Canadian government makes a non-subtle hint that they may cancel purchase of F18's over CSeries spat.

http://www.newson6.com/story/35465845/c ... dier-probe

F35's are next to the chopping bloc if the NAFTA talks go south ...

Let them walk. Better to lose out on a Hornet deal than fight with the C Series for 20+ years after illegally being propped up.

mastermis wrote:

Canadian government makes a non-subtle hint that they may cancel purchase of F18's over CSeries spat.

http://www.newson6.com/story/35465845/c ... dier-probe

And so continues the Liberal Government's preference for political games over military capability.

CX747 wrote:

C Series for 20+ years after illegally being propped up.

well, following your kind of thinking the 777x shall have no market outside the US, as it was illegally propped up. Or one could argue that the C-Series just needed that government support, because Boeing used illegal dumping on 737s to block market entry.... an so on.
As long Boeing doesn´t pay you, you should be happy that the Canadian Taxpayers are willing to subsidize your seat in a comfy, advanced aircraft ....

best regards
Thomas

Good. The decision to purchase 'interim' Super Hornets never made any sense anyways:

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/commit ... INAL_e.pdf

See pages 10-12.

From the Ottawa Citizen this morning: "Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan suggested the U.S. aerospace firm that wants to sell billions of dollars worth of fighter jets to Canada can no longer be considered a trusted partner."

Looks like the F35 could be back in play... http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... e-escalate

Interesting, so this entire charade could just be political cover to get Canada back into the F-35 family while providing the current Canadian government an excuse to go back on their promise of getting Canada out of the F-35 boondoggle....

The way this is going, they might as well forget about the P-8A. Hang on to the P-3 as long as they can and make due with a smaller MMA aircraft. The MSA is based on the Bombardier frame. But it too is a Boeing product . . . Hope there's a window in that corner that they are painting themselves into.

bt

it's now official:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canad ... 59632.html

"We have a capability gap, we outlined a process, our partner in that process is not acting like a valued partner right now so we've suspended discussions with that partner," Steven MacKinnon, parliamentary secretary to Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote, told reporters.

bikerthai wrote:

The way this is going, they might as well forget about the P-8A. Hang on to the P-3 as long as they can and make due with a smaller MMA aircraft. The MSA is based on the Bombardier frame. But it too is a Boeing product . . . Hope there's a window in that corner that they are painting themselves into.

bt

Doesn't Airbus do an MPA version of the C-295? Would make awfully good sense considering that Canada will already get a bunch of those.

VSMUT wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

The way this is going, they might as well forget about the P-8A. Hang on to the P-3 as long as they can and make due with a smaller MMA aircraft. The MSA is based on the Bombardier frame. But it too is a Boeing product . . . Hope there's a window in that corner that they are painting themselves into.

bt

Doesn't Airbus do an MPA version of the C-295? Would make awfully good sense considering that Canada will already get a bunch of those.

Inadequate endurance. The current CP-140's patrol the second largest coastline in the world. And we are doing it with 18 aircraft.

If anything, LM has another option: the SC-130J Sea Hercules. It's a proposed maritime patrol variant of the C-130J, which means full interoperability with the current C-130J fleet.

One possible outcome:

Trump eager on Canada to increase its defense/NATO spending asks Boeing to back off its Bombardier C-Series criticism to allow the Super Hornet order to go ahead.

Not to mention his 'Buy American' strategy....he may be worried Canada might look at the Euro-fighter Typhoon

ThePointblank wrote:

Inadequate endurance. The current CP-140's patrol the second largest coastline in the world. And we are doing it with 18 aircraft.

If anything, LM has another option: the SC-130J Sea Hercules. It's a proposed maritime patrol variant of the C-130J, which means full interoperability with the current C-130J fleet.

The paper plane that is the so-called "Sea Hercules" is also a product from the country of Trump, so hardly a viable alternative if they want a non-American plane.

