[lenaitch]

It seems everything is 'next generation' these days. The CP-140 Aurora airframes are 45 years old. I'm sure the CAF could wait another decade to see what Bombardier can put in the air, and maybe another five or so to make it fully operationally acceptable. The short answer is Boeing has an aircraft in proven service, Bombardier has a picture.

Larger militaries can afford to fund clean-sheet development that sometimes doesn't work out. Canada can't; particularly given our habit of running kit long past its best before date.

 

[kEiThZ]

Bombardier Defense and General Dynamics Mission Systems–Canada have been working on a next-generation multi-mission patrol aircraft based on the Global 6500 platform (see below).

It takes literally years (closer to a decade) to develop aircraft like the P-8. And that's for companies with a ton of experience, which Bombardier has literally zero of (in this domain). They've helped build aircraft with sensors before. But they've never built aircraft that carry ordinance. This is not a small problem. If your radar isn't tuned right, it could set off bombs on the aircraft. Even experienced companies have had missiles launch off the rail uncommanded because of some stray emission. On the less catastrophic front, there's huge issues making sure the emitters aren't interfering with each other, they provide coverage necessary, etc. All that to say that a brochure saying that are working on an airplane is not the same as an actual billion dollar development program with lots of engineering and testing, which Bombardier does not have.

As for inflight refueling a patrol aircraft based on the Global 8000 platform would have a range of 8,000 nautical miles which translates into almost 16 hours of continuous flight under optimal conditions so I don't think inflight refueling would be necessary. How long is a normal patrol mission?

Wikipedia/brochure range numbers don't translate to real life for airplanes loaded with heavy ordinance, with compromised aerodynamics due to all kinds of things sticking out, and due to constantly varying flight profiles. Maritime Patrol Aircraft need to transit to a location, stay on station, then return to the base. 10 hrs flight time is about typical. More if they have less ordinance. Of that maybe only 3-4 hrs is on station. That means about 3 hrs radius from a base. Draw a 3 hr circle (@450 kts) from Greenwood and Comox and you'll quickly realize why they need to refuel. The current CP140 isn't capable of AAR. And that means fuel has to be pre-positioned at huge effort and expense at various civil and military airfields to help them operate. It also means that the aircraft comes off station to refuel. With AAR, they can transit 6-7 hrs to the Arctic, stay on station for 4-5 hrs and then even recover back 6-7 hrs. They aren't fuel limited. They are only limited by crew day and number of crews onboard.

Also, Israel Aircraft Industries markets the ELI-3360 as an all-weather, multi-mission, long-range Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) based on high performance business jet platforms such as the Bombardier Global 6500 or mid-size platforms such as the Challenger 650 or Gulfstream G280 so there are alternatives to Boeing using Bombardier aircraft platforms.

If your goal is to minimize dependence on the US, going to Israel isn't really going to make that much of a difference.

 

[kEiThZ]

It seems everything is 'next generation' these days. The CP-140 Aurora airframes are 45 years old. I'm sure the CAF could wait another decade to see what Bombardier can put in the air, and maybe another five or so to make it fully operationally acceptable. The short answer is Boeing has an aircraft in proven service, Bombardier has a picture.

Larger militaries can afford to fund clean-sheet development that sometimes doesn't work out. Canada can't; particularly given our habit of running kit long past its best before date.

We could fund a development program. But we'd probably pay 2-3x more (vs the P-8) per aircraft and it would take over a decade to get into actual service. We don't have that time.

I've argued before that we should support getting surveillance aircraft from Bombardier. This is something they actually do well. And the US Army is literally rebuilding their whole theater level surveillance fleet around the Bombardier Global. Sadly, our governments have shown little interest into doing theater and strategic level intelligence.

Bombardier wins US Army contract for new spy plane prototype

Bombardier will supply its Global 6500 business aircraft as a prototype for the Army's newest aerial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance plane.

www.defensenews.com

 

[afransen]

@kEiThZ, any thoughts on the new cabinet responsible for defense and procurement?

I don't get the impression that McGuinty is all that impressive. I don't know much about Fuhr but his background sounds promising.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-david-mcguinty-defence-minister-1.7533601

Former fighter pilot Stephen Fuhr to oversee overhaul of defence purchasing

Prime Minister Mark Carney appointed the Liberal MP representing a B.C. Interior seat as Secretary of State responsible for defence procurement on Tuesday

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[kEiThZ]

McGuinty seems competent. Hopefully, prior national security experience helps. I'm glad Fuhr is not at Defence. He'd have been really unpopular after the schtick he pulled with the F-35 and Super Hornet. Making him responsible for fixing procurement is okay though.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think Canada had best absorb the sunk costs and any cancelation fines, and offer its F-35s to the next country in the L-M queue. Instead let's look to Europe, not necessarily for cost savings, but to keep the US at arms length. If the SAAB Gripen is good enough for NATO members Sweden, Hungary, Czech Rep and now Portugal, along with operators in the Americas (Brazil and now Columbia) it should be good enough for Canada.

