Canada Scraps Plan to Buy Boeing Fighter Jets Amid Trade Dispute With Bombardier ✈ FlightAware

Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.

Rejeter

Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?

Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.

Rejeter

← Back to Squawk list

28

Canada Scraps Plan to Buy Boeing Fighter Jets Amid Trade Dispute With Bombardier

Soumis il y a un an

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada is scrapping a plan to buy 18 Boeing Co (BA.N) Super Hornet fighter jets amid a deepening dispute with the U.S. aerospace company, three sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. (www.reuters.com) Plus d'info...

56 commentaires des membres

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

jcazalot il y a un an 10

Boeing must really be wishing it could take all this back.
You get greedy instead of competing and this is what you get.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

canuck44 il y a un an 6

Not yet they still think they can tough it out. You will know they get the whole picture when you begin to see changes in their upper management on pressure from their Board.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Nick Blazanovic il y a un an 7

We shouldn't be bothering with used Hornets. The government should just go straight to the order for a replacement aircraft for the entire fleet. I think the Typhoon would be a prefect fit for what we need and what we can afford. The Rafale is also a good choice. If there were a way to convince the Americans to let us have the F-22, that would be the ultimate choice. The F-35 isn't what we need.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 4

Why on earth would the government go after another aircraft who has Boeing written on it?...that is the whole being, that Boeing acted like a bunch of knuckleheads and tickede off the Canadian people.
I agree about wanting to just procure new jets now but the issue is, the F-18's we currently have, even though they were upgraded years ago, are set to have run their course by 2020...to get new jets now would not have delivery till probably 2021-2022

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 3

Its a great idea. If we purchase fighters from the Europeans we need to get them to provide the necessary infrastructure to manufacture and build them ourselves. The Europeans are much more sophisticated than their counterparts at BUNGING. I want whats best for my country. Not some screwy idea an American weapons salesperson has. I believe we know what is best for Canada. We have had enough of the B.S. and now we are changing the game and the rules to their absolute horror. Meanwhile the rest of the the civilized world is cheering us on. For Embraer...be careful who you sleep with, you could wind up with a little present that just keeps on giving and is very hard to get rid of.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Roch Comeau il y a un an 3

You are forgetting that neither the Aussi hornets or the new ones were ever meant to replace the current CF-18s. They are meant as a stop-gap until they get their acts together and get new planes to replace the aging fleet.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 2

Actually, Roch, new 1's were meant to replace the aging fleet..it isn't just their acts that need attention but that the current fleet will have run its course by 2020.
As you see in my reply to Nick, even procuring new jets within the next year, means delivery wont start till 2021-2022..and I don't think those old girls can take it.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Nick Blazanovic il y a un an 2

If that is the case, why are they dragging their feet on making a decision for the replacement of the entire fleet? The longer they wait, the worse the situation will become.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 2

They have been for years I guess but first it was suppose to be the F-35 and that was agreed upon, with deliveries starting, I believe, in 2018. However when the cost of the thing went through the roof, it got squashed (they to us listened for once)...then the deal was in the works for the Boeing Super Hornet, that would have started replacing the fleet in 2019...but Boeing buggered that all up...now have to go through bidding procurement all over again..I like the Gripen, Typhoon isn't too bad but a tad overpriced.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Nick Blazanovic il y a un an 4

Yes, that is all true. However, I can't believe that there wasn't a plan B for an alternate aircraft if the F-35 didn't pan out. Surely somebody who evaluated what was being offered had an alternative in mind. If not, they should be fired. Now that we know that the F-35 isn't suitable to our needs and budget and we can't deal with Boeing we should immediately look elsewhere. I like the Typhoon and the Rafale. The Gripen is a single engine aircraft so much of my objection to it is based on that.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 1

Remember..we have had 2 separate government entities...and procuring a new jet just isnt a shot in the dark thing...now that we have basically told Boeing off, I imagine the works are on to get the bid process going for a new jet.
As far as versatility, logistics and cost,the Gripen wins hands down..single engine vs double is, to me, like comparing a twin to 4 engine jet..the twins (Gripen) have provem they can hang with the big dogs (Typhoon, Rafale)...single engine but speed is almost identical, thou the Typhoon can carry more and with sunard tanks, go further.
I still place the Gripen above the Typhoon as I don't think the Typhoon is worth over double what a Gripen is and costs more to fuel etc.
http://gripen4canada.blogspot.ca/p/how-the.html compare all 5..1 thing it doesnt show is how the Gripen can land in 300m or less, refuel and reload in short time, and only take 2-3 personal to load it...that and it is the only fighter that has rough field capability (In this comparison)