VSMUT wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

The way this is going, they might as well forget about the P-8A. Hang on to the P-3 as long as they can and make due with a smaller MMA aircraft. The MSA is based on the Bombardier frame. But it too is a Boeing product . . . Hope there's a window in that corner that they are painting themselves into.

bt

Doesn't Airbus do an MPA version of the C-295? Would make awfully good sense considering that Canada will already get a bunch of those.

Or the Saab Swordfish MPA based on Global 6000.

http://saab.com/air/airborne-solutions/ ... -aircraft/

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Inadequate endurance. The current CP-140's patrol the second largest coastline in the world. And we are doing it with 18 aircraft.

If anything, LM has another option: the SC-130J Sea Hercules. It's a proposed maritime patrol variant of the C-130J, which means full interoperability with the current C-130J fleet.

The paper plane that is the so-called "Sea Hercules" is also a product from the country of Trump, so hardly a viable alternative if they want a non-American plane.

The Canadian Government could always put in a call to Kawasaki....the P-1 is available for export

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Inadequate endurance. The current CP-140's patrol the second largest coastline in the world. And we are doing it with 18 aircraft.

If anything, LM has another option: the SC-130J Sea Hercules. It's a proposed maritime patrol variant of the C-130J, which means full interoperability with the current C-130J fleet.

The paper plane that is the so-called "Sea Hercules" is also a product from the country of Trump, so hardly a viable alternative if they want a non-American plane.

The Canadian Government is more pissed off at Boeing, not the US, judging from the current statements:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan- ... -1.4139748
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing- ... -1.4141267

Sounds like the government is planning a major boost to the Canadian military, with lots of equipment to be purchased, based upon the Foreign Minister's most recent speech in the House. The entire transcript is here:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... ll-speech/

Of course, the Defence Minister is expected to release details on the defence policy review sometime this week as well.

CX747 wrote:

Let them walk. Better to lose out on a Hornet deal than fight with the C Series for 20+ years after illegally being propped up.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that the whole industry in all of the participating nations is subsidized? Tax breaks in Washington or Alabama, launch aid in Toulouse, bridging loans in Montreal and I don't even want to start about Moscow or Bejing.

Ozair wrote:

mastermis wrote:

Canadian government makes a non-subtle hint that they may cancel purchase of F18's over CSeries spat.

http://www.newson6.com/story/35465845/c ... dier-probe

And so continues the Liberal Government's preference for political games over military capability.

Ah yes, it is so unfortunate that the F18 is the only available fighter plane in the world

LightningZ71 wrote:

Interesting, so this entire charade could just be political cover to get Canada back into the F-35 family while providing the current Canadian government an excuse to go back on their promise of getting Canada out of the F-35 boondoggle....

Agree. And they brought Boeing on board this charade by...wait, they loose 5 billion while not being able to kill of the C-series. Only winners here, I see .

Nicoeddf wrote:

Ozair wrote:

mastermis wrote:

Canadian government makes a non-subtle hint that they may cancel purchase of F18's over CSeries spat.

http://www.newson6.com/story/35465845/c ... dier-probe

And so continues the Liberal Government's preference for political games over military capability.

Ah yes, it is so unfortunate that the F18 is the only available fighter plane in the world

Well done taking my comment out of context... Might be worth reading some of the comments on other Canadian fighter replacement threads before you shoot from the hip.

Ozair wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Ozair wrote:

And so continues the Liberal Government's preference for political games over military capability.

Ah yes, it is so unfortunate that the F18 is the only available fighter plane in the world

Well done taking my comment out of context... Might be worth reading some of the comments on other Canadian fighter replacement threads before you shoot from the hip.

No, sorry, that one is on you. Context is this thread, not any other potential thread you imply must have been read. But you could have linked to that thread with your comments actually creating context.

