Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "F-35 or Gripen for the RCAF…Or Perhaps Something Else?" video.

  1. Their complaint was about the F-35 price which was ironic because in the end the F-35 price dropped to 77.9 mil which is lower all the aircraft except the Super Hornet. Everything that they complained about has been made moot. Boeing was surprising but I guess there is still bad blood about the Bombardier drama The Super Hornet was the most logical for savings but I guess its not about that anymore The Gripen just has too up front many hurdles to get it in service with Canada. Lockheed has the maintenance, training and supply already in place so its bid wouldnt take that long which saves money on CF-18 up keep SAAB has to built everything up from scratch which more money up front but also more jobs. The problem is there is thats more money to the already maxed out CF-18s to keep them flying till SAAB delivers The F-35, use 95 percent of the weapons in the RCAF. The only weapons it does not use is the CRV-7 nor 20mm cannon The JAS-39 uses 40 percent in the RCAF. so thats the additional cost of weapons integration The CF-18 uses the SNIPER XR pod while the Gripen is only cleared with the LITENING Those pods are 1 mil each so ? So the RCAF either has to buy new pod or intergrate the SNIPER XR The F-35 already has it own So if Canada did go Gripen, it will be long road before they receive IOC
    3
  2.  @nordnord8141  Nah, the Super Hornet was the most logical choice, this was about politics The Gripen just has too many hurdles to get it in service with Canada. Boeing and Lockheed both have maintenance, training and supply already in place from existing contracts so their bids wouldnt take that long to bring into service which is savings because thats less they have to spend on maintaining the CF-18 fleet SAAB has to built everything up from scratch which more money up front but also more jobs. The problem is there is thats more money also to the already maxed out CF-18s to keep them flying The F-35 and F-18 both use 95 percent of the weapons in the RCAF. The only weapon they are not cleared with is the CRV-7 The JAS-39 is only 50 percent so thats the additional cost of weapons integration The CF-18 uses the SNIPER XR pod while the Gripen is only cleared with the LITENING Those pods are 1 mil each so ? So the RCAF either has to buy new pod or intergrate the SNIPER XR The F-35 already has it own and the F-18E/F has already been cleared with it These are just the practical problems The F-18 wasnt dumped because it didnt meet requirements ass it was dumped because Canada is still sore at Boeing
    3
  3. The Super Hornet was the most logical for savings. The F-15 would have built up same as the Gripen The Gripen just has too many hurdles to get it in service with Canada. Boeing and Lockheed both have maintenance, training and supply already in place so their bids wouldnt take that long which is savings Boeing from the F-18 and Lockheed from the F-35 contracts SAAB has to built everything up from scratch which more money up front but also more jobs. The problem is there is thats more money also to the already maxed out CF-18s to keep them flying The F-35, F-15 and F-18 use 95 percent of the weapons in the RCAF. The only weapon they are not cleared with is the CRV-7 The JAS-39 is only 50 percent so thats the additional cost of weapons integration The CF-18 uses the SNIPER XR pod while the Gripen is only cleared with the LITENING Those pods are 1 mil each so ? So the RCAF either has to buy new pod or intergrate the SNIPER XR The F-35 already has it own and the F-18E/F and F-15 are already been cleared with it These are just the practical problems The F-18 wasnt dumped because it didnt meet requirements It was dumped because Canada is still sore at Boeing over the Bombardier Even though Biden has fixed what Trumptard did, Boeing was still in hot water Its likely they won't get any orders from Canada for long time if ever again
    2
  4.  @chrishoff402  The F-15 just has vastly superior payload options to both F-35 and JAS-39 As for the Chinese missiles its like this It depends on the capabilities of the aircraft The Gripen relies heavily on its EW suites for protection 5th gen aircraft like the F-35 has both stealth and EW for protection So even if the F-35 stealth was compromised, it can fall back on its EW for protection if Gripen loses its EW, its basically boned The Russian Su-57 has EW suite similar to the F-35 and F-22 which allows to passive track targets by emission In a sense, it can use those emission to track the Gripen and work its way into firing position Its unknow of the J-20 or J-31 has that capability Lockheed is developing the AIM-260 which is designed for internal carriage on the F-22 and F-35.Lockheed also has other weapons under development for the F-35 The Gripen has to rely on the Meteor or AIM-120D
    2
  5.  @FallenPhoenix86  The Meteor and AIM-260 are not in the same class. The Meteor was designed to exceed the AIM-120C-5 which it does. It does exceed the AIM-120D as well but not by much. The Meteor quote being the best is overstatement as it has not be validated in combat. The AIM-120 series last kill was a C-7 kill in 2020 Despite being on the market since 2016. the Meteor hasnt seen any combat As for the US buying the Meteor Here are the practical problems First the AIM-120 used by USAF, USN and USMC. The 3 of them combined inventory is well in the thousands. its same reason why the US didnt buy the Brimstone. In 2012, the RAF received its 500th Brimstone, In 2012 , the US placed an order for 12,000 Hellfire So first question was could the Meteor be delivered on the same scale as the AIM-120 The current orders of the Meteor are not even that high The second issue is that AIM-120 was clipped so that the F-22 and F-35 could carry more The Meteor TDR motor limits it to just 4 missiles whereas the AIM-120D is 6 The TDR gives it an advantage over the AIM-120D but is it absolutely critical or it something that you can make due with the AIM-120D The AIM-260 differs as its a completely new missile. The first new AAM in very long time
    2
  6.  @chrishoff402  There are 3 programs in progress for next gen AAM for the US military. The AIM-260 is the only one that is officially funded by the US military while The Long-Range Engagement Weapon (LREW) by Raytheon and the Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM) by Boeing are self funded programs meaning they dont have official funding from the US military The LREW and LRAAM are currently too big for internal carriage by the F-22 or F-35 while the AIM-260 is designed to have to same footprint as the AIM-120 but with longer range and a newer seeker. The US isnt scrambling, the AIM-120D just has reached its limit. The AIM-120D wasnt designed with digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers in mind whereas newer missiles are. Specifically newer missiles have AESA seekers, the AIM-120D doesnt The US determined that AIM-120D could go no further so a new missile was needed Hence the AIM-260
