Bombardier C series hit with massive US Tariffs

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Just a huge no to the second part, its been debated ad nauseum, Canada should stay away from any kind of fighter jet program.

the whole Avro Arrow thing has been exaggerated and practically been given statehood, but it was a failed overly expensive and incompetently run program that needed to be poop canned.

You shut up! It was awesome!

[Bigtime]

The Avro Arrow would still be the premier fighter today! F-22's would cower in its presence!

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Just a huge no to the second part, its been debated ad nauseum, Canada should stay away from any kind of fighter jet program.

While I agree we have no capacity to design a fighter we absolutely have the expertise and capacity to build whatever we buy, and with the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on these jets I believe local manufacture should be part of the deal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The Avro Arrow would still be the premier fighter today! F-22's would cower in its presence!

Yeah no it wouldn't

The Avro Arrow was a single design interceptor made to go after high altitude soviet long range bombers and shoot them down with long range missiles.

It was made obsolete not by some american plot to kill it, but by the change in doctrine to missiles and low altitude insertion bombers.

Because of that unless you do a major redesign of the air frame, avonics and weapons deployment and find a way to make it multi-role it was dead before it left the testing phase.

It was also hideously expensive, with a cost of about $12.5 million dollars a copy for the final plane which would be well over 100 million dollars per plane today for a single role fighter it didn't make a lot of sense.

the plan after the cancellation of the Arrow of long range anti-aircraft missiles combined with multi-role fighter jets made all kinds of sense and was smart for the time.

There's this worship of the Arrow, and I liked it as well, but it just wouldn't stand up to the multi-role planes and dog fighters of today's military aviation design.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by speede5

While I agree we have no capacity to design a fighter we absolutely have the expertise and capacity to build whatever we buy, and with the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on these jets I believe local manufacture should be part of the deal.

I believe that we should be able to modify what we purchase. However I firmly believe that building a whole production infrastructure for what is basically a small airforce makes no sense.

Creating a whole industry for 65 to 80 jets would be a massive waste of money.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah no it wouldn't

The Avro Arrow was a single design interceptor made to go after high altitude soviet long range bombers and shoot them down with long range missiles.

It was made obsolete not by some american plot to kill it, but by the change in doctrine to missiles and low altitude insertion bombers.

Because of that unless you do a major redesign of the air frame, avonics and weapons deployment and find a way to make it multi-role it was dead before it left the testing phase.

It was also hideously expensive, with a cost of about $12.5 million dollars a copy for the final plane which would be well over 100 million dollars per plane today for a single role fighter it didn't make a lot of sense.

the plan after the cancellation of the Arrow of long range anti-aircraft missiles combined with multi-role fighter jets made all kinds of sense and was smart for the time.

There's this worship of the Arrow, and I liked it as well, but it just wouldn't stand up to the multi-role planes and dog fighters of today's military aviation design.

Heathen!

[CaptainCrunch]

Yup that's me.

Burn him.

[Bigtime]

Did I really need to use green text?

[Fuzz]

I do believe Captain's sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I believe that we should be able to modify what we purchase. However I firmly believe that building a whole production infrastructure for what is basically a small airforce makes no sense.

Creating a whole industry for 65 to 80 jets would be a massive waste of money.

You wouldn't be creating a whole industry, just an assembly facility. These planes don't roll down a massive automated assembly line, they are built modular in a bay. We could ramp up an assembly facility.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by speede5

You wouldn't be creating a whole industry, just an assembly facility. These planes don't roll down a massive automated assembly line, they are built modular in a bay. We could ramp up an assembly facility.

That has happened before when Canada was buying fighters in quantities twice the number of its current buy. The F-35 co-production agreement of which Canada was a participant allowed each nation who shared development and upfront costs. Participate in producing components of the AC.

