Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1032
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Jun 2020, 02:44

weasel1962 wrote:Baseline C per dsca announcement. A 20 buy suggests for fit and operational testing. Baseline can be modified to block III if required.


Are you suggesting that JSOW-C can be modified to JSOW-C-1? AFAIK, this is not possible.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Jun 2020, 14:56

weasel1962 wrote:Baseline C per dsca announcement. A 20 buy suggests for fit and operational testing. Baseline can be modified to block III if required.


Thanks weasel
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post26 Jun 2020, 22:12

And for the 77th time, Canada tries to buy a plane.

Or is it 78th?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing ... -1.5627353
Attachments
75E05B43-0C37-4467-A08A-8A5685B6B936.png
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3963
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 17:24

Awesome.

By the time it actually happens, Canada will be replacing one obsolete jet with another. That's IF Boeing can pull the wool over Canada's eyes, the way it did Congress..
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 592
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 20:18

Wouldn't you know, the first comment to pop up below the article features an incredibly clueless Gripen fan. From the amount of replies he's done to others I wouldn't be surprised if he's from BF4C.
Thomas Anderson
2 hours ago
Here are 25 reasons why the Gripen is better for the RCAF's primary mission of defending the skies over Canada than the Super Hornet (I can back up every single one with evidence if you don't believe it):
1.) It's faster
2.) It's more agile
3.) It has greater range
4.) It uses superior weapons
5.) It's much harder to detect
6.) It burns far less fuel
7.) Its fuel is JET-A1 instead of JP-4 or JP-6
8.) It can use CANOLA OIL as fuel if needed
9.) It's far less expensive to operate
10.) Lower cost per hour means more pilot training is possible for better pilots
11.) Easier to maintain (Better availability)
12.) It has STOVL capability (can land on a snowy road 800m long and 16m wide)
13.) It can operate out of makeshift bases
14.) The EW suite of a standard Gripen rivals that of the Growler
15.) It would be made here
16.) All maintenance would be done here
17.) All spare parts would be produced here
18.) The full tech transfer from Saab would resurrect our aerospace industry
19.) The Gripen has the most advanced data link in the world
20.) No Gripen has ever suffered an engine failure (safest fighter ever produced)
21.) It has a more advanced design (Canard/Delta vs Cruciform/Elevator)
22.) It's completely unaffected by any climate (arctic to tropical)
23.) It can supercruise with an A2A loadout (perfect for long-range interception)
24.) It is first and foremost an aerial defence FIGHTER, not a SURFACE ATTACKER
25.) We wouldn't be rewarding Boeing's treachery

:doh:

I wonder whether Boeing would've made their bid public if they weren't in a tough spot after Bombardier pr fiasco. Now it seems a somewhat savvy move.

Not a lot of NORAD talk lately, which should've led to Saab dropping out a long time ago. But when they aren't going to win I guess they can stick with it and give a solid to Trudeau by adding to an impression of true competition. Thus far the only strong intention has been to stall.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2143
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post28 Jun 2020, 00:35

Would love to see Thomas Anderson show evidence of Gripen STOVL capability, especially the Vertical Landing capability. That would likely result in rapid disassembly of the airplane.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2265
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post28 Jun 2020, 00:55

It does a take off. Shortly, the canola oil kicks in, stalls and executes a perfect vertical landing nose first.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 382
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post30 Jun 2020, 08:33

weasel1962 wrote:It does a take off. Shortly, the canola oil kicks in, stalls and executes a perfect vertical landing nose first.


The canola oil comment is the best. Flashpoint of JP-8/Jet-A1 is 38 degrees celsius. Canola oil has a flash point of 315 degrees celsius.

I would love to see canola oil in a Gripen. :D
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2265
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Jun 2020, 10:18

The real story was the use of CHCJ-5 (or a Catalytic Hydrothermal Conversion Jet fuel) which is a processed fuel that was also tested by the navy on an F-18 (in lieu of traditional JP-5). Part of the feedstock may have included canola oil but getting from canola oil (+ other ingredients) to CHCJ-5 probably takes even more processing than motor oil to nail polish.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3963
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Jul 2020, 14:53

Canola oil?

Did he throw that in there just to see who was paying attention?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6395
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Jul 2020, 21:20

magitsu wrote:Wouldn't you know, the first comment to pop up below the article features an incredibly clueless Gripen fan. From the amount of replies he's done to others I wouldn't be surprised if he's from BF4C.
Thomas Anderson
2 hours ago
Here are 25 reasons why the Gripen is better for the RCAF's primary mission of defending the skies over Canada than the Super Hornet (I can back up every single one with evidence if you don't believe it):
1.) It's faster
2.) It's more agile
3.) It has greater range
4.) It uses superior weapons
5.) It's much harder to detect
6.) It burns far less fuel
7.) Its fuel is JET-A1 instead of JP-4 or JP-6
8.) It can use CANOLA OIL as fuel if needed
9.) It's far less expensive to operate
10.) Lower cost per hour means more pilot training is possible for better pilots
11.) Easier to maintain (Better availability)
12.) It has STOVL capability (can land on a snowy road 800m long and 16m wide)
13.) It can operate out of makeshift bases
14.) The EW suite of a standard Gripen rivals that of the Growler
15.) It would be made here
16.) All maintenance would be done here
17.) All spare parts would be produced here
18.) The full tech transfer from Saab would resurrect our aerospace industry
19.) The Gripen has the most advanced data link in the world
20.) No Gripen has ever suffered an engine failure (safest fighter ever produced)
21.) It has a more advanced design (Canard/Delta vs Cruciform/Elevator)
22.) It's completely unaffected by any climate (arctic to tropical)
23.) It can supercruise with an A2A loadout (perfect for long-range interception)
24.) It is first and foremost an aerial defence FIGHTER, not a SURFACE ATTACKER
25.) We wouldn't be rewarding Boeing's treachery

:doh:

I wonder whether Boeing would've made their bid public if they weren't in a tough spot after Bombardier pr fiasco. Now it seems a somewhat savvy move.

