Airplane Thread

Spaceman Spiff said:
Boeing's proposal has been rejected so it's down to two candidates the replace the CF-18s: The F-35 and the Gripen.
Click to expand...

10 years of nut holding only to go with the F35 in the end. All done for show… classic procurement in Canada. Canada doesn’t have the balls to buy the Saab even if they offer a better package. The F35 is part of a “battlefield system”. F35 is a modern platform

Military wants X, Gov buys Y then they both spend years modifying Y to meet X but then in the end you end up with XYZ. In a few years they’ll have to start shopping for Submarines again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That's interesting. With the gov saying they wouldn't buy the F-35 the Super Hornet sounded like a shoe in.

I think we should get the Saab for the lulz.

Just how fancy of a plane do you need to politely ask the bears to turn around?
 
kahos said:
That's interesting. With the gov saying they wouldn't buy the F-35 the Super Hornet sounded like a shoe in.

I think we should get the Saab for the lulz.

Just how fancy of a plane do you need to politely ask the bears to turn around?
Click to expand...

I was actually doing some reading on this. It’s the modern platform the f35 offers especially with downlink and uplink. You don’t need a plethora of add ons or pods. While the SAAB is a great aircraft it still has that “old” aircraft problem with flexibility. It’s been upgraded so often that it too is at the end of its life. The biggest bounty for each company is the support/ maintenance contract. Let’s not lie here…. Lockheed is much better established here and in USA. It will be interesting to see what Saab is offering though. If the deal is sweet especially if they’re offering more frames and better maintenance deal. Assembly in Canada etc. Sweden makes really good equipment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gregster said:
I was actually doing some reading on this. It’s the modern platform the f35 offers especially with downlink and uplink. You don’t need a plethora of add ons or pods. While the SAAB is a great aircraft it still has that “old” aircraft problem with flexibility. It’s been upgraded so often that it too is at the end of its life. The biggest bounty for each company is the support/ maintenance contract. Let’s not lie here…. Lockheed is much better established here and in USA. It will be interesting to see what Saab is offering though. If the deal is sweet especially if they’re offering more frames and better maintenance deal. Assembly in Canada etc. Sweden makes really good equipment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

All the wizardry / interoperability sounds pretty cool. It's sort of text book vendor lock in though at the nation state level.

Between the resentment for not "pulling our weight" in NATO and the U.S first political/trade doctrine it's not like the U.S care about our "feelings" anywhere as much as we think about theirs. They'll be mad / unimpressed for a minute and then go right back to not giving a shit.

It's petty but I think it would be a decent reminder that we're not always going to put their interest ahead of ours. We need a basic plane to uphold our sovereignty. We 're more likely to shoot down an hijacked airliner at home than we are to go toe-to-toe with an SU-57 for any reason. Get the plane that fits that mission parameter better than the whole "near peer adversary" threat.
 
kahos said:
All the wizardry / interoperability sounds pretty cool. It's sort of text book vendor lock in though at the nation state level.

Between the resentment for not "pulling our weight" in NATO and the U.S first political/trade doctrine it's not like the U.S care about our "feelings" anywhere as much as we think about theirs. They'll be mad / unimpressed for a minute and then go right back to not giving a shit.

It's petty but I think it would be a decent reminder that we're not always going to put their interest ahead of ours. We need a basic plane to uphold our sovereignty. We 're more likely to shoot down an hijacked airliner at home than we are to go toe-to-toe with an SU-57 for any reason. Get the plane that fits that mission parameter better than the whole "near peer adversary" threat.
Click to expand...

Considering all we have been doing with bombing people in Hilux trucks and some pissed off Balkans for the last 30 years this whole argument about needing stealth is moot. If we need that stuff we are all fucked.

What concerns me is US lobbying and general meddling. See Australia and the subs. The US never cared about stabbing allies in the back.

I’ve often wondered if we took 100 billion and developed our own aircraft etc. Hell we are surrounded by water on 3 sides and barely have a ship building industry. We are more than capable of doing so. Yea it would sting at first but all the support industries and knowledge would offset a major part. Not to mention a whack of highly skilled jobs. There is no sense of pride in Canada. It’s been beaten out of us throughout the years.

Sweden Has 1/4 of our population but their armed forces equipment is almost all domestically produced


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kahos said:
All the wizardry / interoperability sounds pretty cool. It's sort of text book vendor lock in though at the nation state level.

Between the resentment for not "pulling our weight" in NATO and the U.S first political/trade doctrine it's not like the U.S care about our "feelings" anywhere as much as we think about theirs. They'll be mad / unimpressed for a minute and then go right back to not giving a shit.

It's petty but I think it would be a decent reminder that we're not always going to put their interest ahead of ours. We need a basic plane to uphold our sovereignty. We 're more likely to shoot down an hijacked airliner at home than we are to go toe-to-toe with an SU-57 for any reason. Get the plane that fits that mission parameter better than the whole "near peer adversary" threat.
Click to expand...

The only valid requirements are to be able to intercept Tu-95s and fly over the start/finish line at the Canadian Grand Prix once a year. For the rest, operating costs and readiness rate should be the main factors driving the decision. The Gripen would win easily when you consider cost and reliability.
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
The only valid requirements are to be able to intercept Tu-95s and fly over the start/finish line at the Canadian Grand Prix once a year. For the rest, operating costs and readiness rate should be the main factors driving the decision. The Gripen would win easily when you consider cost and reliability.
Click to expand...

The Tu-95's routine flights are a master class in trolling NORAD.

Da, Comrades, they scrambled the F22s out of elmendorf again trololol.

That bitch is going to be down for eleventy hours of pricey maintenance :thefinger

What's the worse they can do? Take some cool pics of desolate artic landscape? It's not like they're going to sneak that clunker anywhere close to where it could do any sort of meaningful damage.
 
ukpcoe7co0w41.jpg


D7FRLkCXsAA-Yz4
 
kahos said:
The Tu-95's routine flights are a master class in trolling NORAD.

Da, Comrades, they scrambled the F22s out of elmendorf again trololol.

That bitch is going to be down for eleventy hours of pricey maintenance :thefinger

What's the worse they can do? Take some cool pics of desolate artic landscape? It's not like they're going to sneak that clunker anywhere close to where it could do any sort of meaningful damage.
Click to expand...

It’s done to continually test response times. Russia has been using Tu-160s lately in the mix as well. Not just that Tu-95 can loiter around gathering whatever intelligence it can. USA does the same with its P-8s to China


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
https://www.saab.com/markets/canada/gripen-for-canada


If we are going to be air police and general light to medium duty stuff then the Gripen E is for us. Service and maintenance costs alone would be less and it might actually be built here.. it’s already interoperable with NATO as well.

Knowing Lockheed though. One well placed phone call from Potus to our PM and Lockheed offering 50% off would seal that deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Gregster said:
It’s done to continually test response times. Russia has been using Tu-160s lately in the mix as well. Not just that Tu-95 can loiter around gathering whatever intelligence it can. USA does the same with its P-8s to China


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I get that part from the Russian perspective.

What I don’t get is what we stand to gain by responding. The information they get about our intercept capabilities sounds more valuable than the data they could gather about muskox and polar bear if we didn’t bother. It sounds like such a 1950s thing to do considering satellites and all.

Are we really worried about a fleet of conventional bombers launching a first strike from the far north?

That whole situation is so lopsided from a cost / ressources perspective that wouldn’t not playing along be the ultimate play for us ?
 
kahos said:
I get that part from the Russian perspective.

What I don’t get is what we stand to gain by responding. The information they get about our intercept capabilities sounds more valuable than the data they could gather about muskox and polar bear if we didn’t bother. It sounds like such a 1950s thing to do considering satellites and all.

Are we really worried about a fleet of conventional bombers launching a first strike from the far north?

That whole situation is so lopsided from a cost / ressources perspective that wouldn’t not playing along be the ultimate play for us ?
Click to expand...

If we don’t respond they’ll fly deeper and deeper. Our pilots have to fly a minimum amount of hours a year as well. Those hours are already budgeted for. It’s not the fleet of bombers launching a first strike it’s the electronic eavesdropping equipment on those bombers. Satellites have never been the end all for intelligence gathering. The fact we don’t have a base on Victoria Island or larger base at Alert is pretty lopsided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gregster said:
If we don’t respond they’ll fly deeper and deeper. Our pilots have to fly a minimum amount of hours a year as well. Those hours are already budgeted for. It’s not the fleet of bombers launching a first strike it’s the electronic eavesdropping equipment on those bombers. Satellites have never been the end all for intelligence gathering. The fact we don’t have a base on Victoria Island or larger base at Alert is pretty lopsided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If our Arctic sovereignty plan was more than a bunch of Canadian Rangers with Lee Enfield rifles on snowmobiles I'd be a little bit more concerned about the whole "omg they're spying on us" thing.

I'm sure they can follow most of our northern accomplishments on social media: https://twitter.com/jtfn_foin or https://twitter.com/HMCSHarryDeWolf

Our lack of commercial and military activities up there means we're not likely to be taken seriously in the region anytime soon anyways.
 
kahos said:
If our Arctic sovereignty plan was more than a bunch of Canadian Rangers with Lee Enfield rifles on snowmobiles I'd be a little bit more concerned about the whole "omg they're spying on us" thing.

I'm sure they can follow most of our northern accomplishments on social media: https://twitter.com/jtfn_foin or https://twitter.com/HMCSHarryDeWolf

Our lack of commercial and military activities up there means we're not likely to be taken seriously in the region anytime soon anyways.
Click to expand...
*over priced Tikka Arctic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top