Back to Squawk list


The General Staff of the RCAF are looking at the French Raphael. First it meets the Canadians two engine requirements. Additionally the French are willing to build this high tech marvel in Canada instead of negotiating for scraps whenever you are forced to deal with Boeing. The Typhoon could easily fill the role of a Superhornets. Boeing make great aircraft just lousy deals. ( Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Peter Ashby 15
In a free world trade market there should be no reason why Canada should not shop around for product. It would appear Boeing wants all the business at no matter what cost. If they don't get their own way then maybe impose exorbitant tariffs and fees to drive out/ destroy the competition.
Nice neighbours!
John Bowlby -1
Just like Trumpski playing in his sandbox!
Don Boyce 15
Great move if Canada and France can make a deal. This jet far superior to the Boeing boat anchor. Hope this deal is made. Win, win, win for Canada and France. Even better that Dassault will build a factory in Canada.
Logger1 9
Boeing should change their name to "Bong". That's the noise you hear as they are booted out of Canada
Dan Chiasson 1
ref "bong" , , , , or what Boeing was smoking when they chose their strategy for the C-Series.
Dale Martell 8
As they should. We don't need Boeing.
Max Bradford 6
It would serve Boeing and the US right if the RCAF went shopping in Europe for equipment. So much for America First: Trump's bully pit approach to international relations is at best self serving twaddle and at worse a real danger to world peace and stability. Such a pity for a once great nation.
trennor turcotte 3
Bad link to the story; I couldn't see it on CTV. Just a bunch of ads for CTV shows.
Antoni Mazur 0
I encountered the same problem
Dan Chiasson 2
If Rafale is to be seriously considered (or any other current gen fighter) the financial "drag-alongs" will have to at least equal or surpass Boeing's current Canadian financial footprint in order to be accepted by Canadian voters. Now isn't it interesting that Boeing has placed TV commercials extolling its business relationship with Canada. IMHO, sorry, way too little and too late. They disrespected Canadian manufacturing (ie: Bombardier) and politicians. They, with Trump's tacit support, made their bed, they have to now sleep in it. Using the subtlety of an axe in a political arena rarely results in a positive for the protagonist.
Bruce Milam 1
Best time to rid Canada of Boeing and it'seems protectionist attitude.
Jim Mitchell 1
I suggested the Raphael Marine to the CDS in an email three or four years ago. It is a superior fighter jet plus the two engines for northern patrols patrols. This was well before the Lockheed/Bombardier debacle. As for as the F35, Canada doesn't need a sneak attack plane because we don't attack, we defend.
Jim Mitchell 1
Oops that's Rafale Marine.
Al Johnson 1
Randall Kimm, can you please post a proper link to the CTV web site not the CTV tv web site that requires one to have a subscription to CTV and also live in Canada, for those of us that are not in Canada or CTV subscribers,
Otherwise it would leave one to believe this to be fake news, although I wish it was true.
I'm Canadian, but looks like my Cable provider doesn't allow me to sign in the CTV.CA site. Just hope this is real.
Alan Hume 1
Why shouldn't the Canadians be looking at the Rafale (NOTE: not Raphael!!)? It is a very capable Gen 4.5 aircraft and largely underrated, but it is expensive too so any plans to build it in Canada should be welcome. As for the comments about the deficiencies of the F-35, we've heard them all before by the naysayers, but the pilots of the USAF and RAAF who actually are flying them say they are a "game-changer" with the their situational awareness and stand-off weapons capability such that they will rarely be called upon to engage in a dogfight. It is more likely that an opposing aircraft will be eliminated before it is even aware that the F-35 is in the area. In recent Red Shield exercises the F-35 routinely disposed of multiple attacks by F-16 "Aggressor Squadron" aircraft even when outnumbered 5-1, with no losses.
myalias 1
Game changer because the oxygen system randomly fails ;-)
A J Pongress 1
Link doesn't work
Louis Belzil 1
The CF-104's had one engine.
Jim Mitchell 1
AKA the Widowmaker; it killed more Canadian pilots then I like to remember
matt jensen 1
I like the JAS39 Gripen.
We don't need worn out Aussie jets nor overpriced Boeing.
Thomas Frisch 0
It's not the Raphael, it's the Rafale. I have not heard of any two-engine requirement expressed by the RCAF. I would take anything the press writes on aviation with a very large dose of salt. I hope to God those clowns, from the Prime Minister down, who will ultimately be responsible for the replacement of the CF-18, will not be reading the maunderings of the press, which will only serve to confuse them further.
D H 6
I recall that the 2-engine feature has always been a wish, and is trotted out as a demand to avoid the very expensive F35. I think the French jet would be a good solution to several problems - esp as NORAD has recently stated that the US no longer will defend Canada just because (NK) US is under attack.
Randall Kimm 2
It's funny you mention this point about US not defending Canada would violate the terms and purpose of NORAD. If they don't want to defend us why are we going to permit their strategic bombers to recover at Canadian bases and international airports with runways 10,000' after bombing Russia with conventional and cruise nukes. Why are we refusing to accept highly accurate Thaad Batteries against incoming threats? Ah, made by some affiliates of Boeing. The French, Swedes and Swiss have equally if not more effective weapons than the Thaad anti-ballistic missile system.
Randall Kimm 2
This is not a criticism of your argument. Try to catch some of the Canadian Economic and weekly political news that is reviewed in detail on Friday evening and Saturday morning. That's where the political comments have been made concerning each unique facet of the
this totally unnecessary trade war. Canada should hold the feet of Boeing and Embraer over the hot coals of Justice at the World Court in the Hague. These companies openly and overtly are publically trying to destroy Bombardier. It doesn't take a genius to see this connection. Why are we letting this forensic data slip through our hands like sand? Their CEO'S should be locked up for illegally interfering and tampering illegally with business matters that do not concern them. One with a false claim at the WTC and the other at the good Ole boys Sleazy Tarrifs Saloon. Owned and operated by Donald Dump. An example of this is the rumour that the FMS and other systems are too complicated...maybe for the type of nuthatch or chimps flying Boeing gear with very wet certification. Unfortunately this lie can be proven to be slander in court with the criminals who perpetrated this bald face lie. Pilots from SWISS and BALTIC will tell you the truth under oath. Boeing is scared that's why they are trying to pull these criminal stunts. "It's a dream to fly, it is really easy to learn the systems and their related cockpit low-glow electronic instrumentation. This aircraft was a clean sheet design based on the initial comments made by pilots with Boeing and Airbus experience and take the best of both and design will evolve. Neither Boeing nor Airbus can stop technical innovations. Sorry for being so long.
bentwing60 0
Some might argue that the Beaudoin family has been rather instrumental in the ill fortunes of Bombardier in recent times. Although I'm fairly certain more than a few in this discussion don't know the name. I am also fairly certain that they are still as popular amongst the quebecois elite as the "chimps" that formerly inhabited the white house May be some social implications in your term. "Maybe some of the type of nuthatch or chimps flying Boeing gear with very wet certification" (his words, not mine) will join me in calling you out as an ATP. The average line guy "flies what they (the management) buy" and worries more about seniority, bid, and the next medical than your rant about BA vs. CA:BBD.A. After you give me the down vote, click on my avatar and go back a long way and read my comments. I started my participation based on "aviation". You, "my friend" seemed to enter it based on politics! And I have seen a considerable amount of this "world" at or above 410. I'm glad you weren't an air traffic controller.
Randall Kimm 2
He's speaking in gibberish again. Some religious individuals call it speaking in tongues, however I love the insane gibbering's like finding secret messages in non-pecific tinnitus.
Randall Kimm 0
I gave him a thumbs-up cause he's such a pain in the @$$.
myalias 3
The lack of a second engine was one of the biggest arguments against the F35.
bentwing60 3
The lack of capability, readiness and cost of the F35 are the biggest arguments against the F35!
myalias 3
Yeah, it sure has a lot of big arguments against it!
Randall Kimm 2
A retired Marine Test Pilot (Colonel) in Aviation Weekly electronic subscription said it (F-35) was a "pig" at the Paris Air Show. He explained that it took off with 25 minutes of fuel to do jaw dropping maneuvers otherwise impossible.
Randall Kimm 2
Hi Bentwing60, can you please elaborate and explain the reasons against it. I am not baiting you, we are in 100% agreement. First time in this century...hahaha!

All the Best

Randall Kimm 1
My apologies, Good Catch! RK
Antoni Mazur 0
I'm suspicious this is "fake" news. I can find NO other link or reference to any other published articles to this effect and the link to yields their home page and no article. CTV is a well established Canadian broadcaster and is unlikely to have published an unsubstantiated story then withdraw it. the only thing close is a Government of Canada post referencing recent Franco-Canadian military exercises on the island of Corsica.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!