Not a lot of NORAD talk lately, which should've led to Saab dropping out a long time ago. But when they aren't going to win I guess they can stick with it and give a solid to Trudeau by adding to an impression of true competition. Thus far the only strong intention has been to stall.


Its all too much, but man " completely unaffected by any climate (arctic to tropical)" has got to be one of favorites. Who hasn't taken off in a hurricane, or landed in a blizzard?

Its immune to weather folks.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Jul 2020, 17:58

XanderCrews wrote:
magitsu wrote:Wouldn't you know, the first comment to pop up below the article features an incredibly clueless Gripen fan. From the amount of replies he's done to others I wouldn't be surprised if he's from BF4C.
Thomas Anderson
2 hours ago
Here are 25 reasons why the Gripen is better for the RCAF's primary mission of defending the skies over Canada than the Super Hornet (I can back up every single one with evidence if you don't believe it):
1.) It's faster
2.) It's more agile
3.) It has greater range
4.) It uses superior weapons
5.) It's much harder to detect
6.) It burns far less fuel
7.) Its fuel is JET-A1 instead of JP-4 or JP-6
8.) It can use CANOLA OIL as fuel if needed
9.) It's far less expensive to operate
10.) Lower cost per hour means more pilot training is possible for better pilots
11.) Easier to maintain (Better availability)
12.) It has STOVL capability (can land on a snowy road 800m long and 16m wide)
13.) It can operate out of makeshift bases
14.) The EW suite of a standard Gripen rivals that of the Growler
15.) It would be made here
16.) All maintenance would be done here
17.) All spare parts would be produced here
18.) The full tech transfer from Saab would resurrect our aerospace industry
19.) The Gripen has the most advanced data link in the world
20.) No Gripen has ever suffered an engine failure (safest fighter ever produced)
21.) It has a more advanced design (Canard/Delta vs Cruciform/Elevator)
22.) It's completely unaffected by any climate (arctic to tropical)
23.) It can supercruise with an A2A loadout (perfect for long-range interception)
24.) It is first and foremost an aerial defence FIGHTER, not a SURFACE ATTACKER
25.) We wouldn't be rewarding Boeing's treachery

:doh:

I wonder whether Boeing would've made their bid public if they weren't in a tough spot after Bombardier pr fiasco. Now it seems a somewhat savvy move.

Not a lot of NORAD talk lately, which should've led to Saab dropping out a long time ago. But when they aren't going to win I guess they can stick with it and give a solid to Trudeau by adding to an impression of true competition. Thus far the only strong intention has been to stall.


Its all too much, but man " completely unaffected by any climate (arctic to tropical)" has got to be one of favorites. Who hasn't taken off in a hurricane, or landed in a blizzard?

Its immune to weather folks.


That comment from that Mr. Thomas Anderson (or whatever his name really is) is the most ridiculous and pathetic that I ever read until today!
When I think that I've already read the most stupid thing in the planet then comes a 'small chunk' of mankind which manages to completely surprise me (on the negative side, of course).

<sarc mode=on>
Keeping on topic with the comment above, I heard that the Gripen also runs on Hand Sanitiser as fuel if needed! Excellent for these COVID-19 times...
<sarc mode=off>

:roll: :doh:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1032
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post02 Jul 2020, 18:50

magitsu wrote:Not a lot of NORAD talk lately, which should've led to Saab dropping out a long time ago. But when they aren't going to win I guess they can stick with it and give a solid to Trudeau by adding to an impression of true competition.


I've actually seen this strategy before in weapon sales: you enter a foreign competition you know
you really can't win and then use the loss to claim to your home government that the market
is "saturated" or "full of barriers" and therefore the home government should acquire more
of your weapons to make up for it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6395
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Jul 2020, 16:54

marauder2048 wrote:
magitsu wrote:Not a lot of NORAD talk lately, which should've led to Saab dropping out a long time ago. But when they aren't going to win I guess they can stick with it and give a solid to Trudeau by adding to an impression of true competition.


I've actually seen this strategy before in weapon sales: you enter a foreign competition you know
you really can't win and then use the loss to claim to your home government that the market
is "saturated" or "full of barriers" and therefore the home government should acquire more
of your weapons to make up for it.


If it means Saab exposes themselves to comparison for their little wonder fighter I hope they never drop out and just get another humilation
Choose Crews
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post11 Jul 2020, 14:18

The Swedish assault has started.

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Fe ... t?blog/182

Who knew having domestic fighter aircraft production was equally as important as domestic production of medical masks.

“If something as simple and benign as medical masks could be an issue, then one can only surmise what issues could potentially be encountered around the acquisition of sophisticated aerospace technology when it comes to the crunch”
Attachments
239268EF-16CD-4399-8F32-FEC36177B1B6.png
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests