National Defence Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Welcome to the 32nd meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we are continuing our study of the next generation of fighter aircraft.

We have with us our first witness, from Boeing, Mr. Kory G. Mathews, vice-president, F/A-18 and EA-18 programs.

Mr. Mathews, you have five to nine minutes to do your presentation and after that the members will have about 50 to 55 minutes to ask you questions. So thank you for being with us. You have the floor.

[Kory G. Mathews, Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, bonjour. My name is Kory Mathews and I am the F-18 programs vice-president for Boeing Defense, Space and Security.

On behalf of the Boeing Company, I want to thank you for inviting us to speak with you today regarding Canada's next-generation fighter and Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet.

Before I get started, let me introduce two colleagues here with me today. First is Mr. Pete Peterson and second is Mr. Ricardo Traven. Pete runs the Boeing office here in Ottawa, overseeing operations for Boeing Defense, Space and Security in Canada. Ricardo is a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, a former Canadian Air Force CF-18 pilot, and now the chief test pilot at Boeing for the Super Hornet program.

A new fighter acquisition is a huge undertaking for any nation, and Boeing recognizes the immense importance of this acquisition to Canada, both from the perspective of the defensive capability it will bring to the Canadian Forces as well as the significant government investment this acquisition will require. That is why we believe the Super Hornet, with its proven capabilities, low risk and known acquisition price, affordable life-cycle costs and guaranteed delivery schedule would be an outstanding addition to the Canadian Air Force inventory.

Debuting just four years ago, in 2006, the Block II Super Hornet incorporates the latest defence technology advancements, including an integrated display of fused data from a new wide array of sensors, making it the newest combat fighter attack aircraft in operational service today with the United States forces.

Of the multitude of the Super Homet's advanced capabilities, one that does not get the attention it deserves is its stealth characteristics. Although some preliminary discussions between Canadian Air Force and United States Navy officials took place in 2008 and early 2009, to our knowledge Canadian officials have not yet received the full complement of Super Hornet performance data from the United States Navy, including those about the aircraft's stealth characteristics.

While security constraints preclude us from having even the most general discussion of this matter in this forum, I can assure you that the Canadian experts will find these briefings most informative and enlightening. I would respectfully suggest that you request this data from the United States Navy, if only to ensure that you make a fully informed decision as part of any next-generation fighter selection process.

In addition to the advanced capability the Super Hornet offers, it is recognized by industry and the United States government as a model defence acquisition program. To date, more than 440 Super Hornets have been delivered to the United States Navy and most recently the Royal Australian Air Force, with each and every aircraft delivered on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.

As you may be aware, at the end of September Boeing signed a third multi-year procurement contract with the United States Navy to provide 124 new Super Hornet aircraft at a reduced cost, generating approximately $600 million in savings to United States taxpayers. We have every expectation that future international customers, such as Canada, would also be able to leverage the reduced cost offered in this contract, just as the Australian government did during its Super Homet acquisition.

For more than 80 years, Boeing has demonstrated our commitment to both Canadian industry as well as its highly skilled workforce, generating approximately $1 billion in business in Canada annually. Today this great country is home to one of Boeing's largest international supplier bases, including more than 200 major partners spanning every region of Canada. A Super Homet acquisition would enable even more opportunities for Canadian workers through Boeing's diverse portfolio of defence, commercial, and space products, something our competitors simply cannot offer. And Boeing would comply with the current industrial and regional benefits policy and commit to matching dollar for dollar the full contract value with guaranteed Canadian content work.

Based on our understanding of your defence needs, including our review of the document on high-level mandatory capabilities for Canada's next-generation fighter and the Canada First defence strategy, I have every reason to believe that the Super Homet would be ideally suited to meet your mission requirements.

I'm not here today to take up your valuable time offering unproven claims or future projections of cost and/or capability. The Boeing Company can today offer you fact-based, proven information on the Super Hornet so that you are able to make a fully informed decision.

Should you need additional information or technical briefings, the Boeing Company and the F-18 program stand at the ready. As I previously stated, I would respectfully recommend that you engage the United States government to obtain the full complement of performance data on this weapons system. I also invite the Canadian Air Force, should there be a desire, to conduct a flight and maintenance evaluation of the Super Hornet to better understand the full capabilities of this outstanding multi-role fighter.

And lastly, to this committee, I want to extend an invitation to visit our program offices and production facilities in St. Louis.

Once again, merci beaucoup for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will give the floor to Monsieur LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews, for your precise and I thought rather detailed presentation.

I want to zero in on something you said and make sure we understood, because I thought it was of considerable significance. You referred to a document that the government made public in the month of October, on the “high-level mandatory capabilities for Canada's next-generation fighter”. You've seen that document, and you and your colleagues have reviewed it carefully?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

And you're saying that you currently produce an aircraft that you believe meets all of those high-level mandatory requirements?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You've also, I hope, seen or been briefed on some of the testimony that General Deschamps gave before this committee a week ago, where he outlined again the high-level mandatory capabilities the air force was looking for?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

And there's nothing in General Deschamps' testimony, or his colleagues', before this committee last week that makes you think that your aircraft can't meet the needs as outlined by the general?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir, that is correct.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you. That, to me, is very significant.

I'll go on to my second question.

We've heard a lot of discussion around the issue of interoperability. One of the arguments advanced as to why the F-35 is the only aircraft that could possibly meet the needs of the air force is because of its data links and interoperability with our NATO allies. The airplane you're referring to, your Super Hornet, in your view does it meet those interoperability requirements with our NATO allies on the kinds of missions that were outlined, for example, in the Canada First defence strategy?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir, and let me expand upon that, if I could.

The Super Hornet today operates in an interoperable manner. It's important to note that the navy's current plans have the F-18-E/F Super Hornet and the other variant, the EA-18G, operating side by side off of carrier decks out to 2035 or 2040, with the F-35 in a complementary role to the Super Hornet.

If you see where we are today, with the interoperability that we have and the data links that provides, we currently use Link 16, for example, along with other data links, providing full exchange of information—the ability to exchange targeting information, the ability to exchange imagery and up to and including full-motion video. As we would look forward in any future force construct, I'm absolutely confident that we would be able to operate in that continued interoperability manner. If that requires new data links, that's how the Super Hornet was designed. It was designed with growth in mind. The United States Navy has a flight plan that adds capabilities over the upcoming decades, and on that flight plan are those advanced data links to ensure future interoperability.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Matthews. I've only a couple of minutes left.

My colleagues will obviously have further questions, but there's one other issue that is of interest to me. The Department of National Defence has stated before this committee, and in other contexts that I've seen, that they've conducted a number of simulations, done internal studies, they've compared various airplanes as against their requirements--or their high-level capabilities, in the only document that we've seen--their internal requirements. And you said something interesting in your opening comments: you don't believe that in fact the Government of Canada has requested from the American government the detailed technical requirements, for example, around the stealth features of the airplane you're offering.

So am I to conclude that in your view they haven't been able to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, and in fact they may not have had enough information to make a valid comparison?

[Kory G. Mathews]

I cannot attest to what has actually been requested. What I can attest to, and we confirmed this with the navy prior to this appearance, is again, as I shared in my opening comments, that a full complement of capabilities for this weapons system has not been provided.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

To the Government of Canada.

[Kory G. Mathews]

To the Government of Canada, yes, sir.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you.

We're running out of time.

Again, I understood you in your opening comments to say that in any process where you could in fact submit a formal proposal for the Super Hornet you would be prepared to guarantee dollar for dollar the industrial and regional benefits, as has been the case in previous acquisitions, for in fact the price of the aircraft that was being procured.

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir.

With the CF-18 and other programs, Boeing has a long track record of meeting those commitments dollar for dollar, again, with Canadian content work as opposed to just pure contract value. Yes, sir.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you. Just on time.

Mister Bachand, you now have the floor.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Good afternoon Mister Mathews.

I'll start off in English by saying I was very sorry when I was in St. Louis to have crashed a B-2 from your company. It was worth $2 billion up in smoke, I'm afraid. But it was in a CAE-Link simulator, so I saved my life.

Mister Mathews, the Government continues to contend that requirements disqualify your aircraft because it is not fifth generation and does not possess stealth characteristics.

What exactly is a fifth generation aircraft? Do you consider the Super Hornet to be a fifth generation aircraft? Does it have stealth capability?

[Kory G. Mathews]

The term “fifth generation”, and really the entire generational context, has become more of a marketing term with a lack of a universal definition, and more importantly, with a lack of specificity and the attendant requirements associated with whatever capability would be needed. That being said, sir, to your question, if we were to define fifth generation as outlined in the high-level mandatory capabilities, then yes, sir, I would say we are fifth generation, as we believe we would meet those high-level mandatory capabilities.

The other part of your question, sir, was around stealth characteristics. There is often a misnomer that the F-18 Super Hornet lacks stealth. I can stand here today and share with you that this is not true. From the outset it has designed-in stealth in an overall approach that the navy outlined to ensure that this multi-role aircraft is highly survivable today and in the future with current threats and future threats. Certainly this forum would not preclude any detailed discussion on this characteristic, but yes, sir, to your question, there is designed-in stealth.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

There is another issue that the Bloc québécois and myself have been asking questions about for some time now. We asked Lockheed Martin about this.

Military reviews have reported that in simulations, four Typhoon aircraft are able to knock out eight JSFs 85 percent of the time. These reviews also report that simulated dogfights between the Sukhoi SU 35 and the J-10 "do not always end in a JSF victory". This is important for us. I have requested the simulations from the Government and was told that they were classified.

As head of the Super Hornet program, do you have this type of simulation data? Are you able to provide them to the Standing Committee on National Defence either today or within the next few days?

[Kory G. Mathews]

When it comes to simulation, what I would like to do first is make sure there is clarity on terminology, if I could. We typically view, as an industry member, two types of simulations. First, there is what we would refer to as our flight simulator. That's where we bring aircrew in so that they can understand the handling qualities of the airplane, put it into different scenarios, and establish a look-and-feel for that weapon system. Secondly, though, there is another category of what are often termed simulations. Our terminology would be more along the lines of operational analysis, constructive analysis, using a variety of tools, where you get probably a better feel for comparative analysis. Certainly we have the capability for both.

Back in 2008 several members from the Canadian Air Force had the opportunity to come down and spend two days in that first flight simulator--again, to get a look-and-feel for this weapon system.

I'm not able, today, to get into any specific discussions on specific simulations and/or comparative analysis. As a matter of fact, I would likely submit that it would be inappropriate for me to do so, not understanding the detailed level of requirements required of the next-generation fighter. We would have the ability to do that, should it be requested, but at this point in time, other than that initial flight simulation, we have not engaged in any discussion on those more detailed comparative analyses, sir.