The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[MilEME09]

I would not give our boys good odds if they are against a S-300 battery or two. Or a 400 for that matter

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Loachman]

No.  They will not buy an aircraft that is under development to avoid buying an aircraft that is under development.

Oh, no? Place your bets, please - this is a Liberal government that made a campaign promise not to buy F35. A Super Hornet is, in their eyes, a Super Hornet, regardless of any distinction between variants with that name.

They know how wide open that would leave them to attack by even the ignorant ... not to mention the legal attack that would incite from team F-35.

Do they? Do they really care? They just picked the least suitable of two SAR aircraft, which fails to perform to required standards and may - should - be challenged in court.

We will get whatever is in production and coming off the lines.

Which may well be the pricey version by then. Boeing's production line will be driven by USN requirements.

 

[McG]

Boeing has indicated it is at least a year away from doing a low rate initial production of two block III Advanced Super Hornets.  If the USN drives production in this direction, they will consume the line of production as it ramps-up. This aircraft will not be ready for when our government wants its interim fighters.  This aircraft can compete against the F35 when some future government runs a competition.

 

[kev994]

A Super Hornet is, in their eyes, a Super Hornet,

I would go further to say a Super Hornet is a Hornet as far as they are concerned.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Worth keeping in mind: whatever our acquisition cost for (non-Super) Super Hornets there is unlikely to be any serious cost saving, if any at all, per unit over the F-35A.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[suffolkowner]

Do they? Do they really care? They just picked the least suitable of two SAR aircraft, which fails to perform to required standards and may - should - be challenged in court.

Do you think the Liberals had that much influence on the FWSAR? I was inclined to give that to the previous gov't?

 

[jmt18325]

Do you think the Liberals had that much influence on the FWSAR? I was inclined to give that to the previous gov't?

I was under the impression that everything was basically done by the time the Liberals got there.  The specs were drawn out, the selection committee was made up, and the fairness monitor was in place.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Very likely F-35A win in Belgium (interoperability with Netherlands' F-35As)--meanwhile RCAF?

Boeing withdraws from Belgium's F-16 fighter replacement competition

The US-based aircraft manufacturer Boeing announced this morning [April 19] that it will not compete for Beligum's F-16 fighter jets replacement program. Boeing was supposed to answer the RfGP issued last month with its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
 
"Boeing informed the Belgian government that it will not participate in its bidders conference today, nor respond to the request for proposals for a new fighter aircraft," (the "Request for governmental Proposal", RfGP), sent last month by the Belgian Ministry of Defense to five state agencies - two American and three European - each representing a type of aircraft, the US company said in a statement to the Belgian news agency Belga.

"We regret that after reviewing the request we do not see an opportunity to compete on a truly level playing field with the [...] F/A-18 Super Hornet." the company added, describing the aircraft as "extremely capable" for its cost effectiveness.

Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros.

Only four platforms are still competing: Lockheed Martin’s F-35A stealth fighter, the Rafale F3R from Dassault Aviation, the Eurofighter Typhoon proposed by the eponym European consortium, and the JAS 39E/F Gripen manufactured by the Swedish company Saab.
http://airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2017/april/3408-boeing-withdraws-from-belgium-s-f-16-fighter-replacement-competition.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Very likely F-35A win in Belgium (interoperability with Netherlands' F-35As)--meanwhile RCAF?

Boeing withdraws from Belgium's F-16 fighter replacement competition

The US-based aircraft manufacturer Boeing announced this morning [April 19] that it will not compete for Beligum's F-16 fighter jets replacement program. Boeing was supposed to answer the RfGP issued last month with its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
 
"Boeing informed the Belgian government that it will not participate in its bidders conference today, nor respond to the request for proposals for a new fighter aircraft," (the "Request for governmental Proposal", RfGP), sent last month by the Belgian Ministry of Defense to five state agencies - two American and three European - each representing a type of aircraft, the US company said in a statement to the Belgian news agency Belga.

"We regret that after reviewing the request we do not see an opportunity to compete on a truly level playing field with the [...] F/A-18 Super Hornet." the company added, describing the aircraft as "extremely capable" for its cost effectiveness.

Belgium approved in last December the purchase of 34 new fighter aircraft to be acquired from Spring 2018 for an amount of 3,573 billion euros.

Only four platforms are still competing: Lockheed Martin’s F-35A stealth fighter, the Rafale F3R from Dassault Aviation, the Eurofighter Typhoon proposed by the eponym European consortium, and the JAS 39E/F Gripen manufactured by the Swedish company Saab.
http://airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2017/april/3408-boeing-withdraws-from-belgium-s-f-16-fighter-replacement-competition.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Quirky]

Very likely F-35A win in Belgium (interoperability with Netherlands' F-35As)--meanwhile RCAF?

Mark
Ottawa

Boeing couldn't find anyone stupid enough besides us to buy the damn thing.

 

[YZT580]

Boeing didn't come looking for us, Trudeau and company went to them begging to make a deal.  No sales pitch required

 

[a_majoor]

Well, that's not too promising for training. OTOH, we could lease the entire RCAF inventory of F-18s to the USAF, Navy or Marines to operate as adversary forces. They might even be willing to pay for maintenance so they can have a large enough adversary fleet....

http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170418-F35.html

F-35 Needs More Potent Adversary Services

ARLINGTON, Va. — The F-35 Lightning II strike fighter is easily able to counter the adversary services aircraft thrown at it in numbers, said an official of an adversary services contractor, who added that the industry is facing challenges in coming up with a realistic threat aircraft for training for high-end combat.

“Nothing gets close to these things [the F-35s]” said Jeffrey Parker, a former Air Force fighter pilot and chief executive of ATAC LLC, a Textron company that provides opposing aircraft for U.S. fighter squadrons and electronic threat simulation against Navy strike groups. “I’ve flown against the [Marine] F-35Bs down at [Marine Corps Air Station] Beaufort [S.C.] It’s an impressive airplane. Even in the hands of students, it’s a very capable fighter.”

Parker also said that increased adversary services are needed by the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to reduce the fatigue-life toll on use of the services’ own front-line fighters and their limited flight hours in the adversary role.

The Navy “has a shortage of readiness training, so they’re reaching out to industry to try to solve that problem,” Parker said. “They’re using too much ‘gray air’ [warfighting aircraft].”

He said each adversary aircraft that flies 250 hours a year is the equivalent of freeing an F/A-18 Super Hornet for fleet use for a year. Ten ATAC aircraft in use for 250 hours each can extend the lives of 10 Super Hornets per year.

The Navy has three squadrons of dedicated adversary aircraft with third-generation F-5 or fourth-generation F/A-18 fighters and the Marine Corps fields one squadron of F-5s. The Navy’s Topgun school also uses F/A-18 and F-16 adversary aircraft. The Air Force operates two adversary F-16 squadrons. Companies like ATAC use foreign-built aircraft such as the supersonic F-21 Kfir and slower Hawker Hunter to supplement with adversary services.

“The Navy squadrons are hurting on aircraft,” Parker said. “They don’t have enough. They’re also trying to upgrade their training from third-generation aircraft like F-5s to fourth-generation aircraft like F/A-18s and F-16s.

“The aircraft shortages in training are made worse by the F-35 fifth-generation aircraft, which you need a lot of ‘bad guys’ for,” he said.

Parker told Seapower that more fourth-generation fighters are needed to meet the increasing demand for adversary services, but that “not enough fourth-gen aircraft in the world are available to industry. Nobody can provide it all, nor can all of us [the adversary companies] provide it together, at least in the next five years or so.”

Because of restrictions in U.S. law, the adversary contractors cannot purchase or lease fourth-generation fighters from the U.S. aircraft in desert storage. As such, they go to foreign nations like Israel for retired jets to bring to the United States.

The Navy has issued a draft Request for Proposals for fourth-generation adversary services for the Naval Aviation Warfighting Center at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev., looking for F-16- or SU-27-like capability with an upgraded radar.

“There’s only one category of radar [that can meet specifications] — an AESA [electronically scanned array radar],” he said.

For cost reasons, Parker said, single-engine jets are needed, rather than two-engine aircraft.
The ability of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 to track and engage large numbers of aircraft means that large numbers of adversary aircraft are needed to provide a realistic scenario for training the pilots. For example, the Air Force stations a number of T-38 supersonic trainers at Langley Air Force Base, Va., to provide enough bogeys to challenge the F-22s based there.

“The Raptor is such an uneven fight, that if you send out two Raptors against anything else, there’s no challenge, no work for the pilots to do. For a ‘two-ship’ they want 12 bandits.