    2
  7.  @FallenPhoenix86  Damed YT The AIM-7, AIM-120 and AIM-9 are all based on lessons learned from operations and combat whereas the Meteor ? The final model of the AIM-7 was the R model which would have dual guidance SARH and IR similiar to the SM-2 So yes the AIM-7 in reality would have been a better weapons ,however the R was not developed Technically its still unproven weapon. If its going to USAF, USN and USMC, then ability to be deploy in numbers is key Secondly the no ones does licenses anymore. More to point the Meteor is multi national weapon made by UK, France, Germany , Spain and Sweden Just like how the UK vetoed the JAS-39 to Argentina, one or two would like do the same The USAF just awarded Lockheed 10.9 billion IDIQ contract to keep the F-22 update till they can field the NGAD The Meteor is here but its not what the USAF or USN needs. The USMC draws from both USAF and USN stocks so they wont' buy independently The AIM-120 doesn't have all the bell and whistles but it can be overcome its short comings with simple tactics. The AIM-260 will have definitive advantage over the Meteor. The key points of the program Small foot print as the AIM-120 which allow the F-22 and F-35 to carry 6 internally vs 4 Meteor Longer range than the Russian R-77ME and Chinese PL-15 The ability to defeat jamming such as digital radio frequency memory jammers and other advance methods Those are the points that are known
    1
  8.  @matthewq4b  They need to look at it from the long run perspective Is 4.5 gen aircraft worth it when 6th gen aircraft are going to be rolling off the production line within the next 5 years
    1
  9.  @matthewq4b  All the 6th gen programs are in race to see who can deliver first. While the USAF is leading, the rest are playing catch up Some may sacrifice or defer parts of their program for faster development. Most are saying 2030 but they can move faster Russia was forced to defer parts of the Su-57 till technology was ready. China basically just cut corners So the 2030 figure isnt a solid number SAAB has no plans beyond E/F as of yet The F-35 has road map whereas the Gripen doesnt
    1
  10.  @matthewq4b  Again The 2030 figure isnt a solid number It depends on development, funding and technology How fast they get through development. The more problems they have , the longer it will take Funding is major problem as it will be a costly process The EU track record with this area does not inspire confidence that they can meet their timeline China will likely cut corners again Russia will try again India, doesnt even factor in. They are trying to compete with big boys, they need to stay home The last factor is technology Again the USAF it already while everyone else is making it Nothing is solid yet I am betting that 3-D printing is going to play a role
    1
  11.  @matthewq4b  What part of not a solid figure do you not get it "Hinote said the F-22 will begin to phase out in about 2030—the exact timeline will be situation-dependent" Like I said its not a solid figure they can move faster or slower depending development, funding and technology They acknowledge that if situation requires it, they can accelerate the program This will likely mean, they will defer what they can to a later date
    1
  12.  @matthewq4b  That quote is direct from Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements. Also from Hinote Depending on the threat and hedging against problems in NGAD, the USAF may consider a service-life extension program for the F-22, but Hinote said that seems unlikely because the NGAD is making swift progress. So the general in charge is literally saying they are "making swift progress." Now you get through your thick skull as I am quoting direct from the program managers whereas you are just making up bullshit
    1
  13.  @matthewq4b  Why would I when you;'re of shit if you had any sense you would simply search the quote and read the story Second quote from another source Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote attempted to put a timeframe to the possible downsizing and eventual elimination of the F-22, saying that the aircraft will begin to phase-out “in about 2030,” Air Force Magazine reported last week. He qualified this timeline, however, as “situation-dependent" So again the program manager is stating that its situation-dependent So again for the billionth time The 2030 figure isnt a solid number however 6th gen aircraft are going to be rolling off the production line within the next 5 years is still solid fact. The competition to field 6th outside the US is fierce because of export potential The US isnt going to export the NGAD or FA/XX so that open door for other countries to try and achieve the same export success as the F-35 if they can get their 6th gen fielded and operational The rest of your posts is just bullshit assumptions Lets try a little common sense why would FCAS shoot for 2040 when BAE Tempest and Japan's F-X are shooting for much earlier time frame
    1
  14.  @matthewq4b  All your bullshit does not change the fact that program manager stated that its situation dependent with NGAD your quote bullshit is just estimates which again the program manager depends on the situation There is no deflection here, just more of your bullshit Again with the jackassery The Japanese F-X has not been under development for 10 years moron. The F-X was originally designed to be Japan's 5th generation under the ADT-X program however Japan went with the F-35 instead and repurposed the F-X for 6th generation developed Again wrong the FCAS and Tempest started roughly at the same time in 2018. In reality both program date back much further The Tempest is further along because BAE has access to much of the tech used in the F-22 and F-35 In addition , Rolls Royce was also part of the USAF NGAD ADaptive Versatile ENgine Technology (or ADVENT) engine program RR, GE an PW were contracted to develop ADVENT engine The FCAS is not behind because they just started at 2020, they are behind no one them have built or operate 5th gen aircraft The market in the EU for the 6th is dependent on who can field it first
    1
  15.  @matthewq4b  Right I am quoting direct from the program manager your just making up bullshit so whose really tapping out
    1
  16.  @matthewq4b  As I told you before moron timelines are not solid figures They are situation dependent
    1