Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft

[ytz]

The UAE one was expressed in USD at 517 million where I saw it, Sweden’s I didn’t see an airframe cost as other things where lumped in

The 737 is so much bigger than a Global 6500 that there's practically no chance Boeing/Northrop Grumman can price the Wedgetail on par with GlobalEye/CAEW and still make a profit. Maybe they'll choose to sell it at a loss. But I doubt it. And then there's lifecycle costs too.

Should be noted that it Northrop was building the Wedgetail today and it hadn't started in Australia, they probably would have gone with a large business or regional jet for the application too. There's a reason so many of these SIGINT/ELINT, Ground Surveillance and Comms Relay aircraft are all on Globals or Gulfstreams.

Fair, but Boeing as a whole does employ more Canadians than Bomb, which I’m sure does get some sort of recognition.

Where do you get these numbers? I'd love to see them. I think you substantially underestimate how many people are involved in final assembly and the whole supply chain before that. I don't know actual numbers. But I am willing to bet a paycheque that "Boeing as a whole" doesn't employ more Canadians than Bombardier's supply chain and final assembly business. Not to mention that isn't just Boeing and Bombardier, but also the radar teams in the mix. Northrop Grumman, Saab and L3Harris will have to count their contribution here.

What is debatable, is how much of a difference 5-6 aircraft make. But if we're talking about AEW, VVIP and potentially ELINT/SIGINT fleet, we maybe talking up to 15 aircraft, of which up to 10 are missionized beyond transport. Not insignificant to Canada's aerospace and defence sector as a package.

Fair.

The MESA radar is actually getting on. It makes up in power what it lacks in efficiency. But there are concerns, even in the US, about the its longevity. There was even talk of an upgrade project to GaN. But the urgency of the AWACS replacement kinda drove the American/NATO timeline. Canada has no such rush. So arguably, there's room to wait for either better MESA on the Wedgetail or integration of the conformal radar on CAEW or even another GlobalEye upgrade.

 

[captloadie]

I think it is time for everyone to understand that any procurement that is going to require additional PYs in the RCAF, especially where pilots and other aircrew are concerned, isn't going to move forward any time in the near future. We aren't even coming close to meeting the current demand for the fleets already contracted to be onboarded; there is absolutely no ability for growth at this time. Unless the RCAF drastically changes the way they look at single type qualified pilots, mandatory dual pilot cockpits, and risk acceptance, there will be airframes sitting on tarmacs with no one to fly them.

 

[dapaterson]

Twenty odd years ago during the pilot OA, immediate single streaming was rejected to ensure that every pilot could in the future fly for the Snowbirds.

 

[ytz]

This is why commonality is so important and it's ridiculous that we aren't allowed to ever consider it in force design. How many positions could we save if we used the 130J for FWSAR and TAL and the 148 or 149 for TacHel, MH and RWSAR? We wouldn't solve everything but commonality would save positions, reduce training stress and improve posting options. Aside from the logistics tail.

 

[Spencer100]

The 737 is so much bigger than a Global 6500 that there's practically no chance Boeing/Northrop Grumman can price the Wedgetail on par with GlobalEye/CAEW and still make a profit. Maybe they'll choose to sell it at a loss. But I doubt it. And then there's lifecycle costs too.

Should be noted that it Northrop was building the Wedgetail today and it hadn't started in Australia, they probably would have gone with a large business or regional jet for the application too. There's a reason so many of these SIGINT/ELINT, Ground Surveillance and Comms Relay aircraft are all on Globals or Gulfstreams.



Where do you get these numbers? I'd love to see them. I think you substantially underestimate how many people are involved in final assembly and the whole supply chain before that. I don't know actual numbers. But I am willing to bet a paycheque that "Boeing as a whole" doesn't employ more Canadians than Bombardier's supply chain and final assembly business. Not to mention that isn't just Boeing and Bombardier, but also the radar teams in the mix. Northrop Grumman, Saab and L3Harris will have to count their contribution here.

What is debatable, is how much of a difference 5-6 aircraft make. But if we're talking about AEW, VVIP and potentially ELINT/SIGINT fleet, we maybe talking up to 15 aircraft, of which up to 10 are missionized beyond transport. Not insignificant to Canada's aerospace and defence sector as a package.




the Boeing 737-700ER is 90 mil, the

The 737 is so much bigger than a Global 6500 that there's practically no chance Boeing/Northrop Grumman can price the Wedgetail on par with GlobalEye/CAEW and still make a profit. Maybe they'll choose to sell it at a loss. But I doubt it. And then there's lifecycle costs too.

Should be noted that it Northrop was building the Wedgetail today and it hadn't started in Australia, they probably would have gone with a large business or regional jet for the application too. There's a reason so many of these SIGINT/ELINT, Ground Surveillance and Comms Relay aircraft are all on Globals or Gulfstreams.



