SpudmanWPCanada Blinked…
The Canadian government will allow a “flexible approach” in determining industrial benefits for the new fighter jet program, making way for Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government to bid on the project.
More at the JUMP
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio…allow-f-35-bid
SpudmanWP7.6 is clear, “No requirement will be imposed by any Participant for work sharing” and only an “internet lawyer” could think otherwise. The letters from the DoD were also clear on this subject.
Also, just in case you are one of those who think that Canada can continue to bid and receive contracts even if it does not buy the F-35, that gravy train is about to officialy end. Once the SDD program is over, you have to buy to bid.
7.3 The Participants acknowledge that, subject to the submission of Best Value offers, industries that are in the nations of Participants procuring JSF Air Systems under this MOU and that were awarded SDD subcontracts will normally also be awarded subcontracts for low rate initial production and full rate production work, as well as for related sustainment and follow-on development work.
SpudmanWPAnother benefit of the F-35 program vs Offsets is that offsets only last 15 years and the F-35 contracts last the life of the program (2050+).
Another thing is that almost anything can be called an offset and will be based on whatever price the US wants:
Use US refueling Canadian planes somewhere counted as Offsets
Pipeline access rights awarded as Offsets
New tariffs applied, then reversed as Offsets (my favorite option ala Bombardier airliner)
Any future gov to gov contract (that would have happened anyways) will now be labeled Offsets (the most likely option)
Any future LM or P&W contract awarded to a Canadian sub will now be called an Offset
In the end you will likely not see any significant increase in industrial work over what you would naturally get in the course of history vs a known and quantifiable increase that will last for 40+ years.
SpudmanWPLM is simply molesting Canada.
The US is not forcing anything on Canada. All we ask is that Canada sticks to the agreement that they not only willingly signed, but are currently benefiting from to the tune of $Billions.
SpudmanWPLOCLAD had a 30km range
SpudmanWPGiven that SH did not go IOC with Rover till 2006, there are likely a lot of Litening and Sniper pods out there that don’t have Rover.
Again, if it was a serious requirement then it would have been included in the 3F spec.
Green Glow issues resolved last year and did not even rate a mention in the 2018 DOT&E report.
https://aviationweek.com/defense/wil…-be-ready-time
The most worrisome is the “green glow” on the Gen III Helmet Mounted Display. It uses an active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD) to project symbology electronically onto the pilot’s visor. But the display’s backlighting produces a green glow that can obscure the outside environment, particularly in low-visibility conditions, making it difficult for pilots to detect outside light sources and the cues they need to land safely.
Early next year, the Navy expects to field the first production version of a new helmet that uses an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, instead of the AMLCD. The F-35 enterprise has been testing a prototype of the helmet, and so far the OLED does not have the same backlighting problems as the AMLCD version, Horan says.
In the meantime, the Navy has devised an interim software solution that will allow pilots to adjust the display on the AMLCD helmet using the aircraft’s hands-on throttle and stick. Although only experienced pilots are permitted to carrier-qualify and fly missions using the AMLCD helmet, use of this modification means the Navy can move forward with operational test, Horan says. “It’s not perfect, but it has helped.”
{the USN ordered 62 OLED Gen3 helmets for their IOC units}
Clutter, yes you did “conflicting information from sensors and datalink leading to wrong sitac”
You know what makes we laugh…. idiots who read a title, don’t bother to read the linked article, and declare they know the facts.
If you bothered to read the article you would have discovered that they did not find any corrosion and the only thing that the report is saying is that dehumidifiers should be used to “reduce the risk” of corrosion. Is corrosion a new thing, no. Is it unique to the F-35, no.
SpudmanWPDuring the series of tests at the High Energy Laser System Test Facility, the Demonstrator Laser Weapon System , acting as a ground-based test surrogate for the SHiELD system, was able to engage and shoot down several air launched missiles in flight.
