New Fast Jets for Canada

...The Typhoon, on paper, is perfect for their needs. A deal which is Government to Government (G2G) between the UK and Canada would be perfect. Lots of technology transfers back and forth, training pipelines aligned and greater cross pollination of people. Have the UK buy in to the RCAF somewhere (say training or tactical development) in exchange for access to the huge training areas which you can fling a jet around and blow shit up without upsetting the locals. So much potential - obviously never to happen.
I doubt we’d be interested in Canadian ranges. However, 20-30 free places on NFTC and rear crew training may be a different matter!

Regards,
MM
 
An excellent thread chaps, much more informative than the mainstream press will ever be.
 
"Airframer" . . . new phrase to me.
I noticed that as well. My own personal bête noire when dealing with Yanks is 'definitise' (used in place of define) and 'definitisation' (definition)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
MM
 
I sometimes wonder if RCAF even needs fast jets, since it's right next to the U.S., which has a greater incentive in terms of protecting the "North" from the Russians than Canada. It could be a free ride, kind of like New Zealand, which has Australia as the big bro.


I could be speaking out of my ass and be wrong of course....
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I noticed that as well. My own personal bête noire when dealing with Yanks is 'definitise' (used in place of define) and 'definitisation' (definition)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
MM
We need to Socialize that. What take the memo out for some drinks and a curry?
 
As noted in the story, this is likely related to Boeing's complaint against Bombardier. A key milestone in that saga will be passed later this week when the US government process goes through another stage. If Boeing's complaint fails at that stage, then they may decide they want to be involved in the fighter competition after all. If their complaint makes it through that stage, then they may have blotted their copybook with respect to Canada and decide they have no hope of winning a contract with Canada.

So far however it appears that Boeing have decided that their takeover of or partnership with Embraer matters more to them than the sale of some jets to Canada. The complaint against Bombardier is intended to help secure that part of the US market for Embraer.

So far as I'm aware by the way, there's nothing preventing Boeing from both continuing the complaint against Bombardier and registering with Canada as a potential supplier for fighter jets. It's just that they may not want to put the effort into putting together a bid package that is almost guaranteed to lose. Or they may just want to "look confident" with respect to their complaint.

On the other hand, they may decide to give it a go anyway, just in case their deal with Embraer falls apart, or if they lose their complaint against Bombardier later on, or if Airbus assembling CSeries jets in the US renders the whole thing moot anyway.

Here's the National Post version of the story by the way. Unlike Flight Global they at least got the basic facts right. The Flight Global has so many factual errors in it that I can't be bothered to correct them all. Boeing skips info session for fighter-jet companies

With respect to the Boeing-Bombardier saga, here's some recent news: U.S. trade commission rejects Bombardier plea to reopen C Series case record

As I've said before, I'm not a fan of the Super Hornet in terms of being a good choice for Canada, so I won't shed any tears if they're not even in the running.
 
Here's a much more detailed story which I just found. Boeing skips key government information session for fighter-jet companies

There are several points in the story which I wish to highlight, but I will start with what I see as being the less important ones first.

First there is some explanation of the provision which Canada will use to mark down proposals from companies like Boeing who harm Canada's interests. The details of how that will be applied are not fully fleshed out, and there will be consultation with industry on that matter starting next month.
The government has also warned that companies deemed to be hurting Canada's economic interests would be penalized when competing for military contracts, a new provision which many see as a direct shot at Boeing over the Bombardier dispute.

Exactly how that provision will be applied will be worked out through consultations with industry starting next month, a senior government official said in an interview after Monday's information session.

Analysts have questioned the legality of such a provision, and wonder how the government will account for the fact Boeing employs about 2,000 people in Canada and contributes around $4 billion to the economy each year.

The do-no-harm provision "is being managed separate to this competitive process because it likely has a broader application than just this one procurement," said Troy Crosby, head of major defence projects at Public Services and Procurement Canada.

"So there will be an industry consultation process that kicks off for that, separate from what we are doing here."
Now that I know that this was discussed at the meeting, I can see another reason why Boeing may not have shown up. They may not have wanted to face awkward questions from the press attendees about this matter.


