National Defence Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

As I think you know, the high-level mandatory capabilities are word statements of general capabilities. They're not specific operational requirements.

[Kory G. Mathews]

Absolutely, sir. But I would respectfully say that the point I would be trying to bring up is that void of having any insight into those specific levels of requirements, this discussion is around those high-level mandatory capabilities.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So is the United States Navy negligent in not continuing with the Super Hornet, instead of going with the F-35? Because surely they would have all the information on both sides.

[Kory G. Mathews]

If I may answer that, sir, I don't think deficient at all. Again, sir, F-35 does not replace the Super Hornet. Those two platforms are side by side on the carrier deck, and if you look at numbers on the carrier deck, it's a two-to-one ratio, with two Super Hornets per F-35, well out past 2035 or 2040. So again, I would prefer the discussion be around the complementary nature of those two, as opposed to navy being deficient and selecting one or the other, again, because they will be side by side for a long time, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews.

I will give the floor to Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It seems to me your key point here is that Canadian officials have not yet received a full briefing from the U.S. Navy including the aircraft's stealth characteristics. When at a similar stage of procurement did the Australian government receive a briefing such as you're suggesting here in your presentation?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I would refer that question. It would probably be better answered by the U.S. Navy and the United States government. But the information they were provided with was sufficient for them to make a determination to procure the Super Hornet.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I suppose we could get the United States Navy in here to tell us what that would be, but would it be a reasonable assumption that no nation would purchase an aircraft at such a considerable expense without having at least that basic information?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

In your presentation you say you know what the affordable life cycle cost might be. You know how many airplanes Canada is proposing to order. What would be the affordable life cycle costs on a comparing apples-to-apples basis between the F-35--which you know, the number is out in the public--and your airplane?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I would prefer to answer that by saying the life cycle cost is so dependent on specific detailed requirements, specific detailed assumptions. So I would respectfully request that to provide a true apples-to-apples comparison on that, there would need to be a specific dialogue: “Here is exactly what we would ask for you to price from an overall in-service support contract and the incumbent life cycle cost of that”. So it would be premature for me to provide you an anecdotal number void of that detailed discussion.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Would you be prepared to do that, to the Government of Canada, so you can give a comparison, apples-to-apples, full life cycle cost?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Again, it would probably be better answered by the United States Navy, but I would answer here in front of this committee today that yes, sir, we would look forward to those opportunities in a competitive process.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The information in the public realm says it's $7 billion for the F-35. Presumably it's based on some information. I would have thought your company could at least try to compare to that life cycle cost.

[Kory G. Mathews]

Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a specific number provided by F-35 void of all the detailed assumptions that go into that, because life cycle cost analysis is a complex activity. What I can talk about, however, sir, is the tremendous reliability, maintainability, and supportability of the F-18E/F Super Hornet. If you look at any characteristic there, be it maintenance man-hour per flight-hour, etc., I would stand the Super Hornet up against any weapons system out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

I will give the floor to Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mathews, for being here.

We talked a little bit earlier about costing data for the Super Hornet and the fact that costing data has been provided by the U.S. Navy. Would you and your company be prepared to publicly provide that costing data?

[Kory G. Mathews]

It would be better to go through the United States Navy for a request like that, sir. They can provide either what was provided back in 2008, which again was based on multi-year two pricing, not capturing the benefit of multi-year three and the approximately 10% savings on the third multi-year pricing. But I am sure, sir, that if a request were made for updated pricing and availability, again over to the United States Navy and the United States government but from a Boeing company, we would certainly look forward to supporting that request.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

If we received the consent to release that information, and specifically the information from 2008 and 2010, you wouldn't have any issue or concern with that?

[Kory G. Mathews]

What the navy has provided you from an overall pricing and availability.... Sir, what I would ask there is I can go back and look in detail at everything that was provided there, to see if in fact there was any proprietary information. As you can assume, pricing data is typically highly proprietary. I would go back and I can provide a response for the record on what we would be able to provide in conjunction with the United States Navy, sir.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay, thank you.

The example of Australia came up. Could you clarify? Was the purchase from Australia an interim or a bridging solution for them until they acquired the F-35, or is that a longer-term solution?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I would request that you speak to the Royal Australian Air Force on the specifics of that question. In our discussions with them, they loved the Super Hornet. It's important to note that every one of the Super Hornets we have delivered to date has been ahead of schedule, a hallmark of this program. They are excited about those capabilities and plan to utilize those capabilities well into the future.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Is the price the Australians paid per plane public information, and could you tell us what that was?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I do not know offhand if that is public information. Again, I will make the response and make sure that what has been provided openly in the press is certainly available for the record. If there is any specific additional request for additional pricing and availability, or to make what was released in 2008 available, we would come back and respond to you on that.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.