RE: RE: Should BBD Be In Defence? - SmushSmush: "UAV's they are way behind the curve..."
Any company entering a new market is going to be behind others already established in the industry. This doesn't mean they shouldn't try, or that they couldn't possibly compete. Bombardier was behind the curve when they entered aerospace and rail, but that didn't stop them and it shouldn't stop them now.
UAVs are only one suggestion. There are many possibilities for an innovative company like Bombardier, but you asked for an example of where I thought there might be some potential. It's enough to suggest there are possibilities here.
There are always a lot of reasons why something shouldn't be tried.
"Sweden not comparable with their fighter jet..."
You appear to be making an assertion based on little more than you own say so.
"BBD has nothing on the drawing board..."
Your reasoning process appears to be suggesting it can;t be done because it isn't being done.
In reality, Bombardier and most companies would hold plans such as these - if they have any - closely.
"Embraer already has a defense..."
Well, there was a point where they didn't have one and then they decided to start one one. Now that doesn't necessarily make it a worthwhile thing to consider, however, Embraer's defense unit now contributes about 15% of that company's revenues and rising.
It also privides an avenue for indirect government support. Embraer not only makes money from aircraft it sells to Brazil's military, but like Boeing, it also benefits nicely from research funds for the development of military aircraft. Now such companies will tell you they maintain restrictions on the use of technologies developed for military use but only the very naive fail to notice how such technologies seem to have a way of mysteriously showing up in the development of commercial jetliners a few years later.
"Nor would I concider their fighter anywhere near the top of the list on any countries to buy list."
How good Embraer's fighters and trainers are may not be the point. They don't have to be in every respect in order to be economically viable for some purposes. And what Embraer builds is no necessary indication of what Bombardier might build if it decided to do so.
Embraer, and other companies benefit from the military end of their business because it helps companies learn to develop important skills and technologies at little cost.
Companies that don't have this source of funding have to pay to develop everything on their own.
"BAE and CGI have been at it for years so comparisson is pointless as BBD is shall we say a virgin."
Which amounts to saying it has never been done so it shouldn't be done...
"If they want to get into the defense business, there best and most cost effective way is either A---partner up with an already established player, or B---buy a player out, which they don't have the money for."
These are both possible ideas. And partnering doesn't have to involve payment of money. In any event this isn't necessarily something Bombardier should consider tomorrow, but a possiblity for consideration in the years ahead - ie when the company's finances have improved even further.
"...they have tried the defense side and failed the CF Iltis jeep great little jeep but not to standard for military purposes, under powered, rust, load and not much protction or payload capability. If I recall correctly they got and still have the CF-18 maintenance contract as well as the NATO flying program in our north"
Abe Lincoln failed eight times to get elected before he became president. The fact that anyone has failed in one attempt is no necessary indication of whether or not they should try again.
"Right now I want to see the CSeries take off and their latest BJ products..."
Of course. And as was clarified at the outset we're not talking about right now. We're discussing possibile alternatives in the years ahead.
But thanks for sharing your opinion.