Canada to buy the Super Hornet

[Charly_Owl]

Its more complicated than that Boris. Bombardier has received millions in grants and loans from the Canadian public. There was many many people against it but Bombardier simply represents the definition of corporate welfare. In my opinion, Bombarier should be left to die and the US trade association has made a proper call.

 

Millions in grants and loans... now do you want to compare that to what GM and Chrysler got from Ontario? (3.7 billions) Or do you want to compare that to what Boeing got from the US government? There hasn't been a single aviation company that hasn't benefited from government money in one way or another, including Boeing. The Airbus vs Boeing saga in the 787 vs A350 legal case was the exact same thing. I simply refuse the "Bombardier should've been left to die because they received government funding" argument. It's funny how some people have some sort of double-standard regarding certain things.

 

The US Trade Association has made a bad call and lo and behold, Airbus got a brand new developed plane that's competitive for free. Literally. Boeing got greedy and wanted to eliminate Bombardier, plain and simple. That's thousands of canadian jobs and the world's third most important aerospace hub reduced to a whole lot of nothing. The Canadian government responded in kind and I have absolutely no remorse (apart from the pilots who will still operate outdated planes) to see this contract go to ANYONE but Boeing for now.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/3773916/bombardier-boeing-subsidies/

Edited December 14, 2017 by Charly_Owl

[Gladman]

Well Charly your welcome to your opinion.

 

 

You want to talk about thousands of jobs? Where's the money for the oil workers in Alberta, the mine workers in Saskatchewan, the forestry workers in BC, etc etc etc. There wasn't any. Bombardier doesn't even come close the the number of people that were involved in those economic downturns most of which were not because of poor management decisions which is Bombardiers problem.

I believe in companies standing on their own two feet. Either they make it or they don't and Bombardier can't cut it.

[Charly_Owl]

I think we can both agree that pretty much every province in Canada has some industry that needs saving; it's been like that for as long as I can remember. However, it's not my place to judge what kind of job or industry is more important than the other.

 

In Quebec and Ontario Aerospace is a big part of our economic force. Jobs aren't limited to Bombardier employees; they also include suppliers that are very likely to go out of business if Bombardier shuts down. Same goes for maintenance and training centers.

 

In Montreal alone...

http://www.montrealinternational.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/11/Publication_Greater-Montr%C3%A9als-Aerospace-Industry-Map_2012.pdf

 

Of course, I'm probably more passionate about this since I work in that field.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Charly_Owl

[Gladman]

Thats the reality, we are passionate about what we know.

The trickle down effect of oil patch job losses has been insane where I live. We used to have all those cool little shops and frozen yogurt places, now we can barely keep Tims open.

[Weta43]

"I believe in companies standing on their own two feet."

 

No major companies actually do that, some just take their money through a more roundabout path.

R&D is one of the most expensive parts of running a high tech company, R&D is the lifeblood of competitiveness. Having the taxpayer over-pay for your R&D is part of the US aerospace tradition, and is just as much a subsidy as being bailed out is.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Weta43

[Gladman]

Weta43, I as a Canadian tax paying citizen simply choose to disagree with you.

[Weta43]

Perhaps, but what's between the quote marks is a quote, not my statement, and if you read what's on the image you'll see it was in counterpoint to the quote.

 

Reading your previous post - perhaps we agree.

 

I think complaining that Bombardier is subsidised by the EU or Canadian Govt. and should therefore face high import tariffs, at the same time as companies like Lockheed Martin or Bell (1) receive enormous R&D subsidies courtesy of the American taxpayer (2), seems the height of hypocrisy to me...

 

(1/ & as the image I posted show, you can replace Lockheed Martin with the name of any major US aircraft manufacturers name here)

(2/ Who, given the exorbitant prices they then charge for aircraft & spare parts that's development was already paid for by the taxpayer, also end up massively cross subsidising from their military to their civilian business)

[Gladman]

With all due respect, your not the one paying for Bombardier's handouts while your province and industry struggles to survive.

[Rangi]

Buy RAAFs Legacy hornets so we can sell them more Block IV Super Hornets, thanks.

 

I certainly hope not, we already have more than we need and can afford.

[Goldsmack]

Bombardier is just another example of "To big to fail" so it is a double edged sword. Really good politics there Trudeau, punish the Canadian air force because you wan't to act like a spoiled kid, I bet Boeing could not give a sh%$. As for procuring "new" aircraft I agree with a previous post that it seems like the current government is just stalling until it becomes someone else problem. Well when the current CF-188's and the planed hand me downs from Australia start dropping out of the sky (some already have) it will be there problem.

[SkateZilla]

Bombardier is just another example of "To big to fail" so it is a double edged sword. Really good politics there Trudeau, punish the Canadian air force because you wan't to act like a spoiled kid, I bet Boeing could not give a sh%$. As for procuring "new" aircraft I agree with a previous post that it seems like the current government is just stalling until it becomes someone else problem. Well when the current CF-188's and the planed hand me downs from Australia start dropping out of the sky (some already have) it will be there problem.

