Evidence of meeting #38 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.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
No, your time is up. We also have to finish at 4:30 p.m., because we have other witnesses later.
Mr. Harris, you have the floor.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today.
I have a couple of specific questions. First, based on the earlier testimony, we've been told that the statement of operating requirements by the government for this aircraft was not finalized until the spring of 2010. I think you've seen this document on high-level mandatory capabilities, which was provided to this committee in September. I don't know when it was produced.
Was your company provided a copy of this statement of operating requirements or high-level mandatory capabilities as part of the discussion to see whether you could meet them? Has the Canadian government communicated with you about them since the statement was produced?
December 7th, 2010 / 3:55 p.m.
Roman Kohler Vice-President of Political and Government Affairs, Aeronautics, Eurofighter
We learned of these high-level requirements when they were published, not before.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
In other words, you said you had some discussions in 2004 and 2008, but when Canada finally decided what its actual operating requirements were, it didn't consult with you as to whether you could meet them?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
My second question has to do with the United Kingdom having purchased these aircraft as part of this program. How many of these have they purchased?
3:55 p.m.
Head of Eurofighter Export, Alenia Aeronautica
The exact number would be.... It's 40% of 620, so it's--
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Is 232 a good number?
So it's not 10 or 20, but they are a major part of the program.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I was interested in your comments.
Mr. Worning, maybe we'll take advantage of your capabilities. We have a former fighter pilot on our committee. I don't know if he still has his qualifications, but it's nice to have somebody here who can talk about how to fly a plane other than Mr. Hawn. It's not that I have any objections to Mr. Hawn's flying ability, mind you, since we're not going up in the air with him.
The question I have refers back to your statement, Mr. Nappi, about how the RAF is using its Eurofighters for the air-to-air combat mission, and either reserving or using their F-35s as air-to-ground—
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Their primary role would be air-to-ground.
As a test pilot, I presume, and someone who has some knowledge of these different aircraft and what they're designed for, is there a reason for that? We've been told that the F-35 is a multi-role aircraft and can do all these things. Is the Eurofighter better in an air-to-air role than the F-35? Do you have any idea why the British RAF would make these distinctions?
3:55 p.m.
Christian Worning Eurofighter Project Test Pilot, Aeronautics, Cassidian Air Systems
Thank you.
The design goal for the Eurofighter was really air supremacy. For modern BVR combat, as we see with the air supremacy airplane of the United States, the F-22, it is about speed, altitude, and weapons load, but it is primarily about the air-to-air role. It was always required. It is in the staff requirements of the four nations that the Eurofighter has to encompass the air-to-surface role as its secondary role. The design driver for the F-35 program was the other way around: it is primarily an air-to-surface airplane, its secondary role being air defence.
In terms of air defence itself, I am absolutely convinced that the Eurofighter is the superior airplane, surpassed only by the F-22, which is unavailable to all of us.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
In terms of interoperability, which is a question that comes up a fair amount, I'm not sure, to be honest with you, whether the interoperability of the F-35 is with only other F-35s or whether the interoperability of the F-35 is with all other aircraft, if you know what my question is. Would the F-35s the U.K. has, for example, be interoperable with the Eurofighter? Is that an issue? Is that something you can answer?
4 p.m.
Eurofighter Project Test Pilot, Aeronautics, Cassidian Air Systems
Well, I know that it has been specified by the Royal Air Force, or by the MOD U.K., that the two airplanes must be interoperable with each other. In terms of data links, to my knowledge, there are some intra-flight data links that are used by the F-35s, but only when they communicate among themselves. For communication with the rest of NATO, so to speak, the systems that will be used are the same.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
We've also heard a fair bit about stealth in this committee. I don't know much about your aircraft, but it certainly looks as if your weapons, when they're attached, are attached to the outside. It was argued before the committee that the F-35 would have hidden weapons and would therefore be more stealthy, if that's a proper word.
You're a fighter pilot, so you'd presumably be concerned from that perspective about safety in flying. What do you have to say about stealth in this aircraft?
4 p.m.
Eurofighter Project Test Pilot, Aeronautics, Cassidian Air Systems
Well, the very short answer would be, sir, that stealth is one of the attributes that leads to survivability. A lot of effort has gone into reducing the frontal radar cross-section, also, of the Eurofighter. But I underline that it's only one of the attributes. There are other means of increasing survivability, such as missile warning systems, towed decoys, electronic warfare, and of course performance and agility, particularly in the supersonic region. They are all building-stones towards survivability.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you very much, Mr. Worning.
I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for being here.
I want to pick up on one of the points just mentioned by Mr. Worning.
The Typhoon, I acknowledge, is an excellent point defence aircraft, and for a country the size of the U.K. or Italy or Germany and so on, obviously that's of primary concern. For a country like Canada, I would suggest to you that a point defence aircraft is less important than an aircraft that can operate over a wide area.
The U.K. is telling us that they are probably going to fly their Typhoons only until 2025 or 2030. Do you have any comment on that, and on how we would be interoperable? Because we're going to fly the next airplane we buy until probably 2050 or beyond.
4 p.m.
Eurofighter Project Test Pilot, Aeronautics, Cassidian Air Systems
Sir, I don't have any knowledge about when the Royal Air Force is going to retire its aircraft. I believe the Eurofighter's going to fly in Europe for the next 40 years in most of those nations.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
The first Typhoon was 1980s technology. It first flew in the 1990s and was operational in 2004. What's your view of the growth potential of that aircraft in Canada's case, for 2050 and beyond?