Another matter of discussion was that Canada will remain an official member of the F-35 project until and unless a decision is made to buy a different plane. This will let Canadian companies to continue to participate as suppliers and allows for a lower price if the F-35 is selected. Another payment into the project pot is due this spring.
Boeing was only one topic of discussion among participants before and after Monday's session, with another being how Canada would hold a fair fighter-jet competition while remaining one of nine partners in the F-35 project.

Staying in the program costs money but has advantages, as partners' domestic firms can compete for billions of dollars worth of contracts associated with building and maintaining the F-35. They also get a discount when purchasing the plane.

Canada has paid more than $450 million since 1997 to participate, and will be expected to make another contribution this spring.

The F-35's competitors have said Canada's participation gives the stealth fighter an unfair advantage, though officials denied that charge on Monday.

(...) Andre Fillion, chief of staff within the Defence Department's procurement section, confirmed that the government intends to remain a full partner until — and unless — Canada selects a different fighter jet to replace the CF-18s.

"We will continue to participate until really the decision is made," Fillion said.

"Being a participant allows us to continue to give opportunities to Canadian companies to participate in the program. It also gives us insight into where the program is going and how it's performing as part of the process of selecting."
The above of course was one of the big questions which the Canadian aerospace industry has had with respect to what fills in the interim in terms of defence aerospace contracts. It also kicks the can down the road with respect to any conflicts with fighter contracts getting dragged into trade negotiations with the US (which are in progress right now).


The final point is about who did attend the meeting which Boeing skipped. There were representatives from LM, Dassault, Saab, and Airbus in attendence. Also present were representatives of the US and UK governments.
Representatives from Boeing's main rivals, including Lockheed Martin, Dassault, Saab and Airbus were present at the briefing, sources said, along with officials from the U.S. and British governments.
It's interesting to see that all four of the other companies were present. There was some previous question about whether Saab would continue to participate, as they were rumoured to be losing interest as they didn't think their offering would be given a fair shake.

The point which may be of particular interest to @Magic_Mushroom is that the UK government had people there. Perhaps this means that the UK will be sponsoring the Typhoon entry this time. The competition format, which we previously reviewed in this thread, envisions having a government involved in sponsoring the participation of each company (a government can sponsor more than one company).

If the UK is indeed the sponsor with respect to the Typhoon, I suspect this will significantly improve the sales prospects for it when compared to pretty much any of the other governments involved in the consortium. I say this not because I think that Canada would favour the Typhoon just because Britain was backing it. I don't think Canada would make a decision on that basis. Rather, I think that the UK is more capable of putting together a sustained and concerted effort to address all of Canada's concerns about the entire process of getting the plane built, delivered, and into service (and all the problems relating to the latter) than Germany, Italy, or Spain are.

I do have to wonder where the representatives for France (Dassault) and Sweden (Saab) were, but it is possible that they were in their respective company delegations and kept a low profile so far as the press were concerned.
 
I noticed that as well. My own personal bête noire when dealing with Yanks is 'definitise' (used in place of define) and 'definitisation' (definition)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
MM
[DRIFT]

It crept into Bullet Barracks, as the "School of Transport-ATION" !! :( .

It's been "downhill", ever since :( .

[/DRIFT]
 
I think the biggest problem with RCAF is that it's not quite sure what exactly it want to be/ role is. Sure, a twin engine AF over the tundra is well and good, but after that what? What's the requirements? Does it want to be defensive primarily, or offensive or a mixture of both......?
 
I think the biggest problem with RCAF is that it's not quite sure what exactly it want to be/ role is. Sure, a twin engine AF over the tundra is well and good, but after that what? What's the requirements? Does it want to be defensive primarily, or offensive or a mixture of both......?
The RCAF does not define their own roles. Those are defined by the government in a defence plan. It is the responsibility of the RCAF to carry out the defence plan and the simultaneous responsibility of the government to provide the resources with which to do so.

The current defence plan was discussed beginning here: New Fast Jets for Canada
A direct link to the current defence plan is here: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf

A summary of the most important roles are:
  • Defend Canada's air space.
  • Meet NORAD commitments.
  • Meet NATO commitments.
  • Contribute to international peace and stability.
The defence plan fleshes out those details further with respect to acquisition projects.

With respect to what sort of jet fighters Canada needs, keep in mind that while at one time we designed and built planes to meet our specific needs, we have not done so for some time now and rely on buying what is available on the market. Thus, we look at what is available, figure out how we can make use of them, and then make a choice based on a number of different factors.

