spejic Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Full text repeated below for those who don't have a free aviation leak account. I appreciate it, but that's the kind of copyright violation that can get this web site in trouble. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HOLMES Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 WOW..5 YEARS of lots of interesting comments and observations and videos and photos... <_< Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Glad to see Bill checked his "mention the saab Gripen in every article" box. :sign_spam:/> WOW..5 YEARS of lots of interesting comments and observations and videos and photos... <_</>/> I hear ya, Ive been waiting 8 years for the Saab Gripen NG to fly and don't even have videos or photos (lots of comments though), since the first flight is next year. Someday Edited October 16, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 I appreciate it, but that's the kind of copyright violation that can get this web site in trouble. Yeah, no it isn't. It's a shareable link and article. You only need an Av Week account, free, for the initial access. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 It may be the glass or two of wine speaking here, but what the heck is this chart supposed to imply? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Yeah, no it isn't. It's a shareable link and article. You only need an Av Week account, free, for the initial access. Just because it's free to access doesn't mean it's free to put on other web sites. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 It may be the glass or two of wine speaking here, but what the heck is this chart supposed to imply? I believe it charts the aircraft development time ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I believe it charts the aircraft development time ... -Gregg Yup first flight to IOC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I like this one :thumbsup:/>. Very pleasing to the eyes :rolleyes:/>. Thanks for sharing. Regards, Don. Agreed, it almost looks computer generated. I still can't decide if the F-35 is attractive or butt ugly. In that view, it looks pretty good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Agreed, it almost looks computer generated. I still can't decide if the F-35 is attractive or butt ugly. In that view, it looks pretty good. The wings don't look so stubby from that angle ... Also, with the bulge on top for the vertical fan, it sort of gives an idea of what a two place F-35 might look like ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
arg Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 MarkW is 100% correct. For the critical US threat system information loaded on the aircraft, some is releasable to foreign countries, some is not. So countries have options including loading their own threat databases, using releasable US data along with their own, and relying on more sensitive US data that the countries won't have access to. Bill Sweetman (his initials say it all - BS) seems to think any US-developed system is trash and never works, and every foreign system works perfectly and is wonderful. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Agreed, it almost looks computer generated. I still can't decide if the F-35 is attractive or butt ugly. In that view, it looks pretty good. The C is the best looking version of this jet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Here are the cliffs notes on Canada and the CF-18 replacement, to the best of my knowledge (before proceeding, please understand I am not Canadian, have barely a clue how your system works, and am completely apolitical on this one, save for the F-35. I also don't want to see this thread shut down so names will be withheld to protect the eventually proven guilty): CF-18 upgrade http://www.cbc.ca/ne...eport-1.2869532 **There are 3 current trends regarding the F-35 and the election from what I can tell one wants to withdraw from the F-35 and bar it completely in the future. One wants to have a competition and have the F-35 included One wants to stay the course with the F-35 currently **The trouble with a competition-- it looks like a great idea on paper,but... (From a Canadian in the know) read more about it here: http://news.national...k-with-the-f-35 http://news.national...ll-our-best-bet **So a competition would cost money, take 3 years (At a minimum) and leave only 3 candidates, Rafale, Gripen NG, F-35. Hear it from a Canadian! **But then the plot thickens!!! Can Canada have cake and eat it too eh? http://www.defensene...-f-35/72636328/ However, I do believe that would include remaining in the JSF program, and I can imagine a country like say Australia which is buying 100 F-35s, might take a bit of issue with a nation buying none getting a large workshare. A lot of partner nations are looking for additional work on the F-35, Canadian contracts in the future would be hotly contested with a lot of arm twisting to see they don't get them should they buy something else (Just my opinion) So thats all I got right now... A "new" competition for Canada would be stupid. The F-35 clearly outclasses anything it would compete with. It simply comes down to if Canada wants to pay for the capability. If they do, buy the jet and get on with business. If they decide they can't afford it, or can't afford it in enough numbers, then choose from the Gripen/SuperHornet/Rafale/Typhoon. No "new" competition is needed as the capabilities and cost of these platforms are well known. Just decide what suits you best and buy it. It should take you about an hour to make that decision. Everything has been on the table for years. Jeesh. Edited October 18, 2015 by DutyCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 My question is this, will we get the F35 before our cf18 wear out? Politics here usually makes these dnd decisions take longer that any one else it seems to me, how much timw has passed since the issue came up we must check the competition out before we actually make a purchase? Because the dnd didn't go through propper acquisition procedures, bythe time they actually make a full commitment the new a/c won't be delivered until after the airframes expire on the hornets. Just look at the rest of our aging airforce fleet, which some should been replaced 20 years ago. Having worked on the CF-18 for eights years, I can tell you it is already worn out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Here are the cliffs notes on Canada and the CF-18 replacement, to the best of my knowledge (before proceeding, please understand I am not Canadian, have barely a clue how your system works, and am completely apolitical on this one, save for the F-35. I also don't want to see this thread shut down so names will be withheld to protect the eventually proven guilty): CF-18 upgrade http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extending-cf-18-lifespan-to-cost-about-400-million-report-1.2869532 **There are 3 current trends regarding the F-35 and the election from what I can tell one wants to withdraw from the F-35 and bar it completely in the future. The irony of all of this is the government that wants to cancel the F-35, the Liberals, put us into the program. In 1997 they paid 10 million to join and in 2002 they paid another 150 million to become partners in the program for the next ten years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The irony of all of this is the government that wants to cancel the F-35, the Liberals, put us into the program. In 1997 they paid 10 million to join and in 2002 they paid another 150 million to become partners in the program for the next ten years. :blink:...it hurts the head sometimes though doesn't it... :wacko: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 True, but don't remind Justin of the facts. More fun to blame the current PM. Have a feeling we might be getting Super Hornets soon. (Or maybe something cheap made in China) Kind of shades of the last tome the Liberals won the election and we ditched the Cormorant and several big bags of money with them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 True, but don't remind Justin of the facts. More fun to blame the current PM. Have a feeling we might be getting Super Hornets soon. (Or maybe something cheap made in China) Kind of shades of the last tome the Liberals won the election and we ditched the Cormorant and several big bags of money with them. Trudeau will tool up the Sopwith Camel production line. The Blue Jays are losing because Toronto is going to vote the Liberals in tomorrow, it the baseball gods way of getting back at you guys. 😡 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Trudeau will tool up the Sopwith Camel production line. The Blue Jays are losing because Toronto is going to vote the Liberals in tomorrow, it the baseball gods way of getting back at you guys. 😡 ... Wait...I like the Jays... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 :rofl:/>... Wait...I like the Jays... :doh:/> So do I, but it's the truth. 😠Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 The irony of all of this is the government that wants to cancel the F-35, the Liberals, put us into the program. In 1997 they paid 10 million to join and in 2002 they paid another 150 million to become partners in the program for the next ten years. And you know, This: (sorry just saw Phantom mention that) Have a feeling we might be getting Super Hornets soon. even if that is the case, "soon" would be relative. there has to be a competition (right?), and in that competition there is only one aircraft that meets Canadian requirements-- the F-35. So the whole process has to be started from scratch (including requirements), then people have to explain why the F-35 is being excluded when its obviously going to meet or exceed unless they do something like "2 engines a must" It seems to be a real bone of contention that every box get checked and rechecked and the process is "fair." (How excluding the clear winner due to politics is "fair" I haven't the foggiest,) but I would think there is going to be a long, long, drawn out process. And Katy bar the door for all the Partner nations that are going to demand more work share should Canada opt out. T Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Having worked on the CF-18 for eights years, I can tell you it is already worn out. I don't doubt that one bit Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 And Katy bar the door for all the Partner nations that are going to demand more work share should Canada opt out. T You are thinking too small. The industrial portion of the partnership is not as solid as the original agreement; we have wings built in Israel, and every country that buys 40 or more gets a bonus FACO. If Canada drops out, it will look like feeding time on Shark Week for their chunk. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 You are thinking too small. The industrial portion of the partnership is not as solid as the original agreement; we have wings built in Israel, and every country that buys 40 or more gets a bonus FACO. If Canada drops out, it will look like feeding time on Shark Week for their chunk. I thought I read somewhere that LM stated that if Canada opt'ed out, their existing workload would not be impacted? Personally, I think it's only right that if Canada does drop out that all of their subcontracts for JSF components be re-issued to other partner countries (if it is practical to do so). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 (edited) I thought I read somewhere that LM stated that if Canada opt'ed out, their existing workload would not be impacted? Personally, I think it's only right that if Canada does drop out that all of their subcontracts for JSF components be re-issued to other partner countries (if it is practical to do so). LM said it will take its contracts elsewhere, Kendall said the contracts are awarded to best value. This was then used to leverage the idea that a certain political party saying Canada would lose jobs and money, was playing chicken little, And a bunch of Canadians tried to point to that Kendall Statement like the Contracts would be protected, I think that is rather naive. I think you have to be rather stupid to think you can have your cake and eat it too on this. scoring F-35 contracts in anywhere near the same amount along with offsets from what other plane is chosen. Just about every partner country, including the latest have made it clear they want more work. At the very least I would think there would be severe pressure to re-bid the contracts. The Canadian industry group, which is a group of all the F-35 parts suppliers in canada have been emphatic and know they can't help but lose contracts. They aren't as silly as the people who think there won't be consequences. Naturally they are being ignored. I whole heartedly agree with the second sentence, John. If they don't buy it, they shouldn't get the perks. F-35 is under fire elsewhere of course and its makes sense those contracts and jobs and money go to countries that are buying the airplane. (shocking I know) Or being used to sell more to other countries not yet in the fold. Edited October 19, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.