tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post306566896427147949..comments2024-03-22T05:20:44.167-07:00Comments on The Disaffected Lib: Why the F-35 Was DOOMed From BirthThe Mound of Soundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-80317023474094389232014-09-22T09:03:12.563-07:002014-09-22T09:03:12.563-07:00Correction from statement in the above post.: Fac...Correction from statement in the above post.: Fact: There has never been a loss of Gripen due to an engine / bird strike or fuel issue in the entire program of well over 200,000 flight hours of which many hours in the arctic with minimal support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-39795079076946057592014-09-21T20:40:59.160-07:002014-09-21T20:40:59.160-07:00Statistically you are safer in a single engine Gri...Statistically you are safer in a single engine Gripen then the CF-18 or the F-18E and just as safe as any jet in the world no matter how many engines. This fact is even more interesting considering all three jets share the same base engine, the General Electric F-404 / F-414. The USA made F-414 to be used in the Gripen E for Canada is of higher power version that is currently used in the F-18E Super Hornet. But there are differences in the Gripen intake design and other engine related components which were thoroughly tested and designed for bird strikes and reliability and the list of patents that Volvo owns that are also used on the F-414 used in the F-18E is as long as your arm. Improvements that make it a stronger engine for such things as bird strikes. Gripen C have ingested seagulls and fuselage hits of up to swans and due to having two smaller intakes instead of one there is much less chance of a bird larger then that. Fact: There has never been a loss of Gripen in the entire program of well over 200,000 flight hours of which many hours in the arctic with minimal support. Also of fact is there has never been a loss of a life in the Gripen program as well as a structural or fatigue issue. I would not endorse any other single fighter unless it could prove the same. To compare the old jets of the past with the likes of the CF-104 to today's Gripen for reliability is just not fair considering the Gripen's 100% engine reliability that is better / equal to the twin jet options. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-11098236099946946912014-09-19T17:25:45.833-07:002014-09-19T17:25:45.833-07:00Anon, there's no need to convince me of the me...Anon, there's no need to convince me of the merits of Gripen. The thing is there are no northern countries with the exception of Russia that have such a vast, empty Arctic territory. Because of everything from mechanical failure to bird strikes, we need a twin-engine aircraft for the north.<br /><br />Canada has some interesting statistics from CF-18 bird strikes in the north and they drive home the need for twin engines. There's not much up there beyond an extremely harsh climate and airfields are few. <br /><br />The thing is there is no existing fighter with the necessary capabilities other than the F-15 and the line will be closed very soon. That's why I like the idea of SAAB developing the sort of aircraft Canada needs on a joint venture programme. The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-14321669435566571852014-09-19T16:35:25.314-07:002014-09-19T16:35:25.314-07:00The Mound of Sound , the Gripen E is true multi ro...The Mound of Sound , the Gripen E is true multi role. Gripens were flying recon missions over Lybia within 24 hours of deciding to go. It is the best weight lifting verses air frame jet Canada can buy with the ability to carry all NATO weapons. Gripen E has a total of 10 hard points of which 7 are for heavy loads. Capable of hauling loads such as 4x 2,000 lb GBUS with two missiles, external fuel and a precision targeting pod at once this jet proves it can perform the missions required for Canada. It is a fully NATO compliant jet that is also possible to be built in Canada. The GE engine is North American made in the USA as well as many important components such as UK made radar. It is designed to be far the most cost effective jet to upgrade as technologies evolve. A jet Canada can afford to buy, fly and upgrade that will remain a competent air asset for the RCAF is a good choice. <br /><br />I hope Canada has the wisdom to have a fair and open fighter tender process that will include the Saab Gripen E. Such a jet would really put the feet to the fire of all the other options to justify their high purchase and operating costs. Gripen E has the performance, reliability and technology that makes it very competitive. Especially as part of a mixed fleet the Gripen E single seat and F twin seat's low operating costs will help keep the RCAF a flying air force with adequate flight hours. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-5826816017691881302014-09-19T11:54:51.059-07:002014-09-19T11:54:51.059-07:00I share most of your views, Anon. Something I'...I share most of your views, Anon. Something I've tossed around is a joint venture with SAAB to incorporate all their manufacturing and technological advances into a new, twin-engine airframe.<br /><br />Like it or not, Canada can't get by with just air superiority/intercept capability. We need a multi-role fighter but one with the performance characteristics to provide the range and speed we need to cover our vast, empty north.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-66618116730098011202014-09-19T08:17:48.504-07:002014-09-19T08:17:48.504-07:00The first sentence is important for Canada in this...The first sentence is important for Canada in this article naming the F-35 JSF (joint strike fighter) as the F-35 Light Strike Bomber. USAF General Hostage : "The F-35 is not an air superiority platform, it needs the F-22". Canada requires an air superiority / interceptor as the most important mission for Canada to protect air space and territorial sovereignty. Neither the F-35 or the F-18E Super Hornet are air superiority / interceptors. They are glorified strike jets lacking range and speed that do not have the super sonic armed cruise or the 1,000 km greater longer range capability of the three European options for Canada, the Saab Gripen E, EADS Typhoon and Dassault Rafale. <br />The F-35 "stealth" is a myth with new technology to detect it at long range and it has a very high heat signature that cannot be "cloaked". F-35 requires expensive lengthening of arctic runways by 2,000 ft and it requires the installation of a drage chute for such operations. The list is endless why the F-35 would be a disaster for Canada. The claim of technology superiority in the F-35 is insulting as Saab's overachieving best safety and engine reliability fighter in the world, the Gripen E interceptor fighter that would cost Canada less then 1/2 as much to buy and nearly 1/4 the cost to fly already is offered to Canada with a GaN radar and infra red tracking system a generation ahead of what the F-35 and F-18E are offering Canada. There are better more cost effective choice for Canada to provide a competent fighter to replace the CF-18 without consuming the defense budget. Demand a fair and open fighter tender process with clear mission requirements and budgets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com