RE:Rehash of the same about the P8-a Oh that Simon Page
Rarely answers straight forward..
The reasoning that comes up most often is that the p-8 is off the shelf LMAO Looks like only Canada could keep it on the shelf since they threatened to stop produciing it if we didn't buy ?
Here's a question from Gord Johns
:
You know, Canada has spoken to other countries, such as France, as to why they're electing to develop their own solution and not purchase the P-8. Why is France not as concerned about interchangeability as Canada is? Why is France more supportive of their local aerospace industry than Canada is of our own aerospace industry?
Answer and follow-ups :
Thanks for the question. Usually the country-to-country discussions are more with the Department of National Defence. It's not that I want to shy away from the question, but I have not engaged with any other countries on this procurement.
:
I'll go back to the environmental concerns. We understand that the P-8 will be supported by the U.S. Navy only until 2048 and that the navy will start sunsetting the P-8 in the late 2030s—just six years after Canada achieves initial operating capability. What is DND's long-term sustainment plan for the fleet after the U.S. Navy divestment?
:
Mr. Chair, I can take that one. My understanding of the plans of the U.S. Navy—and they are always subject to change—is that they plan on flying the P-8s into the mid-2060s. I have information that is different from what was indicated in the question. I'm not aware of the dates that were shared in the question.
:
I guess I'm just looking for what the long-term sustainment plan is. Wouldn't a more modern and environmentally friendly Canadian-made aircraft with an abundance of ongoing support in parts be a more prudent procurement than something that will sunset only a few years after delivery? These environmental concerns are real. I'm hoping you can answer them.
:
I think again, with respect to the sustainment and the lifespan of the P-8 assets, our understanding is that it has a long run ahead of it into the mid-2060s. From a sustainment perspective, generally speaking, the more assets that are in service, the more readily available sustainment parts are. If you're dealing with a common fleet that is shared with allies, you generally have more ease of access to supply chains. We're feeling it on the CP-140 right now. As allies have divested, we have found it more and more challenging to find parts. You need a sustainment plan for sure. Ms. Gregory here has already talked about the potential economic benefits. My rule of thumb is that having common fleets amongst allies is a good risk mitigation measure for sustainment.
On the environmental question, we're going to have to come back to you, because regardless of the decision made, those are outstanding question