By Dan Middlemiss, 12 November 2023
Appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence on 7 November 2023, Bombardier CEO Eric Martel once again claimed that the procurement process for the new Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA) is “deeply flawed and lacking transparencies” and that there has “clearly” been a violation of proper procedures.
“Too often, our current procurement approach starts too late, is not strategic and results in the acquisition of equipment that is just good enough, rather than the most cutting-edge solution,” Martel said, adding that Bombardier has “a more capable solution” with aircraft that can fly faster, higher and further than the alternative options being considered. “We’re capable, we can do it. We’ve done it for other people and we’re not even being considered? This is a scandal.”
Martel claims the cost to operate the Bombardier aircraft will be 30-40 per cent less than the Boeing P-8 option, and that its planes will be more efficient, burning 40 per cent less fuel. He also stated that the contract would create 22,000 jobs in Canada, because the planes would be produced in Ontario and Quebec.
In addition, on the same day the Premiers of both Ontario and Quebec renewed their earlier July lobbying efforts on behalf of the proposed Bombardier-General Dynamics offering by issuing a joint statement which called on the federal government to allow an open, level playing field procurement process that permits Canadian companies to compete for the CMMA contract.
“Should the federal government maintain its intention to grant a sole-source contract, we’re calling on the House of Commons to request that the Parliamentary Budget Officer review the costs and consequences related to this decision,” the Premiers said in the statement.
“We understand that all governments need to be able to deliver on their priorities while ensuring the best value for taxpayer dollars. Allowing Canadian companies and their workers every opportunity to compete only supports this goal.”
So, OK, once again a Canadian-based defence company wants to have a big, lucrative defence contract remain in Canada. Fair enough, fierce lobbying efforts can be expected when large procurement dollars are at stake. But a closer examination of Bombardier’s claims demonstrates where the real scandal lies.
To put it bluntly, the Bombardier-General Dynamics proposal is no more than a paper aircraft. It does not yet exist. Yet, for the sake of jobs (and of course company profits) Bombardier wants a competition where an actual contender, the P-8, exists and has been operating successfully with many of Canada’s main allies for several years, competes against an as yet to be completely designed, developed and tested aircraft. True, Bombardier’s passenger business jet, the GS 6500, is quite impressive and has done well in sales, but its alleged superior qualities are likely to evaporate once the basic airframe in militarized with mission bay doors, various necessary antennae, and new suites of combat systems. Contrary to the impression it is trying to create, Bombardier has only built a few VIP transport aircraft and the like for other countries; it has not built the type of military multi-mission (including ASW) combat aircraft that DND is looking for.
Canada’s venerable CP-140 fleet needs replacing now, not years down the road when Bombardier and company finally develop a prototype and get it properly tested and certified to military standards. The P-8 is a known quantity, is fully interoperable with comparable P-8 fleets around the world, and its life cycle costs are well established. Moreover, Boeing, the P-8 manufacturer, has extensive supply chain links to many prominent defence and civilian industry firms in Canada.
There are certainly occasions when Ottawa’s contract competition and build-in-Canada procurement provisions make sense, This is not one of them, especially when a well-proven aircraft is readily available. If Canada did cave in under the lobbying pressure being exerted by Bombardier, then the CAF and Ottawa would be saddled with yet another orphan platform (remember the same sort of arguments being made for the CC-295 Kingfisher SAR aircraft?) that will find few if any takers elsewhere.
Let’s get on with the job and allow Ottawa to make a sensible – and obvious – decision for the P-8.
19 thoughts on “Bombardier, the CMMA and the Real Scandal”
Like it was mentioned already, it’s a paper aircraft and not off the shelf. The next thing Bombardier would want would be for Canada to finance the prototype that nobody else would buy. Our allies already fly the P8 and the alternative wouldn’t do the jobs like P8 can. We would have another 1 off just like the Cyclone helicopter. The P8 is a proven plane, plain and simple, and Bombardier just looking for more handouts….
You can’t be more correct that this. Bombardier needs to get off this hatred toward Boeing of what happened 8 years ago. I personally can’t afford to keep Bombardier afloat any more as a tax payer.
As I have stated before, Dan, the Bombardier 6500 just does not have the “legs” for Maritime Patrol that both the P8 Poseiden or even the Aurora Long Rang Patrol A/C presently have and never will. Let’s just stop all this pretense by Bombardier which is just trying to fill their own coffers with a so-called “more capable (and more expensive in the end)” “mini” Long Range Maritime Patrol (LRMP) that just doesn’t cut-the-mustard. Let’s get on with the P8 acquisition for the RCAF as soon as possible. The 6500 seems to be a “Cadillac” A/C with little to show for it! Sometimes sole-sourcing is a good thing!