Where do you get these numbers? I'd love to see them. I think you substantially underestimate how many people are involved in final assembly and the whole supply chain before that. I don't know actual numbers. But I am willing to bet a paycheque that "Boeing as a whole" doesn't employ more Canadians than Bombardier's supply chain and final assembly business. Not to mention that isn't just Boeing and Bombardier, but also the radar teams in the mix. Northrop Grumman, Saab and L3Harris will have to count their contribution here.

What is debatable, is how much of a difference 5-6 aircraft make. But if we're talking about AEW, VVIP and potentially ELINT/SIGINT fleet, we maybe talking up to 15 aircraft, of which up to 10 are missionized beyond transport. Not insignificant to Canada's aerospace and defence sector as a package.



The MESA radar is actually getting on. It makes up in power what it lacks in efficiency. But there are concerns, even in the US, about the its longevity. There was even talk of an upgrade project to GaN. But the urgency of the AWACS replacement kinda drove the American/NATO timeline. Canada has no such rush. So arguably, there's room to wait for either better MESA on the Wedgetail or integration of the conformal radar on CAEW or even another GlobalEye upgrade.

The base price of the two of the aircraft are not that far apart

A Boeing list price of B737-700 ER is $89 mill US
A Bombardier list of a Global 8000 is $78 mill US

I would also put to you the spares issue could be very different thousands and thousand of 737 made and parts are everywhere vs tens of bespoke Globals.

 

[ytz]

By the way, those three King Air MAISRs we got? The US Army is looking to replace its King Air surveillance fleet with a solution likely based on the Global 6500.

Here’s when the US Army will pick next long-range spy plane

The service is divesting its entire turboprop-based ISR fleet, developed for counterinsurgency, in favor of a high-speed jet with high-tech sensors.

www.defensenews.com

They don't think King Air aircraft are useful in near-peer.

US Army closes in on faster jet to replace Guardrail aircraft

As Artemis and Ares fly in Europe and the Pacific theater, the service is nearing a decision on what its future fixed-wing ISR capability will look like.

www.defensenews.com

This is kinda why I argue there's a case to be made for 6x AEW, 3x ISR and 4x VVIP fleet, all based on the Global and all based in Ottawa. Alternatively, I guess just the ISR and VVIP fleets keep commonality and E-7s share commonality with P-8s.

 

[ytz]

The base price of the two of the aircraft are not that far apart

A Boeing list price of B737-700 ER is $89 mill US
A Bombardier list of a Global 8000 is $78 mill US

I would also put to you the spares issue could be very different thousands and thousand of 737 made and parts are everywhere vs tens of bespoke Globals.

It's using a Global 6500. Not an 8000.

Look up the price of the 6500. And then look up the MTOW and guess why it's that specific number.

Also, $11M is not exactly chump change. The profit margin on airliners is usually smaller than that.

And with almost a thousand frames sold globally for the Global 5000 family, it's not like getting parts is difficult.

 

[Spencer100]

Plus sales for this one.

Saab Secures Deal For Third Swedish GlobalEye | Aviation Week Network

The Swedish government has signed a contract with Saab to acquire a third GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system aircraft.

aviationweek.com

But here is some other points. The entire Boeing footprint in Canada including suppliers tiers one though 3 is larger than the Bombardier footprint. Boeing is just soo much bigger with so many more product lines. Bombardier is not the company it was was, it just makes one product biz jets with two lines in 6 sizes. Challengers and Globals. It is a now small boutique high end manufacturer, that's it.

Its no longer has the ability to create or design a 'new" clean page plane....(some may say it never had) As I have pointed out before they have only one area for mid term growth and that is defence and government work. (and of course in service sustainment) First defence is generally cost plus and second more importantly Bombardier has been released from their previously "no major defence" work agreement with the government.

 

[ytz]

The entire Boeing footprint in Canada including suppliers tiers one though 3 is larger than the Bombardier footprint. Boeing is just soo much bigger with so many more product lines. Bombardier is not the company it was was, it just makes one product biz jets with two lines in 6 sizes. Challengers and Globals. It is a now small boutique high end manufacturer, that's it.

In any competition, the evaluation will be all bid partners together. So for example, what happens when Bombardier and L3Harris team up? It's not just Boeing vs. Bombardier. Boeing also can't double count IRBs, they've used for past projects. I don't think it's nearly as straight forward as some here think. And most foreign OEMs try really hard to minimize IRB commitments so that their global supply chains don't get messed up.

