National Defence Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You participated in all of those visits?

[Kory G. Mathews]

The Boeing company did, yes, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Did you participate in the process of providing costing numbers from PMA-265 to the Canadian government on those visits?

[Kory G. Mathews]

I believe the pricing and availability were provided from the navy customer in November 2008, yes, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Are you aware that costing data showed a fully equipped Super Hornet to be considerably more expensive than an F-35?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I can't address the specifics of what other information was provided primarily for the F-35 program. All I can offer up to you, sir, is the known price of the Super Hornet delivered today and delivered in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on potential JSF pricing

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We don't know those numbers, of course.

When you talked about your reduced-cost airplane to the navy, was that a fully equipped aircraft, a mission-ready aircraft?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir, the 10% savings certified to Congress were for a fully equipped aircraft.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Are you aware that the costing provided to the Canadian government from PMA-265 at the meetings Boeing was part of did not include many components: external fuel tanks, pylons, targeting pods, missile launchers, radio warning receivers, jammers, chaff/flares, and the gun? Were you aware of that?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir, I was aware of the pricing and availability and the content therein. Typically, those are broken out separately. That was before I was on the program, but I am assuming they ran that traditional process, yes, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So it would be fair to say—and we've costed it out—that it would be about another $8 million to $9 million per airplane to add those clearly missing pieces of essential gear?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Depending on what would be required by the Canadian Air Force, any pricing would need to be holistic in nature, yes, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Obviously jammers and guns and things are pretty basic to the airplane.

How many visits did Boeing make to Canada to discuss the program? Are you aware?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I'm not aware of the exact number. We can provide that data for the record. I know there have been several trips up here, I believe most recently in April of this year, when then program manager Mr. Bob Gower had a brief briefing with Lieutenant-General Deschamps.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Of course, you also have Boeing officials in Ottawa. Have they had opportunities to speak to Canadian officials about the Super Hornet?

[Kory G. Mathews]

As questions are asked or informal dialogues take place—all of which would be preliminary in nature—yes, sir, I'm sure those would occur.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Have they offered to bring forward any new information that becomes available?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I am not aware of that, no, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

They have.

Did Canadian pilots fly the Super Hornet simulator?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Yes, sir, they did.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay.

You talked about stealth characteristics being designed into the Super Hornet. If you're looking at the two airplanes head-on, the F-35 and F-18, everything in the F-35 is internal; and to get the same mission performance, you have fuel tanks and weapons hanging on the F-18. You have square intakes you can look down on and see the engine, and you have different materials and panel designs.

So I'm not sure how you can make the statement—or maybe you're not making the statement—that the F-18 is as stealthy as the F-35. Are you suggesting that?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, as I shared before, this forum would not allow me to get into the specific level of detail required. What I would offer up, sir, going back to your original line of questioning, is that there has certainly been an ongoing dialogue. Most of that subsided in the 2009 timeframe.

What I am sharing with you here today, sir, is that a full complement of the Super Hornet's capabilities from the United States Navy has not been provided to Canada.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

If all of the countries in the memorandum of understanding, ten so far, plus Israel outside the memorandum of understanding, have had military and civilian experts examine the Super Hornet, other aircraft, and the F-35 extensively over several years at a very highly classified level, and have all come to the same conclusion, that the F-35 is the only aircraft that meets their requirements at the lowest cost and with the best industrial opportunities for their industries, are they all wrong?

[Kory G. Mathews]

Sir, I would not say that. It would be inappropriate for me to do so.

What I can offer up to you today again, sir, is that any specific assessments that have gone on for this fighter, the next-generation fighter, have been void of the full complement of information.

Should there be a competition—and again, that is not our decision, nor are we here to advocate for it—we would look forward to and be honoured to submit this weapon system in that competition, as it is our understanding that, with its top-level listing of high-level mandatory capabilities, it would be ideally suited for that, sir.