Evidence of meeting #32 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mister Chair.
Mister Mathews, you seem rather reluctant to compare your aircraft with that of your competitors.
You must understand that we are requesting simulation data on the Boeing aircraft because members feel that 16 billion dollars for the Super Hornet or the F-35 is pretty exorbitant. We want to make sure that we got the best possible deal.
You say that it is not appropriate for you to comment on simulations or other issues. Do you mean that you consider this to be classified information? Is that the problem or is there some other reason?
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
Certainly any detailed discussion on performance would have security restrictions on a discussion like this today, to your question, sir. But what is important, I think, as opposed to drawing in this forum a very specific comparison, is I am highly confident in this weapon system. I am highly confident in its abilities to perform the roles it is asked to perform. I am highly confident in its abilities to perform roles as outlined in the first strategy, as well as the high-level mandatory capabilities. I am highly confident in our price. That price is known; it's known today with no ambiguity. All of those things I want to make sure of, simply because in this forum I am not drawing a specific comparison at a detailed performance perspective.
Do I in any way, shape, or form believe that the Super Hornet would not be ideally suited for a next-generation fighter? I do believe it would be, sir.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Would you go as far as to tell us if the Boeing Super Hornet with the requirements that are being asked for by the Canadian government is a better airplane than the F-35?
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
I would say I think we're ideally suited to meet the requirements of the next-generation fighter.
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
I'm confident in that, and it would not be appropriate for--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Your time is nearly up. Each of you has four minutes so that everyone has a turn.
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
Sir, if I understand your question, there's a little bit of a misnomer there. The Super Hornet has never been in competition with the F-35 program. It was not evaluated as part of the initial joint strike fighter down-select program. That was a competition between the Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin for that specific airplane. The Super Hornet was in no way, shape, or form involved in that competition.
I would also simply reiterate that, again, the F-35 does not replace the Super Hornet. Those two aircraft are operating in a complementary role past 2035 or 2040. That's the navy's design. If the question was why did they select F-35 over the Super Hornet, I do not believe, sir, it is the appropriate question to be asked, because those two have never been in competition with one another.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the question of the Australians, the Australians have made it very clear that the Super Hornet is a ten-year bridge from the F-111 to the F-35. It's the F-111 they were concerned about, but they've made a commitment to the F-35 and this is simply a bridge to that.
Will they fly the F-18's beyond that? They will. But they are clearly buying the F-35 instead of an extra 100 Super Hornets. Can you explain why?
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
Sir, in that discussion, I would go to the Royal Australian Air Force on what their specific requirements may or may not be.
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
However, I would also submit to you, sir, that to my knowledge there has never been a competition in Australia between a Super Hornet and an F-35. You would have to speak with them on the specifics of their analysis that led them to their projected force structure.
What I can offer up is that they are excited to have this aircraft operating today and well into the future.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I would love to have a Super Hornet over an F-111 too.
In terms of numbers of aircraft, are there going to be about 560 Super Hornets, barring more sales and stuff? Is that a roughly accurate number?
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
If you look at the program of record there, yes, sir.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
Sir, we are active in numerous countries.
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
I would name a couple here, then there are many others we are also in competition for, but they would prefer to remain anonymous at this point in time. Some of the public competitions are certainly the Indian competition for the MMRCA. That Super Hornet is the Boeing offering in that competition. When we look at Japan and the possibility for an RFP coming up first quarter of next year, potentially later, F-18 Super Hornet will be in competition there. If you look at and perhaps to be decided or announced in the near term is Brazil. Obviously we have been in competition there. We have had--
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Sorry, my time is short.
You may not be able to answer this, but I think you know the answer. Are any of those countries liable to be countries that Canada is going to be involved with side-by-side in military operations?
4:15 p.m.
Vice-President, F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs, The Boeing Company
I would respectfully go to you on that, but if you're looking at traditional coalition forces, the answer to that would probably be no, sir.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'm going to come back again to what I think is the pivotal question. So far ten countries, nine within the MOU, have been doing this for many years, individually and together, and have looked--I know Canada has looked, the U.S. Navy obviously has looked--at a number of aircraft, Super Hornet and so on, and F-35, for many years. And all ten countries, very highly respected, technically qualified first world countries, have come to the same conclusion: that the F-35 is the long-term solution to their next-generation fighter requirements.
Can they all be wrong? Are we all wrong? Where did we get it wrong? What do you know that we don't know, that you haven't been able to share with us?