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Dan Chiasson il y a un an 1

And to complement rapidwolve's comment,, this is very very much about politics. However I do want to mention, and perhaps here I deviate from his perspective, is that the decision will also include the commercial element in terms of upside for Canada (ie: jobs). And finally, IMHO, all the fighters in question are effective deterrents/killing machines (must avoid this being a military holiday wish list looking for the fanciest toy paid by taxpayers) and this is about getting most bang for the buck. (pun intended ;-{).

Cheers

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Nick Blazanovic il y a un an 0

There is no need for the stop-gap measure. This is poorly thought out and a waste of money and resources.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 2

This is correct. Our government promises great things, but always crap-out.
Look the Boeing F-18 contract trashed because Boeing in its in its infinite stupidity was being shown the door from one of the many Canadians refuse to deal with that company. As it stands our Air force has Boeing Lockheed Martin,Embraer
Bombardier British Aerospace, Sikorsky and Israeli drones, It's a huge list.

We must force our government's into continually upgrading and renewing the Air and Naval fleets constantly. As it stands,in Canada we screw around too much to be taken seriously, we are a joke to the arms manufacturers. No one in their right mind would never deal with us. We are indecisive when it becomes obvious that our last role of duct tape is holding the wing of 1 F-18 in place

We have got to stop shopping for arms by our government at the last minute. That makes us like easy marks or dumb patsies that can be be an easy mark for any high-tech arsenal of the 21st century. We must invest in our own future again not the absurd tweetings from a madman.

I apologize for the length and I assure all readers it is not a rant.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Ted Reesor il y a un an 1

I don't know why we're looking at anything. They are able to keep the Sea Kings alive well past their "best before" date. I say if they're good enough for us, they're good enough for our great grandchildren. Its the Canadian way (it seems).

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 1

The CF-18's are already past their "best before" date and were updated to keep them slugging along..fixed wing air frames can only take so much before fatigue takes hold...rotor craft isn't as bad because they dont have a high altitude flight cycle..most of the CF-18's can keep going for another few years but some are past their prime..hence the "newer" FA-18's from Australia to help and boost the number of aircraft for 77 to 88

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

chalet il y a un an 2

Go the Grippen way, not as sophisticated as the F-22 or F-35 but a hell of a lot cheaper, it does Mach 2 you know.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 1

Don't be fooled. Most of this generation pilots want fast, gut wrenching moves. Most aircraft must be running out of snag book by now, but this program was infested with them. Both fighters are having teething problems.

We will get much more than just fighter aircraft. The industrial benefits should go to the winner of as well as a generous tax incentive from Canada and the Province where they can operate. This will create thousands of jobs over the life of the program.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Jim Mitchell il y a un an 2

I suggested the Rafael but the Liberals are buying like they did with the submarines.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 3

Agreed, but both Liberals and Conservative Defense Departments dither forever. Get the Fighter that compliments our economy and that we can realistically afford. The European Aircraft meet our current needs. Additionally, Jeff's idea about the Typhoon is realistic as well. The American pricing is geared towards maximizing profit minimizing benefits. We must push for a deal that we build them in a new factory under license. Creating 1000's of new job's in Canada in the high-tech sector and the industrial spinoffs would have
must benefit this critical component of our economy.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Dan Chiasson il y a un an 1

perhaps Canada's "strategy" ;-{) is to drag the decision along till drones are the way to go. Unmanned will happen.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

DAVID MCKIE il y a un an 1

Typical of this government. We are buying old used crap to replace our old used crap. Remember the wonderful deal we got on used submarines!!! Pretty sure we won't be deploying our fighter jets anywhere soon.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

canuck44 il y a un an 5

Maybe karma has brought what Canada really needs into perspective...just like the submarines, these planes (or any other aircraft) really do not fill any real need for the nation. Given the limited range of any available interceptor and the location of bases from which to operate, the only real hope is to protect a few major cities with huge gaps between. None of Canada's extra-territorial deployments require much more than air to ground support. The military brass will be upset they don't have the latest in toys to beat their chests at NATO gatherings, but frankly they don't bring much to the big picture.

