• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Seeking an excuse to spend Defence $$ on a Bombardier plane

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,438
Points
1,160
BOHICA

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-ottawas-fighter-jet-dilemma-might-be-exactly-what-ailing-bombardier-needs
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,144
Points
1,060
We can get the RCAF an air-version of the LSVW.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,118
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Boeing and Airbus get significant direct and indirect subsidies.  It's seems to be pretty common in the industry. 
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,144
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
11,577
Points
1,090
Like we are bailing out shipyards on both coasts? They are utterly uncompetitive yet getting billions above market price.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
115
Points
630
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,144
Points
1,060
What's old is new again, RCAF wants F-35, we'll get whatever POS a company will let Bombardier build.
 

MarkOttawa

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
147
Points
710
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,438
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
366
Points
930
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,438
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,118
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,438
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
7,015
Points
1,010
I am surprised that no one has yet suggested that we make MPAs out of C series jets....
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,118
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
11,577
Points
1,090
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.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,872
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
11,577
Points
1,090
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.
 
Top