# Made in Canada military aircraft?



## jzaidi1 (16 Jun 2008)

Folks,

Dumb question.  We have some excellent Aerospace Engineers coming out of Canada.  Has anyone (ie company/gov't) taken the plunge since the Avro Arrow to at least design and possibly build a "Made in Canada" solution for military aircraft?  Or are we destined to keep sending our best talent to LockMart, NASA, Boeing, etc and have our US cousins take credit.  Yes, I know we have Bombardier but they are mainly focused on civilian aircraft.

I'd love to see what our Canadian Aero Engineering talent can come up with for 5th generation fighter jets.  With all the 3d modelling software available we could easily visualize a design in relatively little time.

Look at SAAB based in Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab) - a population of 9 Million people and they design and build fighter jets.  We, 33 Million people and no company that does that (of course we have US Subsidiaries here in Canada but it's not the same thing).

J

p.s As you can tell, I'm pro-military and pro-Canadian like all of us here


----------



## acen (16 Jun 2008)

I happen to know many Aerospace Eng's, including some working on projects for DND, and I think the problem here is that if we took your suggestion and acted upon it, by the time we had a working prototype the service life of the CF-18 would have long expired. Quite simply, we have invested too much money in the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 program to give up on it now, and quite frankly while we do have the engineers, we might not have the capital required for such an investment, as creating a fighter platform is usually a project that takes decade (s) let alone years, and quite frankly I do not think that the canadian forces would be getting value for money, especially since they would most certainly have difficulty exporting considering the amount of countries that have commited to the JSF program or the F-22, eurofighter or other programs. While Saab is a great example of a smaller country being able to produce high quality fighters, keep in mind that this is what Saab was developped to do a very long time ago and has investment flowing in for decades in order to continue this, and as a result of their success have been able to delve into other areas (armaments read the Carl Gustav being one of their products which we currently use, among many others which are available). We do have a vibrant aero engineering workforce in canada working on projects, but you will see most of these people doing consulting work, designing various forms of missiles or other rocketry, or contributing Canada's contribution to the Joint Strike Fighter. Simple economics dictates


----------



## hauger (16 Jun 2008)

I don't see it happening in exactly the same way I don't see a Canadian car company.  Funny when you think that Ontario builds so many vehicles and do it so well, but not one is a Canadian owned company (ignoring all the joint ventures/parts manufacturers/etc...).

Having said that, isn't the Griffon a Canadian built Bell 412, the gonzo is a Dash 8, and I thought Bombardier was hawking a mod'd Dash 8 as a FWSAR replacement.


----------



## jzaidi1 (16 Jun 2008)

Cool,

My point wasn't to focus on fighter aircraft exclusively, although that being an obvious example.  I know we have sunk hundreds of Millions into JSF already.  It's just a shame that we have al this talent more than capable of at least 'designing' something, that in theory, would function in a military capacity.  I'd love to see a centre of excellence for aircraft/aerospace/space engineering funded by several countries and/or companies dedicated to next gen aircraft (transports, helos, fighters, UAVs, etc..) that could be used by Canadians AND sold to other countries.

Wishful thinking...I guess we'll just have to 'get by' on having the world's best drivers/engineers of foreign/joint-made technology.

J


----------



## Loachman (16 Jun 2008)

hauger said:
			
		

> isn't the Griffon a Canadian built Bell 412



Parts are made all over the planet. Assembly was done in Mirabel. Painting was done in Dallas-Fort Worth.

This is probably the pattern for most, if not all, Bell helicopters.

We had some issues with the all-over-the-planet aspect early on - not everything went together properly. Left-hand collectives were rubbing on the door on several machines for one


----------



## hauger (16 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Painting was done in Dallas-Fort Worth.



Seems like a far way to travel to get a decent paint job!


----------



## Loachman (16 Jun 2008)

hauger said:
			
		

> Seems like a far way to travel to get a decent paint job!



They flew them there, too. I saw several refuelling in Kingston while doing the same.

Bell Test Pilot is not a job that I would take, given the anomalies that our techs found on acceptance checks: nuts/bolts undertorqued/overtorqued/not torqued at all, a couple of tools, wrong rivets, metal shavings - like the curly lathe type. It was two months before our first one was deemed airworthy and aircrew were "allowed" to touch it (prior to that it was restricted to techs and air cadets only - _*we*_ might have broken it, or something).