This is the most plain spoken PM I can recall.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney ... -1.7555928

"The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony: charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contributions to our collective security, We will ensure every dollar is invested wisely, including by prioritizing made-in-Canada manufacturing and supply chains. We should no longer send three-quarters of our defence capital spending to America.”

SAAB will need to update its website. They were smart to leave it up.

https://www.saab.com/markets/canada/gripen-for-canada

 

[ushahid]

For future Canada should work on a program of its own. we have designers, engineers and all the infrastructure needed to build for a decent 5th gen or 6th gen program.

 

[lenaitch]

For future Canada should work on a program of its own. we have designers, engineers and all the infrastructure needed to build for a decent 5th gen or 6th gen program.

You might be too young to remember the Avo Arrow. Too high a development cost for the small domestic market and no export interest. Besides, I doubt we have the three areas you list that could operate at that level.

 

[ushahid]

know about the Avro. yeah the cost is high. but in the long run we dont have to beg other countries for fighter jets and all the delays. Canadian companies and engineers have worked on the F35 program since late 1990s, they do have all the experiences. Bombardier and other Aviation companies have the basic infrastructure required to build a fighter.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You might be too young to remember the Avo Arrow. Too high a development cost for the small domestic market and no export interest. Besides, I doubt we have the three areas you list that could operate at that level.

Avro Canada was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Britain’s Hawker Siddeley, as was Orenda Engines that made the Arrow’s engines. The Arrow’s chief designer was the British-born James Floyd, who worked on Avro UK’s Anson, Manchester, Lancaster, York and Lincoln designs during WW2. Floyd’s lead on the Arrow’s aerodynamics was the British-born John Frost, who helped to develop the Westland Whirlwind fighter and de Havilland Mosquito. Canada fronted the money and was intended to be the first customer, but to suggest that the Arrow was solely Canadian is a myth. Now, if Sweden, with 25% of Canada’s population and 27% of its GDP can grow and maintain a home grown and owned defence industry with strong exports, Canada should be able to as well. But the Avro Arrow is not an example of this.

If we’re going to buy from Saab, let’s get some of their AIP subs as well as Gripens.

Blekinge-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Admiral Beez]

Bombardier and other Aviation companies have the basic infrastructure required to build a fighter.

Bombardier doesn’t make commercial aircraft anymore. The former de Havilland and Canadair designs (Beaver, Buffalo, Dash-7, Dash-8/Q400, and CL415 water bomber) have been sold to the small Alberta firm Viking Air. The CRJ business was sold to Mitsubishi while the C Series was sold to Airbus. Bombardier does make the Global and Challenger series business jets in Montreal, but only on a small scale, see factory image below. They’re not going to be designing and building a fighter for the RCAF out of this facility.

 

[EBT]

Bombardier doesn’t make commercial aircraft anymore. The former de Havilland and Canadair designs (Beaver, Buffalo, Dash-7, Dash-8/Q400, and CL415 water bomber) have been sold to the small Alberta firm Viking Air. The CRJ business was sold to Mitsubishi while the C Series was sold to Airbus. Bombardier does make the Global and Challenger series business jets in Montreal, but only on a small scale, see factory image below. They’re not going to be designing and building a fighter for the RCAF out of this facility.

Bombardier opened a new $500 million assembly plant at Pearson Airport right next to the FedEx terminal. If Bombardier were to get into the fighter jet business I don't think factory space would be an issue.

 

[lenaitch]

know about the Avro. yeah the cost is high. but in the long run we dont have to beg other countries for fighter jets and all the delays. Canadian companies and engineers have worked on the F35 program since late 1990s, they do have all the experiences. Bombardier and other Aviation companies have the basic infrastructure required to build a fighter.

Making components to somebody else's design specs doesn't translate into having "all the experience". Saying BBD has the "basic infrastructure" to design and build a fleet of now-generation, stealth, high performance aircraft is like saying my workshop has the basic infrastructure to start churning out automobiles, or Irving has the basic infrastructure to design and build submarines because they have a shipyard.

 

[ushahid]

You are right. lets just buy it from someone else.

 

[lenaitch]

You are right. lets just buy it from someone else.

The reality is we are very small player in a very big and expensive game. Unless we are willing to commit billions into development and product, and had the luxury of waiting a couple of decades (hint: we don't) and want to try and compete in a world market already dominated by other nations, we are reduced to being a buyer. The F-35 started development in 1997 with a first flight in 2006; this from a company that already had a design and development capacity in place.

Without international sales, it makes no sense to scratch-build for around a fleet of less than 100.

We have spent billions in public money resurrecting our shipbuilding capacity after it was left to rot in order to have a domestic Navy and CG product. Even with that, the AOPS and upcoming frigates are based on foreign designs.