In practical terms however, the technical differences between the various choices is not as great as the salesmen would like people to believe.


As to the technical specifications for the planes, first keep in mind that a lot of detail on that will not be made public for obvious reasons. Second, it's a matter of picking a choice amongst what is on the market, not making blue sky wishes.

Discussion of the criteria was begun here based on the initial tender documents: New Fast Jets for Canada

However, that is just the preliminary filter. The government will now engage in consultations with industry and the sponsoring allied governments and use their input to define more detailed criteria. Drawing up the suppliers list which we have been discussing today is the first stage in that consultation process.

In the end though, the plane will be one of the following: Typhoon, F-35, Rafale, Gripen NG, or F-18 Super Hornet as that's what's on the market. If Boeing rules themselves out, then it will be one of the remaining four.
 
And Boeing's trade complaint against Bombardier has failed. U.S. trade body throws out 300% tariffs against Bombardier C Series

It's hard to say at this point how that will affect their standings in the new jet fighter project. That may depend on whether or not they continue to fight on against Bombardier. The saga isn't necessarily over just yet.

The next milestone is the suppliers list, which they need to submit an application for by early next month.

The important thing to note is that the "naughty and nice" list is something that gets applied in the final evaluation, not at the suppliers list stage. That means any decision by the government on this issue is several years down the road.

However, I still think that the Typhoon's prospects have been significantly improved overall by Airbus's partnership with Bombardier.
 
The following story is more information on the acquisition of the used F-18s from Australia. Arrival of used Aussie fighters pushed back to summer 2019 or later

Much of the story is a recap of events up to now, so I will skip that and focus on the new information.

The essence of the story is that delivery of the jets will depend upon when Australia gets their own new jets to replace them. Delivery is staged over three years, and the planes will have to receive the appropriate upgrades. The end result is that the RCAF will receive the last of the interim jets in 2022.
It will be 2022 before the Royal Canadian Air Force receives all of the used Australian fighter jets the Liberal government intends to purchase, says senior defence official. (...)

Pat Finn, who is in charge of the materiale branch of National Defence, told CBC News in a recent interview a final agreement is still months away.

He is confident, however, everything will come together.

Delivery is "staggered over three years," Finn said.
The first planes will arrive by some time around summer 2019, although that schedule has not been finalised yet.
Finn said the delivery schedule is being finalized, but he anticipates receiving the first two warplanes by the summer of that year.
It is noted that some of the timing is a result of Canada not necessarily wanting Australia's oldest planes. If we can get one in better shape, we may wait for that one instead. The details of this are currently being negotiated.
"They, of course, release aircraft as they get aircraft," Finn said. "We do not necessarily want the oldest aircraft, so we would like to have an ongoing discussion."

He said there is some flexibility and if "summer '19 turns into" something a few months later because they can get a better jet, then it's something that can be negotiated.
The Australian government is currently in the process of getting approval from the US to resell their old planes to Canada.
The Australian government is in the process of seeking permission to sell the planes because they were originally manufactured in the U.S.
The story notes that this delivery schedule does not necessarily accord with the notion that the planes were needed urgently. The story does not however contrast this with any alternatives which could provide planes actually in service any sooner.
"Nothing about the handling of this file lines up with the identification of it as an urgent need, either the interim or the permanent purchase," said Dave Perry, an expert in procurement at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
As context to the above, I should point out that in previous posts what various critics were quoted as stating was that no interim jets should be purchased at all, not that they should be acquired sooner.

Previously on this thread we have discussed official DND reports and planning documents which indicated that there were several issues related to the phase in of new (not interim) planes which needed to be addressed, including airframe life and technology level, and that it was likely the interim purchase was intended to deal with those issues (the present government has been opaque with regards to their actual reasons). These included having existing planes go through another life extension and capability upgrade to ensure that the last old plane is still fully operable when it goes out of service as the last new plane comes in to replace it. Having more planes in service may make this upgrade process more feasible without leaving any gaps in coverage. This schedule was based around an assumption of buying the F-35, but the same considerations would apply to any other new plane.

The story goes on to note that this could be a political headache for the government at the next election.
He said he believes it will present a political headache for the Liberals come the next election.

