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

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

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2892
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 13:56

I apologize, too. I'm not one to think casually about drugs so it rubs me wrong sometimes.

The chinese troops in Canada may have been disaster relief training, but the Canadians were a bit quiet on exactly why they were there. And there wasn't a small delegation. Probably wasn't a giant force by any stretch, but when I hear about a delegation then it usually evokes under 100 individuals which is far exceeded from the video evidence.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 14:12

After China openly pinned the source of Covid-19 on a US Army visit in 2019, that bilateral Disaster Management Exchange became virtual in 2020. After all those happened in the last year, the report of Canada "inviting" PLA to conduct Arctic survival training inevitably ruffles a lot of features, becoming a talking point of the other side. It is unfair, because openly praising and admiring that authoritarian regime is so wide spread to the extent that almost is something normal.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2966
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 19:27

madrat wrote:I apologize, too. I'm not one to think casually about drugs so it rubs me wrong sometimes.


Yes, looking in hindsight I can imagine that comment/post of mine looked 'goofy' (to say the least). However it wasn't my intention and it was to be on the joking side, something which I'm sure you would pick up if we were talking to each other in person. Guess that this was one of those situation where something written may indeed look to the other person very different from what was intended and again I'm sorry for this situation.


madrat wrote:The chinese troops in Canada may have been disaster relief training, but the Canadians were a bit quiet on exactly why they were there. And there wasn't a small delegation. Probably wasn't a giant force by any stretch, but when I hear about a delegation then it usually evokes under 100 individuals which is far exceeded from the video evidence.


From what I see (and Xander's link IMO indicates this) there have been joint military exercises between Canada and China like there have been joint military exercises between USA and China - in the case of Canada and China the 'subject' was cold weather (Arctic) training while with the USA and China the subject was disaster relief training.
The diference (and all the 'fuzz about') on the Canadian side and the origin of those news was that amid tensions between Canada and China (because Huawei's top officer being arrested in Canada and deported to the USA) Canada's Chief of Defense Staff decided to cancel the latest of such exercises (in 2019) also because China decided to retaliate (against the arrest) and in return arbitrary arrest two Canadians in Chinese soil but the Canadian Government decided against the Chief of Defense Staff's decision because they were afraid of 'escalating tensions' between Canada and China.

According to the link that Xander provided (https://asiatimes.com/2020/12/canadas-t ... es-report/) the Chinese participation was to be between 6 to 8 PLA elements (and not something by the 100's). Here:
By the time it was written, the Canadian military had elected to cancel Chinese participation in winter survival training at CFB Petawawa. It was to have included six to eight PLA members.



Again, the problem isn't the Canadian Armed Force which I strongly believe are extremely competent and among the best in the world. The problem is that the Federal government isn't even remotely as competent as the Armed Forces (heck, the Federal government isn't even remotely competent, period)...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

go4long

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 07:20
  • Location: Calgary

Unread post29 Jan 2021, 20:39

Interesting note from the Finland thread, there's issues with the Conformal Fuel Tank development on the SHIII. It needed those in order to meet the range requirement for the competition, in theory if they're scrapped the Superhornet is done in our competition.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25403
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Jan 2021, 22:21

Interesting perhaps that only recently did Swedish Gripens start road operating after a long hiatus and now the Canadians are going up North again after four years NOT: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... c-training
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2966
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Jan 2021, 12:57

go4long wrote:Interesting note from the Finland thread, there's issues with the Conformal Fuel Tank development on the SHIII. It needed those in order to meet the range requirement for the competition, in theory if they're scrapped the Superhornet is done in our competition.


Well, if that's true then the Gripen is also done from the Canadian competition because there's no way a Gripen E/F has a bigger range than a Super Hornet even without Conformal Fuel Tanks :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post30 Jan 2021, 17:10



the problems have to do, at least in part, with how the upgraded aircraft handle the stresses of catapult launches and arrested recoveries.


Well it's a good thing Canada doesn't have A/C Carriers then... :bang:

Another possibility might be that the tanks have been found to block access to key sections of the aircraft when they are installed, requiring their removal to perform certain routine maintenance and other tasks, adding costly time and effort to those processes.


This is the interesting part. Anyone with SH knowledge know what these CFT block access to? If it's anything like the legacy, you'll need to remove them for access to the LEF actuator, relay panels and some key ECS ducting/components. CFTs worked on air force fighters, maybe it's just a carrier issue that Canada will ignore and consider anyway because we do stupid sh*t.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6733
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post30 Jan 2021, 21:45

pushoksti wrote:


the problems have to do, at least in part, with how the upgraded aircraft handle the stresses of catapult launches and arrested recoveries.


Well it's a good thing Canada doesn't have A/C Carriers then... :bang:

Another possibility might be that the tanks have been found to block access to key sections of the aircraft when they are installed, requiring their removal to perform certain routine maintenance and other tasks, adding costly time and effort to those processes.


This is the interesting part. Anyone with SH knowledge know what these CFT block access to? If it's anything like the legacy, you'll need to remove them for access to the LEF actuator, relay panels and some key ECS ducting/components. CFTs worked on air force fighters, maybe it's just a carrier issue that Canada will ignore and consider anyway because we do stupid sh*t.


Well maybe it is too early to tell, but what this looks like is if the USN doesn't bankroll them then they simply don't happen unless someone else does. These tanks if they can't be used aboard a ship are useless and the project may well be DOA. if Canada or Boeing (Northrop Grumman is the lead dog contractor on these I believe) want to pay for the funding to test and certify them, thats fine. but they will not be getting money from the USN.

So we are stuck in the same place that so many of these amazing paper projects get stuck in, a brilliant idea that no one wants to actually pony up the dough for. like all the F414 iterations I've have to hear about for over 10 years (have any of those actually happened? seriously I lost track)

Ideas so brilliant and so helpful no one wants to pay for them, and the company won't bother too even though they would be amazing

tells you a little something about "risk" doesn't it?

Well hell Boeing/NG/GE if thats so great just fund em and we will gladly buy em up!


Boeing/NG/GE.... uh no. we really won't pay for them. You need to do that.


funny how these upgrades are always "no brainers" when theyre being sold on someone else dime. but a little too risky when its company money
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4291
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post31 Jan 2021, 17:01

I wonder if the Quatar birds will require these/help pay for them?

Seems to have worked for the F-15EX, although I understand other nations (SA, ROK, Singapore etc) helped too. I would have thought though that the F/A-18's legs would have been a priority long ago. Boeing should have been working on something to make them longer IMO.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post31 Jan 2021, 17:53

mixelflick wrote:I wonder if the Quatar birds will require these/help pay for them?

Seems to have worked for the F-15EX, although I understand other nations (SA, ROK, Singapore etc) helped too. I would have thought though that the F/A-18's legs would have been a priority long ago. Boeing should have been working on something to make them longer IMO.


More fuel efficient F414's? Can you retrofit an electric hybrid system on jet engines yet? :lol:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6733
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post31 Jan 2021, 22:03

mixelflick wrote:I wonder if the Quatar birds will require these/help pay for them?

Seems to have worked for the F-15EX, although I understand other nations (SA, ROK, Singapore etc) helped too. I would have thought though that the F/A-18's legs would have been a priority long ago. Boeing should have been working on something to make them longer IMO.



Like I said the development of such things is very costly. If someone wants to pay for them, that's great. if not they tend to stay paper projects or "concept demonstrators"

most defense companies simply don't have the money to develop something a lot of countries might just kick the tires on and never really buy. look at the Gripen E. for as much as the fans think its some kind of revolutionary F-22 rival that should sell in the thousands, did you notice that Saab never bothered to bankroll it themselves?? (even though its crazy cheap, and so amazeballs its like a license to print money) and then relied on other nations to front the money for it? if you notice not even Sweden was going to buy it until another country signed on to share costs (which again is crazy since its obviously great and cheap and whatever money Saab put in it would surely make back 10 fold...)

that little revolutionary fighter that costs next to nothing couldn't find a single backer for years... and saab was paralyzed, and put forth a concept demonstrator only.

how come Sven didn't turn to Erik and simply say "why our company could be profiting in the billions with our revolutionary fighter that's cheap to develop, why are we not just developing it ourselves?"

No no Sven, we have to wait years and years so that F-16s can keep outselling us while we wait on Brazil to buy a few dozen...

crazy to watch such a "smart" company sit on a gold mine like that. :mrgreen:


can Canada help fund the EFTs on the SH that it hasn't yet decided to buy? probably not. will Germany, Aus, Kuwait, India, all of the above or anyone else bother to? does the USN saying "no thanks, nevermind" (we don't know the exact issues, but just from the statement it sure makes it sound like its a fairly large problem) doom the entire thing?

I doubt you'll see Kuwait spring for anything. its not an offensive force and theyre the size of a postage stamp. Australia? they're getting F-35s. India isn't official... Germany?
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3216
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post31 Jan 2021, 23:42



Well, imagine this.

Some here may recall in a discussion on this subject (CFTs) here some time ago that just slapping some tanks on the top of the existing structure wasn’t going to be a snap; just ask LM...their initial CFT configuration on Viper imposed some loads issues that required essentially a redesign.

Where was the voice of the (government) technical community when BA was selling this vaporware? CFTs a significant element of the whole ‘Block III is good enough’ idea.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post01 Feb 2021, 00:37

The irony is that if this was the F-35 and they couldn't get the Conformal tank to work, the Sky would be falling.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 722
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post01 Feb 2021, 01:17

quicksilver wrote:Where was the voice of the (government) technical community when BA was selling this vaporware? CFTs a significant element of the whole ‘Block III is good enough’ idea.

Yeah, the CFTs were also supposed to cover the decifit from running the new IRST pod which can hold extra fuel, but 150 gal less than a normal centerline tank. So Block III with IRST centerline pod but without CFTs will have 150 gal less than Block II + centerline tank. RCS & drag reductions and payload are also much smaller than promised if it never gets to run without the wing station fuel tanks.

So Block III is now maybe only lifetime extension, some displays and connectivity. Basically no real improved capability, but if readiness forces their hand then it's going to stay.

Remember just how much their initial Advanced Super Hornet concept had. What a pipe dream... it had EPE engines, enclosed weapons pod...
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests