General Aviation Thread

t68

Well-Known Member
It might be a win for Trump but it is a loss for Boeing.
I somehow don't think that Boeing would be too worried about those 18 aircraft, but it's still revenue they didn't get.

I tho k its getting to the stage where the Canadian goverment has got to go with F35, as he's just going to look stupid going with a less capabile but more expensive machine from Europe
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The loss of 18 SHs is not significant at all for Boeing at the moment. LM winning the fighter replacement program will be as will a likely order for MRTTs from Airbus instead of K-46s. These outcomes were likely anyways IMO. Worse still, Boeing forced Bombardier into a marriage with Airbus that will provide Airbus with a solid product range for narrow body single aisle jets with minimal cash outlay. The only outcome that could have been worse was if Comac bought the C-Series, something that Airbus likely considered.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I saw this article as well. Hard to determine what the effects for Russia might be or whether Indian objections are realistic given their bail out moves on other defence projects. They do have legitimate concerns regarding service and support on existing Russian aviation kit. As for stealth, I believe Russia has always maintained it wouldn't compromise kinematic performance for the PAK 50 FA in order to achieve maximum stealth.
 

colay1

Member
I saw this article as well. Hard to determine what the effects for Russia might be or whether Indian objections are realistic given their bail out moves on other defence projects. They do have legitimate concerns regarding service and support on existing Russian aviation kit. As for stealth, I believe Russia has always maintained it wouldn't compromise kinematic performance for the PAK 50 FA in order to achieve maximum stealth.
More likely Russia deflecting due to it's inability to achieve the level of signature reduction found on the US 5Gen jets. Too bad the Indians apparently have different priorities.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Insufficient minimization of emissions would be a concern if this was the issue. I guess there is the possibility that Russia wasn't willing to incorporate their best kit into the joint project is another reason for unacceptable emissions. In any event, dealing with Indian military procurement is as bad as dealing with Canada's PWGSC and DND.:D
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A group of guys have built a Yak 110 which is two Yak 55s joined together similar to the F-82 Twin Mustang. Quite impressive so far and they are planning to install a turbofan engine between the two Yak 55 fuselages.

Video: Yak 110 Full Story - Fat Tire Cowboys
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Two republican lawmakers are supporting Canada's position regarding the Bombardier Boeing dispute. Given Bombardier's presence in their respective states, hardly surprising. Too bad Bombardier doesn't have presence in the other 48 states, the problem of size does matter.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Maybe the allegations by Boeing are correct. Canada isn't exactly known for openess in trade. The Australian and New Zealand govts have lodged a complaint to the WTO about Canada's protectionism with regard to wine. Apparently some provinces have made it very difficult, nigh impossible, for non local, i.e., imported wines to be sold. Definitely not the first time that Canada has been done by the WTO for such practices.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Not sure how Australian states interact with the Australian federal government but in Canada there is often friction between provinces and Canada's federal government ( not a surprise considering our dip$hit PM). Our provinces do not get along with each other for that matter, especially with regard to trade. Currently there is a case before the courts between New Brunswick and Quebec about a guy charged with bringing booze across provincial borders. It is pretty hard to formulate international trade polices when provinces can't even agree amongst themselves.

There is a worldwide glut of wine and trade in this area is a cluster. Unlike the Euros, we are not going to pay producers to throw surplus wine down the drain, hence the BS restrictions on sales here. Here, and certainly in Europe, the agriculture lobby is very powerful which results in unfair trade practices. I am somewhat torn on this issue. Cheap imports are killing our producers (greenhouse operators are now switching from tomatoes to marijuana. No chance of cheap imports in this market as foreign competitors can't ship across borders due to legal restrictions (in particular the US). Is any nation truely secure if it can't feed itself and allows domestic production to fail
due to cheap imports?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes I believe that there is a wine glut but in New Zealand's case we are in the position of increased demand from overseas for our wine. We have a different economic philosophy and policy to Canada; in fact a polar opposite and with our lack of protectionism we are able to be innovative and flexible to global demands. Most of the protectist economies that we trade with have higher govt expenditure and debt which are a millstone hanging around their necks. This is because they are having to prop up inefficient industries, such as agriculture in the EU, by the use of extensive subsidies and high tariffs on imports.

Up until 1984 we were one of the most regulated and protectionist economies in the world. In 1984 our exports were predominantly agriculture; mutton, lamb and wool with the govt subsidies and the processing charges at the freezing works more than what the animal was worth. In 1984 with a change in govt, those subsidies were axed literally overnight. There was much tearing of hair, rendering of cloth and gnashing of teeth amongst the agricultural sector, but in the long run it saved the country from being an economic basket case. There were many years of economic pain but we came right and when the 2008 GFC happened we sailed through quite well. It was some natural disasters that took the shine off but now our govt debt sits at about 27%, from memory.

It's a different approach that works for us.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Seems to be the case for NZ. With regard to government debt, yes it is a huge problem in Canada, both provincial and federally. However, it is not due to expenditures in subsidies like in Europe's case but rather sheer incompetence by all levels of governments here. Admittedly citizen whining for unaffordable social benefits adds to the debt. It also explains our pathetic defence recapitalization problems. Also, the Bombardier loans are a minor subsidy issue when one looks at the aerospace sector overall. These loans should have been done as a military development project (C-Series MPA version). The C-Series would get the required support that Boeing couldn't bitch about as they get the same kind of support from the US government.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Alabama facilities is planned by Airbus when they acquired majority of C project..so seems it's part of Airbus US strategy.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Guess it will all come down to costs and capacity. If Canadian production can do it cheaper and meet the demand then the Alabama solution likely would be nixed, if it can do it cheap enough then could see Canadian production nixed or if demand is high enough could see both remain.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Wonder what this means for the planned Alabama?
The Alabama facility has been assembling A319/20/21s for two years. It's scheduled to make 40-50 this year. Assembly of C-series for the USA could be a selling point, as it should provide protection from future Boeing-inspired tariffs & the like.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I think additional infrastructure is needed for Alabama assembly which is an unneeded cost unless a lot of additional orders start to come in. However, as you point out, it would be partial protection against further trade actions by Boeing. Any enlarged version (CS-500?) most likely will result in Boeing going after Bombardier again.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
With Airbus already owned majority stake on C series project, Any enlargement of C's will directly faced A-319/A-320..

Don't think Airbus will let it happen.

Anyway..Boeing strategy on answering C's..is E's from Embrear..
 
Top