"The fact that this government may, at best, have a couple of second-hand aircraft before the next election after having identified an urgent need to acquire new fighter aircraft is just incredible," he said.
I have noted previously that I suspect the government will want to show some tangible progress in the process to purchase the new jets which are intended to replace the entire fleet (including the interim ones). The previous government's credibility was hurt by their failure to even come up with a plan to buy new jets. In light of this, I suspect the present government will attempt to at least kick off the competition itself before the next election (which is likely next year).

One thing which the story gets completely wrong though is that it says the previous government conducted extensive research on what aircraft Canada could buy.
When the former Conservative government was struggling over whether to buy the F-35 stealth fighter, it conducted extensive research on the alternatives and possible types of warplanes Canada would need.

That research, which conceivable could move things along faster, was largely discarded by the Liberals and is gathering dust on a shelf, Perry says.
Representatives of the Typhoon manufacturers told a parliamentary defence committee that neither the government nor the DND made any effort to contact them in this regards. The Auditor General, after an official investigation, made a finding that the government had made no serious effort to investigate any plane other than the F-35. Given that this latter point was a very major scandal that will be well known to anyone reporting or commenting on this matter, I find this to be a major hole in this news report.

In summary, there isn't a lot of unexpected information in this report, other than to confirm that the process is still ongoing, and that the actual schedule will also depend on the Australians. If there is a hitch at their end, that will affect Canada.

In addition, I think it highlights the political pressure on the government to show some tangible progress in acquiring the new planes. The previous government's failings in this regards undoubtedly hurt them electorally at the last election, and this is a landmine the present government will no doubt be anxious to avoid.
 
Last edited:
As noted in a previous post, the 9th of February was supposed to be the deadline for submission of requests to be on the approved suppliers list.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/new-fast-jets-for-canada.264879/post-8306065

That will have been last Friday. I don't know if there will be any announcement soon on the results of that, such as who has made submissions.

I will make a reminder that this isn't a submission of bids, just a submission of a request to be able to submit bids. Once a company is on the list, the government will start a process of consultation with industry and with sponsoring governments which will result in drawing up of the final specifications.

The purpose of the consultations is to ensure that what is in the government's specifications is something that industry will be able to deliver. It also means that once the consultations are over, the suppliers should have a pretty good idea of what the specifications will ask for and so will be able to respond quickly to it.

This process was drawn up based on experience derived from the frigate program.

It will be interesting to see whether Boeing has decided that they are in or out. They will apparently be permitted to bid, but their bid will be marked based on whether they have been good boys or bad boys so far as Canada is concerned.
 
As noted in a previous post, the 9th of February was supposed to be the deadline for submission of requests to be on the approved suppliers list.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/new-fast-jets-for-canada.264879/post-8306065

That will have been last Friday. I don't know if there will be any announcement soon on the results of that, such as who has made submissions.

I will make a reminder that this isn't a submission of bids, just a submission of a request to be able to submit bids. Once a company is on the list, the government will start a process of consultation with industry and with sponsoring governments which will result in drawing up of the final specifications.

The purpose of the consultations is to ensure that what is in the government's specifications is something that industry will be able to deliver. It also means that once the consultations are over, the suppliers should have a pretty good idea of what the specifications will ask for and so will be able to respond quickly to it.

This process was drawn up based on experience derived from the frigate program.

It will be interesting to see whether Boeing has decided that they are in or out. They will apparently be permitted to bid, but their bid will be marked based on whether they have been good boys or bad boys so far as Canada is concerned.
I guess if the Canadian gov’t won’t buy Hornets to keep production alive, Trump will....Trump wants 24 new Super Hornets, reverses Obama decision
 
I guess if the Canadian gov’t won’t buy Hornets to keep production alive, Trump will....Trump wants 24 new Super Hornets, reverses Obama decision
The story itself said that Trump (or his ministers) wanted 14, but other politicians added another 10. That is just enough to keep the plant open.
The Trump administration has requested 14 Super Hornets, and House and Senate appropriators have proposed adding 10 more, according to Bloomberg. That total of 24 jets happens to be the key number needed to keep Boeing’s plant in St. Louis running.
The planes are apparently required due to delays in delivery of working versions of the F-35C.
The Hornets were originally set to retire by 2035, but the Navy was forced to reevaluate that date in 2015 due to persistent delays in the F-35’s development.
The order may help fill the hole left by Canada cancelling plans to buy some. It will be interesting to see if this development has any influence on Boeing's attitude with respect to the Bombardier dispute. They've probably had a good idea for a while though that this current purchase was likely, and so it was already factored into their decisions.
 