 

They should really look at what's going on with the USMC Hornet fleet...

 

The USMC have proven what happens if you neglect your Bug Fleet.

[Tirak]

They should really look at what's going on with the USMC Hornet fleet...

 

The USMC have proven what happens if you neglect your Bug Fleet.

 

Well the Marines are replacing them with F-35s, so...

[Gladman]

For the uneducated

 

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2016/06/23/marines-pull-aircraft-from-boneyard-get-used-navy-jets-amid-aviation-crisis/

[Airj247]

AS a Canadian I do feel like bombardier is in the right but of course I'm being bias. I'm proud that we didn't buy super hornets as a "interim" aircraft cause that feels pointless (and a message to boeing to **** off). As much as we like to point of that the CF-18's are "old" and "out dated", they have proven time and time again that they are still very capable aircraft. The only thing holding them back is the stress of their airframes. (and you can only upgrade till a certain point). I would prefer if Canada purchased a complete replacement aircraft. Something like a Gripen, Eurofighter, Rafale or even the F-35. Buying super hornets now is a waste of time since it will be only a few decades till they are out dated.

[RePhil]

Why should the RCAF be better than the RCN. This is just like the Sea King they had 40 hrs maintenance for every flight hour and now the new Navy choppers can't get sea board approval till they remove there sonar array because the sonar hits the onboard recovery system. Welcome to the great white north

[Rangi]

........ As much as we like to point of that the CF-18's are "old" and "out dated", they have proven time and time again that they are still very capable aircraft. The only thing holding them back is the stress of their airframes. (and you can only upgrade till a certain point).

 

Even though the hornets you are buying from us are very old, upgraded, A models, they have never been used on carriers and have relatively low hours on the clock. We have always had more planes than pilots and have hardly ever been involved in high tempo operations that would stress the aircraft like the US navy and Marines ones.

[NineLine]

Even though the hornets you are buying from us are very old, upgraded, A models, they have never been used on carriers and have relatively low hours on the clock. We have always had more planes than pilots and have hardly ever been involved in high tempo operations that would stress the aircraft like the US navy and Marines ones.

 

I am sure they are in great shape, really isnt the point. We are supposed to be gearing up for the future, but instead its a stop-gap until someone makes a real decision.

[Goldsmack]

And what is worse is they are going to be the F/A-18A/B. As I understand it the Incremental modernization, program started in 2001, brought the current fleet fleet up to C/D standards. We are literally paddling backwards now. The longer it is put of the more money is wasted on band aide solutions...but hey at least weed will be decriminalized :doh: . I know that some of the current CF-188s have been cannibalised already to keep the others flyable, I would guess that is what the Ausi purchase was for?

[Airj247]

And what is worse is they are going to be the F/A-18A/B. As I understand it the Incremental modernization, program started in 2001, brought the current fleet fleet up to C/D standards. We are literally paddling backwards now. The longer it is put of the more money is wasted on band aide solutions...but hey at least weed will be decriminalized :doh: . I know that some of the current CF-188s have been cannibalised already to keep the others flyable, I would guess that is what the Ausi purchase was for?

 

Pretty sure I read somewhere that majority of the hornet purchased will be for parts and spares. It's sad to see our military so small and outdated, especially since we are the 2nd largest country in the world.

[frixon28]

. It's sad to see our military so small and outdated, especially since we are the 2nd largest country in the world.

 

I would not call the Canadian military outdated just because they are using Hornets for a couple more years. Are Legacy Hornets the most high tech aircraft in 2017, no way! But they are far from useless pieces of metal that many (not aimed at anyone in specific) people in the internet make them out to be. They are still great multi role aircraft, and from a technological point of view with upgrades they can still remain capable.! The airframes are tired, and hopefully these Aussie jets will help with parts, but technologically the jets got a few more years.

No they dont compare to a 5th generation fighter, but only the US has meaningful numbers of operational jets. IIRC the USMC is planning to operate their Hornets until 2030! The USAF is keeping 300 F-16s until 2046, Hornets for Canada for another decade even isnt the end of the world (I know different ages of airframes)

 

I understand the F-35 is coming to town, and is by far better than its competition. But for even the most modern air forces, 4th generation aircraft will be a viable threat still for the next 20+ years. Yes everything will be replaced by 5th generation, but not for quite some time.

 

Rant Complete

[SkateZilla]

Well the Marines are replacing them with F-35s, so...

 

The marines didnt want Super Hornets and tried to ride out the Legacy Hornets.

 

Their entire Hornet Fleet is crumbling.

 

And they had to bring units out of mothballs to strip them and re-build them as C+ as well as transfer Hornets from the USN, as the USN is retiring all Legacy Bugs.