“What we see going on is a maturation of the industry” he said. “By going to the fourth-generation level, the Navy is acknowledging that these programs are going to be around and integrated at the highest levels, because now they have radar; pulling 9 gs [nine times the force of gravity] at the merge; [and] helmet off-boresight capability.”

 

[RaceAddict]

Boeing didn't come looking for us, Trudeau and company went to them begging to make a deal.

And now Boeing is lobbying the Trump administration to impose a 126% trade tariff on aircraft imports to effectively kill the CSeries sale to Delta. Since our government now has a stake in the success of the CSeries, it would be a little bit of a conflict of interest (I can't think of the actual economics term) to go ahead with a purchase from a company that is selling you a product with one hand while trying to stab you in the back with the other. :

 

[jmt18325]

And now Boeing is lobbying the Trump administration to impose a 126% trade tariff on aircraft imports to effectively kill the CSeries sale to Delta. Since our government now has a stake in the success of the CSeries, it would be a little bit of a conflict of interest (I can't think of the actual economics term) to go ahead with a purchase from a company that is selling you a product with one hand while trying to stab you in the back with the other. :

It's just business.

 

[NavyShooter]

It's just business.

It's just politics.

 

[MilEME09]

And as this site's members predicted.

Canada threatens to scrap Boeing contracts amid Bombardier pricing row


Canada suggested on Thursday it could scrap plans to buy Boeing fighter jets if the United States backed Boeing’s claims that Canadian plane maker Bombardier dumped jetliners in the U.S. market.

“Canada is reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing,” Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement released late on Thursday.

Canada “strongly disagrees” with the U.S. Commerce Department decision to investigate Boeing’s claims that Bombardier sold planes below cost in the United States and benefited unfairly from Canadian government subsidies, the statement added.

The remarks came after the U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation into Boeing’s claims, and pointed to the potential for rising trade tension between the two countries. Boeing and Canada are in talks over the purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighters this year or in early 2018.

President Donald Trump has called for a stronger stance on trade with his “America First” policy that got a boost on Thursday when Commerce formally announced its intent to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The Commerce probe in Boeing’s case, which was expected, parallels a probe by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) into Boeing’s allegations that Bombardier sold 75 CSeries planes to Delta Air Lines last year at a price well below cost. Bombardier has rejected the allegations and the two sides clashed at an ITC hearing on Thursday on whether the companies’ competing plane models are even comparable.

“While assuring the case is decided strictly on a full and fair assessment of the facts, we will do everything in our power to stand up for American companies and their workers,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement.
“Isn’t much competition”

The Commerce investigation was announced as USITC staff heard arguments on Thursday from representatives for Boeing, Bombardier and Delta Air Lines Inc, which has sided with Bombardier against Boeing.

The former head of Boeing’s commercial aircraft unit told the panel that government subsidies for Bombardier allowed the Canadian company to sell small, 100- to 150-seat jet liners at prices Boeing could not match.

“It is untenable for us to continue competing with government subsidized competitors” Boeing Vice Chairman Raymond L. Conner said. “Bombardier is very close to forcing us out of (the 100- to 150-seat market) altogether.”

Bombardier representative Peter Lichtenbaum countered that Boeing’s claims were overblown.

“Boeing has not suffered any lost sales or lost revenues due to competition with Bombardier,” he told the panel. “There just isn’t much competition between Bombardier’s CSeries and Boeing’s products.”

Delta agreed last year to buy up to 75 Bombardier CSeries planes, a deal worth an estimated $5.6 billion based on the list price of about $71.8 million.

How U.S. regulators decide the dispute will have a significant impact on the market for small, regional jetliners in North America and globally, and on U.S.-Canadian relations.

The CSeries is critical to Bombardier’s future. If the United States finds that Canadian subsidies for Bombardier have harmed Boeing and imposes duties, demand for the CSeries in the United States could suffer and airlines could pay more.

The disagreement between the two planemakers also adds frost to an increasingly chilly U.S.-Canadian trade relationship, along with disputes over Canadian softwood lumber and U.S. milk protein products.

Commerce said that if the investigations determine that CSeries planes were dumped in the U.S. market or unfairly subsidized, it would collect duties equal to the value of the benefits. Those duties would increase the cost of the Bombardier planes ordered by Delta.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3463536/canada-boeing-fighter-jets-bombardier-dumping/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If the Liberals actually saw this coming last year and put the Super Hornet order down so as to have a bargaining chip (anticipatory), I am willing to give them credit for playing a deeper level of chess than I had given them credit for.

Well played.

 

[Loachman]

Do you really think that they are that smart...?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Do you really think that they are that smart...?

How this unfolds will help tell us that ...

This, from the U.S. Commerce info-machine, for the record ...

Today (18 May 2017), U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the initiation of  new antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations to determine whether imports of 100- to 150-seat civil aircraft (civil aircraft) from Canada are being unfairly dumped in the United States, and whether Canadian producers are receiving alleged unfair subsidies.

The investigations were initiated following a petition filed by The Boeing Company on April 27 seeking relief of planned imports of Canadian civil aircraft.

“The U.S. market is the most open in the world, but we must take action if  our rules are being broken” said Secretary Ross. “While assuring the case is decided strictly on a full and fair assessment of the facts, we will do everything in our power to stand up for American companies and their workers.”

If the Commerce Department determines that Canadian civil aircraft are being dumped into the U.S. market, and/or receiving unfair government subsidies -- and the U.S. International Trade Commission determines that dumped and/or unfairly subsidized Canadian imports of civil aircraft into the United States are causing harm to the U.S. industry -- then the Commerce Department will impose duties on those imports in the amount of the dumping and/or unfair subsidization found to exist.

Although Canadian civil aircraft subject to these investigations have not yet been imported into the United States, an April 2016 press release announcing the sale of Canadian civil aircraft to a U.S. airline valued the order to be in excess of $5 billion.

The estimated dumping margin alleged by the petitioner is 79.82 percent and the unfair subsidies are estimated to be 79.41.  Commerce has initiated an investigation into 14 alleged subsidy programs. 

Click HERE  for a fact sheet on this trade case *.

Next Steps:

During the Commerce Department investigations into whether Canadian civil aircraft are being dumped and subsidized, the U.S. International Trade Commission will conduct its own investigations into whether the U.S. industry and its workforce are being harmed by such imports.  The ITC will make its preliminary determinations on or before June 12.  If the ITC preliminarily determines that there is threat of injury then the Commerce Department investigations will continue, with a preliminary countervailing duty determination in July 2017, followed by a preliminary antidumping determination in October 2017, unless these deadlines are extended.

If the Commerce Department preliminarily determines that dumping or subsidization is occurring, then it will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to start collecting cash deposits from all U.S. companies importing the subject civil aircraft from Canada.

Final determinations by the Commerce Department in these cases are scheduled for October 2017 for the countervailing duty investigation, and December 2017 for the antidumping duty investigation, but those dates may be extended.  If either the Commerce Department does not find that products are being dumped or unfairly subsidized, or the U.S. International Trade Commission does not find in its final determination there is harm to the U.S. industry, then the investigations will be terminated and no duties will be applied.

---

From January 20, 2017, through May 16, 2017, Commerce has initiated 44 antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.  Commerce currently maintains 390 antidumping and countervailing duty orders which provide relief to American companies and industries impacted by unfair trade.

Foreign companies that price their products in the U.S. market below the cost of production or below prices in their home markets are subject to “antidumping” (AD) duties.

Companies that receive unfair subsidies from their governments in the form of grants, loans, equity infusions, tax breaks and production inputs are subject to “countervailing duties” (CVD) aimed at directly countering those subsidies.

... as well as our info-machine's statement:

The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement:

“The aerospace industries of Canada and the United States are highly integrated and support good, middle class jobs on both sides of the border.

“We strongly disagree with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s decision to initiate anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations into imports of Canadian large civil aircraft.

“Boeing’s petition is clearly aimed at blocking Bombardier’s new aircraft, the CSeries, from entering the U.S. market. Boeing admits it does not compete with exports of the CS100 aircraft, so it is all the more difficult to see these allegations as legitimate, particularly with the dominance of the Boeing 737 family in the U.S. market.

“Furthermore, many of the CSeries suppliers are based in the United States. Components for the CSeries are supplied by American companies, directly supporting high-paying jobs in many U.S. states, including Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Washington, New York, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Colorado.

“Canada is reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing.

“Our government will defend the interests of Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace industry, and our aerospace workers.”

* - U.S Commerce info-machine Fact Sheet attached.

 

[Loachman]

How will we meet this alleged "fighter capability gap" if the decision goes against Bombardier, then? Obviously, that is of lesser importance to Liberals than Bombardier sales. What if Lockheed Martin offers a better deal than Boeing now?