The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,545
- Points
- 1,160
LoboCanada said:
Despite the Liberals saying they won't buy the F-35, they recently paid our membership renewal in the program. Meetings could be nothing more than regular updates on that front.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Trudeau is adored by his fans.
If he reverses course he won't lose a single vote from his core.
I also think he has laid significant ground work as to why the Boeing deal won't fly, so if he changes plans I don't think it hurts him at all.
If he reverses course he won't lose a single vote from his core.
I also think he has laid significant ground work as to why the Boeing deal won't fly, so if he changes plans I don't think it hurts him at all.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Quelle surprise! Note RCAF Super Hornet deal no longer that important for Boeing:
Boeing defense CEO: 'We're not going to back down' on trade dispute with Bombardier
"This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," says Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security unit.
A potential defense sale is worth about $5 billion, but Canada is refusing to go through with the deal while Boeing is suing Bombardier.
The trade dispute between Boeing and Canadian rival Bombardier is heating up — and Boeing intends to stand its ground.
"This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," said Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security business, in an exclusive interview with CNBC. "I hope that it doesn't impact our defense sale, but we're willing to deal with whatever the outcome is."
That potential defense sale is worth about $5 billion. Last week the U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intent to sell 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets to Canada, in a deal that's been cooking since last year.
Boeing still aims to get a deal done.
"We have continued to reach out to the Canadian government. We believe national defense discussions are separate from commercial trade disputes," added Caret, who's led Boeing's defense, space and security unit for 18 months. "I think here is an opportunity for us to continue to offer the [Super Hornet] aircraft, but I also think they're going to need to make their decision."
More will be revealed next week, when the U.S. Commerce Department issues its initial ruling on Sept. 26.
Meantime, it highlights a big reversal for Boeing: that the fighter business is once again taking flight. Even if Canada does scrap its $5 billion deal, the company's legacy F-18 and F-15 production lines are welcoming renewed interest under the Trump administration.
"We're honored and thrilled that not only the Navy but others have seen benefits of the F/A-18 and continue to see strong demand for it. We have continued international pull on our F-15s [emphasis added]," said Caret. "But I have to share, when I was the CFO [of Boeing Defense, Space & Security] I was in middle of making disclosures that we may be looking at a line shutdown at some point in the future, so it was really nice to be involved in being able to strike that statement going forward."..
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/boeing-defense-ceo-were-not-going-to-back-down-on-trade-dispute-with-bombardier.html
Mark
Ottawa
Boeing defense CEO: 'We're not going to back down' on trade dispute with Bombardier
"This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," says Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security unit.
A potential defense sale is worth about $5 billion, but Canada is refusing to go through with the deal while Boeing is suing Bombardier.
The trade dispute between Boeing and Canadian rival Bombardier is heating up — and Boeing intends to stand its ground.
"This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," said Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security business, in an exclusive interview with CNBC. "I hope that it doesn't impact our defense sale, but we're willing to deal with whatever the outcome is."
That potential defense sale is worth about $5 billion. Last week the U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intent to sell 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets to Canada, in a deal that's been cooking since last year.
Boeing still aims to get a deal done.
"We have continued to reach out to the Canadian government. We believe national defense discussions are separate from commercial trade disputes," added Caret, who's led Boeing's defense, space and security unit for 18 months. "I think here is an opportunity for us to continue to offer the [Super Hornet] aircraft, but I also think they're going to need to make their decision."
More will be revealed next week, when the U.S. Commerce Department issues its initial ruling on Sept. 26.
Meantime, it highlights a big reversal for Boeing: that the fighter business is once again taking flight. Even if Canada does scrap its $5 billion deal, the company's legacy F-18 and F-15 production lines are welcoming renewed interest under the Trump administration.
"We're honored and thrilled that not only the Navy but others have seen benefits of the F/A-18 and continue to see strong demand for it. We have continued international pull on our F-15s [emphasis added]," said Caret. "But I have to share, when I was the CFO [of Boeing Defense, Space & Security] I was in middle of making disclosures that we may be looking at a line shutdown at some point in the future, so it was really nice to be involved in being able to strike that statement going forward."..
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/boeing-defense-ceo-were-not-going-to-back-down-on-trade-dispute-with-bombardier.html
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
One wonders if Swedes are having any chats with Bombardier and provincial and federal politicians:
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-odd-merger-of-bombardier-and-the-canadian-government
Andrew Coyne: The odd merger of Bombardier and the Canadian government
It is increasingly clear amid the current Bombardier- Boeing dispute that the federal government, at least, views itself and Bombardier as being one and the same
Perhaps I have been wrong about Bombardier.
Until this week I had been patiently explaining to readers that the company was not, as its annual reports might suggest, in the aerospace and mass transit business. It is, I suggested, in the subsidy business. Governments, federal and provincial, periodically offer it subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in return for which Bombardier agrees to take them.
That is to say, it supplies governments with the incalculable benefits that come from “rescuing” Bombardier, and thus saving jobs, advancing high-tech, defending Canada, defending Quebec, and other things politicians like to be seen doing.
Mind you, Bombardier is not always such an easy sell. In the most recent such episode, the company publicly disavowed any need for the $375-million “repayable loan” the federal government was pressing upon it, only relenting after the feds agreed not to attach any conditions to the money. (This was on top of the US$1 billion Bombardier had earlier secured from the government of Quebec. Which was on top of a US$1.5-billion payment from the province’s pension plan, the Caisse de Dépôt, in return for a one-third stake in Bombardier’s train business. Which was on top of a $350-million “loan” a previous federal government had granted the company in 2008. Which was on top of a total of more than $2 billion in assistance in the decades before that.)
But all of this presupposes some sort of ordinary business relationship, as between two parties at arms’ length. Whereas it is increasingly clear the federal government, at least, views itself and Bombardier as being one and the same.
This was perhaps most explicit in the prime minister’s announcement earlier this week that the government would refuse to buy military jets from Boeing, though it had earlier said it would, on the grounds that “we don’t do business with a company that’s busy trying to sue us.”
Boeing, of course, is doing no such thing. The suit it has brought before the U.S. International Trade Commission is not against the government of Canada, but Bombardier. It was not Boeing that mistook the interests of the citizens of Canada for those of a private company, or that subordinated a critical military procurement decision to the outcome of a private trade dispute. It was the government of Canada that did that.
That the original decision - to purchase 18 Super Hornet jet fighters from Boeing as an “interim” replacement for the air force’s aging fleet of CF-18s, rather than proceed straight to a permanent replacement - is almost universally regarded as folly is beside the point. It was the Liberal government that insisted the purchase could not wait, having discovered a critical “capability gap” unknown to every independent military expert. It is therefore by its own account placing the security of the country and the safety of its military personnel at risk, in the service of a crude effort to blackmail Boeing into dropping its suit against Bombardier.
That Boeing has a perfect right to seek the protection of its own country’s trade laws; that Canada would be the first to cry foul if the situations were reversed; that Boeing, a global company with annual revenues nearly six times the Canadian defence budget, shows no signs of caving to this amateurish extortion attempt: all these are of secondary importance.
So is the indisputable fact that Bombardier has benefited from massive amounts in government subsidy, not only with regard to the sale of 75 CSeries passenger jets to Delta Air Lines that is the subject of Boeing’s complaint, but on many occasions - as Boeing has done.
No, what is most striking about the current dispute is how completely the government of Canada has come to identify with a single, family-controlled business. Either it is unaware of how odd this looks, or it does not care.
Of course, this was always true to an extent, if not so bluntly stated. The decision to subsidize Bombardier in the first place meant elevating the interests of a single firm above those of the taxpayer, first, and of the economy, second, via the diversion of capital and labour into a money-losing aerospace manufacturer that might otherwise have been put to more efficient use.
But the goings-on in recent days, with a preliminary decision from the U.S. Commerce Department expected next week, have exceeded all prior standards of corporatism.
Not content with threatening Boeing directly, the prime minister also publicly enlisted Bombardier’s stablemates in the Canadian aerospace sector, no less dependent on government’s goodwill, to put pressure on it. Then there was the even odder spectacle of Bombardier’s union, headed by the Liberals’ new best friend, Jerry Dias, downing tools for a day - though how this was supposed to hurt Boeing’s interests, or advance Bombardier’s, eludes understanding.
There is a strange fever in the air, a hint of the inexplicable, as if not all were quite what it seemed: as if Bombardier were not merely a failing plane-maker and the government not really the government. We must conclude there has been some sort of merger behind the scenes, or perhaps a takeover.
Two possibilities present themselves. Either Bombardier is no longer a private company but an arm of the government. Or - as seems equally plausible - the government of Canada at some point became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bombardier.
If the latter, this would put those periodic government payments to Bombardier in a whole new light: not so much a subsidy, it seems, as a dividend.
Andrew Coyne: The odd merger of Bombardier and the Canadian government
It is increasingly clear amid the current Bombardier- Boeing dispute that the federal government, at least, views itself and Bombardier as being one and the same
Perhaps I have been wrong about Bombardier.
Until this week I had been patiently explaining to readers that the company was not, as its annual reports might suggest, in the aerospace and mass transit business. It is, I suggested, in the subsidy business. Governments, federal and provincial, periodically offer it subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in return for which Bombardier agrees to take them.
That is to say, it supplies governments with the incalculable benefits that come from “rescuing” Bombardier, and thus saving jobs, advancing high-tech, defending Canada, defending Quebec, and other things politicians like to be seen doing.
Mind you, Bombardier is not always such an easy sell. In the most recent such episode, the company publicly disavowed any need for the $375-million “repayable loan” the federal government was pressing upon it, only relenting after the feds agreed not to attach any conditions to the money. (This was on top of the US$1 billion Bombardier had earlier secured from the government of Quebec. Which was on top of a US$1.5-billion payment from the province’s pension plan, the Caisse de Dépôt, in return for a one-third stake in Bombardier’s train business. Which was on top of a $350-million “loan” a previous federal government had granted the company in 2008. Which was on top of a total of more than $2 billion in assistance in the decades before that.)
But all of this presupposes some sort of ordinary business relationship, as between two parties at arms’ length. Whereas it is increasingly clear the federal government, at least, views itself and Bombardier as being one and the same.
This was perhaps most explicit in the prime minister’s announcement earlier this week that the government would refuse to buy military jets from Boeing, though it had earlier said it would, on the grounds that “we don’t do business with a company that’s busy trying to sue us.”
Boeing, of course, is doing no such thing. The suit it has brought before the U.S. International Trade Commission is not against the government of Canada, but Bombardier. It was not Boeing that mistook the interests of the citizens of Canada for those of a private company, or that subordinated a critical military procurement decision to the outcome of a private trade dispute. It was the government of Canada that did that.
That the original decision - to purchase 18 Super Hornet jet fighters from Boeing as an “interim” replacement for the air force’s aging fleet of CF-18s, rather than proceed straight to a permanent replacement - is almost universally regarded as folly is beside the point. It was the Liberal government that insisted the purchase could not wait, having discovered a critical “capability gap” unknown to every independent military expert. It is therefore by its own account placing the security of the country and the safety of its military personnel at risk, in the service of a crude effort to blackmail Boeing into dropping its suit against Bombardier.
That Boeing has a perfect right to seek the protection of its own country’s trade laws; that Canada would be the first to cry foul if the situations were reversed; that Boeing, a global company with annual revenues nearly six times the Canadian defence budget, shows no signs of caving to this amateurish extortion attempt: all these are of secondary importance.
So is the indisputable fact that Bombardier has benefited from massive amounts in government subsidy, not only with regard to the sale of 75 CSeries passenger jets to Delta Air Lines that is the subject of Boeing’s complaint, but on many occasions - as Boeing has done.
No, what is most striking about the current dispute is how completely the government of Canada has come to identify with a single, family-controlled business. Either it is unaware of how odd this looks, or it does not care.
Of course, this was always true to an extent, if not so bluntly stated. The decision to subsidize Bombardier in the first place meant elevating the interests of a single firm above those of the taxpayer, first, and of the economy, second, via the diversion of capital and labour into a money-losing aerospace manufacturer that might otherwise have been put to more efficient use.
But the goings-on in recent days, with a preliminary decision from the U.S. Commerce Department expected next week, have exceeded all prior standards of corporatism.
Not content with threatening Boeing directly, the prime minister also publicly enlisted Bombardier’s stablemates in the Canadian aerospace sector, no less dependent on government’s goodwill, to put pressure on it. Then there was the even odder spectacle of Bombardier’s union, headed by the Liberals’ new best friend, Jerry Dias, downing tools for a day - though how this was supposed to hurt Boeing’s interests, or advance Bombardier’s, eludes understanding.
There is a strange fever in the air, a hint of the inexplicable, as if not all were quite what it seemed: as if Bombardier were not merely a failing plane-maker and the government not really the government. We must conclude there has been some sort of merger behind the scenes, or perhaps a takeover.
Two possibilities present themselves. Either Bombardier is no longer a private company but an arm of the government. Or - as seems equally plausible - the government of Canada at some point became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bombardier.
If the latter, this would put those periodic government payments to Bombardier in a whole new light: not so much a subsidy, it seems, as a dividend.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Loachman: Ottawa Citizen print headline for Coyne piece was "The People's Republic of Bombardier" ;D
Mark
Mark
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Bye bye RCAF Super Hornets--what now? An immediate competition for the full (whatever that is) new fighter buy? Used RAAF Hornets? ¿Quién sabe? with this gov't:
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
Unless they decide that the entire US govt. is ganging up and then you will end up with eurofighter or the Gripen. The Gripen is a good aircraft but it is not suitable for our needs, same with Eurofighter. Worse, they will punt the entire issue into the distant future and purchase cases of duct tape to maintain our current fleet.
- Reaction score
- 1,279
- Points
- 1,160
FSTO said:
Surely you don't think this government is glib and vindictive?
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,756
- Points
- 1,210
Ostrozac said:
I forgot that part, yep we are getting rafales for sure now, The latest F3R upgrade is being put fleet wide next year, and the French air force is expected to fly the Rafale past 2040. though with the tech transfer that won't matter much as we could in theory contract out the manufacturing of spare parts.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
There is also a possible engine upgrade which I would like to see, giving it the same power as the Typhoon. Here is the F3R upgrade information.
http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=1366
Engine upgrade.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15614/Safran_Plans_Engine_Upgrade_For_Dassault_Rafale_Fighter_Jet#.WcvPzNOPLcc
http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=1366
Engine upgrade.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15614/Safran_Plans_Engine_Upgrade_For_Dassault_Rafale_Fighter_Jet#.WcvPzNOPLcc
MilEME09 said:
Why? so we can pay 125+ million flyaway, for a capability that is less interoperable in NORAD, and has the same, if not more limitations than the Super Hornet? And to get basically 20 year old technology, when we're already working with the JSF program, which gives us access to cutting edge technology in a way that is complementary to our industrial strengths.
Any interim buy is a bad idea. It doesn't matter who it is, even if it is the F-35. We need a complete, orderly replacement of the fleet.
