# 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

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 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

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 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

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> 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

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> 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

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> 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

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 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

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bombardier has already done it with the RAF's ASTOR/Sentinel

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/sentinel.htm


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GR66 said:
			
		

> 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?



External torpedos- it has to do with the minimum temperature limits of the torpedo. Cold torpedos don't do very well.

All the mil-1760 std means is that the connectors, connect to the weapons.

It doesn't mean the software to drop or fire them actually exists in the mission computer. Or that the separation and drop trials have been conducted. You know- minor issues.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Bombardier has already done it with the RAF's ASTOR/Sentinel
> 
> http://www.spyflight.co.uk/sentinel.htm



Done what?  The R1 is like a 'baby JSTAR', or a P-3 LSRS...not a MPA.

How about a SC-130J?  Common parts, flight deck training, training for maintainers...360 degree RADAR, internal fish...wing hardpoints...good legs.  MAD boom.  Lots of room for search stores.

I like it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Now, please pardon my ignorance concerning LRMPA's, my knowledge being limited to the fact that I thank the gods for having them in support when I am carrying out ASW ops, but:

1) Seems to me that  Bombardier's problem right now is that the C series is not yet certified for commercial use. If so, why would the Government want to use the C series as a LRMPA?

2) I seem to recall that the French government (Airbus) is working with Israel on a system called FITS that can be set into all sorts of different airframes for maritime patrol. Can something like that be done fairly easily here with Bombardier products other than the C Series, to provide for limited number (say half a dozen to a dozen) of aircraft that could usefully relieve the Aurora's from the more tedious coastal SurfPats, PolPats and FishPats?


----------



## Kirkhill

Done what?

Packed a civilian aircraft with a load of electronics and sensors that get employed for military purposes.  

We are not focusing on the task of the aircraft here.  We're talking about saving Bombardier jobs and in the process....

https://youtu.be/uTmfwklFM-M


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, please pardon my ignorance concerning LRMPA's, my knowledge being limited to the fact that I thank the gods for having them in support when I am carrying out ASW ops, but:
> 
> 1) Seems to me that  Bombardier's problem right now is that the C series is not yet certified for commercial use. If so, why would the Government want to use the C series as a LRMPA?
> 
> 2) I seem to recall that the French government (Airbus) is working with Israel on a system called FITS that can be set into all sorts of different airframes for maritime patrol. Can something like that be done fairly easily here with Bombardier products other than the C Series, to provide for limited number (say half a dozen to a dozen) of aircraft that could usefully relieve the Aurora's from the more tedious coastal SurfPats, PolPats and FishPats?



The Sentinel is based on the earlier Global Express which derived from the Challenger.  According to Wiki they have built 600 of the Global Express vice 6 of the C-series.

Buy some GEs and figure out what to do with them.   As far as Bombardier is concerned money is money.  They can develop the C on their own nickel.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, please pardon my ignorance concerning LRMPA's, my knowledge being limited to the fact that I thank the gods for having them in support when I am carrying out ASW ops...



Whoaaaaaa...aren't _YOU_ supporting _US_ when WE are doing ASW?    



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> provide for limited number (say half a dozen to a dozen) of aircraft that could usefully relieve the Aurora's from the more tedious coastal SurfPats, PolPats and FishPats?



Transport Canada and PAL do some of this work already.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-ers-nasp-2195.htm

http://www.provincialaerospace.com/AboutProvincialAerospace/Clients/


Thread merge/split time?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Done what?
> 
> Packed a civilian aircraft with a load of electronics and sensors that get employed for military purposes.
> 
> We are not focusing on the task of the aircraft here.  We're talking about saving Bombardier jobs and in the process....
> 
> https://youtu.be/uTmfwklFM-M



Copy, I am on the same page now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Field Aviation, Toronto, already does a decent business converting Bombardier Dash-8/Q Series turboprops into civilian maritime patrol/surveillance aircraft for foreign customers:
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/80150/post-1013266.html#msg1013266

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Field Aviation, Toronto, already does a decent business converting Bombardier Dash-8/Q Series turboprops into civilian maritime patrol/surveillance aircraft for foreign customers:
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/80150/post-1013266.html#msg1013266
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



There you go then!  A twofer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Field Aviation, Toronto, already does a decent business converting Bombardier Dash-8/Q Series turboprops into civilian maritime patrol/surveillance aircraft for foreign customers:
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/80150/post-1013266.html#msg1013266
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



FTFY


----------



## DonaldMcL

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Done what?  The R1 is like a 'baby JSTAR', or a P-3 LSRS...not a MPA.
> 
> How about a SC-130J?  Common parts, flight deck training, training for maintainers...360 degree RADAR, internal fish...wing hardpoints...good legs.  MAD boom.  Lots of room for search stores.
> 
> I like it.



And zero speed...


----------



## Loachman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

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



Tac Hel has had that since the 1990s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BobSlob said:
			
		

> And zero speed...



Compared to...the P-8?  Sure.

And?


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Tac Hel has had that since the 1990s.



If they don't spontaneously combust then they're not up to the LSVW standard.


----------



## DonaldMcL

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Compared to...the P-8?  Sure.
> 
> And?



Compared to even the P3.


----------



## Brasidas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If they don't spontaneously combust then they're not up to the LSVW standard.



I thought that was the LUVW-milcots?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Compared to even the P3.



I thought you were a '140 guy previously.   ???


----------



## DonaldMcL

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I thought you were a '140 guy previously.   ???



I currently am a '140 guy.


----------



## MarkOttawa

SAAB using Bombardier airframe for AEW plane:



> SINGAPORE: Saab introduces GlobalEye AEW aircraft
> 
> Saab has officially launched a new airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft called GlobalEye, combining its new Erieye ER active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with Bombardier's Global 6000 business jet.
> 
> It means the wider market will now be offered the same configuration as ordered by the United Arab Emirates under a $1.27 billion two-aircraft deal signed during Dubai air show in November.
> 
> “We have a completely new platform but also a completely new radar. The radar has an extremely high capacity compared to the old one, so the performance is enhanced,” says Erik Winberg, director of business development at Saab...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-saab-introduces-globaleye-aew-aircraft-421899/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

Maybe it's time we get out of the sub-hunting business?  The SGOD is being used operationally quite extensively this past decade.  No war-torps dropped - plenty of targets lased (or whatever).

Retire the four-engine nightmare - get some sleek (fast) Global Express-type - bingo bango - excellent Surveillance machine for all threat aspects.  IMHO, if we're not going to play with the big-boys and be serious about LRP (aka P-8 subkiller platform) - don't bother.  Do a threat estimate - figure out the chances of ever having to kill a sub - focus on the surface threat (from far far away).


----------



## MarkOttawa

There's also an Israeli Bombardier bizjet project:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/mark-collins-another-proposal-for-bombardier-based-jet-maritime-patrol-aircraft/



> Another Proposal for Bombardier-Based Jet Maritime Patrol Aircraft
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But all such military projects won't provide anywhere near enough money (and certainly not in time) to avoid a federal bail-out (note "Comments"):
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/mark-collins-want-to-bet-against-feds-bailing-out-bombardier/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Tac Hel has had that since the 1990s.



LOL for both of you!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Certainly not the first time. When Chretien's son in law, Andre Desmarais, the son of Paul Desmarais, of Power Corporation had a couple of extra Challengers sitting around that he couldn't flog, he called his father-in-law. Chretien bought them, untendered, as VIP jets for the CAF.

Chretien, amongst others (seen below) has strong, familial ties to Power Corp (Bombardier). The current PM's father Pierre, was a lawyer for Power Corp, who's election was paid for by Desmarais, after receiving grants from the government.

It may be conjecture, but the tie of our most powerful politicians, many ex PMs, to the Desmarais' and Power Corp (Bombardier) are more than a bit disconcerting.

I honestly believe, that as long as the status quo exists, Bombardier will never find themselves in any kind of bind that can't be fixed by connections in government and the Canadian taxpayers largesse.

http://primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050120Gray.htm





> Canadian Legacy:
> The familial and financial ins and outs of Canadian politics.
> 
> By Ann Jane Gray
> 
> Many puzzled Canadians have watched while Jean Chretien pursued an anti-American, pro-Saddam Hussein policy that is not in the best interests of Canada.  If Hussein had managed to retain power, Jean Chretien's family stood to make millions. We believe that much can be explained by examining the political and familial connections of the Prime Minister.
> First it is necessary to understand that some federal (and provincial) politicians of all stripes belong to an exclusive club. Below you will read about the cast of characters and some of the known leading roles:
> John Rae was the leading strategist for Jean Chretien's election campaign. He was formerly the Executive vice-president of Power Corp. He is the brother of Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario.
> 
> Bob Rae, while Premier of Ontario, appointed Maurice Strong as chairman of Ontario Hydro. The past CEO of Paul Desmarais' Power Corporation, Strong was appointed to the UN as a senior environmental adviser to the UN secretary-general and Chairman of the Earth Council. His area of responsibility was the Kyoto Accord.
> 
> Paul Martin, formerly the Finance Minister under the current regime is considered a shoo in for Prime Minister as Jean Chretien exits the scene in February of 2004. Martin was previously on the board of Power Corp and formerly on the board of Connaught Laboratories. Allegations have been made of Connaught's implication in the tainted blood scandal. Martin and a partner purchased Canada Steamship Lines from Paul Desmarais of Power Corp at extremely favorable terms. Martin later bought the partner out. What obligations does Martin owe to Power Corporation interests once he becomes Prime Minister? Martin registered many of his vessels out of the country in third world registries, thus evading Canadian income taxes. Third world crews working in third world conditions crew his third world registry ships. Canadians must question whether the morality of Martin's evading Canadian income taxes while Finance Minister is a matter of concern.
> 
> Jean Chretien's daughter France is married to Andre Desmarais, the son of Paul Desmarais, of Power Corporation. Andre is on the board of multinational communications conglomerate Vivendi.  He runs Power Corporation. (estimated annual revenues $18-billion)
> According to Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun, in Le Monde, December 1, 1994, Jean Chretien, while in France talked about how French-Canadians had been "humiliated"  by the English and how today they see themselves as "martyrs." He boasted he was getting his own revenge and we quote: "For example, I have just appointed an Acadian to the office of governor general. So the governor general is a francophone. The same is true, among others, of the prime minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Speaker of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Finance."
> 
> Many Canadians will remember Jean Chretien's frequent trips to China. Andre Desmarais sits on the board of Peoples' Republic of China's China International Trust and Investment Corporation. This is considered to be the investment arm of the Chinese military. Through Project Sidewinder, the RCMP tried to investigate the links between the Prime Minister of Canada, Desmarais and China. and potential undue influence on Canadian politicians.  For more information on the China connection read the WatchDog article "Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report."
> 
> Jean Chretien supported the powerful third world bloc of the UN. He supported France, Germany and Russia whose oil and debt interests in Iraq apparently override any human rights violation or concerns. He could have another more immediate reason.  According to Diane Francis of the National Post, Paris-based TotalFinaElf's biggest shareholder is Paul Desmarais Sr. She also states in a recent article, "Canada's stance is all the more unacceptable because it aligns us with such soiled nations as France, Germany and Russia which made billions of dollars with Saddam Hussein, ran interference for him diplomatically and signed huge future oil contracts with his deposed regime." --End of quote. Paul Desmarais Jr. sits on the board of TotalFinaElf.
> 
> Totalfinael apparently now has a large share of the major oilsands project in Alberta. The Alberta Oilsands could be one of the two largest relatively untapped oil reserves in the world. It will not be in France's interests to have Alberta secede to become a new independent nation or to join with the United States.
> 
> So it seems apparent the the financial oil interests of Jean Chretien's family had a direct bearing on the stance Canada took in the recent liberation of Iraq.
> 
> Mitchell Sharp, while Finance Minister introduced Jean Chretien to politics. When Chretien became Prime Minister, Mitchell Sharpe was appointed as the famous dollar a year advisor to Chretien. Since 1981, Sharpe has been vice-Chairman of North American of the Trilateral Commission.
> 
> Daniel Johnson formerly Liberal leader in Quebec is credited for having delivered much federal spending to the Quebec based Power Corporation.
> 
> Brian Mulroney, the Conservative ex-Prime Minister is now on a dozen boards in corporate offices including some Power Corporation and Quebecor World. He is a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation. Power Corp and Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec formed a Hong Kong-based Asian Group Inc. to assist China in developing its energy potential.
> Sources claim Power Corp's legal interests in Asia are reportedly handled by a Hong Kong branch of Mulroney's Montreal law firm, Ogilvy Renault.
> 
> While in office, Pierre Trudeau's government (Prime Minister and a former Power Corp. lawyer) signed over millions to Power Corporation under federal grant programs. Desmarais was credited with funding his election campaign.
> 
> Power Corporation began as a broken down bus line in Ontario. He moved his company to Quebec where he purchased another bus line in Quebec City. Able to get the ear of government, Desmarais went from success to success. Today Power Corporation is a multi-national company with many subsidiaries, over-extended not surprisingly as government bailouts have always been there. Since the first of the year Bombardier has received $1.5 billion in loans for its planes. These low-interest loans made to countries such as Spain have allowed them to buy airplanes, thus enabling this troubled industry to stay afloat.
> 
> So we now have an elite club of Conservatives, (Mulroney) Liberals (Trudeau and Chretien) and the NDP (Bob Rae) all connected to Paul Desmarais and Power Corporation.
> 
> <snip>



Mr Chretien's insistence on not getting involved in the Iraq makes more sense, given PetroFina's  (Petro Canada\ Power Corp) involvement with Saddam's oil contracts.

