Rifleman62 said:Ask an Expert:
Does the US Government have to approve the resale of Australian F-18's to Canada? All US arms sales must be approved, technology transfers etc. When the Australia purchased the Hornets was there a clause for eventual disposal?
If the US has to approve the proposed purchase, the US may refuse for a variety of reasons one of which is they want Cdn interoperability wrt NORAD, want more US jobs, etc.
Rifleman62 said:If I was betting, I would say the US will tell Canada it's the F-35 for interoperability, or at very least least the SH as it means more American employment. I hope the US tells this government that they cannot have the Oz F-18's.
Rifleman62 said:If I was betting, I would say the
USTrump administration will tell Canada it's the F-35 for interoperability, or at very least least the SH as it means more American employment. I hope the USTrump administration tells this government that they cannot have the Oz F-18's.
Baden Guy said:I think most of us agree with your comment. It's just the thought of the "Bully in Chief" doing the talking/dictating.
Something along the lines of how Trump is bullying his way through the NAFTA negotiations.
Trumpeter42 said:Just like the Chretien government did with the helicopters, Trudeau campaigned on not only 'no F-35', but on buying the F-18E SH instead.
The dispute with Boeing has scrapped the super hornet as a option I think. If Canada goes non stealth, it will just be the three european options.No he's in, and has to do something to not lose face over what he campaigned on, and not violate fair competition rules in procurements ... how to do that?
1- Invent an 'Interim Fighter Requirement' emergency that didn't exist before.
2- Sole source the SH for the interim buy, which he can do now because it's an immediate requirement
3- Promise a fair competition soon, not soon enough so the interim purchase isn't 'needed'
4- When the 'fair competition' happens, the SH will be the most reasonable choice because hey, we already operate them and have all the support/training in place. And Canada doesn't need stealth strike fighters anyways.
Of course, many people in the opposition, military, and public see through this 'plan', but it's too late to back out now.... until Boeing starts this stupid trade dispute. That solves the SH choice for the interim buy, but not the interim buy itself. Since they said that's so important, they still need to go through with it. So they have to go through the motions. Hopefully, no deal will be found that's right for this 'interim requirement' and they just accelerate the main competition to get the RCAF a new plane.
My take on the large competition is this: Decide first if we want a stealth strike fighter or not. If we do, then start the F-35 purchase now because it's the only horse in that race. Perhaps get a few on an early order to meet this 'interim requirement'. If we don't want a stealth strike fighter, then state that and have a competition between the SH and the 3 European options.
Not yet.Of course... this government still can't say that they're going to buy the F-35. At least not yet.
Altair said:Did he mention the super hornet during the campaign? I thought that that was only mentioned after they took power, when they manufactured the fighter capacity gap? The dispute with Boeing has scrapped the super hornet as a option I think. If Canada goes non stealth, it will just be the three european options.Not yet.
They wont dump the case. There is far more money to be made on the civilian aircraft than the military aircraft to Canada.Trumpeter42 said:While they didn't make the SH part of the election promise to not buy the F-35, when bringing up the premise that a fair competition would point to a better fighter for Canada's budget/needs, the example they always referred to was the SH. When you combine that with their new plan to sole source the SH for the invented interim buy, it's pretty clear what their intention was all along.
I think the only thing that might rescue the SH is if Boeing wakes up and withdraws the dumping case... Which they seem to be unwilling to do to rescue the potential fighter deal. If they win the dumping case, then no SH. If they lose the dumping case, I think still no SH as the bad blood will still be there.
OPINION: Is A380 fleet overtaking 747 a hollow victory?
News that the Airbus A380 fleet now exceeds that of the Boeing 747 will have been met with mixed emotions in Seattle.
The decline of the original “queen of the skies” – as a passenger airliner at least – relative to its nemesis is not a milestone that Boeing will have been savouring. But the circumstances in which it has happened certainly vindicate the US manufacturer’s long-held pessimism about the size of the ultra-large airliner (ULA) market.
When Airbus launched the A380 in 2000 as a game-changing double-decker to usurp the 747, the jumbo passenger fleet totalled around 740 aircraft, but production of the passenger 747-400 was already in decline.
Based on its assessment of market dynamics, Boeing told Airbus it needed its eyes tested if it truly believed there was sufficient market to invest in the launch of an all-new ULA. Airbus was convinced that congestion and infrastructure constraints would force the sector to shift upwards to cater for growth.
By the time the A380 made its service debut in 2007, the 747 passenger fleet had declined to 550 units. Even Airbus must be disappointed that it has taken the A380 10 years to overhaul its rival – especially given how slow sales of the 747-8I airliner version have been. With the entire “big-jet” A380/747 passenger fleet now standing at a little over 400 aircraft, the market has indeed shifted – but the wrong way for Airbus...
pretty much. It's the reason they are willing to sacrifice the potential sale of super hornets to Canada, because of the c300 and c500 end up competing with their last area of market dominance that's going to cost them a lot more in the long run than they get back from selling aircraft to canada.YZT580 said:They didn't concede the jumbo market, they gave it to Airbus on a platter. The development of the B747-400 was simply to ensure that they had competition in that zone without spending a lot of scarce development money: the 787 was the aircraft they had their money on and in. Boeing's analysis indicated that the day of the jumbo was over. People didn't want hub and spoke with the sitting around in terminals that was involved but wanted to get to destination and most destinations couldn't and still don't support super-large aircraft. They were right too. There are fewer A380 and B747 combined than there were B747 at the peak of their popularity. Like 300 fewer.
With the share of firm orders for re-engined single-aisle aircraft still tilted heavily in Airbus's favour, Boeing has come to the Paris air show intent on showcasing the slow-selling 737 Max 9 and launching the largest version of the 737 yet, the Max 10.
Less than two months from its debut flight, the first 737 Max 9 flew across the Atlantic to appear in the static display at Le Bourget. Not far away in the static park, Airbus is displaying its A321neo, the aircraft that provoked Boeing to launch a new and even larger version of the 50-year-old single-aisle with the proposed 737 Max 10X.
Boeing's predicament in the single-aisle orders battle is clear. As of the end of May, Airbus has amassed a firm order backlog of 5,054 A320neo-family aircraft compared with Boeing's tally of 3,714 for the 737 Max family...
MarkOttawa said:Altair, actually no "market dominance"--big problem for Boeing is that so far the Airbus A320neo family is beating Boeing's 737 MAX. So C300, and maybe C500, most unwelcome for Boeing in this segment:
Altair said:They wont dump the case. There is far more money to be made on the civilian aircraft than the military aircraft to Canada.
They will fight it because Bombardier is edging up to them with their C series jets. not the C100, which was sold to delta, but the C300 and C500 are going to be awfully close to the seat count of their mid sized planes. They wont concede market share there, after effectively conceding the Jumbo jet market to Airbus.
SeaKingTacco said:It is my understanding that the military and civilian divisions of Boeing barely speak to each other- they might as well be separate companies. It is not surprising that one side of Boeing would make a business decision that makes life difficult for other divisions.
"This commercial trade dispute is very important to us. We're not going to back down from it," said Leanne Caret, CEO of Boeing's defense, space and security business, in an exclusive interview with CNBC. "I hope that it doesn't impact our defense sale, but we're willing to deal with whatever the outcome is."