[ytz]

are the CC130HT's actually planned on being replaced and disposed of?

They are getting on in age. So yes. And the FWSAR purchase was meant to replace all Buffs and Hercs used in SAR. That includes the 130HTs working SAR.

Edit: Will add that this means Canada is getting out of the tactical tanking business for now. Only strat tankers. I personally think this is a good idea as the tactical tanking role increasingly seems to be moving to UAS platforms.

 

[suffolkowner]

They are getting on in age. So yes. And the FWSAR purchase was meant to replace all Buffs and Hercs used in SAR. That includes the 130HTs working SAR.

Edit: Will add that this means Canada is getting out of the tactical tanking business for now. Only strat tankers. I personally think this is a good idea as the tactical tanking role increasingly seems to be moving to UAS platforms.

that was going to be my next question. Whether there was a plan to get new C130J's for tactical tanking

 

[ytz]

that was going to be my next question. Whether there was a plan to get new C130J's for tactical tanking

I remember a couple of Herc tanker guys on my ASPOC course being sad that there will be no tactical tanking job for them. Unless we're surprised, I don't think we'll be getting back into the game. Tactical tanking, for us, was simply a way to have enough tankers. We didn't do any real tactical tanking the way the Americans do with heavy helos for example. And since the F-35s have a larger combat radius then the CF-18s, we don't have to really be worried about sending a 330T to the theatre. They can still operate well outside bad guy MLR.

Eventually, we'll have to get some kind of tactical tanking capability, as longer range missiles get into the game. And it's good to see UAS options coming along for that job. We can stick with Strat AAR until these systems mature.

 

[KevinB]

@Good2Golf has convinced me that 160th TF assets use tactical taking solely to scare the crap out of GIB’s. I’ve been on a Hawk night tanking and I turned off my NVG’s simply because I didn’t want to see what was happening anymore.

Edit as I saw GtG was laughing hilariously. Spinning disk thingy is way Too F’in close to the drogue/probe that I found incredibly nauseating/coldsweat inducing and sphincter buckling.

 

[Good2Golf]

@Good2Golf has convinced me that 160th TF assets use tactical taking solely to scare the crap out of GIB’s. I’ve been on a Hawk night tanking and I turned off my NVG’s simply because I didn’t want to see what was happening anymore.

 

[Cloud Cover]

With a population of about 2,000, no doubt Tofino is chock full of amenities, services and opportunities. As a bonus, your spouse could start making homemade soap or hemp underwear for the local population and tourists.

No. It implies that we will have commonality between two fleets. And as long as commercial aircraft are manufactured in Canada, you should expect that the VVIP fleet will be a type built in Canada. You will never see POTUS flying anything but Boeing. You will never see the President of the French Republic flying anything but Airbus. Same here.



"Better platform" is irrelevant. We buy the minimum capability needed for the requirement. Paying for more is somewhere between luxury and overkill. And in this case, goes against other government priorities. Maybe the government prioritizes commonality with allies. But I can't see it when there is a highly capable homegrown offering. This is not at all like like maritime patrol replacement where the alternative was both less capable and came with very high developmental risk and higher total cost. A Global AEW would have 80% of the capability for about 80% of the cost with low to medium development risk and more of the dollars staying in Canada.

The Canadian Surface Combatant enters the chat and looks up lovingly to Great Grandpa Avro Arrow.

The competitor to Bombardier would I’m sure also be more than happy to provide 80% of the capability for 80% of the cost.

All I’m saying is that the better aircraft should win, and yes ok with the minimum compliance to requirements.

 

[ytz]

All I’m saying is that the better aircraft should win, and yes ok with the minimum compliance to requirements.

What's better is quite subjective once you get beyond the basic mandatories necessary for the job. Some points to consider.

1) Quantity has a quality of its own. We are likely to get more frames for the same dollars with Globals.

2) The E-7 requires substantially more crew. It's a question whether we can afford this many positions for this capability.

3) Increasing defence spending does require us to sometimes prioritize those industrial aspects. Especially when there are obvious domestic offerings that aren't even bad.

The competitor to Bombardier would I’m sure also be more than happy to provide 80% of the capability for 80% of the cost.

Highly doubt it. They have enough orders from Uncle Sam and others that they really don't need to sell this to us for zero profit. Also that example is just acquisition cost. The E-7 is going to be substantially more expensive to operate given its size and capability.

 

[KevinB]

No. It implies that we will have commonality between two fleets. And as long as commercial aircraft are manufactured in Canada, you should expect that the VVIP fleet will be a type built in Canada. You will never see POTUS flying anything but Boeing. You will never see the President of the French Republic flying anything but Airbus. Same here.



"Better platform" is irrelevant. We buy the minimum capability needed for the requirement. Paying for more is somewhere between luxury and overkill. And in this case, goes against other government priorities. Maybe the government prioritizes commonality with allies. But I can't see it when there is a highly capable homegrown offering. This is not at all like like maritime patrol replacement where the alternative was both less capable and came with very high developmental risk and higher total cost. A Global AEW would have 80% of the capability for about 80% of the cost with low to medium development risk and more of the dollars staying in Canada.

I think you meant 60% of the capability (which is arguable - as maybe 360 radar coverage is a requirement I don’t know ) for 95-100% of the cost

It’s a Saab product - while the base aircraft is a Bombardier 6500, it’s not a Canadian product at the end of the day.


It appears that the GlobalEye 6500 is around 1/2B each. With less range, endurance and detection range (and arc) than the E-7 WedgeTail. Wedgetail costs seems to fluctuate depending on fleet size, but the acquisition cost / unit seems to be comparable to the GE at near 1/2B / airframe.

Now I know Canada loves to add lifecycle costs, and the larger E-7 and more crew will end up costing more in that respect.

 

[ytz]

I think you meant 60% of the capability (which is arguable - as maybe 360 radar coverage is a requirement I don’t know ) for 95-100% of the cost

There's more than one Global solution. Global CAEW doesn't have the same coverage problem. Though, this one comes with some development risk. It's my preferred solution.

That said, I'm going to bet 360 coverage is not a mandatory, because gaps can be overcome with TTPs. It's not like our folks have zero experience working with AEW assets that lack 360 coverage. Also, I'm going to bet that no cabinet will sign off a procurement that exclusively rules out Bombardier right out of the gate.

It’s a Saab product - while the base aircraft is a Bombardier 6500, it’s not a Canadian product at the end of the day.

You can say it's not a Canadian product. But no politician is going to say that. Nor will the majority of Canadians see it that way. Oh and the Globals are being assembled in Mississauga in a belt full of swing ridings. Which politician wants to go down there and say they didn't buy this airplane because it's not really Canadian? There may be other excuses. But this one is by far the worst.

Also, as an American, you of all people should understand the politics of defence procurement. Your Congress often makes your military buy things they don't even want, for reasons beyond military necessity. Why the surprise that other countries might think the same?

Also, Global CAEW is a Bombardier L3Harris collaboration using an Israeli radar that was previously installed on a Gulfstream. What does that make them? American? Israeli? Canadian?

It appears that the GlobalEye 6500 is around 1/2B each. With less range, endurance and detection range (and arc) than the E-7 WedgeTail. Wedgetail costs seems to fluctuate depending on fleet size, but the acquisition cost / unit seems to be comparable to the GE at near 1/2B / airframe.

Not sure where you're getting the price from and what's involved. But lifecycle cost determines the cost portion of the competition. Not acquisition cost. And industrial benefits are a big part. I'm not sure what Boeing's gameplan is going to be to overcome the advantage that Bombardier will have in that category.

 

[ytz]

Some of you don't seem to be aware of the Global CAEW. This was proposed by L3Harris as part of the NATO bid:

L3Harris Unveils Global 6500 CAEW For NATO E-3 Replacement | Aviation Week Network

L3Harris plans to transfer a mission system integrated on the out-of-production Gulfstream G550 to the military version of the Bombardier Global 6500.

aviationweek.com

It's a system using L-band and S-band GaN radars already in service with the Israelis, Italians and Singaporeans using Gulfstreams:

EL/W-2085 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The USN uses the same platform and radar for a range support aircraft:

Behold The First Official Photo Of The Navy's New NC-37B Missile Tracking Jet

Once complete, the unique aircraft will support various missile and missile-defense research and development projects and help patrol test ranges.

www.twz.com

 

[KevinB]

Some of you don't seem to be aware of the Global CAEW. This was proposed by L3Harris as part of the NATO bid:

Failed NATO bid

There's more than one Global solution. Global CAEW doesn't have the same coverage problem. Though, this one comes with some development risk. It's my preferred solution.

Roger I wasn’t tracking that aspect

That said, I'm going to bet 360 coverage is not a mandatory, because gaps can be overcome with TTPs. It's not like our folks have zero experience working with AEW assets that lack 360 coverage. Also, I'm going to bet that no cabinet will sign off a procurement that exclusively rules out Bombardier right out of the gate.

To me the RCAF should be the one dictating requirements.

You can say it's not a Canadian product. But no politician is going to say that. Nor will the majority of Canadians see it that way. Oh and the Globals are being assembled in Mississauga in a belt full of swing ridings. Which politician wants to go down there and say they didn't buy this airplane because it's not really Canadian? There may be other excuses. But this one is by far the worst.

Tracking

Also, as an American, you of all people should understand the politics of defence procurement. Your Congress often makes your military buy things they don't even want, for reasons beyond military necessity. Why the surprise that other countries might think the same?

No surprise, also remember I’m American by naturalization, Canadian by birth…

So I’m used to seeing all types of stupid on Both sides

Also, Global CAEW is a Bombardier L3Harris collaboration using an Israeli radar that was previously installed on a Gulfstream. What does that make them? American? Israeli? Canadian?

I’m sure a Boeing will say multiply unreliably

Not sure where you're getting the price from and what's involved.

Various acquisitions for the platforms.

