Airbus vying for fighter contract with Quebec jobs

[schnitzel2k3]

What do the fighter nerds (with all due respect, nerds rule) think about the Eurofighter possibly becoming a top pick for the Canadian Forces going forward?

How will the U.S react to the news we are leaning towards a euro-built fighter, versus classic Hornets and Lightnings. Would the work we are receiving from Airbus benefit us more than the contracts for the F-35 or the past capability and fleets of Hornets?

I've always been of the belief that any option that limits the ability of the U.S to bully us into a decision is a good option, but are we giving up future capability going with a 4.5 gen platform that leaves us divided with the U.S?

CTV News: Airbus open to a fighter plane assembly plant in Quebec ahead of federal bids.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/airbus- ... -1.4253284

MIRABEL, Que. -- Airbus is not ruling out the possibility that Quebec will host a fighter plane assembly line and satellite construction plant if the European giant manages to win federal contracts in Canada.

Simon Jacques, head of Canadian operations for the multinational, mentioned the possibility Monday at a company event in Mirabel, an off-island Montreal suburb, where it manufactures A220 jetliners, previously known as the Bombardier C Series.

A call for tenders for 88 new fighter planes is expected from Ottawa before the start of the 2019 election campaign in a bid to replace the government's aging CF-18s. Airbus makes the Eurofighter Typhoon.

"Absolutely," Jacques said, when asked if the assembly line could be in Quebec. "We're evaluating our options."

Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Saab are all in the running alongside Airbus for the federal contract.

Jacques said the construction of a new assembly line, which would create numerous jobs, would not pose a logistical challenge given the extra space at the Mirabel plant.

He stressed the need for a "Canadian solution," given that the call for tenders would include local content requirements.

In 2016 Airbus landed its first major contract with Ottawa, which ordered 16 search and rescue aircraft under a $2.4-billion agreement, on top of a pledge for $2.3 billion in maintenance and after-sales service for 20 years. The first vehicle must be delivered by the end of 2019.

The CF-18s put into service in the 1980s were set to be phased out by 2020, but their replacement has turned into a drawn-out saga.

Six years ago, the Harper government abandoned its controversial plans to purchase untendered F-35 fighter jets to take the place of the aging fleet. The Trudeau government, which had subsequently decided to buy 18 Super Hornet aircraft from Boeing -- also without a tender -- cancelled that purchase in 2017 in the wake of a commercial dispute between Boeing and Bombardier over the C Series.

According to Jacques, Canada is "really committed" to "stimulating competition," which may open a door to a manufacturer other than the U.S.-based Boeing.

"I think it's important for Canada to have a different fleet from what is in the United States 1/8with Boeing 3/8," he said, calling the prospect "a good thing for NORAD 1/8North American Aerospace Defense Command 3/8."

Jacques suggested Canada could learn from the United Kingdom, which counts counts Airbus and Lockheed Martin aircraft among its fighter fleet.

Airbus executives also said the Netherlands-based company may turn to Quebec for satellite construction if its proposal is accepted up by Telesat Canada, a satellite operator.

The company had solicited offers from Airbus and the France-based Thales Group as part of an Internet service project tied to the launch of "between 300 and 500 satellites," Jacques said.

"This would change the situation in Quebec," he said, adding that the project would create about 200 new jobs.

Airbus said it is having ongoing discussions with various levels of government, including Quebec and Ottawa, to set up shop in the province if the multinational wins the contract.

S.

[V1Vr]

I like the Eurofighter a lot, but is it worth hurting our relationship with America even more by not going for the F35?

[rigpiggy]

Sorry, but screw bombardier, put it to tender throughout canada. Winnipeg has bristol,
"CF5 rebuild, ontario, and alberta have manufacturing lines. We already gave them industrial offsets on the C295 gongshow

[rigpiggy]

But yes, i would approve of either the Raphale, or the Typhoon

[TT1900]

More expensive than F35, older tech than F35, fewer users than F35, less opportunity for development/growth of the platform than F35. Seems like the logical choice.......

[schnitzel2k3]

More expensive than F35, older tech than F35, fewer users than F35, less opportunity for development/growth of the platform than F35. Seems like the logical choice.......

I guess they reigned in the cost to 90mil on the F35. After seeing it maneuver at the CIAS last summer, I was impressed.

I wonder if the estimated costs of the Typhoon could be reigned in under that when you consider the manufacturing taking place in Canada.

S.

[Jet Jockey]

Sorry, but screw bombardier, put it to tender throughout canada. Winnipeg has bristol,
"CF5 rebuild, ontario, and alberta have manufacturing lines. We already gave them industrial offsets on the C295 gongshow

What does Bombardier have to do with this?

It's Airbus that made the announcement not Bombardier.

Just in case you don't know, the plant in Mirabel that builds what was then known as the C Series now an Airbus aircraft, is totally separate from the Bombardier factory, perhaps not physically but company wise they are.

Bombardier personal cannot just cross into the Airbus side of things.

When the deal went through the people that worked for Bombardier under the C Series had to decide if they wanted to stay with Bombardier or switch over to Airbus.

So yes, Canada should have a "proper" contest/bid proposal out there to see which aircraft will become our next fighter and our military should be involved in its decision and certainly not the politicians.

Me personally after reading many articles on the F35, I don't think it is the aircraft for Canada, too many unknowns like actual cost (even the US government says it could cost at leads $125M/aircraft), It's performance is no where near where it was supposed to be and never will and finally I have a BIG problem with it being a single engine aircraft for our territory.

[AuxBatOn]

Me personally after reading many articles on the F35, I don't think it is the aircraft for Canada, too many unknowns like actual cost (even the US government says it could cost at leads $125M/aircraft), It's performance is no where near where it was supposed to be and never will and finally I have a BIG problem with it being a single engine aircraft for our territory.

I share none of your concerns. The F-35 is great at what it was designed to do: Low Observable Multi-Role platform.

[Old fella]

Me personally after reading many articles on the F35, I don't think it is the aircraft for Canada, too many unknowns like actual cost (even the US government says it could cost at leads $125M/aircraft), It's performance is no where near where it was supposed to be and never will and finally I have a BIG problem with it being a single engine aircraft for our territory.

I share none of your concerns. The F-35 is great at what it was designed to do: Low Observable Multi-Role platform.

I know absolutely nothing on fighter jet performance,capabilities, comparisons however I do know/understand politics as I have been around long enough. I believe The JT administration is in a bit of a pickle on the F-35 because no doubt the Air Force technical experts are telling their senior brass which is an extension of the Government, the F-35 is where we should go. JT let it be known leading to 2015 he will not buy the F-35 but make it plain there will be a open competition for replacements. Moving forward to 2019 election, the fighter jet issue will not be part of the platform either yea/nay. I do believe JT will get another mandate albeit a reduced majority and during that time frame the fighter replacement will play its course among the various producers and towards the end of that 2019 mandate it will be announced the F-35 is the winner. JT can cover himself by saying that an extensive process was undertaken and he listened to the CAF experts in taking their advice on F-35, also there will be enough distance between 2015 and say 2022 that it will be all forgotten. Canada will buy the F-35.

As for issues with F-35 well name me one aircraft civilian or military that didn’t have teething problems on inception and initial production. L-M is a big outfit and they will iron it all out no doubt.

[Gino Under]

The F35 is probably an excellent choice.
Eurofighter intends to pitch its Typhoon to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's fleet of Boeing CF-18A/Bs.
I'd imagine Canada should consider a twin engine multi-role fighter. WE usually play subordinate roles to the front line Americans anyway, so why not purchase what's best for our country and not worry about some insubordinate role we might play in some foreign theater of operation dictated by the usual erroneous and aggressive nature of American politics.
There's nothing wrong with the Eurofighter and it should be compatible with our NATO partners.

For those who may not realize it, Quebec is the hub of the Canadian Aerospace Industry. If you doubt it, have a look at any Canadian listing of aerospace companies and start counting the Quebec addresses and compare.
It may have an influence on any future decision by Airbus to set up shop in Quebec. Not to mention its' bilingual work force. Tabarnac!!


Gino

[frosti]

I have a BIG problem with it being a single engine aircraft for our territory.

Oh christ, the single engine crap again. The amount of engines has never been a requirement, not now and not when the CF-18 was chosen.

Here are two engines saving you... https://theaviationist.com/2015/12/29/s ... m-the-sea/

Look, two engines saving you again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4yMVM2Vxas

Redundancy isn't always better, if the odds of one failing is X, your probability of one of the two increases with two engines. If the odds, as has become true with current designs, of failure being catastrophic rather than simple "flame out," this means that two engines can be (and right now truly are) less reliable than one when it comes to abandoning the aircraft. Pilots die because they attempt to recover with the extra good engine perhaps saving them. Of course it all depends on the actual circumstances and pilot skill/training. Modern engines are sufficiently reliable that this risk is completely mitigated.

Here is what the Danes said about it.

https://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/ ... /index.htm

NOTE 2: F-35 ABILITY TO OPERATE IN THE ARCTIC AND SINGLE-ENGINE

Purpose
This note explains the F-35's ability to operate in the Arctic, including from small airports, and the importance that the aircraft has only one engine.

...

The significance of a motor for the F-35's ability to operate in the Arctic
A modern fighter aircraft survivability depends on the interaction between many different sub-systems, including aircraft self-protection systems, design, design and redundancy of the electrical and hydraulic systems. The evaluation of the F-35's survivability in the Arctic mission scenario shows that it has better survival rate than the other two candidates [Super Hornet and Eurofighter], also despite the fact that the F-35 have only one engine. This is primarily due to the reliability of modern engines are so good that even with major damage can bring a fighter safe back to the landing.

It should also be noted that none of the 10 Danish F-16 accidents were caused by engine failure. The engine for the F-16 is designed in the 1970s, and it is expected that the new engines are equally reliable.