"Another quality Bell product" does not mean the same thing to us as it does to the company.


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Jun 2008)

Any interested in the building of domestic aircraft I would direct you to this piece.

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_Feb2008_Industry%20Insights.pdf

The point being that there has only been one "new" prime manufacturer of aircraft in the last 4 decades that has made it.   Embrarer of Brazil.  

Bombardier is Canada's prime but it has stayed out of miltary aircraft for the most part.  
This is agreeement between the gov and the company.


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Jun 2008)

Also as a side note.  Canada does not have a "national automanufacturer"  because of agreement with the US and the Big 3.  We signed the Autopact with the US making the big 3 our domestic auto companies.   The auto is now gone as it is superseded by the FTA and NAFTA.  But Canada has been on the winning side of this deal with the US by a HUGE margin.  Just look and the last 15 years of sales and production of autos in Canada.   We produces more cars than we buy in total in Canada.  

On more little point we do have one national company Magna.....they build whole cars and can make almost any part on a car.   Also as a stock they are valued higher then some of the car compnies themselves.


----------



## TCBF (16 Jun 2008)

- DHC still had a market for the Turbo Beaver when they stopped producing it.  They could probably start production again tomorrow and sell every one.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jun 2008)

De Haviland was swallowed up by Borgbardier years ago, and they don't appear interested in expanding their repertoire.


----------



## Spencer100 (19 Jun 2008)

Also DHC (Bombardier) can not build the beaver.   They sold the Type Certificate to Viking Aircraft.  Viking ownes the DHC 1 to 7 aircraft type certificates.  Viking is starting new production of the Twin Otter.   US army has ordered a few.


----------



## STONEY (23 Jun 2008)

Viking are reported to have an orderbook  for 40  Twin otters including 3 for the US Army parachute demo team.


----------



## almost there (26 Jun 2008)

DHC also made the Buffalo. I saw on the news the other day a company in Victoria wants the CF to give them the contract to give them a 'mid-life' upgrade rather than purchasing new A/C. I've never flown in one, but they are getting pretty old now (in service late 60's I think).. The other week 4 of the 6 in the fleet were out of service for one thing or another.. I'm no tech head, heard this from AVN's in 442.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Jun 2008)

almost there said:
			
		

> The other week 4 of the 6 in the fleet were out of service for one thing or another.. I'm no tech head, heard this from AVN's in 442.



That's a pretty good day at 442 when we have two of the old girls serviceable.

Viking is all talk - they have no interest or capability of supporting the Buffalo.  They are just struggling to produce new Twotters.


----------



## Flip (27 Jun 2008)

It seems to me that in many respects, canadian industry is an active part of the "military industrial complex".  That is, as far a military technology is concerned, there is a very dim border.

Not a problem really.  the EU has a number of multinational efforts in aerospace and military technology.

The thing is ......

The bigger the technology, the smaller the world is. ;D


----------



## inferno (27 Jun 2008)

2 of 6 is a really good day at 442... that said..

You could have 9 of any other fixed wing aircraft serviceable, and its still not going to help you if they can't stop before the other end of the runway.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Sep 2018)

From Sep 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7kVizC3ZGM

Someone did some interesting work here.

Sep 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjuL9IM-1T0

Jan 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl8boF3FEGQ

Apr 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBAY28QqTDY


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Sep 2018)

Hopefully that's the only place a "reborn" Avro Arrow will stay: Youtube videos and video game fantasies.


----------



## Ashkan08 (3 Sep 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hopefully that's the only place a "reborn" Avro Arrow will stay: Youtube videos and video game fantasies.


Doesn't seem like it. Seems like these guys have and are continuing to design and test prototypes for a super Arrow.
http://www.superarrow.ca/
Seems like they are also asking for some help to fund the project which seems to have reached a 3D virtual reality stage.
https://ca.gofundme.com/we-need-the-hololens
Of course designing/testing/prototyping and actually starting production are two very different things but one has to start from somewhere.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Sep 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem like it. Seems like these guys have and are continuing to design and test prototypes for a super Arrow.
> http://www.superarrow.ca/
> Seems like they are also asking for some help to fund the project which seems to have reached a 3D virtual reality stage.
> https://ca.gofundme.com/we-need-the-hololens
> Of course designing/testing/prototyping and actually starting production are two very different things but one has to start from somewhere.