More on Chretien's Challenger buy.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/932639/



> "Safety concerns behind $100-million jet purchase"
> 
> OTTAWA - The government spent $100 million on new luxury jets because the old ones are no longer safe, the prime minister said Tuesday.
> 
> *"Many times,* I've been involved in some urgent landings with the one we have at this moment –* many times*," Jean Chrétien said.
> 
> But documents uncovered in access to information requests point only to* a single case* in which the prime minister's jet was involved in a serious situation. That was in June 2001, when it made an emergency landing in Stockholm.
> 
> The Challenger carrying Chrétien from a meeting with European Union leaders turned around 15 minutes after taking off from the Swedish city. The cabin pressure had suddenly dropped.
> 
> The Defence Department considered it an isolated incident, and said at the time the prime minister was never in any danger
> 
> Public Works Minister Ralph Goodale said on Tuesday the incident probably influenced the decision in March of this year to place a rush order for two new Challengers from Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. The order came to a total of more than $100 million.
> 
> "When those circumstances happen, it is not a pleasant experience, and therefore, safety considerations are no doubt part of the decision," he said.
> 
> *The order was placed after senior officers in the Department of National Defence said the older jets were fine.*
> 
> "Given that there were no identifiable problems or trends with this fleet … it is recommended that remedial action, such as fleet modernization or replacement is not warranted at this time," a report produced last winter said.
> 
> *Opposition MPs have questioned the ethics of granting the large contract without a public tendering process*, and wondered why the government can find money quickly for Challenger jets but can't replace aging military equipment such as the navy's Sea King helicopters.
> 
> But the prime minister continues to insist purchasing the two jets was not a waste of taxpayers' money.
> 
> "We needed them," Chrétien said. "And it was decided by the administration to have jets for the operation of the government."


----------



## McG

If the government wants to disguise a bail-out as a defence contract, maybe invest in the product that Bombardier is trying to get to market - buy six CS300 to replace the five Polaris (which were built in the late 80s).

But, don't use defence dollars for this.  Make a specific allotment in the budget from Parlaiment for this.


----------



## Old Sweat

Remember the Iltis!  :facepalm:


----------



## Bearpaw

I think EIS is on the right track for the future MPA/LRPA for Canada.  The SC-130J is based on a solid design; the proposed performance is similar to the Auroras AND it has the capacity for air refueling.  This idea should be thoroughly explored.

We might consider adding a large AESA radar to it as well.

Bearpaw


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> If the government wants to disguise a bail-out as a defence contract, maybe invest in the product that Bombardier is trying to get to market - buy six CS300 to replace the five Polaris (which were built in the late 80s).
> 
> But, don't use defence dollars for this.  Make a specific allotment in the budget from Parlaiment for this.



How about they find new dollars to buy Canadian made kit and then give it to you to find something to do with it?  How do you think the Brits ended up with Bedford trucks?


----------



## winnipegoo7

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How about they find new dollars to buy Canadian made kit and then give it to you to find something to do with it?  How do you think the Brits ended up with Bedford trucks?



And here I though that the point of defence procurement was to fulfill a defence necessity.


----------



## Kirkhill

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> And here I though that the point of defence procurement was to fulfill a defence necessity.



That's just barmy.


----------



## George Wallace

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Remember the Iltis!  :facepalm:



Remember the MLVW!  :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> And here I though that the point of defence procurement was to fulfill a defence necessity.



Well, that would be news to many people, particularly in the US where defence spending's main purpose often appears to be to shore senators re-election prospects.  [


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Remember the MLVW!  :facepalm:



Oh go for broke!

Iltis.  LSVW. MLVW. HLVW.  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

All of them were make work projects. None of the factories survived.


----------



## George Wallace

The HLVW was assembled, not really manufactured, in Kingston by UTDC.  [Edit....Missed this:  The LSVW was a White Star product].......Rest were Bombardier products.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Ditch said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time we get out of the sub-hunting business?  The SGOD is being used operationally quite extensively this past decade.  No war-torps dropped - plenty of targets lased (or whatever).
> 
> Retire the four-engine nightmare - get some sleek (fast) Global Express-type - bingo bango - excellent Surveillance machine for all threat aspects.  IMHO, if we're not going to play with the big-boys and be serious about LRP (aka P-8 subkiller platform) - don't bother.  Do a threat estimate - figure out the chances of ever having to kill a sub - focus on the surface threat (from far far away).



Yes, no war torps have been dropped, but we have been busy conducting Ops (other than overland missions..).  The SGOD is the best ASW platform that NATO has at its disposal (by far).   Sure the P8 has the fancy new airframe, but there is no comparison when you look at the sensor suite.

I am shocked that the C-Series MPA hasn't been mentioned.  Not that I think it's a great idea, but it isn't any worse than starting a ship building industry from scratch.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I was waiting for someone to suggest that we cut a bomb bay into a C series and begin mounting sensors.

I mean- how hard could that be? (That is rhetorical- nothing is impossible, if you bring a big enough cheque book).

I am actually waiting to see if the C300 gets mentioned as a possible replace for our Polaris.

Nothing says "Canada" like the PM flying around in one of those. Paint it grey. Cut cargo doors in the side and plumb them for the tanker option- what is not to love?


----------



## McG

Don't know if the site is reliable, but here is a fun (and probably too simple) comparison:
http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/300-474/Bombardier-CS300-vs-Airbus-A310


----------



## a_majoor

The entire Liberal platform was "vote for us so we can give taxpayer dollars to our cronies and keep the Laurentian Elites in power for another generation", so funding for Bombardier regardless of the "product" is rally a no brainer.

Gerald Butts and Co. are all about farming and milking taxpayers.


----------



## Sub_Guy

We could keep the existing sensor suite from the CP-140.


----------



## runormal

This just in:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2522382/air-canada-to-buy-up-to-75-bombardier-cs300-aircraft/

February 17, 2016 6:23 am
Air Canada to buy up to 75 Bombardier CS300 aircraft


> MONTREAL – Air Canada has signed a letter of intent to purchase 45 of Bombardier’s CS300 aircraft with options for an additional 30 planes.
> 
> Based on the list price of the CS300, Bombardier says a firm order would be worth about $3.8 billion.
> 
> Once a firm purchase agreement is in place, Bombardier says Air Canada will become the first mainline, international North America-based carrier for the C Series family of aircraft. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2019.
> 
> READ MORE: Bombardier to cut its workforce by 7,000 positions over 2 years
> 
> With this agreement, Bombardier says it now has orders and commitments for a total of 678 C Series planes.
> 
> The agreement with Air Canada was announced by Bombardier at the same time it said it would cut its workforce by 7,000 positions over two years, including 2,000 contractors.
> 
> The job losses will be partly offset by hiring in certain areas, including the C Series project.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time we get out of the sub-hunting business?



Yes, let's follow our friends in the UK.  I mean, that was a smart decision on their part to scrap the Nimrod, and they haven't looked back have they?  



> The SGOD is being used operationally quite extensively this past decade _since it came into service, but due to the nature of the missions it does and continues to do, outside of things like OP IMPACT, not many members of the CAF, let alone the average Canadians, really understands why Canada needs to maintain this capacity.  However, the Government does, which is why is spent tax dollars upgrading the systems and airframe with plans to fly it until about 2030_.



There, now that makes some sense.



> No war-torps dropped - plenty of targets lased (or whatever).



By that reasoning, every cop in the world that hasn't fired their service weapon by now should turn them in;  they'll never have to use them after all.   :

Assuming that because no 'war shot has been fired' means the CP-140 has never done operational ASW demonstrates that most CAF mbrs don't understand ASW or LRP; RCAF pilots from other fleets included.

The CP-140 has never lased a single thing.  Ever.  BZ on your knowledge of the plane and community you are talking about though.  



> Retire the four-engine nightmare - get some sleek (fast) Global Express-type - bingo bango - excellent Surveillance machine for all threat aspects.



Nightmare.  How so?  How many hours do you have logged on Aurora's?  

How is the GE the solution for all threat aspects?  Better yet, what _ARE_ all the threat aspects?  Explain.



> IMHO, if we're not going to play with the big-boys and be serious about LRP (aka P-8 subkiller platform) - don't bother.  Do a threat estimate - figure out the chances of ever having to kill a sub - focus on the surface threat (from far far away).



Maybe the threat estimate_ was _already done.

ASW is a skill that takes time to develop and maintain.  The RAF was forced to throw away the Nimrod, and then what happened?  In a word; 'clusterfuck'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2867929/Navy-ask-French-help-hunt-Russian-submarine-thanks-defence-cuts.html

_Maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs) from France, Canada and the US conducted patrols__, in conjunction with British surface warships in the search, which began around November 26 and continued into the first week of December, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed that it had received assistance from NATO allies but would not say whether they had been searching for a submarine.

But a UK defence ministry spokesman told Aviation Week that Britain had ‘requested assistance from allied forces for basing of maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period,’ adding: ‘The aircraft are conducting Maritime Patrol activity with the Royal Navy; we do not discuss the detail of maritime operations.’ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last line is the reason why most people, even RCAF aircrew such as yourself, don't understand the LRP world, what it does, how it does it and why it is needed.  I don't pretend to understand SAR and AWACS, just because I am versed in ASW/LRP stuff, right?  Because that would be me talking outside my lane.

And now, what is the RAF doing after having to call on countries, such as Canada, to provide MPA's when they needed them?  They are getting a real MPA again.  Maybe we should learn from their mistake.   :2c:

"We", as in the LRP community 'we', play with the big boys just fine.  How much operational and/or exercise ASW have you done?  Ever searched for, tracked a diesel or nuc boat before?

In comparison to your 'assessment'...

As a “command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance” (C4ISR) platform, the Aurora performs domestic and international operations across a wide variety of disciplines. 

This includes domestic surveillance of the Canadian Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, as well as anti-surface warfare, maritime and overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), strike coordination, and search and rescue (SAR) missions. 

It also provides vital support to other government agencies in combating illegal immigration, fishing, polluting, or drug trafficking, as well as assisting with disaster relief. The CP-140 has also retained and modernized its ASW capability, and is able to detect and destroy the latest generation of stealth submarines. 

These capabilities allow the CP-140 to detect, deter and control illegal or hostile activity anywhere in Canada’s maritime approaches or remote regions. With its air-droppable survival pods, the CP-140 can also perform SAR duties.

*Outside of routine patrols or classified missions*, the CP-140 fleet has often been involved in high profile operations. From 1992 to 1995, Aurora aircraft made a significant contribution to Operation Sharp Guard, which was the NATO-led blockade of the former Yugoslavia. During the Red River flood of 1997, Auroras flew SAR missions over flood-ravaged southern Manitoba (Operation Assistance).

CP-140s were also employed in Operation Apollo in the Persian Gulf from late 2001 to mid-2003, where they flew 500 air patrol sorties as part of Canada’s contribution to the international campaign against terrorism. During the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver, and the G8/G10 Summits in Toronto, the Auroras provided ISR support for the RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit. In 2011, during Operation Mobile, Auroras conducted maritime ISR missions, as well as overland strike coordination and armed reconnaissance-coordinator (SCAR-C) sorties that provided critical information to coalition forces. In all, Aurora crews conducted 181 sorties over land and water during that operation.

As of 2014, the Aurora fleet is in the midst of an extensive upgrade that will extend its life expectancy to the 2030 timeframe. This upgrade includes structural upgrades and replacement of the outer wings and horizontal stabilizers through the Aurora structural life extension project (ASLEP). Parallel with this, the Aurora incremental modernization project (AIMP) Block III is upgrading mission systems and sensors that are giving the modernized Aurora a world-class capability. 

These projects represent a significant achievement for Canada as the majority of the work is being completed in Canada by Canadian companies.

On top of that, I'll add 400+ missions as part of the ATF-I at OP IMPACT.  Concurrent to those 400 operational missions, the LRP community continues to do all of our "routine and classified missions" as well as the other stuff, some of what was mentioned above.

The Canadians tax payers are getting their bang for their buck out of LRP Sqn's.  The Aurora isn't shiny new like the P-8, but I don't have much doubt about it's ability to locate, track, and drop fish on a hostile submerged target.  That is mostly because I've been on it when it has been able to locate, track and 'have the abilty' to drop fish on a submerged target.  I've been onboard for operational ISR & ASW.  Exercise ISR & ASW.  

*Opinions, informed opinions.  There's a difference. * 

Report: Russian sub activity returns to Cold War levels

With no sub-chasing aircraft of its own, UK calls on allies to help find Russian submarine  Do we want this story to say "...Canada calls on Allies to help find XYZ submarine..." next time?

Sorry for the rant;  ignorance of facts and irresponsible opinions others may see as credible piss me off sometimes.


_


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I am shocked that the C-Series MPA hasn't been mentioned.  Not that I think it's a great idea, but it isn't any worse than starting a ship building industry from scratch.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I was waiting for someone to suggest that we cut a bomb bay into a C series and begin mounting sensors.
> 
> I mean- how hard could that be? (That is rhetorical- nothing is impossible, if you bring a big enough cheque book).
> 
> I am actually waiting to see if the C300 gets mentioned as a possible replace for our Polaris.
> 
> Nothing says "Canada" like the PM flying around in one of those. Paint it grey. Cut cargo doors in the side and plumb them for the tanker option- what is not to love?





			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> We could keep the existing sensor suite from the CP-140.



AFAIK, the CMA (Canadian Mutli-mission Aircraft) program/proposal was put on hold; this is what lead to the total number of '140s going to Blk3 from 10 to 14.  The '140 will supposedly go out of service around 2030.

That, to me, means the RCAF needs to start the project to replace them by 2020 [at the latest], which 'just around the corner' in reality.

I could see the C-series being a serious consideration, and there will be more data on the P-8 type LRPA by then (if they share it at all).  How the low level flying is on the airframe, engines, are they getting the expected performance, how is ON STA times affected by low level stuff, all that.  Are they flying the P-8 low level?  Yup, the lowest I know of was 200' last fall when they had to do VIS ID on some stuff in the soup.

I personally like 4 engine aircraft for MPA/LRPAs.  Call me a sissy, but if you are 1000+ miles feet wet with 2 engines and you lose one...uh oh.  I also think, currently, turbo prop is better than turbo fan for Canada;  I don't see use investing into all the fanch schamcy GPS torp stuff and you need that if you are going to do ASW a la the high alt stuff.

If they could militarize the C-Series so we could carry the sensor, search and kill stores, fly safely down at the deck over SS5, etc and still have a respectable ON STA time, then it isn't a bad idea to consider the airframe.

I am still a fan of the SC-130J, for the reasons I listed.  Common parts, training, all of that is a HUGE bonus that should be win/win/win for the taxpayer, RCAF and Sqns.  The one thing going against the SC-130J, IMO, is that the Jerc won't be part of the FWSAR world.  IIRC they weren't interesting in even submitting a proposal/bid.

Knowing how the FWSAR and MH projects went/are going...I think the work for the 140 replacement really needs to start 'for real' during APS '18, at the latest.


----------



## Zoomie

I love getting GIBs all riled up about their platform.  Where did I learn to do this - oh yeh, when I was posted to 407 (LRP) Sqn.

IMO (In MY Opinion) - I believe I said that before - doesn't matter if its informed or not, still an opinion.  We don't need to be operating a bomb-bay equipped 4 engine monster - yup, it's a monster.  It sucks at fuel efficiency (don't retort about how you can loiter an engine), it sucks at serviceability (just like the entire H fleet of Hercs with identical engines - just because it has new wings and fancy inefficient EFIS up front, does not a new plane it make), it also is a out-dated airframe that really needs to head out to DM and hang out with the Arcturus.

I'm loving the current role that the LRP boys are playing at - C4ISR is where it's at.  Biggest, best contribution so far.  Almost enough of a motivation for posting choices to include the SGOD in the top 10 of airframes.

Four engine reliance is a 1970's catch-all, modern turbo-prop/fan engine plants have all but eliminated that extraneous cost.  

We had another AESOP on these means with almost an identical skill-set of boasting about his machine - how anybody else who didn't fly (fly in the back of it) it and their opinion didn't matter.  He's a buddy of mine - yet we still had these same "discussions".  I'm allowed to state an opinion - already discussed that above - just because I escaped that world and moved on, does not mean that I don't have an idea of what you guys are doing (wink wink, nudge nudge) - I'm just not even going to breach those subjects here. (Dang, I sorta just did, didn't I?  Help OPSEC police, shut me down......


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile SAAB has Bombardier Stringbags on offer:



> SINGAPORE: Saab’s Swordfish MPA rolls out onto new airframes
> 
> Saab is to integrate its Swordfish maritime patrol system on two new airframes, the Bombardier Q400 turboprop and Global 6000 business jet, extending the product from the legacy Saab 2000 platform.
> 
> The extension of the product line has been driven by the emergence of an increased maritime threat leading to a requirement for more capability and flexibility from the aircraft.
> 
> “This has resulted in Saab having a lot of discussions with our potential customers regarding future requirements in the field of maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, which we have put in to develop our Swordfish MPA system,” says Joakim Mevius, head of airborne ISR at Saab…
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-saabs-swordfish-mpa-rolls-out-onto-new-a-421898/



Stringbag (aka Fairey Swordfish):



> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/swordfish.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile SAAB has Bombardier Stringbags on offer:
> 
> Stringbag (aka Fairey Swordfish):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Don't be dissing the Stringbag now.  She stopped the Bismarck and showed the Japanese how to launch Pearl Harbor at Taranto.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Ditch said:
			
		

> I love getting GIBs all riled up about their platform.  Where did I learn to do this - oh yeh, when I was posted to 407 (LRP) Sqn.
> 
> IMO (In MY Opinion) - I believe I said that before - doesn't matter if its informed or not, still an opinion.  We don't need to be operating a bomb-bay equipped 4 engine monster - yup, it's a monster.  It sucks at fuel efficiency (don't retort about how you can loiter an engine), it sucks at serviceability (just like the entire H fleet of Hercs with identical engines - just because it has new wings and fancy inefficient EFIS up front, does not a new plane it make), it also is a out-dated airframe that really needs to head out to DM and hang out with the Arcturus.
> 
> I'm loving the current role that the LRP boys are playing at - C4ISR is where it's at.  Biggest, best contribution so far.  Almost enough of a motivation for posting choices to include the SGOD in the top 10 of airframes.
> 
> Four engine reliance is a 1970's catch-all, modern turbo-prop/fan engine plants have all but eliminated that extraneous cost.
> 
> We had another AESOP on these means with almost an identical skill-set of boasting about his machine - how anybody else who didn't fly (fly in the back of it) it and their opinion didn't matter.  He's a buddy of mine - yet we still had these same "discussions".  I'm allowed to state an opinion - already discussed that above - just because I escaped that world and moved on, does not mean that I don't have an idea of what you guys are doing (wink wink, nudge nudge) - I'm just not even going to breach those subjects here. (Dang, I sorta just did, didn't I?  Help OPSEC police, shut me down......



Your opinion matters.   I know of who you speak, he is a good buddy.   The CP-140M is by far the best ASW aircraft NATO has at its disposal.  Nothing comes close, the numbers would blow you away.

We all know the airframe is old and serviceability isn't the best, but what fleet (other than C-17/Chinook) has a good serv rate?  Lord knows I spent quite a few weekends on 2 hour standby while in YQQ..


----------



## Loachman

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> We all know the airframe is old and serviceability isn't the best, but what fleet (other than C-17/Chinook)



Hahahahahahaha........


----------



## blacktriangle

What about something like a modified C-27J for overland ISR? License built by Bombardier of course.  ;D

Not sure if it could be feasible for ASW though. My aircraft knowledge is limited to a ride on a 140, sleeping on a herc, and maybe sitting in the back of a King Air once or twice


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Not dissing at all, love the Swordfish--stayed in service until 1945:
http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/fairey-swordfish-ii-hs618/2-17-20.aspx

A tweet last year:



> @DefenceHQ
> 
> The oldest surviving Swordfish in the world will lead today's #VJDay70 flypast at 2 today in #London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/632512109843230720



Indeed Taranto 1940 above all:
http://ww2today.com/11th-november-1940-italian-fleet-attacked-in-taranto-harbour

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Swordfish was probably the most indestructible airplane ever. They would come back to the carriers riddled with machine gun and shrapnel holes, be patched up with cardboard paper, glue and varnish and be back on the flight deck in a jiffy.


----------



## Zoomie

Spectrum said:
			
		

> What about something like a modified C-27J for overland ISR?



Any airplane can be modified for ISR - the USAF used King Air 350s.  FWSAR will have its own sensor suite to complement the Mark One.

Sonos on a C-27 wouldn't be too hard of stretch - Sea Herc can do it, why not something similar.  Unknown about dropping ordnance (things that go whirrr---boom) - maybe dropped off ramp via para delivery?  Slower than a bomb-bay for sure...


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chris Pook: Not dissing at all, love the Swordfish--stayed in service until 1945:
> http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/fairey-swordfish-ii-hs618/2-17-20.aspx
> 
> A tweet last year:
> 
> Indeed Taranto 1940 above all:
> http://ww2today.com/11th-november-1940-italian-fleet-attacked-in-taranto-harbour
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I dare anyone to try that from the backseat of a Hornet


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to airplanes, but I am pretty sure that most Hornets don't have a backseat.  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to airplanes, but I am pretty sure that most Hornets don't have a backseat.  ;D



B/D/F model F-18s are two seaters.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> B/D/F model F-18s are two seaters.



[pedant]

F/A-18Fs are Super Hornets

[/pedant]

Also, E/A-18Gs are two-seaters as well.

 ;D


----------



## blacktriangle

EWO in a Growler would be a cool gig! Oh, to dream.


----------



## winnipegoo7

A jamming aircraft is cool, but I would rather see some dedicated sigint aircraft. Most of the 'professional' militaries have some. We should as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> I love getting GIBs all riled up about their platform.  Where did I learn to do this - oh yeh, when I was posted to 407 (LRP) Sqn.



407 - if you ever logged hours it was on Blk 2.  I started Blk 2 and thought kinda similar thoughts (who wouldn't?).  Blk 3 changed lots. 



> IMO (In MY Opinion) - I believe I said that before - doesn't matter if its informed or not, still an opinion.  We don't need to be operating a bomb-bay equipped 4 engine monster - yup, it's a monster.  It sucks at fuel efficiency (don't retort about how you can loiter an engine), it sucks at serviceability (just like the entire H fleet of Hercs with identical engines - just because it has new wings and fancy inefficient EFIS up front, does not a new plane it make), it also is a out-dated airframe that really needs to head out to DM and hang out with the Arcturus.



All that considered, it is still better than having NOTHING at all, like the UK went thru.  

