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

[alloycowboy]

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.

[Corsair1963]

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.

Clearly, not a site to be taken seriously.....

[XanderCrews]

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!!!

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!!!

[XanderCrews]

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




BFFC

Still trash posted by retards

[magitsu]

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.

[XanderCrews]

They are believers.

I don't hate the Gripen, I hate its fans.

[kimjongnumbaun]

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.

[vanshilar]

https://www.africandefence.net/the-uniq ... f-gripens/

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".

[XanderCrews]

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

[count_to_10]

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.

[kimjongnumbaun]

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.

[hornetfinn]

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...

[scx]

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?

[spazsinbad]

Good catch. In the FastFacts there is this link to PDF: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... ighter.PDF (0.6Mb)

[SpudmanWP]

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.