The F-35 thread, Mk II
Administrator
/notasamod
With an eye towards NATO interoperability, this is potentially good news.
Dare I suggest that Lockheed Martin not count their contract before it's signed?
With an eye towards NATO interoperability, this is potentially good news.
all but guarantees
The RCAF doesn't currently have a tanker which can refuel the F-35A, so will they go for the -B, -C? Or hand LM a blank cheque to fit a probe to the F-35A?
A small but significant factor when trailing RCAF fighters up to the Arctic to defend Canada's northern border.
A small but significant factor when trailing RCAF fighters up to the Arctic to defend Canada's northern border.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
New Air Refuelling Tanker requirements would accomodate any version of the F-35: Strategic Tanker Transport Capability project - Canada.ca
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
So there are TWO threads about Canada & F-35s? I'll plonk this official DOGma here:
Canada Moves Closer to Delivering 88 Fighter Jets for the RCAF March 28, 2022 -
Gatineau, [is that a cake?]
Quebec - Public Services and Procurement Canada and National Defence
Canada Moves Closer to Delivering 88 Jets for the RCAF (f35.com)
""...The multi-step assessment process took into account a wide range of factors, including capabilities, cost, as well as economic benefits and impacts. Recognizing that these fighter jets must effectively serve the RCAF and Canadians over the coming decades, Canada evaluated these aircraft against typical scenarios familiar to NATO and NORAD allies, which were further tailored to meet the needs of the RCAF, including Canada’s unique northern geography. We are confident that this competitive process will deliver the best results for the Canadian Armed Forces and for Canadians.
During this process, the government has concurrently been preparing the 2 main operating bases for Canada’s future fighter aircraft, 4 Wing Cold Lake and 3 Wing Bagotville, by awarding 2 contracts to undertake infrastructure upgrades to support the delivery of these future fighters. On August 27, 2020, National Defence announced a $9.2-million contract to EllisDon in Edmonton for the design of a new fighter jet facility at 4 Wing Cold Lake. On October 2, 2020, National Defence announced a $12.1-million contract to EllisDon-EBC Inc. Joint Venture of Ottawa for the design of a new fighter jet facility at 3 Wing Bagotville. This infrastructure will support the long-term maintenance and operation of these new aircraft and brings Canada another step closer to delivering the infrastructure our aviators need for the future....
...Quick facts
The Government of Canada launched an open and transparent [LIKE FAN DANCING] competitive process to acquire new fighter jets in 2017...."
Canada Moves Closer to Delivering 88 Fighter Jets for the RCAF March 28, 2022 -
Gatineau, [is that a cake?]
Quebec - Public Services and Procurement Canada and National DefenceCanada Moves Closer to Delivering 88 Jets for the RCAF (f35.com)
""...The multi-step assessment process took into account a wide range of factors, including capabilities, cost, as well as economic benefits and impacts. Recognizing that these fighter jets must effectively serve the RCAF and Canadians over the coming decades, Canada evaluated these aircraft against typical scenarios familiar to NATO and NORAD allies, which were further tailored to meet the needs of the RCAF, including Canada’s unique northern geography. We are confident that this competitive process will deliver the best results for the Canadian Armed Forces and for Canadians.
During this process, the government has concurrently been preparing the 2 main operating bases for Canada’s future fighter aircraft, 4 Wing Cold Lake and 3 Wing Bagotville, by awarding 2 contracts to undertake infrastructure upgrades to support the delivery of these future fighters. On August 27, 2020, National Defence announced a $9.2-million contract to EllisDon in Edmonton for the design of a new fighter jet facility at 4 Wing Cold Lake. On October 2, 2020, National Defence announced a $12.1-million contract to EllisDon-EBC Inc. Joint Venture of Ottawa for the design of a new fighter jet facility at 3 Wing Bagotville. This infrastructure will support the long-term maintenance and operation of these new aircraft and brings Canada another step closer to delivering the infrastructure our aviators need for the future....
...Quick facts
The Government of Canada launched an open and transparent [LIKE FAN DANCING] competitive process to acquire new fighter jets in 2017...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 29th Mar 2022 at 05:24. Reason: PLUS UP TEXT but I should MINUS DOWN eh
Salute!
Some grumbling about tankers. Well.... considering the F-35 has batter range than the VooDoo that Canada used for years without refueling, I am not worried. The Hornet was a gas guzzler, and used as much or more than the F-15 cruising, even in the A2A role. Hang some iron on the pylons and it needed lottsa refueling support. .
I flew the USAF VooDoo from Grand Forks and the Canadian CF-101 VooDoos flew way up north. Our normal profile was about 200 miles north and the CF-101 guys went another 200 miles north. We cruised at a decent speed and then "held" until the threat showed up.
The good news is the "A" has the refueling port whether Canada wants to use it or not for air defense of the homeland as we trained for back in the 60's. But when employed in joint force scenarios nowadays, it will fit right in with other country assets.
Gums sends...
Some grumbling about tankers. Well.... considering the F-35 has batter range than the VooDoo that Canada used for years without refueling, I am not worried. The Hornet was a gas guzzler, and used as much or more than the F-15 cruising, even in the A2A role. Hang some iron on the pylons and it needed lottsa refueling support. .