The structural upgrade was more than 'new wings'.  Serviceability - depends on where you are at.  IMPACT #s would likely impress you TBH.

Aside from the RCAF...lots of countries are still flying the P-3...including the US actually.  They still have AIP and LSRS doing work.  



> We had another AESOP on these means with almost an identical skill-set of boasting about his machine - how anybody else who didn't fly (fly in the back of it) it and their opinion didn't matter.  He's a buddy of mine - yet we still had these same "discussions".  I'm allowed to state an opinion - already discussed that above - just because I escaped that world and moved on, does not mean that I don't have an idea of what you guys are doing (wink wink, nudge nudge) - I'm just not even going to breach those subjects here. (Dang, I sorta just did, didn't I?  Help OPSEC police, shut me down......



I know him too, and he would have been taking his stance from a Block 2 at that.  I never said the drivers don't know anything..sure they do;  we are all SMEs in our own areas on the crew, right?  I know what the Blk 3 kit I operate is capable of, and having come from the Block 2 Atari world, I think the 140 is worth keeping around (that includes the 'taxpayer' part of my opinion.

Problem is, there are lots of people who read these threads.  Some are CAF mbrs who know SFA about air ops let alone LRP ops.  Some are reporters, Joe and Jane Taxpayer...all they see is a RCAF pilot saying the 140 is a waste of taxdollars.  

End state, either way, is we have the CP-140M until 2030.  After seeing the RAF lose the Nimrods and the shitshow that happened, I'd be concerned a future government of ours would do the same thing based on the 'never dropped a war shot' mentality.

If I go away and leave my house, most people would be more reluctant to break in if they knew I had a dog that can bite in the house.  No dog, less deterrent IMO.  Sub ops are not 'gone with the Cold War'.  We don't have the #s or types of subs to counter things like the Russian fleet with sub-sub ops.  We do have a modern MPA and we need to start thinking about its replacement.

We already have J Hercs, there is reason to take a serious look at the Sea Herc as a possible replacement.  14 years is a long time, EXCEPT when it comes to fleet replacement in the RCAF, demonstrated by the MH and FWSAR programs.

FWIW, I am more defensive about the CP-140 capability than the aircraft itself.  We need the capability it provides.  If it was replaced with something new [that had the same cap's and less of its lim's], I would be ALL for it.  I was on the P-8; she sure is pretty inside.

 :2c:


----------



## Sub_Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> End state, either way, is we have the CP-140M until 2030.  After seeing the RAF lose the Nimrods and the shitshow that happened, I'd be concerned a future government of ours would do the same thing based on the 'never dropped a war shot' mentality.



When was the last time one of our ships fired a Harpoon in anger?  Better dumb down the armament on the new ships, no need for fancy weapons.

When was the last time any allied MPA-ASW aircraft dropped a torp in anger?  Falklands?

We can loiter two engines!   I have never heard anyone mention fuel efficiency when talking about the CP-140, at the end of the day who gives a shit, we can go out, find and send those mother fuckers to the bottom.  That's our job.

If packaged the right way the government would have no problem getting the public to support a defence program involving a Bombardier plane..


----------



## GR66

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> External torpedos- it has to do with the minimum temperature limits of the torpedo. Cold torpedos don't do very well.



Question on this as it certainly relates to the suitability of Bombardier aircraft for an MPA role.

If low temperature of a hardpoint-mounted torpedo is the main issue, is this not something that would be easier to resolve than re-designing an aircraft to include an internal weapons bay?  Is it an issue with the type of propellant used in torpedoes?  I'm assuming that it's not the electronics since missiles and sensors are regularly externally mounted and don't appear to have any issues.

Solving this would appear to make a whole range of Bombardier aircraft (from the Q-400 to the Global Express to the C Series) much more attractive as possible replacements for the CP-140's.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GR66 said:
			
		

> Question on this as it certainly relates to the suitability of Bombardier aircraft for an MPA role.
> 
> If low temperature of a hardpoint-mounted torpedo is the main issue, is this not something that would be easier to resolve than re-designing an aircraft to include an internal weapons bay?  Is it an issue with the type of propellant used in torpedoes?  I'm assuming that it's not the electronics since missiles and sensors are regularly externally mounted and don't appear to have any issues.
> 
> Solving this would appear to make a whole range of Bombardier aircraft (from the Q-400 to the Global Express to the C Series) much more attractive as possible replacements for the CP-140's.



No. Redesigning the torpedo to resist colder transport temperatures would be orders of magnitude more difficult (and expensive) than an aircraft modification. To do that would take a fundamental rethink of any torpedo that I am aware of available within the NATO family.


----------



## Zoomie

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Problem is, there are lots of people who read these threads.  Some are CAF mbrs who know SFA about air ops let alone LRP ops.  Some are reporters, Joe and Jane Taxpayer...all they see is a RCAF pilot saying the 140 is a waste of taxdollars.


I feel your pain right there when joe-public and CAF members explicitly state that the RCAF shouldn't be in the SAR business.  

WRT the -140, it's here to stay for a bit - we've expended the $$ to put new wing boxes in etc.  I just don't see our military investing the capital needed for a torp-dropping, sub-hunter/killer.  Time will tell.  I'll be retired and flying families to the Caribbean for their March Break.


----------



## dimsum

Ditch said:
			
		

> I feel your pain right there when joe-public and CAF members explicitly state that the RCAF shouldn't be in the SAR business.



You mean it *shouldn't* be a task assigned to the Coast Guard?   :stirpot:


----------



## GR66

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No. Redesigning the torpedo to resist colder transport temperatures would be orders of magnitude more difficult (and expensive) than an aircraft modification. To do that would take a fundamental rethink of any torpedo that I am aware of available within the NATO family.



I'm certainly in no position to argue the point with you, but I'm curious as to why torpedoes are so much more affected by cold than other systems like missiles.  I wonder if the same was true of WWI & WWII era destroyers that operated in the far North.  

You often see pictures of ships virtually encased in ice but were their torpedoes not basically mounted externally on the deck of the ship?  Were they rendered useless in those theatres or did they have some sort of heating system, or was the design of those torpedoes fundamentally different than modern designs?


----------



## MarkOttawa

At DID--SAAB's likely-armed Bombardier Global 6000-based AEW plane:



> ...
> February 18/16: Following a custom $1.27 billion two-aircraft deal to provide an early warning and control (AEW&C) system to the UAE, Saab has officially launched external link the new early warning aircraft to the wider market. The GlobalEye combines the Erieye ER active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with Bombardier’s Global 6000 business jet. The Erieye had been previously offered on the Embraer 145, Saab 2000 and Saab 340, but its incorporation on the Global 6000 will allow it much greater altitude and endurance capabilities, flying at 11,000 ft for 11 hours. _The business jet will likely external link be armed with Saab’s RBS-15 anti-ship missile and a lightweight torpedo; possibly a EuroTorp weapon_ [emphasis added]. Saab’s announcement comes as they look to provide maritime, land, and air surveillance capabilities to countries increasingly involved in anti-terrorism, anti-piracy, or territorial monitoring operations....
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uae-buys-saabs-erieye-aewc-aircraft-05951/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bearpaw

To GR66:

The torpedo problem is the external mounting----a major component of the fuel used in the Mark 46 torpedo is Propylene glycol dinitrate which solidifies at -27.7C.   The simplest solution is to house the torpedos internally before use.

Bearpaw


----------



## GR66

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> To GR66:
> 
> The torpedo problem is the external mounting----a major component of the fuel used in the Mark 46 torpedo is Propylene glycol dinitrate which solidifies at -27.7C.   The simplest solution is to house the torpedos internally before use.
> 
> Bearpaw



Thanks for the clarification.  I suspected that it must be a propulsion issue.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> I feel your pain right there when joe-public and CAF members explicitly state that the RCAF shouldn't be in the SAR business.



There is no better place for SAR to be then with the same SAR Sqn's it has been with since...well before I was born. 



> WRT the -140, it's here to stay for a bit - we've expended the $$ to put new wing boxes in etc.  I just don't see our military investing the capital needed for a torp-dropping, sub-hunter/killer.  Time will tell.  I'll be retired and flying families to the Caribbean for their March Break.



I am CRA the year the 140 is supposed to hang up it's gloves.  It would be nice to see the next generation of Pilots and GIBs with a new platform, just like my father did when he retired (Argus FE) in '81 when the Aurora arrived.

I will be CRA in 2030...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GR66 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification.  I suspected that it must be a propulsion issue.



Just to add quickly, the bombbay on the Aurora is heated using bleed air from the engines.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just to add quickly, the bombbay on the Aurora is heated using bleed air from the engines.



Otherwise, the Otto Fuel would be to cold to drink


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You mean it *shouldn't* be a task assigned to the Coast Guard?   :stirpot:



There are "2 Coast Guards" one which does SAR and lives for it and then the big ship guys who do SAR grudgingly off the side of the deck and mutter that it is interfering with their work schedule. From what I see CCG management would like to be completely out of inshore SAR.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> From what I see CCG management would like to be completely out of inshore SAR.



Oh boy! They must just _LOVE _  operating the Mid-shore boats just to drive the RCMP around.  :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa

This Bombardier ISR chance sliding well right:



> JSTARS Contract Award Slips; IOC in ‘mid-2020s’
> 
> The Air Force will delay an expected contract award for the service’s next-generation ground surveillance aircraft by as much as six months, at the same time giving itself more wiggle room to declare the new fleet operational in the 2020s.
> 
> Senior Air Force and Department of Defense acquisition leaders recently revised the acquisition strategy for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) recapitalization program, according to Air Force spokesman Justin Oakes. The new plan allows more time in the early stages of JSTARS development to reduce overall program risk, Oakes added.
> 
> The service may also postpone the deadline for declaring initial operating capability (IOC) for the program. The Air Force had planned to declare IOC for the JSTARS recap in fiscal year 2023, but on Feb. 19 a spokesman projected IOC would take place “in the mid-2020s.”
> 
> “We will continue to update our projections as the JSTARS program progresses,” according to Air Force spokesman Maj. Rob Leese...
> 
> The Air Force officially kicked off the competition to replace the aging E-8 JSTARS in August 2015, awarding a trio of competitors each a pre-EMD contract, for a total of $31.4 million. Northrop, which builds the existing aircraft, is teamed with Gulfstream and its G550 business jet, with L-3 helping with integration. _Lockheed Martin is working with Bombardier on a proposal based on the Canadian company’s Global 6000 business jet_ [emphasis added]. Meanwhile, Boeing is offering a modified version of its 737-700 commercial airliner...
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/02/19/jstars-contract-award-slips-ioc-mid-2020s/80570524/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

Boeing will win the JSTARS recap - that's my bet.  

Interesting FACTOID alert:
  - current USAF E-8 JSTARS are where our old 707s ended up.


----------



## blacktriangle

Question for the LRP/FWSAR guys - 

Could the same platform be effective as the basis for both the FWSAR replacement, and a future LRPA? Or would there be too many compromises required for the same airframe (minus role-specific modifications) to be successful in both mission sets?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It would depend on 'the aircraft' IMO.  LPRAs have a requirement to carry things like SKADs and torps, some kind of internal/external sonobuoy storage/deployment system.  FWSAR has to be able to do SAR in places like the west coast, and IIRC the SAR SMEs didn't think a Herc would work well in places the Buffalo now can.

The one platform that comes to mind that would work for both (in basic theory, at least) would be something like the J Herc, but we know that one isn't in the running for FWSAR.

More importantly, FWSAR is rolling now, and the MPA is supposed to be replaced in 14 years...but wait for the extensions on the fleet when that comes, just like has been done with the SeaKing and Hornet.


----------



## Zoomie

LRP = fast, internal/external stores - pressurized/climate controlled

FWSAR = slower, maneuverable, large(r) internal capacity with ramp (ie to build and then dispatch heavy equipment, survival gear, pump, food, radios, etc).

One fleet would have to take quite a capability cut in order for a mixed-role fleet option.  European nations conduct SAR using pressurized civilian variants - they don't maintain any sort of ability to drop survival gear or PJs.  They have an extensive fleet of RWSAR for that role - Canada is too vast to have a dedicated Rotory Wing SAR asset that can cover the country.


