Seeking an excuse to spend Defence $$ on a Bombardier plane

[Kirkhill]

BOHICA

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-ottawas-fighter-jet-dilemma-might-be-exactly-what-ailing-bombardier-needs

 

[PuckChaser]

We can get the RCAF an air-version of the LSVW.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The replacement fighter should have SFA to do with what Bombardier needs.  If they are in the hurt locker, isn't that a signal they are just a shitty company??

 

[jmt18325]

Boeing and Airbus get significant direct and indirect subsidies.  It's seems to be pretty common in the industry. 

 

[PuckChaser]

The replacement fighter should have SFA to do with what Bombardier needs.  If they are in the hurt locker, isn't that a signal they are just a shitty company??

Bombardier NEEDS a more competitive aircraft at a competitive price that they can sell on the commercial market. No amount of subsidies, or RCAF contracts is going to fix it. You're absolutely right, its signs they're a shitty company and maybe they need to go under.

Or we can offer a bail out to them if Quebec drops all opposition to Energy East and lets it start construction now.

 

[dapaterson]

Like we are bailing out shipyards on both coasts? They are utterly uncompetitive yet getting billions above market price.

 

[Old Sweat]

We can get the RCAF an air-version of the LSVW.

We got the CF5s in the sixties because Northrup agreed to their manufacture in Canada by Canadair. I believe the air force wanted the Phantom, but the company would not agree to its manufacture in Canada. At least that was the story at the time.

 

[PuckChaser]

What's old is new again, RCAF wants F-35, we'll get whatever POS a company will let Bombardier build.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The sorry Bombardier CSeries saga;
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=bombardier

Pity their maritime surveillance project with Boeing has no huge numbers:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/singapore-air-show/2016/02/15/boeings-maritime-aircraft-options-dominate-sing-airshow/80402842/

As for build in Canada, consider the CCG shipbuilding example (RCN no better):
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1418081.html#msg1418081

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

The sorry Bombardier CSeries saga;
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=bombardier

Pity their maritime surveillance project with Boeing has no huge numbers:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/singapore-air-show/2016/02/15/boeings-maritime-aircraft-options-dominate-sing-airshow/80402842/

As for build in Canada, consider the CCG shipbuilding example (RCN no better):
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1418081.html#msg1418081


Mark
Ottawa

If they were going to do anything then the least harm would be done by buying a bunch of "patrol" aircraft on the exact same grounds as I explained the Brits employ with the "patrol" ships.  They can do some stuff and they keep the lines open.

Buy more Challengers or whatever and load them up with sensors.  They could always come in handy - some where, some when.

PS - in my technicolor world this is "new money" not existing defence budget money.

 

[Ostrozac]

We got the CF5s in the sixties because Northrup agreed to their manufacture in Canada by Canadair. I believe the air force wanted the Phantom, but the company would not agree to its manufacture in Canada. At least that was the story at the time.

I hadn't heard that story -- and it's a bit of a strange one because Mitsubishi manufactured the Phantom in Japan under license. In some ways, I kind of want to see fighters again coming off the line in Dorval -- but I also know that in my heart of hearts that Bombardier would just screw it up.

 

[Kirkhill]

I hadn't heard that story -- and it's a bit of a strange one because Mitsubishi manufactured the Phantom in Japan under license. In some ways, I kind of want to see fighters again coming off the line in Dorval -- but I also know that in my heart of hearts that Bombardier would just screw it up.

History redivivus:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/stouffer-eng.asp

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Pity their maritime surveillance project with Boeing has no huge numbers:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/singapore-air-show/2016/02/15/boeings-maritime-aircraft-options-dominate-sing-airshow/80402842/

I can't think of a reason any Air Force would want a MSA;  it's all "bow" and no "arrow".  No sono load, no MAD, no kill stores.  IMO, in this day and age, you want to spend your money on a MMA that can do the MPA and other stuff.  Single role fleets are $$$$$.

Even things like the CASA 235...hard to take that 'serious' as a MMA/MPA.  No legs, limited stores.  :dunno:

 

[Kirkhill]

EITS -  I know the RCAF probably doesn't need/want an MSA - but given a politician looking for an excuse to spend money on his constituents I would sooner he did the least amount of harm and bought something that did not damage a core function and, like the stuff in my basement (garage, shed, attic) might come in handy some day.

MSAs could be used the way the Europeans use them, as paramilitary aircraft augmenting the military force on civil tasks.  They could be farmed out to Provincial Airways. They could be tasked to support the Coast Guard and/or the RCMP.  They could be loaned/rented/sold/gifted to the UN.  They could be donated to Mali or Haiti. 

Heck, I should be a politician.  I have no trouble at all figuring out how to make good money disappear.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am surprised that no one has yet suggested that we make MPAs out of C series jets....

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS -  I know the RCAF probably doesn't need/want an MSA - but given a politician looking for an excuse to spend money on his constituents I would sooner he did the least amount of harm and bought something that did not damage a core function and, like the stuff in my basement (garage, shed, attic) might come in handy some day.

Military equipment should be selected on its ability to perform the military task IMO, full stop.  I know, that will happen as soon as my herd of unicorns are all grown up.  ;D

MSAs could be used the way the Europeans use them, as paramilitary aircraft augmenting the military force on civil tasks.  They could be farmed out to Provincial Airways. They could be tasked to support the Coast Guard and/or the RCMP. 

 

Agree, and leave the RCAF with a platform that can both 'seek' and 'strike'.  Like I said, you need something that is 'bow and arrow' for LRP Sqns.  We have many better things to do with our YFR than SURPATS.

 

[dapaterson]

I am surprised that no one has yet suggested that we make MPAs out of C series jets....

Well, Boeing did ti with a 737.

Mind you, I hope we learned from the Cyclone that doing all the R&D and integration on our own is a Bad Idea.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am certain that no such lesson has been learned....

 

[GR66]

Isreal Aerospace Industries actually has developed an armed version of the Bombardier Global 5000 business jet...however the torpedoes are mounted under-wing, which if I'm not mistaken somebody noted in another MPA thread were problematic (can't recall what the specific concern was...will try and find the reference). 

http://www.iai.co.il/2013/32981-46349-en/MediaRoom_News.aspx

Back on to the topic of our next fighter...

Dassault's website states "The RAFALE’s stores management system is Mil-Std-1760 compliant, which provides for easy integration of customer-selected weapons.".  What does that mean in relation to our existing stock of weapons for the CF-18's?

 

 

[dapaterson]

I am certain that no such lesson has been learned....

If you're nearing retirement and want to come back as a consultant, that's a Good Thing.