Channex757 wrote:

The Canadian Government could always put in a call to Kawasaki....the P-1 is available for export

cha-ching - pay more and get less

queb wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

The way this is going, they might as well forget about the P-8A. Hang on to the P-3 as long as they can and make due with a smaller MMA aircraft. The MSA is based on the Bombardier frame. But it too is a Boeing product . . . Hope there's a window in that corner that they are painting themselves into.

bt

Doesn't Airbus do an MPA version of the C-295? Would make awfully good sense considering that Canada will already get a bunch of those.

Or the Saab Swordfish MPA based on Global 6000.

http://saab.com/air/airborne-solutions/ ... -aircraft/

This would fit the bill if thing goes that far.

bmacleod wrote:

Trump eager on Canada to increase its defense/NATO spending asks Boeing to back off its Bombardier C-Series criticism to allow the Super Hornet order to go ahead.

And Trump took on a Boeing Executive as one of his advisor. (Is he still there?)

bt

Nicoeddf wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Ah yes, it is so unfortunate that the F18 is the only available fighter plane in the world

Well done taking my comment out of context... Might be worth reading some of the comments on other Canadian fighter replacement threads before you shoot from the hip.

No, sorry, that one is on you. Context is this thread, not any other potential thread you imply must have been read. But you could have linked to that thread with your comments actually creating context.

Even if we limit the context to this thread it was still a stupid comment by yourself and I stand by what I have stated, the Canadian Liberal Government continues to play politics with the selection of a replacement fighter aircraft. We can see that clearly with the SH and even more so with the F-35, which is approaching cost parity with the SH but with significantly greater capability.

Ozair wrote:

We can see that clearly with the SH and even more so with the F-35, which is approaching cost parity with the SH but with significantly greater capability.

Liberal budget calls for upto $19B CAD for 88 fighters... that is $155M USD per fighter. I know there are more costs for a new fleet of fighters, but the F-35A is expected to be $85M USD each next year... so that leaves $6.1B USD for other work... hell $6.1B is enough to buy 70+ more F-35.

The new Defence Policy has been revealed:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal ... -1.4149473
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-d ... report.pdf
It's a mix of the some already announced and in progress commitments, and some new ones. Being highlighted is below:
15 new warships
88 new fighter jets
New armed drones
Replacements for the CP-140 Aurora's
Replace the CC-150 Polaris tankers
Replace the Twin Otter fleet

Nice to see a country taking defence seriously. I hope it will be 88 F-35s and P-8 + KC-46s + C27.

seahawk wrote:

Nice to see a country taking defence seriously. I hope it will be 88 F-35s and P-8 + KC-46s + C27.

why?

Interoperability with the most important ally and the highest quality options.

Ozair wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Well done taking my comment out of context... Might be worth reading some of the comments on other Canadian fighter replacement threads before you shoot from the hip.

No, sorry, that one is on you. Context is this thread, not any other potential thread you imply must have been read. But you could have linked to that thread with your comments actually creating context.

Even if we limit the context to this thread it was still a stupid comment by yourself and I stand by what I have stated, the Canadian Liberal Government continues to play politics with the selection of a replacement fighter aircraft. We can see that clearly with the SH and even more so with the F-35, which is approaching cost parity with the SH but with significantly greater capability.

Apart from your cute "he is not agreeing with me mommy...so stupid" comment, you apparently fail to understand that all military purchase always is political. They don't "play" politics, it IS politics.
Weighing the real world threat of losing incredibly valuable civil aviation knowledge by not backing the C Series versus a non-existent short term (!) threat of actually needing the F18 specifically and now, the Canadian government actually makes one heck of a right decision to react to the C Series threat.
My opinion obviously. You need not agree

seahawk wrote:

Nice to see a country taking defence seriously. I hope it will be 88 F-35s and P-8 + KC-46s + C27.

88 F-35s? Even half of that number - 40 will be a big challenge for Canada's defense budget.

The Super Hornet order is looking more solid now..

A bigger focus on drones is also more likely...

Also do we really need mid-air refueling? Surely an agreement with the US Air Force would be much cheaper....

ThePointblank wrote:

The new Defence Policy has been revealed:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal ... -1.4149473
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-d ... report.pdf
It's a mix of the some already announced and in progress commitments, and some new ones. Being highlighted is below:
15 new warships
88 new fighter jets
New armed drones
Replacements for the CP-140 Aurora's
Replace the CC-150 Polaris tankers
Replace the Twin Otter fleet

Most of those purchases are in the mid-2020's. IOW, Canada will continue doing what they have been, which is making big announcements but not appropriating any funding. That's how they lost their destroyers and replenishment ships...they kept getting older and they kept postponing their replacements.

bmacleod wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nice to see a country taking defence seriously. I hope it will be 88 F-35s and P-8 + KC-46s + C27.

88 F-35s? Even half of that number - 40 will be a big challenge for Canada's defense budget.

The Super Hornet order is looking more solid now..

A bigger focus on drones is also more likely...

Also do we really need mid-air refueling? Surely an agreement with the US Air Force would be much cheaper....

Did you even read any of the recent news? Federal government is angry at Boeing, which gives them a political out to buy F-35, oh btw there is a ton of new funding, 19B for new fighters, which could pay for 158 F-35A. The stop gap Super Hornet purchase has been pretty much been killed as a waste of money.

keesje wrote:

Why would Canada look at obsolete 4th gen fighters?

seahawk wrote:

Nice to see a country taking defence seriously. I hope it will be 88 F-35s and P-8 + KC-46s + C27.

88!!!

Could Dash8-400 be a viable platform for conversion into a modern MPA platform? Need a program that will maximize local production & jobs.

With the Orange Man in charge down south, it might also make sense to look towards building relationships with EU going forward.

So 40 EF Typhoons + A319/Q400 MPA (Aurora replacement) + A330MRTT + C295.

Canada should push hard for a good offset clause that would ensure more creation of jobs within Canada. EU can offer better deals at this point.

As it is about replacing the P-3s there is no other option that the P-8.

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

Why would Canada look at obsolete 4th gen fighters?

Especially one that has ZERO compatibility with existing weapons and minimal interoperability with US systems.

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

Why would Canada look at obsolete 4th gen fighters?

Canada may cancel F18 deal

Also some people feel Canada should continue to buy twin engine fighters. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/one-dead-pilot

But again why something with a weapons suite not compatible with current stocks, not compatible with their neighbour to the South ...

ThePointblank wrote:

Especially one that has ZERO compatibility with existing weapons and minimal interoperability with US systems.

Gripen E is network centric airframe with NATO interoperability lots of existing US weapons and datalink at a fraction of the cost. The F414G is very similar to F/A-18 power plant.

zeke wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Especially one that has ZERO compatibility with existing weapons and minimal interoperability with US systems.

Gripen E is network centric airframe with NATO interoperability lots of existing US weapons and datalink at a fraction of the cost. The F414G is very similar to F/A-18 power plant.

Not NATO interoperability. That's actually a fairly broad standard to work with. The next Canadian fighter jet needs to be totally compatible and integrate seamlessly with American systems.

The F414 is not at all similar to the F404. While it is derived from the F404, they have very little in common.

Especially considering the variant of the F404 being used in Canadian CF-18's ( F404-GE-400), there's very little that is shared between it and the F414. No parts or tools are common between them. The engine core in the F414 is totally redesigned even compared to the later versions of the F404. Different shop requirements as well.

seahawk wrote:

But again why something with a weapons suite not compatible with current stocks, not compatible with their neighbour to the South ...

That might not be an overriding consideration in this case and some differentiation also has advantages in terms of capabilities, dependency & predictability.

Apart from that, the Rafale has more range than F35, can carry more, has 2 engines safety and e.g. a conformal fuel tanks option Its faster and has a two crew option for longer complex missions. And it's combat proven. I'm no specialist but it doesn't look to bad at first sight compared to last of the line F18s and F35's.