The demonstration is an important step of the SHiELD system development, by validating laser effectiveness against the target missiles. The final SHiELD system, however, will be much smaller and lighter, as well as ruggedized for an airborne environment.
SpudmanWPSpudmanWPOttawa’s planned fighter competition incompatible with F-35 obligations: U.S.
Basically, Canada is requiring guaranteed offsets despite signing agreements that stated otherwise.
The letters specifically take issue with the government’s plan to have each fighter-jet maker commit to re-investing in Canada if its aircraft wins the upcoming competition aimed at buying 88 new planes for $19 billion.
While that is standard for most Canadian military procurements, the U.S. officials note that Canada agreed not to apply such a requirement when it signed on as one of nine F-35 partner countries in 2006.
SpudmanWPUm, fast jets are doing CAS without Rover all the time. If it was required then it would have been part of the baseline requirement, especially for the USMC as CAS is their primary reason for having the F-35. Hell, it did not even exist pre-JSF. Between EODAS, SAR, and EOTS, the F-35 can do CAS just fine and troops on the ground have said so multiple times. If it was that much of a requirement then the DOT&E would have required it to pass IOT&E.
MADL & clutter issues were from like early Block 3i and primarily had to do with new hardware causing sync issues. Those issues were resolved years ago. The MADL spec calls for 25 terminals (5×4 with an extra one for a gateway).
Helmet issues (green glow) also solved by going with OLED displays.
etc
etc
etc
This shows one of the main problem with those who turn opposition of something into an almost religion. It seems that they believe that once something is reported to be an issue, it is never fixed. The Block 3i hardware issues were well reported, both their discovery and eventual resolution. Here however, you still believe they are a problem. Same goes for the helmet, MADL, clutter, etc.
Retrofit costs are minimal as a lot of it is done during depot MX when parts would likely be replaced anyways in addition to the saving of lifetime MX for the new parts.
SpudmanWPOne of the ways they are reducing costs is by using newer, better, and less expensive tech. The new ICP & EODAS units in TR3 are two examples of that. In both of those instances the component’s capabilities are increased while at the same time reducing costs.
btw, “France” is not a race :stupid:
By all means, show us some of the “many” capabilities that were supposed to be in Block 3F that have to wait for Block 4. I can think of one, SATCOM. It was moved to Block 4 over 10 years ago.
Where do you get your info???
Faulty Gun, fixed — Not related to Blk4
Obsolete EOTS, hardly
Flutter, so? — Not related to Blk4
No IR AAM, so? — Not related to Blk4
4 BVR missils, so.. the F-22 had 4 AIM-120Bs at the beginning
MADL limited to 4, not (try Google) — Not related to Blk4
Conflicting info in display (gets better every day) — Not related to Blk4
ROVER came alone after F-35 started development. I guess it should have been psychic. IT does CAS just fine without it.
Helmet (what????) — Not related to Blk4
High MX … That is not a problem of the design but a problem in Service spending the money on parts & depot standup.
SpudmanWP“Blahblah”
Responded to it on the F-35 thread
https://forum.keypublishing.com/foru…66#post3861366
Mods: Please move Posts 7224 –> 7226 to the F-35 thread.
SpudmanWPBlahblah. “
Or maybe you are insinuationg that Valerie Insinna is lying?
um.. what???
“Valerie Insinna” appears nowhere in any linked article of the topic at hand.
Again, it was the title that was BS.
It said, “Pentagon Does Not See Path to Reduce F-35 Jet’s Cost”. That is blatantly false. The current cost is $44k and the Pentagon has a “Path” to get it to $34k in 2024.
As to the $25k by 2025 number, that is not an official goal. It’s a simple target, a “shoot for the moon” number that LM, not the JPO, thinks is doable.
SpudmanWPNot to mention incoming TR3 (necessary to get a really operational aircraft)
Where did that misconception come from?
SpudmanWPThe statement was not the issue, it was the intentionally misleading title.
That is the way that the best propaganda works, some truth mixed with intentional deception.
Sign In
