The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
LiveFightMove
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 28
- Points
- 380
I'm not very educated when it comes to these things... but how would that affect the bidding for Canada's next fighter jet? Would less sales mean Boeing wouldn't be able to offer as much? Since it's $19 Billion for 88 jets, how would this change their bid?
- Reaction score
- 22,046
- Points
- 1,360
Increased capital cost and decreased pool of aircraft over which fleet-wide in-service support costs are distributed would notably affect the price point of the commercial offer, which impact any candidate’s likelihood of winning a competition.
Regards
G2G
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 4,708
- Points
- 1,160
Drallib said:
It'll likely push up the flyaway cost per SH in their bid, unless they want to take a haircut on the profits. If they're smart they'll try to keep the cost below F35 just to keep their production line open.
$19B is likely a pipedream cost, we're at the mercy of what the companies bid.
LiveFightMove
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 28
- Points
- 380
I wonder if this would make Boeing more desperate to get a deal with the RCAF.
Boeing has shot itself in the foot in so many different ways, both commercially and militarily, especially with the RCAF and USAF - Boeing is desperate to get as much business as it can regardless.
One thing the USAF did that was smart was that they had Boeing pay to fix the problems with the KC-46A out of their own pocket. They realized that 'concurrency' isn't always the best way to go about things (f**king moronic actually) - and left it to Boeing to screw up what should have been one of their simplest military projects on the books. (Replacing tankers with new tankers... :facepalm: )
Instead, they took all kinds of shortcuts - the big one being the camera/operator interface having problems (Despite the Airbus equivalent having a similar system that has worked for years.) As it stands now, the KC-46A can't refuel.
They essentially fought like crazy to get the contract with Airbus cancelled, then proceeded to FUBAR it in a way that only Boeing can. They had an opportunity to build a fairly simple system, on time and on budget, and set themselves up for future contracts with the US DOD. Instead they cost themselves & their shareholders a ton of money needlessly, and have left the USAF with a massive gap in aerial-refueling capability they may now have to pay contractors to fill.
Combine that with Boeing's completely incompetent challenge to Bombardier's C-series, which Airbus then partnered with Bombardier to have the aircraft manufactured in the US and avoid tariffs (which were later rejected). Boeing could have done the same, but didn't think of it. Not only that, but the aircraft was serving a market that Boeing didn't build an equivilent of - if it had offered to partner with Bombardier, it would have greatly expanded it's sales, as it would have been serving an in-demand market it hadn't been previously.
Then you combine that with the 777MAX fiasco of them installing software which deliberately took control of the aircraft away from the pilots - without bothering to tell the pilots about the system, or how to override it (and clearly not required since no other model of commercial aircraft has that particular system).
THEN, bloody hell, combine that with the run-around they've given the FAA and Congress about the whole thing...
Boeing is in a pool of crap of it's own making. They are bleeding money faster than a guy with a severed carotid between the KC-46 fixes, 777Max fiasco, mounting lawsuits from various airlines, etc. Boeing needs all the business it can get right now.
Yes, the CEO was fired & there is new leadership at the helm. I just don't understand how a company with the brains, resources, and pork-barreling of Boeing can be run in such a piss poor fashion.
One thing the USAF did that was smart was that they had Boeing pay to fix the problems with the KC-46A out of their own pocket. They realized that 'concurrency' isn't always the best way to go about things (f**king moronic actually) - and left it to Boeing to screw up what should have been one of their simplest military projects on the books. (Replacing tankers with new tankers... :facepalm: )
Instead, they took all kinds of shortcuts - the big one being the camera/operator interface having problems (Despite the Airbus equivalent having a similar system that has worked for years.) As it stands now, the KC-46A can't refuel.
They essentially fought like crazy to get the contract with Airbus cancelled, then proceeded to FUBAR it in a way that only Boeing can. They had an opportunity to build a fairly simple system, on time and on budget, and set themselves up for future contracts with the US DOD. Instead they cost themselves & their shareholders a ton of money needlessly, and have left the USAF with a massive gap in aerial-refueling capability they may now have to pay contractors to fill.
Combine that with Boeing's completely incompetent challenge to Bombardier's C-series, which Airbus then partnered with Bombardier to have the aircraft manufactured in the US and avoid tariffs (which were later rejected). Boeing could have done the same, but didn't think of it. Not only that, but the aircraft was serving a market that Boeing didn't build an equivilent of - if it had offered to partner with Bombardier, it would have greatly expanded it's sales, as it would have been serving an in-demand market it hadn't been previously.
Then you combine that with the 777MAX fiasco of them installing software which deliberately took control of the aircraft away from the pilots - without bothering to tell the pilots about the system, or how to override it (and clearly not required since no other model of commercial aircraft has that particular system).
THEN, bloody hell, combine that with the run-around they've given the FAA and Congress about the whole thing...
Boeing is in a pool of crap of it's own making. They are bleeding money faster than a guy with a severed carotid between the KC-46 fixes, 777Max fiasco, mounting lawsuits from various airlines, etc. Boeing needs all the business it can get right now.
Yes, the CEO was fired & there is new leadership at the helm. I just don't understand how a company with the brains, resources, and pork-barreling of Boeing can be run in such a piss poor fashion.
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Points
- 1,260
CBH99 said:
Bombardier comes to mind.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,929
- Points
- 1,160
Likely all the senior management went to the same school of management training.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,218
- Points
- 1,160
Colin P said:
Yes, the school of 'Mom and Dad' has always been a bit thin on the skills required to run a major corporation....
A bailout won't fix Bombardier's biggest problems: family control and dual-class shares
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/a-bailout-wont-fix-bombardiers-biggest-problems-family-control-and-dual-class-shares
- Reaction score
- 27,508
- Points
- 1,090
When Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, the MBA culture of the latter displaced the engineering culture of the former, causing many of the current problems. Boeing's philosophy was to do it right; McDonnell Douglas' philosophy was to do it cheap.
- Reaction score
- 22,046
- Points
- 1,360
^ this... :nod:
Back in the day, Boeing and Lockheed (up to the amazing L-1011) were the builders of choice. MD and the post-stealth (best good enough practices) takeover state of Boeing represents much that is wrong with trying (or succeeding) to apply the MBA lens to every aspect of business. Boeing used to stand up to its reputation: “If it ain’t Boeing, I’m not going!” MAX MCAS is just the latest in the swirl into the drain. Not sure if Boeing can recover in the long-term.
:2c:
Regards
G2G
Back in the day, Boeing and Lockheed (up to the amazing L-1011) were the builders of choice. MD and the post-stealth (
:2c:
Regards
G2G
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Good2Golf said:
I don't know.....I think the problems are a little more focused than that. When I look around the industrial landscape the problems I see everywhere are IT and Software driven. The Boeing MCAS problem is one born out of software. Bringing an example closer to my work. Tesla is company born from tech industry, Ford and GM are old manufacturers. Lets take the Tesla's autopilot they put it on the cars almost in Beta test...Ford and GM will not do that because of history of not releasing till it works (they have been sued too many times). Tesla can get away with it updating on the fly. Ford and GM are struggling with software.
One. Their engineering and engineers don't understand work with and in the tech area and have problems with it same as Boeing.
Two. Finding tech talent is very hard, even with good pay. Good tech talent wants to work at the startup and cashout when they make it by selling to Amazon. Even the Big 3 trying to working this by remaking their offices and moving to Cal but they can offer sexy. Boeing can't offer sexy. Flying is not the dream anymore of the todays kids.
- Reaction score
- 22,046
- Points
- 1,360
IT/embedded software no doubt has a lot to do with it, but not exclusively nor even the majority. There are also significant elements of supply chain pressures as well, to wit the entire 737 airframe fabricated by Spirit, not even a Boeing product, and all that flows from that relationship. :nod:
Regards
G2G
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 27,508
- Points
- 1,090
Singapore buying 4-12 F-35Bs.
https://twitter.com/TheBaseLeg/status/1228280142155452416/photo/1
"In the early days of the program, the F-35 was marred by design deficiencies and cost overruns."
https://twitter.com/TheBaseLeg/status/1228280142155452416/photo/1
"In the early days of the program, the F-35 was marred by design deficiencies and cost overruns."
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
The Finns' actual fly-off proceeds, by a well-informed Finnish blogger:
Mark
Ottawa
HX Challenge pt. 4: More of Everything
Unfortunately, Finnish daily Aamulehti which so far has openly shared recordings of the main press event at the HX Challenge media events has decided to put these behind a paywall. As such, this post is based upon secondary sources (i.e. published articles). Sorry for the inconvenience, but these are the unfortunate facts. Next week we will be back to primary sources (as I will attend the Boeing briefing in person).
From the outset, the F-35 has been the aircraft to beat in HX. It isn’t impossible that it will end up beaten, but the string of successes throughout the world (marred only by the highly politicised German failure to be allowed to bid) and unique selling points makes it the gold standard in Western fighter design at the moment. As such, anyone wishing to better Lockheed Martin’s stealth fighter will have to put in some serious effort to show why their bid is better for the Finnish Defence Forces’ concept of operations.
The two F-35A’s from that eventually came over from 308th FS were described as being amongst the latest jets in use at Luke AFB, which should mean that they are of the Block 3F, i.e. ready for combat use. Source: Finnish Air Force FB/Joni Malkamäki
At least from the outside, that task hasn’t become any easier from the start of the competition. While Lockheed Martin might have seemed a bit too certain of success in the early days of the competition, this week’s media event has shown that they are listening to the customer and not just offering a copy-paste version of offers made to other countries.
Few doubt the combat capability of the F-35A. The advanced sensor suite and fusion coupled with low-observability features make it a formidable foe for anyone, and the large number of aircraft on order makes it future proof in a way none of the other contenders are. The biggest questions has been surrounding security of supply, sovereignty of data, and industrial cooperation. It is important to note that this does not mean that the Air Force is ready to buy the second best just to ensure that they will get these secondary benefits, but rather that the Air Force has judged these issues to be of crucial importance in allowing a fighter to be combat capable. As has been repeated throughout the last few years: the bids are only ranked on their overall combat capability as part of the overall Finnish defence solution.
And there’s plenty of combat capability in Lockheed Martin’s offer. While the contenders aren’t allowed to comment on the number of aircraft offered, Steve Sheehy, Lockheed Martin’s Director of Sustainment Strategies and Campaigns, appeared to accidentally disclose that it would be a case of 1-to-1 replacement of the Hornets.
“The requirement is 64, we are at 64”*
This was later walked back to the more politically acceptable line of “‘If the requirement is for 64, we are at 64.’ Lockheed Martin will not comment publicly on the number of fighter jets in its response to the call for tenders.” Considering the fact that we have known since last autumn that 64 isn’t in fact a set requirement any longer, my personal belief is that the offer is for 64 aircraft. Make of it what you will, but a 64-ship strong F-35A force would be an impressive one by any measure. It would conceivably make Finland the seventh largest operator of the F-35 (all marks included), leaving behind Tier 2 and 3 contributors such as the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, as well as making the Finnish Air Force the third largest European operator after the UK and Italy (both of which will likely be operating joint F-35A/B fleets). While this might seem like a bold step, it should be remembered that when Finland bought the F/A-18C Hornet it was an order on a similar scale (the early 90’s seeing the AIM-120 equipped Hornet second only to the F-15C Eagle in the air-to-air role). As long as the aircraft can fit within the price tag, the Finnish Air Force is unlikely to shy away from capability. In fact, a serious F-35A order does hold deterrence value in and of itself, as it would highlight the determination to invest in a credible high-end defence as well as the close bilateral defence cooperation with the US.
The next #HX candidate to participate in the #HXChallenge is Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II. Two F-35As arrived at Pirkkala Air Base tonight on 9 February. #ilmavoimat #finaf #comcamfi pic.twitter.com/ilpwfn7dSk
— Ilmavoimat (@FinnishAirForce) February 9, 2020
Perhaps the most interesting part of the press release was the part on how Lockheed Martin plans to ensure security of supply and industrial cooperation.
Not only the aircraft, but the F135 engine as well would reportedly be produced in-country.*
This is a significant development in an area that has traditionally been viewed as a weak part of the Lockheed Martin offer, and would be a significant step away from the current production chain which is responsible for pushing the price of the aircraft down to the extent that 64 aircraft could fit inside the Finnish budget. It might look like a case of squaring the circle, but apparently Lokcheed Martin (and Pratt & Whitney) thinks the Finnish order is important enough that they are prepared to take these steps. While the F-35 has final assembly lines outside of the US (in Italy and Japan), in the case of the engine my understanding is that Pratt & Whitney doesn’t do final assembly outside of it’s two sites in the continental US. Such an offer would by it’s very nature include a rather large amount of tech transfer, and ensure Finnish industrial know-how stays up to date when it comes to maintaining and overhauling the aircraft.
Perhaps a harder thing swallow for the Finnish Air Force was the scheme drawn up for the management of spare parts. This would include peacetime stocks stored in-country for normal operations, with a different set for times of heightened tensions being stored internationally and transferred to Finland when needed. While this kind of centralised spare hubs likely play a significant role in ensuring a low operating cost, not having complete control over the necessary wartime spares will likely be a no-go. However, it is important to remember that this second offer currently being referenced by Lockheed Martin isn’t the same as their best and final offer, which will come only after the approximately six months of negotiations with the Finnish MoD and Defence Forces that are now starting. Lockheed Martin also acknowledges that the sizes of both the in-country and the international stocks aren’t locked, but are currently being discussed. It does however feel that this is one area where the company’s normal ‘tailored for NATO’-options still clashes with the Finnish thinking surrounding wartime operations.
The stealth capability is the defining feature that sets the aircraft apart from the rest of the competition...[read on]
https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/02/16/hx-challenge-pt-4-more-of-everything/
Mark
Ottawa
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,929
- Points
- 1,160
So this is how the grown ups buy aircraft?
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
MarkOttawa said:
And now Super Hornet and Growler pitched by Boeing for Finland's new fighter, by the same Finnish blogger (I don't believe Growler is part of our competition):
Mark
Ottawa
