Canada and the F-35

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9820
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post05 Mar 2013, 01:13

A CHEEP AUSLAN translation is 'fck you - fck youse all' (gesture pointing forward then gesture out wide).
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post05 Mar 2013, 02:23

The educational opportunities on this site are just endless.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9820
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post05 Mar 2013, 03:56

Utube Viddy here: Adam Hills at the 2010 Melbourne International Comedy Festival

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O53q8MlGAFk

YOUSE can start from here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... AFk#t=205s (3min 25sec)

Another explain here (but it is in the vid): Flight safety

http://mudmap.wordpress.com/tag/adam-hills/

"...Australian comedian Adam Hills tells a story about a hostie who had integrated some Auslan sign language (Australian sign language for hearing impaired) into the safety presentation. Only in Australia is there sign language for “F_ck you, F_ck youse all” (youse being plural of you, for those unfamiliar with vernacular bogan). I won’t spoil the joke...."

BOGAN? I speak bogan - it is like ???? :D Look it up.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9820
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post05 Mar 2013, 12:50

BAck on TraCK....

Ottawa rewrites fighter jet plan with upgrades to extend CF-18 lifespan 05 Mar 2013 DANIEL LEBLANC

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... cmpid=rss1

"Ottawa has added a twist to its long-running effort to buy new fighter jets, opening the door to new spending on upgrades that would prolong the lifespan of its fleet of CF-18s while further delaying a decision on the controversial process according to government documents and sources.

A change in the procurement document that is made available to potential suppliers invites manufacturers to propose new scenarios for maintaining and renewing Canadian air power.

Sources said the changes in the eligible options make it easier for manufacturers to propose a “mixed fleet” of upgraded CF-18s and other fighter jets, or a later delivery of new jets as the CF-18s fly beyond their planned phase-out....

...There is no firm timeline for the acquisition, but there is speculation in Ottawa that the government will want to delay the final announcement until after the 2015 general election....

...“It could provide the government with the opportunity of delaying the acquisition. If the government decides that it prefers to wait, it will have that option,” the source said.

The government said that the upgrades could allow manufacturers to prolong the lifespan of the CF-18s as a “bridge” to the delivery of new fighters later in the decade.

“Extending the CF-18 is consistent with the commitment to examine all options, including bridging options,” Public Works spokeswoman Lucie Brosseau said.

The government has added a new line in the questionnaire that will seek to gauge whether the aircraft capabilities that are being promoted by the various manufacturers are based on “test flights, simulators or past deployments.” The question is particularly relevant in terms of the F-35, which is still in development, while the other aircraft in the running are already operational...."

Makes more sense if youse read it at the JUMP!
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

luke_sandoz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post05 Mar 2013, 15:01

Nice obfuscation. A government that has woken up and realizes it can't just slip & slide this procurement past the seatbelt challenged media and Opposition.

Now they have this base covered as well.

Slick move to confuse the wogs and stymy the morons in the Canuck media.
Offline

the32notes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2013, 21:01

Unread post06 Mar 2013, 01:41

The article writen by Mangler Moldoon was very informative, especially the way he presented the F-35s air to air abilities.

to most nations, the Lightning will serve as the primary air superiority platform.

The way he stressed that the F-35 has good though not exceptional aerodynamic performance (as it is now) was, in my oppinion, could'nt have been said in a better way.

Some people would simply dismiss the need for aircraft to position themselvs first before firing a shot, thinking that an over the sholder defensive shot will be enough to score a kill, but the article beautifully ilustrates that advancements in missile detection plus advancements in countermesures combined with high maneuverability will lessen the Pk of any missile, especialy if not fired in optimum firing angles.

Once again good work sir, looking forward to reading more from you.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post06 Mar 2013, 06:44

Ottawa rewrites fighter jet plan with upgrades to extend CF-18 lifespan 05 Mar 2013 DANIEL LEBLANC

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... cmpid=rss1

"The government has added a new line in the questionnaire that will seek to gauge whether the aircraft capabilities that are being promoted by the various manufacturers are based on “test flights, simulators or past deployments.” The question is particularly relevant in terms of the F-35, which is still in development, while the other aircraft in the running are already operational...."

Ok and which of these proven airframes have "deployed" against hostile S-400 - "plus" integrated air defense networks?

There are some basics here. It doesn't matter how well you did back in the 1967 Six Day war. Nothing counts if you are sunk at the bottom of the ocean on the beach ... 9 G's with the sharks and stingrays do not impress anyone. Seaweed in your intake disrupts high AOA air flow performance ...

I continue to marvel at how they "play at" doing real analysis... Sorry for the attitude, it just boggles my mind ... carry on ...

Blind Pilot
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9820
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 04:15

Feds' reasons for acquiring fighter jets implausible, says Liberal MP By TIM NAUMETZ FEB/05/2013

"Conservative government releases 22-page questionnaire to industry containing six 'vignettes' future Canadian fighter jets may face, including war, terrorism, and joint Norad surveillance."

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013 ... l-mp/33920

"PARLIAMENT HILL—A series of war or terrorism scenarios, including attacks against terrorist cells in other countries and “state on state war fighting,” dominate a series of possible missions the federal government has set out for five fighter jets, including the controversial Lockheed Martin F-35, that are now under consideration as potential replacements for Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighters.