 

[Good2Golf]

149 for TacHel, MH and RWSAR

That actually was a thing in the late-80s, right up until the Army signed the (original) Chinook’s death warrant. There was a joint project amongst CADO/DMA/DLA for 65x EH-101: 35 NSA (new chipboard aircraft), 15 NSH (new SAR helicopter) and 15 NTH (new transport helicopter). The Army’s decision to neither update the existing Chinook fleet to D-model configuration nor to replace it, led to the NTH portion of the joint EH-101 project to be removed, leaving only 35 NSA and 15 NSH…which we know eventually was cancelled then 15 NSH tendered as watered down EH-101s and NSA morphed (glacially) into MHP.

 

[KevinB]

I’m still seeing the advantage of Hawk / Hook combo with no 146/148/149

 

[ytz]

That actually was a thing in the late-80s, right up until the Army signed the (original) Chinook’s death warrant. There was a joint project amongst CADO/DMA/DLA for 65x EH-101: 35 NSA (new chipboard aircraft), 15 NSH (new SAR helicopter) and 15 NTH (new transport helicopter). The Army’s decision to neither update the existing Chinook fleet to D-model configuration nor to replace it, led to the NTH portion of the joint EH-101 project to be removed, leaving only 35 NSA and 15 NSH…which we know eventually was cancelled then 15 NSH tendered as watered down EH-101s and NSA morphed (glacially) into MHP.

I know the history. It's sad that we missed out. I know DAR is gearing up to try this again with either V-280 or NGRC or even the Defiant (if it matures). Hence why we have GLLE to buy us some runway till next gen rotorcraft actually enter service. Hopefully, politics doesn't mess it up again.

 

[PuckChaser]

I know the history. It's sad that we missed out. I know DAR is gearing up to try this again with either V-280 or NGRC or even the Defiant (if it matures). Hence why we have GLLE to buy us some runway till next gen rotorcraft actually enter service. Hopefully, politics doesn't mess it up again.

For the love of God why are we wasting time on a competition that has already been run at a larger scale for the US Army.

 

[Good2Golf]

For the love of God why are we wasting time on a competition that has already been run at a larger scale for the US Army.

Canada’s gonna Canada…but to be fair, US Army FVL (future vertical lift) project and to some degree similarly NATO’s NGRC (next generation rotorcraft capability) programs are going to be far more integrated in a variety of capability streams than Canada will likely ever achieve, so a more classically platform-focused outcome will likely rule the day in Canada. The US Army will have a significantly increased share of increased systems into the aviation mix, hence why FARA (future, armed reconnaissance aircraft) [future Apache / Kiowa Warrior replacement] subset to FVL was cancelled. FVL will include numerous UAS/UCAV system-of-systems. I’m not sure Canada has the appetite for that. GLLE might be as good as it gets for a long while…

It’s taken a very long time for Canada to come aboard aerospace technology…MAISR close to a decade after it started…so long that the U.S. Army has actually retired its King Air fleets and moved on to mission specialized business jets like the Bombardier Global Express. UAS? JUSTAS RPAS has taken so long that the MQ-9B is in the backside of production and in the path to sunsetting as US DOD looks at the next technological bound of HAT (human-autonomous teaming) will look like. Heck, if Canada waits long enough, it could buy FVL FLRAA V-280 when the U.S. Army replaces them in the 2050s with whatever next rotary systems are out into service.

 

[dapaterson]

US integrated programs end up with parts being made everywhere, increasing cost but ensuring political support, and make critical trade offs to appease the USMC or other minor stakeholders.

The JSF is the poster child for that failed approach.

 

[Good2Golf]

You forgot to put quotes around “failed.” Anybody with stocks in any of the partner company’s supporting the program would likely use another adjective.

 

[dapaterson]

You forgot to put quotes around “failed.” Anybody with stocks in any of the partner company’s supporting the program would likely use another adjective.

Companies making money should not be the assessment for success for military procurement.

Years late, overly complex, tradeoffs to appease the jarheads...

 

[Good2Golf]

Companies making money should not be the assessment for success for military procurement.

You don’t get capability made by volunteerism.

Interested in your term ‘failed.’ According to what/whose metrics?

Big picture - F35 was to be the next generation version of a light, multi-role jet all the while being part of the future digitized battlespace as a data/knowledge node in addition to being a kinetic platform…the next step from the F-16 into a digitized system-of-systems. How is it not contributing to that capability development?

 

[dapaterson]

Major program delays. Deferred capabilities. Forced "commonality" forcing re-engineering that makes A and C models less safe. Increased costs because of the wide dispersion of the supply chain.

 

[suffolkowner]

Its still the best fighter out there by a country mile is it not? Maybe the B was a mistake, but I doubt anyone that ends up having to use it on their carriers will say that. Matches the F16 kinetically and the F18 on AoA. Fails on operational cost for sure but that was always a pipe dream IMO. Cutting the RR made for a captive customer base too