Emvar Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Well I think Boeing will not win even if they get the ruling against Bombardier. This is the Canadian poster aerospace boy...... because of that we will have to concede and purchase the interm F-35A Arrow 2. The aurguement being that we are protecting Canadian jobs..... as for tankers the RAAF operates A330-200 Tankers. No reason we can't purchase airbus for that. Interm helo purchases can go forward without boeing also as the griffon replacement can be the UH-1Y and potentially attack helicopters AH-1Z using Bell TexTron Canada. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 10 hours ago, Don said: Some reader comments from the above linked Australian article that were interesting (seems Canadian procurement bungling is well known the world over): "...The bigger issue here, is that Canada is stuck in a perpetual loop and can’t get it’s act together in deciding on a permanent replacement for their Classic fleet, which is on average a few years older than our own. All a handful of ex RAAF Classic Hornets is going to do is put off making a final decision for a few more years, eg, let the next Canadian Government deal with the problem!..." "I wouldn’t say they [Canada] are smart with their defence budget , more like no clue and very tight. They are not protecting their own people by constantly cutting funding. I think having a full and open fighter tender is a smart move though. My guess is the will go with the F-35 anyway..." This one was bang on... "...And as far as the politics in Canada (and I’ve followed Canadian politics in relation to Defence for many years), they are much worse than here, seriously! Regardless of what we think of our politicians (and I don’t think much of them either), they never agree on anything, but they for the most part they agree on ‘defence’, for the most part we have a bipartisan approach to defence here, both sides usually support the other when it comes to defence acquisitions, I can’t remember the last time one side threatened to cancel a procurement decision of the other side. Canada is the complete opposite, both sides use defence procurement decisions to bang the other side over the head with, hence both sides are too scared to make decisions and why the replacement of their Classic Hornet fleet (just one example), is a never ending hot potato, it’s always easier for their ‘current’ Government to find a way to ‘defer’ the decision to the following Government..." Sums it up, except the Conservatives buy us equipment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 4 hours ago, Emvar said: Well I think Boeing will not win even if they get the ruling against Bombardier. This is the Canadian poster aerospace boy...... because of that we will have to concede and purchase the interm F-35A Arrow 2. The aurguement being that we are protecting Canadian jobs..... as for tankers the RAAF operates A330-200 Tankers. No reason we can't purchase airbus for that. Interm helo purchases can go forward without boeing also as the griffon replacement can be the UH-1Y and potentially attack helicopters AH-1Z using Bell TexTron Canada. I don't think Boeing will win, but it is the US court system, so you never know. Should have bought the UH-1Y and AH-1Z in the first place, instead of the Griffon. We won't buy the F-35, the government is too pigheaded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 I'm curious as others have alluded to that the well is tainted regarding Boeing regardless of decision. So he's going to have to swallow pride with F-35 promises or the Boeing fight, unless they really do pursue the RAAF option. BTW give Australia a lot of credit they are going to be a mini aerial super power Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Scooby said: I don't think Boeing will win, but it is the US court system, so you never know. Should have bought the UH-1Y and AH-1Z in the first place, instead of the Griffon. We won't buy the F-35, the government is too pigheaded. Ahhh I think there may be an about face. Very dim but there is a save face option. They still don't commit yet they had no choice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Scooby... I agree on The Venom and Viper. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aussie_superbug Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 6 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said: BTW give Australia a lot of credit they are going to be a mini aerial super power TT. Most of our major defence procurement spending in the last 15 yrs, has come when the Australian Liberal Party has been in Government. We realized with our troop contribution in the sandbox and Afghanistan, we relied heavily onothers for our strategic airlift capability, just for example but your right we do have some neat equipment coming online, but i digress from the topic at hand That being said, there is a lot of people here thinking that the JSF is not the right choice for us, The Howard government at the time made that choice for us with out opening it up for tender, Like they did when the F-111 was purchased off the design board without even a blink of the eye ( alot of that was due what threat Communism posed at the time) which SAAB, Dassault were sorely pi**ed off about, and IIRC, tried to take it to court to evoke a fly off competition, but it was dismissed and the SF is here to stay I am one of the few that like it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Found this on YouTube while looking up videos to play while at the bench: Its a little over a month old and nothing earth shattering. Interesting to have on in the background while working at the bench. But honestly, the viewer comments are highly entertaining (I wasn't aware that Avro...yes Avro... was still around and may partner with Saab to produce the Gripen in Canada......must be true because I read it on the internet...). Regards, Don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris L Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Currious about the Gripen . That video makes it awfull mouth watering to the people in need , but I thought that this aircraft had rather short legs and Canada is a huge country . Would that actually work out ? Cheers, Christian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Chris L said: Currious about the Gripen . That video makes it awfull mouth watering to the people in need , but I thought that this aircraft had rather short legs and Canada is a huge country . Would that actually work out ? Cheers, Christian The RCAF has zero interest in the Gripen. So much so that Saab stopped bothering to bid it and withdrew it a couple years ago. Avionics wise the Gripen E looks nice. In the area of kinematics it's T/W is actually worse than the original. It weighs 8000 kilos empty at last check and it's got one super hornet engine. It wins hands down In marketing. There are people on the internet who think it outclasses the F-22 and costs only 4700 bucks an hour to run. Saab is wonderful at tricking people who don't look too closely. I could go on but that's the short version Edited September 23, 2017 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 39 minutes ago, Chris L said: Currious about the Gripen . That video makes it awfull mouth watering to the people in need , but I thought that this aircraft had rather short legs and Canada is a huge country . Would that actually work out ? Cheers, Christian No. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris L Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Well , being only a ground mech , I didn't think so....and I have never seen a single picture of one with bags on either . Cheers, Christian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Chris L said: Well , being only a ground mech , I didn't think so....and I have never seen a single picture of one with bags on either . Cheers, Christian In case you were wondering Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris L Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 So , it does have external fuel capability . They always look so much meaner without them but in the end , Sweden is not that large. Cheers, Christian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 51 minutes ago, Chris L said: So , it does have external fuel capability . They always look so much meaner without them but in the end , Sweden is not that large. Cheers, Christian The original A and B models didn't even have a refueling probe which is pretty crazy to think about. But as you point out it was a point interceptor for a small nation Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mfezi Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Chris L said: So , it does have external fuel capability . They always look so much meaner without them but in the end , Sweden is not that large. Cheers, Christian In the SAAF (that is South African Air Force, not Swedish Air Force) the centre line tank is virtually always carried. Wing tanks are occasionally carried. Centre + wing tanks - also not uncommon. I think the only time I have seen them fly without any external tank was at air shows. In fact, I'm so used to seeing them with external tanks that it almost looks unnatural when I see one without any tanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedCrown Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) https://globalnews.ca/news/3770891/bombardier-duty-us-commerce-boeing-cs100/ Your move, Justin. Edited September 27, 2017 by RedCrown Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 58 minutes ago, RedCrown said: https://globalnews.ca/news/3770891/bombardier-duty-us-commerce-boeing-cs100/ Your move, Justin. Ouch! It's certainly a big blow to Bombardier. But its just round one and it will drag on for months in the courts and in the end anything can happen. But the damage to Bombardier during the next few months could be extensive. Interesting times ahead for Junior. He better get his big boy drama teacher clothes on... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 219% duty? How is that legal? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 2 hours ago, RedCrown said: https://globalnews.ca/news/3770891/bombardier-duty-us-commerce-boeing-cs100/ Your move, Justin. Oh was Boeing not the good guy they were lead to believe all these years? Australia, now is the time to increase the price on your legacy hornets. Demand is about to skyrocket! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 7 hours ago, Scooby said: 219% duty? How is that legal? Its legal FOR the states as long as they can screw over other companies. Funny, read in the newest Combat Aircraft how the USN is FUNDING the level three Super Hornet upgrades. Is not the USN the US government? Is this not the exact thing Boieng is complaining Bombardier is getting. Boeing is not playing right, fair, or anything. This is BS. Especially since the poor hard done by Americans were asking for 80% duty. How does this screw jobs in other countries "court" possibly thing 219% is ethical? So not only is the American administration going after North Korea, Iran, football players, CANADA is now a target?....Oh wait, we all ready are with these BS NAFTA challenges. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Scooby said: 219% duty? How is that legal? Easy - take billions in state aid, dump a poorly selling jet to Delta at below cost in a desperate attempt to salvage a dying program. It’s all good. Just note before all the crying starts, a final ruling is a long way down the road and many things can happen in the interim. I do wonder if this will put a temporary hold on the Delta order? Edited September 27, 2017 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Hmm, I guess I shouldn't bring any models of Boeing products up to CapCon this weekend... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) Like "11bee" wrote above, this is just a preliminary ruling. The big ruling isn't expected until spring/early summer 2018 and it could still go in anyone's favor. But for the short term...the uncertainty of dealing with and investing in Bombardier in the next 6 months coupled with its hurting light rail division which also took a big hit yesterday, could severely damage the company in the long run. And has also been pointed out, what is Delta's move? No doubt investment in Bombardier will feel it, and there will be layoffs and cutbacks (at least temporarily) at Bombardier. In terms of this thread and the F-35, there are interesting times ahead for Canada and JT in selecting the new fighter. Time is of the essence as the CF-18's aren't going to last forever. How can Junior proceed with the Boeing SH now? He really can't as it would be certain political suicide. But he's painted himself into a corner with the F-35 by making it an election promise of "not going to buy it". If he goes ahead with buying the F-35 he does have a small "out" thanks to Boeing but he still runs the risk of backlash from the vocal anti-F-35 crowd. Used legacy Hornets from Australia? Possible. But how long before someone in the Canadian media points out that used or not they're still a Boeing product and is throwing good money at a used and temporary fix really a good idea? Canadian CFMIG-29's or CFSU-30's...? <-------interesting what if's. Much entertainment awaits. EDIT: Spelling. Edited September 27, 2017 by Don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/cf-18-upgrade-plan-more-critical-as-bombardier-boeing-spat-puts-super-hornet-purchase-in-doubt Regards the new fighter selection. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.