Search results

It's an interesting idea that people are proposing to give Saab 100x the control and influence on our procurement that Bombardier (who everybody loves to hate) ever had.

They were never evaluated. They pulled out and didn't submit evaluations. And I am willing to bet they would have done better than the Gripen. But not by much....

Sure. But this is not an SRB deck going on Sharepoint. This is at least CSNI and NTK/RTK staffed with notes on MESH to go check CSNI. This stuff was close hold. Otherwise even industry would have ATIP'd their own scores.

Leaked. No way these could be ATIP'd. As mentioned in the article, and I know myself, this wasn't released to anybody outside the project office and chain of command. Even those of us who helped in bid eval weren't told anything. Just told to do our piece and screw off. As is appropriate.

This one was exceptionally scrutinized. Complete with things like fully cleared non-government fairness monitor to do oversight even of requirements writing. Not even the AG has insinuated what you are here. And the model used by FFCP is actually being adopted by other projects specifically...

Not quite. They really pulled out because of the requirements. Eurofighters are extremely expensive and hard to localize production in Canada. Rafale would have to turn over lots of IP to meet NORAD compatibility.

Did you read the article? That's not what I took away. All the quotes basically say the Gripen got absolutely spanked. Mind you this is only on the technical portion (60%). The other 40% on the cost and industrial benefits isn't there. So we don't know total scores. What we do know is that...

Will they all be based together. Or do they plan to put a battery of HIMARS in each region? Curious how this works with the recent reorg.

You definitely haven't had that conversation recently. I have friends at LM over here. And they are looking at expanding in Canada. Particularly in domains where they perceive less competition domestically and high payoff. An LM space division in Canada would have a 50/50 chance on every...

There are ways to do this. Just not in the way that is being pitched now. If we really wanted to build military aircraft, we could: 1) Push drones and CCAs where requirements are less stringent and where there are more partners available than the US; 2) Push Bombardier to become more of an...

Just a reminder for those of you who have forgotten some basic military principles and survivability doctrine. This applies to everything from a basic troop on a patrol to a fighter jet. The Gripen argument is that their EW is so good that they will not be acquired even though they will be...

Cool. Try to be less sure than about airplanes. I don't assert definitively which boats we should buy. Cause I am fairly certain I would know less than the black suiters who have spend 8 hrs a day looking at boats and 8 hrs per day dreaming about them at night. Stealth is just one advantage...

Unfortunately correct. We're probably going to get 60 - 70 Gripens and it's going to be a disaster. We don't have enough people and we've already started the F-35 transition. The transition crew was moving this APS. So when we get Gripens in the 2030s, they'll end up sitting there...

Maybe. But the adveraries have improved too. The Gripen E has just added basics that all aircraft need these days. IRST. GaN radar. MAWS. It's amazing marketing that they pitch this as revolutionary when every other aircraft built today has this.

You're clearly not an air or fighter/weapons community guy. That's the benchmark exercise for NATO because it's the one that is less scripted and has the most dissimilar platform interaction. It's probably the closest thing the west has to actual wars. And the last time a plane scored this...

Patently wrong. https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/ I really wish people would learn to listen to the professionals.

Define "handle".

And the Aurora fleet was probably capable of covering more with fewer aircraft. The Argus literally had a reciprocating engine and vacuum tube electronics. The numbers game is just silly. Especially in the age of drones. A single Global Hawk can survey 100 000 square kilometers in 24 hrs.

This is my pet question in every townhall. Great to see GOFOs get wide eyed. There's work being done finally to reform the CAF intelligence and IT enterprises. Especially the secure cloud stuff. And a lot of projects are demanding automated PED and archiving.

So still 50% smaller than a Halifax. Give or take. But getting back to the topic at hand, what lack of air coverage are you concerned about?