Currently Sweden is the only country producing a fighter AC for what is essentially its domestic market alone. They did have a sale to Brazil. Its single engine Griffin E is $85 million vr the F-35 at $95.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...en-flight.html
https://theaviationist.com/2017/06/1...-first-flight/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...5-rising-cost/
Better review F-35
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...-from-red-flag

[robbie111]

re post below.

[robbie111]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

fine with the first part, I've been saying that the Canadian Government should go nowhere near the Hornet, especially now with the released price tag.

Just a huge no to the second part, its been debated ad nauseum, Canada should stay away from any kind of fighter jet program.

the whole Avro Arrow thing has been exaggerated and practically been given statehood, but it was a failed overly expensive and incompetently run program that needed to be poop canned.

The Avro Arrow was 30 years ahead of it's time. The only reason it failed was Dief thought missiles rendered all fighter jets obsolete. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about, so I'll just leave it at that.

[CaptainCrunch]

If wasn't Dief it was George Peakes that recommended the cancellation of the Avro, Dief agreed with the reasoning, the launch of the Sputnik and the beginning of the ICBM era rendered the Avro obsolete in the crib, a strictly high level bomber interceptor made no sense, and Canada probably wasn't about to let Avro burn a ton of cash trying to figure out how to change the Arrow, The cost in its day became ludicrous at 12.5 million a plane, the eventual interceptor that Canada bought the CF-101 Voodoo had a sticker price of about a 1.2 million per plane.

It might have been 30 years ahead of its time, but it was unsuitable for the future of the defense of the country because of the changing threat..

And sitting there with a statement that I have no clue what I'm talking about? Nice debating style.

I'm guessing you got your information from that over romanticized piece of garbage movie starring Dan Akroyd.

Dief cancelled the program on the recommendation of Peakes and because by the mid 50's a lot of the high level straight interceptor programs around the world were being cancelled because Soviet strategy had changed. Peakes rightfully stated that Canada could either have a Arrow program or the missile program but not both and ICBM's were the greater future threat.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If wasn't Dief it was George Peakes that recommended the cancellation of the Avro, Dief agreed with the reasoning, the launch of the Sputnik and the beginning of the ICBM era rendered the Avro obsolete in the crib, a strictly high level bomber interceptor made no sense, and Canada probably wasn't about to let Avro burn a ton of cash trying to figure out how to change the Arrow, The cost in its day became ludicrous at 12.5 million a plane, the eventual interceptor that Canada bought the CF-101 Voodoo had a sticker price of about a 1.2 million per plane.

It might have been 30 years ahead of its time, but it was unsuitable for the future of the defense of the country because of the changing threat..

And sitting there with a statement that I have no clue what I'm talking about? Nice debating style.

I'm guessing you got your information from that over romanticized piece of garbage movie starring Dan Akroyd.

Dief cancelled the program on the recommendation of Peakes and because by the mid 50's a lot of the high level straight interceptor programs around the world were being cancelled because Soviet strategy had changed. Peakes rightfully stated that Canada could either have a Arrow program or the missile program but not both and ICBM's were the greater future threat.

The Arrow was neither the best fighter (as others have said) nor the worst. The price for the AC was similar to that of another nearly identical USAF fighter the F-106.
Role Interceptor Manufacturer Convair First flight 26 December 1956 Introduction June 1959 Retired August 1988 (ANG); 1998 (NASA) Primary users United States Air Force
Air National Guard Number built 342 (2 prototypes, 277 F-106A, 63 F-106B) Unit cost US$4.7 million (1973)[1]
$25.1 million (2014)[2]
Role Interceptor Manufacturer Avro Canada First flight 25 March 1958 Status Cancelled (20 February 1959) Primary user Royal Canadian Air Force Produced 1957–1959 (design work began in 1953) Number built 5[1][2] Unit cost C$3.5–5 million[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_C...8Arrow_Mk_1.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convai...s_.28F-106A.29

[Phil1111]

CSeries beats NEO, A320, 737 on CASM, plane mile costs

https://www.airinsight.com/cseries-b...ne-mile-costs/

[Phil1111]

Anyway the Avro debacle was told in a CBC docudrama about a year ago. It represented that the Arrow was years ahead of anything else. BS. The F-102 and F-106 were nearly identical designs abet smaller. The Arrow was the same price as these similar designs.

The idea that long range interceptors were now obsolete, fighters obsolete, is also a concept that was not a factor in the cancellation of the program. US designers were building the same planform designs. France was just introducing the Mirage fighter.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

Anyway the Avro debacle was told in a CBC docudrama about a year ago. It represented that the Arrow was years ahead of anything else. BS. The F-102 and F-106 were nearly identical designs abet smaller. The Arrow was the same price as these similar designs.

The idea that long range interceptors were now obsolete, fighters obsolete, is also a concept that was not a factor in the cancellation of the program. US designers were building the same planform designs. France was just introducing the Mirage fighter.

That CBC docu drama shouldn't be used as a basis for arguments on the Arrow it was a nice piece of exaggeration and inaccuracy.

The F-102 was about 1.2 million per plane the F-106 was about 4 million a plane, they were far cheaper then the Arrow which had its costs shoot up to about 12 million dollars per plane if it had ever gone to the finished stage.

Again the technology of the plane was not obsolete but the concept of the plane itself was deemed obsolete especially for Canada and their defense strategy.

Designs that were on the board like the XF-103 and 108 were cancelled.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That CBC docu drama shouldn't be used as a basis for arguments on the Arrow it was a nice piece of exaggeration and inaccuracy.

The F-102 was about 1.2 million per plane the F-106 was about 4 million a plane, they were far cheaper then the Arrow which had its costs shoot up to about 12 million dollars per plane if it had ever gone to the finished stage.

Again the technology of the plane was not obsolete but the concept of the plane itself was deemed obsolete especially for Canada and their defense strategy.

Designs that were on the board like the XF-103 and 108 were cancelled.

Thats why I called the CBC story BS.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that CAF leadership deemed fighter aircraft, the long range interceptor role obsolete. The cancellation was solely political. Any suggestions that this decision originated from the air force wing of the Canadian armed forces is pure speculation and conjecture.

Right or wrong Diefenbaker was the sole driver in the cancellation decision.
"June 1955 AVRO Brochure AD 15 Issue 2: Costs of the CF-105 Arrow has now risen to $153,711,311.00for 40 aircraft versus $118,253,435.00 quoted in Sept 1954 "
http://va3kgb.ve3kbr.com/cf105/timeline.htm

That was for a production run of only 40 aircraft.

IMO Avro and DH was too small a company with no prior experience in this type of aircraft. While the prototype showed promise. Production and the achievement of all flight parameters as promised was still a long ways off.

I personally have no problem with the cancellation. But Diefenbaker was a idiot for ordering the destruction of prototypes and tooling. He did so solely for political purpose. To close the door on any possible CAF lobbying and Avro lobbying to resurrect it.

All of which could only arise because the AC costs and performance. Were still relevant to CAF needs and economics.

This little story sort of covers the basics. But it accurately describes CAF attitudes to the AC. They wanted the AC, it was no more expensive than competing designs. But the nail in the coffin was Diefenbaker's concerns that the CAF and Avro were driving HIS bus. Diefenbaker wanted to show all of them that he was the boss. That he would decide what was right for Canada, rightly or wrongly.
https://legionmagazine.com/en/2014/0...he-avro-arrow/

[Phil1111]

News flash.Sept 25, Boeing wants to drive Bombardier out of the market in Asia so it can keep it for itself:

"Boeing said that over the next two decades, it predicts a demand for 4,310 new airplanes in Southeast Asia. Presented in its Southeast Asia Current Market Outlook, the demand is valued at $650 billion."

During the next 20 years, Boeing projects that in Southeast Asia there will be:

• 40 new deliveries of regional jets
• 3,230 new deliveries of single-aisle aircraft

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/09...ast-asia-2036/