Estimated reading time 12 minutes, 43 seconds.
As a decision in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) nears, Boeing is pulling out all the stops to convince Canada that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the right future fighter, over Lockheed Martin’s F-35A and the Saab Gripen E.
Much of the pitch rests on Boeing’s long history of doing business with Canada’s aerospace industry and the economic windfall it promises will accompany the replacement of aging CF-188 Hornets with the larger, more capable F/A-18E/F Block III.
Boeing is promising an influx of work and funding to companies of all sizes in every Canadian province, Maria Laine, the company’s vice president of international business development, said during a Nov. 9 media day at the St. Louis plant where Super Hornets are built. An economic impact study performed by Canadian technology market analysis firm Doyletech showed Boeing’s Super Hornet offering would create 250,000 jobs and infuse the Canadian economy with a total $61 billion over the aircraft’s service life.
“Our key competitor is not guaranteeing that same package,” Laine said. “They won’t guarantee it and even what they think they can do on a best-effort basis creates at least 100,000 less jobs and only one-third of the economic value. So, think about that. We have three times the economic benefit impact on Canadian defense and aerospace and the broader ecosystem, with what we’re delivering.”
Under FFCP, Canada plans to purchase 88 new aircraft to replace its CF-188s at a cost of between $15 billion and $19 billion. Sustaining the new jets over their 30- to 40-year service life promises billions more in annual work for the winning bidder.
Boeing’s proposal is designed to meet Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) obligations, in which the company signs a binding agreement to invest up to 100 percent of the contract value in the Canadian economy.
“The magnitude of that program, the number of aircraft, the fact that it is associated with a 100 percent ITB program… that has profound implications for the future of the aerospace and defense industry in Canada,” said Laine. “It’s not a decision that should be taken lightly and it’s something where you really want to make sure that you have a trusted partner to work with.”
Boeing is also hammering the relative affordability of the Super Hornet versus the F-35, which is notoriously expensive to fly and maintain.
“The F-18 is the most affordable multirole combat aircraft to operate in the U.S. inventory, significantly less expensive than our key U.S. competitor,” said Laine.
She highlighted the “wonderful, enduring partnership” between Boeing and Canada since 1919, when Bill Boeing and a co-pilot delivered 60 letters by air mail between Seattle and Vancouver in a home-built float plane. From that humble, yet momentous, beginning, the relationship has grown to where Boeing now spends $2.3 billion each year in the country, Laine said. Adding in the job impact of 1,500 Boeing employees and 20,000 supporting the company’s supply chain in Canada, that figure jumps to $5.3 billion every year, she said.
“Right now, when you look at the Boeing footprint in Canada, when you buy Boeing, you’re really buying Canadian,” she added. “Every single commercial aircraft Boeing develops and produces has Canadian parts, Canadian-produced components. We’ve got a robust supply chain with over 500 companies spread all across Canada from coast to coast to coast.”
While Lockheed touts the F-35 as a “fifth-generation fighter” with unparalleled stealth and sensor technology, among many other futuristic refinements, that capability comes with a significant cost to procure, operate, and maintain. The unit price for a conventional take-off and landing F-35A has dropped precipitously in recent years to about $80 million. Boeing says a Block III Super Hornet comes in just below that.
But that is only the cost to buy, not to operate or maintain the aircraft. The current cost per flight hour for the Super Hornet is around US$18,000. The F-35A’s cost per flight hour sat at US$33,600 in fiscal year 2020. The OEM is currently working to reduce the operating cost to US$30,000 by 2023, and US$25,000 by 2025. In mid-May 2020 during a virtual conference hosted by Goldman Sachs, Lockheed executive VP and CFO, Ken Possenriede, said the $25,000 per flight hour is in 2012 dollars, “so we have to escalate that to some extent to get to current year dollars.”
Jennifer Splaingard, vice president and program manager for the Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, said that beside the cost differential, Boeing’s jet offers significant capability for multiple combat missions and has room for future technological growth.
“The Block III Super Hornet is the most capable aircraft we’ve built to date,” Splaingard said. “It brings a few things: survivability and lethality. It also brings networking and longevity. The longevity piece not only ties to the airframe life — this is a 10,000-hour airframe that can last, depending on your flight program, upward of 30 years — but the longevity piece relates to the networking piece; that has to do with the open mission system processor that we’re putting in here, allowing capability upgrades well into the future really easily.
“The Super Hornet brings all of that to the table at an affordable price point,” she added.
The U.S. Navy’s Block II Super Hornets already have undergone a service-life extension program to increase their lifespan from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours. Boeing learned from that effort and was able to “productionize” the process so that all Block III aircraft roll off the St. Louis line as 10,000-hour airframes, Splaingard said.
It is up to a particular customer whether their aircraft have conformal fuel tanks that sit above the wings aft of the cockpit — a Block III upgrade the Navy has so far declined to pursue. All new-build Block III Super Hornets are plumbed to receive the new tanks.
“That can be tailored by the country depending on the mission sets they have and what environment they are taking off and landing their airplane in,” said Splaingard.
Boeing is building two Super Hornets a month at its St. Louis factory, and has the ability to ramp up to four a month — which would happen if “everything is a go,” Splaingard said. That would mean not only Canada, but Finland would also have to choose the F/A-18 and EA-18G Growler, as Germany has already done, she said.
“If all of those come to fruition and the timing is such that we need to increase the rate . . . then economies of scale will be there,” she said.
Finland is expected to decide on its future fighter to replace its legacy F-18 Hornets in December. That US$11 billion competition also pits Boeing against Lockheed and Saab, as well as Dassault’s Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon offered by a consortium of Airbus, Leonardo, and BAE Systems, said Laine. Boeing is also going after an opportunity to provide India with Super Hornets that the country will fly from its aircraft carrier.
While Boeing pushes the Super Hornet, Canada continues to pay into the F-35 program to maintain its seat at the table of nations that are participating in the U.S.-led development program. A July payment of US$71.7 million to the U.S. brought Canada’s total investment in the F-35 to US$613 million since 1997. The government has said that the investment brought US$2 billion in contracts to Canadian businesses.
As director of fighter programs in Canada for Boeing Defense, Jim Barnes has been advocating the Super Hornet to Ottawa for years, and is no less convinced that Boeing still holds the upper hand — if given a fair appraisal by the government.
“We have a very compelling offer that is on the table,” said Barnes. “We think the Government of Canada is going to have a very tough decision because we’ve got next-generation capabilities with the Block III. . . . We can operate and acquire that aircraft at a very affordable price, and we’ve got 100 percent guaranteed economic benefits. That offer, we believe, is going to be very tough to beat. The government will have something very serious to think about.”
The problem for both Saab and Boeing is offering a 4+ generation fighter to the RCAF with limited but well trained pilots to take to a 5th or 6th generation fight with its NATO partners who have moved to 5th generation fighters along with hopes for pilot survivability up against a well equipped Russian or Peoples Republic of China adversary with 5th generation fighters and not to mention sustainment over 40 + years after the F-18 SH assembly line is done in St Louisa and Boeing has moved on from the Super Hornet. That is problematic in my view for both of these two contenders. Jobs are one thing. Pilot survivability and support to NATO and NORAD partners are quite another and the number 1 concern. With a decimated 4th generation airforce in a 5th or 6th generation fight .. the jobs mean absolutely nothing.
But Boeing screwed over bombardier
When Boeing lost the contest to a Canadian company.
F35 bring net centric warfare gathers all data and blends it for the pilot.
F18 is last century’s fighter.
Canadas leaders always get our troops other country’s seconds.
Canada we should have some good fighter just in case,get the best one to defense ours home land and paticipate with NATO
Canada needs to rethink its Military obligations. The purchase of 88 fighters is not enough. Today we need the same amount as we did in the 80’s. Let’s put defence first instead of profit. Let’s split the order to 50 F-18 / 15 EG-18,
65 F-35 and as a good will to Saab, purchase 8 Global Eye AWAC Aircraft for a total of 138, same as 1980 purchase number of legacy F-18’s. Drones are the future an investment should be initiated. What better Aircraft to Control Drones than a Global Eye AWAC.
I recall during the original f18 competition twin engine aircraft’s ability survive a bird strike and still make it to an airfield for an emergency landing when operation in remote areas virtually elimated the f16 from serious consideration. Has the f35 have anti-bird strike abilities or survivability far exceeding the f16?
After what Boeing did to Bombardier they should put their super hornets where the sun don’t shine.
As usual, Boeing is being typically arrogant – they must think Canadians have amnesia!
Canadians (population in general) do have amnesia, never fight back, feed on social media disinformation, fly on Boeing commercial aircraft and will even return to flying the Max. The Bombardier C-Series story, as is Defense and Security, are so far removed from the majority of Canadians’ minds, that foreign companies play us like puppets.
My vote goes to SAAB to change the landscape for a while. I’m getting sick of the constant bullying.
The primary fighter determination responsibility is making the most advantageous choice which offers Canada reliability through the foremost capability/quality in interoperable air defence and attack.
Though, we all need to wonder if Canadians have the competent government to make an actual, informed decision; based upon it’s embarrassing track record of repeat Idiocy. Still no replacement fighters (after how long)?
Canada is a member of both NORAD and NATO. Operationally requires cross platform support to advantageously operate, support, and collaborate as an inherent member of 100% team(s).
The PR represents an exclusive decision. Does that serve Canada’s interests?
It strikes my experience that it may prove appropriate to, for example, proportionally choose both the F-35 and F-18E/F/G
(including conformal tanks).