I flew the USAF VooDoo from Grand Forks and the Canadian CF-101 VooDoos flew way up north. Our normal profile was about 200 miles north and the CF-101 guys went another 200 miles north. We cruised at a decent speed and then "held" until the threat showed up.
The good news is the "A" has the refueling port whether Canada wants to use it or not for air defense of the homeland as we trained for back in the 60's. But when employed in joint force scenarios nowadays, it will fit right in with other country assets.
Gums sends...
Salute!
Some grumbling about tankers. Well.... considering the F-35 has batter range than the VooDoo that Canada used for years without refueling, I am not worried. The Hornet was a gas guzzler, and used as much or more than the F-15 cruising, even in the A2A role. Hang some iron on the pylons and it needed lottsa refueling support. .
I flew the USAF VooDoo from Grand Forks and the Canadian CF-101 VooDoos flew way up north. Our normal profile was about 200 miles north and the CF-101 guys went another 200 miles north. We cruised at a decent speed and then "held" until the threat showed up.
The good news is the "A" has the refueling port whether Canada wants to use it or not for air defense of the homeland as we trained for back in the 60's. But when employed in joint force scenarios nowadays, it will fit right in with other country assets.
Gums sends...
Some grumbling about tankers. Well.... considering the F-35 has batter range than the VooDoo that Canada used for years without refueling, I am not worried. The Hornet was a gas guzzler, and used as much or more than the F-15 cruising, even in the A2A role. Hang some iron on the pylons and it needed lottsa refueling support. .
I flew the USAF VooDoo from Grand Forks and the Canadian CF-101 VooDoos flew way up north. Our normal profile was about 200 miles north and the CF-101 guys went another 200 miles north. We cruised at a decent speed and then "held" until the threat showed up.
The good news is the "A" has the refueling port whether Canada wants to use it or not for air defense of the homeland as we trained for back in the 60's. But when employed in joint force scenarios nowadays, it will fit right in with other country assets.
Gums sends...
MRTT has the boom boom baby as standard fit out AFAIK - meanwhile....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
KC-46 Cleared To Operationally Refuel F-22s, F-35As | Aviation Week Network 01 Apr 2022 [is this a joke for April Fool Day?] wotabout da boom scraping da stealph?
Salute!
We prolly had more damage to the fighters from the probe system than a poor boom op using the receptacle.
Problem with the new tanker is the stoopid visual system versus a human looking out the station at the rear. Even so, they seem to be getting that issue ironed out.
I made hundreds of hookups in SEA and did not have to do all the hard work myself. Just snuggle up, stabilize and shazam! Used the probe a few times in the A-37, but I guess I would have gotten used to it.
Gums sends...
We prolly had more damage to the fighters from the probe system than a poor boom op using the receptacle.
Problem with the new tanker is the stoopid visual system versus a human looking out the station at the rear. Even so, they seem to be getting that issue ironed out.
I made hundreds of hookups in SEA and did not have to do all the hard work myself. Just snuggle up, stabilize and shazam! Used the probe a few times in the A-37, but I guess I would have gotten used to it.
Gums sends...
Its a good point gums - I never understood WHY they needed an automated system to replace an operator in the first place - It seems to have worked pretty well over the years
Salute!
Asturias56 Problem is using cameras versus human eyeballs 20 or 30 feet away.
It is not automated a lot more than what USAF has used since the 50's and 60's.
The traditional system had a human boom op that saw me and even scolded me if I was too rough or outta place. The dude would control the boom and things worked great, even in terrible weather and such.
The new plane uses a camera or two with the boom controlled 40 feet away near the cockpit by a human and is having problems. Other problem things on the new plane exist, but the thing that bothers most of we users and ex-users was a camera and not a human eyeball.
Gums sends...
Asturias56 Problem is using cameras versus human eyeballs 20 or 30 feet away.
It is not automated a lot more than what USAF has used since the 50's and 60's.
The traditional system had a human boom op that saw me and even scolded me if I was too rough or outta place. The dude would control the boom and things worked great, even in terrible weather and such.
The new plane uses a camera or two with the boom controlled 40 feet away near the cockpit by a human and is having problems. Other problem things on the new plane exist, but the thing that bothers most of we users and ex-users was a camera and not a human eyeball.
Gums sends...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
One way to transit 'any old iron' without worries about MID OCEAN refuellin'. Caption says: "USNS Card T-AKV-40 with F-102 delta daggers aboard". I'll guess these Daggers are going to HAWAI'I? Photo just in by e-mail - that is all I know.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Salute! Asturias56 Problem is using cameras versus human eyeballs 20 or 30 feet away. It is not automated a lot more than what USAF has used since the 50's and 60's. The traditional system had a human boom op that saw me and even scolded me if I was too rough or outta place. The dude would control the boom and things worked great, even in terrible weather and such. The new plane uses a camera or two with the boom controlled 40 feet away near the cockpit by a human and is having problems. Other problem things on the new plane exist, but the thing that bothers most of we users and ex-users was a camera and not a human eyeball. Gums sends...
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 8th Apr 2022 at 00:38. Reason: +vid viddys show or don't show I GIVE IN!