Google “Saab GlobalEye 6000” – you will find an existing military AEW aircraft – UAE has a fleet of 2 and 2 more on order. Here are the stats: BOEING P-8 Poseidon, range 2,400 nmi; 8+ hours endurance. BOMBARDIER GlobalEye 6000, range 6,000 nmi, 11 hours endurance. #1) PREFORMANCE: Bombardier is flying further and longer while burdened with slab radar. #2) TIMING: One year to produce a working model – mounting “existing” technology on the aircraft. #3) COSTING: Use US system of a fixed price. #4) SUPERIOR Cdn Effort: P-8 like P-3 met minimum standard. RCAF heavily modified our CP-140s sensors to the point it is probably equal to or better then the P-8 right now.
Does this aircraft perform its missions at low altitude? Is it required to carry weapons?
Point #2 – One Year. Do you honestly believe it would take one year?
As an operator, we need something 100% compatible with allies and parts availability. Bombardier does not make the cut, good high altitude surveillance aircraft maybe, but not what we need. The major problem with military procurement is it’s a bunch if clueless civilians, they should ask the users what we need. The government asks us to do certain tasks, we should at least have the choice of the tool we need.
I’m beyond outraged at Bombardier, the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, and the House of Commons Defence Committee (especially the conservative members of that committee) are playing this game. If they get their way, it’ll be a decade if not two decades before anything is even flying. And even if they are successful, it will have zero foreign sales and like the Cyclone, we’ll be saddled with an orphan aircraft that is impossible to support and once again demonstrate to the world we are governed by imbeciles.
The Global 6500 has been used for some substantially modified military aircraft such as the SAAB Gobaleye and the E-11 BACN, both of which are in service. Also Bombardier’s large business jets have been modified for many military missions. Canada has always had advanced MP/ASW aircraft and to buy off the shelf P-8’s would, frankly, be akin to taking a step backwards. Thinking that Canada would just accept the P-8 as is could be seen as naive, it would inevitably be heavily modified and increase the costs which of course the could be hidden in ‘upgrade’ costs and not procurement costs. Why not keep a strategic manufacturing capability, save some money on sustainment and get what we’ve always had, a bespoke, Canadian specific maritime aircraft?
Devin,
Bombardier’s multi-pronged lobbying efforts seem to be a desperation move by a company that may well be on the verge of dissolution as a genuinely Canadian enterprise. Bombardier has been kept afloat for years by substantial infusions of federal and Quebec government funds, yet it is now only the rump of the large, diversified company it once was.
It is instructive that the joint statement by the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec neglected to mention the sizeable financial stake the Quebec government has in the company. Moreover, the Quebec Premier apparently has no issues with the recent $3.6 billion sole source contract for 9 aircraft awarded to Airbus, with its supply chain interests in Quebec, to replace Canada’s aging Polaris fleet.
The base Bombardier GS 6500 business jet is a much smaller and narrower aircraft than the Boeing P-8A and thus at best will lack future growth potential for additional mission equipment and crew. Furthermore, the P-8A has a big operational advantage in the form of its air-to-air refueling capability, something the Bombardier offering lacks altogether.
Senior DND and PWSC officials took pains to point out that planning for a CP-140 replacement needs to begin very soon, because the Aurora, notwithstanding its exemplary service record, currently has only a 45 percent readiness rate, and is approaching the end of its operational usefulness now, long before its final phase-out in 2030. (See, The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Evidence, Number 078, 17 October 2023)
Bombardier and its supporters dispute the urgency of the need to replace the CP-140, and presumably want the replacement timeline to dovetail with its efforts to formulate a viable design for the CMMA. Again, DND officials have pointed out that it took Boeing decades, and some $8 billion USD in development monies, to re-design and develop its passenger jet into the P-8A.
Bombardier is using every ploy to delay a decision of the CMMA, from accusing DND of misleading the company, to providing false information, and in not giving the company a fair chance to compete for the contract. Bombardier is glossing over the significant development risks inherent in its proposal, and has scant basis for claiming that its costs with be “competitive”, its performance “superior”, and that it will be able to deliver the aircraft within the specified time frame.
Bombardier wants to avoid any discussion that it has only a “developmental” aircraft – the latter being something DND specifically precluded in its Request For Information sent out to potential bidders. Presumably, Bombardier hopes to demonstrate the superiority of its paper design through its own modeling and simulation at some time in the future. Ideally for Bombardier, that competition would exclude any actual, operational aircraft, and would be involve companies located only in Quebec! And, oh yes, expect Bombardier to demand development funds from Ottawa, and extra time to complete its modifications and testing when unforeseen problems inevitably arise.