The new POTUS is a nice guy, but the PM of Canada and Pres of France also seem to get along well and have strong domestic support.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/05/26/trudeau-macron-bromance-offers-new-face-of-franco-canadian-friendship/

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But again why something with a weapons suite not compatible with current stocks, not compatible with their neighbour to the South ...

That might not be an overriding consideration in this case and some differentiation also has advantages in terms of capabilities, dependency & predictability.

Apart from that, the Rafale has more range than F35, can carry more, has 2 engines safety and e.g. a conformal fuel tanks option Its faster and has a two crew option for longer complex missions. And it's combat proven. I'm no specialist but it doesn't look to bad at first sight compared to last of the line F18s and F35's.

The new POTUS is a nice guy, but the PM of Canada and Pres of France also seem to get along well and have strong domestic support.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/05/26/trudeau-macron-bromance-offers-new-face-of-franco-canadian-friendship/

The Rafale is a more expensive aircraft to buy and sustain. Everything from parts, tooling, and weapons. Different supply chain as well that is across the ocean.

If a RCAF F-35 breaks down in Alaska and needs a spare part, we could walk over to the USAF maintenance people and ask them for the spare part, tools and get help replacing the part. We could probably be on our way again the next day.

If a RCAF Rafale breaks down in Alaska, we would have to first source the part if it available in a Canadian warehouse, get it to a RCAF base, and load it, the tools, and the maintenance technicians on a cargo aircraft, and fly out to repair the aircraft. Probably will take a few days, maybe even a week to get that done.

The Rafale is inferior to the F-35 in many respects; the radar is inferior, it lacks sensor fusion capabilities, the Thales Damocles targeting pod is dramatically inferior to the F-35's internal Sniper XR pod, and it won't go as fast when armed.

It also has a very limited weapons fit, and the Rafale can't even take full advantage of some of the weapons planned for it; for one the integration of the Meteor missile on the Rafale is half-baked; the Rafale is communicating with the Meteor missile using the same data link it is using for the MICA missile, which means it is a one-way data link; both the Eurofighter and the Gripen have two way data links with the Meteor missile, and the F-35 will also have the same two-way data link as well.

Did I also mention that the Rafale is much more expensive as well... and the trend for the Rafale is costs are going to continue to go upwards, while the F-35 is going down...

I could understand the EF, but Rafale - not really.

ThePointblank wrote:

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But again why something with a weapons suite not compatible with current stocks, not compatible with their neighbour to the South ...

That might not be an overriding consideration in this case and some differentiation also has advantages in terms of capabilities, dependency & predictability.

You think the cooperation with the US will stay as close as before?
Politically Canada has increasingly less in common with a US that strongly goes for "crowbar unilateralism".

Why should Canada reserve some space on a sinking ship

WIederling wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

keesje wrote:

That might not be an overriding consideration in this case and some differentiation also has advantages in terms of capabilities, dependency & predictability.

You think the cooperation with the US will stay as close as before?
Politically Canada has increasingly less in common with a US that strongly goes for "crowbar unilateralism".

Why should Canada reserve some space on a sinking ship

Politics ebbs and flows with the time. But the US is still the largest trading partner to Canada. This dispute is just a small drop in a big pond. It gives the politician some air time to go through the motion of standing up for their constituent and give them cover for going back to the F-35.

Face saving is just another tool in the politician tool bag. It's just that some are more adept at it than others.

bt

ThePointblank wrote:

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But again why something with a weapons suite not compatible with current stocks, not compatible with their neighbour to the South ...

That might not be an overriding consideration in this case and some differentiation also has advantages in terms of capabilities, dependency & predictability.

Apart from that, the Rafale has more range than F35, can carry more, has 2 engines safety and e.g. a conformal fuel tanks option Its faster and has a two crew option for longer complex missions. And it's combat proven. I'm no specialist but it doesn't look to bad at first sight compared to last of the line F18s and F35's.

The new POTUS is a nice guy, but the PM of Canada and Pres of France also seem to get along well and have strong domestic support.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/05/26/trudeau-macron-bromance-offers-new-face-of-franco-canadian-friendship/

The Rafale is a more expensive aircraft to buy and sustain. Everything from parts, tooling, and weapons. Different supply chain as well that is across the ocean.

If a RCAF F-35 breaks down in Alaska and needs a spare part, we could walk over to the USAF maintenance people and ask them for the spare part, tools and get help replacing the part. We could probably be on our way again the next day.

If a RCAF Rafale breaks down in Alaska, we would have to first source the part if it available in a Canadian warehouse, get it to a RCAF base, and load it, the tools, and the maintenance technicians on a cargo aircraft, and fly out to repair the aircraft. Probably will take a few days, maybe even a week to get that done.

The Rafale is inferior to the F-35 in many respects; the radar is inferior, it lacks sensor fusion capabilities, the Thales Damocles targeting pod is dramatically inferior to the F-35's internal Sniper XR pod, and it won't go as fast when armed.

It also has a very limited weapons fit, and the Rafale can't even take full advantage of some of the weapons planned for it; for one the integration of the Meteor missile on the Rafale is half-baked; the Rafale is communicating with the Meteor missile using the same data link it is using for the MICA missile, which means it is a one-way data link; both the Eurofighter and the Gripen have two way data links with the Meteor missile, and the F-35 will also have the same two-way data link as well.

Did I also mention that the Rafale is much more expensive as well... and the trend for the Rafale is costs are going to continue to go upwards, while the F-35 is going down...

Disregarding the typical French bashing, if Canada should not buy European planes due to longer supply chain, why on earth should any European country buy American planes. Europe is much further from Alaska than Canada.

ThePointblank wrote:

The Rafale is inferior to the F-35 in many respects; the radar is inferior, it lacks sensor fusion capabilities

Incorrect. The Rafale's sensor fusion system is well regarded and is actually one of the aircraft's greatest strengths...

the Thales Damocles targeting pod is dramatically inferior to the F-35's internal Sniper XR pod, and it won't go as fast when armed.

Sniper XR is being integrated on the Rafale. Qatari examples will use it. In French service, Damocles will be replaced by the TALIOS pod currently under development and due to enter service next year.

It also has a very limited weapons fit

Really? Lets see...

Mica IR & EM
Meteor
Mk82/BLU-126
the whole Paveway II & III family (GBU-10/12/16/22/24/49)
AASM
SCALP/Storm Shadow
Exocet Block II

Not too shabby.

ThePointblank wrote:

The F414 is not at all similar to the F404. While it is derived from the F404, they have very little in common.

Especially considering the variant of the F404 being used in Canadian CF-18's ( F404-GE-400), there's very little that is shared between it and the F414. No parts or tools are common between them. The engine core in the F414 is totally redesigned even compared to the later versions of the F404. Different shop requirements as well.

The Gripen E basically has the same engine as the super hornet, the F/A-18 we are talking about in this thread. The Gripen can supercruise with that engine, has better climb performance and range. In a ground attack mode the F/A-18 carries more ordnance. In an air to surface to standoff point of view both will carry the AGM-154/158, KEPN 350, both carry smart bombs and precision targeting and brimstone.

The Gripen E was designed to be network centric, from what I understand it has a few capabilities as a result of that that the F/A-18 does not currently have. Gripen has EW built in, and carries jamming pods if needed.

The Gripen has better beyond visual range capabilities, it carries a better radar, smaller radar cross sector, MBDA Meteor (going on the F-35 also), the datalink allows for aircraft to be passive and still launch using remote targeting. Air to air the Gripen is smaller, faster, and better manoeuvrability.

Really comes down to what Canada is after, very little from what I can see the Gripen E cannot do apart from costing more to buy or run.