Watching...
Some of you are already going past it, and I suspect you are doing it on purpose.
Some of you are already going past it, and I suspect you are doing it on purpose.
CANADA TO BUY USED RAAF JETS
- Thread starter fubar57
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
The questions in my mind are: will the refurbished Hornets (they are not super hornets as I understand it) be able to complete the RCAFs mission requirements for the next 10 years or so. I think they can, but it is a risk. The RCAF might in a hot war be called upon to undertake hazardous ops and whether the hornets can still do it is an open question.
Having said that, the RAAF previously refurbished and onsold its Mirage fleet mostly to the Pakistanis, who sang the praises of the used aircraft and continued to use them for quite a few years after the deal was made
Having said that, the RAAF previously refurbished and onsold its Mirage fleet mostly to the Pakistanis, who sang the praises of the used aircraft and continued to use them for quite a few years after the deal was made
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Yikes, I thought they were Super Hornets. I'm not sure I understand the logic in this then.
Would it be better to just buy new SAAB 39 Gripens at US$30-60m each? If they decide to buy the F-35s I think the SAABs would be a nice compliment and would be newer and cheaper to maintain than older Hornets
Would it be better to just buy new SAAB 39 Gripens at US$30-60m each? If they decide to buy the F-35s I think the SAABs would be a nice compliment and would be newer and cheaper to maintain than older Hornets
michaelmaltby
Colonel
No ... pretty planes but not the answer
Andrew Coyne: Fighter jet mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics
Andrew Coyne: Fighter jet mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics
Totalize
Tech Sergeant
The issue of the purchase of the Aussie Jets is a stop gap measure until we replace the current fleet of F-18's with our next generation fighter. It has gotten political here in Canada because of Boeing. This company is at the root of the issue why?
1. Boeing filed a complaint with the U.S. trade department that stated Bombardier was being heavily subsidized by the Canadian government and that their new 300 series aircraft are being sold into the U.S. at price that is exceedingly low and is according to them an act of dumping. The U.S. government agreed and hit Bombardier with a +300% countervailing penalty/price increase on their aircraft sold into the U.S. Boeing disingenuously stated they were not expecting the government to hit Bombardier with such a severe penalty but they will take it. In fact the complaint which was primarily targeted at Bombardier's new 300 series aircraft is against an aircraft Boeing has publicly stated does NOT compete with their fleet of commercial aircraft. Go figure.
2. What is the real motive behind Boeing's actions? They have seen the rise of Airbus as a competitor to them and they don't like it. Airbus was heavily subsidized by European governments that were part of the consortium and Boeing wants to prevent a future occurrence of this again. Boeing does not like competition.
3. The primary argument Boeing has is that they only want fair and free competition in the market place and they are against the subsidies that the Canadian government and the European governments provide their national aerospace companies.
4. Argument 3. would make sense by Boeing if it were true that only these countries subsidize their aerospace sector but this is simply NOT THE CASE. Just about every major commercial aircraft manufacturer be it Bombardier, Airbus, Embraer and yes even Boeing are heavily subsidized by their own country's governments. In the case of Boeing their HQ used to be in Seattle but when the the state of Washington did not give them the subsidies they wanted in the form of tax breaks they relocated to Chicago because Illinois offered then a better tax break. Additionally, they are heavily subsized by many other state governments including still the State of Washington among others. In fact they was a recent report that took a look at the industry in general and the subsidies these manufacturers get and guess who is the most subsidized? Yep you guessed it Boeing, Understandably this really makes their actions against Bombardier laughable. Boeing I believe is like 2x more subsidized than Airbus their nearest competitor. Bombardier is down the list at like 3rd or 4th.
5. Hence you can see why the Canadian government is pissed off at Boeing. I would be too at their shady business practices. When the Canadian government canceled plans to purchase their Superhornets Boeing did not make a big fuss about it. They know the Canadian government was on to their shady business practices. From what I am hearing Boeing are all but out of the fighter competition to replace Canada's fleet of fighters in the next 5-7 years. As our Prime Minister said, we do not want to do business with a company that is trying to destroy our aerospace sector. So much for Boeing and their condescending, arrogant attitude toward Canada. Their poor business practices cost them and not only that but It might very well get worse for them yet as Britain and the EU are now said to be looking closer at their contracts with Boeing and considering opening them up to competition or canceling them outright in situations where European (principally Irish) workers would not be hit.. Boeing want's fair competition...be careful what you wish for Boeing.
6. My understanding of what Canada wants in a fighter is one that can fufill a dual purpose role. First they need to be able to patrol and defend the Canadian North as part of our commitment to NORAD. These patrols are long an arduous and so a reliable aircraft is mandatory. Canada likes a twin engine aircraft to be able to preform this mission since it's better to have 2 engines should one quit up there in the barren, frozen north. Secondly, they need a good multi role aircraft that can support NATO. There's a big argument about whether a single engine or twin engine aircraft can fulfill the Norad mission but I won't get into that suffice it to say Russia has a very similar Geography to Canada and shares a big border with us and I don't think any of their front line fighters have a single engine.
