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

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 17 Apr 2019, 07:18

Is the Canadian Fighter Competition going to include a Fly Off with examples of each???

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 17 Apr 2019, 07:34

kimjongnumbaun wrote:Well, the other problem is the F-15EX is as much of a thing as the F-15 Silent Eagle. It doesn't actually exist and there has to be funding to even develop it.

The F-15EX is a baseline F-15QA but with USAF avionics, EW & radar. There's no major structural changes and every major component including engines to be installed is already in existence. The development cost which is ~$300m is because all the major components are in the F-15C and E airframe which are older than the F-15QA so they need to test to make sure everything still works when integrated in the new frame.

The F-15SE envisaged CWB weapons and slanted tails which no one wants to spend money to develop.

In Canada's case, Boeing would just offer an F-15QA equivalent, not an F-15EX which is solely for USAF.

P.s. they probably need to cater some cost to make sure they remove tools from the finished product. Esp relevant in the case of Boeing.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 17 Apr 2019, 09:06

Honestly, I don't see the F-15EX surviving the current US Defense Budget Process. So, the matter is likely moot....

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 17 Apr 2019, 14:23

spazsinbad wrote:Would you be able to post the URL for the original large RCAF map mentioned please? The 'editing' of the original PDF with 'smallPDF'? may have made my editing of it more TEDIOUS than I could stand. I enjoyed the embedded editing puzzles to solve though.

Sure, here you are:
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/rcaf-map.page

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Apr 2019, 21:22

Just out of interest to perhaps 'ricnunes' the original PDF map at 4.5Mb [OOoops - my mistake - original file size is actually 15.2 Mb as 'ricnunes' points out below] was reprinted to 1.4Mb attached below. Some thin lines evident around graphics however the text is all good. Reprint to a portrait letter size page so is lengthwise across it.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 17 Apr 2019, 23:48

spazsinbad wrote:Just out of interest to perhaps 'ricnunes' the original PDF map at 4.5Mb was reprinted to 1.4Mb attached below.

While the website does indeed say that the pdf file size is 4.5 Mb you can check that after downloading it that its size is actually 15.2 Mb (and not 4.5 as stated on the website).

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 18 Apr 2019, 07:40

Correct. Apologies the original PDF file size was misquoted by me - it is 15+Mb. Do you see the faint lines around the graphics in my 'reprinted (PRN) PDF'? One can enhance fine lines when viewing a PDF with Acrobat (or Reader I guess).

I did resave the original and only a small 0.2 reduction in file size so it was well made etc. The PDF was originally made with InDesign 2017 with a MacIntosh. I have found InDesign will make LARGE PDFs so I make only text (no grfx) with it.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 18 Apr 2019, 20:02

spazsinbad wrote:Do you see the faint lines around the graphics in my 'reprinted (PRN) PDF'? One can enhance fine lines when viewing a PDF with Acrobat (or Reader I guess).

Yes, I see faint and white lines around of what I gather are images. For example I see such lines around the map and around each aircraft image.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 18 Apr 2019, 20:16

ricnunes wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Do you see the faint lines around the graphics in my 'reprinted (PRN) PDF'? One can enhance fine lines when viewing a PDF with Acrobat (or Reader I guess).
Yes, I see faint and white lines around of what I gather are images. For example I see such lines around the map and around each aircraft image.

Yep that can be a 'problem' when reprinting as described using Acrobat. I'll keep that utility used in mind for future use.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 19 Apr 2019, 16:54

spazsinbad wrote:I'll keep that utility used in mind for future use.

Yes, that smallpdf utility is very interesting indeed. Besides compacting pdf files it also allows conversion of pdf's to Word, PowerPoint, etc... formats and vice-versa and this among other features.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 19 Apr 2019, 20:35

ricnunes wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I'll keep that utility used in mind for future use.

Yes, that smallpdf utility is very interesting indeed. Besides compacting pdf files it also allows conversion of pdf's to Word, PowerPoint, etc... formats and vice-versa and this among other features.

Utility says this which may help me fine tune whatever: "Perfect quality Reduce your scanned PDF files to 144dpi [twice screen resolution] which is perfect for uploading files to the web and through email."
Tried the Acrobat Embedded Utility (Reduce File Size) retaining the most current PDF version (requires Adobe Reader DC) which claims it will have the best result. It looks good but larger PDF file size attached below (ORIGINAL then REDUCED).

A different internal utility is the OPTIMISER where one may fiddle to one's heart content. See GIF for default settings which when used did not decrease the 'REDUCED' file size whilst generating a message that "image masks not reduced". I'll stop there because the 'ricnunes' utility @ smallpdf.com seems to be a simple hassle free way to quickly reduce file size.

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 06 May 2019, 23:44

Ouch!

Here we go again. The difference thus time seems to be that the USA has reached its frustration breaking point over the Canadian Government’s Group Fuster Cluck of a procurement.

http://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/20 ... a_FWeb.pdf

In-depth. Detailed. Rips many new *****.

....

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 06 May 2019, 23:52

Ottawa's planned fighter competition incompatible with F-35 obligations: U.S.
https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/05/06 ... tions-u-s/

Basically, Canada is requiring guaranteed offsets despite signing agreements that stated otherwise.

The letters specifically take issue with the governments plan to have each fighter-jet maker commit to re-investing in Canada if its aircraft wins the upcoming competition aimed at buying 88 new planes for $19 billion.

While that is standard for most Canadian military procurements, the U.S. officials note that Canada agreed not to apply such a requirement when it signed on as one of nine F-35 partner countries in 2006.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 May 2019, 00:08

Nice conformation of the A2A Combat radius

The F-35 and the Eurofighter have both demonstrated that they can make this 1,451 nautical miles trip, which includes a significant altitude change, while carrying four missiles.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 07 May 2019, 00:37

SpudmanWP wrote:Ottawa's planned fighter competition incompatible with F-35 obligations: U.S.
https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/05/06 ... tions-u-s/

Basically, Canada is requiring guaranteed offsets despite signing agreements that stated otherwise.
The letters specifically take issue with the governments plan to have each fighter-jet maker commit to re-investing in Canada if its aircraft wins the upcoming competition aimed at buying 88 new planes for $19 billion.

While that is standard for most Canadian military procurements, the U.S. officials note that Canada agreed not to apply such a requirement when it signed on as one of nine F-35 partner countries in 2006.

Canada will wake up when we pull the F-35 Contracts. Which, would last for decades and be worth Billions....