The government of Canada released the names on the suppliers list today. Replacing and Supplementing Canada's Fighters – Air – Defence Procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC Services – Home

This is the list of government/company partnerships which will be permitted to bid on the contract to replace Canada's F-18 fighters. The list of names is (in alphabetical order):
  • Gouvernement de la République Française—Dassault Aviation (Thales DMS France SAS and Safran Aircraft Engines)
  • Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—Airbus Defense and Space GmbH
  • The Swedish Government—SAAB AB (publ)—Aeronautics
  • United States Government—Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company)
  • United States Government—The Boeing Company

There are several things are worth noting about this. One is that Boeing have submitted and been granted a request to be on the suppliers list. There was some question about whether they would do so. However, being on the list simply grants them permission to bid, it does not necessarily mean they will actually submit a bid when the time comes. Another aspect to recall is that Canada will judge whether a company is acting contrary to Canada's interests at the time the bids are evaluated, so that factor does not bar a company from submitting a bid to begin with.

The second point worth is worth noting that the UK is the government sponsoring the Typhoon entry. I had previously speculated that this was the case when UK government representatives attended the industry information session last month. Sponsoring governments are expected to back up their companies with respect to not only manufacture, but also introducing the planes into service.

The final point to be taken from the above is that all five potential contenders have expressed interest.

The next steps in the precess are:
  • Formal engagement with eligible Suppliers—spring 2018 to spring 2019
  • Formal solicitation documents released to eligible Suppliers in spring 2019
  • A contract award is anticipated in 2021 to 2022, and the first replacement aircraft delivered in 2025
The consultation process beings shortly, and will extend for one year. As previously discussed, this process will involve talking to the suppliers and getting their feedback on the specification documents to ensure that what Canada asks for is something they can deliver. It will also allow consultation with sponsoring governments with respect to how they may assist their companies with issues such as planning for introduction and training.

I would take the 2019 date above as an immovable deadline, as an election is expected later that year and being able to show tangible signs of progress will be important in that regards. The end date of the end of the 2020s is also a solid deadline with respect to retiring the existing fleet due to limits on the ability to support it. I would take any dates in between those as place holders, with actual plans to come out of the consultation process. The general time line as it exists now was inherited from the previous government when they were considering buying the F-35, so it reflects the most favourable time frame for the F-35. This could change depending upon what works for the other bidders.

Here's another document giving the general time line and some more notional intermediate target dates, but as I said take it with a grain of salt. The text in the page itself even refers to the timeline as "notional".
Future Fighter Capability Project – Timeline Infographic

It does address however issues such as that time must be allowed for dealing with infrastructure, support services, and training. The current defence minister tends to pay close attention to issues such as training, personnel, and everything else involved in having a working capability as opposed to just having a contract for some new kit, so I expect these issues to play a prominent role in the planning process.

Here's the CBC story on this, but there is no new detail in there which is not in the official source, and the official announcement has information which was not in the news report.
Boeing applies to stay in race to supply Canada with fighter jets despite trade dispute

The story does provide some background on the past development of the project, and so may be worth reading for those interested in that. Previous posts in this thread though would provide more detailed background which has been placed in the proper context.
 
Boeing have said they will not appeal their loss in their trade dispute with Bombardier. Boeing will not appeal tariff ruling in Bombardier's favour | CBC News
Aircraft giant Boeing will not appeal a ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission that allows its Canadian rival Bombardier to sell its newest commercial jets without heavy duties.
Boeing have not elaborated on the reasons behind their decision.
A Boeing spokesperson confirmed the decision not to appeal Thursday night, but declined to elaborate.
There is no news at this time whether they intend to pursue other avenues with regards to blocking the Bombardier CSeries from the US market.

If they have dropped the dispute altogether and put it behind them, then it could remove a barrier before them with regards to succeeding in the new fighter contract for Canada.

The interim jet contract to temporarily supplement existing numbers however is likely gone altogether so far as they are concerned, as the Australia option is likely too far along to reverse course on.
 

Similar threads

Top