Finally, Bombardier is claiming that it has interested foreign customers “knocking on our door today”. If that is really the case, then what is preventing the company from selling its design to them if it is so good? Mostly likely the answer is that these customers are not swallowing Bombardier’s kool-aid in the form of its marketing brochures, and, like so many others, are ordering Boeing’s proven P-8A.
Hello Dan –
I highly recommend this essay, in addition to your own analysis:
https://frontline.online/defence/featured/14024-the-ghosts-of-acquisitions-past
Hello Devin. It doesn’t matter a hoot if Bombardier has sold their Global 6500’s to Sweden as the SAAB Globaleye or the E-11 BACN. This A/C still does not have the “pedigree & stamina” to be a “true” LRMP like the P-8A Poseidon or even our “tired” Aurora (Orion). Don’t forget, the P-8A Poseidon has been in service since at least 2013 with well over 120 A/C produced thus far for countries like United States, United Kingdom, Australia, India, Norway, New Zealand, South Korea & Germany with potential buyers from NATO, Brazil, Italy, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and yes….even Canada. To replace the Aurora with anything less than the P-8A would be a travesty for the RCAF and Canada. Let’s just stop all this nonsense now about a “Swiss Army Knife” type of A/C that is definitely not what Canada needs for ASW, SAR and ISR missions now or in the future. It could be filled with all the latest gadgets and wizardry that Bombardier can think of (read more $$) and not be nearly as capable as the P-8A is even now. My biggest concern is that the Bombardier 6500 as a so-called LRMP Aircraft will never have the “legs” for what the requirements are of a “real” MPA! Let’s get on with the P-8A acquisition now!
The CP-140 is not a bespoke aircraft. It was used by all allied nations for the last 50 years and the RCAF relied heavily on the other nations for support when the aircraft was deployed.
No point disparaging the capabilities of the various Global Express military offerings, while at the same time understanding that they do not amount to a proper anti submarine platform
They have already done the Swordfish for SAAB, which they offered along with the Gripen. I’m sure they are more than familiar with what is required and they can build it pretty quickly.
On 17 November Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that Germany was increasing its buy of the P-8A by three airframes (for a total of eight). This from the report:
“In securing the German requirement, Boeing fought off competition from Airbus with its C295 Persuader, and from Rheinland Air Service (RAS) with its RAS-72 Sea Eagle.”
It has been announced by Ottawa today that the “sole-sourcing” of the Boeing P-8A Posieden LRMP A/C will be officially announced Thursday 30 November 2023. For those Bombardier folks, nice try guys!
Hello,
A thought on Canadian defense procurement models. We do not have defense contractors or defense crown corporations whose sole purpose is defense. We have sporadic calls for equipment, for which businesses must compete and that require a significant build-up time. Since the calls are sporadic and generally infrequent, capabilities are lost during the down times. Generally, our defense industries do not have a ready product, and they never will, due to the nature of our defense procurement model. All major pieces of equipment will be paper, be they vessels or aircraft.
Since calls are infrequent, and it is costly to ramp up capabilities, both DND, and defense contractors and industry, must account for very significant risks with each procurement, which translates to very high costs. Every procurement is essentially “de novo”, with very few lessons or capabilities retained from one to another. The procured equipment comes in late, over budget, and usually deficient, leaving a bad taste for all parties involved.
Until we change our procurement model, we will always be plagued by these issues. To some extent, US industries are subject to the same process, but their procurement calls are more frequent and of much larger scale and scope than ours. Their contractors are still plagued by similar issues as ours, in that their equipment does not perform well, despite being extremely expensive.
The only solution would be to have something like a crown corporation permanently tasked with the design of the major defense equipment, not subject to sporadic cycles. Design a boat or a vehicle or an aircraft constantly, and churn new designs out to DND requirements and specs on a much shorter cycle, such that industry has a persistent critical mass of work, allowing development of capabilities, and enduring economies of scale. With each smaller procurement wave, capabilities can be refined, and costs reduced.
The ideal would be for such a corporation to prepare designs specific to Canadian defense needs, with perhaps some variations geared to export. The focus would be on developing capabilities, not on making profit. With more frequent and smaller contracts, industry would face less risk, and would sustain lower costs than is achievable now.
Regards!
The government makes Canada weak again by introducing foreign models when it’s a great time to build our own model. We need our defense companies to stand up to the Canadian govt.
Good morning Ted,
Canadian industry should have an appropriate product before implementing your demand.
In addition, you suggest an unusual commercial approach whereby the merchant tells the customer what it must do. So much for the customer being right.
Ubique,
Les