----------



## CougarKing

Perhaps Saab's use of these 2 Bombardier aircraft as MPA platforms may help boost Bombardier sales?

Aviation Week



> *Big Fish – Saab Bids On High-End Antisubmarine Warfare*
> Feb 18, 2016 Bill Sweetman
> 
> The Global 6000-based version of Swordfish carries underwing torpedoes and pods containing air-sea rescue supplies.
> 
> Saab wants to re-energize its attempt to join the small club of companies that produce antisubmarine warfare aircraft.
> 
> For some years, the Swedish company has been offering the Swordfish ASW aircraft, based on the long-out-of-production Saab 2000 regional airliner. Today, however, *it announces a new Swordfish project, with a choice of Bombardier platforms: the Global 6000 business jet and the Q400 turboprop airliner.*
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Groovy, as long as the RCAF stay away from them.   ;D

The writing in that article strikes me as 'cheesy' and a little on the "not really sure what we're talking about" side.

[The Global 6000 can patrol for eight hours at 1,000 nm in ASW trim, Mevius says.]

Not sure I understand this...they're flying at 125 kts?  Regardless, I bet those numbers are pretty high compared to the reality people would find.  Add on the low level, banking and cranking, climbing up and decending stuff, plus the drag from their 'lightweight electronic torps', not to mention the added weight of a (hopeful) sono load...


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Groovy, as long as the RCAF stay away from them.   ;D



Why?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lots more at AvWeek:



> GlobalEye AEW&C-Intel Aircraft Detailed
> Saab introduces gallium-nitride technology to airborne early warning
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/globaleye-aewc-intel-aircraft-detailed



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

USAF JSTARS replacement proceeding:



> Bombardier Airframe for New USAF ISR Plane? Part 2
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/mark-collins-bombardier-airframe-for-new-usaf-isr-plane-part-2/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

The latest woes for Bombardier:

CBC



> *Bombardier to suspend Global jet production after missing light rail deadline*
> Workers at Montreal completion centre will be placed on furlough indefinitely
> 
> The Canadian Press Posted: Sep 01, 2016 5:16 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 01, 2016 5:16 PM ET
> 
> Bombardier is suspending production of its Global business jets.
> 
> Bombardier is juggling challenges on two new fronts in Canada, temporarily suspending business jet production and falling behind in its delivery of a light rail transit prototype for Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown transit line.
> 
> The aerospace and railway manufacturer says it plans to place workers at its Global jet completion centre in Montreal on furlough for an unspecified amount of time next year.
> 
> "It's a minor adjustment to our completion activities that will be deployed in 2017," spokesman Mark Masluch said Thursday.
> 
> He said the change — which follows last year's move to cut production of the Global 5000 and 6000 models from 80 to about 50 per year — will better manage costs and address ongoing sluggishness in the business jet market.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## MarkOttawa

And recently:



> Bombardier to Sell Learjet to Cessna-Owner Textron?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/mark-collins-bombardier-to-sell-learjet-to-cessna-owner-textron/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

Just a question:

Bombardier were the dunderheads that sold the only profitable division they had....the Ski Doo brand? Am I right?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Just a question:
> 
> Bombardier were the dunderheads that sold the only profitable division they had....the Ski Doo brand? Am I right?


 Yes they had to give something the last time they had to be bailed out.........they really do need Adult supervision .


----------



## CBH99

I'm finding the older I get, the more my brain is subconsciously forcing me to stop caring so much about a variety of things - for caring seems to equal frustration & bewilderment.

Why can't the government & Bombardier not get it together to make it a more functional, relevant business?  It has so many things going for it, yet it seems to fail at the very things they are supposed to be good at.  But the government could do a lot to be helpful, besides bailing them out of their own mismanagement.


For example...SAR aircraft & MPA.

Two types of aircraft the CF will presumably always use.  Nothing new here, nothing magical.  Neither of this type of aircraft is a new concept in the slightest.

Why can't the government/CF not just say "We need an aircraft that does A, B, C" - and then have Bombardier create a product that does exactly what the government needs.  Boom, sales.  Self sufficiency.  If the product is good, it may gather interest from other countries, and now you have profitability.

If the government says "we need a SAR aircraft that can fly fast to get to an area, but also fly slow once it gets there, and it needs a rear ramp for the deployment of SAR techs, etc etc" - why can't Bombardier JUST PRODUCE WHAT IS BEING LOOKED FOR.

Government gives Bombardier direction on what they require.  Bombardier designs a good product.  Boom - sales.

Bombardier does build good aircraft.  I don't understand why we need to look far and wide for SAR planes when we have a world class aircraft manufacturer right here - and in Quebec no less!  We shouldn't have to find an excuse to give Bombardier money, they should build what we need & therefore earn it.

A little bit of leadership & initiative would do more than a bailout will


----------



## Ostrozac

Bombardier took a major step away from military aviation in 2003, when they sold their Military Aviation Services component to SPAR Aerospace. It was a deliberate decision on their part, they saw their real future was in commercial aviation. Hence why their ongoing rivalry with Embraer is so important to the company -- they are the Pepsi/Coke of medium sized commercial aircraft manufacturers.

Bombardier is probably correct in their assumption that warplanes are not a good fit for them. Even if they were to get a contract to make, for example, a patrol/strike aircraft, Canada is a small market, and our export restrictions make it difficult to then try to sell those same aircraft to other countries that would use them in their intended role (to find and destroy targets). So they'd have a few boom years of building an aircraft for Canada, then would have to close the assembly line as all the countries that might be looking for an aircraft find other vendors that aren't going to raise a stink about human rights.


----------



## Kirkhill

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm finding the older I get, the more my brain is subconsciously forcing me to stop caring so much about a variety of things - for caring seems to equal frustration & bewilderment.
> 
> Why can't the government & Bombardier not get it together to make it a more functional, relevant business?  It has so many things going for it, yet it seems to fail at the very things they are supposed to be good at.  But the government could do a lot to be helpful, besides bailing them out of their own mismanagement.
> 
> 
> For example...SAR aircraft & MPA.
> 
> Two types of aircraft the CF will presumably always use.  Nothing new here, nothing magical.  Neither of this type of aircraft is a new concept in the slightest.
> 
> Why can't the government/CF not just say "We need an aircraft that does A, B, C" - and then have Bombardier create a product that does exactly what the government needs.  Boom, sales.  Self sufficiency.  If the product is good, it may gather interest from other countries, and now you have profitability.
> 
> If the government says "we need a SAR aircraft that can fly fast to get to an area, but also fly slow once it gets there, and it needs a rear ramp for the deployment of SAR techs, etc etc" - why can't Bombardier JUST PRODUCE WHAT IS BEING LOOKED FOR.
> 
> Government gives Bombardier direction on what they require.  Bombardier designs a good product.  Boom - sales.
> 
> Bombardier does build good aircraft.  I don't understand why we need to look far and wide for SAR planes when we have a world class aircraft manufacturer right here - and in Quebec no less!  We shouldn't have to find an excuse to give Bombardier money, they should build what we need & therefore earn it.
> 
> A little bit of leadership & initiative would do more than a bailout will



I think Bombardier would also make a potentially decent "centre of excellence" for Canadian large UAVs.  If they could figure out how to contract with Northrop Grumman or General Atomics.


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I think Bombardier would also make a potentially decent "centre of excellence" for Canadian large UAVs.



Why?

Is the market big enough?



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If they could figure out how to contract with Northrop Grumman or General Atomics.



Do we need another company that can provide less for more?

We have a boot industry in Canada, too. How's that working out for the CF?

Getting Bombardier off of welfare would be a good thing. They'd be forced to sharpen their game and become truly competitive.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Is the market big enough?
> 
> Do we need another company that can provide less for more?
> 
> We have a boot industry in Canada, too. How's that working out for the CF?
> 
> Getting Bombardier off of welfare would be a good thing. They'd be forced to sharpen their game and become truly competitive.



No disagreements on any of the above.   Just trying to work within my skewed and cynical perception of the Canadian reality.


----------



## MarkOttawa

That Saab ISR aircraft with Bombardier Global 6000 airframe moving ahead--UAE has signed for three:



> Saab touts GlobalEye as future E-3A replacement for NATO
> http://www.janes.com/article/78152/saab-touts-globaleye-as-future-e-3a-replacement-for-nato
> 
> PICTURES: Saab's GlobalEye makes flight debut
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-saabs-globaleye-makes-flight-debut-446775/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/challenger-vip-jet-fleet-1.4636818

not sure if this is the right spot for this but does it make sense to buy used instead of upgrading the whole fleet?


----------



## CBH99

I'm guessing it was suggested this way more due to optics than anything else.  


The media, for some odd reason, always makes a huge deal about the Challenger fleet...because you know, as a G7 country, our political leaders & cabinet ministers should obviously be sitting beside Bob on Westjet  :

I wish someone in government, regardless of political party, would simply tell the media "We are a G7 country, and we have political commitments around the world.  As such, the senior echelon of government leaders need to be able to travel securely, sometimes on extremely short notice, and sometimes the details of such must be kept confidential."

And that's it.  Shut it down once & for all.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, we are a G7 country and sometimes, its important to look and act like one.

So I'll go one better: The VIP fleet is the showcase of Canadian know how - lets go big: Get four new Bombardier Global 7000. They are Bombardier's flagship business jet , brand new, and they are built in Ontario. Win-Win-Win.


----------



## dapaterson

C300 series to replace the Airbuses for pax?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Did you mean to say A230?


----------



## dapaterson

Shorter than saying "tax sinkhole"...


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So I'll go one better: The VIP fleet is the showcase of Canadian know how - lets go big: Get four new Bombardier Global 7000. They are Bombardier's flagship business jet , brand new, and they are built in Ontario. Win-Win-Win.



Not good enough - they aren't built in Quebec.


----------



## CBH99

They aren't manufactured in Quebec?  Good to know.  I didn't know Bombardier manufactured aircraft outside of Quebec.


----------



## Ostrozac

CBH99 said:
			
		

> They aren't manufactured in Quebec?  Good to know.  I didn't know Bombardier manufactured aircraft outside of Quebec.



Bombardier purchased de Havilland Canada from Boeing in 1992, including the manufacturing facility at Downsview in North York. They assemble business jets and the Q-Series Dash 8 there. Bombardier also assembles Learjets in the US, and has major parts manufacturing facilities in Mexico and the UK.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Similarly, the Bombardier Transport division builds trains, subways and tramways in six different countries, including Canada, the US and Mexico. With two different provinces for Canada: Quebec and Ontario. Other than the Toronto subway problem, they have numerous and larger sales around the world in that field. And BTW, the Toronto subway trains: They are assembled at the Ontario plant of Bombardier, from parts made at the Mexico facility. But to solve the problems, they had to bring in the Quebec management (La Pocatiere plant) in to straighten out the Ontarians. So  

Bombardier is actually the number one manufacturer I exclude the oil fields as they are resources industry - not manufacturing, but in the oil field, they would rank third, at about 55% of the size of Suncor) in Canada for size, which few people realize - bigger by itself than the next two.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bye bye CRJ and how many jobs at Mirabel?



> Why Mitsubishi Heavy May Want Bombardier's Money-Losing CRJ Regional Jet Line
> 
> Bombardier may be close to completing its exit from the airliner business, confirming Wednesday morning that it’s holding talks with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to sell its once-mighty CRJ regional jet line. For Mitsubishi Heavy, which has struggled to make the climb from an aircraft component supplier to a jet maker, the deal may be less about the money-losing CRJ than acquiring its extensive service network.
> 
> Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Heavy is years behind schedule on the MRJ, a twin-engine regional jet that was initially expected to be launched in 2013 with Japanese airline ANA. With certification of the 90-seat version believed to be on track for 2020, acquiring the competing CRJ program would solve the knottiest remaining problem for Mitsubishi: product support and maintenance, says Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with Teal Group. “They have no experience at that, and no infrastructure,” he says.
> 
> ...unclear whether Mitsubishi would want to keep producing the CRJ, scope clauses or no, given its unprofitability. The company could choose to fulfill current orders and wind it down, says Aboulafia.
> 
> Beyond the CRJ maintenance network, Mitsubishi could benefit from adding experienced engineers from the Bombardier program who could aid in developing the MRJ and in the complicated regulatory certification process...
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/06/05/its-not-the-planes-that-mitsubishi-heavy-is-after-in-eyeing-purchase-of-bombardiers-crj-regional-jet-line/#606dbefe4443



So CRJ line shuts down, lots of job losses. Airbus says to feds and Quebec:



> Gosh, all those CRJ jobs gone now that Mitsu is going to stop making the plane [having got all it can to finally get MRJ into shape]. Wouldn't it be a pity if we didn't get the new RCAF fighter contract for the Eurofighter, with some assembly etc. for Bombardier, and had to move all those A220 jobs to Alabama as soon as we legally can.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bombardier out of commercial airliners business:



> Bombardier exits commercial aviation with $550-million sale of regional jets to Mitsubishi
> _News of the deal sent Bombardier shares up as much as 5 per cent_
> 
> Bombardier Inc said on Tuesday it will sell its money-losing regional jet business to Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd (MHI) for US$550 million in cash, in a deal marking the Canadian plane and train maker’s exit from commercial aviation.
> 
> Montreal-based Bombardier had combined its aviation units to focus more on profitable business jets and passenger rail cars, after facing a cash-crunch in 2015 while bringing its flagship commercial jet to market.
> 
> News of the deal sent Bombardier shares up as much as 5 per cent in morning trade.
> 
> As part of the deal, which is expected to close in the first half of next year, the Japanese firm will also take over a US$200 million debt.
> 
> “We see the transaction as positive as it generates a return better than we had anticipated and ends the company’s exposure in a program which we believe was a drag on earnings,” AltaCorp analyst Chris Murray said in a note.
> 
> “In addition to Bombardier focusing on its core business jet and rolling stock/transportation businesses, the potential leverage reduction associated with this spinoff could be greater than we had anticipated,” Citi analyst Stephen Trent wrote in a note.
> 
> _Bombardier will continue to assemble its regional jet planes (CRJ), but will stop making the aircraft in the second half of 2020, after it finishes delivering its remaining orders_ [empasis added].
> 
> CRJ’s profitable aftermarket sales, engineering expertise and heavy maintenance centres in the United States, would be useful for Mitsubishi, which is trying to develop and certify its delayed regional jet program, the MRJ.
> 
> “It’s an important step for us as a whole,” said Dan Lochmann, a spokesman for MHI.
> 
> About 1,600 people work on the CRJ program, including production employees as well as employees who provide aftermarket services. About 40 per cent of employees are in Canada.
> 
> Mitsubishi is “committed” to Bombardier’s workforce such as engineers and customer support workers, Lochmann said by phone from Japan. _He could not comment on CRJ production workers_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Lochmann could not say whether Mitsubishi would set up a facility at Mirabel for the engineering staff.
> 
> The deal would be a boost for Japan’s civil aviation ambitions, even as Canada exits the market for commercial jetliners with less than 100 seats.
> 
> Bombardier and Mitsubishi had previously said they were holding talks over the regional jet program, confirming a report in industry news site The Air Current.
> 
> Mitsubishi is trying to develop its long-delayed MRJ regional jet program, which has been rebranded as “SpaceJet.”
> 
> The Japanese firm is trying to certify the plane, which has been delayed by several years with its first customer, ANA Holdings Inc, now expecting delivery in 2020 rather than in 2013 as originally planned.
> 
> Bombardier’s production of regional jets is expected to stop in the second half of 2020, following the delivery of the current backlog of aircraft.
> 
> Shares of Bombardier have risen 7.9 per cent this year compared with a 15.4 per cent increase in the main Toronto Stock Exchange index.
> https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/airlines/bombardier-to-sell-regional-jet-program-to-mitsubishi-for-550-million-in-cash



More:



> ...
> The contract stipulates that the Japanese manufacturer take over the maintenance, support, refurbishment, marketing and sales activities for the jets, including services and support facilities in Montreal, Toronto, Bridgeport, West Virginia and Tucson, Ariz.
> 
> All in all, the CRJ business has about 1,600 employees worldwide. The plan is for Mitsubishi to keep about 1,200 of them.
> 
> One key asset Bombardier is not selling as part of the deal is the main CRJ manufacturing facility in Mirabel, Que., along with the roughly 375 people who work there. The company will need that plant and those workers to  continue to supply spare parts and manufacture the jets until the sales backlog of 42 jets has been cleared, which is expected to last until the second half of next year...
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-mitsubishi-1.5188779



What then for 375 production workers?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

And with that an another Canadian aerospace dream dies.  

Richard Aboulafia's take.  (Aerospace Consultant)

http://richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=612


----------



## tomahawk6

Could it also be used to fight climate change ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

With luck, this'll mean taxpayers won't be on the hook for any more free, forgivable loans to the Laurentien Elitists that own and operate Bombardier.


----------



## Good2Golf

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> With luck, this'll mean taxpayers won't be on the hook for any more free, forgivable loans to the Laurentien Elitists that own and operate Bombardier.



They still make business jets, trains, skidoos, Sea-doos and motor-trikes...lots of potential for taxpayers to still get in on the action.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Spencer100

Bombardier is now just corporate jets and trains

BRP is Sea Doos, Ski Doos, and CAN AM different company now

Viking (Longview) is all of DHC 02-08 plus water bomber.  They are building the Twin Otter and just got an order for 5 new build water bombers, plus the end of the Dash 8 production orders

Mitsi will be the CRJ they want the engineers, service division

Airbus is A220 the old CS100


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Bombardier is now just corporate jets and trains
> 
> BRP is Sea Doos, Ski Doos, and CAN AM different company now
> 
> Viking (Longview) is all of DHC 02-08 plus water bomber.  They are building the Twin Otter and just got an order for 5 new build water bombers, plus the end of the Dash 8 production orders
> 
> Mitsi will be the CRJ they want the engineers, service division
> 
> Airbus is A220 the old CS100



Ah, thought BRP was a subsidiary.  Happily stand corrected, although disappointed I can get a taxpayer/subsidizer discount on a Sea-Doo...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I've got a Bombardier Traxter ATV I'm looking to sell. 😉


----------



## Spencer100

Close to Windsor ON?  I'm looking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Close to Windsor ON?  I'm looking.



Check your PM's.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Look increasingly like there will soon no longer be any Bombardier Aviation on which to spend federal money:

1) Airliners:



> Airbus likely to acquire Bombardier's remaining stake in A220 passenger jet -sources
> https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/airbus-likely-to-acquire-bombardiers-remaining-stake-in-a220-passenger-jet-sources



2) Bizets and rail:



> Bombardier in advanced talks to sell core units as debt woes loom
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-bombardier-in-talks-to-sell-either-of-its-main-businesses-as-it-tries/



3) Earlier, De Havilland and Canadair designs:



> Family control preserved Bombardier’s independence but at huge cost
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-family-control-preserved-bombardiers-independence-but-at-huge-cost/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

Their sole remaining business line will be extorting bailouts from government.


----------



## Good2Golf

Global 6000 x 5 to replace CC-144 VIP fleet.  Don’t count BBD out of the game, yet!


----------



## dapaterson

Why not the 7500 series?


----------



## Spencer100

CS Series to Airbus
Dash 8 to Viking
CRJ to Mitsubishi
Shorts and Structures to Spirit aerosytems
And it looks like the Global and lear lines to Textron according to WSJ this week.  

This is the end of a true Canadian Aerospace Champion and the slow death of aerospace industry in this county.  Sure there will be some plants and other engineering work but for all intents the home grown industry is over. 

We are watching the


----------



## kev994

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why not the 7500 series?


You got some used ones we can rebuild?


----------



## MarkOttawa

And a fuller account of Bombardier's auguring in at this post--which of rail or bizjets will survive (and remember rail biz is mainly outside of Canada)?



> The End of Bombardier as We Know It–the All in the Family Debacle
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/08/the-end-of-bombardier-as-we-know-it-the-all-in-the-family-debacle/[/color]



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> CS Series to Airbus
> Dash 8 to Viking
> CRJ to Mitsubishi
> Shorts and Structures to Spirit aerosytems
> And it looks like the Global and lear lines to Textron according to WSJ this week.
> 
> This is the end of a true Canadian Aerospace Champion and the slow death of aerospace industry in this county.  Sure there will be some plants and other engineering work but for all intents the home grown industry is over.
> Viking is still Canadian.  So at least we still have the twin Otter and the CL415
> 
> We are watching the


----------



## MilEME09

Well time to go give money to Viking then to build some government aircraft


----------



## dapaterson

VVIP Twin Otter fleet!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well time to go give money to Viking then to build some government aircraft



We could easily trade in our current twin Otter Fleet for new ones, but that won't happen till they open a plant back East.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin P said:
			
		

> We could easily trade in our current twin Otter Fleet for new ones, but that won't happen till they open a plant back East.



https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/twin-option-for-the-twin-otters-simple-solutions-are-often-the-best/

I'm guessing the life extension on the CC-138's has gone ahead.

The government prefers to give money away to Canadian business instead of supporting them via product purchases. I think the 7500 is larger than the 6000 as well as being longer ranged, either way the order book is full and would necessitate the government doing some creative thinking acquisition wise. Would the larger 7500 be of benefit over the 6000 as a VIP transport or mission support? Dash-8's, Twin Otters and Global Express/Challenger all produced in Canada but Defence Procurement system to broken to act. Likely two used Challenger 604's will be procured as suggested years ago as a stop gap.

I can't feel too sorry for Bombardier as they have had years to fix their issues especially in their train department. They reached too high with their aircraft plans but it's harder to fault them for that. I think they would be better at dumping the trains as it seems the division they have the worst handle on.


----------



## tomahawk6

The administration released a new budget. It will be interesting to see if there is funding for a Bombbardier jet to replace the one that crashed in Afghanistan 

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/paris-air-show/2017/06/23/bombardier-takes-wait-and-see-approach-for-future-opportunities-in-us/.


----------



## Spencer100

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The administration released a new budget. It will be interesting to see if there is funding for a Bombbardier jet to replace the one that crashed in Afghanistan
> 
> https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/paris-air-show/2017/06/23/bombardier-takes-wait-and-see-approach-for-future-opportunities-in-us/.



The US has developed a BACN pod that can be put on different aircraft and I bet they will replace the Global jet with a EQ-4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Airborne_Communications_Node


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The US has developed a BACN pod that can be put on different aircraft and I bet they will replace the Global jet with a EQ-4
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Airborne_Communications_Node



They already fly BACN on some RQ-4s

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bringing-home-the-bacn-to-front-line-forces-05618/


----------



## PuckChaser

The last couple posts are just making me hungry.


----------



## dapaterson




----------



## MarkOttawa

The fast goodbye continues, another post:



> Bombardier Bombing Out of Airliners–Rail too?
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/13/bombardier-bombing-out-of-airliners-rail-too/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

It is sounding more like an asset sale then a restructuring.

Best news is that we will no longer have to hear about Bombardier get government handouts!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Spener100: No, but Airbus, Textron, Alstom might be putting the screws on--Textron-owned Bell Helicopters gets lots of gov't money as does PWC.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

I know this may sound groundless, and this truly is my own personal opinion.

The CEO & senior management of Bombardier, in my opinion, should be metaphorically burned at the stake.  Screw them for taking what was once a Canadian icon, and driving it into the ground.


There's a ton of examples, too many to list here.  But how can you manage to drive a company to near bankruptcy, multiple times - only to be bailed out by massive government bailouts - and still drive it into the ground??


How hard is it to build rail cars?  This shouldn't be a troubled division.  This should be a streamlined division & a well oiled machine at this point.  We aren't asking them to build flying subway trains using negative gravity...we're asking them to build technology from the 1960's, on tracks that were laid around the same time.  How can it be this challenging after 60yrs?


I realize the Canadian government isn't a huge buyer of aircraft.  16 SAR planes here, 4 Twin Otters there, etc etc.  Occassionally, a decently big guy of F-18's or C-130's - but overall, the CAF isn't a huge or consistent customer of aircraft.

That being said...one of the nice things about our complete inability to purchase anything quickly outside of a UOR is that industry has LOTS OF LEAD TIME, and know exactly what we are looking for when we do decide to purchase.  (Relatively speaking.) 

 Again...how hard is it to take an aircraft that meets the performance specs, and modify it with a rear ramp & SAR features?  Since Brazil, Spain, Ireland, and a few other countries are purchasing the C-295 -- that's an aircraft Bombardier could have had a competitor for, but couldn't be bothered.  


Just frustrates me as a Canadian to see a Canadian icon managed so poorly that it's dying an unnecessary death...and the management of the company don't seem to be held accountable, despite our tax dollars bailing them out repeatedly.  (Tax dollars they also used to give themselves bonuses...  ullhair: )


----------



## YZT580

They did have a competitive aircraft: the buffalo but they left it in the 60's and then sold the whole thing to what was basically an airframe restoration company.


----------



## daftandbarmy

“Success isn’t guaranteed, but failure is certain if you aren’t truly emotionally invested in your work.”

— Biz Stone


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The fast goodbye continues, another post:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Demise of Bombardier nicely summed up:



> Bombardier drama may be coming to a close
> ...
> The problem with Bombardier is that it was always more of a wannabe success than a real success. Canadians loved the story of the scrappy inventor from rural Quebec starting off making snowmobiles and his heirs turning the firm into a multinational making jet aircraft, water-bombers, subway trains etc.
> 
> Much of that growth came through opportunistic buying of companies nobody else wanted — Canadair in Montreal, de Havilland in Toronto, Short Brothers in Belfast, Adtranz in Germany — usually combined with Bombardier management’s unparalleled ability to extract money from governments desperate to maintain jobs and get under-performing assets off their books.
> 
> Yet seldom during its history, did Bombardier really manage to turn these disparate,  individual assets into a cohesive, consistently profitable company. Maybe it’s the problem of always looking for a bargain. The whole never ended up being greater than the sum of its parts.
> 
> Bombardier did manage to stretch the Canadair Challenger business jet into a passenger aircraft and create a whole class of regional aircraft. But like RIM’s invention of the Blackberry, one product was not enough to build a company with long-term success.
> 
> Bombardier always managed to promise more than it could actually deliver. It wasn’t enough to bet the future of its commercial aviation business on the brand-new C Series, it did so at the same time that it was developing a new Global 7500 business jet and the smaller Learjet 85. The C Series was 2 ½ years late and way over budget. The Global Express was also late. And the Learjet 85 had to be dropped entirely.
> 
> Back on earth, the company has been no better in its transportation unit, consistently angering clients at Toronto Transit Commission, Swiss Railways, Deutsche Bahn and New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority for delivering rolling stock that was late and full of bugs. Great to land the contracts and have an impressive order backlog but if you can’t deliver the merchandise, maybe you’re in the wrong business...
> https://ipolitics.ca/2020/02/14/bombardier-drama-may-be-coming-to-a-close/



Mark Collins


----------



## Czech_pivo

"Maybe it’s the problem of always looking for a bargain."

But isn't this the typical Canadian modis operandi?

Constantly nickel and dime someone to buy/deliver the bare bones product and then run that product into the ground over 35-50+yrs, constantly bringing it back from the dead with numerous 'enhancements' and 'extended refits'.

As I've said previously on here, Canadians are by far the cheapest SOB's in the world.  Why would our companies be any different?


----------



## Sub_Guy

I don’t think we are cheap.  We continually over spend on projects for the sake of “jobs”.

If we were cheap we’d be buying ships made in Korea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/02/bombardier-ask-for-another-3-7-billion-to-study-the-effects-of-government-money-going-through-a-jet-engine/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will there still be a Bombardier to spend defence $$ on? A post:



> COVID-19 to Bury Bombardier without more Bailouts from Governments?
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/covid-19-to-bury-bombardier-without-more-bailouts-from-governments/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> "Maybe it’s the problem of always looking for a bargain."
> 
> 
> As I've said previously on here, Canadians are by far the cheapest SOB's in the world.  Why would our companies be any different?



Our poor record when looking for new kit is a product of our history. In the early days we had the British Empire, who, like all empires, withdrew from North America. 
In WWI political cronies (at least early in the war) were awarded contracts - the Ross rifle comes to mind.

When it comes to defence matters, the average Canadian could care less. The USA is just to the south so I think a lot of Canadians take it for granted the Americans will leap to our defence. 

As to new hi tech kit (F-35 and ships etc) the political parties always look for industrial benefits.


----------



## MilEME09

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Our poor record when looking for new kit is a product of our history. In the early days we had the British Empire, who, like all empires, withdrew from North America.
> In WWI political cronies (at least early in the war) were awarded contracts - the Ross rifle comes to mind.
> 
> When it comes to defence matters, the average Canadian could care less. The USA is just to the south so I think a lot of Canadians take it for granted the Americans will leap to our defence.
> 
> As to new hi tech kit (F-35 and ships etc) the political parties always look for industrial benefits.



As long as politicians are allowed to have a hand in defense procurement we will always be screwed, but no one, even if they say they will, is actually going to take the politics out of defense procurement


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> As long as politicians are allowed to have a hand in defense procurement we will always be screwed, but no one, even if they say they will, is actually going to take the politics out of defense procurement



Agreed.  Once one accepts that Defence Procurement is inherently political, and that the operational capability often (always? In major programmes) becomes a secondary or tertiary consideration, it all makes sense (well, at least ‘correlates to reality’).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Cloud Cover

As if there is no politics in US defence procurement.  What Congress has, and Parliament lacks, are very powerful defence and security lobbies, backed up by large defence contractors. We have both of these elements, but few Parliamentary champions to listen and apply sound advice over political deviancy.


----------



## dimsum

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> As to new hi tech kit (F-35 and ships etc) the political parties always look for industrial benefits.



Industrial and Technological Benefits (formerly Industrial Regional Benefits) is a whole-of-government policy for Defence procurement.  It's been going on, regardless of party, for...well, a long time.   

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/086.nsf/eng/home


----------



## dapaterson

CloudCover said:
			
		

> As if there is no politics in US defence procurement.



The F35 program was designed not for an efficient supply chain, but one distributed so widely across the USA that it becomes politically impossible to oppose it, as every congresscritter has constituents benefitting from the program.

It would be interesting to see the cost impact of that politicization of the supply chain...


----------



## Uzlu

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The F35 program was designed not for an efficient supply chain, but one distributed so widely across the USA that it becomes politically impossible to oppose it, as every congresscritter has constituents benefitting from the program.


That is standard procedure for every major US weapons program.  Lockheed Martin Canada and its partners are doing the same thing with the Canadian surface combatants.  http://www.canadascombatshipteam.com/team/


----------



## MilEME09

Now here me out, crazy idea, but what if we simply let bombardier fail, buy up the remains, rename it Canadair, federal government now owes it, gets licences productions for aircraft, etc... would solve IP concerns if it was the Canadian government owning it, not a 3rd party.


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now here me out, crazy idea, but what if we simply let bombardier fail, buy up the remains, rename it Canadair, _*federal government now owes it*_, gets licences productions for aircraft, etc... would solve IP concerns if it was the Canadian government owning it, not a 3rd party.



A Freudian slip?


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now here me out, crazy idea, but what if we simply let bombardier fail, buy up the remains, rename it Canadair, federal government now owes it, gets licences productions for aircraft, etc... would solve IP concerns if it was the Canadian government owning it, not a 3rd party.



Except Bombardier has sold off its stake in thew A2XX series, its ownership of the CRJ series, its ownership the DH series (Q400), its IP for water bombers... all they make now are business jets.  Their major production facilities were transferred out when they sold their ownership.


----------



## Dale Denton

Because in order for it to fail it would have already laid off more people, sold off portions of itself, and accumulated more debt...


----------



## dapaterson

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Because in order for it to fail it would have already laid off more people, sold off portions of itself, and accumulated more debt...



Bailout money = Executive bonus money!


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now here me out, crazy idea, but what if we simply let bombardier fail, buy up the remains, rename it Canadair, federal government now owes it, gets licences productions for aircraft, etc... would solve IP concerns if it was the Canadian government owning it, not a 3rd party.



There is not much left.  Just biz jets.

Water Bombers to Viking
DASH8 to Viking
Short Brothers to Spirit aerosystems
CRJ to Mitusitubi 
C-Series to Airbus

Plus Downsview manufacturing plant to Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
Earlier Bombardier has sold the Dash 1-7 production rights to Viking
The pilot training to CAE


----------



## Cloud Cover

Apparently they are tooling up the Thunder Bay rail car plant to manufacture what most assuredly will be the most expensive ventilators in the world next year.


----------



## suffolkowner

Looks like they pulled the trigger on a partial Challenger replacement

https://globalnews.ca/news/7034536/bombardier-challenger-jets/


----------



## dapaterson

My understanding is that the current fleet is two different types (from a crew perspective); the two new aircraft mean it will be a single type, making for easier crew management, training, and sparing.


----------



## Mick

The new CL-650s will replace the older two Challenger CL601 aircraft.  While the relatively newer two 604s will continue to operate, they do not have the same cockpit layout, avionics or FMS that the 650s have.  The flight decks are somewhat different, although there is more commonality between 604/650 than between 601/604.

From a civilian regulatory standpoint, 604s, 605s, and 650s are all the same type (CL604-2B16, vice the older CL601 type), and will only require a short 1 day "differences" course between the 604 and 605/650).  Differences between the 605 and 650 are minimal and can be covered in less than 1 hour of e-learning.


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

Royal Canadian Air Force to buy two Challenger 650s from Bombardier

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/royal-canadian-air-force-to-buy-two-challenger-650s-from-bombardier/138733.article


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start and end of a post:



> Bombardier to Go A-Begging again?
> 
> Further to this post,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVID-19 to Bury Bombardier without more Bailouts from Governments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> will no-one put this vainglorious company out of its independent misery, one way or another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombardier in contact with government should it need aid, but faces anger over executive compensation
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long can this go on? How could a Justin Trudeau-led, progessive, climate change-fighting government justify giving special help to a company that makes CO2-spewing bizjets for the rich and for wealthy companies?..
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/bombardier-to-go-a-begging-again/
Click to expand...


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bombardier is dead, just kill the thing already!

It's being delisted from the S&P/TSX Composite Index this week:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/bombardier-dropped-p-tsx-composite-185826151.html

Bombardier has been technically bankrupt for years but has been kept alive by Government Welfare.

What is it with Quebec Companies and just Generally Incompetent management?


----------



## dapaterson

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Bombardier is dead, just kill the thing already!
> 
> It's being delisted from the S&P/TSX Composite Index this week:
> 
> https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/bombardier-dropped-p-tsx-composite-185826151.html
> 
> Bombardier has been technically bankrupt for years but has been kept alive by Government Welfare.
> 
> What is it with Quebec Companies and just Generally Incompetent management?



Removed from the index =/= delisted.  Removed from the index means it's no longer a large enough company to be considered in the index.  Delisted would mean they were being kicked off the stock exchange.

And if we want to talk about companies that would be bankrupt without large dollops of federal cash, there's always ISI...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

QuietSpike2020 said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Air Force to buy two Challenger 650s from Bombardier
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/royal-canadian-air-force-to-buy-two-challenger-650s-from-bombardier/138733.article



This lines up nicely with the same mentality in the RCAF that saw new DEU ranks come into service, while operational uniforms (flying suits) were 'unavailable'.  

Hmmm...is it only the Challengers that are being impacted by these new flying rules in Europe and the US??   op:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Removed from the index =/= delisted.  Removed from the index means it's no longer a large enough company to be considered in the index.  Delisted would mean they were being kicked off the stock exchange.
> 
> And if we want to talk about companies that would be bankrupt without large dollops of federal cash, there's always ISI...



Thanks for the correction DP,  the term you used is what I meant  8).

ISI would be just fine, ISI exists to support the broader Irving Group of families.  It's a vertically integrated company and it makes money.  Irving is an interesting case, they have chosen to remain private and take the big fish in a small pond route.

Some interesting moves from Irving Oil lately though.  They now own a refinery in Ireland and bought the Oil Refinrry in Newfoundland with plan to move WCS through the Panama Canal.

Quebec is not a friendly Province for business or entrepreneurs.


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

What about the Raytheon Sentinel? It's a Bombardier Global Express. The RCAF is in need of a capable ISTAR aircraft. Fulfilling that role will allow us to operate more independently and I would imagine CANSOFCOM wouldn't mind using more Canadian assets.


----------



## dimsum

QuietSpike2020 said:
			
		

> What about the Raytheon Sentinel? It's a Bombardier Global Express. The RCAF is in need of a capable ISTAR aircraft. Fulfilling that role will allow us to operate more independently and I would imagine CANSOFCOM wouldn't mind using more Canadian assets.



I don't know if you've heard, but Bombardier isn't really in the "airplane business" anymore.  Also, the RAF (sole users of the Sentinel) is planning on retiring it in 2021.  So...cheap airframes perhaps?   

Finally, reading the Wiki page on it, the Sentinel requires ground stations to do the actual battle management and processing, instead of being able to do it in the air.  In that case, you might as well have MQ-9s or RQ-4s doing essentially the same job without the cost of the airframe (and still requiring the SATCOM link).


----------



## PuckChaser

QuietSpike2020 said:
			
		

> What about the Raytheon Sentinel? It's a Bombardier Global Express. The RCAF is in need of a capable ISTAR aircraft. Fulfilling that role will allow us to operate more independently and I would imagine CANSOFCOM wouldn't mind using more Canadian assets.



CANSOFCOM bought 3x Beechcraft King Airs similar to the MC-12W that AFSOC flies in the US. I highly doubt they're buying anything else right now. I'm sure the CA would love the RCAF to have a real ISTAR platform though, so we can keep the Aurora where it needs to be in ASW.


----------



## Mick

While it is certainly true that Bombardier has divested itself of its commercial aircraft programs (C-Series, Q400, CRJ), it is still in the private/executive jet business, offering Challengers (350 and 650), Globals, and Learjet products.  So, airframes potentially suitable for military modification are still in production.


----------



## MarkOttawa

USAF buying more Bombardier Global 6000s, via Lear, Wichita (company news release):



> Bombardier Specialized Aircraft Confirms Deal with U.S. Air Force for up to Six More Global Aircraft in Special Mission Configuration​
> *Global business jets are the backbone of the U.S. Air Force Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) program, and a go-to platform for special missions around the world*
> *BACN aircraft, known in the U.S. Air Force as the E-11A, are developed and modified by Bombardier’s highly skilled engineering teams in Wichita, Kansas*
> *Contract, which includes one firm aircraft order, underscores Bombardier’s status as a key U.S. aerospace employer *
> WICHITA, Kansas, June 02, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bombardier is pleased to confirm an agreement between its Learjet Inc. subsidiary and the U.S. Air Force in support of the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) program. The Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract provides the USAF with flexible ordering and includes an immediate firm order for one _Global 6000_ aircraft, with as many as five additional _Global 6000_ aircraft. The contract, which includes engineering and modification work, represents a potential total value of close to $465 million U.S.
> 
> Bombardier has already delivered four _Global_ aircraft to the U.S. Air Force since 2007 for the BACN program, an airborne relay that extends communication ranges, bridges between radio frequencies and “translates” among incompatible communications systems. BACN aircraft are known in the U.S. Air Force as the E-11A.
> 
> “Bombardier is proud to be chosen once again by the U.S. Air Force to provide our high-performing _Global _aircraft and our unique expertise in support of the BACN program,” said Michel Ouellette, Executive Vice President, Specialized Aircraft, Programs and Engineering, Bombardier. “Our U.S.-based employees are honored to be lending their skills in support of this elite project.”
> 
> Bombardier teams in the U.S., who continue to provide in-service support and upgrades to the current BACN fleet, are poised to begin work on the next BACN aircraft in the coming days. Engineers and technicians at Bombardier Specialized Aircraft’s Center of Excellence in Wichita, Kansas, will modify the _Global _platform to support the communications equipment required for the mission, while teams in Tucson will provide the aircraft’s interior and eventually perform the exterior painting work.
> 
> Proud to be a major employer in the U.S. aviation sector, Bombardier works with local colleges and technical schools to help inspire and train the next generation of aerospace professionals.
> 
> Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) had the following statement: “I am pleased to see that the Air Force is following through on its purchase of another E-11A aircraft to support battlefield communications for forward-deployed forces. These planes are engineered and outfitted for the Air Force right here in Wichita, and this purchase is the latest example of Kansans supporting our national security operations back at home.”
> 
> “Supporting the U.S. Air Force’s BACN program while increasing work for Kansas aviation manufacturers is a win for the Air Capital of the World and for our country,” said U.S. Representative Ron Estes (R-Kansas). “These Bombardier _Global 6000_ aircraft modified and tested in Wichita give our airmen a competitive advantage in flight and communication.”
> 
> “I’m proud to support the Air Force’s acquisition of additional E-11A BACN aircraft from Bombardier,” said U.S. Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona). “The BACN aircraft fleet connects our warfighters and allies during critical missions and supports highly skilled jobs right here in Tucson at Bombardier’s service center. I look forward to continuing to support the Air Force’s BACN program as a member of the Appropriations Committee.”
> 
> Bombardier _Global_ aircraft, renowned in the business aviation industry for range, spaciousness and a smooth ride, are a proven, go-to platform for special government missions thanks to their speed, payload capacity, built-in power redundancy, reliability and endurance.
> 
> Bombardier Specialized Aircraft designs, develops and delivers a range of capabilities to operators around the world for a wide variety of missions including surveillance and reconnaissance, medical evacuations and VIP transport. Solutions range from turnkey packages comprising the complete design, building, testing and certification activity, through to specialist engineering support and technical oversight of customer-specific projects. For more information, please visit specializedaircraft.bombardier.com...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombardier Specialized Aircraft Confirms Deal with U.S. Air Force for up to Six More Global Aircraft in Special Mission Configuration
> 
> 
> WICHITA, Kansas, June  02, 2021  (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bombardier is pleased to confirm an agreement between its Learjet Inc. subsidiary and the U.S. Air Force in…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> financialpost.com



Mark Collins


----------



## Gorgo

Could we get a hold of a flight of these aircraft?  Would they be able to fit into the RCAF?


----------



## dimsum

Gorgo said:


> Could we get a hold of a flight of these aircraft?  Would they be able to fit into the RCAF?


Probably too specialized for our use.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Saab GlobalEye with Global 6000 airframe might be useful for RCAF:



> GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft is a new multi-role airborne surveillance system developed by Saab.
> 
> The aircraft is capable of offering air, maritime and ground surveillance on a single platform. It can operate in dedicated or multiple roles and has the ability to simultaneously switch between different roles at any point of time during an ongoing mission...
> 
> 
> GlobalEye AEW&C platform is offered in three different configurations according to customer-specific requirements. The base configuration is equipped with the AEW&C capability to deliver aerial, maritime and ground surveillance.
> 
> The second variant integrates additional maritime surveillance radar and electro-optical sensors to transform the base platform to offer enhanced maritime and ground capabilities. The third version incorporates new sensors for electronic intelligence (ELINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) capability...





> GlobalEye Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) Aircraft
> 
> 
> GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft is a new multi-role airborne surveillance system developed by Saab. The aircraft…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforce-technology.com



Five of the planes sold to UAE:








						Saab nabs $1 billion deal for two more GlobalEye planes to the United Arab Emirates
					

The contract is an extension of a 2015 deal, bringing the UAE's fleet of the surveillance plane to five.




					www.defensenews.com
				




Sweden also plans to buy the GlobalEye, and two of them are part of Saab's final offer of Gripen E as Finland's new fighter:





						Sweden commits to future GlobalEye buy
					

Sweden will procure the Saab GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform to replace its ageing Saab 340 Erieyes, the country’s defence minister...



					www.janes.com
				








						Saab Bid Proposes One-for-One Finnish Hornet Replacement | Aviation Week Network
					

Sweden is proposing to replace Finland’s F/A-18 Hornets on a virtual one-for-one basis by offering 64 Gripen fighters for Helsinki’s €9 billion ($10.9 billion) HX fighter requirement.




					aviationweek.com
				




There's also the Saab Swordfish MPA proposal, again with Global 6000 airframe, no sales yet (also with Q400/Dash 8 airframe--how long will there be new builds?):





						Ancile
					






					www.deagel.com
				




Mark Collins


----------



## dimsum

Not sure we have the need, or the operators, for an AEW&C platform.  We have a few folks OUTCAN but not sure if it's enough to stand up a squadron.  It seems like, in our case, a solution looking for a problem.

As for the Swordfish, it's been on hiatus since 2018 since it hasn't got any orders.









						Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus
					

Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## CBH99

As a general concept, I do agree - if the CF were to acquire some sort of dedicated ISR platform (crewed, that is) - ideally I would like to see that platform Canadian built.

Is it easier to buy a few airframes from Boeing or Airbus?  Absolutely.  



However (and I'm not trying to start this discussion over again, I know it's been discussed upthread) -- if Bombardier had been more aggressive in marketing some of it's aircraft, been more proactive in having designs ready for if a competition was launched, etc - I'd like to think Bombardier could be now, where Embraer is.

The CAF will never be a big enough customer on it's own to justify Bombardier designing/testing/building an aircraft type, just so the CAF can buy a whopping 6 or 8 of them.  However, by taking already existing technologies and finding a way to integrate them into a Bombardier aircraft, it would have been feasible to offer a 'lower budget' solution to some countries looking for ISR or possibly even ASW assets.

Take for example our recent purchase of the C-295.  The government had announced for _decades_ that it intended purchase 15-16 aircraft to replace the birds doing SAR with a common airframe.  The government more or less, throughout the many starts & stops, announced what it was looking for -- fast transit time, able to loiter on station for extended periods at a slow speed, a ramp at the back to deploy SAR techs, and technologies such as FLIR, Thermal, etc etc.

I'd like to think that Bombardier could have looked at the menu of aircraft it was building, chosen one to design some modifications of, and come up with something with roughly the same specs.



I'm not saying the above was necessarily doable.  But I'd rather Bombardier at least 'tried' to earn our business, rather than chug along 'business as usual' knowing a government bailout was always an option.  

(My apologies if the above seems full of potholes.  I tend to follow that stuff as closely as possible, but there is always a great deal of details left out of the news articles.)   <rant off>


0.02


----------



## kev994

CBH99 said:


> As a general concept, I do agree - if the CF were to acquire some sort of dedicated ISR platform (crewed, that is) - ideally I would like to see that platform Canadian built.
> 
> Is it easier to buy a few airframes from Boeing or Airbus?  Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> However (and I'm not trying to start this discussion over again, I know it's been discussed upthread) -- if Bombardier had been more aggressive in marketing some of it's aircraft, been more proactive in having designs ready for if a competition was launched, etc - I'd like to think Bombardier could be now, where Embraer is.
> 
> The CAF will never be a big enough customer on it's own to justify Bombardier designing/testing/building an aircraft type, just so the CAF can buy a whopping 6 or 8 of them.  However, by taking already existing technologies and finding a way to integrate them into a Bombardier aircraft, it would have been feasible to offer a 'lower budget' solution to some countries looking for ISR or possibly even ASW assets.
> 
> Take for example our recent purchase of the C-295.  The government had announced for _decades_ that it intended purchase 15-16 aircraft to replace the birds doing SAR with a common airframe.  The government more or less, throughout the many starts & stops, announced what it was looking for -- fast transit time, able to loiter on station for extended periods at a slow speed, a ramp at the back to deploy SAR techs, and technologies such as FLIR, Thermal, etc etc.
> 
> I'd like to think that Bombardier could have looked at the menu of aircraft it was building, chosen one to design some modifications of, and come up with something with roughly the same specs.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying the above was necessarily doable.  But I'd rather Bombardier at least 'tried' to earn our business, rather than chug along 'business as usual' knowing a government bailout was always an option.
> 
> (My apologies if the above seems full of potholes.  I tend to follow that stuff as closely as possible, but there is always a great deal of details left out of the news articles.)   <rant off>
> 
> 
> 0.02


They did ‘try’ to sell us a FWSAR plane… by taking us to court to argue that we didn’t really need a ramp.


----------