Arctic sorties occur with an unpublished frequency to intercept ongoing Russian interdiction probing Canadian and NORAD defence responses. Doing so requiring endurance over significant distances. That’s the job.
Factoring in the F-18E/F/G is functionally capable of deploying advanced, ‘over the horizon’ munitions and Hypersonic Missiles. These non-stealthy-armed F-18’s would complement well in conjunction with stealthy F-35’s; who focus on targetting and sharing that data with the F-18’s armed to attack far greater than F-35’s.
If Canada purchased:
– 40% F-35’s and
– 60% F-18E/F/G’s
the reduction in #’s of F-35’s permits greater #’ s of F-18E/F/G’s while enhancing Canada’s deliverable fighter competency. Greater #’s of aircraft and total capability.
That capability includes stealth missions as well as both aerial interdiction and significant ground support. 21st century military tactical 1st is Canada’s hallmark when required. Actually saves lives over being hampered by political indecision and non-support.
(40% + 60%) = 100% no matter.
All for the same upfront costs.
Capitalizing upon both Canada’s tax contributions to the F-35 program and Boeing’s determination to continue supporting our industries.
Perhaps a pragmatic rethink may prove prudent in contrast to the PR broadcast by those who, honestly, are simply unqualified when it translates to $billions of taxpayer ‘contributions’.
Paul Migel and Bob Findler comment injects into the Canada New Fighter Program serious sober thought and common sense. Skiesmag.com is a great website and brings readers critical analysis in civilian and military aviation stories world wide.
At the time of this writing (Dec 1, 2021), the Liberal Goverment in Ottawa has informed Boeing that it does not meet the requirements of the New Fighter program. It means that Boeing is out.
Rather than playing petty politics especially over the Boeing/ Bombardier trade dispute in 2017, Paul and Bob point out that the GOC, DND and RCAF have to seriously think about how our country is ACTUALLY able to respond to the Russian and Chinese threats to our sovereignty and air space. They are advocating a mixed fighter force of aircraft according to their strengths and capabilities to actually get the job done 24/7. That capability includes Electronic Warfare, sensor fusion and networking as well as long range AEW&C and ground/maratime surveillance. We also need to be able to shoot down hypersonic missiles and engage in BVR air combat against Russian Su-57 and Su-35s not to mention Chinese J-11 and j
We need to create a mixed fighter force of F-18E and EA-18 Growler for EW and Boeing Loyal Wingman program as seen for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). They can be used for long range Artic Sovereignty patrol. The F-35C can be used for ground attack/NATO missions and BVR air combat on QR on the coast. If we add the SAAB 340 Goldeneye, it would give The RCAF the ability to maintain full AEW as well as ground and Maritime surveillance. We can have the ability to track Russian and Chinese aircraft, ships and subs and can destroy them in a future war.
My final point is that choosing Lockheed-Martin, Boeing and SAAB especially for advanced early warning radar and research gives Canada the maximum industrial benefit. It means that everyone wins and no company loses. It also means dropping partisan politics in military procurement and selecting a mixed fighter force that realistically and reliably gets the job done and allow the CAF to properly defend the country. If the DND and RCAF had more creative and forward thinking people in Ottawa they would come to the conclusion that Paul, Bob and myself arrived to.
Jobs, jobs, jobs… That’s all they talk about really. Can it go up against Russia’s and China’s latest fighters and the fighters after that? This should be the real measure they should be considering, not jobs. A dull knife doesn’t fair well against a Katana.
There’s so much bad blood as a result of Boeing’s actions on the C-Series they would practically have to give them away for free to get the contract. I’m not sure that seems likely, though that would perhaps create a path for the RCAF to buy other Boeing platforms (ie P-8 / E-7) in the future.
Jobs? How about the Bombardier jobs destroyed by Boeing?
Keep your industrial military complex and vote buying approach out of Canada.
No mention of what they did to Bombardier and the CSeries?
Boeing screwed Bombardier with ridiculous tariffs they asked the orange man’s administration for. Knew Bombardier had better product as regional airliner so knee capped them out of market. Forget Boeing traitors to Canada
The F35 is a Great aircraft One of the test Pilots on the F35 is a Canadian F18 pilot Billy Flynn and says it is a great Aircraft and is leaps and bounds ahead of the F18 or Grippen Canada is a great support Military and the F35 would put Canada in the big leagues I would purchase 40 F35 ‘s and 40 Super Hornets both used for Norad and Nato Commitments as well as 8 F18 Growlers That would put Canada in a Position to be included in any Dispute I would also get rid of the 60 year old TUTORS the Snow Birds Risk their lives in every day They could be replaced with The Australian F18’s that have less Airtime or Surplus F16’s also with less Hours Why is Canada spending more Money to stay with the F35 if you are not gong to Purchase this aircraft and why are Canadians training in F18 Super Hornets on US Navy Aircraft Carries
Leave a comment