They're stealing the YF-23A design and painting it with the Arrow colours and selling models. Then they're making "high quality" simulations, of an aircraft they have absolutely no design characteristics for. They're getting people to buy them a VR headset so they can live their fantasy. Its not a real project. They actively ban people from their Facebook page who tell them to get real. Politicians tried to make political hay out of the cost of the F-35, but these jokers want to build a fighter from the ground up where Canada has no ability to build fighter aircraft domestically and make it cost effective? Sounds like the RCAF would be getting a LSVW to be honest. No wonder they're a "hyper-paranoid about security group".  :facepalm:


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Sep 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem like it. Seems like these guys have and are continuing to design and test prototypes for a super Arrow.
> http://www.superarrow.ca/



They haven’t done any prototype testing whatsoever.  For that, you need an airplane which they don’t.



			
				Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Seems like they are also asking for some help to fund the project which seems to have reached a 3D virtual reality stage.



Oh, I didn’t realize 3D virtual reality is one of the stages of the aircraft design process...



			
				Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Of course designing/testing/prototyping and actually starting production are two very different things but one has to start from somewhere.



First, you need to design an aircraft on paper.  This will cost you tens of millions of dollars.  Then, you need to build a prototype and conduct experimental flight test which will lead to a developmental candidate aircraft.  This is close to your final design and no major changes in the structure should be made past this point. From there, you’ll need to build a couple of aircraft, one of which will be entirely destroyed to conduct ultimate loads testing.  You’ll start doing developmental flight test. You’ll heavily instrument one of those aircraft to conduct enveloppe expansion and make sure the thing doesn’t come apart at certain flight conditions. Then you’ll start testing the aircraft and its systems.  Every flight will bring deficiencies that may need to be corrected before the aircraft goes into production if they are serious enough to affect mission outcome or survivability.  The final product of this phase is what our government will use to assess the bid.

Just as a comparison, the F-35 team started this process in 1992.  First prototype flight in 2000 and first developmental platform flight in 2006.  To say the Super Arrow team is behind the 8-ball is a gross understatement.

But you need not worry: they are at the 3D Virtual Reality stage.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Sep 2018)

With a little more work, they may reach this stage:


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Sep 2018)

They can make that out of the bar napkin they drew the scheme up on.


----------



## Ashkan08 (3 Sep 2018)

Although virtual reality probably isn't a widely used stage for the aircraft design process, some companies such as Pratt and Whitney seem to be using it. Beaverworks seems be planning to use virtual reality to see how the aircraft looks in full size ( probably because they don't have the budget to actually make the aircraft).

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/08/24/9-companies-using-augmented-virtual-reality-aviation/

I admit that I have no clue about how the aircraft design process works, this was just something that seemed quite interesting. Why would designing an aircraft on paper cost tens of millions of dollars? If it costs that much to simply design an fighter jet, I don't know how they have even passed this step when designing the plane. According to them, they have paid for everything themselves which now seems quite unlikely.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Sep 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Although virtual reality probably isn't a widely used stage for the aircraft design process, some companies such as Pratt and Whitney seem to be using it. Beaverworks seems be planning to use virtual reality to see how the aircraft looks in full size ( probably because they don't have the budget to actually make the aircraft).
> 
> https://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/08/24/9-companies-using-augmented-virtual-reality-aviation/
> 
> I admit that I have no clue about how the aircraft design process works, this was just something that seemed quite interesting. Why would designing an aircraft on paper cost tens of millions of dollars? If it costs that much to simply design an fighter jet, I don't know how they have even passed this step when designing the plane. According to them, they have paid for everything themselves which now seems quite unlikely.



VR may be a tool used in the design but it certainly is not a step of the process.  If they have nothing to show (ie: no design), VR will just show them what they want to see vs what needs to be improved.

It cost that much to put something on paper because you need dozens of engineers full time for years to design the aircraft, make the compromises to achieve the design goals and come up with a prototype design.  It is a lot more than creating mold line.  How much fuel do you want?  15,000 lbs internal? Well, we need to increase space in the wings which means we'll have to strenghten them and it will also increase RCS.  Strenhtening the wings means the aircraft will be heavier and will affect the takeoff and landing distances.  I guess we could out those new brakes on the aircraft to bring the landing distance down again but it'll cost you more.  Oh and those wings?  The aerodynamicist just told us it will reduce the maneuvering longitudinal static stability, meaning we'll have to modify the flight controls laws, and increase the dynamic longitudinal stability damping ratio, which is likely going to lead to sluggish pitch control.  I guess we can put a bigger stabilator to overcome te damping ratio issue but it will also add weight since we need bigger control actuators.  And so on for each small design change.


