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

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

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post30 Apr 2018, 19:17

Corsair1963 wrote:Well, I took a few minutes and checked out "the best fighter for Canada blog. Yet, it hardly made me believe that the site has really improved much..... :|


In short I'll pass....


Personally I think the problem with "BFFC" is the author of the site articles as they lack any comprehension of aeronautical engineering are just painful to read. :doh:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5690
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 May 2018, 04:45

alloycowboy wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Well, I took a few minutes and checked out "the best fighter for Canada blog. Yet, it hardly made me believe that the site has really improved much..... :|


In short I'll pass....


Personally I think the problem with "BFFC" is the author of the site articles as they lack any comprehension of aeronautical engineering are just painful to read. :doh:



Clearly, not a site to be taken seriously..... :?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5978
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 May 2018, 14:20

playloud wrote:Just an FYI. I've been made a moderator on the Best Fighter For Canada blog.

So those who frequent the site, please refrain from insulting other users while there. This includes calling people idiots, morons, and trolls. That is all.

New Sheriffs.jpg


OMG we got a man on the inside!!!


hb_pencil wrote:
playloud wrote:Just an FYI. I've been made a moderator on the Best Fighter For Canada blog.

So those who frequent the site, please refrain from insulting other users while there. This includes calling people idiots, morons, and trolls. That is all.


uh, I can safely say that I've been called all of those things on almost every post I've put up on there.



Yep. And I've been banned a couple times as well...

I can haz reinstatement? Jesus wait. Never mind That place is still terrible.

Muh Gripen lands on roads!!!
Last edited by XanderCrews on 03 May 2018, 15:03, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5978
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 May 2018, 14:34

Jesus christ do they really think the Gripen is the only aircraft in the world capable of landing on a f**King road?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7Meo7w-pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAuhXoYEuAM


Image

BFFC

Still trash posted by retards
Choose Crews
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post03 May 2018, 16:49

They are believers. Saab loves to emphasize that their plane is supposedly designed for dispersed/austere operation. It indeed does have some interesting capablities, like gravity fueling (only on SAAF Gripens). So you could theoretically fill it up with no electricity. Other planes would require pressure insertion. But doing it in the Swedish way would probably be slow as heck, which would render it almost useless. https://www.africandefence.net/the-uniq ... f-gripens/

Another somewhat useful thing is canards doubling as air brakes. Yes indeed, they enable the Gripen to stop rather fast.

What nobody bothers to notice is that the take off is probably the hardest part of austere operation, requiring ample power reserves. Gripen is among the worst contemporaries in that regard. Very low empty weight and thrust compared to the actual payloads which would make a fighter useful.

Gripen. Easy to gas up, also gets gassed. :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5978
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 May 2018, 18:36

magitsu wrote:They are believers.



I don't hate the Gripen, I hate its fans.
Choose Crews
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post03 May 2018, 18:41

Being able to be gravity refueled isn’t really an advantage. If you’re doing FARP operations you’re using a refueling truck to move the gas. It’ll have its own pump. If you’re refueling from blivets then you’re not mobile, which defeats the purpose of roadside operations. You want to be able to move locations so you’re not eating artillery or airstrikes once you’re discovered.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post03 May 2018, 18:44



That's a good, informative article, going into detail about how the fuel tanks work. Wish more articles were like that instead of "it's not stealthy at all, it doesn't look stealthy".
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5978
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 May 2018, 18:49

The simple fact is that practice and routine make roadside and mobile ops possible. The Marines have been doing it for decades. The brits were doing it with Harriers. Its a matter of doctrine and training. In the same way giving someone a hockey stick doesn't make them Wayne Gretsky, buying a Gripen doesn't make you a master of road side operations.

And What the f**k would Canada do with Roadside ops anyway? its comically useless. You don't get to say "Canadian fighters have to be able to operated in extreme arctic environments", then in the next breath say its going to do routine roadside ops in the same prohibitively arctic environment. If youre having a hard time keeping your main arctic base going the amount of people and logisitcs it would require to "take the show on the road" would be absurd
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post04 May 2018, 00:16

XanderCrews wrote:The simple fact is that practice and routine make roadside and mobile ops possible. The Marines have been doing it for decades. The brits were doing it with Harriers. Its a matter of doctrine and training. In the same way giving someone a hockey stick doesn't make them Wayne Gretsky, buying a Gripen doesn't make you a master of road side operations.

And What the f**k would Canada do with Roadside ops anyway? its comically useless. You don't get to say "Canadian fighters have to be able to operated in extreme arctic environments", then in the next breath say its going to do routine roadside ops in the same prohibitively arctic environment. If youre having a hard time keeping your main arctic base going the amount of people and logisitcs it would require to "take the show on the road" would be absurd

Just imagine Ice Road Truckers as applied this. Or the sub scene from Firefox. Seems kind of ridiculous.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post04 May 2018, 08:27

The entire premise of roadside operations for the RCAF is hilarious. They don't even train for that with their CF-18s. Yet the posters of BF4C think it's now a necessary capability even though it hasn't been for the last 3 decades. These same posters also think Canada needs an interceptor despite the RCAF picking the F-18 as its fighter. The posters there are clueless.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2808
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post04 May 2018, 11:01

XanderCrews wrote:The simple fact is that practice and routine make roadside and mobile ops possible. The Marines have been doing it for decades. The brits were doing it with Harriers. Its a matter of doctrine and training. In the same way giving someone a hockey stick doesn't make them Wayne Gretsky, buying a Gripen doesn't make you a master of road side operations.

And What the f**k would Canada do with Roadside ops anyway? its comically useless. You don't get to say "Canadian fighters have to be able to operated in extreme arctic environments", then in the next breath say its going to do routine roadside ops in the same prohibitively arctic environment. If youre having a hard time keeping your main arctic base going the amount of people and logisitcs it would require to "take the show on the road" would be absurd


This is very true. Swedish Air Force actually didn't train any dispersed operations for about 15 years before 2016 when they came to Finland to start to re-aquire their lost skills.

They also have to buy some equipment to actually be able to operate in the manner.
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... operations

Of course Gripen was designed with dispersed operations in mind, but so were all the other fighter aircraft as it was envisioned that airfields would be attacked and short-field capability would be needed. It doesn't really matter if the runway is a road or not.

I agree that roadside operations are not something for Canadian needs. I don't see a situation for Canada where they would be beneficial. They are good for countries like Finland and Sweden which are within reach of attack aircraft and large artillery rocket systems. Not so much for Canada...
Offline

scx

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 21:42

Unread post15 May 2018, 20:06

Anyone notice that in the last "Fast Facts" of 14 of May 18, the quantity of the Canadians F-35 went up from 65 to 88? do you think it's saying something new about the competition?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23257
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 May 2018, 20:20

Good catch. In the FastFacts there is this link to PDF: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... ighter.PDF (0.6Mb)
Attachments
88canadianF-35sLMprogramofrecordMay2018.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 May 2018, 20:31

Maybe the RFI that they sent to LM asked about 88? This makes sense given that they claim that they need more fighters than they had previously planned for. This lead to the attempted SH buy without a bid and the eventual Australian Classic Hornet buy.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests