The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[SeaKingTacco]

This all just got interesting. Obviously the commercial aviation and military sides of Boeing don't talk to each other....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How will we meet this alleged "fighter capability gap" if the decision goes against Bombardier, then? Obviously, that is of lesser importance to Liberals than Bombardier sales. What if Lockheed Martin offers a better deal than Boeing now?

Arm the C-series with MG's and a gunsight, plus a cool paint job and snazzy video presentation full of buzzwords.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

This all just got interesting. Obviously the commercial aviation and military sides of Boeing don't talk to each other....

Nope.  But I think the real issue here is that Boeing is afraid that if the CSeries proves commercially successful, it may lead to development of 200-250 seats versions that would then compete directly with their 737 series. After all, this has been Bombardier's strategy from way back when. They evolved the Challenger into the Regional Jet, then the Regional Jet into the CSeries, so what's to keep them evolving even further? I can almost feel Airbus chomping at the bit to join Boing if they could to "protect" their A320 sales. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The new 737 class is just going into service, that is worth far more to them than possibly 16 fighter jets by a country that can't make up it's mind.

 

[Good2Golf]

This all just got interesting. Obviously the commercial aviation and military sides of Boeing don't talk to each other....

I once heard an anecdotal story from a large electronics multinational executive that had acquired a specialized component provider years prior, and one of the multinational's divisions was still buying specialized components from another component provider years after the acquisition.  The corporate-level executive advised the division leadership, and they responded with, "Oh, we hadn 't heard about that.  I guess we'll start internally procuring [acquired internal division]'s from now on."  Without giving me exact numbers, the executive recounted to me that the internal loss to paying margins to a competitor was on the order of "a LOT of zeroes!"

Left hand, I'd like you to meet Right hand. ;D

That's all to say I too would not be overly surprised that corporate divisions had not necessarily cross-talked (or even cared?) about implications to the overall Company effort.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Good2Golf]

Nope.  But I think the real issue here is that Boeing is afraid that if the CSeries proves commercially successful, it may lead to development of 200-250 seats versions that would then compete directly with their 737 series. After all, this has been Bombardier's strategy from way back when. They evolved the Challenger into the Regional Jet, then the Regional Jet into the CSeries, so what's to keep them evolving even further? I can almost feel Airbus chomping at the bit to join Boing if they could to "protect" their A320 sales. 

Yup. Airbus is already at the cusp of punishing Boeing with the success of the A320NEO.  Boeing is dragging its feet on new narrow-body development.  There is only so long that the -37 horse can be ridden.  Canadian Super Hornets for Boeing is more than just 18 more of a limited production run...if nothing other than corporate pride, it's a bit of a dig at the folks whose YF-35 beat their YF-32.

This is definitely a op: moment, to be sure!

Regards
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

Canadian Super Hornets for Boeing is more than just 18 more of a limited production run...if nothing other than corporate pride, it's a bit of a dig at the folks whose YF-35 beat their YF-32.

It's another sale that can be used to convince other buyers.  It's a long term revenue stream for ISS.  It's a larger installed base.  It's continued contacts and inside access to future defence procurement in Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

I once heard an anecdotal story from a large electronics multinational executive that had acquired a specialized component provider years prior, and one of the multinational's divisions was still buying specialized components from another component provider years after the acquisition.  The corporate-level executive advised the division leadership, and they responded with, "Oh, we hadn 't heard about that.  I guess we'll start internally procuring [acquired internal division]'s from now on."  Without giving me exact numbers, the executive recounted to me that the internal loss to paying margins to a competitor was on the order of "a LOT of zeroes!"

Left hand, I'd like you to meet Right hand. ;D

That's all to say I too would not be overly surprised that corporate divisions had not necessarily cross-talked (or even cared?) about implications to the overall Company effort.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

G2G

I can go you one up on that G2G.  I worked for a company that actively acquired complementary companies to be able to put joint projects together.  In that same company my division was buying competitors's components (various reasons: quality, market demand, support) while a "sister" supplier was selling components we needed to competitors at lower prices than they were selling to us.

Please. Do not expect order (as opposed to chaos) in the commercial world. 

Plans never survive the next management meeting.

 

[Kirkhill]

....The only partner nation that appears to be wavering in its commitment to buying the aircraft is Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party have shown interest in purchasing Super Hornets as Ottawa seeks to recapitalize its fleet.

“They’ve made this a political football,” Darling said. “I wouldn’t preclude the Trudeau government from going forward with another batch of F/A-18s. … We’ll have to see how it sorts out.”

Over is hopeful that Canada will stay in the fold.

“They remain a partner in good standing in the F-35 program,” he said. “They’re continuing to pay their bills and they absolutely, we understand, intend to evaluate the F-35 as one of the potential airplanes in that transparent competition” for new fighters.

The industrial benefits of being an F-35 customer are major incentives for foreign partners to stay committed to the program. About 20 percent of the supply chain is international, Over noted.
....

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/5/19/aiming-high-f-35-exports-set-to-climb

 

[The Bread Guy]

And from the "keeping one foot in each camp" file ...

Canada has quietly paid another $30 million toward development of the F-35 — money that could become insurance in the trade dispute between U.S. aerospace firm Boeing and Canadian rival Bombardier.

The annual payment was made to the U.S. military at the end of April, the Department of National Defence says, and will keep Canada at the table as one of nine partners in the fighter jet project for the next year.

Canada has paid US$373 million into the program since 1997, National Defence spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande said in an email.

Staying in the program has advantages, as partners can compete for billions of dollars worth of contracts associated with the building and maintaining F-35. They also get a discount when purchasing the plane.

That latter point wasn't considered much of a benefit when Canada paid its annual instalment last year, as the Liberals had promised during the 2015 election not to buy the stealth fighter.

The government instead went out of its way last July to highlight the potential benefits to Canada's aerospace industry when explaining why it had decided to stick with the program.

Those industrial benefits continue to accrue, Lamirande said, with Canadian companies having secured US$926 million in F-35-related contracts over the last 20 years — including US$114 million in the last year alone.

But the trade dispute between Boeing, which builds Super Hornet fighter jets, the F-35's main competitor, and Montreal-based Bombardier casts the decision to stick with the stealth-fighter program in a new light ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest in the fracas ...

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used a major speech Wednesday to the defence industry to blast American firm Boeing for picking a trade spat with Bombardier.

Sajjan said Canada is disappointed by the "unfounded" action by one of its major partners in the defence industry and he delivered that message to hundreds at a breakfast speech at a major trade show for military contractors.

Boeing has petitioned the U.S. Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate subsidies for Bombardier's CSeries aircraft that it says have allowed the Canadian company to export planes at well below cost.

Sajjan said Boeing is not behaving like a "trusted partner" and the government wants the company to withdraw the complaint.

He repeated the Canadian government's thinly veiled retaliation threat to scrap the planned purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets from the Boeing.

"A productive relationship between industry and government is crucial," the minister said.

"That is why our government — and I stress this — our government is disappointed in the action of one of our leading industry partners.

"We strongly disagree with the decision of the United States Commerce Department to initiate a trade remedy case in response to Boeing's petition against Bombardier."

Sajjan also said the defence policy review that he will unveil next week will be linked to the government's broader innovation agenda.

He said the military wants to help foster a partnership with the defence industry that allows for the development of cutting-edge equipment for Canadian soldiers ...

 

[MarkOttawa]

End of piece from Conference of Defence Associations Institute:

Davies on the New Fighter Acquisition: “Oh! What a tangled web we weave…”
...
How Does it All Add Up?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to see any strategic coherence in the handling of this file at any point up until now – or to see the process as anything but a series of lurches from decision to decision with little thought about what comes next and what the end state is intended to be.  How else can we explain how a political promise to save substantial funds from the fighter program mutated into a policy imperative to spend substantially more on a larger fighter capability?

Fortunately, the government has an opportunity to reset the narrative and finally articulate a rational approach to fighter replacement in the context of the forthcoming release of its defence policy.  It is to be hoped that it does so because the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian public need their governments to make and communicate rational decisions based on objective and sound analysis.  It is also in the government’s own self-interest to do so, having campaigned on a core promise to bring back transparent, evidence-based decision-making.  To get out of the tangled web that has been created around the CF-18 replacement it will need to begin walking that talk – and soon.

Charles Davies is a retired CAF officer and a Fellow of the CDA Institute.  He has written extensively on defence procurement, defence policy, defence management, and other related issues.
http://cdainstitute.ca/davies-on-the-new-fighter-acquisition-oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave/

Good flipping luck with that "rational approach".

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Our defense policy has been more or less ill-rational or sucking on the hind tit of others since 1867, why should I expect different now?

 

[Kirkhill]

Our defense policy has been more or less ill-rational or sucking on the hind tit of others since 1867, why should I expect different now?

Arguably we were kicked out of the nest......

 

[GK .Dundas]

Arguably we were kicked out of the nest......

So that's the explanation  we had deprived childhood and were also thrown out of the house .

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile USN wants 10 extra Super Hornets:

US Navy Sends Congress $5.3B Wishlist of Planes, Ships and More

The 48-item ‘unfunded priorities list’ arrived a week after the service’s $172 billion budget request for 2018.

The U.S. Navy is asking Congress to consider providing an extra $5.3 billion for planes, ships, missiles, and dozens of smaller projects that did not make it into the 2018 budget request sent to lawmakers last week.

Notable items on this year’s edition of the “unfunded priorities list” include 10 F/A-18 Super Hornets ($739 million) [emphasis added, only US$ 74M each?], six P-8 Poseidon subhunting planes ($1 billion), four F-35C Joint Strike Fighters ($540 million), five Ship-to-Shore Connector hovercraft ($312 million), and four CMV-22 Ospreys ($392 million), according to a copy of the list obtained by Defense One. Those four items account for about $2.7 billion, half of the total request...

With likely continuing USN buys under Trump maybe 18 for RCAF not that big a deal for Boeing now--Bombardier CSeries threat bigger concern.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

So that's the explanation  we had deprived childhood and were also thrown out of the house .

The Brits couldn't be bothered covering the bill for protection.  The French tossed the Quebecers away for a couple of beaches in the Caribbean.

 

[ModlrMike]

Weapon firing, weapon stops:

More doubt cast over Super Hornet sale as Liberals break contact with Boeing
'Not the most opportune time to share this good news story,' Boeing says as it cancels partners announcement

The tit-for-tat trade spat between the Liberal government and Boeing over the future of the Super Hornet fighter jet purchase escalated Thursday with an acknowledgement that federal officials have been instructed to break off contact with the U.S. aerospace giant.

More from CBC here

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Waiting to hear of a new sole-sourcing negotiation with Dassault to commence soon.

 

[GAP]

With Trump urging companies to come back to the US...Canada has a lot to lose if Boeing pull up stakes....There is little incentive for them to stay