----------



## Ashkan08 (3 Sep 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> VR may be a tool used in the design but it certainly is not a step of the process.  If they have nothing to show (ie: no design), VR will just show them what they want to see vs what needs to be improved.
> 
> It cost that much to put something on paper because you need dozens of engineers full time for years to design the aircraft, make the compromises to achieve the design goals and come up with a prototype design.  It is a lot more than creating mold line.  How much fuel do you want?  15,000 lbs internal? Well, we need to increase space in the wings which means we'll have to strenghten them and it will also increase RCS.  Strenhtening the wings means the aircraft will be heavier and will affect the takeoff and landing distances.  I guess we could out those new brakes on the aircraft to bring the landing distance down again but it'll cost you more.  Oh and those wings?  The aerodynamicist just told us it will reduce the maneuvering longitudinal static stability, meaning we'll have to modify the flight controls laws, and increase the dynamic longitudinal stability damping ratio, which is likely going to lead to sluggish pitch control.  I guess we can put a bigger stabilator to overcome te damping ratio issue but it will also add weight since we need bigger control actuators.  And so on for each small design change.



Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Spencer100 (8 Nov 2018)

I thought I would post this here.


https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/bombardier-slashing-5-000-jobs-selling-assets-for-us-900-million-1.1165065

And with announcement this is the end of a Canadian Global Aerospace company.  Canada moves to a third tier aerospace industry.  On a good note DHC is coming back!  Good Luck Viking.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2018)

How much longer for CRJ in face on new Embraers, backed by Boeing?  Now bizjet company:



> Bombardier to sell Q400 programme
> 
> Bombardier has disclosed that it is selling its Dash 8 turboprop programme to a subsidiary of Longview Aviation Capital Corporation for $300 million.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2018)

Unless Airbus Eurofighter wins new RCAF fighter competition (unlikely), would think company will eventually try to move almost all #A220 production from Bombardier, Mirabel to Mobile, Alabama--more attractive long-term than Quebec (no unions etc. https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/union-representing-2000-quebec-workers-has-mixed-feelings-about-cseries-airbus-deal), win US hearts and minds--who cares about Canada?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2018)

As I said, bizjets:



> Bombardier shifts focus away from commercial aircraft
> 
> Though the CRJ programme remains under Bombardier's wing, company executives made clear on 8 November that Bombardier's focus has shifted away from commercial aviation.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Nov 2018)

Oh, OH. Now what is the RCAF going to be stuck with?


----------



## Spencer100 (8 Nov 2018)

I see Vikings plan now,  run the last ones down line. They will not have a plant after 2021. And than service and spares for the next twenty years or more.  Good plan from a business point of view.  You can never loss money on service parts.  Viking doesn't have sales org to get many new sales, or will they have engineers to update the product. Or capital.  Plus the ATR sells for cheaper anyway.  As I said end of the road for OEM aerospace in Canada. Oh well, think of the bright side...less gov handouts to bombardier.


----------



## Czech_pivo (9 Nov 2018)

"As I said end of the road for OEM aerospace in Canada. Oh well, think of the bright side...less gov handouts to bombardier."

Another step back to our Canadian roots of 'drawers of water and hewers of wood.'

Kevin, get me axe, the woods are calling me back....


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Nov 2018)

The sorry story of where all your taxpayer money (not Bombardier family's) has gone:



> Viking Air Takeover Ends Bombardier Turboprop Era
> 
> Bombardier’s agreement to sell the Dash 8, Q400 and the de Havilland name to Western Canada’s Longview Aviation Capital, parent company of Viking Air, ends a venture into regional turboprops that began in 1992 when it acquired de Havilland Canada from Boeing.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2018)

If you bought Bombardier in mid-June, congratulations.  You've lost half your investment.


----------



## NavyShooter (9 Nov 2018)

I'm smart enough to have told my investment dude (broker) to have shifted most of my equity to US based funds as soon as the village idiot got elected.  Stuff like this is exactly why.


----------