1. Boeing filed a complaint with the U.S. trade department that stated Bombardier was being heavily subsidized by the Canadian government and that their new 300 series aircraft are being sold into the U.S. at price that is exceedingly low and is according to them an act of dumping. The U.S. government agreed and hit Bombardier with a +300% countervailing penalty/price increase on their aircraft sold into the U.S. Boeing disingenuously stated they were not expecting the government to hit Bombardier with such a severe penalty but they will take it. In fact the complaint which was primarily targeted at Bombardier's new 300 series aircraft is against an aircraft Boeing has publicly stated does NOT compete with their fleet of commercial aircraft. Go figure.
2. What is the real motive behind Boeing's actions? They have seen the rise of Airbus as a competitor to them and they don't like it. Airbus was heavily subsidized by European governments that were part of the consortium and Boeing wants to prevent a future occurrence of this again. Boeing does not like competition.
3. The primary argument Boeing has is that they only want fair and free competition in the market place and they are against the subsidies that the Canadian government and the European governments provide their national aerospace companies.
4. Argument 3. would make sense by Boeing if it were true that only these countries subsidize their aerospace sector but this is simply NOT THE CASE. Just about every major commercial aircraft manufacturer be it Bombardier, Airbus, Embraer and yes even Boeing are heavily subsidized by their own country's governments. In the case of Boeing their HQ used to be in Seattle but when the the state of Washington did not give them the subsidies they wanted in the form of tax breaks they relocated to Chicago because Illinois offered then a better tax break. Additionally, they are heavily subsized by many other state governments including still the State of Washington among others. In fact they was a recent report that took a look at the industry in general and the subsidies these manufacturers get and guess who is the most subsidized? Yep you guessed it Boeing, Understandably this really makes their actions against Bombardier laughable. Boeing I believe is like 2x more subsidized than Airbus their nearest competitor. Bombardier is down the list at like 3rd or 4th.
5. Hence you can see why the Canadian government is pissed off at Boeing. I would be too at their shady business practices. When the Canadian government canceled plans to purchase their Superhornets Boeing did not make a big fuss about it. They know the Canadian government was on to their shady business practices. From what I am hearing Boeing are all but out of the fighter competition to replace Canada's fleet of fighters in the next 5-7 years. As our Prime Minister said, we do not want to do business with a company that is trying to destroy our aerospace sector. So much for Boeing and their condescending, arrogant attitude toward Canada. Their poor business practices cost them and not only that but It might very well get worse for them yet as Britain and the EU are now said to be looking closer at their contracts with Boeing and considering opening them up to competition or canceling them outright in situations where European (principally Irish) workers would not be hit.. Boeing want's fair competition...be careful what you wish for Boeing.
6. My understanding of what Canada wants in a fighter is one that can fufill a dual purpose role. First they need to be able to patrol and defend the Canadian North as part of our commitment to NORAD. These patrols are long an arduous and so a reliable aircraft is mandatory. Canada likes a twin engine aircraft to be able to preform this mission since it's better to have 2 engines should one quit up there in the barren, frozen north. Secondly, they need a good multi role aircraft that can support NATO. There's a big argument about whether a single engine or twin engine aircraft can fulfill the Norad mission but I won't get into that suffice it to say Russia has a very similar Geography to Canada and shares a big border with us and I don't think any of their front line fighters have a single engine.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A few things -
No way can you compare the subsidies Canada gives to Bombardier to the State Tax breaks Boeing is receiving, they are miniscule compared to what a company like Bombardier would receive. State tax breaks are many times given for a period of time, just a carrot to get a company to move their offices and bring jobs with them but when they run out the company pays the full amount of tax or tries to negotiate by threat of moving once again. When Boeing moved it's corporate offices it was more of a symbolic gesture than anything else as the mainstay of the company is still firmly planted in Washington State.
Agree, Boeing's position on this is pretty dumb, especially when the -300 doesn't compete with anything they are building. At the same time be rest assured that if for some reason F/A-18s are purchased, they will come with an offset agreement where you'll find companies like Bombardier, Magellan, IMP, etc. manufacturing parts for Boeing. If Canada would buy F-35s, any offset agreement could go on for decades as i think it's quite obvious by now that the F-35 is going to be around for a very long time.
No way can you compare the subsidies Canada gives to Bombardier to the State Tax breaks Boeing is receiving, they are miniscule compared to what a company like Bombardier would receive. State tax breaks are many times given for a period of time, just a carrot to get a company to move their offices and bring jobs with them but when they run out the company pays the full amount of tax or tries to negotiate by threat of moving once again. When Boeing moved it's corporate offices it was more of a symbolic gesture than anything else as the mainstay of the company is still firmly planted in Washington State.