In reaction to requests for more information from firms who want to sell their fighters to Canada, as part of a review of options the government began after its $45.8-billion plan to acquire a fleet of 65 F-35 jets hit a brick wall last April, the government last Sunday released a 22-page questionnaire that included six “vignettes” the new fighter planes might face from 2020 past 2030, four of which involve terrorist attacks within Canada, terrorist attacks from abroad, or war operations as part of a coalition.

Only one of the six scenarios involves protecting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic or off Canada’s shores through joint North American Aerospace Defence Command operations with the U.S. Air Force. One other involves Canadian fighter protection to protect UN-led responses to humanitarian crisis or disasters, where the Canadian planes would suppress criminal activity or “general lawlessness” that threaten the emergency relief.

“The following mission vignettes provide additional information on the types of missions and tasks that a Canadian fighter may be required to complete,” the letter says to the fighter aircraft firms informally competing to have their fighters chosen to replace Canada’s F-18, either as short-term bridges to a time when the trouble-plagued F-35 can produce operational aircraft, or afterward, to face a grim scenario of air war the U.S. and other countries backing development of the F-35 have envisaged....

....In the House of Commons Tuesday, the government came under fire for a decision that went by with little notice last December to have the Canadian Forces review its plans to retire the F-18s by 2020 and instead devise ways to extend the fleet life further, even though the fighter jets, acquired in 1982, have already undergone billions of dollars in upgrades to extend their service beyond their original 2003 expiry date.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.) chided the government for using the term “reset” to describe the new acquisition process, after the government had earlier argued the F-35 procurement was vital because the F-18s could not last beyond 2020.

“Here’s my advice to the Prime Minister, it’s not the reset button that needs to be pushed it’s the eject button,” Mr. Garneau said, in reference to past opposition demands that Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) should be stripped of his post for the way he has handled the procurement."

Artickle best read at the guffaw.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9820
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 07:55

More verbiage that any FarNorthMoose could enjoy but WhiteUP: (as opposed to 'WhatUp'?) I don't think I wanna know.

Final Industry Engagement Request: Capability, Production and Supportability Information Questionnaire 03 Mar 2013

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... l-eng.html
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

popcorn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2876
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 19:09

spazsinbad wrote:More verbiage that any FarNorthMoose could enjoy but WhiteUP: (as opposed to 'WhatUp'?) I don't think I wanna know.

Final Industry Engagement Request: Capability, Production and Supportability Information Questionnaire 03 Mar 2013

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... l-eng.html


Now if only the different vendor submissions manage to find their way to wikileaks... :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9820
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post13 Mar 2013, 08:18

Towards an international model for Canadian defence procurement?
An F-35 Case Study
by Richard Shimooka 2013 The Conference of Defence Associations Institute

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/cdai/images/F-35_Case_Study.pdf (1.7Mb)

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the Canada First Defence Strategy first articulated the Government of Canada’s intention to reequip the Canadian Forces in 2008, a wide variety of procurement models have been tried. From domestic innovations, to purchasing off-the-shelf, to undertaking international partnerships, there are examples of all of these in Canada’s recent procurements.

Despite the political and logistical challenges associated with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, international partnerships as a model for procurement present the most effective way to meet three overarching procurement goals:

- Meeting operational requirements;
- Getting good value for taxpayer dollars; and
- Strengthening domestic industry.

International partnerships, when conducted effectively, an effective means to avoid three basic problems that are common to all procurements:

- Cost overruns;
- Delays; and
- Suboptimal performance.

The case study of the F-35 and its comparisons to the civilian aerospace industry allow us to examine these common challenges associated with military procurement. The case study also allows us to analyze current trends including the exponential increase in technological integration into platforms, the globalization of supply chains, diminishing production scales, and reductions in defence budgets. Ultimately, these trends will guide the international community to a greater number of cooperative procurements while the Government of Canada should reform its procurement practices to better incorporate these international partnerships in procurement."
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

markottawa

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 01:31
  • Location: Ottawa

Unread post17 Mar 2013, 21:11

At the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog":

"F-35 Testing Problems: Canadian and American Media Coverage"
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/03/0 ... -coverage/

"F-35: New US GAO Report/Canadian Government’s New Fighter Study Contract"
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/03/1 ... -contract/

Mark
Ottawa
Offline

vilters

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16
  • Location: belgium Zelem
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 Mar 2013, 23:21

I can only add one single thing here:

The country that uses the F-18? Please buy new F-18's.
The country that uses the F-16? Please buy new F-16's.
Both are good value for the dollar.

This F-35 can continue to "test" fly for another decade or 2, or 3, or 4.
The planet will be out of oil before it EVER gets operational.
Or the dollars will dry out to keep this BS going.
This is the biggest engineering fiasco I have ever followed.
Or? Somebody is filling his/her pockets and WANTS development to stagnate.

READ MY WORDS : LM can be very happy and kiss the ground, pray to the Lord, IF they ever sell 500 of them before a Gen 6 airplane gets build.

It will be "stone edge technology" before test flying ends and full production can start.
How old is the thing already. Some 20 years???
Last edited by vilters on 17 Mar 2013, 23:23, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post17 Mar 2013, 23:23

Someone forgot to take their meds this morning.
Offline

vilters

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16
  • Location: belgium Zelem
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 Mar 2013, 23:25

I do no think so.
I have both feet firmly on the ground.
The pace this is going?
Good luck to all.
But keep your pockets closed.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests