While this is off topic, CBC has just put out an article claiming sources say canada is looking at purchasing up to 72 F-35 AND 72 Gripen-e as well as possibly equipping the Global eye aircraft with a forward and aft radars and air to air refueling to make up for the aircraft 360 degree detection and range shortfalls. My question to Noah, is have you heard any of these possibilities from your sources? Or is this just another media induced rumour to ignore?
Me, who has eritten like 4 opinion pieces this week when the CBC decides to talk Fighters again.
I have not heard these numbers. As I said in the Q&A. If such a move came, it would not be from the RCAF. I have heard nothing from the Air Firce side of things. I have heard nothing on 140 fighters until this. Same as the 30/60, I have doubts and I truly believe that Cabinet has no clue what they want, and people are just throwing out their own numbers, or whatever number proposals come up.
Because this is a political decision foremost, we likely are in a weird territory where these kinds of numbers can fluctuate. Im sure there are multiple proposals right now on the table, mayeb this is one. I just know it isn't lining up to me unless there is massove political intervention.
That's what I thought, but figured I'd ask anyway. Can't see how they would come up with the man power to operate and maintain a fleet of two different fighters that size either. As for the Global eye add ons, not sure how weight/power/handling, additional stations required for the additional radars would effect the aircraft overall. Do they even know? Maybe the Government and SAAB are just throwing out justifications and possible options just to tone down criticism over the choice. Who knows?
I have heard different numbers from almost anyone I've asked, including someone working close to the file. I dont believe any numbers until I see them. Perhaps this is one option? But there could be any number of options floating around at any time.
For all we know there is 2, 3, 12. Who knows. I just know that if there is a firm, set number right now that no one really knows what it is
I think if I were a battlefield casualty the very last thing I would want to be evacuated on is one of these rigs. I look at them and all I see is a big target for a drone. Having said that I'm happy to have someone set me straight on this.
Currently it takes up to 24hrs to evacuate a Ukrainian casualty (Don't ask about the Russians) They hope to reduce that time using UGV's. Yea it would not be fun, in fact possibly terrifying, but getting taken from the frontline for medical aid would be worth it.
A while ago you made some comments about how interium procurement contracts can actually make it more difficult to buy more of the same, because there are additional hoops to jump through to prove no favouritism went into their selection. I think it was in reference to some of the MANPAD systems that were bought for Latvia. Maybe it was something a little different, an urgent interium procurement, or something like that?
My question is, is this going to be a difficulty going forward? It seems like something that the DIA is supposed to get rid of, to create streamlined procurement pathways, rather than bottlenecks. I'd like your take on that?
While this is off topic, CBC has just put out an article claiming sources say canada is looking at purchasing up to 72 F-35 AND 72 Gripen-e as well as possibly equipping the Global eye aircraft with a forward and aft radars and air to air refueling to make up for the aircraft 360 degree detection and range shortfalls. My question to Noah, is have you heard any of these possibilities from your sources? Or is this just another media induced rumour to ignore?
Me, who has eritten like 4 opinion pieces this week when the CBC decides to talk Fighters again.
I have not heard these numbers. As I said in the Q&A. If such a move came, it would not be from the RCAF. I have heard nothing from the Air Firce side of things. I have heard nothing on 140 fighters until this. Same as the 30/60, I have doubts and I truly believe that Cabinet has no clue what they want, and people are just throwing out their own numbers, or whatever number proposals come up.
Because this is a political decision foremost, we likely are in a weird territory where these kinds of numbers can fluctuate. Im sure there are multiple proposals right now on the table, mayeb this is one. I just know it isn't lining up to me unless there is massove political intervention.
That's what I thought, but figured I'd ask anyway. Can't see how they would come up with the man power to operate and maintain a fleet of two different fighters that size either. As for the Global eye add ons, not sure how weight/power/handling, additional stations required for the additional radars would effect the aircraft overall. Do they even know? Maybe the Government and SAAB are just throwing out justifications and possible options just to tone down criticism over the choice. Who knows?
I have heard different numbers from almost anyone I've asked, including someone working close to the file. I dont believe any numbers until I see them. Perhaps this is one option? But there could be any number of options floating around at any time.
For all we know there is 2, 3, 12. Who knows. I just know that if there is a firm, set number right now that no one really knows what it is
I think if I were a battlefield casualty the very last thing I would want to be evacuated on is one of these rigs. I look at them and all I see is a big target for a drone. Having said that I'm happy to have someone set me straight on this.
Currently it takes up to 24hrs to evacuate a Ukrainian casualty (Don't ask about the Russians) They hope to reduce that time using UGV's. Yea it would not be fun, in fact possibly terrifying, but getting taken from the frontline for medical aid would be worth it.
A while ago you made some comments about how interium procurement contracts can actually make it more difficult to buy more of the same, because there are additional hoops to jump through to prove no favouritism went into their selection. I think it was in reference to some of the MANPAD systems that were bought for Latvia. Maybe it was something a little different, an urgent interium procurement, or something like that?
My question is, is this going to be a difficulty going forward? It seems like something that the DIA is supposed to get rid of, to create streamlined procurement pathways, rather than bottlenecks. I'd like your take on that?