Agree, Boeing's position on this is pretty dumb, especially when the -300 doesn't compete with anything they are building. At the same time be rest assured that if for some reason F/A-18s are purchased, they will come with an offset agreement where you'll find companies like Bombardier, Magellan, IMP, etc. manufacturing parts for Boeing. If Canada would buy F-35s, any offset agreement could go on for decades as i think it's quite obvious by now that the F-35 is going to be around for a very long time.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
My personal desire is that this whole military procurement issue go on in all its farcical absurdity until it becomes so outrageous to a tax-paying, voting public that they demand realistic, pragmatic procurement management. Whatever political stripe is in power at any given moment, the public has the right to DEMAND that said government treat the MILITARY (and veterans) and procurement for the military with total professionalism. Pragmatism that they cannot hide must drive the process.
All defense industries ARE SUBSIDIZED. This Boeing-Bombardier brew-haw is sheer political grandstanding.
When Canada needed C-17 Globemasters in a hurry for the Af'stan Mission we jumped queue and got them fast with help from the US Government and Boeing. Making an enemy of Boeing is STUPID and short sighted, demonstrating that the politicians playing this game don't know their business.
I think Canada should have a healty, robust aircraft- aerospace industry but I do not think this industry should be a sacred cow. It will be subsidized, just as Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Sukhoi, Mig are all undoubtedly subsidized. That is simple realism, IMO
All defense industries ARE SUBSIDIZED. This Boeing-Bombardier brew-haw is sheer political grandstanding.
When Canada needed C-17 Globemasters in a hurry for the Af'stan Mission we jumped queue and got them fast with help from the US Government and Boeing. Making an enemy of Boeing is STUPID and short sighted, demonstrating that the politicians playing this game don't know their business.
I think Canada should have a healty, robust aircraft- aerospace industry but I do not think this industry should be a sacred cow. It will be subsidized, just as Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Sukhoi, Mig are all undoubtedly subsidized. That is simple realism, IMO
parsifal
Colonel
This looks vaguely similar to the treatment we received back in the 60s with our Mirage program. France were happy enough to give a manufacturing licence but objected when we got involved on Vietnam. All kinds of threats were made, The Swedes tend to act in a similar way. Now it appears the US is travelling down the same, or similar path...."you can buy our stuff but if you do something we don't like....look out!!!"
Whatever happens here I think it will be bad
I haven't seen any detail as to the costs of this deal.....
Whatever happens here I think it will be bad
I haven't seen any detail as to the costs of this deal.....
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Crimea_River
Marshal
Not just state tax breaks:
Source: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdf
By comparison, Bombardier has received between 3 and 5$B in government subsidies depending on which numbers you believe. Embraer recently won approval for the WTO to investigate $3B in "illegal" government subsidies for Bombardier. WTO to Probe Canadian Jet Subsidies in New Bombardier Blow
Don't get me wrong - I hate that I, as a taxpayer, am contributing to corporate welfare but let's keep hings in perspective and realize that we Canadians are by no means the only ones doing it. Nor are we the biggest culprits.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Good info but we were talking "State" tax breaks, a big difference here.
The first chart is a little skewed as grants and tax credits are put into one barrel. Some federal grants have to paid back, so is that really a sbusidy compared to what Airbus would get from their supporting countries? I don't know if you could really call a tax credit a subsidy. Tax is still being paid but at a lower rate (and many times by a few percent points) and usually something is offsetting that credit (like employing a whole bunch of people in a depressed area). I see a "questionable subsidy" when a government throws money at a loosing program or project for the sake of keeping it running (ie Canadair during the early Challenger Program) and keeping people employed for political gain, or paying for commercial market R&D programs so a product could later be sold on the international market at a reduced rate because R&D expenditures don't have to be recovered during production.
The second chart is also a bit skewed as it combines federal loans with loan guarantees and bail out assistance. The last I seen none of those companies needed any "bailing out" and federal loans will have to be paid paid back (mind you the interest rates will most favorable!)
In one form or another, every facet of the aircraft manufacturing industry is receiving some type of subsidy, directly or indirectly, its a matter of how blatant that subsidy rolls into the corporation coffers.
Crimea_River
Marshal
On that part I agree. I'll be in a position to agree with the rest when Boeing repays the $65B but I'm not holding my breath.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
One of the problems with buying ex-RAAF F-18s as an interim solution is that these sorts of solutions tend to last far too long. Instead of removing them from service in the 2020s, either the government of the day will decide to keep them along with a more modern aircraft or they'll decide to keep them in lieu of replacement.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
And here I thought we were getting new F-18 Super Hornets to replace our classic Hornets as they are past their used by date and the intended replacements, the F-35, are still a few years from delivery....
Drones.
Bomarc