But lifecycle cost determines the cost portion of the competition. Not acquisition cost. And industrial benefits are a big part.

The way Canada costs lifecycle is a little bizarre though. Many of what would be considered separate annual O&M for many Militaries Canada jams into the acquisition.

I'm not sure what Boeing's gameplan is going to be to overcome the advantage that Bombardier will have in that category.

Boeing makes parts for the 737 in Canada, they are a larger employer of Canadians than Bombardier, so apples to apples it’s better for the average Canadian.

 

[ytz]

To me the RCAF should be the one dictating requirements.

The RCAF can dictate requirements. And the government can simply decide they won't procure anything. That's the game. As I detailed elsewhere, I saw some of this with FWSAR. And this AEW project would be far more sensitive.

The real value of the E-7 is beyond AEW and into SIGINT/ELINT and UAS C2. So really it's a question of whether the RCAF can ask for capabilities that go beyond AEW. That's definitely debatable.

The way Canada costs lifecycle is a little bizarre though. Many of what would be considered separate annual O&M for many Militaries Canada jams into the acquisition.

I wouldn't say that at all. Indeed, other countries are starting to copy the practice. A huge reason why is that requiring maintenance costs in the bid does encourage bidders not to cheap out on initial bid, hoping to make it up in support costs.

Boeing makes parts for the 737 in Canada, they are a larger employer of Canadians than Bombardier, so apples to apples it’s better for the average Canadian.

Zero chance making some parts for the 737 has more total employment than both final assembly and substantial portions of the supply chain in Canada for the Globals. And that doesn't even speak to quality of employment and net economic benefit. And the IRB portion definitely considers all of that.

As much as I'm defending the Globals here, I could go either way. I'm just countering the idea that the E-7 is the only decent option. That's definitely not true. Heck, I don't even think the MESA is GaN. And a substantial part of why the UK and US bought the E-7 was industrial base considerations. Not just capabilities. It would be silly to think Canada would not consider those factors.

 

[ytz]

Various acquisitions for the platforms.

There's only two.

Sweden. SEK 9.9B for 4 aircraft. Works out to USD 232.5M per aircraft.

UAE. SEK 23B for 5 aircraft. Works out to USD 432M per aircraft.

 

[KevinB]

There's only two.

Sweden. SEK 9.9B for 4 aircraft. Works out to USD 232.5M per aircraft.

UAE. SEK 23B for 5 aircraft. Works out to USD 432M per aircraft.

The UAE one was expressed in USD at 517 million where I saw it, Sweden’s I didn’t see an airframe cost as other things where lumped in

The RCAF can dictate requirements. And the government can simply decide they won't procure anything. That's the game. As I detailed elsewhere, I saw some of this with FWSAR. And this AEW project would be far more sensitive.

The real value of the E-7 is beyond AEW and into SIGINT/ELINT and UAS C2. So really it's a question of whether the RCAF can ask for capabilities that go beyond AEW. That's definitely debatable.



I wouldn't say that at all. Indeed, other countries are starting to copy the practice. A huge reason why is that requiring maintenance costs in the bid does encourage bidders not to cheap out on initial bid, hoping to make it up in support costs.

I’m more talking about the replacement of antiquated facilities that Canada seems to love robbing of specific programs, when in reality those infrastructure projects should have been done regardless.

Zero chance making some parts for the 737 has more total employment than both final assembly and substantial portions of the supply chain in Canada for the Globals. And that doesn't even speak to quality of employment and net economic benefit. And the IRB portion definitely considers all of that.

Fair, but Boeing as a whole does employ more Canadians than Bomb, which I’m sure does get some sort of recognition.

As much as I'm defending the Globals here, I could go either way. I'm just countering the idea that the E-7 is the only decent option. That's definitely not true. Heck, I don't even think the MESA is GaN. And a substantial part of why the UK and US bought the E-7 was industrial base considerations. Not just capabilities. It would be silly to think Canada would not consider those factors.

Fair.

 

[dapaterson]

Fair, but Boeing as a whole does employ more Canadians than Bomb, which I’m sure does get some sort of recognition.

As you know from US defence procurement, the location where they are employed can often be more important than the number who are employed.

 

[KevinB]

As you know from US defence procurement, the location where they are employed can often be more important than the number who are employed.

And here I thought Canada was above pork barrel politics

 

[dapaterson]

And here I thought Canada was above pork barrel politics

We've never gone full F-35 at least.

 

[KevinB]

We've never gone full F-35 at least.

No idea what you mean there.

House shoots down amendment to cut F-35 purchase

Meanwhile, there's talk of authorizing the defense secretary to seize Lockheed Martin's intellectual property.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[Nvlgzr]

We've never gone full F-35 at least.

I see you’re a “Tropic Thunder” fan.

 

[dimsum]

No idea what you mean there.

House shoots down amendment to cut F-35 purchase

Meanwhile, there's talk of authorizing the defense secretary to seize Lockheed Martin's intellectual property.

www.militarytimes.com

LCS: Hello? I’m in the room!