Buy the used jets, they are all you need in reality.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 2

CFB Cold Lake and CFB Comax serve northern Canada just fine and if tensions do escalate, CFS Alert can handle a squadron..that and CJOC does operate FOL's out of civilian airfields up north..may not be the USAF, but then again we don't have 363 million people to watch over...just 10% of that.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

canuck44 il y a un an 2

I could not imagine trying to operate a squadron of CF-18's out of Alert...Frobisher yes, but Alert can barely resupply itself in summer with its short gravel carve out (although I admit it was many years since I was there in a Communications world). I suppose if months of warning were given and it was summertime one or two aircraft might be put there with the mosquitoes as a show, but the logistics would be horrendous as everything must be flown in. If anyone were serious about defending the Arctic the money would be better spent on missile defense.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 3

Alert isnt so bad..Trenton keeps up on it..remember like I said CJOC does have Forward Operating Locations at civilian airstrips.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Michael Hope il y a un an 5

Missile defense is why Canada did not finish the CF-105 Avro Arrow. If Canada had actually finished the development of the Arrow, the world would have been coming to Canada to buy fighters

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

canuck44 il y a un an 3

For its time the Arrow was very advanced but suffered the same problem all these current interceptors have and that being lack of range. The Arrow was barely over 400 miles. It was fast and could climb but burned off much of its fuel to get there. I agree the BOMAC was certainly not a decent replacement and I never understood why its nuclear capability added to its desirability.

Canada has two problems which are synergistic: it has massive territory to defend much of it in difficult areas of operation and secondly, has a limited population to support a budget that would be needed to mount an adequate defense of that territory.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 2

Your last sentence hit the nail on the head...small population which means small budget and large area..I'm actually glad they scrapped the F-35 idea (not many bright ideas out of Ottawa these days but that wad 1)

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

matt jensen il y a un an 1

Oh goody, here we go again. We don't need the 18's, the Gripen 39's would be fine, if we only need a compatible NATO jet.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 1

Have to disagree on that 1.I would buy into your theory had the Arrow just been cancelled and the airframes destroyed, but remember it went further than that...Remember that A.V. Roe (AVRO) Canada owned Canadian Titanium Works and that place could put out almost anything in titanium, given good blueprints..but who else needed titanium made parts and couldn't produce the quality or quantity it needed?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 1

They were fiddling around in the late 50's and early 60's still trying to launch a "kaputnik" while trashing our aviation industry at the same time.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 1

Have to admit..they did come up with a good name for their smelly operation..ends in Works and first word is a little black animal with a white stripe down its back...

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 1

Where have you been? This has been one of the the most debated topics on this site. I will make it easy for you. Canadians good,
Americans bad on all counts in our aviation sector.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 1

Alert had its runway reinforced to allow C-17s if necessary. Another reason was to get the bad news out and down to a bunker under Cheyenne Mountain. The Canadians and Americans switch duty in Thule, Greenland.
The runway lighting was enhanced at Alert to prevent another Herc crashed. DND and Air Command emergency responders immediately felt that the runways were substandard and took immediate action if this situation would recur.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 1

Don't forget Eureka's strip..that too has been modified...since both were placed, as winga, under CFB Trenton in 2009, a great many modifications have been done...of course there is Iqaluit which serves as a FOB...and that strip allows an A380 to land.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 4

I wouldn't say the CF-18C is crap..old, as compared to the over priced F-35 yes..but the percurment of some of Australia's newer F18a will help fill a stop gap since we aren't buying the over priced F-35 and scrapped gettting the Super Hornet from knuckleheaded Boeing.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

matt jensen il y a un an 2

Not so much the 18 itself, it's the overpriced parts deal. Boeing just trying to screw us again. We don't need them. There's a whole world out there of better jets, parts and companies.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 1

David that statement stands on its own merit. Nicely Done

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Eric Rindal il y a un an 1

If crap ever hits the fan for Canada, admittedly unlikely, "Who ya going to call" Australia, France, UK? This technology mostly exists at the expense of the US tax payer. It's easy to forget that the world is still a very dangerous place, even if you are Canada. Unfortunately you don't need to look far to see how easily Crazy types can get elected somewhere and change the landscape literally overnight.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Stephen Laurie il y a un an -1

Make Trump happy and buy Russian equipment...the best of course!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Daniel Turmel il y a un an 0

