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

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 02 Jun 2019, 13:35

I am still laughing at some of these comments. Arctic DNA LOL.

I wonder if it has Desert DNA, like our F-4's, F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, F-18's and F-117's demonstrated in Desert Storm? Can SAAB match that? Sounds like it'll be in the follow on to Gripen NG. Gripen DNA has a nice ring to it. Is that's what's next from SAAB?

Inquiring Middle East minds want to know :mrgreen:

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 02 Jun 2019, 17:34

Be wewy wewy kwiette... don't disturb Dolbe and the other Norwegian flyers with news that the Lightning doesn't have any Arctic DNA...

jetblast16 · by **jetblast16** » 23 Jun 2019, 20:50

usnvo · by **usnvo** » 24 Jun 2019, 00:32

But what about the importance of two engines when operating over the Arctic?

How is it that the F-35 with the newest and probably most reliable single engine ever is "unsafe" according to all the INTERNET experts but the Saab, with a single F414 gets a pass?

nathan77 · by **nathan77** » 24 Jun 2019, 05:42

mixelflick wrote:I am still laughing at some of these comments. Arctic DNA LOL.

I wonder if it has Desert DNA, like our F-4's, F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, F-18's and F-117's demonstrated in Desert Storm? Can SAAB match that? Sounds like it'll be in the follow on to Gripen NG. Gripen DNA has a nice ring to it. Is that's what's next from SAAB?

Inquiring Middle East minds want to know

Given the ever-increasing weight of the Gripen and its small engine and how much more power you need in hot conditions, I would have some doubts it can operate anywhere but in cold climates. So being "optimised for cold conditions" is clever marketing - it makes it sound like a feature.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Jun 2019, 17:31

kimjongnumbaun wrote:At 30,000 feet, the OAT is anywhere between -40 to -70 degrees C. Planes have been designed to operate at lower temperatures for decades. The engines are more efficient at those altitudes. Anything on the ground gets de iced before it flies. Saab is just trying to market to clueless fanboys.

what else is new?

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Jun 2019, 17:34

usnvo wrote:But what about the importance of two engines when operating over the Arctic?

How is it that the F-35 with the newest and probably most reliable single engine ever is "unsafe" according to all the INTERNET experts but the Saab, with a single F414 gets a pass?

Theres a fanboy schism there.

Watching F-35 fans and Gripen fans come together against all the 2 engine options is always fun to watch.

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 26 Jun 2019, 03:56

Looking for a slide . . . I thought it was in this thread a while back but I can’t locate it,

It was PowerPoint slide of the RCAF evaluation/comparison of the number of Gen 4 aircraft vs F-35 needed for a strike package against a defended target.

Seem to recall it was 12 old vs 4 x F-35s?

Anyone?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 26 Jun 2019, 04:12

This one?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 26 Jun 2019, 04:13

Bloody hell that was quick :mrgreen:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=362471&hilit=thousand#p362471

arrow-nautics · by **arrow-nautics** » 26 Jun 2019, 12:32

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/26/business ... DuDVwTMw2g

Whoa

London - Bombardier has given up on commercial aviation, selling its regional jet business to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHVYF) for $550 million in cash.

The sale marks the end of an era for Montreal-based Bombardier, which has been forced to admit defeat in the face of heavy competition from the industry's entrenched duopoly, Boeing (BA) and Airbus (EADSY).

Bombardier (BDRAF) CEO Alain Bellemare said the deal "represents the completion of Bombardier's aerospace transformation." The company will now focus on trains and private planes.

The retreat comes less than two years after European aerospace group Airbus took control of Bombardier's C Series, which made planes with up to 130 seats. That jet is now called the Airbus A220.

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 26 Jun 2019, 13:24

SpudmanWP wrote:This one?

Thanks ++++

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 26 Jun 2019, 14:42

arrow-nautics wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/26/business/bombardier-regional-jets/index.html?fbclid=IwAR38nu0391OdbrW-Sw6dbiArSBtkV9_F41hlGtft30jeM1vCwDuDVwTMw2g

Whoa

London - Bombardier has given up on commercial aviation, selling its regional jet business to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHVYF) for $550 million in cash.

The sale marks the end of an era for Montreal-based Bombardier, which has been forced to admit defeat in the face of heavy competition from the industry's entrenched duopoly, Boeing (BA) and Airbus (EADSY).

Bombardier (BDRAF) CEO Alain Bellemare said the deal "represents the completion of Bombardier's aerospace transformation." The company will now focus on trains and private planes.

The retreat comes less than two years after European aerospace group Airbus took control of Bombardier's C Series, which made planes with up to 130 seats. That jet is now called the Airbus A220.

Oh lord... This I wasn't expecting.

I don't know if I'm mistaken but $550 million for the commercial aviation seems like penuts (a bargain for Mitsubishi) or resuming too cheap, no?

Anyway, could this put a "nail on the coffin" on the potential intention for some companies (Airbus and Saab comes into my mind) to place a production line for their fighter aircraft in Canada (if their fighter aircraft ends up winning in Canada, that is)?
I'm asking this because I can't see another company in Canada that could assemble fighter aircraft besides Bombardier, right?

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 26 Jun 2019, 14:43

Can't recall where but I saw stats once (forget what time period) showing single engine fighters were actually safer/less prone to engine failure vs twin jets. One engine quits and then you have none is just one way of looking at it. Two engines increases the likelihood of an engine fire is another.

That, and Canada has operated single engine fighters before. The CF-104 and F-86 come to mind. And while Gripen may use a common engine (F-404), the rest of its capabilities are sorely lacking. I'd say a bit of a step up from their current F-18A+ aircraft, but considerably less capable than well, everything else lol..

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 26 Jun 2019, 15:50

mixelflick wrote:That, and Canada has operated single engine fighters before. The CF-104 and F-86 come to mind. And while Gripen may use a common engine (F-404), the rest of its capabilities are sorely lacking. I'd say a bit of a step up from their current F-18A+ aircraft, but considerably less capable than well, everything else lol..

I would say that any country that replaces a Hornet or a F-16 with a Gripen is doing a step back not a step up.
I mean electronically the Gripen (-E in this case) may have a few advantages but IMO it would be way more preferable to update an existing Hornet or F-16 (in the case of Canada a Hornet) than purchasing Gripens - At least the "update choice" would be far cheaper.