I agree... Had the same idea ;-)
Get some SU-35 just to put Yankees on their nerves !
And we have to admit that those Flankers are ahead many modern fighters today.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Jeff Phipps il y a un an 0

Can you say Typhoon?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

indy2001 il y a un an 0

Childishness on both sides and both sides will be hurt in the long run.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

M Moreau il y a un an 0

Canadian Forces pilots and all CF personnel deserves better than retreads including the ones in Ottawa.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

gerardo godoy il y a un an -5

Canada. who are you planning to invade????...Canada needs Fighter Jets??? what for, to waste gas and people's Taxes...very stupid.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 4

geraldo we belong to NATO, NORAD and the United Nations. These are commitments to the international community. We are obliged to go to countries with our military aid to discourage Russian aggressive adventurism. The Transport aircraft have military as well as humantarian needs. Finally, we monitor the borders, control drug and human smuggling. Our military is more than just F-18s We are improving our search and rescue capabilities. I am afraid you have an extremely and limited capability bordering on naive. We need this capability in order to meet our international Alliances. You shout read von Clausewitz' A book entitled "On War."You must read Dr. Azar Gat's views on contemporary warfare. I wish the world was truely as simple as you see it, however" reality presents a very disturbing image of the future.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

gerardo godoy il y a un an -2

Hi Randall...If countries would mind their own business and not go around the world with wars and revolts that only make things worse this would be a better world, but politicians and corporations don't like that.
When Intercontinental missiles start flying over Canada or anywhere else having fighter jets will not do anything worth their price or salt. Great!! for transport aircraft, ambulance planes and Helicopters, no quarrel with those, everyone who can afford them should have some. I am a pilot and love aviation But again, you only need fighters if you going out to fight other fighters, and I guess Canada does not want to do that. You might be the naive one thinking that it is a good thing to get super jets to do border patrol..you must be living in the 1950s. Now if you want to go bomb ISIS get some.....good day.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 3

I have absolutely no quarrel with a man who speaks his mind honestly. I disagree with some of your points others are spot-on. If you are supporting a nation without heavy lift capabilities - for mobile hospitals, troops and tanks. You still require a fighter escort. A case for the Canadian Airlift capability is poor but they build some of the finest aircraft today.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a un an 1

Actually, Randall, the Canadian airlift capability has improved tremendously...we are not a nation of hundreds of bases, but no longer do we have to pick up the phone and call to get troops and gear moved or to get DART to where it needs to go...the newer CC-130J's and CC-177 Globemaster's handle that role well..occasionally we must call ADB for the AN124, but so do other, heavier equipped, countries.
As for fighter jets, you are correct that we need them..not just for lift escort duties but general peace of mind, border patrol and recon in the north, and commitments.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

gerardo godoy il y a un an -3

Oh, I forgot....The worst think that this world has since around 25 years ago is the rat communist, leftist Hole called the UN..but many idiot nations keep paying the bureaucratic leftists who loiter there for not good to the human race. Read about their "great" deeds around the world besides causing more trouble wherever they poke their noses.
Have you not heard??? the EU is going to make their own "Army"so why NATO, they are a bunch of ungreatful you know what!!!...let them go bankrupt buying arms and war planes like the dam Soviet Union did..

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 3

I am not being critical Gerardo and I apologize for mis-spelling your name. You have a lot of anger in your writing. Cool off this is just a forum for all people who love aviation. You will become ill if you don't look at alternatives to being angry and upsetting everyone nearby. I am not your enemy we just disagree on stuff that's all. Nothing you or I will affect the rotation of the planet. Be Well. RK

!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

gerardo godoy il y a un an -3

Some people don't like the truth,about aviation or otherwise. Elect people who don't waste your hard earned money on fighter jets!!!..angry, no way sir, just stating my point of view. How many hospitals, schools, Universities hospitals, schools, Universities could Canada build with the money its leftist government wants to spend in jet fighters???....Merry Christmas.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 1

I apologize for my errors and the mistake I made in assessing this situation, however, some of my views are correct but I will endeavor to be more accurate.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Randall Kimm il y a un an 1

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A BLESSINGS OF HEALTH AND HAPPINESS TO ALL THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FLIGHTAWARE SQUAWKS.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

gerardo godoy il y a un an 1

You are a good Canadian. Have a great and happy New Year.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Se connecter